3 Workshop 2 All Pages a G

8/19/2019 3 Workshop 2 All Pages a G

1/18

OCR GCE Music (H142) Composing 1 Unit

G352

Workshop 2: Sections A & BInterpreting the Criteria

How to allocate the marks

Folios 1 - 4


2/18

Workshop 2

Power Point for note taking

G352 Principal Moderator Report

Interpretation of the Coursework Criteria

Update of Inset 2013 Materials

Delegate Mark Sheets (4)

Section A/B Folios (4)

Track Listing CD Section B recordings


3/18

REPORT FOR PUBLICATION TO CENTRES BY PRINCIPAL EXAMINER / PRINCIPAL

MODERATOR

Level of Examination GCE

Month and Year of Examination June 2014

Specification/Unit Code G352 Specification/Unit Title GCE Music Composing 1

Component Code 01 Component Title H142

Examiner’s Name (BLOCK CAPITALS) MELANIE THORNE

Notes for Guidance

1. The Report must be produced using Microsoft word and then submitted electronically.

2. Please keep a copy for your records in case the file submitted becomes corrupt.

3. The Report must be emailed to the awarding mailbox no later than 2 days prior to the awarding meeting. The final

report to be emailed to PE Report mailbox no later than 5 days after the awarding meeting.

4. If you have any queries please refer to the Instructions for writing the OCR Report to Centres booklet that can be found

on the Assessor’s section on the OCR website.

Please tick the appropriate boxes below:

X

Pre Award draft of report email to: [email protected]

Post Awarding final report email to: [email protected]


4/18

Please title your email as follows:

Final Report to Centre: RTC_Qualification Type_Subject_Unit code(s)_Component Code_Series_Year,’

for example:

Final Report to Centre: ‘RTC_GCSE_English Language_A680_01_June_14’


5/18

Content of the Report

1. The purpose of this Report is to

provide guidance to teachers who are

preparing candidates for future

examinations, and it should be as

positive and helpful as possible.

(a) Section 1 (General Comments) should outline the overall performance of the

candidates, giving praise where due and advice where necessary.

(b) In Section 2 (Comments on Individual Questions) you should normally comment onevery question, even where it has been answered successfully by nearly all candidates -

positive encouragement is just as important as criticism.

Each comment should outline the main features required by the Mark Scheme

accompanied by a brief report of how the candidates responded (giving some specific

examples rather than vague generalisations) and how the responses were marked.

The Report might explain any special allowances made in the marking for unforeseen

difficulties arising from the question paper but frequent references to leniency or

severity in the Mark Scheme should be avoided.

(c) Your Report should identify any parts of the specification which appear to be creating

the greatest problems for candidates.

2. A report on coursework components

should include some or all of the

following:

(a) comments on the nature of tasks set by Centres for coursework and their appropriateness

to the requirements of the specification and the competence of candidates;

(b) comments on teachers’ application of the assessment criteria;

(c) comments on teachers’ annotation of coursework and recording of marks;

(d) references to examples of particularly good practice.

3. (a) Reports should not be written in the first person. For example, ‘There was an

improvement in ....’ should be used instead of ‘I was pleased to see an improvement

in.........’.

(b) No reference should be made to specific Centres or parts of the world, and direct

criticism of teachers should be avoided.

(c) The word ‘candidate’ should be used rather than ‘pupil’ or ‘student’, and ‘Centre’

instead of ‘school’.

4. You should not include the

following in your report:

(a) references to shortcomings in the question papers, criticism of the specification, OCR or

its Committees;

(b) references to administrative difficulties;


6/18

(c) lengthy references to candidates’ ‘howlers’ or large numbers of statements concluding

in exclamation marks;

(d) vague statements such as those which indicate that good candidates performed well

while poor candidates performed badly;

(e) statistical analyses of samples of scripts.

5. (a) If symbols are used they should be underlined with a straight line if they are to appear in

italics and underlined with a wavy line if they are to appear in bold type.

(b) Questions should be referred to as, for example, Q.3(a). The words ‘Examiner’ and

‘Centre’ should start with a capital letter.

