In this course students will develop their creative research practice through experimentation with artistic methods, strategies, materials and concepts. Students will learn how to direct their ideas and existing knowledge and refine their skills, while identifying and articulating contextual links. The outcomes for this course will be the development and shaping of a personal methodology culminating in the creation of new work. A series of lectures from visiting artists, theorists, curators and scholars from various fields will introduce students to a range of ideas, contexts and methods of production.

Based on their own Independent Work Proposal (IWP), students will develop artistic approaches relevant to their area(s) of interest. This course encourages the students to self-direct their art practice. The aim of the course is for each student to develop their own framework, bringing together the skills and knowledge they have acquired to date.

A student’s participation in discussions around their project and their peers’ projects will be integral to the course. The course will provide a cross-disciplinary forum for critical and contextual discussions relevant to contemporary art practice. Students will be supported through group sessions across several disciplines as well as tutorials and discussions within the different Workshops.

Workplace Health and Safety instruction is an integral part of this course and will be handled within each Workshop.

This course is delivered by the following School of Art & Design disciplines: Animation and Video, Painting, Photomedia, Printmedia and Drawing, and Sculpture and Spatial Practice.

Learning Outcomes

Upon successful completion, students will have the knowledge and skills to:

1. experiment with processes, materials and technologies towards a series of small-scale studio investigations;
2. describe the conceptual, material, social, ethical, cultural, technological and/or environmental issues their studio investigations respond to; 
3. critically evaluate the outcome of studio investigations; and
4. propose an independent studio project that develops and extends the outcomes of their studio investigations. 

Research-Led Teaching

This course guides students through developing their own practice-led research methodology. The culmination in an independent work proposal requires exploring, thinking and consolidating a critical direction through a studio-based enquiry. Refined execution and considered presentation as well as experimental development all contribute defining the potential direction of the IWP. Students are asked to consistently re-examine the relationship between the manifestation of their own work its aspirations and the critical contexts they are researching.

Field Trips

There are no scheduled field trips during class time. However, students are encouraged (and supported) to keep abreast of key exhibitions at both National and ACT-funded arts organisations, which they are expected to routinely visit as part of their professional development.

Additional Course Costs

REQUIRED RESOURCES AND INCIDENTAL FEES

Dear Student,

The School of Art & Design provides additional access to the workshop areas and use of equipment, tooling and consumable items during extra hours. For this access the School charges the Optional Workshop Fee. This is not a compulsory fee and is not essential to course completion, however if a student chooses not to pay it, access to the workshop areas and equipment outside of stated course hours is not allowed.

The School of Art & Design supplies materials that become your physical property on payment of the relevant material fee. You can choose to pay the Materials Fee and have these materials supplied through the School of Art & Design, allowing you to take advantage of the GST-free bulk purchasing power of the ANU. These materials are also WHS compliant.

Please go to the payment portal located on the Required Resources and Incidental Fees page here on the School of Art & Design website. Follow the prompts to the payment portal, select the relevant discipline and the fee you wish to pay for. 

If you need assistance please contact the Technical Officer in the relevant discipline or at the administration offices of the School of Art & Design.

Thank you

School of Art & Design

Examination Material or equipment

Please see Wattle for assessment submission points online and for the co-ordination of on campus install of final works for assessment.

Participation and engagement are assessed throughout the semester, please ensure you send a courtesy email your convenor if you expect to miss class.

Required Resources

Student contribution amounts under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA) and tuition fees support the course described in the Course Outline and include tuition, teaching materials and student access to the workshops for the stated course hours.

Students are requested to refer to the School of Art website for information: http://soa.anu.edu.au/required-resources-and-incidental-fees

Wattle. Ensure that your details are correct as Wattle will be the primary method of communication between lecturers and students and assessment submission point.

Recommended Resources

Please see Wattle for readings and recommended resources

Staff Feedback

Students will be given feedback in the following forms in this course:

• written comments (eg summative feedback forms)
• verbal comments (eg in studio crits and period 1:1 tutorials)
• feedback to whole class, groups, individuals, focus group etc

Student Feedback

ANU is committed to the demonstration of educational excellence and regularly seeks feedback from students. Students are encouraged to offer feedback directly to their Course Convener or through their College and Course representatives (if applicable). Feedback can also be provided to Course Conveners and teachers via the Student Experience of Learning & Teaching (SELT) feedback program. SELT surveys are confidential and also provide the Colleges and ANU Executive with opportunities to recognise excellent teaching, and opportunities for improvement.

