Evaluate, do not narrate
Section C rewards evaluation, built from three moves: reflect (what did I/we do and intend?), analyse (how did it work, and why did I make it?), and evaluate (how effective was it for the audience, weighing strengths and limits?). This differs from narrating -- retelling the plot. It is a reflective account of the PROCESS of creating and rehearsing, and a judgement of how well it worked. Examiners credit naming a choice, explaining the thinking, then judging its effect.
Evidence it; process vs performance
Two things separate top-band from mid evaluation. Evidence: name a specific moment, quote a line or blocking, or cite director, peer or audience feedback -- not "it was effective". Process vs performance: when asked how something was CREATED, describe rehearsal decisions (what was tried, changed, rejected), not how it looked on the night. An answer describing only what the audience saw is capped. A devising log kept during coursework is the surest source.
Drawn from real examiner reports.
Retelling the plot, not evaluating
The dominant Section C fault across all three sittings: a scene-by-scene account of the story rather than an evaluation of how it was devised and how effectively it communicated. A weak answer reads like a summary for someone who missed the show; a strong one explains specific decisions and judges how well they worked, with evidence.
Digest -- Section C: narrative retelling, the dominant fault, all three sittings (June 2022 P12, P13; Nov 2022 all papers Q10; June 2023 P11 Q11, P12 Q10, P13 Q10).
Assertion without a reason
"We were successful", "it was effective", "we worked well" with nothing behind them -- the hallmark of a weak, low-band comment, because the examiner cannot credit an unverifiable claim. Every judgement needs a reason and ideally evidence: not "the tension worked" but why, with a specific moment or piece of feedback.
Digest -- Section C: unsupported assertion-only evaluation (June 2022 P11 Q11; Nov 2022 all papers Q11).
Process confused with performance
Describing how a moment LOOKED on the night rather than how it was DEVELOPED in rehearsal, when the question asks how something was created. This is capped at a low-to-mid band regardless of writing quality, because it answers the wrong question -- the marks are for the devising process.
Digest -- Section C: process confused with performance, capped at band 3 (Nov 2022 P11 Q10, P12 Q10, P13 Q10).
One-sided praise, no limitation
An "everything worked" account with no honest limitation reads as unevaluated. Genuine evaluation weighs a strength against a real weakness -- a moment that did not fully land, a decision that, in hindsight, could have been developed differently -- which shows judgement rather than uncritical praise.
(general exam technique)
Sub-text drift instead of technique
Drifting into a character's backstory, motivation or psychology instead of the practical technique used to create an effect and its impact on the audience. AO2 concerns communication to an audience, so explain the concrete choice and what the audience experienced, not the internal justification.
Digest -- Section C: sub-textual/psychological drift instead of practical technique (June 2023 P11 Q11).
Evaluating with no live audience
Having no experience of performing to a live audience undermines the ability to evidence audience impact. Where possible, base judgements on how a real audience responded (a gasp, a laugh, a silence); if the piece was not performed live, be honest about that limit rather than inventing reactions.
Digest -- Section C: not having performed to a live audience undermines evidencing impact (June 2023 P13 Q10).
Detailed description counts as evaluation
Assuming a long, detailed account of the piece is itself an evaluation. It is not: length is not judgement. A genuine evaluation states effectiveness (what worked, what did not, why), with evidence, about the PROCESS. A vivid description of the final performance can still score lowest if it never judges how well a choice was developed and communicated.
Digest -- Section C: narrative retelling, including detailed narrative answers, all three sittings (June 2022 P12, P13; Nov 2022 all papers Q10; June 2023 P11 Q11, P12 Q10, P13 Q10).
Use reflect -> analyse -> evaluate -> link
Per point: reflect (the choice and your intention), analyse (how it developed in rehearsal -- tries, feedback, changes), evaluate (how effective, with evidence and an honest limitation), then link back to the audience effect. Quote a moment or feedback at each stage.
Attach evidence to every claim
Support each judgement with something specific -- a named moment, a line, a piece of blocking, or feedback from a director, peer or audience. Unsupported claims cannot be credited; a before/after comparison from rehearsal is especially strong evidence.
Name one genuine limitation
Include at least one honest limitation alongside your strengths -- a moment that did not fully work, or a decision you would change. A balanced, weighed judgement reads as real evaluation and reaches the higher bands; one-sided praise does not.
Keep a devising log
A rehearsal diary kept during coursework preserves the process-level detail -- what was tried, changed, rejected, and the feedback received -- that Section C evaluation questions reward. It is the most reliable source of the specific evidence a top answer needs.
Section C of the written exam asks you to write about your own devised piece -- but the skill being tested is not "can you remember what your play was about." It is evaluation: can you reflect on your own contribution and the devising/rehearsal process, analyse how choices were made, and judge how effective they were for an audience. This is the single most-repeated weakness across every examiner report -- getting this skill right is worth more than any amount of extra devising theory.
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.