(c) Numerical answers to Science and Mathematics questions should be placed at the end of

each question unless special instructions to the contrary have been issued.


7/18

1. General Comments:

There was a good variety of work submitted for G352 this year in both Sections A and B. Deadlines were mostly met

and Special Consideration for late submissions was applied correctly. The majority of submissions completed the

requirements of the specification regarding the amount of exercises submitted for Section A and scores and recordings

submitted for Section B. There were few clerical errors this year.

The presentation of the work was good and the efforts made by centres was appreciated. Queries regarding missing

items or clarification of details on the exercises was dealt with swiftly and professionally by the majority of Centres.

Some CDs did not work or were damaged in transit, but these were replaced quickly by Centres.

In Section A it is crucial that Centres choose the correct exercises that will be most beneficial to their own students -

these could change from year to year. The most successful Centres offered a variety of genres and difficulty that was

most appropriate for their own candidates. The more able students could be encouraged to complete more than the basic requirement of two exercises in full-texture and the minimum requirement length of an eight bar exercise. Some

candidates submitted more than the requirement of the six most successful exercises completed during the course - this

is not necessary. Preliminary exercises and exercises that only contain cadential progressions are not needed for this

final submission.

Some centres have continued to include several hymn/chorale texture exercises - it is recommended that no more than

two exercises in this genre are submitted. It is especially important that SATB style exercises are not the only full

texture exercises included in the submissions. To achieve marks in the upper bands of the coursework criteria,

moderators would be looking for a variety of genres and continuation of different textures together with correctrecognition of Harmonic pace.

There were often too many folk tunes included in submissions. Some were used as the only minor example and were

more modal in concept. Tonality in folk tunes can be ambiguous and cause unnecessary problems for candidates.

Some exercises were not sourced from real music, as required in the specification, and were made up by the Centre.

All exercises should name the title and composer together with the date of completion of the exercise. There were

several examples of the exercise completed under supervision not being identified or dated. The inclusion of draft

copies of the exercises is to be encouraged - no more than two is necessary. As this is a coursework unit, it is very

useful for moderators to see the amount of input and guidance made by the teacher.

Correct and appropriate incipit material included in the exercises is vital for candidates. All exercises should include

at least two bars in full or two-part texture. Candidates should only be required to add a bass line to the melody with

correct chord indications, or complete the exercise in full texture. Some incipit materials this year consisted of bass

line only, melody and bass line, soprano and alto parts - too much harmonic implication is given and not accounted for

in the final marks awarded by the centre.


8/18

Some Centres included exercises in full texture that were completed in open score format. The more able candidates

were often able to complete these well but less able students struggled with this format, especially in technique, and

could have been given the option of short score format.

The Timed Test should reflect the skills learnt by candidates during the course. As with the choice of exercises, the

most successful candidates completed exercises that were appropriate to their individual abilities. Exercises for this

test should not have been completed by other candidates in the same cohort and it is recommended that the exerciseshould not be familiar to the candidates. It is expected that the standard achieved by the candidates in this test are

taken into account when the final mark for this section is awarded. It is vital that the test is not returned to the

candidate to be re-worked and submitted.

In Section B there was a good selection of genres that really allowed candidates to submit compositions or

arrangements in styles with which they were familiar and enjoyed. As in previous years, compositions were more

popular than arrangements. There were some good arrangements that allowed candidates to demonstrate an inventive

quality to the original stimulus. However, there were also submissions that were mainly transcriptions with little

added material included.

It was felt that commentaries were generally of a very good standard. Some were over-long and contained

unnecessary screenshots of the candidates' own compositions/arrangements. More candidates are taking time to

research their chosen genre which in turn reflected on a real understanding of their own work. The less successful

candidates were only able to cite their Set Works as listening material and this often had little influence on their own

compositions/arrangements.

Technique is a section where candidates often do not have the skills with which to successfully develop and extend

their initial ideas. It is probably the weakest area and one that needs the most careful guidance from the Centre.

Many of the scores are now completed using Sibelius software and are very clearly presented. More care has been

taken with regard to the addition of appropriate performance directions. However, the less successful candidates

added little or no detail to their scores which in turn reflected on computer-generated recordings. Candidates could be

advised to add this detail as an ongoing process to the completion of the score. It is very time consuming to add all

detail after the score has been completed and is often inadequate or irrelevant.