Other Information

Class attendance is essential for completing this course.

Class Schedule

Week/Session	Summary of Activities	Assessment
1	Whole cohort meets for introductory lecture, discussion and activities. WHS Briefings.	Assessment 1 Brief Introduced: Mini Project
2	Studio-based enquiry, tutor and peer tutorials
3	Studio-based enquiry, tutor and peer tutorials
4	Whole cohort meeting, followed by crits/review of Assessment Task 1 and preparation of Assessment Task 2.	Assessment 1 Deadline: Mini Project
5	Studio-based enquiry, supervisor and peer meetings	Start of Assessment 2: Iteration 1
6	Studio-based enquiry, supervisor and peer meetings.
7	Studio-based enquiry, Introduction to Assessment 4: Independent Work Proposal	Workshop on Assessment 4: Independent Work Proposal and how to write one
8	Assessment Task 2: Install of work and critical review	Assessment Task 2 Deadline: Iteration 1. All work to be installed for group crits and reflection
9	Studio-based enquiry, tutor and peer meetings
10	Open Studio Week (TBC)	SUBMISSION OF DRAFT IWP Proposal
11	Workshop on Assessment 4: IWP Drafts, Studio-based enquiry, tutor and peer meetings	Peer feedback workshop on IWP Draft Proposals
12	Submission of Assessment Task 3: Iteration 3Group Reflection: Whole cohort debrief, preparation for Semester 2
13	Exam Period	Submission of Assessment Task 4: IWP 23:59 on 30th May 2025

Tutorial Registration

Tutorial Registration not required

Assessment Summary

Assessment task	Value	Due Date	Learning Outcomes
Mini Project: Reflect, Rework, Rethink!	25 %	12/03/2025	1,2,3,4
Studio-based Iteration #1	25 %	23/04/2025	1,2,3,4,5
Studio-based Iteration #2	25 %	21/05/2025	1,2,3,4,5
The Independent Work Proposal	25 %	30/05/2025	1,2,3,4,5

* If the Due Date and Return of Assessment date are blank, see the Assessment Tab for specific Assessment Task details

Policies

ANU has educational policies, procedures and guidelines, which are designed to ensure that staff and students are aware of the University’s academic standards, and implement them. Students are expected to have read the Academic Misconduct Rule before the commencement of their course. Other key policies and guidelines include:

• Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure
• Special Assessment Consideration Policy and General Information 
• Student Surveys and Evaluations
• Deferred Examinations
• Student Complaint Resolution Policy and Procedure

Assessment Requirements

The ANU is using Turnitin to enhance student citation and referencing techniques, and to assess assignment submissions as a component of the University's approach to managing Academic Integrity. For additional information regarding Turnitin please visit the Academic Skills website. In rare cases where online submission using Turnitin software is not technically possible; or where not using Turnitin software has been justified by the Course Convener and approved by the Associate Dean (Education) on the basis of the teaching model being employed; students shall submit assessment online via ‘Wattle’ outside of Turnitin, or failing that in hard copy, or through a combination of submission methods as approved by the Associate Dean (Education). The submission method is detailed below.

Moderation of Assessment

Marks that are allocated during Semester are to be considered provisional until formalised by the College examiners meeting at the end of each Semester. If appropriate, some moderation of marks might be applied prior to final results being released.

Participation

Participation, engagement and professionalism is assessed as part of this course in Assessment Tasks 2 and 3.

Please send a courtesy email to your tutor/convenor should you have to unexpectedly miss class. Please do not attend if you are feeling unwell - you will not be penalised, and staying at home shows care and respect for the health of your peers.

Installing and de-installing are important professional skills. Show care for the SOAD environment when installing: all students are expected to patch and paint and repair any walls after de-install. Remember: these are the walls you will be presenting the degree show works on!

