Need support?
Our Story
Resources
To switch between our Student and Educator sites, click here. 
How independent studies are marked (by me).
In today’s post I’ve set out rather a lengthy document. This attempts to explain just how independent studies will be assessed using the current IB film criteria (at least by me and most of my team/s). As examiners our role is to gauge as accurately as we possibly can, just how well your students’ work performs against these descriptors.
I’ve based my document and the podcast on my reflections from marking and moderating the marks for more than 170 independent studies during the May 2013 session.
Listen to my podcast here: Not sucking in the IS
Not sucking in the Independent Study
The independent study is a very complex task, so any explanation should begin with the assessment criteria so you know you’ll be getting something right. The following table is the one used to mark SL indepedent studies. You should aim to meet (and if possible exceed) the assessment descriptors as set out in this.
For my part, as a senior examiner for the IS I tend to award credit on the basis of how each IS performs against each key phrase in the descriptors. In my written review at the end of each script, I tend to, and mix and match the phrases to that which best describes the script in terms of the descriptors. This way I can find the ‘best fit’ mark for the work. I’ve been marking these for 9 years without problem so I believe that this is an extremely method of judgement.
You should obviously bear these descriptors in mind in preparing and writing your screenplay package.
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
| 1–5 | There is little or no understanding of the film history/film theory topic. Engagement with the target audience, scope and depth of argument, the use of sources and the structure of the script are all limited. Visual and audio elements are incompletely described and poorly linked. Films referred to may have some relevance to the topic but little use is made of them in the script. |
| 6–10 | There is some understanding of the film history/film theory topic. Engagement with the target audience, scope and depth of argument, the use of sources and the structure of the script are relevant in parts, but still limited. Visual and audio elements are fairly well described, although links may be inconsistent. Films referred to are mostly relevant to the topic and some use is made of them in the script. |
| 11–15 | There is an adequate understanding of the film history/film theory topic. Engagement with the target audience, scope and depth of argument, the use of sources and the structure of the script are adequate. Visual and audio elements are well described and satisfactorily linked. Films referred to are relevant to the topic and are clearly integrated into the script. |
| 16–20 | There is a good understanding of the film history/film theory topic. Engagement with the target audience, scope and depth of argument, the use of sources and the structure of the script are good. Visual and audio elements are clearly and coherently described and are, in the main, aptly linked. Films referred to are relevant to the topic and are well integrated into the script. |
| 21–25 | There is an excellent understanding of the film history/film theory topic. Engagement with the target audience, scope and depth of argument, the use of sources and the structure of the script are excellent. Visual and audio elements are detailed, clearly and coherently described, and are aptly and proficiently linked. Films referred to are highly relevant to the topic and are coherently and fully integrated into the script. |
The key phrases are as follows:
- There is (limited – some – adequate – good – excellent) understanding of the film history/theory topic
- The quality of;
- Audience engagement
- Scope and depth of argument
- Use of sources
- Structure of the script
The levels are (limited – relevant but limited – adequate – good – excellent)
- Visual and audio elements are (incompletely – fairly well – adequately – clearly and coherently) described, and (poorly – inconsistently – satisfactorily – in the main part aptly – aptly and proficiently) linked
- The films used for the script (have some relevance – are mostly relevant – are relevant – are highly relevant) toyour chosen topic and ([little use – some use] is made of them – are [clearly – well – fully] integrated) into the script. Exploring what each of these phrases actually means should help to understand what to include in your IS.
- Understanding of the film history/theory topic – Excellent means that you’ve chosen your topic with care and paid particular reference to a clearly acknowledged issue in film history and/or film theory if you choose a topic of film history – you should demonstrate your understanding in this through your clear and focused analysis of the films you choose to study, and the construction of a clear and convincing argument (which obviously relates to the scope and depth of argument)
You should explain your approach in your rationale:
- Film History – This focus should be on how the changes occurring in the institutional contextof the film have impacted on the construction of meaning in specific sequences from the film – Institutional context means clear changes to the industry, to audience reception and to the broader cultural context of production. You will be expected to make an argument that shows how these are clearly visible based on evidence from analysis of specific sequences in your chosen films
- Film theory – this is a little more straight forward you will use evidence for the analysis of specific sequences from your chosen film to explore a clear area of film theory, this can include genre studies, representation, narrative, auteurist etc. (you must make reference to specific academic approaches). It seems evident from examining these scripts that there is no often little distinction film history and film theory in most excellent scripts, they interact with one another
1. Audience engagement
Your target audience is serious IB film students of a similar age to yourselves. Don’t be tempted to try to engage the target audience with silly jokes or a casual narration, the audience may be your peers but they are serious students of film (the actual readers will largely be middle aged women and men). So, it’s probably important here to stress SERIOUS.
