61/100 MARKING COMMENTS

Research & Planning 11/20:
The student got off to a disappointing start will all aspects of the research and planning work set. Whilst work was produced late, there is good research into similar texts and a target audience. However there is no evidence of drafting and little in the way of work in progress. The level of care taken in presentating the work via the Blog is fair but lacks use of a suitable range of ICT applications as befits the ability of this students. Time management was not very good.

Text 36/60:
This student could have done much better if he had managed his time effectively and met deadlines set. As a consequence, the magazine shows a level of proficiency in the franing of shots and the manipulation of images, however material mise en scene is basic and the front cover lacks the appropriate use of copy that one would expect on a magazine of this genre. Use of language and register is sound in some parts of the double page spread but this is at times inconsistent with the overall feature. This student could have produced work of a far better standard, hence a disappointing effort.

Evaluation 15/20:
This student has shown a very good understanding of music magazine audiences, representation, institution and use of technology in constructing the artefact. Whilst there is strong ability to refer to choices made and communicate effectively, there is a lack of real skill in the presentation of this work which is disappointing given the potential of this particular student.