The standard of participation to aspire to is generous and insightful, sharing with the class or your group highly relevant examples of artist, ideas, parallel investigations, readings and cultural contexts. Please commit to building the skills to provide your peers with well considered feedback, be organised, and come to class with the resources you need. Be a good listener. Whilst conversations need to be rigorous and opinions are very welcome, each contribution needs to be respectful and thoughtfully delivered. Be each others best resource and make class and group engagement exciting and dynamic!

Assessment Task 1

Mini Project: Reflect, Rework, Rethink!

Value: 25%

Details of task:

• Before diving into the development of your capstone project, take some time to reflect, and ask consider: what works have I made to date on my degree? What concepts, processes and methods have I been most excited by? What aspects of your practice would you like to develop and deepen? Is there an area of research or theory that you really need to know more about? Is there something you want to try out?
• Based on this thinking, what will you nominate to explore and develop for the next 25 hours of the course? This includes 8 hours of class time and at least 15 hours of independent investigation. How will you use this time to strengthen your skill set and make a small-scale experimental work or proposition?  

Format: Use the Studio Diary prompts provided on Wattle to guide you through planning, documenting and reflecting on your project. You will have the opportunity to install the outcome of the task for discussion and review in SOAD studios in Week 4, along with your Studio Diary.

This task is designed to develop your project management skills which involve planning and communicating with your supervisor and the Tech team and organising your own time. Other skills for developing independent practice include being aware of and documenting key moments of ideation and decision making, as well as reflecting on your own work methods. Reflection on work methods is key to developing an independent methodology. 

Rubric

Criteria	HD 80-100	D 70-79	CR 60-69	P 50-59	F 0-49
Project organisation  LO 1,4	Demonstrates outstanding time management. The project plan is detailed and realistic. The resources required are clearly identified and then fully utilised.	Demonstrates very good time management skills. The project plan is thorough. The resources required are identified and then well utilised.	Demonstrates competent time management skills. The project plan is complete however it may lack some clarity or realistic expectation. Resources are identified and utilised.	Has completed the project plan and reported on resource usage but at a minimum. Has made adequate use of time.	Has not completed project plan or adequately reported on resource usage. How time has been spent is not clearly reported, and evidenced in poor resolution of project.
Material and conceptual engagement LO 1,3,4	The work demonstrates exceptional and sustained engagement with materials, processes, and concepts. The choice and manipulation of materials are deeply integrated with the conceptual framework, revealing innovative and sophisticated connections. The outcome may exhibit originality, risk-taking, and clarity of intention, evidencing a understanding of the relationship between material and concept.	The work shows strong and consistent engagement with materials, processes, and concepts. Material choices are well considered and meaningfully linked to the conceptual framework. The outcome is resolved and ambitious, with minor areas for further refinement or exploration.	The work demonstrates competent engagement with materials, processes, and concepts. The material choices are appropriate but may lack deeper integration with the conceptual framework or project rationale identified. The outcome is functional and resolved but could be pushed materially or conceptually further.	The work shows basic engagement with materials and concepts but lacks depth or consistency. Material choices are somewhat aligned with the conceptual framework, but the connections are underdeveloped or unclear. The outcome is uneven and lacks refinement, originality, or coherence, though it demonstrates enough effort and understanding to meet the requirements.	The work demonstrates little to no engagement with materials, processes, or concepts. Material choices are poorly considered or entirely disconnected from the conceptual framework. The outcome is unresolved, lacks coherence, and fails to meet the basic requirements of the investigation.
Reflection   LO 2,4	The studio diary/documentation demonstrates exceptional depth of reflection, offering critical insights into the creative process, decision-making, and conceptual development. Entries are consistently clear, articulate, and meticulously documented, showing a rigorous engagement with the evolution of the work. The student critically evaluates challenges, successes, and their own position within broader artistic contexts. The diary integrates theoretical and practical considerations seamlessly, evidencing an advanced ability to synthesize ideas and articulate a coherent artistic vision. Every reflective prompt is responded to with insight and honesty. These demonstrate that the student is already developing an independent methodology.	The studio diary/documentation reflects a strong engagement with the creative process and critical self-reflection. Entries are thorough, well-organized, and articulate, demonstrating a clear understanding of how material experimentation and conceptual ideas inform each other. The student evaluates their progress with insight and situates their practice within relevant contexts, though there may be minor areas where depth or connection could be expanded. The diary demonstrates consistent thoughtfulness and self-awareness in articulating artistic intentions and outcomes.	The studio diary/documentation shows a competent engagement with reflection and process. Entries demonstrate an ability to describe and analyze creative decisions, but the depth of critical engagement may be uneven. While the diary includes relevant documentation of material and conceptual development, it may lack clarity, organization, or integration of broader contextual or theoretical insights. The reflection demonstrates a functional but limited ability to articulate connections between process, experimentation, and conceptual outcomes.	The studio diary/documentation shows a basic level of reflection, with an emphasis on description rather than critical analysis. Entries may be inconsistent, lacking depth or clear connections between material experimentation and conceptual development. Contextual or theoretical engagement is minimal, and the reflection may rely on general observations rather than thoughtful evaluation. While the diary meets basic requirements, it lacks coherence, critical insight, or sustained engagement with the creative process.	The studio diary/documentation demonstrates little to no meaningful reflection or engagement with the creative process. Entries are sparse, superficial, or entirely absent, with minimal documentation of material or conceptual development. There is little evidence of critical thinking, self-evaluation, or contextual awareness. Overall, support material falls short of the basic requirements for reflective practice.

