Topic 3

The candidate identifies their theme, media, target audience and their goal. The goal provides a brief description of the final outcome. This demonstrates a basic ability to communicate ideas. The candidate provides a copy of their online proposal to provide context. The proposal also serves as a narrative plan for the animation. This demonstrates an adequate ability to reflect critically on work and progress. Marks are awarded in AO1 and AO2.

The candidate provides three examples of artists' work for their research. These include digital artists and film makers and are appropriate for the candidate's chosen area of study. This is rewarded in AO1. The brief descriptions and illustrations provided, demonstrate a limited skill in recording insights relevant to their intentions. The relatively narrow scope of research, whilst interesting, is not varied enough to significantly benefit the progress of the work.

In this work the candidate shows how they have gone about learning new skills to be able to realise their work. The slides include some notes, lists and examples of the work for others. The evidence of the exploration of media, and development of concepts is limited and these provide basic evidence for AO2 and AO3.

This slide shows the candidate working with digital animation tools and software. This would be recognised in AO2. However, the very brief notes and a single photograph on a single slide demonstrates a limited ability to explore relevant materials and technology.

The candidate continues their development work by referring to an earlier idea. This is illustrated and demonstrates a satisfactory command of design elements. The candidate then goes on to write a script, which contains dialogue and descriptions of action. This demonstrates good communication of the candidate's ideas.

Pages from the candidate’s sketchbook are presented with some notes. The candidate mentions other sources for designs and models, but this process is not explained, and the sources are not referenced. This would be rewarded for AO1, but would be improved by better referencing of sources and some analysis or explanation. Some of the slides contain little evidence of the development of ideas with reference to the brief. This would limit marking in AO3. Other slides contain character descriptions and action poses. The candidate uses appropriate technical vocabulary and seeks to integrate written and practical elements. Amongst the drawings of action poses, the candidate demonstrates connections between digital and design elements. However, this work tends to be limited. The characters do not appear to be developed to the extent envisaged in the proposal on slide 4. This would be reflected in the marking of AO3 and AO4.

Photographs of storyboard thumbnails from the candidate’s sketchbook are presented. The thumbnails are hand drawn accompanied by notes. This work communicates the candidate’s ideas well. These slides provide evidence of a more sustained approach. Here the candidate makes progress and begins to realise their personal intentions. The quality of some of the thumbnails demonstrates the candidate’s ability to control design elements. There is also an emerging sense of engagement with the investigation and autonomous progress. This would be recognised in the marking of AO2 and AO4.

A detailed record of feedback is provided. Although the status of those providing feedback is not clear, they provide valuable insight into the progress of the work. The feedback provides encouragement to the candidate where it identifies specific strengths in the creative work. Some of the feedback praises the progress made so far and offers ideas for further development. The feedback also recognises where the work is weaker and where the candidate needs to improve. The candidate has done well to gather this quantity of feedback. This would be reflected in the marking of AO1, however, marks in AO3 would be limited as they are not awarded for gathering feedback alone. Marks in this AO3 are attracted by an analytical understanding informed by feedback gathered during a focused investigation. An analysis of the feedback is not provided here. The candidate appears not to have developed their work as a result of the feedback provided. This is reflected in the final outcome.