Dear Moderator
As you can see from the previous posts, the deadline set for the Research and Planning has now expired and all students have now begun their Construction stage (see previous post to check deadlines set and published and individual group blogs for documentation of shooting, editing etc). As all group are now producing, the following are the Research and Planning grades awarded by the centre for 2015.
Sophie B & Sophie G: Top Level 4 20/20 (A)
Both quality and quantity are excellent. Thorough, purposeful and regular posting. Well presented and most posts have some commentary showing understanding. Research goes beyond complete and excellent using interaction with professional processes using social networks (such as casting and interaction with the actual target audience) with regular drafting, experimentation with the shots and styles, and documents the process clearly. Both students have evidenced their contributions to an excellent standard.
Natasha B-H: Top Level 4 20/20 (A)
An impressive quantity of work from 1 student working alone with an excellent level of care and quality of information. Regular drafting, commentary and presentation of shots and styles and experimentation with test footage, this blog documents the process clearly. Interaction with professional processes using social networks (such as casting and interaction with the actual target audience) and interviews with the client. An excellent level of care with a range of media utilitised in the presentation, this approaches professional standards.
Ben H, Emily H & Ellie: Lower Level 4: 16/20 (A)
As a group of 3 there are clearly greater expectations of quality and quantity of research, planning and ideas as well as the time to have care and detail in the digital presentation. All research is purposeful with a strong sense of understanding the purpose of the brief and a considerable amount of research and examples looked at. The journey of the video and concept is well documented with where the idea has come from as well as stylistic influences. There is a range of pop female artists studied, though it is unclear how their brand identity has influenced the results and the digipack and website lack drafting. The production of the music video is well planned with experimentation with photoshop and cinematic techniques as well as some test footage. A target audience is identified relating to the actual client used and there is persuasive commentary on how the concept and mode of address will target assumptions about gender and age. All members contributed successfully towards the portfolio with a balance of quantity and quality.
Tierney K & Tapiwa M: Lower Level 2: 10/20 (E) Upper Level 2 (D)
Inconsistent and incomplete. There are some genuine strengths in the presentation of some posts, for example the commentary on target audience and the website/digipack analysis/ and experimentation which shows the derivitive ideas built on from the earlier directed class tasks. However overall, the research and the planning has not facilitated the process and the journey is unclear as to the development and influence of ideas. Many posts have no annotation and therefore no understanding. The planning reflects disjointed organisation and ineffective time management with no contingency planning. There is an incomplete storyboard and a supporting animatic. Tapiwa has clearly demonstrated a greater contribution to the portfolio as his voice is present on the analysis hence the differentiation in marks awarded.
Briony C & Morgan R: Highest L3 15/20 (B) /Mid Level 3 (C) respectively 13/20
While the process has been documented well, the research purposeful and there is a good quantity of planning, there is a lack of evidence of actual audience research or interaction/investigation or specific identification expected to satisfy excellent. The group have demonstrated some experimentation with the style and drafted the video with an animatic using found images - though there are no drafts of the digipack or website and the final design has been selected and it is not clear how they arrived at this idea. Briony's contribution evidenced by the amount of blog posts is more substantial than Morgan's hence the differentiation in grades.
Hayley B & Jen Robinson: Mid Level 4 17/20 (A) both
Thorough, purposeful and regular posting. A strong degree of care has been taken in the presentation with a variety of digital media forms used and most posts have some commentary showing understanding. Research is complete and has a confident level of excellence across the criteria using some interaction with professional processes via social networks with the client and identifies the actual target audience. There is drafting and experimentation with the shots and styles, and documents the process clearly - though there are no drafts of the ancillaries hence the placement within level 4. Both students have contributed sufficiently to be awarded parity in the grade.
Best wishes,
Rich Barton
Centre 61101 assessor &
OCR Moderator for G325 Advanced Production
No comments:
Post a Comment