The comparative study enables candidates to gain knowledge and understanding of artworks. Most candidates demonstrated the ability to answer this task appropriately and well. 

Often comparative studies were insightful and supported by thorough research. Many presentations were of a high standard with sophisticated discussion and innovative analysis. In the work of many higher-level candidates the connections with their own art making were creative and the study had clearly been investigated in parallel with studio and process portfolio work. These studies effectively addressed the criteria and exceeded expectations. 

Candidates who analyse art works, rather than simply describe them, are the most successful. Giving a brief account, or citing a fact, is not analysing and this is the reason that many candidates do not achieve beyond the mid mark level. The ability to use evidence to support the interpretation and evaluation of art works is a feature of good responses. Evidence comes from accurate observation of the selected art works and from related contextual research; these are skills that some candidates are well taught. However, many lack the ability to evaluate evidence and to make an appropriate selection of knowledge. 

A common fault is to compare artists rather than artworks. Selecting art works that lead to a meaningful comparison is important. Poor choices resulted in simplistic bullet point lists, often presented in Venn diagrams. Candidates often involve extra works in the study; this is successful when it enhances the contextualisation of the principal selected artworks. However, a lengthy sequence of works all analysed at the same level does not achieve depth of understanding. It is advisable to concentrate on three clearly defined artworks. 

While candidates must link art history or artist biography in the comparative study to the analysis of the selected works, too much unrelated and irrelevant information can be detrimental. Using research and analysis to support opinion was difficult for some. While there were some very good responses, a number were primarily descriptive, or highly opinionated, based on conjecture and misunderstanding rather than referenced evidence. Unfortunately, there were still a number of candidates who had not been taught the necessary research and analytical skills to tackle this task well. 

Some candidates fill the first screens with illustrations and titles to little effect. The guide asks for an introduction, and the best candidates realise that this is the moment to introduce the nature of their comparison, just as they also realise the importance of drawing their discussion of similarities and differences to a considered conclusion. These responses indicated the focused thinking required by the top-level descriptors.

Repetition of ideas and information was frequent. This is particularly the case on screens dedicated to comparing and contrasting, which often simply repeat earlier points. The best candidates understand that the whole study is a comparison and develop this discussion from the start in the manner of a well-argued presentation of ideas.

Comparative study assessment shorthand: