Dramatic intention drives every choice
A stimulus is not an intention. The intention answers "what effect do we want on an audience?" -- e.g. to make them feel complicit in a bystander's inaction. Once agreed, it is the test for every later choice: does this scene, character detail or piece of staging serve the intention, or just pull focus? Examiners reward candidates who explain not just WHAT they devised but WHY a choice served the purpose -- a chain of reasoning from intention to practical choice.
Structure shapes material; character is built
Structure is not plot. Plot is what happens; structure is the deliberate ordering of it for effect -- exposition, escalation, climax, resolution, or flashback/episodic form. Opening in the aftermath and flashing back builds curiosity. Credible characters are built from a clear objective (what they want in a scene), repeatable physical and vocal choices, a defined relationship, and specific detail -- not a single label like "the bully", which limits evaluation.
Drawn from real examiner reports.
Retelling the plot, not evaluating
The most-cited Section C fault: describing the story and the characters' actions like a synopsis, without evaluating the devising DECISIONS behind them. A question asking "how you structured your piece" wants the process -- what was tried, rejected, kept, refined, and why -- not a description of the finished performance.
Digest -- Section C: narrative retelling, all three sittings (June 2022 P12, P13; Nov 2022 all papers Q10; June 2023 P11 Q11, P12 Q10, P13 Q10).
Process confused with performance
When a question asks how something was created DURING DEVISING, describing how it appeared IN PERFORMANCE instead. This caps the answer regardless of how well written, because it answers a different question -- the marks are for rehearsal-room decisions, not the finished look on the night.
Digest -- Section C: process confused with performance, capped at band 3 (Nov 2022 P11 Q10, P12 Q10, P13 Q10).
Assertion without evidence
"Our structure was very effective" or "the character was believable" with no explanation of the specific choice that made it so -- the hallmark of a weak, low-band comment. Every claim needs a named practical detail, how it was built in devising, and its intended effect on the audience.
Digest -- Section C: unsupported assertion-only evaluation (June 2022 P11 Q11; Nov 2022 all papers Q11).
Describing what, not how or why
Accurately stating WHAT the structure or character was ("we used a flashback"; "my character was shy") but not HOW it was built in rehearsal or WHY it served the intention. Add the method and the reason to each description, not just the label.
Digest -- Section C: the "what" not the "how"/"why" (June 2022 P11 Q10; June 2023 P11 Q10).
Characters left as a single trait
A character existing only as a stereotype or single trait ("the bully", "the shy one"), undeveloped -- which limits what can be credibly evaluated, because there is little chosen material to explain or justify. Build the character through sustained, specific choices so there is something to evaluate.
Digest -- Section C: characters as stereotype/trait, undeveloped, least effectively answered (June 2023 P11 Q10).
Structure just means the order of the plot
Thinking structure just means "first, second, third" -- the very fault examiners flag. Structure is an active decision about ordering material for effect: opening on the final image, repeating with variation, or an episodic sequence. A structure answer should complete "we shaped it this way BECAUSE we wanted the audience to feel X" -- if it cannot, it has described plot.
Digest -- Terminology: structure given as narrative accounts of story/plot (June 2022 P12 Q11; June 2023 P12 Q10).
Reflect, analyse, evaluate -- not retell
Do not open with a plot summary. Reflect: name the specific structural/character choice. Analyse: explain how it was reached -- what was tried, discussed, refined -- and quote a moment. Evaluate: judge how well it served the intention, ideally citing a real reaction.
Quote a specific moment
Quoting specific dialogue, a line or a piece of blocking from your own piece, rather than describing it generally, is what distinguishes top answers. Attach one concrete moment to each claim you make about structure or character.
Be honest about limits
If the devised work was a monologue with little interaction, say so honestly rather than inventing interaction that did not happen. A weighed answer that names a real limitation reads as genuine evaluation, not overclaiming.
Section C of the written paper asks you to evaluate your own devised piece -- not describe it. This topic covers the two building blocks examiners return to most: giving the piece a clear dramatic intention and structure, and building credible characters -- plus the practical skills of dialogue, pacing, physical space, and giving/taking direction that bring both to life.
Full notes, flashcards, Q&A and the topic quiz for every premium subject.
Premium plans are US$8.99/month or US$49.99/year — first month free.
Studying with a parent's blessing? Show them this.
