The QR-Code Process Portfolio
An HL candidate working in digital animation and projection has 19 process-portfolio screens. Seven screens contain only QR codes linking to Vimeo time-lapse videos. Four screens show final renders. Three screens show artist research. Five screens are uncaptioned screenshots of software timelines. The candidate argues that the time-lapses are the only way to show timing and revision. The teacher knows the school’s assessment file is a static PDF and that external links may not be followed. The candidate also includes a collaborative projection piece made with two classmates; the screens do not say who did what. The candidate wants to use the QR screens to prove ‘hours of work’. The deadline is ten days away. The candidate has version history and project files available.
1. Evaluate the QR-code strategy. What is the assessment risk, and what should replace it?
Read the worked answer
The risk is that the portfolio ceases to be self-contained. If an assessor opens a static PDF and cannot or will not follow external links, seven screens provide no evidence. ‘Hours of work’ is also not a criterion; the portfolio must show skills, critical investigation, communication of ideas and reflection. QR codes may be useful as an extra, but they cannot carry the evidence. Replace them with static evidence that makes the timing and revision visible: storyboard grids, keyframe sequences, annotated timeline screenshots, render settings, before/after stills, layer stacks and short captions explaining frame rate, duration and loop decisions. The candidate can still mention that a time-lapse exists, but the assessment case must stand without it.
2. Design a 7-screen replacement for the QR screens that demonstrates process in a static format.
Read the worked answer
Screen 1: project overview and storyboard, with the animation’s duration, frame rate and intended viewing conditions. Screen 2: keyframe progression from rough blocking to final pose, with captions on timing changes. Screen 3: annotated software timeline showing cuts, easing and loop points. Screen 4: test render versus final render, with notes on rendering settings and colour. Screen 5: a failed version-perhaps timing too slow or projection too bright-and the specific fix. Screen 6: projection test in the venue, showing scale, audience sightlines and equipment. Screen 7: reflection linking these decisions to the candidate’s research and to the collaborative piece. Each screen needs a caption stating date, software, role and decision. This replaces ‘proof of hours’ with evidence of judgement.
3. How should the collaborative projection piece be documented so the candidate neither overclaims nor omits their contribution?
Read the worked answer
Credit all three collaborators by name and state roles: who animated which sequence, who built the projection setup, who composed sound, who edited. Show the candidate’s own contribution with files, screenshots or photos that can be tied to a role. Include a short reflection on what was negotiated and what the candidate would do differently. If the contribution cannot be verified, reduce the emphasis or omit the piece rather than implying sole authorship. Collaboration can be strong evidence of process if the boundaries are clear; it becomes a risk when assessors cannot tell what the candidate actually did.