2. Comments on Individual Sections:

Section A - The Language of Western Tonal Harmony

Centre assessment of this section, especially of Harmonic Language, was often very generous. It is expected that

candidates are able to demonstrate the full range of language when marks are awarded in the top two bands of

assessment. Too often, candidates were only able to demonstrate a secure use of primary chords, few or no dominant

and supertonic 7ths. Cadential 6/4s were understood well but there were very few examples of the correct use of


9/18

Passing 6/4s. Candidates should be advised not to use chords iii and vii unless their application is correct. There were

examples of these chords being applied when modulations were not recognised.

It was felt that too many exercises in two-part textures were completed 'by ear' and the chord labelling was added after

the bass line had been written. As a result, there were some awkward chord progressions and again evidence of the

misuse of chords iii and vii. Some candidates were able to include chord vii correctly and it was pleasing to see V7d-

Ib used in some exercises. Some centres encouraged the use of Neoplitan/French/German 6ths in certain exercises, but it would have been more beneficial to have understood the harmonic requirements of this unit.

In Technique, candidates were often able to recognise and treat modulations correctly. Textures were continued well

when an appropriate incipit had been given. The more able candidates were able to be a little more inventive with

their textures and allowed them to develop alongside the melodic material. Many centres were able to give

constructive help in the draft exercises without giving direct solutions of problem areas. When direct solutions are

given, centres should take this help into account in their final assessments.

In Notation, there were examples of very good and accurate work. Despite the use of Sibelius software, errors can still

be made and should be carefully checked. Many undetected errors were found in mislabelling of chords, including

their inversions.

It was pleasing to see so many encouraging comments on the coursework but these need to be accurate. It was

disappointing at times to see comments and marks that were incorrect and gave the wrong feedback to the candidates.

Section B - Instrumental Techniques

Centre assessment of this section was generally more accurate. As previously mentioned, the more successful work

was achieved when candidates had undertaken a broad amount of listening or performing that in turn reflected on their

own compositions/arrangements. When candidates are able to work with a strong knowledge of appropriate materials,

it is more likely that they will be able to develop and extend their initial ideas through a range of techniques.

Instruments were often well chosen in this section. Generally the more successful candidates chose quartets or

quintets. Working with smaller groups at this level gave the candidates the opportunity to really understand theirchosen medium. There were, however, some excellent submissions using larger forces but too often when too many

instruments were chosen, this lead to unnecessary doubling and a misunderstanding of the capabilities of all the

instruments. More candidates were including instrument-specific techniques that were relevant to their compositions

and enabled candidates to further explore a range of textures through their correct usage.

There were many compositions this year that were far too short of the required three minutes in length - some lasted

just over 1'00''. In these cases, this reflects mostly in the Technique section where candidates have not been able to

fully develop their ideas. Some compositions were chosen requiring a very slow tempo - this is quite acceptable but

the specification requirements are still the same and candidates need to be aware that the composition works as an

entity when only submitting a work of forty or fifty bars. Structures of compositions/arrangements were often very

clear, but some candidates were only able to generate length through excessive doubling and repetition. Here again,

knowledge through detailed listening, should direct candidates to understand how to use and extend their initial ideas.


10/18

Scores were generally presented to a very good standard. They were clear and accurate regarding notation but often

lacked consistent performance directions. Most CDs worked, and the preferred format for moderators is Audio rather

than Data. Candidates should be encouraged to produce an individual CD to be included in their coursework, rather

than just one for the whole centre.

Overall, Centre assessment is often too generous in Section A, choosing marks in the top bands, where clearly

candidates are not including the requirements of the Specification, and applying the incorrect marking criteria. There

are now resources available to assist Centres in the choice of exercises for this section - these can be found on the

OCR Training Hub. Candidates offer a wide variety of genres for Section B and the standard achieved by them is

often outstanding and a pleasure to hear.

Where necessary, please continue the Report on separate sheets of paper.