Assessment Task 2

Studio-based Iteration #1

Value: 25%

iteration [noun]

the process of doing something again and again, usually to improve it, or one of the times you do it:

eg. the repetition and iteration that goes on in designing something

The software is on its fifth iteration.

experimentation [noun] 

the process of trying methods, activities, etc. to discover what effect they have:

Children need the opportunity for experimentation.

Extensive experimentation is needed before new drugs can be sold.

By now you have planned, developed and executed a small studio investigation over 25 hours/3 weeks. We anticipate this experiment will be highly generative: it could have been a conceptual failure, a technical success, over-ambitious, poorly planned or inspired you to take a new direction. The Studio Diary offered a guide to help you plan and reflect on this process.

For Assessment Task Two, you must now independently plan and execute the next 5 weeks (3 weeks of classes, plus 2 weeks during mid semester break) of your studio investigations. During this phase of the course, you will have the opportunity to evaluate your mini-project, and develop a new iterations of it. This iteration may represent a radical departure, a scaling up, a new technique, a re-make, or another self-directed experiment, building on your previous work. In order to help guide your studio iterations, we will supply a set of prompts, which will function as 'thought experiments' to help shape your investigations.

Format: Use the Studio Diary and supplied prompts to guide to document the development and delivery of your studio-based enquiry. The expectation is that you will be filling this in on a weekly basis and using it as a tool to support your ongoing reflection of your progress.

Rationale: 1000 and 2000 level courses have supported new skills in aspects of studio practice, and have been highly constrained/directed. In order to prepare you for an independent professional studio practice, at 3000 level you transition from a brief-led to self-directed independent experimentation, toward a final resolution in Semester 2 of a body of work in ARTV3035. These assessment tasks are designed to help break down a year long project into manageable, actionable tasks, that encourage curiosity and a generative, iterative approach to artmaking.

This approach recognises that ideas develop in-the-making and through making - giving you time to stress test and explore your ideas in the studio before jumping in Semester 2. In short, the aim of ARTV3033 is to develop a process or studio methodology in which artmaking itself becomes a means of exploring, thinking and consolidating your own focus and critical direction.

