0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
66 vues1 page
This document outlines a rubric for evaluating oral presentations on art and aesthetics. It provides criteria for five levels of performance: A+, A-B+, B-C+, and C-Unsatisfactory. The highest level earns an A+ for presenting a well-thought out argument applied beyond the case study and relating it to relevant philosophers with minimal errors. Lower levels are graded down based on how fully the argument engages with the case study, larger questions of art and aesthetics, alternative viewpoints, and relevant theorists as well as the quality of the presentation delivery.
This document outlines a rubric for evaluating oral presentations on art and aesthetics. It provides criteria for five levels of performance: A+, A-B+, B-C+, and C-Unsatisfactory. The highest level earns an A+ for presenting a well-thought out argument applied beyond the case study and relating it to relevant philosophers with minimal errors. Lower levels are graded down based on how fully the argument engages with the case study, larger questions of art and aesthetics, alternative viewpoints, and relevant theorists as well as the quality of the presentation delivery.
This document outlines a rubric for evaluating oral presentations on art and aesthetics. It provides criteria for five levels of performance: A+, A-B+, B-C+, and C-Unsatisfactory. The highest level earns an A+ for presenting a well-thought out argument applied beyond the case study and relating it to relevant philosophers with minimal errors. Lower levels are graded down based on how fully the argument engages with the case study, larger questions of art and aesthetics, alternative viewpoints, and relevant theorists as well as the quality of the presentation delivery.
Presents a well thought out argument that is applied to both art and aesthetics beyond the case study. Student relates arguments back to appropriate philosophers who inspired their reasoning with almost no errors. Student interacts with alternative theorists to provide greater meaning to their argument and the overall context of art and aesthetics. Engages and critically responds to alternative arguments with rebuttal that provides greater meaning to the overall argument and context of art and/or aesthetics. Engages with case study and uses it to critically respond to answer higher order problems surrounding art and/or aesthetics. Presentation is delivered in the given time and follows standard oral presentation procedures with few mistakes. Organising Multiple Structures A B+ 8-7 Presents a well thought out argument that is applicable to the case study. Where the case study sits within the art and aesthetic is acknowledged but is not applied with further implications to the larger questions of art and/aothetics. Student relates arguments back to their relevant philosophers who inspired their argument with almost no errors. Student is able to differentiate and weigh up alternative theorists to account for their argument. Engages and responds to alternative arguments with rebuttal. Rebuttal is used to strengthen overall argument. Engages with case study and uses it to critically create an original logical argument. Presentation is delivered in the given time and follows standard oral presentation procedures with few mistakes Valuing Multiple structures B 6-5 Presents a clear argument that is mostly applicable to the case study. Argument may pose inconsistencies with larger questions about art and or the aesthetic. Occasional errors are made about theorists but theories are still well used to support argument. Acknowledges and responds to an alterative viewpoint to strengthen their own argument. Acknowledges case study to create a consistent argument. Presentation is delivered in the given time and follows standard oral presentation procedures however some mistakes may detract from the overall argument made. Responding to Structure C+ - C 4-3 Argument is solely based around case study with limited acknowledgment of larger questions surrounding art and/or aesthetics. Student is able to show similarities between their argument and theorist. Limited acknowledgement of alternative viewpoints is shown. Rebuttal does not fully comprehend the problems raised by alternative viewpoints. Highlights the case study to provide an argument relevant to philosophy. Presentation is delivered in the given time however some mistakes detract from the overall argument. Receiving Structure Unsatisfactory 2-1 Argument has limited grounding to the chosen case study, with very limited acknowledgment of larger questions surrounding art and/or aesthetics. Limited similarities between theorists and original argument demonstrated. Alternative viewpoints briefly highlighted if at all. Presentation is not delivered in the given time and follows very few oral presentations procedure