Planning: Reflection on Moderator's Report

 General Overview:

• The strongest work had clearly been supported by focused research, detailed planning, attention to detail and a strong, sustained central concept based solidly on the requirements and details of the brief, as reflected in focused, unambiguous Statements of Intent. Such careful planning led to outcomes which demonstrated the verisimilitude required for the work to be marked in the higher levels; candidates clearly understanding the two forms they were working in. Such work showed higher levels of polish and, although the level of "finish" is perhaps not as central to the overall marking as it was for the legacy specification, the wording of the level 5 marking criteria still implies a certain level of quality ("sophisticated"; "highly developed"; "accomplished", etc.). 
• Most candidates managed to explore the cross-media aspects of the briefs very well, with some excellent links being made between products. Considering that the products are each worth the same number of marks and that there is an obvious effect on the mark for digital convergence, it was to be hoped that a comparable amount of time would be spent developing both.

Application of Assessment Criteria:

• The best coversheets included clear, bespoke, candidate-specific commentaries that referenced assessment criteria and cited examples from student work. This was particularly helpful where candidates had produced projects that took a counter-typical approach to the briefs. Less helpful CCSs lacked depth or detail - such an approach did not really help identifying why certain marks had been given; this was particularly evident with regard to digital convergence.

Statements of Intent:

• The very best made clear links between the two main products and explained how digital convergence would connect the two. These also tended to go through the brief in depth, demonstrating how every requirement and detail was to be addressed.
• Although the statement is not assessed, it is an essential element of the assessment since it can clarify a candidate's thinking, particularly if an unconventional approach is to be taken either to the codes and conventions of the form or the representations being explored.

Brief 1: Television and Online

• At the upper end, there was a good understanding of the structural codes and conventions and the needs of the target audience were met through content and mode of address.
• Well-rehearsed performances were key to the successful outcomes (but the performers needed to retain a real and vital sense of enjoyment): this brief worked best when the appropriate presenter and performer casting had taken place; in one centre, candidates relied on the same two presenters; all the finished sequences were very different but all had the same confident performers in front of the camera. Casting is clearly something that is important to consider. Using a running banner at the bottom of the screen, with web address, Twitter and Instagram details, etc., was an effective wat of demonstrating understanding of digital convergence, as was having the presenters refer to the web and social media addresses and encouraging the audience to interact via them. Presenters were able to refer to the extra content on the websites (which candidates had actually produced and uploaded onto their sites).

Brief 2: Radio and Online

• Generally, most pieces met the main requirements of the brief. However, some radio submissions were more like documentaries than music magazine programmes and others did not seem to fit a Radio 1 house style. Work that was not so successful usually involved a lack of the required production detail, but often showed missing key elements or weak technical skills that meant the codes and conventions were not demonstrated well. Weaker work tended to demonstrate one or more of the following:
  - A lack of introduction to the concept of the show.
  - Voices recorded either using poor quality microphones or the computer's built-in microphone resulting in distorted or low-level vocal tracks.
  - Bed levels overpowering the vocal track (or conversely no bedding at all).
  - Voices recorded at different levels.
  - 'Phone-ins' where the phoned-in voice was clearly being recorded in the same room as the presenter.
  - Shows with little or no editing.
  - No candidate-created stings or jingles.
  - A lack of sound effects or consideration of acoustic space.
  - Pieces were long segments of dialogue focused on the same feature rather than covering a range of content.
  - Where music was used, not fading this out after a few seconds (some pieces were heard which had more than 30 seconds of music; one ran for over two minutes of the three-minute piece).
  - Pieces which sounded obviously scripted (and thus not particularly natural and so unsuited to the task).
  - Representation was, perhaps, a challenge for many. Moderators were not sure that having presenters trying to 'put on an accent' was the answer to creating a range of representations.

Brief 3: Magazines and Online

• The stronger magazines chose their fonts with discrimination (not relying on standard body-text fonts to create sell lines or the masthead) and showed control in terms of size and leading. The best work used a variety of images on the contents, with page numbers on the images anchoring them to the written contents, and appropriately laid out and sized text. 
• In general, the less successful magazines tended to miss key elements from the brief (including the production detail), did not adhere to the codes and conventions of the form or did not meet the conventional expectations of the genre.

Brief 4: Music Video and Online

• The best work demonstrated that candidates had understood the specific requirements of the brief relating to genre, representation, and industrial context and clearly researched this before planning their own pieces. 
• In general, less successful music videos either missed key elements from the brief or did not adhere to the codes and conventions of the form.