This document provides a feedback sheet and self-assessment for a student on a regulation exam. It lists the key ingredients that should be included in the exam response such as an answer to the question, application of theory, discussion of debates for and against regulation, use of case studies, and terminology. It then provides a level description and marking criteria for four levels that assess the analysis, use of examples, and terminology in the exam response. The highest levels require a clear and convincing argument that connects regulators, case studies, debates, and theories and brings in historical context and future predictions.

1. Regulation Exam Assessment Feedback Sheet and Self-Assessment
Question:
Regulators:
Student name:
MEG: Working at Grade:
Ingredients List
 Answer to the question
(Thesis)
 Points related to question
 Application of Theory to back
up your Points
 Discussion of debates for and
against
 2 Regulators
 Case Studies for each
regulator
 Historic Reference
 Future Prediction
 Regulation Terminology
 Synthesis of opposing debates
Case Studies referred
to:
1 Historic:
2 Contemporary
(2012-2017):
3 Contemporary
(2012-2017):
4 Contemporary
(2012-2017):
List terminology words:
 Proactive
 Reactive
 Statutory
 Non-statutory
 Self-regulation
 Censorship
 Certification
 Moral Panic
 Desensitised
 Negotiated
 Imitable
 Moral standards
 Liberal(ism)
 Conservative(ism)
 Poverty Porn
 Nanny state-ism
Debates referred to (Points)
For
1
2
3
Against
1
2
3
Level Description Mark Grade Agree
Level
1:
Analysis/Explanation/Argument0-7marks
 LimitedClarity
 Limitedopinionorpersonalresponse to the topic
 Inaccuracies
U

2.  Incompleteor irrelevantto question
Use of examples:0-7 marks
 A narrowrange of examplesrelatedto texts
 Historicalreferenceand/orto the future missing
Terminology0-3marks
 MediaEffects Theory is absent or referred to by nameonly(ie Desensitisation,MoralPanic, Scapegoating,
Passive/Active audience)
 Doesnot define or applying toresponseto questionor Case Study
Level 2
lower:
Analysis/Explanation/Argument8-11marks
 Basic Argumentis provided in response to the question,debatesreferred to implicitly
 Applies this to the examples
E/D
Use of examples:8-11 marks
 some examplesof theoriesAND/OR
 2-3+ examplesof CaseStudy texts and the debatessurroundingthem- lackingfull understanding/or
explanationinrelationto answeringthe question
 Historicalreferenceand/orto the future is limited
Terminology4-5marks
 Introducesinformationabouttheregulatordefiningsometerminology(Statutory/Non, Reactive/proactive,
Regulatorypractices,)
 Use of terminologyis mainlydescriptivenot appliedtothe questionor Case Study to draw out points
 Basic use of theoreticalterms (Moral Panic,Desentisation,Passive/Active audience,Catharsis,Scapegoating,
HypodermicNeedle,Usesand Gratifications/Escapism)
 limitedto describingnotusedto supportpoints

3. Level 3 Analysis/Explanation/Argument12-15marks
A clear andmostly balancedresponseusing:
 mediatheories
 knowledgeof the topic of regulation
 UnderstandingofCaseStudies andwhat evidencethey demonstrate
 Abilityto explorethe debatesfor and againstandissues surroundingtheCaseStudies to make points
 Adapts understandingofCaseStudies to providea responsethat answers the question and…
 supportown personalengagementwiththe debates
 Arguments aregenerallyrelevant,thoughmay stray from the point of the question
C/B
Use of examples:8-11 marks
 a clearargument is well andconfidentlydevelopedinresponseto the question
 4+ x Case Studiesare significantandused to support the relevantdebatesraisedin the points
 History andthe future are discussedwith relevanceto the question andpointsmade
Terminology6-7marks
 Points andexampleare mostly informedby contemporarymediatheory
 Basic regulationtermsare used consistentlyandconfidentlyto raise points
 Theory is exploredconfidentlythroughthe use of appropriatetheoreticalterms(includingsomeTheorists)
Level
4:
Analysis/Explanation/Argument16-20marks
 adaptunderstandingofregulation(Regulators,CaseStudies, DebatesandTheories) to the specific
requirementsof the chosenquestion
 makes connectionsbetweenthe abovein order to presenta clear andconvincing argument
Effective andconfidentbalanceof:
 Regulatorsandpractices,
 CaseStudies,
 Debatesboth for and againstwith synthesisof both
 Theories
A/A*

4. Use of examples(16–20marks)
 Examplesof Regulators,CaseStudies, DebatesandTheoriesare clearlyconnectedtogether inthe answer
 Historicalreferencesandthe future arebrought intothe discussionwith a strongsense of understandingand
opinion
Use of terminology(8–10marks)
 Throughouttheanswer,materialpresentedisinformedby contemporarymediatheory
 Use of appropriatetheoreticallanguageisexcellent.
 Complexissueshave beenexpressedclearlyandfluently usinga style of writingappropriateto the complex
subjectmatter
What are the 3 priority targets to securethe gradeor move to a higherlevel
1. Explanation,analysis, argument,debates
2. Applicationor use of CaseStudy examples
3. Use of terminology