Example #3: Criterion A

In order to be successful, the report should make the learning goal explicit. An element of Ai that candidates can find more challenging is to clearly explain the connection between their learning goal and their personal interest. Instead, the learning goal and the personal interest are often treated as two separate descriptions, without providing a clear explanation of the connection between the two. 

Candidates are asked to explain how a personal interest ‘led to’ a learning goal. To fully address criterion Ai, it is not enough that candidates state the learning goal and describe their personal interest. They also need to address the connection between the two and provide reasons or causes for why there is a connection between the personal interest and the specific learning goal they ended up choosing. 

Successful candidates generate a meaningful learning goal that are a standalone element of their overall goal and not identical to the intended product. The learning goal serves candidates best when it is moving away from simply learning how to create the product, which otherwise often would lack depth and restrict candidates from a worthwhile learning experience, with the only focus being on creating a product. 

Example

Level: 7

The learning goal is somewhat vague in definition, but even so, it’s clear by reading the narrative that the student intends to learn animation.

There is an explanation of how personal interest in different visual arts led to the learning goal of learning animation. Reasons are provided for why the student chose this specific goal, such as they have always wanted to learn animation, due to it being difficult and time-consuming. But, with the personal project and by choosing this learning goal, the student sees the opportunity to learn animation.

Candidates provide success criteria for their product. Candidates include information about how their product success criteria were ‘appropriate’. For level 5-8 in criterion Aii, it is required that the success criteria presented by the candidate are appropriate, and it cannot be assumed that each reader of the report has specialist knowledge within the specific topic area to be able to judge whether the criteria are appropriate or not. This means that in some way or form it must be clear in the report as to why the specific criteria presented by the candidate are appropriate. Ways of providing this information can be in the narrative in the body of the report, as part of a rubric/table, or other ways that the candidate finds appropriate.

Example

Level: 6

The intended product is stated as producing an animation.

Multiple criteria are presented. These have some details, considering both the rubric and the details in the narrative. In the paragraph above the criteria rubric, the student addresses each criterion, providing some information about how they are appropriate — however, this is quite weak.

A best-fit approach is used to determine the strand level, considering that there are quite some details in the criteria, but there are weaknesses in showing how they are appropriate.

A candidate’s plan should be for achieving the product and only items in the plan relevant to the product itself should be considered when awarding levels for Aiii. Other items (such as writing sections of the report, submitting draft, contacting supervisor, etc.) may be helpful for the candidate in their overall project, but should not be considered when assessing strand Aiii. 

Candidates sometimes neglected to ensure that their plan included how all of the product success criteria should be achieved. The candidates who achieved the greatest success in criterion Aiii clearly identified which of the stated success criteria were being addressed in each stage of the plan. 

Example

Level: 2

In the section of the report called "Plan for achieving the product", the first paragraph and the research table consist of a record of what has been completed, so this is not planning.

The calendar has a mix of items completed, items irrelevant to the product, and some items possibly connected to achieving the product. Only items relevant to the product should be considered when marking this strand, and these are very limited. The plan has no clear links to show how the success criteria could be achieved. The plan is not focused on the product and does not show how it would allow the student to achieve their intended product.