Rubric

Criteria	HD 80-100	D-70-79	CR 60-69	P 50-59	F 0-49
Studio Experimentation LO 1-5	Studio investigations reflect highly ambitious material and conceptual experimentation. Presentation of work is thoughtful, supported by a clear commitment to testing, iterating, versioning to solve conceptual and material challenges. Demonstrates a high level of awareness of the viewer experience.	Studio investigations demonstrate a range of experiments, evidencing good planning and time management, and good effective attempts at problem solving and progression. The presentation of each iteration has clearly been considered.	Studio investigations demonstrate some experimentation, but may be hampered by poor time management, a lack of clarity about what to prioritise, and/or a lack of commitment to the research and development of a concept and its display.	Studio investigations show limited experimentation, that may nonetheless still show promise. Iterations may be let down by poor time management, or remain underdeveloped.	Studio investigations are not resolved and conceptually/materially incoherent. A lack of experimentation may result in iterations that are literal or derivative, showing little progression.
Studio Research (material, conceptual, contextual) LO 1-5	Studio investigations are supported by extensive readings, artworks and contextual research that is relevant and academically rigorous. The relationship between the research context/s and the studio-based enquiry is continually re-examined and acutely analysed.	Studio investigations are supported by readings, artworks and contextual research that is relevant and academically sound. The relationship between the research context/s and the studio-based enquiry is clearly examined and well analysed.	Studio investigations are supported by readings, artworks and contextual research that has some relevance but lacks breadth and depth. The relationship between the research context/s and the studio-based enquiry is beginning to be analysed.	Studio investigations are supported by very few example readings, artworks and contextual research, these may be limited in relevance and overlook key scholarship in the area. Basic relationship between the research context/s and the studio-based enquiry.	Inadequate research and irrelevant examples. Relationship between the research context/s and the studio-based enquiry is tenuous.
Reflection  LO 1-4	Every reflective prompt in studio diary is responded to with insight and honesty. Demonstrates the development of a sophisticated  independent methodology, shows a nuanced understanding of the ideation, development and delivery of a project.	Every prompt is responded to in studio diary and shows some insight and honest reflection.  Demonstrates the development of a solid independent methodology, shows a good understanding of the ideation, development and delivery of a project.	Most prompts are responded to but/or lack insight and sustained reflection. Demonstrates the beginning of an independent methodology, shows some good understanding  of the ideation, development and delivery of a project.	Not all prompts are responded to or are only answered at a basic level. Attempts reflection but needs to understand the depth and rigor required to fully develop an independent methodology.	Not all prompts are responded to. Reflection is inadequately demonstrated. Concerns about ability to develop an independent methodology.
Participation, engagement and professionalism LO 1-5	Generous and insightful participation. Provides highly relevant examples. Asks pertinent questions and provides feedback with critical consideration.	Valuable participation.   Provides some relevant examples. Asks interesting questions and provides some quality feedback.	Notable participation.  Shows engagement through examples. Asks questions and attempts thoughtful feedback.	Some participation. Needs to consider relevance of feedback by listening more closely and becoming more critically aware.	Limited to no participation. Has provided disrespectful or totally irrelevant feedback.

Assessment Task 3

Studio-based Iteration #2

By now you have planned, developed and executed a two small studio investigations. The Studio Diary offered a guide to help you plan and reflect on this process, and document your studio research.

For Assessment Task Three, you are asked to reflect on your mini project (Assessment Task One) and first iteration (Assessment Task Two).

• What have you learned in terms of project management? How can you mitigate this moving forwards?
• What technical problems have emerged and were you able to resolve them?
• Was your first iteration a success or failure? How might this inform your next steps in the studio?
• What kinds of concepts and themes are bubbling through what you are making? Are there other communities of practitioners, or new ideas that you need to spend time researching? Keep in mind the Lecture from week 6 which offered an orientation into practice research methods.

With the above questions as a backdrop, you are required to independently plan and execute a new iteration over 3 weeks (9 hrs of supervised studio time plus around 21 hours of independent study) of your studio investigations. As with your last iteration from weeks 5-8, this iteration may represent a radical departure, a scaling up, a new technique, a re-make, or another self-directed experiment, building on your previous work. In order to help guide your studio iterations, we will supply a set of prompts, which will function as 'thought experiments' to help shape your investigations.

