This site uses cookie tracking technologies. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.
This criterion forms the core of your project and assesses the main body of your multimedia presentation.
It evaluates the quality, depth, and support of your analysis and evaluation regarding the impacts and implications of your chosen real-world example.
| Marks | Level Descriptor |
|---|---|
| 5-6 | The presentation offers effective, sustained, and well-supported analysis and evaluation of impacts and implications for people and communities. |
| 3-4 | The analysis and evaluation are adequate but is not always sustained or well-supported. |
| 1-2 | The analysis and evaluation are limited, primarily descriptive, or of little relevance to the inquiry focus. |
| 0 | The work does not reach a standard described by the descriptors below. |
This section is not a summary of your research; it must present your own sustained and well-supported analysis.
| Do | Don't |
|---|---|
| Integrate evidence from your sources smoothly into your own spoken analysis to support your claims. | Just read out long quotes or show large blocks of text on your slides. |
| Evaluate the impacts on different, specific groups (for example: teenage users, elderly non-users, content moderators, local businesses, etc.). | Talk vaguely about the impact on "society" as a whole. |
| Make clear, explicit arguments and then defend them with logical reasoning and evidence from your research. | Simply describe the features of a technology or a sequence of events. |
| Consider a balanced range of impacts: positive/negative, intended/unintended, to show a nuanced understanding and to show the ability of critical analysis of multiple perspectives. | Present a one-sided argument that ignores the complexity of the issue. |
It is not required for the multimedia presentation (video) to be visually appealing or highly engaging, but doing so can be a benefit, as it helps to maintain the examiner’s or moderator’s attention on the core of your critical discussion.
Remember that any data provided in the following exemplars is artificial and serves only as a sample illustration of what could be included in the video.
A top-scoring analysis is focused, critical, and evidence-based. It demonstrates the student's own thinking and a deep engagement with the topic.
(Spoken example from the video presentation):
While the stated aim of the Workaholic app was to provide flexible employment, its primary impact on immigrant workers in London has been negative. As shown in the data from the LSE study I referenced, 78% of these workers report earnings below minimum wage once vehicle costs are factored in. This demonstrates an unintentional implication: the app's algorithm, by prioritizing the lowest-cost service for consumers, has inadvertently created a system of precarious labor that disproportionately affects vulnerable communities, despite its promise of economic empowerment.
Furthermore, the user interface design has profound ethical implications for consumers. My research into UI/UX design principles, particularly from source 3, highlights the use of 'dark patterns' that create a sense of urgency while minimizing the visibility of the total service cost. It uses visual aspects, such as automatic sorting by price, along with icons and text fonts in vibrant colors, that encourage consumers to select the option with the lowest price. This means consumers are subtly encouraged to choose the cheapest option without fully considering the downstream impact on worker wages. Therefore, the app's design itself is a mechanism that reinforces the economic precarity I just mentioned, pitting the community of consumers directly against the community of workers.
This score is for an analysis that is adequate and makes some valid points, but the evaluation is not always sustained or fully supported by evidence.
(Spoken example from the video presentation):
The Workaholic app has had a negative impact on its workers. Many of them don't earn a lot of money, which is a problem. The app was supposed to help people find work, but for many, it hasn't improved their financial situation. This shows that the app isn't working as well as it should for everyone.
On the other hand, the app is good for people who need a flexible schedule. For students or parents, being able to choose when they work is a big benefit. This flexibility is an important impact of the app. So, while the pay might not be great, the freedom it offers is a positive thing for some people in the community.
(Spoken example from the video presentation):
The Workaholic app allows people to find jobs like food delivery or driving. Users open the app and select a job. A worker then accepts the job and completes the task. The app was created in Israel and now has over 5 million people using it.
The app's main competitor is an app called Taskwork, which also offers gig work but includes offers for additional full-time employment, which actually improves worker rights when comparing it to Fiverr, because it can lead to more employment opportunities, which Fiverr does not have, and this proves that digital technologies should be used to find work, but not when it comes to gig economies. Both apps can be downloaded on the Apple App Store and Google Play Store.