Choice of Case Studies

LO1

* Choice of case studies does not fit the task

requirements, and/or

displays little relevance

to the task.

* Adequate choice of

cast studies, but may not

display a clear logic.

Doesn’t enable strong

connections/comparisons to be made.

* Solid choice of case studies, enabling some good connections/comparisons to be made.

* Choice could

demonstrate more

critical/independent

thinking.

* Very good choice of

case studies, enabling strong connections/comparisons to be made.

* Excellent choice of

case studies, enabling

sophisticated

connections/comparisons to be made.

Contextualisation of chosen case studies

LO1

* Does not adequately

contextualise chosen

projects in terms of

relevant historical,

social, artistic and/or

theoretical factors.

* Offers some, but

limited contextualisation

of projects in terms

of some some historical,

social, artistic and/or

theoretical factors.

* Brief and/or lacking

clear relevance.

* Contextualises projects well in terms of

relevant historical,

social, artistic and/or

theoretical factors

* Demonstrates a good

level of understanding,

but could be more

detailed.

* Identifies historical, social, artistic

and/or theoretical

contexts that are very

relevant to the chosen

projects.

* Contextualises very

well, demonstrating a

very good level of

understanding.

* Identifies

historical, social, artistic

and/or theoretical

contexts that are

extremely relevant to the

chosen projects.

* Contextualises

extremely well,

demonstrating a

sophisticated level of

understanding and synthesis.

Consideration of User/Audience Experience

LO1

* Demonstrates little to

no understanding of the project's engagement strategy, and

how the chosen projects harness different approaches to the user.

* Demonstrates some

understanding of the project's engagement strategy, and

how the chosen projects harness different approaches to the user. But not analysed

effectively.

* Demonstrates good

understanding of the project's engagement strategy, and

how the chosen projects harness different approaches to the user. Could be analysed

in more depth.

* Demonstrates very

good understanding of the project's engagement strategy, and

how the chosen projects harness different approaches to the user. Analysed critically

and effectively.

* Demonstrates

excellent understanding

of audience experience,

and how the chosen

projects harness different approaches to the user. Analysed in a

sophisticated manner.

Argumentation and Evaluation

LO1

* Lacks any clear

argument.

* Does not evaluate the

effectiveness of the

projects to support

an independent

argument.

* Does not present a

strong argument.

* Evaluation of the

effectiveness of projects needs development.

* Clearly stated

argument, with solid

evaluation of the

effectiveness of chosen

projects.

* Could be developed

more critically and/or in

more depth.

* Presents a strong

argument, supported by

very good analysis of

the effectiveness of

chosen projects.

* Presents an excellent,

independent argument,

supported by

outstanding analysis of

the effectiveness of

chosen projects.

Independent Research

LO1

* Displays no evidence

of independent

research.

* Displays little evidence

of independent

research.

* Relies mainly on

sources that are not

scholarly/academic.

* Displays good

evidence of independent

research.

* Some

scholarly/academic

sources are used, but

could be relied on more

thoroughly.

* Displays very good

evidence of independent

research.

* Range of scholarly

sources consulted, used

effectively to back up

analysis and argument.

* Displays excellent

evidence of independent

research.

* Excellent range of

scholarly sources

consulted, used very

effectively to support

analysis and argument.

Structure and organisation of essay

LO1

* Little to no structure to

the essay.

* Adequate structure

and organisation, but

lacking clarity.

* Good overall

organisation and

structure of essay,

clarity may fall down at

points.

* Very good

organisation and

structure of essay.

* Excellent organisation

and structure of essay.

Clarity of written expression

LO1

* Poorly written with

many spelling and

grammatical errors.

* Adequately written,

but with errors in

grammar and spelling.

* Well written. Usually

correct grammar and

spelling.

* Fluently written.

Minimal grammatical

and spelling errors.

* Highly articulate,

written in an eloquent

style. Very few

grammatical and

spelling errors.

Referencing and image labelling (Chicago Notes & Bibliography style)

LO1

* Inadequate

referencing and image

labelling.

* Adequate referencing

and image labelling, but

with mistakes and

inconsistencies.

* Good referencing and

image labelling, with a

few mistakes.

* Careful referencing

and image labelling,

almost no mistakes.

* Meticulous referencing

and image labelling.

Project description

LO 2

* Project description is

unrealistic, or without a

practical framework.

* Lacking in clarity

and/or focus.

* Project description and

proposed framework

are overly generalised.

* Improve needed in

clarity, practicality

and/or focus.

* Articulates a solid

framework for the

proposed project, with

clear potential for

development.

* Project description

may fall down in its

clarity, concisely,

practicality or focus.

* Articulates a realistic

and focused framework

for the proposed

project.

* Clear and concise in its

description.

* Articulates a highly original,

realistic and focused

framework for the

proposed project.

* Clear, concise and

convincing in its

description.

Project goals and

objectives

LO 2

* Goals and objectives

are lacking from the

proposal. They are

unclear and not

informed by knowledge

of relevant theories and

issues in the area of curating digital art and culture.

