1 / 6

MEST 2 | Evaluation

MEST 2 | Evaluation. The evaluation is worth 20 marks (25% of the total). There should be a brief reference to the third platform that was not produced by the candidate (if only to explain what might have been done and why it was decided not to).

naeva
Download Presentation

MEST 2 | Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MEST 2 | Evaluation • The evaluation is worth 20 marks (25% of the total). There should be a brief reference to the third platform that was not produced by the candidate (if only to explain what might have been done and why it was decided not to). • The evaluation is not simply a description of the production process but should evaluate the success of the productions in terms of the intentions set out previously with reference where appropriate to the Key Concepts.

  2. Key themes of evaluations

  3. Prompt questions • The following questions may help when considering the approach for the evaluation: •  Has the student replicated form and genre codes successfully? •  Has the student used appropriate layout and design codes? •  Did they use the house-style appropriately? •  How successful were they in creating products that would be appealing to the target audience? •  How well they have fulfilled the functions of the productions? • All of this should be evaluated in light of the chosen brief’s instructions.

  4. Common mistakes • Using the evaluation to describe the process of research. Students should show how they are able to use the findings from their research • Using the evaluation to describe the production process. Students should analyse the productions not the act of producing. There is no benefit to the student in retelling tales from the production process nor identifying software/technical issues. • Using the evaluation to describe the products themselves. Description of the products is redundant. Students should identify key media language choices made in production and explain why these choices were made and/or what effect they have. Analysis of the products should link to media concepts and/or specifics from the brief.

  5. This isn’t for the students to complain about all the problems they had in the production! Much as they might want to share their frustration with a member of the group who didn’t pull their weight, the problem they had with the software crashing or, my favourite one, “we didn’t have enough time”, (so tempting for the teacher to write in, “students had four months to do this work”) nobody is going to give them A-level marks for such moaning! • Rather than describing the process gone through, the evaluation should be used for analysis of the productions. Students should analyse their work in a similar way to the way they have been taught to analyse other texts – does it follow the codes and conventions which they identified in their research? Was the genre obvious? What elements of the productions are successful at reaching their target audience…? • Students who produce significantly less than the 1500 words for the evaluation are unlikely to demonstrate more than a fairly “competent analysis” (level 3) at best.

More Related