Examiners Report January 2011

G325 Critical Perspectives in Media General Comments

There were 387 candidates entered for this January series. The level of difficulty was appropriate but some candidates were not well prepared to answer all three questions and this is often the case where candidates are taking this synoptic paper for the first time some six months before the majority of entrants for the unit.

There was a marked improvement in the level of responses, in comparison to the previous two series. It is difficult for candidates to sustain the required level of theoretical engagement for level 4 marks over the three sections and some centres had clearly prepared candidates well to write about ALL of the concepts and areas of activity that might be required for questions 1a and 1b in relation to ALL of their coursework, so that they were able to respond to the specific requirements of the questions. As has been previously stated in examiner reports, at training events and on the OCR blog, the fact that there is one A2 examination only, and a part of that is related to coursework, mean that the level of expectation from examiners is high in relation to theoretical conviction and so a level 4 candidate will need to sustain this conviction over the span of the three responses – theorising a specific aspect of their own production processes, analysing their own outcomes using a specific key concept and discussing a contemporary media issue with the use of a range of theoretical arguments.

As in previous series, many of the candidates who achieved higher overall marks for the paper chose to answer section B first.

Section A

1.The question on digital technology appeared to support candidates in finding a range of examples and the better answers reflected critically on the difference digital technology actually made to creative outcomes. This was the strongest set of responses since the introduction of this unit, with the better answers dealing with well chosen examples which ranged across hardware, software and online activity and began to connect these to discuss how they synthesized. The higher achieving answers related clearly candidates’ decisions to the creative potential of digital media. Less accomplished responses tended to fall into two categories – those that were confused about digital technology itself (often simply describing the use of the camera) and those that merely listed examples of technology used without sufficient analysis of how these affordances led to particular kinds of creativity that might not have been possible with analogue processes or with non-technical activities. Where candidates were able to document a journey over time, either in terms of more advanced use of technology or simply making more use of technology in A2, the higher mark bands were accessible. This was extremely difficult for candidates who were only able to speculate on future A2 work as they had not yet completed their coursework – examiners cannot credit this kind of response in a synoptic paper. Level 4 answers typically defined creativity, with references to theoretical work on this much-debated and contested area (for example, Gauntlett, Buckingham, Craft, Csikszentmihalyi, Readman) and then went on to ‘apply’ these definitions to their own use of technologies with a range of specific examples – from how web 2.0 platforms allow the consumer (arguably) to become the producer to identifying particular uses of software such as Final Cut or Dreamweaver that allowed candidates to achieve outcomes that were not possible with simpler software such as iMovie (in the case of video editing). Either, or both, of these approaches allow examiners to award higher marks as long as there is sufficient evidence of critical reflection and evaluation – for which a ‘model’ like Kolb’s cycle might be helpful.

2. Narrative was handled fairly well by most candidates, often applying one or two ‘classic’ theoretical models from formalist / structuralist approaches to their own work – character types (Propp), equilibrium and disruption (Todorov), action and enigma (Roland Barthes), semiotic codes (Roland Barthes) and ‘the gaze’ (Laura Mulvey). The choice of text to analyse is very important in question 1b and in some cases examiners were surprised with the choices made in this regard (for example, writing about a film in 1a and a magazine in 1b). Some made a brave stab at applying the theory to print based texts, but tended to fall back more on semiotics or genre. Whilst there is no reason why a magazine or a website cannot be a rich text for narrative theory, it would seem more straightforward at A2 level for candidates to make use of the plethora of theories of film narrative at both micro (edits and continuity decisions) and macro (storytelling and culture) levels. Many candidates were able to accurately reference narrative theories – Propp and Todorov, Barthes, Levi-Strauss, Goodwin and Mulvey were well described, with some very strong analyses of radio news work and of film trailers and openings. Level 4 answers were those that successfully related these theories to elements of candidates’ own texts. Weak answers were often just an account of “how we made it” but stronger answers were able to apply some critical distance. In some cases there was even too much theory (with unsupported references to Fiske and Adorno) with little, if any, analysis of their own (in cases not yet completed) coursework.

Once again, time management was a factor and it is crucial that candidates devote the same total time to section A as to B as both sections carry equal marks.

Section B

Media in the Online Age – this was the weakest topic with a general lack of theory – see the comments on regulation, the same applies (I've included this at the end of the post). At the very least, centres are advised to look at the recent debates between Jenkins, Buckingham and Gauntlett – all of which are free and accessible online, in the context of claims made by the likes of Gillmor, Leadbetter, Wesch and Shirkey – for a more academic approach to the difference the internet has made to media. A lot of the answers were a set of opinions and ‘everyday’ observations about iTunes, piracy and social media, but in some cases some sustained case study work on music was well supported with a range of examples. For this topic in particular, candidates would be well advised to ‘audit’ their answers to consider how much of them could have been written by a person with a keen interest in media but without the knowledge and understanding from an A Level course in the subject.

Contemporary Media Regulation – this was a very popular topic and there was a high level of engagement with issues of protection and democracy, but there were some common lapses. Many film and TV references were too dated – even one historical reference would suffice, with all other examples from within five years of the time of writing. Other media areas tended to be answered with a more contemporary flavour, so centres are advised to be careful not to over- use dated (if ‘classic’) case studies for film and TV. As always, the James Bulger case was usually poorly handled with insufficient attention given to the complexity of this case and a lack of justification for its use in the context of an answer on contemporary media regulation. Centres are strongly advised to use this case as a historical reference in the context of Martin Barker’s work on how it was constructed as a ‘moral panic’, not as an example of media effects and thus as ‘evidence’ for the need for regulation. Regulation of computer games, with case studies, was often handled well. The difficulties of regulating the internet were tackled, with some success by many and the stronger candidates dealing with the ‘weightier’ political issues around wikileaks and democracy / security as well as the more straightforward debates around piracy and child protection, but too often candidates addressed the issue briefly, explaining how difficult it will always be to regulate the internet, and leaving it at that. There were many superficial observations around the press ‘not being regulated’ and for this reason the regulation of the press was often the weakest part of these answers. Examiners were, once again, surprised that the Byron Report – a hugely significant contemporary example – was rarely mentioned (the link to this is in our blog). In addition, centres are reminded that candidates need to balance their understanding of contemporary issues and examples with a discussion of academic theories of effects, audience and participation that inform their engagement with the debates in question. Whether there needs to be more or less media regulation depends on the view one takes on the relationship between media and society and there is a long history of research and theory – from Chomsky to Hall to Livingstone to Jenkins - that must be understood at A2 level if candidates are to answer the questions from an informed intellectual position.