Signature of Principal Examiner/

Principal ModeratorMelanie Thorne Date 16 July 2014

Name in BLOCK CAPITALS MELANIE THORNE


11/18

Interpretation of the Coursework Assessment Criteria for

AS Unit G352: Composing 1

Section A: The Language of Western Tonal Harmony (45 Marks)

1. Harmonic Language

Assessed under this heading: harmonic recognition in relation to the given melody, awareness of the harmonicrhythm, use of range of vocabulary, connecting chords in appropriate ways at and between the ‘main markers’ of aphrase.

17-20

marks

Wholly appropriate use of the full range of the required harmonic language.

The inclusion of diatonic chords, dominant and supertonic sevenths. Cadential and passing 6/4s

where appropriate. Harmonic rhythm used correctly. Inclusion of chord labelling.

13-16

marks

Almost entirely appropriate use of the full range of the required harmonic language.

As above, possibly with some misjudgements. Missing opportunities for sevenths chords at times.

Inclusion of chord labelling.

9-12

marks

Mainly appropriate use of most of the required range of harmonic language.

Appropriate use of primary chords with some use of dominant and secondary sevenths. Harmonic

rhythm not always accurate. Some chord labels missing. Good recognition, but too much help given in

the Incipits throughout the exercises.

5-8

marks

Some appropriate use of a limited range of relevant harmonic language.

Only primary chords with misjudgements and weak cadences. Poor harmonic rhythm recognition.

Many chord labels missing.

1-4

marks

Some use of relevant harmonic language.

Poor understanding with muddled tonality. Little understanding of harmonic rhythm. No chord labels.

0

marks

No use of relevant harmonic language.

Very incomplete work submitted.

2. Technique

Assessed under this heading are the technique that connect the language; bass line shaping, understanding of voice-leading and modulation, continuity of texture from a given opening.

13-15marks

Very secure control of all necessary techniques. Inclusion of all 4 techniques demonstrating a thorough knowledge of different styles andrequirements through the exercises.

10-12marks

Mainly secure techniques.Inclusion of all 4 techniques with some errors. Bass line shaping inconsistent but some good


12/18

awareness. Modulations identified but not always treated correctly. Voice-leading understoodbut inconsistent. Continuation of texture identified but lacking in imagination.

7-9marks

Moderate control of most necessary techniques.Inclusion of most techniques with some misunderstanding and errors. Not fluent. Generallysecure, but too much help given in the Incipits throughout the exercises.

4-6marks

Limited control of some techniques.Some techniques not apparent. Modulations missed. Awkward bass lines. Voice leading notapparent. Texture not always continued.

1-3

marks

A little technical control.

Some awareness but little idea how to handle these techniques.0

marksNo technical control. No understanding of techniques.


13/18

3. Notation

Assessed under this heading: communication by the accurate and legible use of staff notation.

9-10marks

Entirely accurate/clear.The use of ‘Sibelius’ software does not guarantee full marks here. There should be noinaccuracies which includes incorrect chord labels.

7-8marks

Mostly accurate/clear. Very few errors. Candidates need to check for untidy rests, anacrusis, misalignment of

notes, incorrect chord labels.5-6

marksModerately accurate/clear.Readable exercises but containing a lot of errors as listed above and also missing time andkey signatures.

3-4marks

Clear in parts/some inaccuracy. Missing notes and difficult to read. Other errors as above but to a greater degree.

1-2marks

Unclear/many inaccuracies. Unreadable with little actual content.

0marks

No attention given to accuracy and legibility.

Section B: Instrumental Techniques (45 Marks)

1. Materials

Assessed under this heading: the quality of ideas and musical language that candidates present in their compositionsor arrangements; evidence of aural familiarity with a range of listening demonstrated in the composition itself andoutlined in the commentary. In arrangements, credit should be given for additional ideas that go beyond the givenmaterials of the lead sheet.

9-10

marks

Strong, inventive and confidently shaped materials informed by a broad range of

highly relevant language.Significant aural familiarity with a range of relevant listening. The ability to shape melodiclines or themes. The inclusion of rhythmic material and progressions. In arrangements,many additional ideas included; instrumental introductions and re-harmonisations of thegiven leadsheet. The use of countermelodies and changes in rhythm.

