Criterion D · Task 4 · max 8 each strand
Evaluating
Two strands. Strand i evaluates your own performance. Strand ii reflects on your development as an artist. Both must be anchored to the video with timestamps. If the examiner cannot see it, it does not exist. Structure every point with PEEL or with the what, how, why framework, whichever you prefer.
Your written response must refer directly to your performance video using timestamps. The examiner will watch your video alongside your written work.Criterion D, examiner note
What you submit
One PDF of 1,000 to 1,200 words across 4 pages. One introductory paragraph, three main body sections and a conclusion. Structure every point with PEEL or the what, how, why framework, whichever you prefer, and use it consistently. Both do the same job: name it, show it, say why it worked and the impact it had on the audience.
Evaluating your own work: judgements, not description
At 5 to 6 you must evaluate, not just analyse. At 7 to 8 the evaluation is nuanced: it identifies what could be improved and explains why that would work. The student who only writes about what worked is sitting at 5 to 6.
- Write 3 to 4 points on the performance, each anchored to a timestamp the examiner can watch.
- Cover production as well as performance. Blend them into one paragraph or write separate paragraphs, but both must be covered.
- Use a range of techniques, not all about direct address or all about gestus.
- Include at least one point on what could have been stronger in your own performance, and explain why that change would have worked.
“In this moment you can see me at the down stage center on the floor as I begin to speak in Hindi. This is spoken in a distressed manner as a plea directly to the audience; the use of Hindi in this moment means that many of them will not understand, forcing them to disengage to think of the possible translation.”
“However, I believe the direct address could have been further emphasized by me actually going up to the audience, one person at a time, and begging, in Hindi, for them to help me or at least understand me. This would have placed audience members in an extremely uncomfortable position.”
Nuanced judgements with depth and insight, identifying improvements and explaining why they would work.
You as an artist: growth, setbacks and what you learned
A balanced, reflective consideration of several aspects: growth, setbacks, learning and collaboration. This section is about you, not the performance. Honesty is what lifts it: a thoughtful response to three questions beats a shallow pass at four.
- Write 3 to 4 points on your artistic development: collaboration, refining work, recognising what was not working, taking creative risks.
- Name a challenge you met and how you overcame it, focused on meeting the SOI or working within your style.
- Add 2 to 3 points of critical reflection: peer feedback you applied, what you would do differently, what you learned about theatre’s power.
- Pick three and go deep rather than skimming everything.
“Personally, I believed I was doing a reasonable job with my over the top physicality but I was informed by my classmates that was not the case; I was apparently too one dimensional. After taking some time to look back on rehearsal videos I noticed that there were key moments where I seemed to slack off.”
“We simply were not giving the audience enough time to really think about what we were trying to convey. So after taking some time to deliberate as a group, we pinpointed key moments in our performance where we would slow down or add alienation.”
Balanced and reflective across growth, setbacks, learning and collaboration, with the setbacks given as much weight as the growth.
Mark bands, strand i, your own work
Mark bands, strand ii, development as an artist
One claim about direct address, at four levels
Band 1 to 2Describes
“We used direct address in our performance.”
Says it happened. No timestamp. No effect. No SOI.
Band 3 to 4Analyses
“The direct address broke the fourth wall, which created a Verfremdungseffekt.”
Technique named, effect named. But no timestamp, no judgement of effectiveness, no SOI link.
Band 5 to 6Evaluates
“At (2:30) the direct address was effective because it forced the audience to confront cultural bias rather than passively watching.”
Anchored to a timestamp, evaluative claim made. But it is one sided. Only what worked, no nuance.
Band 7 to 8Thoroughly evaluates
“A second performance technique I utilised to demonstrate the damaging effects of beauty standards was direct address as seen at 4:57. In this moment you can see me at the down stage center on the floor as I begin to speak in Hindi. The translation of my dialogue in the scene is “this is my tradition; this is my identity”. This is spoken in a distressed manner as a plea directly to the audience; the use of Hindi in this moment means that many of them will not understand – forcing them to disengage to think of the possible translation. Meanwhile, besides me, another actor grabs a placecard which contains a mistranslated version of my dialogue and presents it to the audience. The contradiction between my Hindi and the placecard exposes how detrimental miscommunication can be especially against individuals from marginalized communities who are often spoken over, mistreated and hidden behind harmful stereotypes. This forces the audience to face the reality that often society forces people t”
From the 2026 exemplar. Timestamped, the technique named, the impact on the audience explained, and it goes on to name what could have been stronger and why that would have worked.
What prevents you getting top band at Criterion D
- Describing instead of evaluating. “We used gestus” is not Criterion D. Was it effective? Why? What would you change?
- No timestamps. If the examiner cannot see the moment, the claim does not exist.
- Discussing footage that is not in the video. Only what is on screen can be marked.
- Only writing about what worked. Top band evaluation names what was less effective and explains why. It is better to be balanced and honest than to make everything seem like it was always perfect.
- SOI only in the introduction. If your SOI disappears from paragraphs 3 to 8, you are at 5 to 6, not 7 to 8.
- Terminology dropped in, not used. “V effekt” said once is not evidence. Use the terms accurately throughout.
- Padded word count. 1,000 to 1,200 words is the target. Concise and analytical beats long and descriptive.
Self check before you submit
Strand i and strand ii. Criterion D readiness.