Example #3: Criterion C

Few candidates go beyond being descriptive and provide a detailed account including reasons or causes for why the project had an impact on them, so why it mattered. 

Example

Level: 3

The Reflecting section of the report, addressing Ci, mainly consists of a description of what the student has completed during the project, and very little about the impact the project had on the student or their learning. At the beginning of the paragraph there is an outline of learning around animation with Krita. However, this is quite vague and brief.

Candidates are often successful in going back to their success criteria to review their completed product. Most candidates also manage to generate a final, complete product. To reach the higher levels of Cii, candidates need to evaluate (making an appraisal by weighing strengths and limitations) their product by systematically going through each of their stated success criteria. Simply describing their product, even if doing so in alignment with the aspects of the success criteria, will not qualify as an evaluation according to the command term definition. 

Another commonly observed fault in Cii is to present results from a survey without further analysis of that data, which will not account for as an evaluation either. Candidates should be guided to not just present results from a survey or the views of others. If candidates choose to survey others for opinions on the quality of their product, at a minimum the candidate has to interpret that data to make an appraisal of the product’s quality, by weighing up strengths and limitations. 

Example

Level: 6 

The student evaluates the product, based on the success criteria. All criteria are systematically used, and there are both strengths and limitations identified in the product for most of the criteria. The evaluation is partially supported, mainly with examples within the evaluation, but also with some images.