Rubric

Criteria	HD 80-100	D-70-79	CR 60-69	P 50-59	F 0-49
Studio Experimentation LO 1-5	Studio investigations reflect highly ambitious material and conceptual experimentation. Presentation of work is thoughtful, supported by a clear commitment to testing, iterating, versioning to solve conceptual and material challenges. Demonstrates a high level of awareness of the viewer experience	Studio investigations demonstrate a range of experiments, evidencing good planning and time management, and good effective attempts at problem solving and progression. The presentation of each iteration has clearly been considered.	Studio investigations demonstrate some experimentation, but may be hampered by poor time management, a lack of clarity about what to prioritise, and/or a lack of commitment to the research and development of a concept and its display.	Studio investigations show limited experimentation, that may nonetheless still show promise. Iterations may be let down by poor time management, or remain underdeveloped.	Studio investigations are not resolved and conceptually/materially incoherent. A lack of experimentation may result in iterations that are literal or derivative, showing little progression
Studio Research (material, conceptual, contextual) LO 1-5	Studio investigations are supported by extensive readings, artworks and contextual research that is relevant and academically rigorous. The relationship between the research context/s and the studio-based enquiry is continually re-examined and acutely analysed.	Studio investigations are supported by readings, artworks and contextual research that is relevant and academically sound. The relationship between the research context/s and the studio-based enquiry is clearly examined and well analysed.	Studio investigations are supported by readings, artworks and contextual research that has some relevance but lacks breadth and depth. The relationship between the research context/s and the studio-based enquiry is beginning to be analysed.	Studio investigations are supported by very few example readings, artworks and contextual research, these may be limited in relevance and overlook key scholarship in the area. Basic relationship between the research context/s and the studio-based enquiry.	Inadequate research and irrelevant examples. Relationship between the research context/s and the studio-based enquiry is tenuous.
Reflection  LO 1-4	Every reflective prompt in studio diary is responded to with insight and honesty. Demonstrates the development of a sophisticated  independent methodology, shows a nuanced understanding of the ideation, development and delivery of a project.	Every prompt is responded to in studio diary and shows some insight and honest reflection.  Demonstrates the development of a solid independent methodology, shows a good understanding of the ideation, development and delivery of a project.	Most prompts are responded to but/or lack insight and sustained reflection. Demonstrates the beginning of an independent methodology, shows some good understanding  of the ideation, development and delivery of a project.	Not all prompts are responded to or are only answered at a basic level. Attempts reflection but needs to understand the depth and rigor required to fully develop an independent methodology.	Not all prompts are responded to. Reflection is inadequately demonstrated. Concerns about ability to develop an independent methodology.
Participation, engagement and professionalism LO 1-5	Generous and insightful participation. Provides highly relevant examples. Asks pertinent questions and provides feedback with critical consideration.	Valuable participation.   Provides some relevant examples. Asks interesting questions and provides some quality feedback.	Notable participation.  Shows engagement through examples. Asks questions and attempts thoughtful feedback	Some participation. Needs to consider relevance of feedback by listening more closely and becoming more critically aware.	Limited to no participation. Has provided disrespectful or totally irrelevant feedback.

Assessment Task 4

The Independent Work Proposal

Value: 25%

Details of task:

You have spent Semester 1 testing ideas, techniques, and exploring materials in the studio to help you define a set of parameters for your capstone project. Your Independent Work Proposal (IWP) is the culmination of your learning in Semester 1 and is a springboard for ARTV3035 in Semester 2. It is a written proposal that communicates the key concepts, questions and methodologies which will shape a major body of work leading to the graduation exhibition.

The IWP should therefore clearly outline the shape of the anticipated future direction of your work, demonstrating your critical understanding of relevant contexts and discourses relevant to your practice. It should articulate any potential innovation in material and conceptual development, and a clear sense of your own working methodology ready for the final capstone project of your visual art degree. It will be developed in dialogue with your tutors, technical officers and peers. Full guidelines on the content, formatting and style of the text will be supplied on Wattle.

The submission of the IWP has two deadlines for assessment:

• A formative assessment point, where you are asked to submit an initial draft to Wattle by 23:55 on 12th May 2025
• A summative assessment point, where the completed IWP Proposal will be submitted to Wattle for final assessment by 30th May 2025 by 23:55.

Format: Written proposal of maximum 1500 words (excluding references). Project proposal must be fully footnoted using the Chicago style of referencing. Footnotes and bibliography must be formatted precisely using the Chicago style. Please refer to this link for further information: http://soad.cass.anu.edu.au/referencing-guidelines Please refer to Wattle for full IWP guidelines. 

