This course ensures students complete their Bachelor of Art History and Curatorship with applied knowledge of curatorial and exhibition-making processes, and understanding of current issues in the Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums (GLAM) sector. In seminars led by ANU staff, curators and senior GLAM professionals, students will learn about current exhibition-making policy and practice. In accompanying workshops students will extend their learning through applied exercises and participatory tasks, developing important transferrable skills. Where possible, students will engage in object-based learning activities through access to the School of Art & Design and ANU art collections (subject to access conditions). Throughout this course, students will encounter, observe and learn about the inter-related activities that make creating and visiting art exhibitions both educative and enjoyable. Please note: Due to the applied and practical nature of this course, changes to the assessment tasks and/or class formats may be required at short notice (in order to comply with COVID-19 safety requirements).
Learning Outcomes
Upon successful completion, students will have the knowledge and skills to:
- critically describe the respective and inter-related roles of GLAM professionals in developing and presenting exhibitions;
- critically evaluate the practical and conceptual premises behind exhibitions and creative programming;
- conceive of and develop independent curatorial and program proposals, in response to real-world scenarios;
- identify and critically analyse the curatorial and exhibition-making processes and requirements of different types of GLAM institutions; and
- plan and apply key techniques of artwork care and exhibition installation.
Field Trips
We will be visiting some on campus galleries and arts spaces as part of our Workshops (e.g. Drill Hall, School of Art & Design). There may be opportunities to visit some of the National Cultural Institutions during timetabled hours (if access and COVID-19 requirements permit). Details will be communicated to students through Wattle and email well in advance of any Field Trip.
Required Resources
Many classes will involve students working in small groups and undertaking research in class. Students should bring laptops, tablets and/or other devices to facilitate this.
Recommended Resources
Whether you are on campus or studying remotely, there are a variety of online platforms you will use to participate in your study program. These could include videos for lectures and other instruction, two-way video conferencing for interactive learning, email and other messaging tools for communication, interactive web apps for formative and collaborative activities, print and/or photo/scan for handwritten work and drawings, and home-based assessment.
ANU outlines recommended student system requirements to ensure you are able to participate fully in your learning. Other information is also available about the various Learning Platforms you may use.
Staff Feedback
Students will be given feedback in the following forms in this course:
- written comments
- verbal comments
- feedback to whole class, groups, individuals, focus group etc
Student Feedback
ANU is committed to the demonstration of educational excellence and regularly seeks feedback from students. Students are encouraged to offer feedback directly to their Course Convener or through their College and Course representatives (if applicable). Feedback can also be provided to Course Conveners and teachers via the Student Experience of Learning & Teaching (SELT) feedback program. SELT surveys are confidential and also provide the Colleges and ANU Executive with opportunities to recognise excellent teaching, and opportunities for improvement.
Class Schedule
| Week/Session | Summary of Activities | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Course Overview & Introduction | Please note: Course activities are subject to change. Please refer to the Class Schedule on Wattle for a complete, up-to-date list of activities. |
| 2 | Curators' Perspectives | |
| 3 | Working with Objects | |
| 4 | Working with Collections | |
| 5 | Working with Artists: Commissioning | Assessment Task 1 Due: Sunday 28 August 2022, 11.59pm |
| 6 | Working with Words: Arts Writing and Publishing | |
| 7 | Public Programs and Events | |
| 8 | Online Curating and Exhibitions | |
| 9 | Curating in Artist-Run Initiatives and Small Galleries | Assessment Task 2 Due: Monday 3 October 2022, 11.59pm |
| 10 | Arts Funding and Policy | |
| 11 | Exhibition Planning, Installation and Design | |
