EASTD150, Spring 2016

Ceramic Arts of Korea

Prof. Maya Stiller

 

Rubric for Oral Presentation

Criteria/Levels of Achievement

0-59.99%

60-69.99%

70-79.99%

80-89.99%

90-100%

1. Engagement of presenter

Arrives late for presentation

Speaks too quietly, or with too much hesitation; no eye contact with audience; does not solicit input from audience; frequently turns back on audience; reads from notes

Speaks with hesitation; rarely eye contact with audience; rarely solicits input from audience; occasionally turns back on audience, frequently looks at notes

Speaks clearly; eye contact; frequently solicits input from audience; turns back to audience not more than once; occasionally looks at notes

Speaks clearly and confidentially; eye contact; actively solicits input from audience; does not turn back to audience; rarely looks at notes

2. Visual analysis

Provides less than two items; appropriate terminology missing; stylistic comparison missing

Provides a poor, unstructured visual analysis of the object lacking appropriate terminology; poorly explains object's context; and/or provides less than three of the five items

Provides a fair detailed visual analysis of the object of at least three of the five items

Provides a good visual analysis of the object of at least five of the six items

Provides an excellent visual analysis of the object including the following items:

1) Describes object from top to bottom, or bottom to top (shape, color, glaze, decoration);

2) Uses appropriate terminology;

3) Explains object's production and material, decoration techniques; firing method;

4) Explains meaning of motifs;

5) Makes stylistic comparison with other ceramic works and/or other types of materials such as metal, lacquer, painting

6) Explains possible functions of the object

3. Contextual analysis

Does not provide contextual analysis

Provides a poor comprehensive contextual analysis of the object based on superficial assumptions that are not related to the object

Provides a fair comprehensive contextual analysis of the object, explaining its function in the context of consumer culture, society, culture and religion

Provides a good comprehensive contextual analysis of the object, explaining its function in the context of consumer culture, society, culture and religion

Provides an excellent comprehensive contextual analysis of the object, explaining its function in the context of consumer culture, society, culture and religion

4. Theoretical application/

Historiography

Does not relate the object to the historiographical context and/or a larger theoretical framework and/or misunderstands theoretical framework

Tries to make an argument by relating the object to the historiographical context and/or a larger theoretical framework but does not connect theory with the argument and/or largely misunderstands the theoretical framework/ to the historiographical context

Makes a superficial argument by dropping words by Bourdieu's theory of taste, Baxandall's definition of "influence", orientalism, cultural (mis)appropriation, etc. but does not connect them with the argument; and/or partially misunderstands theoretical framework and/or to the historiographical context

Makes a valid argument by relating the object to the historiographical context and/or a larger theoretical framework; solid understanding of theoretical framework

Makes a convincing argument by relating the object to the historiographical context and/or a larger theoretical framework such as Bourdieu's theory of taste, Baxandall's definition of "influence", orientalism, cultural (mis)appropriation, etc.; fully understands the theoretical framework