Rubric

CRITERIA	HD 80-100	D 70-79	CR 60-69	P 50-59	F 0-49
Project innovation   LO 1,2,3,5	The proposal is highly original, showcasing a critically positioned and conceptually rich project with clear potential to contribute meaningfully to contemporary art practice/discourse. It demonstrates exceptional creativity and innovation in both approach and projected outcomes.	The proposal is exciting and critically considered, offering a clear and ambitious project idea with thoughtful engagement in contemporary art practices. Some areas of innovation could be further developed.	The proposal shows potential but lacks some ambition or critical depth. While the project has creative elements, its trajectory is not fully developed or lacks a strong critical framework.	The proposal has been completed and outlines tangible objectives, but it lacks innovative qualities or critical engagement. The project may feel generic or underdeveloped.	he proposal shows limited trajectory, lacks innovation, and does not engage critically or creatively with the requirements of the task.
Evaluation   LO 1,2,3,5	emonstrates a sophisticated ability to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the proposed project. The student anticipates potential challenges and offers insightful strategies for addressing them, integrating feedback from peers and tutors seamlessly.	Shows a strong ability to identify strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in the proposal. The analysis of studio work and anticipated challenges is thoughtful and well-articulated.	Identifies some strengths, weaknesses, and gaps, building on learning from studio practice. The evaluation is adequate but lacks depth or clarity in addressing challenges.	Identifies limited strengths, weaknesses, and gaps. Analysis of the outcomes of studio investigations is minimal or superficial.	Little to no identification of strengths, weaknesses, or gaps. The analysis of studio investigations is poor or absent.
Communication  LO 2,4	Demonstrates excellent verbal, visual, and written communication. The proposal is clearly articulated, well-organized, and effectively uses visuals to support the written and verbal components.	Demonstrates good verbal, visual, and written communication. The proposal is clear and coherent, with minor lapses in integration between components.	Demonstrates some good verbal, visual, and written communication, though some sections lack clarity, coherence, or depth.	Verbal, visual, and written communication is basic, with noticeable confusion or underdeveloped areas.	Communication is mostly unclear or insufficient, lacking coherence and integration across verbal, visual, and written components.
Contextual Research   LO 1, 2,3,5	Demonstrates an exceptional ability to contextualize the proposed project within relevant historical, theoretical, and contemporary art practices. Research is thorough, critically engaged, and seamlessly integrated into the proposal, showcasing a sophisticated understanding of the broader field. The student positions their work with originality and critical awareness, drawing on diverse and well-selected sources to support their conceptual and material development.	Demonstrates a strong ability to contextualize the proposed project with relevant and thoughtful research into historical, theoretical, and contemporary art practices. Research is applied effectively to support the proposal, with some areas for further depth or integration. The student shows a clear understanding of how their work relates to broader contexts.	Demonstrates a competent engagement with contextual research. The student references relevant historical, theoretical, or contemporary practices but may rely on a limited range of sources or lack critical depth. Connections between research and the proposal are present but could be more fully developed.	Demonstrates basic engagement with contextual research, referencing a narrow range of sources or offering limited analysis. The connections between research and the proposal are underdeveloped or unclear, and the research lacks depth or critical engagement.	Demonstrates little to no engagement with contextual research. The proposal lacks evidence of relevant historical, theoretical, or contemporary references, failing to situate the project within a broader context. Research is minimal, poorly executed, or irrelevant to the proposal.

Academic Integrity

Academic integrity is a core part of the ANU culture as a community of scholars. The University’s students are an integral part of that community. The academic integrity principle commits all students to engage in academic work in ways that are consistent with, and actively support, academic integrity, and to uphold this commitment by behaving honestly, responsibly and ethically, and with respect and fairness, in scholarly practice.

The University expects all staff and students to be familiar with the academic integrity principle, the Academic Integrity Rule 2021, the Policy: Student Academic Integrity and Procedure: Student Academic Integrity, and to uphold high standards of academic integrity to ensure the quality and value of our qualifications.

The Academic Integrity Rule 2021 is a legal document that the University uses to promote academic integrity, and manage breaches of the academic integrity principle. The Policy and Procedure support the Rule by outlining overarching principles, responsibilities and processes. The Academic Integrity Rule 2021 commences on 1 December 2021 and applies to courses commencing on or after that date, as well as to research conduct occurring on or after that date. Prior to this, the Academic Misconduct Rule 2015 applies.