| 12 | Final Presentations and Wrap-Up | Assessment Task 3 Due: Tuesday 25 October 2022, 2.00pm |
| 13 | Assessment Task 4 Due: Thursday 3 November 2022, 9.00am |
Tutorial Registration
ANU utilises MyTimetable to enable students to view the timetable for their enrolled courses, browse, then self-allocate to small teaching activities / tutorials so they can better plan their time. Find out more on the Timetable webpage.Assessment Summary
| Assessment task | Value | Due Date | Return of assessment | Learning Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applied Exhibition Proposal | 25 % | 28/08/2022 | 11/09/2022 | 3,4,5 |
| Creative Written Critique Exercise | 20 % | 03/10/2022 | 17/10/2022 | 1,2,4 |
| Public Programs Proposal | 25 % | 25/10/2022 | 08/11/2022 | 3,4 |
| Final Reflective Analysis Essay | 15 % | 03/11/2022 | 01/12/2022 | 1,2,4 |
| Individual Participation in Course Activities | 15 % | * | * | 1,2,3,4,5 |
* If the Due Date and Return of Assessment date are blank, see the Assessment Tab for specific Assessment Task details
Policies
ANU has educational policies, procedures and guidelines , which are designed to ensure that staff and students are aware of the University’s academic standards, and implement them. Students are expected to have read the Academic Integrity Rule before the commencement of their course. Other key policies and guidelines include:
- Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure
- Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure
- Special Assessment Consideration Guideline and General Information
- Student Surveys and Evaluations
- Deferred Examinations
- Student Complaint Resolution Policy and Procedure
- Code of practice for teaching and learning
Assessment Requirements
The ANU is using Turnitin to enhance student citation and referencing techniques, and to assess assignment submissions as a component of the University's approach to managing Academic Integrity. For additional information regarding Turnitin please visit the Academic Skills website. In rare cases where online submission using Turnitin software is not technically possible; or where not using Turnitin software has been justified by the Course Convener and approved by the Associate Dean (Education) on the basis of the teaching model being employed; students shall submit assessment online via ‘Wattle’ outside of Turnitin, or failing that in hard copy, or through a combination of submission methods as approved by the Associate Dean (Education). The submission method is detailed below.
Moderation of Assessment
Marks that are allocated during Semester are to be considered provisional until formalised by the College examiners meeting at the end of each Semester. If appropriate, some moderation of marks might be applied prior to final results being released.
Participation
Seminars and Workshops in this course are designed to facilitated active participation. Students are expected to attend regularly and actively participate in class activities. Individual participation in course activities is worth 15% of the final course grade.
Assessment Task 1
Learning Outcomes: 3,4,5
Applied Exhibition Proposal
For this task students will develop an exhibition proposal for a real-world exhibition space and institution (ANU's Drill Hall Gallery). They will draw on and respond to a specific art collection, and by doing so they will gain and demonstrate new, applied understanding of that collection. Students will have to convincingly communicate their exhibition proposal in multiple formats, including a verbal pitch and a detailed written proposal. Full details and instructions for the task will be provided on Wattle. The core components that must be included within the proposal will be:
- A clearly developed exhibition rationale
- An overall discussion of your choice of artworks
- A full list of artworks, presented in the form of exhibition labels with full artwork details (artwork details in labels are not included in the final word count)
- Extended label texts for selected key artworks (extended texts are included in word count)
- Instructions on hanging/installation (diagrams, wall elevations, layouts can be included here)
- A brief acquisitions proposal for one additional artwork not currently in the collection
- A short video (5 minutes, max) the compellingly pitches your exhibition proposal and ideas
Word limit: 2500 words
Value: 25%
Presentation requirements: Submit via upload to Wattle. Written submission should be 12-point font, double spaced, using Chicago style referencing (footnotes and bibliography). Videos and written proposal documents will need to be submitted to different portals on Wattle.