The VOICE you use should be your own (I tend to believe that IS’s who use just V/O tend to be more successful than with a visible MC or narrator,). If you really must use an O/S narrator avoid lengthy passages of an her/him talking to camera, this is really boring.
Your best approach is to want to share your passion for the material with your peers, and that that you want to teach them something about your insights into this topic. If you keep this in mind you should be ok.
This assessment descriptor is fairly closely related to the structure of the script.
2. Structure of the Script
This judges how well you’ve understand techniques of documentary film making. Your use of appropriate terminology is one way to establish this; expressions like sound bridges, L-cuts and J-cuts help to describe your audio/visual structure where audio overlaps with a new clip, you also could use a term like B-roll to describe the source material (imagine that you’ve created a roll of film with all your resource material trimmed and in the correct order ready to have V/O or inserted).
It’s also important to structure exactly how you use clips to illustrate the points of your argument, this relates to the ‘visual and audio elements are described’ descriptor.
What follows are a few of examples of poor practice and solutions in improving this;
- Where the script of the clip is merely copied on to your own screenplay, including all the dialogue.This wastes space (which you have very little of) and the examiner knows that you’re merely trying to pad out a poorly researched and thin argument.
- To allow a clip to run and then adding in narration afterwards, this doesn’t help the flow of your documentary and may also impact on engagement with target audience.
The solution to both of these problems is that unless hearing dialogue is vital try to avoid this, describe your clip in as much detail as you can detail, paying particular attention the filmic aspect your point tries to make and explain your point as a V/O (in the audio column) simultaneously, some students indicate a reduction of the audio from clip to a lower percentage so that the V/O is most audible. Using narrow columns, leaving unexplained gaps at the beginning and ends of pages tends to really annoy examiners, I tend to write BLACK SCREEN? (visual column), and SILENCE? (audio column), this draws attention to the poor structuring of the script.
3. Use of sources
The dominant style of Documentary film for the IS is expository (look this up) other styles just don’t seem to work well for this assessment task. What this means is that you have to construct an argument and convince your audience of its merits. Instead of using just quotes (as you might do in a literature essay) you will use a variety of primary and secondary sources, including pre-shot interviews, quotations and sequences from the actual movies you’ve selected (and perhaps other).
On the whole I believe it’s best not to invent interviews from quotes, just have them spoken as V/O with a photo of the cited individual, or better still use them to illustrate a point with a movie sequence or Ken Burn(sie) style montage of stills.
Everything you use should be listed in the annotated listed of sources. How you organise this is key and is also a little too complex to be addressed here
One of the most important uses of source material is the evidence you unearth through your theoretically or historically focused textual analysis of primary sources, the actual movie sequences. This relates to
4. Scope and depth of argument.
At SL your IS’s should use a minimum of two films, one from a film culture unfamiliar to you. In practice this will mean a film not made in the English language. If you insist on using two English language films, the script will perform poorer against this descriptor.
Remember your argument is to be made on an issue of film history or film theory. This means that you’ll have to understand the topic well enough to find appropriate films to use in support of your ideas. The depth tends to come from the way that you use your film (ie. film theory or history focused textual analyses), basing your argument on plot alone or on generalised observations of the films is no depth at all. An argument which makes points based on evidence from detailed analyses of filmic elements placing a focus on the area of history or theory you’ve selected has great depth.
• Description of Visual and audio elements
This is mostly about appropriate detail, you should try to describe your visual elements in as much detail as you can. Begin by a brief description of the action in the sequence (in most cases the examiner will know the film but assume they don’t, so make this as clear as possible), then include a coherent description of the filmic elements appropriate to the point you’re making (you must use appropriate terminology).
As I’ve pointed out already avoid copying the script of the clip to your own screenplay, including all the dialogue, this is poor practice and wastes space (which you have very little of) and the examiner knows that you’re merely trying to pad out a poorly researched and thin argument.
5. The Relevance of your chosen film and use you make of them in your screenplay
Firstly the relevance of the films relate to how well they help you to make your argument, your choice of films should be made on the basis of how well they can demonstrate you understanding of the area of film history or theory.
Figure this out first, then find your films, not the other way around.
The use you put them to is a combination of how well the sequences you use support your argument, and how well you are able to place the films into context of each other in terms of the film theory/history topic, at HL you’d be expected to make direct and insightful comparisons between all four film, just be glad this is only SL.