 

The University commits to assisting all students to understand how to engage in academic work in ways that are consistent with, and actively support academic integrity. All coursework students must complete the online Academic Integrity Module (Epigeum), and Higher Degree Research (HDR) students are required to complete research integrity training. The Academic Integrity website provides information about services available to assist students with their assignments, examinations and other learning activities, as well as understanding and upholding academic integrity.

Online Submission

You will be required to electronically sign a declaration as part of the submission of your assignment. Please keep a copy of the assignment for your records. Unless an exemption has been approved by the Associate Dean (Education) submission must be through Turnitin.

Hardcopy Submission

For some forms of assessment (hand written assignments, art works, laboratory notes, etc.) hard copy submission is appropriate when approved by the Associate Dean (Education). This applies to the final artworks in Assessment Task 1, 2 and 3 which will be installed within SoA&D Workshops during the examination period.

Late Submission

Individual assessment tasks may or may not allow for late submission. Policy regarding late submission is detailed below:

• Late submission not permitted for Assessment 1, 2 & 3. If submission of tasks without an extension after the due date is not permitted, a mark of 0 will be awarded.
• Late submission permitted for Assessment 4. Late submission of assessment tasks without an extension are penalised at the rate of 5% of the possible marks available per working day or part thereof. Late submission of assessment tasks is not accepted after 10 working days after the due date, or on or after the date specified in the course outline for the return of the assessment item.

Referencing Requirements

The Academic Skills website has information to assist you with your writing and assessments. The website includes information about Academic Integrity including referencing requirements for different disciplines. There is also information on Plagiarism and different ways to use source material. Any use of artificial intelligence must be properly referenced. Failure to properly cite use of Generative AI will be considered a breach of academic integrity.

Returning Assignments

Students will be given clear guidelines on when work is to be de-installed and collected after submission of Tasks 1, 2 and 3.

Extensions and Penalties

Extensions and late submission of assessment pieces are covered by the Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure. Extensions may be granted for assessment pieces that are not examinations or take-home examinations. If you need an extension, you must request an extension in writing on or before the due date. If you have documented and appropriate medical evidence that demonstrates you were not able to request an extension on or before the due date, you may be able to request it after the due date.

Privacy Notice

The ANU has made a number of third party, online, databases available for students to use. Use of each online database is conditional on student end users first agreeing to the database licensor’s terms of service and/or privacy policy. Students should read these carefully. In some cases student end users will be required to register an account with the database licensor and submit personal information, including their: first name; last name; ANU email address; and other information.
In cases where student end users are asked to submit ‘content’ to a database, such as an assignment or short answers, the database licensor may only use the student’s ‘content’ in accordance with the terms of service – including any (copyright) licence the student grants to the database licensor. Any personal information or content a student submits may be stored by the licensor, potentially offshore, and will be used to process the database service in accordance with the licensors terms of service and/or privacy policy.
If any student chooses not to agree to the database licensor’s terms of service or privacy policy, the student will not be able to access and use the database. In these circumstances students should contact their lecturer to enquire about alternative arrangements that are available.

Distribution of grades policy

Academic Quality Assurance Committee monitors the performance of students, including attrition, further study and employment rates and grade distribution, and College reports on quality assurance processes for assessment activities, including alignment with national and international disciplinary and interdisciplinary standards, as well as qualification type learning outcomes.

Since first semester 1994, ANU uses a grading scale for all courses. This grading scale is used by all academic areas of the University.

Support for students

The University offers students support through several different services. You may contact the services listed below directly or seek advice from your Course Convener, Student Administrators, or your College and Course representatives (if applicable).

• ANU Health, safety & wellbeing for medical services, counselling, mental health and spiritual support
• ANU Accessibility for students with a disability or ongoing or chronic illness
• ANU Dean of Students for confidential, impartial advice and help to resolve problems between students and the academic or administrative areas of the University
• ANU Academic Skills supports you make your own decisions about how you learn and manage your workload.
• ANU Counselling promotes, supports and enhances mental health and wellbeing within the University student community.
• ANUSA supports and represents all ANU students