6 – EXCELLENT QUALITY

• Work at this level is consistently of high quality, although not all pieces will necessarily be at precisely the same level of expertise.
• It shows obvious evidence of thinking.
• It demonstrates a sense of confidence, and of verve.
• It may address fairly complex visual and/or conceptual ideas.
• It has some sense of inventiveness/imagination.
• Materials are used well; technique is generally excellent.
• It may show a generally successful engagement with experimentation and/or risk-taking.
• The work may be notable for sensitivity and/or subtlety.
• Composition is purposeful.
• There is strong evidence of awareness of style and format — a sense of informed decision-making.
• Any apparent photographic or published sources seem merely to have provided 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.
• Work shows evidence of thinking; i.e., it conveys a sense that it is about something.
• It is fairly confident.
• It may have some evocative qualities.
• There is successful engagement with most aspects of technique and materials.
• Composition is generally strong.
• If there is apparent photographic or published sources, there is also a strong sense of the student's individual tranformation of the images.

4 – GOOD QUALITY

• Work has some sense of purpose/direction, but this is not as well handled or resolved as it is in work that receives scores of 5 or 6.
• In general, the work demonstrates some degree of success.
• Some manipulation of ideas is evident.
• Some technical aspects are handled well or some ideas are handled well, but the two don't always mesh and work together.
• A sense of technical competence is emerging.
• If there are apparent photographic or published sources, the student's individual "voice" can be discerned.

3 – MODERATE QUALITY

• Work may show a sense of real effort, but problems are not successfully resolved.
• Work may be more accomplished technically than it is conceptually.
• If the work addresses ideas, the technical skills needed to resolve them may not be evident.
• Technique may be erratic, with little or no sense of challenge.
• The work may be more ambitious than work that receives a score of 2, without necessarily being more successful.
• If there are apparent photographic or published sources, the work appears to be a nearly direct reproduction; the student's "voice" is weak.

2 – WEAK QUALITY

• Technical aspects are weak.
• Solutions to problems tend to be simplistic.
• The sense of exploration of the medium is missing.
• Attempts to deal with ideas or technical problems are not realized.
• Drawing tends to be awkward.
• Composition is weak.
• In contrast to work that receives a score of 1, there is at least some sense of artistic decision making.
• The works are obviously direct copies of photographic or published sources; no discernible student "voice."

1 – POOR QUALITY

• There is little, if any, evidence of thinking.
• Technique is poor.
• Work shows a lack of awareness of tools/media.
• Solutions tend to be trite.
• Composition is poor, or doesn't appear to have been considered.