The document provides guidance for a 20-mark evaluation assignment consisting of four questions about a media production project. It must address how the media product used or challenged conventions; the effectiveness of combining the main product with ancillary texts; what was learned from audience feedback; and how media technologies were used in various stages. The assessment criteria evaluate skills in technology use, understanding of forms and conventions, role of new media, audience feedback, and ability to communicate. According to examiners, stronger evaluations combined analysis with presentation and fully addressed all questions in the most appropriate format, while weaker ones were brief, presented as essays, or did not properly answer questions.

1. Advanced Production – Evaluation
The evaluation is worth 20 marks – 20% of your coursework.
In the evaluation you must answer the following four questions:
1) In what ways does your media product use, develop or challenge forms and
conventions of real media products?
2) How effective is the combination of your main product and ancillary texts?
3) What have you learned from your audience feedback?
4) How did you use media technologies in the construction and research, planning and
evaluation stages?
Assessment Criteria Level 4 16–20 marks (A/A*)
• There is excellent skill in the use of digital technology or ICT in the evaluation.
• There is excellent understanding of the forms and conventions used in the productions.
• There is excellent understanding of the role and use of new media in various stages of the
production.
• There is excellent understanding of the combination of main product and ancillary texts.
• There is excellent understanding of the significance of audience feedback.
• There is excellent skill in choice of form in which to present the evaluation.
• There is excellent ability to communicate.
Examiners’ Report 2014
The strongest candidates manage to combine excellent presentations with informed and
intelligent analysis. Evaluations that did not address the four set questions were less
common than in previous sessions although, in a disappointingly large number of
submissions, responses to the required questions were too brief and presented as
illustrated essays. In doing so candidates are limiting themselves to level 2 and low level 3
marks at best. Another trend seemed to be towards a uniform approach to the four
questions, with candidates often failing to consider the best tools for presenting their
responses to each.
Questions 1 and 2 were invariably the strongest responses, with informed and focused
material creatively presented. Short ‘making of’ videos seem to becoming more prominent
for questions 1 and 2 and video commentaries were popular this session with many being
thoughtful, selective personal responses; however many video evaluations were done far
less well, with lengthy talking head shots and no illustrative material being edited in and
with the candidates waffling and seeming very unsure of their ground. Best practice is a
carefully planned and concise commentary (with hesitations and repetition edited out)
over relevant images/video on screen.
Question 3 often was not properly answered, as candidates merely repeated what the
feedback said without actually answering the question. Also many candidates asked closed
or leading questions and the result was the feedback they wanted to hear rather than
honest feedback (Did you like our movie? Did it meet the conventions?). Centres that

2. responded to this question by discussing feedback that they had received at various
stages throughout the production process and then reflected on how that had shaped
their final submission seemed like the best approach to answering this question. The best
question 3 answers balanced primary research, often ‘voxpops’ or interviews, with detailed
and cogent responses from candidates. More successful answers explored the entire
process of production, with candidates reflecting on how they had used feedback during as
well as after completion of their work. The weakest answers simply presented audience
response without any real commentary; in these cases it was impossible to see what had
been learned.
Question 4 was often the weakest answer, with candidates simply presenting a list of
technologies used with little commentary or reflection. The best question 4 answers linked
clearly to candidates’ research, planning and production, with detailed reflection and
consideration. An effective model seen was a centre whose candidates had packaged this
question in the style of a DVD-extra, following a “making of” model; this allowed candidates
to consider their use of technology in context as well as in an entertaining and engaging
manner.
Question 1: Conventions
Identify the conventions of your chosen genre and form for your main and ancillary
products. Explain how you have used or challenged these conventions in your production
work. Identify your use of conventions within your main task as a video.
Question 2: Combination of Main and Ancillary Products
How effectively have you linked together your three products? Identify the links between
them (consistent use of fonts, colour, images, mise-en-scene, language). Make sure this is
done visually.
Question 3: Audience Feedback
How did you use audience feedback throughout the planning and production stages? What
feedback did you receive on your finished products? What strengths and weaknesses did
this identify? Consider including video/audio interviews/focus groups. Remember to reflect
on the feedback you receive.
Question 4: Technology
What technologies did you use in your production work? What did this allow you to do?
Consider presenting this in a video format. How did you use technology during the research
and planning stages? What technologies did you use whilst producing your ancillary
products? How have you used technology in the evaluation?
Tips to do well:
 use a range of different media/technology
 make sure your method of presentation is the most appropriate
 answer each question fully
 avoid essay format