DIALOGUE

Rubric for Written Evaluation of Peer Artwork

	Excellent	Satisfactory	Needs Work
Personal Response/ Interpretation (“What do I see? What is it about [to me]? How do I know?”) (Barrett, 1997, p. 48)	Critic closely attends to the work in their description of what they see. Critic thoughtfully articulates what the piece is about to them. Critic draws connections within and without the piece to articulate how they developed this impression.	Critic provides a description of what they see when they observe the work. Critic posits what the work is about to them, and corroborates this interpretation using evidence from the piece.	Critic provides a cursory description of the piece that may omit significant elements. Critic does not articulate a coherent impression of the piece, or substantiate their response.
Strengths of the Piece	Critic identifies the most effective elements of the piece and articulates why they feel this way about them. Critic goes beyond cursory praise, articulating strong choices made by the artist in their process. Critic uses a variety of criteria for “strength,” e.g. articulating how other viewers might value the piece, even if their personal interpretation is not enthusiastic. (Barrett, 1997)	Critic identifies elements of the piece they find most effective, and explain why they feel this way.	Critic’s praise is glib, or cursory. The student mentions superficial elements of the piece, but does not articulate why they are considered strengths of the piece.
Recommendations	Critic identifies areas that could use more attention in the piece, and offers a variety of suggestions that the artist could pursue in future work. Critic identifies apparent challenges the artist had in making the piece, and suggests strategies for overcoming them.	Critic offers constructive suggestions for the artist to consider in the future, using the current piece as a basis for their suggestions.	Rather than offering suggestions, critic merely points out what they think is “wrong” about the piece. Critic is aggressive or mean-spirited, rather than constructive in their critique.

Rubric for Written Artist’s Response to Evaluation/Critique

	Excellent	Satisfactory	Needs Work
I agree with...	Artist articulates which interpretations, praise, and recommendations they agree with, and why. Artist articulates how they will incorporate this feedback into future work.	Artist articulates which interpretations, praise, and recommendations they agree with, and why.	Artist is dismissive of feedback, refusing to acknowledge diverse interpretations or constructive criticism, and offers no indication of developing their practice in light of the evaluation.
I disagree with...	Artist identifies which elements of the critique they feel are less relevant, and thoughtfully explains why they disagree with those responses. Artist acknowledges why the critic may have made those suggestions, and whether those factors will influence their future work.	Artist identifies which elements of the critique they feel are less relevant, and explain why they disagree with those responses.	Artist does not thoughtfully engage with ideas before discarding them. Artist criticizes the person who made the suggestions rather than responding to the ideas.
Something I hadn’t considered before...	Artist identifies at least one element of the interpretation or evaluation of their work that surprised them, or that they hadn’t considered prior to interacting with the audience. Artist articulates how this unforeseen element of their work may be acknowledged in their future work.	Artist identifies at least one element of the interpretation or evaluation of their work that surprised them, or that they hadn’t considered prior to interacting with the audience.	Artist does not acknowledge new or alien interpretations or responses to their work. Student is dismissive of “wrong” interpretations.

Rubric of Cognitive Objectives for Each Unit

	Excellent	Satisfactory	Needs Work
VOICE	The student’s autobiographical subject matter is thoughtful and personally relevant. The student’s work articulates multiple facets or idio-syncrasies of their relation to the subject-matter.	The student’s autobiographical subject matter is thoughtful and personally relevant.	The student’s presentation of their autobiographical subject matter is not thoughtful, and no effort is made to express personal relation to the subject matter.
RESPONSE	Student thoughtfully reacts to their source material, incorporating it and transforming it into a novel work.	Student creates a work that incorporates elements of their source material into a new work.	Student slavishly imitates the source material in a way not thoughtful or transformative, or completely disregards their source material, creating a monologic work.
ADDRESS	Student’s work clearly and thoughtfully addresses their intended audience. Multiple elements of the work conceptually and formally demonstrate care and attention to the receiver of the work.	Student’s work demonstrates consideration of the intended recipient/audience of the work.	Student’s work shows no consideration or thought regarding who the artwork is addressing. The particular character of the intended recipient is not acknowledged formally or conceptually.
INTER- ACTION	The work offers a variety of complex interactions on the part of the audience, which significantly contribute to the strength of the piece.	The student’s work affords the recipient the opportunity for interaction.	The work is in no way interactive, or the interactions are completely prescriptive (without a justification). The piece is ‘finalized’ even before someone participates in it.
COMMUNI- CATION	The work thoughtfully communicates a set of ideas/experiences or multiple facets of an idea/experience (though not necessarily explicitly). Material, formal, and aesthetic elements contribute to the communication as well as symbolic ones.	The work expresses and idea or experience in a thoughtful way.	The work is created with little to no thought or consideration of aesthetic or conceptual content.
REFLECTION (This rubric assesses the “Reform” option – creating a new activity for the Curriculum. The “Recursion” option – the selection of an activity from the tree – will be evaluated by the appropriate above unit objective)	The student’s work is thoughtfully executed, and the project/prompt formulated from it is considerate of the artistic needs of potential future students, and the conceptual structure of the curriculum in which it fits. The artwork itself meets the cognitive objectives of the unit the proposed lesson will be added to.	The student’s work is competently executed, and the project prompt derived from it is appropriately open-ended while still having a place in the overall curriculum.	The student’s work is haphazard, and does not meet satisfactory requirements for the unit it is intended to address. The project/prompt is either ill-formed and not conducive to framing a project, or overly prescriptive, resulting in a copy of the student’s work.

