Recent comments on the e-community regarding this paper:
"Gender again?? Really??"
"Won't have to prepare gender for June, then..................!?"
"Yes. Bets on Gender in May, anybody?"
"Maybe it's the universality of gender that appeals to the examiners. After all, everyones's got one, some people more......."
"I have been thinking, why not reshape the entire section A of the exam? The one question as it stands asks the students to write about how representations are created through the technical aspects. From my experience examing in the summer, this leads a lot of students to strain to make very unconvincing links between things like, for example, sound/ camerawork and gender.
Why not split section A into two parts:
- part 1, asking students to comment on the technical aspects of the piece and the effects they achieve.
- part 2, asking students to comment on the representations. Students could comment on any representations they thought were relevant, not just one area. They could get extra credit for commenting on how directorial choices and filming/ editing techniques bring about these representations."
"I think that’s an excellent idea. Efforts to make precise links between the technical areas and the topic of representation are often artificial and perhaps limit the students’ expression of their understanding of the concept. I also think it’s a bit odd that some of the topics like disability and social class never seem to come up."
"I like Jonny's idea about the 2 part Section A, 1 on technical features, one on representation - it's kind of like the GCSE Section A where the first question is on genre, second on linking technical areas to audience response, third on representation. I personally feel the 'strain' in trying to link every technical feature to representation - sometimes sound/editing/mise-en-scene don't contribute to constructing a representation, they are just there to tell the story or help us to empathise."
"I also agree completely... but then it's probably too straightforward..."
On the first strand here, our priority is to find sequences for the exam which we believe candidates will have an equal chance of writing about. Eventually, all the areas on the specification will turn up in the exam, but at our question paper meetings we often reject sequences from those areas which have not shown up so far because there is something about the sequence which we feel will not work in exam conditions. Many such sequences would be fine in a normal lesson but just not in an exam.
On the second strand, to be fair to everyone, I should let you know that any changes to a specification have to go through a lengthy process via OFQUAL, so it isn't really straightforward! (by lengthy, I'm talking about 3-4 years from something being suggested to the first exam being sat) so the current G322 format will remain for a long time yet.