Visual and Performing Art Lesson and Assessment Methods

Over the past few years, 3-D has become an integral part of people’s lives – we watch movies in 3-D, play games in 3-D, and design models for an architecture plan, animated movie, etc. in 3-D. Therefore, being able to use 3-D techniques efficiently predetermines how great the impression a specific project will make (Gwahana & Zlatanova, 2011). With the help of the grading scale below, a student will be able to understand the basic demands towards 3-D design, while a teacher will be able to adequately evaluate the student’s work.

We will write a custom Visual and Performing Art Lesson and Assessment Methods specifically for you
for only $14.00 $11,90/page
308 certified writers online
Learn More
Rubric/Grade F (0–30) D (31–50) C (51–74) B (75–90) A (91–100)
Dimensionality The project is only one- or two-dimensional or does not mention dimensions at all (3 points) The students use three dimensions to develop a 3-D model, yet fail (5 points) The students have developed a three-dimensional model, yet the geometry of the model is flawed (8 points) The students have built a 3-D model successfully, with minor flaws in the calculation (9 points) The student(s) have come up with a perfectly working 3-D model for the project. (10 points)
Composition The students’ project does not have any coherent composition and there is no connection between its elements (3 points) The project lacks several important compositional elements, such as the use of various 3-D layers, etc. (5 points) The composition of the project seems rather well-developed; however, there are some serious mistakes in it (8 points) The project composition is clear and well-developed; however, there are two to five mistakes concerning the form, textures, etc. (9 points) No mistakes (0–1) were made in the course of developing the project composition (10 points)
Message The work does not have any message whatsoever and is very confused (3 points) The student attempted to get his/her message across, yet failed. (5 points) The message is there, yet the work is very choppy (8 points) The project has two to five original messages that need some development (9 points) The project offers several well-thought-out messages (10 points)
Use of 3-D Techniques Modeling The students did not use any type of modeling whatsoever (1 point) The students have not defined the type of modeling that they have used. (1 point) The students have applied a specific type of modeling, yet with a poor result (2 points) The students have applied one of the three types of modeling, yet have not provided their reasons for choosing this exact modeling type (2 points) The students can use polygonal modeling, curve modeling, or digital sculpting (Capizzi, 2002) and justify their choice of a modeling method (3 points)
Animation No animation as used (1 point) The animation was of very poor quality (2 points) Animation techniques were used, yet no particular type of animation was chosen (2 points) The basic animation types were used (2 points) The students choose one of the three key types of animation (stop motion, claymation, CGI (Faber & Walters, 2004)) and justify their choice (3 points)
Visual Effects No visual effects were used (1 point) There was an attempt to use visual effects (1 point) Clichéd visual effects were used (2 points) Several original animation effects were used (2 points) The students have used only original visual effects (2 points)
Rendering There is no trace of rendering in the project (1 point) The quality of rendering is deplorable. (1 point) Only one tool for rendering was used (2 points) The students use only one or two tools for rendering (3 points) The students display the ability to use different tools for rendering successfully (2 points)
Use of 3-D elements No 3-D elements were used (3 points) The 3-D elements are done poorly. (5 points) Only one 3-D element was used successfully (7 points) Two to five 3-D elements were used successfully (9 points) The paper provides an ample amount of successfully used 3-D elements (10 points)
Following the principles of 3-D design The students did not follow any 3-D principles (3 points) Some key 3-D principles were neglected. (5 points) Most of the 3-D principles were followed (7 points) All 3-D principle were used (9 points) All 3-D principle were used and their use was justified (10 points)
Use of 3-D design methods No design methods were used (3 points) The chosen design methods did not work (5 points) The use of design methods was not justified (7 points) The design methods were justified and worked well, yet a better option was possible (9 points) The chosen design method proved optimum for the task. (10 points)
Creativity All elements of the work are clichéd and resemble the example in textbooks (3 points) Some unique elements are introduced, yet the work does not have any original thought (5 points) The author of the project came up with one to three unique elements (7 points) The paper has original conclusions and introduces
an original research method (9 points)
The project has a unique set of the method, original conclusions and a unique design (10 points)
Effort The students did not put any effort whatsoever (3 points) The students have made an effort, yet stopped at the first sign of a problem (5 points) The students made an effort yet the work has a lot of mistakes (7 points) The students have made a considerable effort without making more than 10 mistakes (9 points) The students have made a great effort, and there are 0 to 5 mistakes in the project. (10 points)
Cooperation (in case of a group project) None of the students cared what the other(s) did, which resulted in a poorly put together project (2 points) Less than half of the group took part in the project. (5 points) Most of the students cooperated; however, the presentation does not look quite homogenous (7 points) All of the students cooperated; however, the paper is somewhat awkward (9 points) The entire group of students was involved, which resulted in a well put together work (10 points)
Score (max.) 30 50 70 90 100

Reference List

Capizzi, T. (2002). 3D modeling and texture mapping. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

Faber, L. & Walters, H. (2004). Animation unlimited: Innovative short films since 1940. London, UK: Lawrence King Publishing.

Gwahana, T. & Zlatanova, S. (2011). The increasing significance of 3D topology for modeling of urban structures. Web.

Check the price of your paper