This Web site was designed using Web standards.
Learn more about the benefits of standardized design.

Quick Links

E-mail Article Print Article

High School: Teaching Staff: Rangel

Ceramic Relief Tile Rubric

by Marie Rangel

April 25, 2008

  Ceramic Relief Tile Rubric  
     
Building Techniques- 15% total, 5% each component
5 3 0
joints slipped and scored well most joints slipped and scored,
some slight separation seen
not slipped and scored properly
walls an even 1/2" thick,back of tile hollowed walls either too thick or thin work not hollowed where needed
clay consistently dried,with no cracks a few cracks in clay many cracks in clay
     
Difficulty of Design- 15%  
15 5-10% 5
difficulty of design meets skill, creates a challenge for student "adequate" difficulty, creates no real challenge design too simplistic
     
Originality of Design- 15% total, 5% each component
5 3 0
design is of student creation design too similar to examples  design identical to examples given
at least 3 levels used to heighten sense of 3D 3 levels used, but fairly flat in appearance too few levels used,
more like drawing than sculpture
interesting perimeter relates to form used perimeter neat and cleanly cut,
but very standard
perimeter not well formed,shows lack of craft
     
Use of Elements and Principles- 30% total, 10% each component
10 5 0
texture fits form texture inconsistent w/ form texture at odds w/ form, or no texture used to break up space
interesting use of shape and space creates either pattern or movement symmetrical use of shape and space,
or s/s not well applied
use of s/s very inconsistent, creates no pattern or movement
unity achieved, all parts fit with one another unity attempted, slight "mismatched" feeling unity not considered
     
Craftsmanship- 20% total, 10 % each component
10 5 0
"intentional" craft, shows good attention to detail attempted craft, some minor flaws craft not considered, "messy" appearance
glaze applied consistently glaze inconsistent, or is too thick/thin glaze is neither consistent or thick enough
     
Comments:    

 

Back To Top