2010 HSC Notes from the Marking Centre — Entertainment Industry
Contents
Introduction
This document has been produced for the teachers and candidates of the Stage 6 course in Entertainment Industry. It contains comments on candidate responses to the 2010 Higher School Certificate examination, indicating the quality of the responses and highlighting their relative strengths and weaknesses.
This document should be read along with the relevant syllabus, the 2010 Higher School Certificate examination, the marking guidelines and other support documents which have been developed by the Board of Studies to assist in the teaching and learning of Entertainment Industry.
Teachers and candidates are reminded that if candidates are undertaking the 240-hour VET Industry Curriculum Framework in Entertainment Industry and they want to undertake the HSC examination in Entertainment Industry they need to be entered separately for the examination through Schools Online (Administration) by the due date that is published in the Higher School Certificate Events Timetable
General comments
Teachers and candidates should be aware that examiners may ask questions that address the syllabus outcomes in a manner that requires candidates to respond by integrating the knowledge, understanding and skills they developed through studying the course.
Candidates need to be aware that the marks allocated to the question and the answer space (where this is provided on the examination paper), are guides to the length of the required response. A longer response will not in itself lead to higher marks. Writing in excess of the space allocated may reduce the time available for answering other questions.
Candidates need to be familiar with the Board’s Glossary of Key Words which contains some terms commonly used in examination questions. However, candidates should also be aware that not all questions will start with or contain one of the key words from the glossary. Questions such as ‘how?’, ‘why?’ or ‘to what extent?’ may be asked, or verbs may be used which are not included in the glossary, such as ‘design’, ‘translate’ or ‘list’.
Candidates need to be encouraged to draw from their experiences from both the practical and theoretical aspects of the course. Examples from their direct work placement experience, school simulations and media etc should be used to support their responses in all questions. Candidates must remember that this course has a practical basis and as such answers should include practical examples where applicable.
Candidates should be exposed to a range of industry experiences. There is a need to ensure that candidates are given the opportunity to consider all topics, not only from the viewpoint of the traditional theatre but also in a wide range of alternative venues. Similarly, it is extremely important for candidates to consider the role of all major industry bodies as well as the people involved in the entertainment industry.
While candidates often undertake some of their work placement hours in a school environment, it is important that they are exposed to scenarios related to the industry as a whole. Candidates need to understand the difference in personnel between small-scale and large-scale productions, and that personnel in smaller productions often undertake more than one production role. It is important that candidates recognise this but do not blend these roles in their understanding of the entertainment industry as a whole. In a small production, for example, the lighting designer often rigs the lights and operates the desk. Candidates need to understand that these roles are usually carried out by different people in larger productions.
Section II
Question 16
-
Stronger responses demonstrated an understanding of the need for a site visit. These responses were detailed, specific and addressed a number of issues relevant to a site visit. The issues included audience size, room layout, rigging points, location and number of power outlets and OHS issues.
Mid-range responses tended to discuss only one reason for the site visit and provided limited detail.
Weaker responses sometimes confused the concept of a site visit with bumping in. They also tended to confuse vision systems with lighting.
Stronger responses demonstrated a clear understanding of the notion of legal issues. Candidates either discussed one issue thoroughly or several issues in less detail, and referred to both effects and consequences. The responses clearly linked the issues to the entertainment industry. They often referred to the role of APRA in enforcing the responsibilities of copyright legislation. Other examples of legislation included privacy legislation, child protection legislation and local council noise regulations.
Weaker responses named legal issues without any real description or application to the entertainment industry. Many did not identify a specific legal issue and simply mentioned the idea of noise pollution or the role of local councils without any real explanation.
Question 17
Better responses demonstrated a clear understanding of the scenario and the protocols associated with such a visit. They were also clear in their understanding of the concept of cultural diversity. Responses covered a range of strategies to establish the group’s needs and cultural protocols, including research on the culture and meeting with the visiting group prior to the event. They included methods by which they would disseminate this information to their team and also to the audience.
