This document provides guidance for students on writing a contextual analysis, which is worth 20% of the final grade. The analysis must address two learning outcomes: an exegesis examining how the final production integrates the research question and theoretical work. It should be submitted electronically by June 2nd at 12pm. The analysis is an opportunity for students to demonstrate what they have learned through the research and production processes by analyzing and evaluating their work in relation to the theories examined in their report. The document provides detailed instructions on what should and should not be included in the analysis, how to structure it, the writing style, and how the analysis will be assessed and marked.

1. Contextual
Analysis
Deadline:
Monday
2
June
2014
by
12pm

2. This
piece
of
work
is
designed
to
address
the
following
two
learning
outcomes:
Ø Complete
an
individual
exegesis
(criEcal
explanaEon/interpretaEon)
addressing
the
final
pracEcal
producEon
and
the
way
in
which
it
integrates
the
research
quesEon
and
theoreEcal
work
with
their
own
pracEce.
Learning
outcomes

3. Contextual
Analysis
is
worth
20%
of
your
final
mark.
This
is
broken
down:
Ø Level
of
analysis
and
reflecEon
-­‐
40%
Ø Level
and
depth
of
knowledge
demonstrated
-­‐30%
Ø Structure
&
wriRen
communicaEon
skills
-­‐
30%
Marking
Breakdown

4. Submit
an
electronic
copy
to
the
TurniEn
Link
by
Monday
2nd
June
by
12pm.
Studentcentral
>
LB306
Final
Individual
Project
>
Module
Assignments
>
Contextual
Analysis
Link
Submission
InformaEon

5. Ø The
contextual
analysis
is
exactly
as
it
states:
your
opportunity
to
demonstrate
what
you
have
learnt
in
the
research
and
producEon
processes,
by
analysing
and
evaluaEng
your
work
within
the
theories
you
were
quesEoning
in
your
report.
What
it
is

6. Ø Can
be
a
good
way
of
analysing
the
other
side
of
an
argument
you
had
in
your
Research
Report.
Ø Think
about
how
your
research
quesEon
affected
pre-­‐producEon,
producEon
and
post-­‐producEon.
Ø What
experiences
in
your
producEon
and
your
evaluaEon
of
the
final
work
bring
out
issues
in
your
research?
Ø Note
the
new
ideas
you
have
about
the
research.
Your
argument

7. TO BE CRITICAL…
To be critical means that you are required to:
Ø ask questions about the ideas and information
Ø to comment thoughtfully by engaging in a process of
evaluating or;
Ø making judgements about the validity or relevance of
ideas and theories in relation to developing, making and the
final artefact.

8. CRITICAL COMMENTARY PROCESS
1. Understand and analyse the ideas and arguments on
your topic.
2. Create questions
3. Develop these questions into a written response by
analysing what you created and from your research
(other people’s ideas). Use evidence (quoting,
paraphrasing; close analysis of your work).
4. Consider evaluating the ideas: the significance and
relevance of this idea.
5. Develop a number of thoughtful points and conclusions
about the ideas/theories/arguments from developing and
producing your work.
6. Write your contextual analysis.

9. STEP ONE – CREATE QUESTIONS FROM
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
The first thing to do is to create questions to help you create
a comment. The best way to do this is to:
Ø use the information from your research and question it in
relation to your work and what you were exploring
But you may find questions by also reflecting back on the
process and the final film and considering:
Ø issues or ideas you had in the production process and
use them to question what you aimed to do
Use both approaches to conclude (based on evidence)
those ideas/theories/arguments you have researched.

10. QUESTIONS THAT HELP EVALUATE IDEAS…
Create questions that help to establish a problem or the aim
of an idea or theory to be able to discuss the extent the aim
has been achieved.
Ø How logical is the idea or argument supporting the
hypothesis? How is the argument supported? Is it
supported well?
Ø How relevant is the idea you applied to your work?
Provide brief overview of what you aimed to do.
Ø Is the evidence valid? Is the evidence accurate and
relevant?
Ø What conclusions are drawn by you on the basis of the
finding? Do you consider that these are justified by the
results or have you made unjustifiable conclusions?