Due date: Sunday 28 August 2022, 11.59pm
Estimated return date: Sunday 11 September 2022
Rubric
| CRITERIA | FAIL (N) 0-49 | PASS (P) 50-59 | CREDIT (C) 60-69 | DISTINCTION (D) 70-79 | HIGH DISTINCTION (HD) 80-100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Does the proposal have a clearly articulated curatorial rationale that responds to the set scenario? | * No curatorial rationale is articulated, or it is highly limited and/or incomplete. | * Curatorial rationale is either underdeveloped or unclear. * Very limited or unclear response to set scenario. | * Curatorial rationale is well articulated and includes clear response to the set scenario. * Could be developed in more depth or detail. | * Curatorial rationale is very well conceived and articulated. * Connections and responses to set scenario are thoughtfully considered and well developed. | * Curatorial rationale is extremely well conceived and compellingly articulated. * An imaginative and/or highly informed response to scenario. |
Does the proposal demonstrate why its chosen artworks support the curatorial rationale? | * No clear demonstration of how chosen artworks fit the curatorial rationale. | * Some connections made between chosen artworks and curatorial rationale, but unclear or undeveloped. | * Clearly articulates how chosen artworks fit and develop the curatorial rationale. * Could be developed more critically, or could show greater depth/breadth of artwork choice. | * Clearly and critically articulates why artworks have been chosen and how they support the curatorial rationale. | * Clearly, critically & compellingly articulates why artworks have been chosen and how they support the curatorial rationale. * Artwork choice is sophisticated and highly informed. |
Are the artwork details well documented and the extended wall labels well written?’ | * Artworks are poorly documented, lacking key details. * Extended labels are not clearly written. | * Artwork details are included but might lack key elements. * Extended labels are lacking clarity, depth and/or focus. | * Artworks are well documented. * Label texts are well written, but lacking some clarity or depth. * Choice of artworks for extended labels could relate more clearly relate to curatorial rationale. | * Artwork details are thoroughly documented. * Extended label texts are very well written. Clear, concise and well chosen artworks to focus on.
| * Artwork details are meticulously documented. * Extended label texts are extremely well written. Choice of focus artworks further enhances curatorial rational and overall proposal. |
Does the proposal appropriately consider layout and installation? | * No consideration given to layout or installation requirements. | * Some consideration given to layout or installation requirements, but minimal. | * Good consideration layout or installation requirements. * May be lacking some understanding of certain practical considerations. | * Very good consideration layout or installation requirements. * Demonstrates clear, informed understanding of practical considerations. | * Excellent consideration layout or installation requirements. * Demonstrates highly informed understanding of practical considerations. |
How well does the acquisition proposal support the curatorial rationale and the ANU Art Collection Goals? | * Does not include an acquisition proposal. | * Acquisition proposal included but lacks detail/development. * Unclear how proposal supports curatorial rationale and ANU Art Collection. | * Acquisition proposal is well developed and presented. * Articulates connections to curatorial rationale and ANU Art Collection, but could demonstrate greater research. | * Acquisition proposal is very well presented and considered. * Suggested acquisition clearly supports curatorial rationale and connects well to ANU Art Collection. Demonstrates good independent research. | * Acquisition proposal is extremely well presented and considered. * Suggested acquisition enhances curatorial rationale and connects extremely well to ANU Art Collection. Demonstrates excellent independent research. |
Does the video effectively and compellingly pitch the exhibition? | * Video is not effective in pitching exhibition. Lacks clarity and organisation. * Does not keep to time. | * Video is not entirely effective in pitching exhibition. May lack clarity, organisation or focus. * Does not use time effectively. | * Effective video. Describes proposal well, but could make a more compelling/focused pitch. * May not keep to time or use time effectively. | * Very effective video, clearly and engagingly pitches exhibition rationale and feasibility. * Keeps to time. | * Extremely effective video, compelling & imaginatively pitches exhibition rationale and feasibility. * Keeps to time. |
Assessment Task 2
Learning Outcomes: 1,2,4
Creative Written Critique Exercise
This multi-part assessment task is designed to develop students’ skills in evaluating and producing different kinds of writing about exhibitions. There are three (3) parts to the task: 1). A short catalogue essay; 2). A short exhibition review; and 3). An evaluative response and analysis.
Students will choose one exhibition from a set list of exhibitions on display in Canberra (the list of options will be provided on Wattle). Students will produce three pieces of writing in total that all respond to their one chosen exhibition.
Part 1: Catalogue Essay (750 words)
In the first part of this task, students will write a catalogue essay for their chosen exhibition. In this scenario, you have been approached by the exhibition’s curator to write a guest essay for inclusion in the exhibition’s catalogue. You should identify who the exhibition’s key audience(s) will be and develop your essay in response. Your essay should be written in a formal style – it does not need to be overly academic, but it should demonstrate a strong level of research that has informed it. References should be cited using Chicago Notes-Bibliography style.
Part 2: Exhibition Review (750 words)
In the second part of the task, students will change modes write a review of the same exhibition. Stylistically, this review should be in the form of a newspaper/magazine/online exhibition review. Students are encouraged to find and read examples of recent exhibition reviews to get some examples of writing style and approaches. This text does not need to be heavily referenced, but you can use footnotes to cite direct quotes and particularly important references. Students should nominate the publication that they imagine their review would appear in, as a way of considering the possible audience for their review.