Mid-range responses discussed issues such as the need for research but did not provide much detail. They gave fewer examples of the ways in which the needs of the group could be met.
Weaker responses were limited in their discussion and often misunderstood the question, writing instead about the set-up of production elements for the visit.
Better responses demonstrated a strong understanding of a range of communication strategies and the ways in which these strategies would be employed to achieve the objective. They used relevant terminology, referring to both verbal and non-verbal communication, and were detailed in their explanation of these elements.
Weaker responses covered strategies in a very simplistic manner, often focusing on the concept of communication without relating much to the scenario. Their discussion of communication techniques was limited and there was a lack of relevant terminology.
Question 18
Stronger responses clearly identified an issue and explained how it had affected the specified areas. They presented a logical argument, often drawing on a relationship of cause and response in their discussion of employment, income and patronage. Issues that were discussed included the global financial crisis (GFC), emerging technologies and the pirating of music and films.
Mid-range responses presented logical arguments but tended to be less thorough in their explanation. Some candidates attempted to relate the question to more than one issue and tended to lose focus. Other responses in this range discussed one current issue well but did not relate it specifically to the entertainment industry.
Weaker responses briefly referred to an issue, but the relationship to the entertainment industry was tenuous. In discussing the issue, they tended to get caught up in its explanation and did not mention income, patronage or employment. Some issues discussed in weaker responses had little relevance to the question.
Question 19
Stronger responses demonstrated a cohesive understanding of the elements of risk minimisation and clearly put themselves into the context. They gave clear examples of ways to minimise the risk to oneself. Examples included checking for and clearing danger such as live wires, chemical spills, fires; using PPE such as gloves, masks; the issues of dealing with blood and other body fluids; calling for help; not lifting heavy objects; signage. While many of these candidates did refer to DRABC, they were able to clearly identify that the question was only related to the concept of danger (D). Risk management was inferred or directly mentioned in these responses.
Mid-range responses often relied more heavily on a discussion of the elements of DRABC and tended to get lost explaining procedures rather than focusing on the concept of danger alone. These responses did mention at least one element of danger that a first aid respondent would face and generally referred to the need for PPE without the detail of the better responses.
Weaker responses often repeated or paraphrased the question, without examining how the risk to oneself could be minimised. They tended to give a general first aid response concentrating on the concept of DRABC. If risk assessment was mentioned, it lacked context.
Stronger responses demonstrated a clear understanding of the reason for reports and subsequent policy adjustments. They demonstrated a good use of terminology. These responses referenced specific legislation and legal documents, and linked the implications of incident reports to these. They gave specific examples of how venues could change their policies as a result of the reports.
Weaker responses were often generalised and repetitive. They tended to give a brief definition of an incident report with limited reference to why it was important.
Question 20
Stronger responses demonstrated a clear understanding of the role of the auxiliary channel as an input or send device. They provided relevant examples, including iPods, foldback, laptops and recording devices. When describing the use of auxiliary send, candidates gave examples such as sending the drums with multiple microphones to a submaster thus enabling a single fader to control drum volume.
Weaker responses often incorrectly identified the AUX channel, sometimes confusing it with a lighting control.
Stronger responses demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the purpose of the equaliser, mentioning mid, high and low frequencies. Specific examples included eliminating feedback, changing the frequency of a kick drum or adjusting sound to suit a specific venue to provide acoustical improvement.
Weaker responses correctly identified EQ as the equaliser, with a limited understanding of its purpose. They tended not to include a specific example and used limited terminology.
Stronger responses included a variety of possible solutions, including pre-show checks, repositioning microphones and speakers, switching off or turning down the effects on offending channels. Candidates made overt reference to live performance with time-based solutions. The responses gave reasons for the actions rather than just providing a checklist.
Mid-range responses listed some possible causes and actions to be taken or tended to concentrate on only one action. Some industry terminology in these responses was used out of context.
