This document provides advice and summaries on concepts for a media exam, including narrative, genre, and media language. For narrative, it emphasizes choosing an appropriate text to analyze and relating theories like Propp and Mulvey to your own work. For genre, it stresses defining the concept, citing theorists, applying ideas to your production, and discussing how it adheres to or challenges conventions. For media language, it suggests discussing technical features, conventions, Barthes' semiotics, encoding added meaning, and how the audience decodes your product. Strong answers apply theory critically to their own work.

1. Final Advice
Section A
Question 1B

2. Concepts
• Genre (Jun 2010)
• Narrative (Jan 2011)
• Representation (Jan 2012)
• Audience (Jun 2011)
• Media Language

3. Three Essential Tips
• Plan and prepare before the exam – this will
be about ONE concept and ONE product so
know which you will use for what!!!
• Consider the mark scheme – 10 for EAA, 10 for
EG and 5 for T.
• Evaluate – the importance of the concept,
how well you used or challenged it, how
effective your product is

4. Narrative
• ‘Narrative was handled fairly well by most candidates, often
applying one or two ‘classic’ theoretical models to their own
work – character types, equilibrium and disruption, action
and enigma, semiotic codes etc. The choice of text to analyse
is very important in question 1b and in some cases examiners
were surprised with the choices made in this regard (for
example, writing about a film in 1a and a magazine in 1b).
Many candidates were able to accurately reference narrative
theories – Propp and Todorov, Barthes, Levi-Strauss, Goodwin
and Mulvey were well described, with some very strong
analyses of radio news work and of film trailers and openings.
Level 4 answers were those that successfully related these
theories to elements of candidates’ own texts. Weak answers
were often just an account of “how we made it” but stronger
answers were able to apply some critical distance. In some
cases there was even too much theory (with unsupported
references to Fiske and Adorno) with little, if any, analysis of
their own (in cases not yet completed) coursework.’

5. Genre
• Stronger answers to this question were able to do three things well. Firstly,
they set up the concept of genre for discussion, with reference to writing
on the subject from the likes of Altman, Buckingham, Buscombe, Neale,
McQuail, Stam, Boardwell, Miller, Goodwin or in some cases, with varying
relevance, Propp and Todorov, Mulvey and Barthes, Strauss and Saussure.
Level 4 answers generally offered references to writing about the
particular genre in question as well as the more general work. Secondly,
these higher-marked answers went on to apply these ideas to a range of
specific elements of their own chosen production. And thirdly, the extent
to which the ideas in the referenced writing fit with the product being
analysed would be discussed. Mid-range answers would more
straightforwardly list generic elements of the work with less reference to
theoretical material. Lower level answers would neglect theories of genre
altogether and/or lack specific examples. To what extent the production in
question adhered to or challenged genre conventions is, at least, required
in order for Candidates to be credited for both understanding and applying
the concept. Many answers dealt with narrative theory which is, of course,
appropriate – as it is so closely linked to genre – providing Candidates
explicitly make this connection for the examiner, so it does not have to be
inferred in the marking.

6. Media Language?
• Talk about specific technical features of your
product (camerawork, editing, graphics, sound,
mise en scene etc)
• Conventions of Media language/ PoMo
• Denotative and Connotative meaning (Barthes –
Semiotics – Signifer and Signified)
• Encoding – the meaning added to an object (how
did you encode?)
• Decoding – the audience ‘unpacking’ the
meaning (how did the audience ‘read’ your
product)