Part 3: Reflection and Analysis of the Writing Process (500 words)
In part three students will write a final section that reflects on and analyses the differences between writing an exhibition review and a catalogue essay. Students should consider the different requirements and audiences for these two types of texts, and how this affects the writing process. You can include personal reflections in this section about your own writing processes. You may find the following questions useful in developing your response, but these suggestions are not comprehensive:
· Were there important similarities and/or differences between the two texts?
· What are the goals of these types of texts, and who are the audiences?
· What were some of the challenges/surprises/opportunities when changing between modes of writing?
· What other people, institutions or stakeholders do you need to think about when you are writing these types of texts?
· What qualities do you think make for a successful exhibition review or a catalogue essay? (Can you find evidence to support your claims?)
Word limit: 2000 words
Value: 20%
Presentation requirements: Submit via upload to Wattle. Written submission should be 12-point font, double spaced, using Chicago style referencing where needed (footnotes and bibliography).
Due date: Monday 3 October 2022, 11.59pm
Estimated return date: Monday 17 October 2022
Rubric
| CRITERIA | FAIL (N) 0-49 | PASS (P) 50-59 | CREDIT (C) 60-69 | DISTINCTION (D) 70-79 | HIGH DISTINCTION (HD) 80-100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CATALOGUE ESSAY | |||||
Presents an informed & original interpretation of the exhibition through writing | * Essay is extremely poorly developed. * Little-to-no clear connection and relationship to the exhibition. | * Essay is adequately developed. * Offers some connection and relationship to the exhibition, but underdeveloped. | * Essay is well developed, with clear connections to the exhibition. * Presents a solid, but not overly original or developed interpretation. | * Essay is very well developed and considered. * Makes informed connections to the exhibition and presents an original, intelligent interpretation. | * Essay is extremely well developed and considered. * Makes informed and nuanced connections to the exhibition, and presents a sophisticated, original interpretation. |
Essay is informed by original research | * Essay displays no evidence of original research. | * Essay displays some evidence of original research, but very limited. | * Essay displays solid evidence of original research, but limited in scope, breadth and/or depth. * Research may not be effectively mobilised to support the essay’s core argument. | * Essay displays very good evidence of original research from broad, diverse sources. * Research is mobilised effectively to support and develop a core argument. | * Essay displays outstanding evidence of original research from broad, diverse sources. * Research is mobilised very effectively to support and develop a sophisticated argument. |
Communicates clearly and pitches writing style to an appropriate audience | * Communication lacks clarity and/or organisation. * No sense that essay has been written with a clear audience in mind. | * Clarity &organisation falls down at points. * Little sense that essay has been written with a clear audience in mind. | * Clarity &organisation is good overall, but with lapses. * Some sense that essay has been written with a clear audience in mind. | * Clarity & organisation is very good. Essay is well structured and flows well. * A strong sense that essay has been written with a clearly defined audience in mind. | * Clarity & organisation is outstanding and highly articulate. * Essay addresses a clearly defined audience extremely effectively and engagingly. |
EXHIBITION REVIEW | |||||
Contextualises and critically analyses the exhibition’s conceptual basis and its institutional context | * Limited understanding of the exhibition’s conceptual basis. * Does not adequately contextualize the exhibition. | * Demonstrates some understanding of the exhibition’s conceptual basis and institutional context. * Does not undertake critical analysis. | * Presents an informed understanding of the exhibition’s conceptual basis and its institutional context. * Some analysis is present, but could be developed further. | * Presents a strong, informed analysis of the exhibition’s conceptual basis and its institutional context. * Contextualises and analyses exhibition on a number of levels. | * Presents an original and sophisticated analysis of the exhibition’s conceptual basis and its institutional context. * Contextualises and analyses exhibition on multiple, highly relevant levels. |
Evaluates and critically analyses the exhibition’s curatorial strategies | * Fails to adequately analyse or evaluate the exhibition’s curatorial strategies. | * Highly descriptive discussion. * Analysis and evaluation is limited. | * Evaluates curatorial strategies on at least one level. * Clear analysis of curatorial strengths and weakness, but could be developed further. | * Evaluates a number of curatorial strategies. * Strong analysis of the exhibition’s curatorial strengths and weaknesses. | * Evaluates multiple curatorial strategies. * Sophisticated analysis of the exhibition’s curatorial strengths and weaknesses. |