Weaker responses defined feedback without offering a workable solution. They also misinterpreted feedback as an element in the communication cycle.
Section III
General comments
Candidates need to ensure that they read and address all aspects of the question in their response. Any scenario or production role that is given for extended response questions is included to provide a context for the response. It is important that candidates take time to familiarise themselves with the scenario and to consider all the information provided.
When a production role is used in a question, candidates should give careful consideration to that role and the implications it has for the question. The requirements for production roles differ in a range of contexts in the entertainment industry.
Candidates need to be aware that detail is required in both the holistic and structured extended response. Candidates need to draw on their experiences from the course overall rather than try to pigeonhole questions to specific topic areas. Concepts from all core areas can be used in responses as appropriate. A wide range of examples from work placement, class simulations and media files should be used in responses.
Question 21
In stronger responses, candidates provided a comprehensive explanation of the safety officer’s role, the strategies used and actions taken to ensure safety at an outdoor summer event. These responses demonstrated knowledge underpinning the entire production process, including elements of risk assessment, safety inductions, pre-production site visits, OHS and legislation, documentation, communication and meetings. They clearly defined the strategies required to eliminate risk to performers, crew and patrons, with appropriate examples for each group. They included detailed explanation of the strategies, rather than just listing them. There was extensive use of industry terminology and relevant workplace examples were often integrated.
Mid-range responses addressed the role of the safety officer and the strategies used to ensure safety at an outdoor summer event in a general manner that lacked specific detail. They often defined strategies to eliminate general risks to performers, crew and patrons but did not treat them as discrete groups. These responses often lacked cohesion and logical sequencing of information, at times only listing possible risks. They used some industry terminology and workplace examples.
In weaker responses, candidates did not explain the role of the safety officer, limiting their explanation to some risks associated with an outdoor event eg sunburn or dehydration. They presented a generalised or limited understanding of strategies that could eliminate risks. These responses were brief and often repetitive, with very limited use of terminology.
Question 22
When attempting structured extended response questions candidates should try to provide the same level of detail, explanation and analysis as they would for other extended responses.
Stronger responses demonstrated a clear understanding of the fact that the producer and director have completely separate roles. They related each role directly to the lighting designer, recognising that the director maintains creative control, while the producer is involved in administration. They provided a clear picture of the way in which these three roles would interact in the pre-production period of the show and described the development of relevant documentation in this phase of the production. These responses were thorough and well integrated.
Mid-range responses usually described the role of either the producer or the director well with little reference to the other. They often linked the two roles together. The candidates often described the role of the lighting designer quite well but did not show the relationship between the director and producer.
Weaker responses demonstrated a limited understanding of the relationship between the roles. In most cases, they described the job of the lighting designer and the job of a combined person called the director/producer.
- Very few candidates clearly demonstrated an understanding of the different jobs that exist in the lighting crew. Most referred only to the lighting designer and the ‘crew’ in a generic sense. There was no delineation between the different relationships that the lighting designer would have with the desk operator and the rigging crew.
Stronger responses presented definite ideas of different departments eg costume, make-up, stage management and technical crew. They showed a connection between the departments and provided reasons for the importance of the lighting designer maintaining a relationship with other departments. They discussed such elements as the need for departments to consider colour choice and the need for cooperation during bump in. The candidates referred to relevant documentation which would facilitate the interaction of the departments and often used workplace examples. These responses had a strong command of entertainment industry terminology.
Mid-range responses often described the communication cycle and methods of communication rather than how the departments would work together. The responses generally described colour mixing and the need to work with the costume, set and make-up departments to ensure that lights do not wash out the colours they have chosen for their component of the production. They often only discussed the relationship between the lighting designer and the lighting crew, with little reference to other departments.
Weaker responses made little or no reference to other departments. They presented a limited understanding of the relationship of the lighting designer to the crew and there was little use of industry specific terminology.
20110101
NSW Government