Sanjeev: Too brief to award any significant marks. Not all 4 technical areas were covered, there was minimal terminology used and it was more descriptive than analytical.
Martyn: Very good, analytical response to the question. Your use of terminology was excellent and you constantly referred back to the question. However, there was no analysis of camera work, which meant that quite a few marks were lost from each AO. E,A,A: 12, Ex: 12, T: 5
Naksunn: Again, very good analytical response to the question. Excellent use of terminology and constant reference to the question. However, no analysis of editing. Therefore, marks were dedicated from each AO.
E,A,A: 12, Ex: 12, T: 5.
Elizabeth: No written answer on blog
Tania: Very good response, your terminology and analysis were very good and supported by excellent, specific examples from the text. To improve, refer to specific editing techniques in your anwwer to develop your writing on fast and slow paced editing.
E, A, A: 17, Ex: 16, T: 5
Martyn: Very good, analytical response to the question. Your use of terminology was excellent and you constantly referred back to the question. However, there was no analysis of camera work, which meant that quite a few marks were lost from each AO. E,A,A: 12, Ex: 12, T: 5
Naksunn: Again, very good analytical response to the question. Excellent use of terminology and constant reference to the question. However, no analysis of editing. Therefore, marks were dedicated from each AO.
E,A,A: 12, Ex: 12, T: 5.
Elizabeth: No written answer on blog
Tania: Very good response, your terminology and analysis were very good and supported by excellent, specific examples from the text. To improve, refer to specific editing techniques in your anwwer to develop your writing on fast and slow paced editing.
E, A, A: 17, Ex: 16, T: 5