Rubric for Participation in Group Critique Addressing the Artist

	Excellent	Satisfactory	Needs Work
Personal Response/ Interpretation (“What do I see? What is it about [to me]? How do I know?”) (Barrett, 1997, p. 48)	Over course of critique, student makes at least three interpretive observations. Critic closely attends to the work in their description of what they see. Critic thoughtfully articulates what the piece is about to them, and why they feel this way.	Over course of critique, student makes at least one interpretive observation. Critic provides a description of what they see when they observe the work. Critic posits what the work is about to them, though interpretation may rely solely on surface qualities.	Student does not share any interpretive comments.
Strengths of the Piece	Over course of critique, student makes at least three positive observations. Critic identifies the most effective elements of the piece and articulates why they feel this way about them, using a variety of criteria. Critic goes beyond cursory praise, articulating strong choices made by the artist in their process.	Over course of critique, student makes at least one positive observation. Critic identifies elements of the piece they find most effective, and explain why they feel this way, using one or two criteria for “strength.”	Student does not contribute to discussion of any piece’s strengths, or student’s praise is backhanded or sarcastic.
Recommendations	Over course of critique, student makes at least two suggestions. Critic identifies areas that could use more attention in the piece, and offers a variety of thoughtful suggestions that the artist could pursue in future work. Critic identifies apparent challenges the artist had in making the piece, and suggests strategies for overcoming them.	Over course of critique, student makes at least one suggestion. Critic offers constructive suggestions for the artist to consider in the future, using the current piece as a basis for their suggestions. Critic uses constructive language, like “You could try…” or “I might like to see…”	Critic either does not contribute to conversation, or, rather than offering suggestions, critic merely points out what they think is “wrong” about the piece. Critic is aggressive or mean-spirited, rather than constructive in their critique.

Rubric for Interactional “Interview” Critique

Excellent

Satisfactory

Needs Work

As Artist, Interviewer

The artist’s questions for her/his audience are open-ended, without a single “right” answer. They are designed to help the artist discover things about the pieces as well as the viewer.

The artist does not interrupt the viewer, allowing them to complete their own thoughts and express their own interpretation of the artist’s work.

The artist encourages the viewer with follow-up questions that allow for further response to the artwork, without leading the viewer down a particular interpretive path.

The artist’s questions for her/his audience are open-ended, without a single “right” answer. They are designed to help the artist discover things about the pieces as well as the viewer.

The artist does not interrupt the viewer, allowing them to complete their own thoughts and express their own interpretation of the artist’s work.

The artist talks over the viewer, and “corrects” their response to or interpretation of the work.

The artists questions are leading, closed, or yes/no questions that do not promote dialogue.

As Audience, Interviewee

The interviewee responds thoughtfully to the artist’s questions about the work.

The interviewee asks questions of the artist to provide information and inform their own interpretation , rather than ask for the “correct” interpretation.

The interviewee responds thoughtfully to the artist’s questions about the work. The interviewee’s responses help them think through their interpretation of the work and help the artist reflect on their work.

The interviewee either does not respond at all, or does not respond in a way that helps them or the artist develop their ideas and impressions.

Possible Interview Questions (adapted from Barrett, 1997):

What is the most effective part or aspect of my piece?
What famous artists throughout history might most appreciate this work? (Whose work does it remind you of?)
What do you see first when you look at the piece?
What do you feel the piece is about? How do you know?
Do you have any suggestions for this piece, or for my future work?

Rubric for Communicative Small-Group Critique of Work from Another Class/Grade

	Excellent	Satisfactory	Needs Work
Personal Response/ Interpretation (“What do I see? What is it about [to me]? How do I know?”) (Barrett, 1997, p. 48)	Group effectively, thoughtfully, and inventively documents their response to communicate their interpretation to the artist in the other grade. Group closely attends to the work in their description of what they see. Group thoughtfully articulates what the piece is about to them.	Group documents their responses in a clear, communicative way for the benefit of the artist. Group provides a description of what they see when they observe the work. Group posits what the work is about to them, and corroborates this interpretation using evidence from the piece.	The groups’s response is disorganized, disjunctive, and constructed with no consideration of communicating useful feedback to the artist.
Strengths of the Piece	Group thoughtfully documents the strengths of the piece in a way useful to the artist. Group identifies the most effective elements of the piece and articulates why they feel this way about them. Group goes beyond cursory praise, articulating strong choices made by the artist in their process using a variety of criteria for “strength.”	Group formats their responses in a clear, communicative way for the benefit of the artist. Group identifies elements of the piece they find most effective, and explain why they feel this way.	The group simply lists elements, without considering the thoughtfulness or usefulness of this response. The group mentions superficial elements of the piece, but does not articulate why they are considered strengths of the piece.
Recommendations	Group formats their recommendations in a considerate and thoughtful way that is of practical use to the artist. Group identifies areas that could use more attention in the piece, and offers a variety of suggestions and strategies that the artist could pursue in future work.	Group documents suggestions and strategies in a clear, communicative way that is of use to the artist. Group offers constructive suggestions for the artist to consider in the future, using the current piece as a basis for their suggestions.	The group simply lists elements they find lacking in the piece, with no constructive criticism or helpful illumination communicated to the artist.