BTEC Level 3 Music & Music

Technology
Online Standardisation 2013-14
Practice
SSV Commentary

Level 3, Unit 25: Music Production

Techniques

Issue 1
September 2013

BLANK PAGE

Overall comments on the materials

The aim of this unit is to develop learners awareness of the equipment and techniques used in
recording studios to the extent that they can produce a complete studio recording. This
Assignment Brief targets GC2, GC3 and GC4. GC1 is addressed through a separate assignment.
The Assignment Brief is flawed in that the evidence requirements do not take the unit
specification assessment guidance into consideration in terms of meeting each grading criteria
in full. Submission of DVD footage of the set-up of microphones and recording equipment,
supported by tutor Observation Records will generate appropriate evidence; however, learner
access to D2 (mastery of the processes) is compromised in the absence of further evidence.
Similarly, the final mix CD, again supported with tutor Observation Records, represents limited
evidence and compromises access to all grades for GC4. It is possible to assess whether the mix
is competent or not (M4), although the unit assessment guidance does indicate that for GC3 the
unmixed recording should also be submitted; however, D4 requires confidence and flair (and
the assessment guidance expands this to include creativity and imagination) which would
require further evidence showing thought processes behind the mix and explaining why certain
effects/techniques have been implemented by the learner in his role as producer. No other
evidence has been requested. Had the Assessor added submission of a recording log or written
report to the task list, evidence would have targeted the full range of grades. In addition to this,
tutor Observation Records would have been necessary to confirm independence was shown
when setting up equipment for GC2, as well as strengthened evidence to allow access to all
grading levels.
The deadlines published in the Assignment Brief are for December 2012, and this is probably a
typing error since the Assignment Brief was signed off by the Internal Verifier in September
2011! There is no formal start date shown on the Assignment Brief which adds to the confusion.
The timeframe is too vague, and the Assignment Brief would have benefited from more specific
interim deadlines within the delivery period with details of the evidence required at each stage.
Assessor feedback is minimal, undated, unfocused and sometimes inaccurate in that grading
criteria are incorrectly referenced. The feedback and comment for GC2 awards a Merit but, in
giving advice on what to improve for a higher grade, simply repeats the grading descriptor for
M2. Similarly, the feedback for GC4 (awarded a Merit) suggests that complete independence is
required for D4; however, the grading descriptor for D4 specifies confidence and flair.
Feedback needs to be more detailed, accurately linked to targeted GC and specific to dated
assessment activities, rather than general comments. There is no specific feedback in relation to
the video clips (GC2) for example, and the comments for GC3 are vague and give no idea of
dates or what actual evidence is being assessed.
There is an internal verification system in place. However, there are a number of inadequacies
in the process meaning that a robust and effective internal verification process does not yet
operate in this centre.

Comments in relation to questions

SECTION A: THE ASSIGNMENT BRIEF
A1: No
The Assignment Brief has major discrepancies in relation to timing of assessment activities.
There is no issue date on the Assignment Brief, and the Assessor and Internal Verifier have
signed the brief as verified at the beginning of September 2011, when work was due for
submission in December 2012. Whilst there is no indication of when the Assignment Brief was
issued to learners and it is not therefore possible to judge exactly whether timescales were
appropriate, had the Assignment Brief been issued in September 2011, the timescale would
have been much too long. There is the possibility that internal verification dates suggest that
this brief was issued in 2012 for assessment in 2012 and is a brief which was issued and
internally verified in 2011 now being reused for a subsequent cohort in 2012, Were this the
case, the brief should have been internally verified prior to re-issue to check the
appropriateness of dates and timescales as well as checking the brief is suitable for the new
year and cohort.
A2: No
Task 1 simply asks learners to choose their microphones and explain their choice on DVD. GC2
focuses on the setting up of recording equipment as well as microphones, and would need an
explanation of routing into the studio. GC3 requires learners to actually capture audio sources
using multi-track recording techniques. Care needs to be taken when cross-referencing tasks to
criteria, especially when mapping a task to more than one criterion, that the task will actually
address the criteria.
A3: C
The evidence specified in the Assignment Brief is not appropriate to target criteria GC3 which
requires capture of audio to a multi-track recording device and submission of an unmixed
recording, as stated in the unit assessment guidance. Access to higher grades for GC2 and GC4
is also compromised by the stated evidence requirements because further evidence would be
needed, for example a recording log or a written report explaining the process. There are flaws
in the structure of the Assignment Brief, as further to the Assessment Evidence section, some
evidence requirements have been embedded within the assignment outline and tasks, but these
are vague. Essential forms of evidence such as Observation Records and the unmixed recording
have been overlooked.
A4: Yes
The use of language in the Assignment Brief is appropriate and accessible for Level 3 learners.
The informal tone is likely to appeal to learners whilst remaining inclusive. The Assessor could
have provided more guidance within the tasks to enable learners to understand the
requirements of the higher grading criteria, but reading the tasks in conjunction with the
grading criteria listed on the Assignment Brief should allow all learners equal access and
opportunity to address the criteria.

