Worked example · Art · Year 11
DCF: Producing → Evaluating and improving digital content
A secure Year 11 response, annotated so you can see which success criterion each part meets. Answer key for Step 3: image 1 is 4.00 by 4.00, blurred, not distorted; image 2 is 0.06 by 0.05, distorted, not blurred; image 3 is 0.44 by 0.44, fine (it is only sideways); image 4 is 2.25 by 2.25, blurred, not distorted. Photograph 9 should be 180 pixels tall. Other rankings in Step 2 are fine if they are justified, but slide 1 and slide 4 should be near the top: they hide the intention and the experiments.
| Slide | Strength | Biggest problem | AO it hides | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | None. | Layout and content. Pale yellow on white cannot be read, and there is no big idea or intention, so the moderator starts with no idea what Nia is trying to do. | AO4 | 1 |
| 2 | A relevant Welsh artist who painted the Rhondda valleys. | Content. Pasted biography with no source and no analysis. The image has no title, date or credit and is blurred. | AO1 | 3 |
| 3 | She took lots of first-hand photographs. | Layout. 14 equal thumbnails and no captions, so her selection is invisible. Photograph 9 is squashed. | AO2, AO3 | |
| 4 | Three different digital experiments. | Content. “It looks cool” describes a feeling, not a decision. All three edits are the same size, so nothing shows which one she took forward. | AO2, AO3 | 2 |
| 5 | The best annotation: it explains a technique, links to Zobole and sets a next step. | Layout. The drawing is sideways. | AO3 | |
| 6 | A finished outcome exists. | Layout and content. Photographed at an angle with glare, blurred, with no title, media, size or evaluation. | AO4 |
Every slide is judged for both layout and content, and each problem is tied to what a moderator would miss. It credits slide 5 as a strength instead of criticising everything. Evidences criterion 1.
| Image | Width scale factor | Height scale factor | Blurred? | Distorted? | How to fix it |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1200 ÷ 300 = 4.00 | 900 ÷ 225 = 4.00 | Yes | No | Find a larger image from a reliable source, such as a museum or public collection website, and credit it. Do not stretch a small file. |
| 2 | 240 ÷ 4000 = 0.06 | 150 ÷ 3000 = 0.05 | No | Yes | Lock the aspect ratio when resizing, so the height becomes 180. |
| 3 | 540 ÷ 1240 = 0.44 | 764 ÷ 1754 = 0.44 | No | No | Nothing wrong with the file. Rotate it 90 degrees so it is upright. |
| 4 | 1440 ÷ 640 = 2.25 | 1080 ÷ 480 = 2.25 | Yes | No | Re-photograph the painting straight on, in even light with no glare, and move the full-size file by email, cloud storage or cable, not a messaging app. |
Photograph 9 should keep the 4000 by 3000 shape. Height = 240 × 3000 ÷ 4000 = 180 pixels, the same as the other 13 photographs.
Correct calculations with working, and the pupil explains the difference between enlarging (blur) and changing the shape (distortion). Note that image 2 is distorted even though it was made smaller. Evidences criterion 3.
Layout: the chosen mirror edit is shown large (760 by 760 pixels, smaller than its 1080 by 1080 file, so it stays sharp) with a red border. The two rejected edits sit small in a column, numbered in the order she made them. The heading asks the question the slide answers. The annotation is on the right at 24 point, so it can be read on a board.
New annotation: The panorama keeps the true colours but spreads the town too thin. The blue overlay adds a cold mood that does not suit a place I love. The mirror filter works best: the valley sides meet in the middle, so the terraces seem to hold on to each other, which is my intention. Next, I will draw the mirrored version in 4B pencil.
The layout creates a hierarchy: the eye goes to the chosen experiment first. The annotation (63 words) stays true to the slide, judges each edit against the intention, and ends with a next step, so the slide now evidences selecting and experimenting (AO2) and recording insights (AO3). Evidences criterion 2.
First, I rewrote slide 1 with a readable title, the big idea and Nia’s intention, so a moderator knows what she is trying to do before seeing any work. This supports AO4, because a response can only realise intentions that are stated. Second, I cut slide 3 to 5 captioned photographs, fixed the squashed one and rebuilt slide 4 around the mirror edit with an annotation that explains a decision. This makes her selection and experiment visible, which is AO2 and AO3. Third, on slide 2 I replaced the pasted biography with Nia’s own analysis of one painting and a full credit line: artist, title, date, medium, collection and the website it came from. A moderator must be able to tell her words from other people’s, and AO1 rewards understanding of sources, not copying. I also rotated the drawing and re-photographed the final piece.
144 words. Three specific changes, each justified by what a reader who has never met Nia needs, and each linked to an assessment objective. The credit line names every part a reader needs to find the source again. Evidences criteria 4 and 5.
Slide 3: keep only the 5 photographs that were stitched into the panorama, with her best one shown first and larger, and a short caption under each. Example caption: “Photograph 5: taken from the mountain road at 16:00. The low sun picks out every row of roofs, so I used it for the blue overlay and the mirror edit.”
Credit line: artist, title of the painting, date, medium, and the collection that owns it, then the website the image came from and the date it was accessed. Nia needs the title and date first. A museum or gallery’s own collection website is more reliable than an image search, because it is the owner’s own record.
Title slide: “Cynefin: holding on to the valley. I want the rows of houses in my town to look as if they are holding on to the valley sides.”