Skip to main content
iRubric: Fall 2015 Collagraph Printmaking (Rev3) rubric

iRubric: Fall 2015 Collagraph Printmaking (Rev3) rubric

find rubric

(draft) edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
Fall 2015 Collagraph Printmaking (Rev3) 
Students build one collagraph plate. Students create 2 loose prints of their own work. The prints are presented in a critique format at the end of the project.
Rubric Code: TX4722C
Draft
Public Rubric
Subject: Arts and Design  
Type: Assessment  
Grade Levels: 9-12

Powered by iRubric
  Excellent:

100

(N/A)

Strong

90

(N/A)

Good

80

(N/A)

Weak

70

(N/A)

Poor

60

(N/A)

Original Work, Ideas, Sketches

1/6th

Excellent:

-The sketches and final work clearly demonstrate a personal vision, individual mark-making, and innovative ideas and/or risk-
taking.
-The work demonstrates a distinct integration of the printmaking technique and the project concept.
Strong

- The sketches and final work generally demonstrate original and innovative ideas.
- The image shows increasing personalization.
-The work demonstrates a general integration of the printmaking technique and the project concept.
Good

- The sketches and final work demonstrates some originality
- Attempts at innovation
with materials and techniques seem to be emerging.
-The work demonstrates limited integration of the printmaking technique and the student's concept.
Weak

- An idea behind the work is presented, but the ideas in the work are mostly unoriginal or rely
mostly on appropriation.
- The work demonstrates limited signs integration of the printmaking technique and the student's concept.
Poor

- An idea behind the work may be presented, but the work comprises trite or simplistic
solutions that are poorly executed.
- The work does not demonstrate any integration of the printmaking technique and the student's concept.
Problem Solving & Proofs

1/6th

Excellent:

- Student started with more than 3 original ideas
- Student extensively refined selected idea(s) through the project (as documented through sketches and stage proofs), showing much growth.
- The student consistently sought to troubleshoot and solve any technical or design problems.
Strong

- Student started with 3 original ideas
- Student refined the selected idea through the project (as documented through sketches and stage proofs), showing some growth.
- The student frequently sought to troubleshoot and solve technical or design problems.
Good

- Student started with 2 original ideas
- Student refined original idea (as documented through sketches and stage proofs), but the idea could still benefit from more development.
- The student sometimes sought to troubleshoot and solve technical or design problems.
Weak

- Student only slightly altered original idea (as documented through sketches and stage proofs), but the ideas are mostly repetitive.
- The student sometimes sought to troubleshoot and solve technical or design problems.
Poor

-Overall, the work shows no indication of growth or transformation.
- The ideas in the project do not show development.
- The student rarely sought to troubleshoot and solve technical or design problems.
Technical, Craftsmanship, Quality

1/6th

Excellent:

-The work is technically excellent.
- Both single prints are of excellent quality.
- The plate is cleanly and clearly constructed and sealed.
- All parts of the image are crisp and clear.
- Borders are clean and plate wiping is identical.
- Curation is invisible.
- All of the prints are titled, signed/dated, and numbered in pencil.
Strong

-The work is technically strong.
- Both single prints are of very good quality.
- The plate is well-constructed.
- Plate tone is generally consistent and intentional.
- Curation is somewhat invisible.
Good

-The work demonstrates developing technical competence and use of materials.
- One single print has good quality, but the other could use improvement.
- Plate tone has some inconsistencies & may not be intentional.
- The plate is still functional.
- Prints have some curation, but could benefit from additional curation.
- Prints are lacking one of the following: titled, signed/dated, numbered, in pencil
Weak

- The work demonstrates marginal technical competence.
- Inking is not consistent, registration is inconsistent.
- Prints may have stray marks or fingerprints.
- Automatic if complete set of prints not turned in.
- The plate is not sealed.
- No curation evidence.
- Prints are lacking more than one of the following: titled, signed/dated, numbered, in pencil.
Poor

