Narrative the responses were generally of a higher quality than in some previous sessions, with

the theories of Barthes, Propp and Todorov and some media / form specific theories such as Goodwin (for music video) applied well to specific examples. There was some conflating of narrative and semiotics but this was acceptable where the latter was connected to the development of action or enigma or cultural codes that help to structure a text. Weaker answers either just described narrative as a production technique or accounted for the general mode of address of the text in relation to the audience and / or took a 1a approach to accounting for what I / we decided / did. This question requires textual analysis of one production from a more detached vantage point, using an academic concept.

Media language

is an umbrella term and hence gives candidates a range of options for responding to the question. The key distinguishing criteria was their ability to relate the broad conceptual notion of media language to the medium of their selected coursework production the language of film, the language of web design, the visual language of magazines. A large percentage of candidates identified semiotics as a central theory for media language, but only in the strongest answers was semiotics applied to the medium at work. A range of writers were utilised here Goodwin, Barthes, Saussure and Neale were all used well. Laura Mulvey often used in an unfortunately instrumental manner, unintentionally but problematically nonetheless we used Mulveys male gaze. Perhaps surprisingly, many candidates appeared to be reaching to demonstrate an understanding of what the concept of media language actually referred to. This key concept has been tackled in a range of publications specifically tailored to this specification, both in its current and previous form. All too often, lost in the mix was enough discussion of the actual outcomes of the project chosen as the basis for response too many candidates took extended excursions into discussing / explaining theory or discussing the applications of theory to professional products. The weakest answers either ignored the question and responded with a prepared answer on genre or representation, with little attempt to contextualise this in a broader understanding of media language or saw candidates writing about the words used in their magazine articles and movie scripts. A number of candidates gave short answers to this question, suggesting they found it challenging. The more sophisticated responses discussed polysemy, juxtaposition and anchorage of media messages using the appropriate micro aspects of the production work - for example in the shot construction or editing process or narrative structure. The most important advice to impart here is that candidates need to step back from the work and assess it as a media text, using conceptual tools in so doing. A clear demarcation between approaches for 1(a) and 1(b) remains too rarely evident.

Representation(The best answers)began with a theoretical explanation of representation,

supported by references to academic writing on the concept and then systematically applied the concept to one of their productions, understood for this question as a media text. 1b was generally the weakest area and this appeared to be largely due to the difficulties candidates faced in adapting their material to the concept identified. Representation was, by many, described only in terms of conventions or simply what was produced, as though representing the school in a positive way (with regard to a preliminary task) is demonstrative of an A2 level of understanding of a complex idea. What was required (and managed by single figures of respondents in this session) was a robust

discussion of how the media product selected can be analysed as representational candidates can discuss whether or not this is straightforward or more complex but they MUST engage with the theoretical concept either way and reference reading they have undertaken on this area in relation to specific examples from their product. Of more concern was the fact that some candidates appeared to be unfamiliar with the concept of representation entirely. Further problems arose from some candidates referring to more than one production item (one was disregarded in this case) and from too much overlap with 1(a). There may be some common ground between the two answers for example, if a part of the research and planning involved a consideration of how representing a social group in one may might alienate potential audience members or even lead to ethical and legal issues, but in some cases genre dominated both answers to the extent that 1(a) was a list of decisions in relation to the observation through research of genre conventions and 1(b) was a similar list of how the product represented the genre. It appeared that in these cases candidates had entered too early and only had one area of expertise to adapt to whatever the questions required. Centres are advised to prepare candidates to write about all of the concepts.

Audience
1(b) Successful responses demonstrated understanding of the concept of audience (which can be easily done by referencing particular audience theories and relating them to a product); the best answers making use of more contemporary theory(such as Gauntlett, Jenkins or Hills). There were relatively few high scoring responses for this question as most candidates adopted the same approach as for 1(a) writing about their own decision making rather than analysing a finished product as a text from a critical distance. The majority of candidates reduced the concept of audience to some very basic ideas about target audience and there was too much reliance on Todorov, Hypodermic Needle & Hall which did not enable candidates to stretch their discussions and subsequently these responses were fairly one-dimensional

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 type equilibrium and disruption, action and enigma, semiotic codes and the gaze. 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. Adorno http://v-simpson0811-cts.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/adornos-theory-on-popular-music.html

1(b) Stronger answers to this question were able to do three things well. Firstly, they set up the concept of genre for discussion, with reference to writing on the subject from the likes of Altman, Buckingham, Buscombe, Neale, McQuail, Stam, Boardwell, Miller, Goodwin or in some cases, with varying relevance, Propp and Todorov, Mulvey and Barthes, Strauss and Saussure. Level 4 answers generally offered references to writing about the particular genre in question as well as the more general work. Secondly, these higher-marked answers went on to apply these ideas to a range of specific elements of their own chosen production. And thirdly, the extent to which the ideas in the referenced writing fit with the product being analysed would be discussed. Mid-range answers would more straightforwardly list generic elements of the work with less reference to theoretical material. Lower level answers would neglect theories of genre altogether and/or lack specific examples. To what extent the production in question adhered to or challenged genre conventions is, at least, required in order for Candidates to be credited for both understanding and applying the concept. An alternative approach is to deal with more institutional aspects of the workings of genre and format. Many answers dealt with narrative theory which is, of course, appropriate as it is so closely linked to genre providing Candidates explicitly make this connection for the examiner, so it does not have to be inferred in the marking. Clearly, to prepare for all the concepts which may arise in the exam and then to condense understanding and application into thirty minutes of writing is challenging, so Centres are strongly encouraged to devote as much time and pedagogic energy and differentiation to this part of the exam as to Section B