SECTION B: STANDARD OF LEARNER WORK

B1: No
The evidence provided in the series of DVD clips shows that the learner can confidently explain
a set-up and configuration of microphones and recording equipment for a session. However, in
the absence of DVD evidence of the learner actually setting up the equipment and routing
himself, which was specified in the Assignment Brief, and Observation Records in accordance
with the unit assessment guidance which states it is essential that observations are carried out
rigorously to support higher grading, evidence presented for M2 is not sufficient as there is no
indication of the learner actually setting up with total independence he can be seen alone in
the studio explaining the set-up but whether he actually did this himself is not entirely evident.
The Assessor has provided some comment on set up in the summative Assessment Feedback
sheet, but this alone is not sufficient.
B2: C
The evidence provided consists solely of the final mix recording, and therefore it has to be
assumed that the audio material had to have been captured in order to mix it. However, this on
its own is very weak in terms of authenticity. Submission of the unmixed audio, with evidence
that the learner did actually record it (e.g. a recording log) is needed to award a grade. Unit
assessment guidance states for P3 learners will submit the unmixed audio and for M3 the tutor
observation report will show correct use of the appropriate skills.
B3: No
The evidence provided consists solely of the final mix recording so it has to be assumed that the
audio material was captured by the learner in order to mix it. However, this on its own is very
weak in terms of authenticity, therefore the learner has not presented sufficient evidence.
Application of M4 might seem consistent with the recording as the final mix shows competence
with regard to balance and dynamic control (there is no clipping) and there are no adverse
effects through the application of equalisation. However, without evidence of the accompanying
written report and unmixed recording, it is hard to assess how the original recording has been
enhanced further than any previous rough mix, as might be evidenced through screenshots or a
recording log.
B4: Yes
The DVD clips are clearly recorded and filmed, the learner is identifiable and the recording of
the final mix evidences a very basic competency in production. Irrespective of the gaps in the
evidence, the video and audio recordings are of sufficient quality to enable assessment to take
place.
B5: Yes
In the DVD clips the learner is articulate and uses appropriate language for the sector when
focusing on specific technical equipment. The lack of written reports should have an impact on
grading decisions, but the learners verbal communication is appropriate to the level of
qualification.
B6: No
The learner has not responded effectively to the evidence requirements set in the Assignment
Brief. The Assessment Evidence section of the brief asks learners to produce a CD of the final
mix and a video of them setting up the equipment and explaining what they are doing. In
respect of the video, the evidence provided shows the learner explaining equipment which has
already been set up and configured, without showing him independently setting up and routing.

SECTION C: ASSESSOR AND INTERNAL VERIFICATION ACTIVITY

C1: No
As there are no clear timescales provided in the assessment records and no submission dates,
there is no evidence to suggest a timely assessment process. Assessment dates are recorded on
the Assessment Feedback sheet (3/1/12 and 22/3/12). These assessment dates are significantly
after the submission deadlines in the Assignment Brief which indicated that assessment was to
take place on 5/12/12 and 20/12/12. There is also a date of 16/11/2011 at the top of the
Assessment Feedback sheet. The assessment records are unclear in terms of what activity is
being assessed and when.
C2: No
The internal verification process has failed to identify that the evidence requested will not
adequately satisfy the targeted grading criteria and that the deadline dates are questionable
without a clear start date. The Internal Verifier has incorrectly signed off the Assignment Brief
as fit for purpose.
C3: No
Although there are some very general comments relating to GC2, there is no specific feedback
for the live practical work featured on the DVD footage. The feedback should have included
reference to the wider range of equipment and configurations required for the recording
session, and whilst the Assessor comments on the learners confidence, there is no specific
feedback relating to the degree of independence shown, nor the quality of the learners verbal
commentary and the degree of understanding this demonstrated. Actions for improvement
relate solely to the learner needing to show more confidence, which is neither clear nor specific
in the guidance provided toward achievement of the higher grading criteria for GC2.
C4: C
The Internal Verifier has not correctly verified the decisions of the Assessor. Firstly, the internal
verification form has been completed in respect of one just criterion, M4. Even if assessment of
the remaining criteria was still at a formative stage, there should still be feedback to the
Assessor in relation to the criteria awarded. Assessment decisions have been made in respect of
GC2, GC3 and GC4 but the Internal Verifier has neither verified the accuracy of these nor fed
back to the Assessor in relation to these criteria.

Summary of Answers

A1

No

A2

No

A3

A4

Yes

B1

No

B2

B3

No

B4

Yes

B5

Yes

B6

No

C1

No

C2

No

C3

No

C4

Authorised by Adam Foley

All the material in this publication is copyright.
Pearson Education Limited 2012 (Edexcel)
Pearson Education Limited. Registered company number 872828 with its registered office at Edinburgh
Gate, Harlow, Essex CM20 2JE