* Goals and objectives

are informed by limited

knowledge of relevant

theories and issues in

the area of curating digital art and culture.

* Goals and objectives

are alluded to, but not

clearly articulated.

* Goals and objectives

are informed by some

knowledge of relevant

theories and issues in

the area of curating digital art and culture.

* Goals and objectives

are stated, but they may

be unclear.

* Goals and objectives

are informed by good

knowledge of relevant

theories and issues in

the area of curating digital art and culture.

* Goals and objectives

are clear, informed and

realistic.

* Goals and objectives

are informed by

excellent knowledge of

relevant theories and

issues in the area of curating digital art and culture.

* Goals and objectives

are creative, critical and

realistic.

Research Context

LO 1, 2

* Demonstrates little to

no understanding of

theories, practices and concepts that are relevant to the proposal.

* Does not apply theoretical background

to project goals.

* Analysis of theoretical

background is insufficient and poorly developed.

* Demonstrates limited

understanding of

theories, practices and concepts

that are relevant to the

proposal. Key texts, examples or

scholarly resources may

be missing.

* Does not effectively

apply theoretical

background to project

goals.

* Limited analysis of key

theoretical

concepts/issues.

* Demonstrates a solid

understanding of some

key theories, practices and

concepts that are

relevant to the proposal.

* Could apply key

theories/concepts/practices more thoroughly to project goals.

* Analysis of key

theoretical concepts/issues could

be developed in more

depth.

* Demonstrates a very

good understanding of

key theories, practices and

concepts that are

relevant to the proposal.

* Defines and applies

key theories/concepts

to project goals.

* Provides informed

analysis of key

theoretical concepts/issues/ practices.

* Demonstrates a

comprehensive

understanding of key

theories and concepts

that are relevant to the

proposal.

* Defines and applies

key theories/concepts

to project goals

thoroughly and

intelligently.

* Provides independent

and original analysis of

key theoretical

concepts/issues.

Methodology

LO 2

* Project plan is unclear,

illogical or unrealistic.

* It is not clear what

they project is, and what

methodologies will be

employed.

* Project goals and

methods are

insufficiently linked.

* Logic and planning of

project needs

improvement. Much

more consideration

needs to be given to

feasibility, timeline and

workflow.

* Some methodologies

are proposed, but they

are lacking in feasibility

and/or relevance.

* Unclear how

methodologies will

support the project's

goals.

* A solid project plan is

included, but it needs

development and clarity.

More consideration

needs to be given to

feasibility, timeline and

workflow.

* Proposed

methodologies may not

be fully feasible,

relevant, or thoroughly

thought through.

* Stronger arguments

need to be made about

how the chosen

methodologies will

support the project's

goals.

* A very good project

plan is included, which

can be refined further.

Consideration is given to

feasibility, timeline and

workflow.

* Proposed

methodologies are

realistic and relevant.

* The applicability and

suitability of the

methodologies are

argued for well. Very

good connections made

to project goals.

* An excellent, realistic

project plan is included.

Strong consideration is

given to feasibility,

timeline and work

* Proposed

methodologies are

imaginative, realistic

and relevant.

* The applicability and

suitability of the

methodologies are

convincingly argued for.

Outstanding

connections made to

project goals.

Potential risks and

challenges

LO 2

* Does not attempt to

identify and address

potential risks and

challenges.

* Identifies potential risks and challenges, but only in a cursory or minimal

manner.

* Identifies relevant potential risks.

May not demonstrate

clear/realistic strategies

to overcome them.

* Identifies important

and relevant potential

risks, and includes

realistic strategies to

overcome them.

* Identi

and relevant potential

risks, and includes

realistic, thoroughly

considered strategies to

overcome them.

Referencing and image

labelling (Chicago Notes

& Bibliography style)

LO 1, 2

* Inadequate

referencing and image

labelling.

* Adequate referencing

and image labelling, but

with mistakes and

inconsistencies.

* Good referencing and

image labelling, with a

few mistakes.

* Careful referencing

and image labelling,

almost no mistakes.

* Meticulous referencing

and image labelling.

Situates the research project, its goals

and outcomes in an

effective and engaging

manner

LO 2, 3, 4

* Fails to clearly describe

and present the 

research for the audience.

* Little to no articulation

of the goals and/or

emerging outcomes of the project,

and their relationship.

* Presentation of the

research is limited and/or unclear at points.

* Doesn't sufficiently

articulate the goals

and/or emerging outcomes of the

project, and their

relationship.

* Describes the 

research, but clarity of

presentation may fall

down at points.

* Outlines the projects

goals and/or anticipated outcomes,

but doesn't make

enough critical

connections between

the two.

* Presents the 

research in a way that is

clear and engaging.

* Clearly outlines what

the project's goals are,

and considers how the

project's anticipated outcomes are being

realised or diverging

from its goals.

* Presents the 

project in a way that is

sophisticated and highly

engaging.

* Clearly outlines

the project's goals ,

and intelligently

analyses the research process as it stands, and if/how it is diverging

from its goals.

