AP+Studio+Art+Drawing+Scoring+Rubric

=AP® STUDIO ART SCORING GUIDELINES= © 2008 The College Board. All rights reserved. Visit the College Board on the Web: www.collegeboard.com.

Drawing Portfolio
General information and a few provisos: • The scoring guidelines for the AP portfolios contains score points from 6 (excellent) through 5 (strong), 4 (good), 3 (moderate), 2 (weak), and 1 (poor). • Each score point is characterized by a variety of descriptors of work that would receive that score. • Because there are only six different points on the scale, each score point represents a band or range of accomplishment. • Some of the descriptors may seem to contradict each other because the range of possibilities for work at a given score point is so great. • The descriptors are examples; it is not expected that all the descriptors for a scale point will apply to any one particular portfolio. • The descriptors intentionally discuss general aspects of artwork at each score point; there is no preferred (or unacceptable) content or style. • The descriptors (taken as a whole) capture characteristics of work that merits each score. • This is a living document—one that evolves over time. Though these are the scoring guidelines that were used in 2008, they are always open to subsequent revision.

Drawing QUALITY—Section I
Five works that demonstrate mastery of drawing—apparent in the composition, concept, and execution of the works.

6 EXCELLENT QUALITY. Work at this level:
• is generally of excellent quality, although not all pieces will necessarily be at precisely the same level of expertise; • demonstrates an excellent understanding of drawing through composition, concept, and execution; • shows obvious evidence of thinking and/or informed decision-making; • addresses fairly complex visual and/or conceptual ideas; • shows an imaginative, inventive, and confident use of the elements and principles of design to demonstrate drawing skills; • uses materials effectively; technique is generally excellent; • may show successful engagement with experimentation and/or risk-taking; • may be notable for sensitivity and/or subtlety. • Any use of digital or photographic processes shows excellent understanding of drawing concepts and skills. • Any apparent use of published or photographic sources or the work of other artists clearly provides a visual reference in the service of a larger, personal vision.

5 STRONG QUALITY. Work at this level:
• is generally strong, although there may be inconsistencies in overall quality; • demonstrates a strong understanding of drawing through composition, visual concepts, and execution; • has a strong sense of purpose or direction; • shows evidence of thinking; • shows evidence of confidence; • may have evocative qualities; • successfully engages with most aspects of technique and materials; • shows a strong grasp of the elements and principles of design, using them to demonstrate drawing skills. • Any use of digital or photographic processes shows strong understanding of drawing concepts and skills. • Any apparent use of published or photographic sources or the work of other artists shows a strong sense of the student’s individual transformation of the images.

4 GOOD QUALITY. Work at this level:
• is generally of good quality, although there may be inconsistencies in overall quality; • demonstrates a good understanding of drawing through composition, concepts, and execution; • has a sense of purpose or direction, but it is not fully resolved; • has some technical aspects that are handled well or some ideas that are handled well, but the two do not always mesh and work together; • uses the elements and principles of design to demonstrate drawing skills. • Any use of digital or photographic processes demonstrates good understanding of drawing concepts and skills. • If there is apparent use of published or photographic sources or the work of other artists, the student’s individual “voice” can be discerned.

3 MODERATE QUALITY. Work at this level:
• is generally of moderate quality, although there may be inconsistencies in overall quality; • demonstrates a moderate understanding of drawing through composition, concepts, and execution; • shows a sense of real effort but does not demonstrate purpose or direction; • shows good technical skills but is weak in terms of ideas; • addresses ideas, but the technical skills needed to resolve them are weak; • shows an emerging understanding of the elements and principles of design to demonstrate drawing skills; • has erratic technique, with little or no sense of challenge. • Any use of digital or photographic processes shows moderate understanding of drawing concepts and skills. • If published photographic sources or the work of other artists are used, the work appears to be a nearly direct reproduction; the student’s “voice” is minimal.

2 WEAK QUALITY. Work at this level:
• is generally awkward; • solves problems simplistically; • has little sense of exploration; • lacks a clear sense of intention; • shows little understanding of elements and principles of design; composition is weak; • shows limited artistic decision-making. • Any use of digital or photographic processes shows minimal understanding of drawing concepts and skills. • The works are copies of published or photographic sources or the work of other artists; there is little discernible student “voice.”

1 POOR QUALITY. Work at this level:
• is generally inept; • shows little evidence of thinking/artistic decision-making; • reveals a lack of understanding of technique; • shows a lack of awareness of tools/media; • uses trite solutions to visual problems; • is poorly composed, with minimal consideration given to elements and principles of design. • Any use of digital or photographic processes shows a lack of understanding of drawing concepts and skills. • The works are obviously direct copies of photographic sources or the work of other artists; there is no discernible student “voice.”

Drawing CONCENTRATION—Section II
A concentration is defined as “a body of work unified by an underlying idea that has visual coherence.” In scoring concentrations, there are four major areas of concern. • Coherence and/or development—is the work presented actually a concentration? • Quality of the concept/idea represented—is there evidence of thinking and of focus? • Degree of development and investigation that is evident in the work—including the amount of work or number of pieces represented. • Quality of the work in both concept and technique, regardless of medium. Note: These four areas will necessarily appear in shifting relationships of relative strength and weakness. When the four are not even in the level of achievement they represent, they will be considered as a whole to arrive at the score for the section. Because this section is concerned with a process of growth and discovery, the work presented may span a range of levels of achievement. If this is the case, the higher level that is reached should be acknowledged in the score that is given. The scoring guidelines that follow provide examples of overall characteristics of concentrations that would merit each of the six scores.

