Ross Cogdell received marks of 15/20 for planning, 46/60 for construction of their main task, and 13/20 for evaluation. Their evaluation responses showed some understanding but lacked research, relied too heavily on stereotypes, and needed more analysis. They demonstrated good understanding in some questions but did not sufficiently link their product to real examples or provide enough detail on what was learned from using different technologies. Overall, their work showed good comprehension of the task and genre but required improved spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and greater use of research and technology in their responses. Ross received a total mark of 74/100 and a grade of B.

1. AS Coursework Overall Marks
Name: COGDELL Ross
Planning – Comments and mark out of 15/20
For full comments please see the pre-production marks sheet
Construction – Main Task – comments and mark out of 46/60
For full comments please see the production marks sheet
Evaluation – Comments and mark out of 13/20
Question 1:
PowerPoint /SlideShare – some good detail on how conventions used in
production with clear understanding shown of how mise-en-scene used to set up
narrative. There is no evidence of linking product to real products to highlight
argument.
Question 2:
Prezi – some understanding shown of how characters are represented and affect
on audience through use of mise-en-scene. Use of theorists would have enhanced
answer. Too reliant on stereotype and not enough on actual research.
Question 3:
PowerPoint /SlideShare – some basic detail and research on distributor and why
they were chosen. No evidence of statistical data or where information was found.
Question 4 and 5:
Emaze – some detail on typical audience with stereotypes used predominantly, no
evidence of primary/secondary research. Some nice detail on how audience was
attracted with good use of feedback from audience, some reflective comments
added.
Note: your target audience is too broad!
Question 6:
Prezi –good detail on technologies used in all parts of production. Post shows
understanding of how effective each tool was in production. Brief statement on
what was learnt included but needed more detail to show exactly what was learnt
for each technology.
Question 7:
Emaze –good detail on progress from prelim task with good understanding
demonstrated. Addition of screen grabs from both products included.
Good detail on questions showing good understanding of task, audience and
genre.
Some good analytical detail, use of images but needed more use of research in
answering questions. At times too reliant on stereotypes and description not
analysis.
Read your work, as there are lapses in spelling, punctuation and capital letters!
Limited use of technologies.

2. Total 74/100 Grade: B