Critically reflects on project progression and development, identifying areas requiring further support.

LO 1, 2, 3, 4

* Fails to reflect on the project's development, unable to articulate a clear view of how the research process is unfolding.

* Offers a basic account how the emerging research is progressing, but without an critical reflection on its opportunities and challenges.

* Reflects on the development of the research, but could be done with more depth or

rigour.

* Reflects carefully and

precisely on the research process and its limits, from both a critical and practical perspective, supported by research.

* Reflects critically and

analytically on the formulation of the curatorial research, synthesising theory and practice, to offer an account of its progress and limits.

Structure and duration

of presentation

LO 1, 4

* Lacking any signi

structure or

organisation.

* Does not keep to time

* Adequately structured

but needs work.

* Does not use time

effectively.

* Effective presentation,

but structure could

convey ideas more

clearly.

* May not keep to time

or use time effectively.

* Very effective, clear

and well structured

presentation.

* Keeps to time.

* Extremely effective,

imaginative and well

structured presentation.

* Keeps to time.

Research Workshop Participation

LO 4

* Inadequate participation. Failure to engage with peer presentations in the form of feedback, questioning or engaged listening.

* Adequate participation. Some limited assistance offered to peers in workshop, in terms of questions, feedback and support.

* Good participation. Contribution to workshop in the form of engaged and active listening, peer encouragement and respectful feedback.

* Very good participation. Able to contribute draw on research perspectives and critical concepts to support the development of peer research.

* Excellent participation.

Applies valuable research perspectives in discussing the work of peers, identifying relevant/helpful questions to support research innovation.

Demonstrates a clear

and informed

connection to relevant

themes/topics/elements

of the course

LO 1, 2, 3

* Project displays no

clear connection to

relevant themes of the

course.

* Project displays some

connections to relevant

themes of the course,

but they are generalised,

limited or unfocused.

* Project demonstrates

a solid connection to at

least one relevant

theme/topic/element of

the course.

* Project demonstrates

an informed connection

to relevant

themes/topics/elements

of the course.

* Project demonstrates

a sophisticated,

innovative and

informed connection to

relevant themes/topics/elements

of the course.

Guided by a clear research

strategy, and uses a

methodology and

format that is effective

in realising those goals

LO 2, 3

* Project demonstrates

no clear research goals.

* Methodology is poorly

conceived, 

is not effective in

realising research goals.

* Project may

demonstrate some

research goals, but they

are unclear and/or

lacking focus or

relevance.

* Choice of methodology

and effective in realising

research goals, or may

be poorly conceived.

* Project displays some

research goals, but they

may be unclear or

underdeveloped.

* Project has displayed a

clear methodology, but

its methods and 

format may not be

entirely effective in

realising its stated

goals.

* Project is informed by

clear research goals

that engage well

relevant theoretical and

critical frameworks.

* Project methodology

and 

effective in realising its

stated goals.

* Project is informed by

intelligent research

goals that engage

thoroughly and astutely

with relevant theoretical

and critical frameworks.

* Project methodology

and 

extremely well conceived

and effective in realising

its stated goals.

Engages with the

chosen theme/topic in a

critical, rigorous and

creative way

LO 1, 2

* Project does not

engage with its

theme/topic in a

rigorous way.

* No evidence that the

project is informed by

critical engagement with

relevant practices, literature or

scholarship.

* May be significant

problems in the

creative design of the

project.

* Project is overall

lacking rigour in its

engagement with its

chosen theme/topic.

* Little evidence that the

project is informed by

critical engagement with

relevant practices, literature or

scholarship.

* Project demonstrates

a careful and thoughtful

engagement with its

chosen theme/topic, but

could demonstrate more

critical rigour.

* Good evidence that the

project is informed by

engagement with

relevant creative practices, literature or

scholarship. Could be

demonstrated in more

depth or detail.

* Project demonstrates

a rigorous and informed

engagement with its

chosen theme/topic.

* Very good evidence

that the project is

informed by critical

engagement with

relevant creative practices, literature or

scholarship.

* Project demonstrates

a independent, rigorous

and informed

engagement with its

chosen theme/topic.

* Excellent evidence that

the project is informed

by outstanding critical

engagement with

relevant creative practices, literature or scholarship.

Reflects conceptual

progression and

development from

proposal to realisation

LO 2

* Project demonstrates

no progression or

development from

proposal to realisation.

* Project displays some

development from

proposal to realisation,

but limited and minimal.

* It may not have

meaningfully engaged

with and applied

feedback.

* Project displays solid

development from

proposal to realisation.

* Has clearly engaged

with and responded to

feedback, but could

have been in more

depth.

* Project displays very

good development from

proposal to realisation.

* Has thoroughly

engaged with and

responded to feedback,

in a way that clearly

enhances the project's

overall success and

effectiveness.

* Project displays

excellent, focused and

strategic development

from proposal to

realisation.

* Has thoroughly and

independently engaged

with and responded to

feedback, in a way that

significantly enhances

the project's overall

success and

effectiveness.