I marked these as quickly as possible, marking question by question rather than paper by paper. Why am I admitting I marked them quickly? Because I guarantee your final exam will be read even more quickly. Exam scripts are not even annotated. No feedback is given. It's cold and brutal. And it proves that you need to make sure your media language, analysis, theory and argument need to jump out throughout!
Feedback
i - you must include more media language. This incudes reference to shot types, camera angles, MES and so on
ii - you must focus more on analysis and meanings. What are the deeper meanings of the media language you have referenced? How does it construct meaning for the audience?
iii - you would have benefited from theory. Yes, you don't need to include theory on every response, but it definitely can help, as long as you make sure it's relevant and supports your argument
iv - your argument needs to be clear and strong. This is the 'final' bit of feedback, and it generally means that your answer was excellent, but is just missing that little 'voice' that examiners appreciate. It's best to get a little argumentative!
Question 1: Music video analysis
- You guys did really, really good on this one
- Perhaps it's because of the way in which this was taught so close to the exam, but many students had absolutely excellent spot on arguments discussing consumerism, representation of gay people or sexism... BUT DIDN'T MAKE ENOUGH REFERENCE TO MEDIA LANGUAGE! So I gave out lots of 'i' feedback marks for this one, even when students were getting 'b' s or even higher! Just think what you would have got if you included more reference to specific shot types and editing techniques...
- The best responses linked media language and analysis to theory. To quote one student with the initials MB:... "After the establishing shot, the audience are presented with a shot of Ed Sheeran, who is sat in a salon. This challenges gender stereotypes and creates a binary opposition, as Levi-Strauss would argue, between the female customers of the hair salon and the dominant male nature of Ed Sheeran. This dominance and power is reinforced through the spotlight... " This is great stuff because MB isn't even writing in a particularly 'wordy' or sophisticated way, but got an 'A' for this question based on the consistency of linking media language to her argument. Great stuff!
- The very best essays explored the ideology of the music video presented. I felt that some classes may have had a slightly easier ride here. For example, the Ed Sheeran video demonstrated very clear intertextual reference to LGBTQ+ subcultures. The Doja Cat video was more straightforward... but still offered complex analyses of the sexist representation of women, and how this could be harmful to the target audience.
Question 2: WaterAid and constructing audiences
- Maybe I shouldn't say this, but I thought you guys wouldn't do as well on this question. However, in a lot of cases, you did better than in question one! Great revision!
- Predictably, the biggest issues came from not knowing the difference between targeting, positioning, and constructing. Audience construction is where the producer 'builds' and audience, and uses media language to inform them of how they fit in to this audience. So the best answers tended to be ones that described how this advert constructs the audience, usually as a noble, white, working class philanthropist. This is a good example of how a tweak in wording can make all the difference!
- However, the mark scheme here wasn't too strict: you basically need to know what audience construction is, know the WaterAid advert, and prove it.
- A surprising number of students seemed to ignore the question and write about audience positioning instead. Not sure why; this is a really bad idea. It's definitely better than not answering the question at all though!
- Lots of students missed out on the higher scores (10+) by simply being too descriptive. Remember, don't describe, analyse!
Question 3: Les revs and representation
- I realised, obviously way too late, that this question was basically way too hard for a 15 marker. The reason for this is that it combines AO1 (knowledge and understanding) with another AO for evaluation. It really should have been something like "explain bell hook's theory of intersectional feminism. Use examples from Les Revenants to support your response". Before I started marking, I pre-emptively adjusted everyone's mark, marking it exactly as I should have done, then adding two marks on. Yes, I messed up, but this actually does happen in final exams! What's the solution? The mark scheme is adjusted. So me making this mistake was a good thing because it made this mock more realistic. Yes.
- The level of detailed examples, and simple knowledge of hook's theoretical perspective were often lacking for this one. It's clearly something you need to revise, both in lesson, and especially at home.
- This was the weakest response from you guys, and it was only partly due to the complexity of the question. Many of you simply ignored bell hooks completely, which could, depending on the examiner could see you get an automatic 0. But many more of you simply didn't use key scenes effectively to back up points.
Question 4: Online industries
- This one was also a rather atypical question, though for the opposite reason for question 3, and it was entirely intentional (honest!). This question was a test of timing, and of extended writing. It's simple, straightforward, and yet worth double the marks of any other question, which means that ideally you should have spent around 50 minutes on this one. That's like 42% of the entire exam!
- Some students chose to start with this one, and to be frank, that was probably the best idea.
- This question demands more than you might think. There's a very simple way to answer it, basically describing how these two examples use digital technology to maximise consumption, what digital technology is, what consumption is, and so on. This is knowledge and understanding. But these big, 30 mark questions give you the opportunity to present an argument or point of view. I worked this in to the mark scheme as the other AO.
- Much of this question came down to how much you wrote. Being a 30 marker, I expected to see twice as much as I expected to see in question 3. But actually, it didn't always work like this. The best answers were often straight up and to the point, presenting a straightforward argument in the introduction and then sticking to it
- I kind of stopped giving feedback for this question, because it was the same for literally everyone: iv: argument/point of view. But how to include a point of view?
- One way would be through offering an opinion on how these media products conduct business. So many of you discussed clickbait adverts on Attitude, but surprisingly few of you pointed out that this was something that could only be achieved through digital technology. This would be a great opportunity to convey your cynicism for manipulative, digitally convergent media platforms, that use expletive, decentralised systems to maximise profit in a space free from external regulation.
- The big lesson with this question, is that even vague questions demand a complex point of view, so make sure you have one ready!