7-8marks

Effectively shaped materials informed by a range of relevant language. Some aural familiarity apparent. Good use of language appropriate to the chosen style. Inarrangements, some additional ideas using the original harmonisations.

5-6marks

Competent shaping of materials with some reference to appropriate language. The ability to demonstrate a competent use of materials through some aural awareness. Inarrangements, little added material. Harmony as in the leadsheet and few counter-melodiesor rhythmic additions.

3-4

marks

Some awkwardness in the shaping of materials with reference to a limited range of

language.Limited aural awareness and indistinct styles apparent. Materials poorly shaped with littleunderstanding. In arrangements, the submission is more of a transcription than anarrangement.

1-2marks

Indistinctive, poorly shaped materials. Little evidence of aural familiarity with relevantmodels.No listening apparent and materials used with very little understanding. In arrangements,little idea of the chosen style – very awkward with no direction.

0marks

Negligible materials. No evidence of aural familiarity with listening models.


14/18

2. Use of Medium

Assessed under this heading: the effectiveness of the writing for the chosen instrumentation; idiomatic understandingof instruments in both technical and expressive terms.

13-15marks

Inventive and wholly idiomatic use of instruments. A complete understanding of register, timbre, sonority and expressive potential of the choseninstruments. The way in which the instruments are combined in various textures should befully understood.

10-12marks

Mostly idiomatic use of instruments. It should be apparent that the writing for these instruments is idiomatic but some ranges ortechniques have not been fully explored.

7-9marks

Competent use of instruments. Some understanding of the chosen instruments is clear. Ranges and techniques are limitedand the combination through textural exploration is not always successful.

4-6marks

Simple use of instruments. It is not clearly apparent that there is a real understanding of the capabilities of theinstruments. There could be issues with balance in the chosen combination. Harp and piano writing is very popular but used with little understanding for example. It is better to useinstruments with which the student is familiar.

1-3marks

A little understanding of the use of instruments. It is clearly apparent that the candidate has not understood the capabilities of theinstruments in either technical or expressive terms.

0marks

No understanding of the use of instruments.

3. Technique

Assessed under this heading: the candidates’ ability to develop, combine and connect their ideas on the small scale,e.g. handling motifs, extending phrases, constructing rhythmic textures, exploring harmonic variation. The pacing ofevents, the use of contrast and repetition and the overall balance of the ideas within the larger structure.

9-10marks

Very secure control of all appropriate techniques. There is a clear understanding of combining and extending materials through a coherentstructure. The ability to contrast ideas both harmonically and rhythmically with the use ofcontrast and repetition.

7-8marks

Mainly secure control of all appropriate techniques. A good understanding of techniques is apparent but there is not so much security as above.Candidates need to be able to handle motifs, both rhythmic and melodic, and ensure theoverall balance of ideas is appropriate.

5-6marks

Moderate control of most appropriate techniques. A lack of some techniques is evident where the initial materials are appropriate for thechosen style, but the execution of the development of these ideas is limited to a degree.Some structures are devised in a formulaic way and the use of contrasts throughmodulations and textural devices are lacking in real control.

3-4

marks

Limited control of some appropriate techniques.

There is little development from the initial ideas. The composition or arrangement relies tooheavily on repetition without contrast.

1-2marks

A little technical control. There is no evidence of any real technical control in developing ideas within the structure.

0marks

No technical control.


15/18

4. Communication

Assessed under this heading: the ability of candidates to communicate their work effectively in both written andrecorded format. Accuracy of notation and the use of a range of performance/expressive detail are to be consideredin the score; the expressive aural communication of the composer’s intentions is assessed in the recording.

9-10marks

Accurate, detailed score with vivid communication in recording. The score is clear and detailed with relevant performance markings including tempo, phrasing, articulation, dynamics and other expression. The recording conveys a vivid aural

communication of the composer’s intentions.7-8

marksClearly presented score; an effective recording. The score is clear – some detail is missing and there is a certain amount of untidiness. Therecording is effective but not totally convincing.