11. Ø The
contextual
analysis
should
not
be
a
descripEon
of
the
processes
that
you
have
gone
through
–
avoid
lengthy
descripEons
of
any
elements
of
the
work.
Ø Don’t
discuss
issues
that
are
not
related
to
your
research
quesEon.
Ø The
contextual
analysis
should
also
not
be
a
forum
for
you
to
place
blame
on
equipment/
people/procedures
for
elements
of
the
work
that
you
may
be
unhappy
with.
What
it
is
not

12. Ø The
analysis
should
be
clearly
structured.
You
should
briefly
introduce
the
project
and
select
and
state
some
key
areas
of
the
work
that
you
will
discuss
in
more
depth.
These
should
be
both
posiEve
and
negaEve
aspects
of
the
work.
Ø You
should
definitely
refer
back
to
your
research
report
when
you
are
discussing
how
the
research
that
you
undertook
has
informed
your
pracEce,
but
do
not
reiterate
what
you
have
wri/en
in
the
report,
instead
refer
to
page/secEon
numbers,
i.e.
‘…as
discussed
in
secEon
2,
page
6
of
my
research
report’.
Ø Each
paragraph
should
be
a
new
point
with
the
first
or
second
line
clearly
explaining
the
point
and
then
going
into
more
detail.
Structure

13. Ø It
is
a
more
personal
account
than
your
research
report
and
so
can
be
wriRen
in
the
first
person,
i.e.
‘I
will
be
discussing
both
the
posiEve
and
negaEve
aspects
of
my
producEon
work’.
Ø
You
should
be
cri5cal
of
your
work
and
always
back
up
and
evidence
any
statements
that
you
make.
This
can
either
be
by
direct
quotaEon
(using
the
Harvard
referencing
system)
from
a
text
or
by
referencing
current
industry
pracEces
or
standards.
Style

14. Ø Avoid
making
statements
such
as
‘I
think
my
work
is
good’
–
you
need
to
state
why
this
is
the
case
in
the
wider
context
of
Broadcast
Media
–
acknowledge
the
benchmarks
on
which
you
make
judgements
such
as
this.
Ø Don’t
look
for
hard
and
fastened
answers.
It’s
about
your
experience
in
relaEon
to
the
issues
with
your
research.
Style

15. Ø You
can
use
images/screen
grabs
in
your
analysis
to
help
you
when
you
are
referring
to
the
different
elements
of
your
work
–
this
is
a
much
beRer
method
than
using
words
to
describe
them.
You
may
also
want
to
include
audio/video
footage
on
a
disc
as
an
appendix
for
this
reason
(this
could
be
to
show
sample
rushes/alternate
takes/experimental
footage).
SupporEng
material

16. Ø Be
criEcal
–
look
for
weaknesses
and
posiEves
in
your
work
in
relaEon
to
your
research.
Ø Examine
your
work
taking
some
notes,
constantly
thinking
about
how
your
work
tests
the
quesEon
you
were
exploring.
Ø When
wriEng
up
cut
anything
about
your
work
(producEon
or
the
final
work)
that
does
not
deal
directly
with
your
research
quesEon.
Studying
your
work

17. QuesEon:
Why
are
films
that
go
against
the
conven3ons
of
dialogue
in
screenwri3ng
s3ll
successful?
I
made
a
short
film
that
was
mainly
dialogue
led
and
locaEons,
characters,
were
limited.
Example
1

18. IntenEon:
I
wanted
to
inves-gate
whether
breaking
screenwri-ng
conven-ons
of
dialogue
could
s-ll
make
an
engaging
film.
Issues:
Ø Struggled
in
pre-­‐producEon
to
combine
the
various
things;
dialogue
was
difficult
to
achieve;
Ø NoEced
that
turning
points
in
dialogue
sEll
relied
on
convenEons
of
story-­‐telling
(beats,
surprises,
expectaEons)
Ø Saw
other
side
of
argument:
dialogue
works
in
combinaEon
of
the
film
of
a
form
(locaEons,
characters,
ediEng,
pauses,
silence)
Ø Good
dialogue
can
be
what
you
leave
out
as
well
as
what
you
put
in
Ø Suggested
that
convenEons
are
genre
specific
and
perhaps
screenwriEng
texts
should
not
be
so
heavy
handed
in
their
advice.
Example
1

19.
Example
2
QuesEon:
How
and
why
has
the
role
of
the
father
figure
changed
in
situa3on
comedies?
I
made
a
short
sitcom
about
I
dad
who
loses
his
job
and
has
to
face
up
with
a
new
role
in
the
family.