6 EXCELLENT CONCENTRATION
• There is an unmistakable connection between the idea of the concentration and the work presented. • The concentration engages the viewer with the work and the idea. • The work shows effective integration of concept and drawing skills. • Mastery of drawing techniques is strong to excellent. • The work shows informed risk-taking and development beyond technical concerns. • An evocative theme is carried out. • The work demonstrates an original vision. • Overall, the work is of excellent quality.

5 STRONG CONCENTRATION
• The work and the concentration topic have a close relationship. • The idea of the concentration is good to strong. • There is evidence of thought in the work. • The work is technically competent; skill is evident. • There is evidence of effective pursuit of the idea. • There may be some less successful pieces, but overall, there is strong evidence of drawing competency. • The work shows a sense of transformation over time, although it may not be totally successful. • An evocative theme is investigated. • Overall, the work is of strong quality.

4 GOOD CONCENTRATION
• There is a sense of concentration, and the work is related to the idea. • The drawing technique and skills are generally good. • Manipulation of ideas is evident. • Some growth and discovery are evident. • The work may be a concentration with technically competent drawing skills but with an insufficient sense of investigation. • Although the work is of strong or excellent quality, it is not a concentration. • Overall, the work is of good quality.

3 MODERATE CONCENTRATION
• The work is a concentration, but the topic is inadequately considered. • It may include several loosely related ideas. • It may be so broad that the student could not really explore an idea in depth. • The work may be inconsistently related to the idea. • Some growth is evident, but only moderate drawing skill is demonstrated. • Although the work may be of good quality, it is not a concentration. • Overall, the work is of moderate quality.

2 WEAK CONCENTRATION
• There is little investigation of the idea. • The idea is appropriate for a concentration, but the knowledge and understanding needed to execute it are not evident. • A concentration is presented, but the work is consistently weak in drawing quality. • The work may appear to constitute a good start, but it does not show sufficient investigation. • Although the work shows moderate drawing competence, it is not a concentration. • Quantity of work may be lacking. • Overall, the work is of weak quality.

1 POOR CONCENTRATION
• There is no sense of investigation. • The work shows little or no evidence of drawing competence. • The work may be a concentration, but drawing is of poor quality. • The idea is incoherent or not focused. • There is a lack of an underlying rationale that would link the work. • There is not enough work to represent a concentration. • The slides are virtually impossible to see. • Overall, the work is of poor quality.

=Drawing BREADTH—Section III=

6 EXCELLENT BREADTH
• The work demonstrates serious, successful engagement with a broad range of drawing issues and/or techniques. • The work successfully demonstrates command of stylistic as well as technical concerns. • The work is executed with confidence. • The work shows flexibility of thinking, as evidenced in the variety of works presented. • Form and content are effectively synthesized to communicate visual ideas. • A variety of materials are used effectively. • Most work demonstrates successful experimentation, risk-taking, and/or ambition. • Overall, the work is of excellent quality.

5 STRONG BREADTH
• The work demonstrates engagement with a broad range of drawing issues. • A range of stylistic as well as technical drawing concerns is evident in the work. • The quality of the work is strong. • The work shows clear decision-making; there is evidence of thinking. • The link between form and content is strong. • A range of materials is used, in most cases successfully. • The work may include some excellent pieces but address less than a strong range of drawing issues. • Overall, the work is of strong quality.

4 GOOD BREADTH
• The work demonstrates engagement with a reasonable range of drawing issues. • Technical skill in drawing is generally competent. • The work is of generally good quality; its success may be somewhat variable. • There is evidence of thinking in at least some of the works. • There is some relationship between form and content. • The work may demonstrate strong to excellent breadth of drawing issues but be of less than good quality. • The work may be of strong or excellent quality, without demonstrating breadth of experience. • Overall, the work is of good quality.

3 MODERATE BREADTH
• In general, the work shows engagement with a superficial range of drawing issues. • Technical skill in drawing is uneven and/or variable. • There is modest evidence of thinking/decision making in the work. • The relationship between form and content is unclear. • There may be a sense of experimentation, without a completely competent resolution or exploration of what is being attempted. • The work may demonstrate attempts at good breadth but be of less than moderate quality. • The work may be of good quality but with a narrow range of experience demonstrated. • Overall, the work is of moderate quality.

2 WEAK BREADTH
• Range of drawing issues addressed is very limited. • Solutions to the range of problems attempted may be simplistic. • Understanding of drawing issues appears to be undeveloped. • Technical skill in drawing is limited. Drawing tends to be awkward. • Evidence of thinking may be slight or present in only a few works. • There is little apparent relationship between form and content. • Some works may be of moderate quality but do not address a range of drawing issues. • There may be a moderate demonstration of breadth but with work of poor quality. • Overall, the work is of weak quality.

1 POOR BREADTH
• The range of drawing issues addressed is extremely limited. • Engagement with drawing issues is questionable and/or lacking. • Technique is clumsy and/or inept. • There is little, if any, evidence of thinking/decision-making. • Form, material, and content are unconsidered. • Not enough work is presented to demonstrate breadth. • Slides are virtually impossible to see. • Very little work is presented. • Overall, the work is of poor quality.