Station 5 · Criterion D · max 8 each strand
Evaluate
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.
What you submit
One PDF of 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.
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
Evaluating your own work: judgements, not description
What matters most at Criterion D
For every point, show the moment with a timestamp, explain the impact on the audience and evaluate how effectively it communicated your artistic intention. Then, in strand ii, discuss how you have developed as an artist through Expressionistic theatre.
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 Telegrammstil or all about mechanical movement.
- Include at least one point on what could have been stronger in your own performance and explain why that change would have worked.
“Although this section of the performance was certainly impactful, perhaps it could have been more prominent if space was also explored, such as reaching extremely close to the audience or physically moving my entire body as opposed to just my arms, in response to the incoming influx of notifications.”
It names exactly what could have been stronger and what the change would have been. The next sentences in the original go on to say why it would have worked.
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 the Expressionistic 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.
“This opportunity to create a devised piece of theatre pushed me to step beyond conventional theatrical methods, encouraging me to experiment with abstract, expressionist techniques such as fragmented movements, disjointed dialogue, and overlapping soundscapes.”
The growth is tied to named Expressionistic techniques rather than a general “I learned a lot”.
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
The official MYP Arts assessment criteria.
Mark bands, strand ii, development as an artist
What prevents you getting top band at Criterion D
- Describing instead of evaluating. “We used Telegrammstil” 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. “Schrei” said once is not evidence. Use the terms accurately throughout.
- Padding. Concise and analytical beats long and descriptive.
See the structure in a top grade 7
Last year's evaluation is Brechtian, so read it for the shape of each point: the claim, the timestamp, why it worked and what could have been stronger.