20. IntenEon:
I
wanted
to
inves-gate
whether
it
is
possible
to
write
a
sitcom
without
resor-ng
to
the
stereotypes
that
exist
around
the
father
in
modern
comedy
(i.e.
either
the
dominant
man
of
the
house
or
the
buffoon).
Issues:
Ø During
wriEng
process
it
proved
difficult
to
not
fall
back
in
stereotypes
in
order
to
get
laughs;
Ø Characters
had
to
be
drawn
much
more
carefully,
in
20-­‐minutes
this
was
a
challenge;
Ø Actors
had
to
be
cast
not
to
fall
into
these
set
roles
and
then
directed
carefully
in
order
that
their
performances
not
do
so
as
well.
Ø InteresEngly
with
the
unconvenEonal
capable
and
thoughjul
father
figure
–
other
characters
had
to
take
on
comic
roles
in
response
(i.e.
the
mother
became
shrewish,
the
kids
less
capable).
Ø Conclusion:
This
project
serves
to
demonstrate
why
mainstream
Sitcom
so
oken
fall
back
on
these
stereotypes
–
they
are
a
short
hand
and
they
work
but
audiences
will
eventually
want
more.
Example
2

21.
Example
3
QuesEon:
How
does
the
sound
design
and
soundtrack
effect
the
emo3onal
impact
of
a
scene
in
radio
drama?
I
made
a
short
radio
drama
that
I
produced
two
versions
of:
one
highly
designed
and
with
a
lot
of
detail
and
the
other
more
simple
and
in
the
style
of
a
BBC
radio
drama.

22. IntenEon:
To
take
the
same
material
and
see
how
sound
design
effects
the
direcEon
and
character
of
a
scene.
Issues:
Ø Wrote
a
short
drama
that
wasn’t
hugely
dependent
on
sound
or
music
(i.e.
not
an
acEon
scene);
Ø Performed
it
dry
in
the
studio
and
focused
on
the
actors
performances
in
order
to
give
the
text
as
much
life
as
possible;
Ø Produced
one
version
that
was
clear
and
with
simple
sound
design.
When
listening
to
this.
This
version
seems
to
bring
out
the
characters
more
than
the
story,
you
listen
to
the
people
and
think
about
them.
Ø The
designed
version
is
much
more
emoEonally
charged
and
exciEng,
and
it
grabs
your
aRenEon
quickly,
but
then
you
are
not
thinking
so
much
about
the
characters…
more
about
their
situaEon.
Ø Conclusion:
I
realise
that
although
sound
design
and
soundtrack
is
important,
if
you
do
to
much
you
can
obscure
some
important
aspects
of
the
scripts.
Example
3

23.
Example
4
QuesEon:
How
are
new
technologies
of
produc-on
influenced
the
form
of
documentary
films.
I
made
a
15
minute
documentary
using
a
range
of
modern
techniques
and
taking
advantage
of
cheap
camera
technology.

24. IntenEon:
To
prove
that
new
technologies
of
producEon
are
allowing
new
forms
of
documentary
stories
to
be
told,
and
that
these
cheap
technologies
are
opening
up
documentary
a
new
generaEon
of
film
makes.
Issues:
Ø The
producEon
was
complex
to
arrange
and
edit,
I
gave
cameras
to
a
lot
of
subjects
and
in
other
cases
gathered
huge
quanEEes
of
footage.
Ø This
seemed
to
shik
the
difficulty
in
the
producEon
into
the
edit
room,
rather
than
in
shooEng.
Ø I
gathered
some
remarkable
footage
that
I
wouldn’t
have
got
if
I
had
a
film
crew
(i.e.
scene
X
or
scene
Y).
Ø In
the
end
though,
what
really
maRered
were
the
subjects
and
my
research.
Ø Conclusion:
New
tech
opens
up
possibiliEes
but
it
doesn’t
make
life
easier
or
producEons
inherently
‘beRer’
Example
4