-The work is generally inept; use of materials and media lacks skill or technical
competence.
- The prints are messy, damaged or smeared.
- Automatic if less than half of complete set of prints turned in.
Composition & Design

1/6th

Excellent:

-The work exhibits well-informed decision- making and intention.
-The composition of the prints display an imaginative articulation
of the elements and principles of design.
- Work shows exceptional attention to construction of plate and textures.
- Prints show distillation of imagery from source into dynamic stylized pattern.
Strong

-The work generally demonstrates imaginative ideas and effective manipulation of the elements and principles of design.
- Work shows strong attention to construction of plate and textures.
- Prints show some consideration of transforming source imagery into patterns.
Good

-Some decision making and intention are evident.
-Some imaginative ideas about the use of the elements and principles of design appear to be
emerging.
- Work shows some attention construction of plate and textures.
- Prints show more attention to the source image, but not the stylized patterning.
Weak

-Intention is not clear.
-The work relies heavily on unoriginal ideas and lacks invention or imaginative use of the
elements and principles of design.
- The plate is poorly formed and has indistinct textures.
- Composition of source image and textures seems muddled.
Poor

-The work appears to be unconsidered and to lack discernible intention.
-The work lacks originality or imagination.
- Plate construction and textures are simplistic or not functional.
- Relationship between source image and plate design appears unconsidered.
Cooperation & Clean-up

1/6th

Excellent:

- The student is almost always on task in the studio & follows the directions for the project the first time they are given.
-Student consistently cleans up their work area in a timely fashion without prompting.
- The student consistently respects classmates, as demonstrated though actions and words.
-The student consistently offers constructive critiques to peers.
Strong

- The student is sometimes off task, but follows directions for the project.
- Student cleans up his/her work area in a timely fashion, with minimal reminders.
- The student frequently respects classmates, as demonstrated though actions and words.
-The student usually offers constructive critiques to peers.
Good

-The student's participation does not reflect one of the following: being on task, following directions for the project, and cleaning up his/her work area in a timely fashion.
- The student generally respects classmates, as demonstrated though actions and words.
-The student could offer additional constructive critiques to peers.
Weak

- The student is frequently off task in the studio, may not follow directions, or delays cleanup.
- The student sometimes shows respect for classmates, but could improve in attention to words and actions.
-The student rarely offers constructive critiques.
Poor

- The student does not follow directions, or refuses to participate in the project fully.
- Student may misuse, waste or destroy art materials carelessly.
- Student may leave a mess.
- The student may rarely show respect for classmates, as demonstrated though actions and words.
-The student offers destructive critique or does not participate in critiques.
Presentation & Reflection

1/6th

Excellent:

-Critique presentation reflects project's process, strengths, and weaknesses.
-Student expresses their goals for their edition
- Student expresses their plans for improving in future projects.
Strong

-Critique presentation does not reflect one of the following: process, strengths, weaknesses, OR
student is unable to express goals and/or plan.
Good

-Critique presentation does not reflect more than one of the following: process, strengths, weaknesses, OR
student is unable to express goals and/or plan.
Weak

Student's critique presentation does not articulate their project goals, they are not enthusiastic about their work, and/or are not responsive to constructive criticism.
Poor

Student is unorganized, unprepared, and unresponsive to the criticism. Student seemed to make up their presentation on the spot.



Keywords:
  • Visual Arts


Types:





Do more with this rubric:

Preview

Preview this rubric.

Edit

Modify this rubric.

Copy

Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.


Print

Show a printable version of this rubric.

Categorize

Add this rubric to multiple categories.

Bookmark

Bookmark this rubric for future reference.
Assess
This rubric is still in draft mode and cannot be scored. Please change the rubric status to ready to use.
Share

Publish

Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.

Email

Email this rubric to a friend.

Discuss

Discuss this rubric with other members.
 

Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.

Only with iRubrictm.



Copyright © 2024 Reazon Systems, Inc.  All rights reserved.
n16