5-6marks

Mostly accurate score; some effectiveness in recording. The score is mostly clear but could have more detail included - the score layout needs to becorrect with the inclusion of instrumentation at the beginning. The recording has someeffectiveness but could have problems regarding inaccuracies and imbalance.

3-4marks

Inaccuracies in the score; limited effectiveness in recording. There are many errors in the score and there is limited effectiveness in the final recording.

1-2marks

Incomplete notation; a little effectiveness in recording. The score is incomplete or not notated correctly eg using tab instead of conventionalnotation. The recording has little effectiveness. If this is a sequenced recording, the final

result is mostly dependant on the score itself.0

marksNotation and/or recording missing; inadequate communication of the composer’sintentions.


16/18

OCR GCE Music (H142) Composing 1 Unit G352

Workshop 2: Interpreting the Criteria

How to allocate the marks

This is an area where a lot of centres do not feel completely confident. Often the correct band is

chosen but then there is the problem whether to award marks at the top or bottom of the band.

Hopefully, the 'Interpretation of the Coursework Criteria' document will clarify a lot of grey areas.

This document clarifies all the requirements of the Specification and helps centres to choose the

correct band for their candidates.

The exercises relating to this Workshop from 2013, can be accessed on the OCR Training Hub.

Section A if often over-marked by centres. Delegates should familiarise themselves with the

Principal Moderator's Report for 2014 and also read the notes for Workshop 1. These 2

documents should clarify many of the uncertain areas of understanding the Coursework Criteria.

Section B is generally assessed more accurately by centres. Candidates often are able to write

or arrange music with which they are familiar or interested.

Materials:

A requirement of the specification in this section is that the candidate produces a commentary.

This should indicate to the moderator how various musical elements of listening and performing

have influenced and shaped the compositions or arrangements. Too often the commentary cites

listening undertaken during the course but does not indicate how influential the listening has been

in gaining a more secure aural awareness of the chosen genre. Any listening cited needs to be

relevant. When materials are weak, this can reflect on the marks in Technique as there is not

sufficient content to develop and extend the initial ideas.

Use of Medium:

This section contains the most marks in Section B as it is the most directly relevant section for

'Instrumental Techniques'. Moderators are looking for a real understanding of the chosen

instruments both as individual instruments and the ways in which the instruments combine

together. Sometimes candidates know the 'sound-world' they want to create, but have not really

researched the capabilities of the instruments. Candidates are often very successful when they

use their own instrument or an instrument that is closely related. If too many instruments are

used, the compositions or arrangements do not work and often the music contains a lot of

unnecessary doubling, or the instruments are under-used. If Instrument-specific techniques are

not included, candidates usually cannot access the top bands. If ranges are limited, although the

extremes of ranges are not a requirement, candidates usually cannot access the top bands.

Synthesized instruments are not appropriate for this unit - neither is the voice. If these are

included, marks cannot be awarded for these in this section.


17/18

Technique:

This is the section where candidates probably need the most help. Even when working within a

clear structure, ideas are often not fully developed or extended. It is good to include modulations,

but they need to be appropriate. Harmonic and rhythmic development should also be apparent in

this section. Sometimes structures are defined clearly; Theme & Variations, Rondo form - but

there still needs to be a clear development of ideas.

Communication:

Again, full marks are often awarded in this section, even when scores are missing significant

details and recordings show imbalance and poor quality. The majority of centres submit

sequenced recordings (72%) - and there is no reason why these cannot be awarded as high a

mark as a live recording if sufficient effort is made to produce an effective recording. Sequenced

recordings rely on detailed scores and candidates should be encouraged to include performance

directions as an ongoing procedure whilst inputting notes. Too often it is very obvious that the

performance directions have been inputted last minute and are not accurate or relevant.


18/18

Portfolio Marks & Comments: G352 Portfolio:

Section A: The Language of Western Tonal Harmony (45 marks)

Assessment headings Mark

Comments

Harmonic Language/20

Technique/15

Notation/10

TOTAL/45

Assessment headings

MarkComments

Materials/10

Use of Medium/15

Technique/10

Communication/10

(5/5)

TOTAL/45

3 Workshop 2 All Pages a G

Documents