GLARN Examiners' Reports by Keith Perera

GLARN Examiners' Reports by Keith Perera https://padlet.com/kperera/glarn en-us 2017-12-15 17:22:43 UTC 2017-12-18 15:16:20 UTC hello@padlet.com June 2015 https://padlet.com/kperera/glarn/wish/216971512 1b Most candidates wrote about a Year 13 production and were able to relate a range of mainstream theorists' work to the practical piece. Many candidates systematically applied the classic narrative theories very well to one of their texts – Propp, Todorov, Barthes, Levi Strauss, Bordwell and Thompson. Where candidates attempted to relate genre or representation to the answer, some managed this by locating the text in question at the intersection between over- lapping theoretical ideas (eg Mulvey, whose formative essay fuses the male gaze with narrative pleasure), whilst weaker answers appeared to be answering another question. A key point of distinction, eternally recurring, is between answers which deal with the theoretical concept as a production technique, using first person or accounts of collective decisions and those which adopt a critical vantage point on the text as site of theoretical analysis. To restate, 1a is about the candidates’ decision making and progress, 1b is about the finished work, to be analysed in the same way candidates would deconstruct other media texts during their studies. ]]> 2017-12-18 15:01:50 UTC https://padlet.com/kperera/glarn/wish/216971512 June 2017 welss001 https://padlet.com/kperera/glarn/wish/216971874 The majority of candidates discussed their A2 main task production and many also explored their ancillary products. Top level responses confidently presented a range of theoretical and contemporary concepts and applied them to specific instances from their own productions. In general, a pleasing variety of critical ideas was discussed. However, there was some evidence of the ‘prepared response’ where candidates discussed narrative, representation or genre theories without reflection on any potential relevance to the concept of audience. A number o f candidates omitted to reference theoretical concepts altogether, instead presenting broad descriptions of their audience profiles – this generally produced weaker links to examples from the candidates’ own productions and a more limited scope for discuss ion. A minority relied solely upon descriptions of audience research activities, rather than taking the objective and critical position necessary for this question. Some responses applied more dated ideas such as the ‘hypodermic syringe’ model; this was l imiting where the candidates did not also counter these theories with more recent thinking. Some candidates also struggled to decide whether the

audience were ‘active’ or ‘passive’ with a resulting loss of clarity in the response. Candidates should be enco uraged to define, apply and discuss theoretical concepts rather than putting theorists’ names in brackets without a ny a ccompanying exploration.

]]> 2017-12-18 15:02:45 UTC https://padlet.com/kperera/glarn/wish/216971874 June 2014 robij271 https://padlet.com/kperera/glarn/wish/216972399 In one sense (engagement with media theories), this was the strongest session so far for this question. However, the key determining factor in allocating marks was the ability to relate specific elements of genre theory (from Neale across forms and Goodwin in relation to music video, most often) to the text in question with conviction and precision. Where candidates were able to relate theories more generally understood in relation to narrative and representation to genre, this was creditable but in many cases the ideas of Mulvey, Hall, Barthes or Todorov were applied without a clear account of how these relate to the generic elements of candidates’ texts. Once again, there were a significant number of cases of candidates objectifying women in order to ‘apply the male gaze’ and this confusion of theoretical concept with production technique does suggest a lack of the critical media literacy required for the higher levels at A2. Acceptable, but lower range answers accounted for codes and conventions, cinematography and mise en scene. Higher level answers discussed genre as a concept, rather than a ‘given’. Sadly, a significant minority of candidates confused genre and gender. ]]> 2017-12-18 15:03:59 UTC https://padlet.com/kperera/glarn/wish/216972399 2016 https://padlet.com/kperera/glarn/wish/216973058 1b) The majority of candidates explored their A2 productions with effective and detailed analysis of media language within their final products. A minority of candidates focused too heavily on the inclusion of theoretical concepts at the expense of the application of concepts to their own production outcomes. It was pleasing to see a wide variety of responses that clearly demonstrated a wide range of relevant ideas about media language and how it communicated meaning to audiences. A tiny minority focused more on audiences rather than media language, but they were credited accordingly. Generally, the nature of the question allowed for a broad range of different theorists to be cited, most of which could be credited. Once again, a politically problematic tendency for candidates to explain that they objectified women to ‘apply’ the male gaze in their work was common, sometimes by the same candidates who went on to offer proficient analyses of gender representation and Butlerian ‘troubling’ in section B. ]]> 2017-12-18 15:05:38 UTC https://padlet.com/kperera/glarn/wish/216973058 June 2013 https://padlet.com/kperera/glarn/wish/216973962 – firstly, candidates need to
‘switch register’ from 1(a) to 1(b) to move from talking about what they did to how the text can be
analysed. Still only a small number of candidates manage to this, with the majority writing about
how they applied the theory, as opposed to how the theory can be applied to the text. Much
more disturbing was the overwhelming acceptance of the ‘male gaze’ as a neutral fact of life,
something to be straightforwardly ‘applied’ in the production of a text, with the objectification of
women accounted for as no more than a convention. Although candidates would not be
penalised for describing their own text in these terms, if Mulvey’s theory was appropriately
applied, centres are encouraged to support candidates in taking a rather more critical
perspective on representation.]]> 2017-12-18 15:07:34 UTC https://padlet.com/kperera/glarn/wish/216973962