Strength of argument | * Lacks any clear argument in response to the exhibition. | * Limited attempt to develop an overall argument in response to the exhibition. | * Clearly stated argument in response to the exhibition, could be developed further. | * Strong argument in response to the exhibition, that presents a range of convincing points. | * Sophisticated, original and lucid argument in response to the exhibition. |
REFLECTION AND ANALYSIS | |||||
Analysis of the differences between catalogue essays and reviews | * Does not present any developed analysis of the differences between catalogue essays and reviews | * Includes some analysis of the differences between catalogue essays and reviews, but extremely limited or underdeveloped. | * Includes good analysis of the differences between catalogue essays and reviews. Could be developed in more depth, or more critically. | * Includes very good analysis of the differences between catalogue essays and reviews. * Considers the goals, differences and similarities of the two modes very effectively. | * Includes excellent analysis of the differences between catalogue essays and reviews. * Considers the goals, differences and similarities of the two modes in nuanced and sophisticated ways. |
Reflections on the different processes of writing | * Does not present any reflections on the process of writing. | * Presents some reflections on the process of writing, but underdeveloped. More summaries than active reflections. | * Presents good reflections on the process of writing, but could be developed in more depth. * More descriptive than reflective. | * Presents very good reflections about the goals and challenges of writing in different modes * Reflects carefully on what the student has learned through the writing process. | * Presents excellent reflections about the goals and challenges of writing in different modes * Presents careful and nuanced reflection about what the student has learned through the writing process. |
REFERENCING | |||||
Referencing where required (Chicago, Footnotes and Bibliography style) | * Inadequate referencing. | * Adequate referencing and image labelling but with mistakes and inconsistencies. | * Good referencing and image labelling with a few mistakes. | * Careful referencing and image labelling with almost no mistakes. | * Meticulous referencing and image labelling. |
Assessment Task 3
Learning Outcomes: 3,4
Public Programs Proposal
Students will work in pairs to develop and present a proposed program of Public and Education Programs in response to a future exhibition scenario. Students will be particularly encouraged to consider the relationship between ‘in person’ and ‘online’ events and activities, and to design their proposed program accordingly.
Groups will submit a written Public Programs Package that should include elements such as (but not limited to):
* An overarching rationale for the program and how it responds to the scenario
* A statement about intended audiences, and how the program will reach them
* A list of proposed programs, with full details, descriptions and timelines
* An education resource, connected to the program, that targets a particular cohort of students
Pairs will also present their proposal in a 10-minute oral presentation in the course seminars/workshops in Week 12.
Detailed task instructions and information about the specific scenario instructions will be provided through Wattle
Word limit: 2000 words per person
Value: 25%
Presentation requirements: Submit via upload to Wattle. Students can use creative design elements to present their proposal.
Due date: Tuesday 25 October 2022, 2.00pm
Estimated return date: Tuesday 8 November 2022
Rubric
| CRITERIA | FAIL (N) 0-49 | PASS (P) 50-59 | CREDIT (C) 60-69 | DISTINCTION (D) 70-79 | HIGH DISTINCTION (HD) 80-100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Does the proposal respond to the set scenario? Does it make a compelling case and argument? | * Proposal demonstrates no clear understanding or response to the scenario. * Proposal does not mount any compelling case or argument. | * Proposal responds to the scenario, but in a way that is limited or unclear. * Case presented is not well argued. | * Proposal demonstrates a clear response to the scenario. * Case presented is relevant and well considered. Could be argued more strongly and critically. | * Proposal demonstrates a very good, informed response to the scenario. Shows a diversity of thinking and responses to the task. * Puts forward an informed and compelling argument. | * Proposal demonstrates an extremely informed, imaginative and diverse response to the scenario. Variety of approaches significantly enhance the response to the task. * Puts forward an extremely informed and convincing argument. |
Does the proposed program of events engage effectively and diversely with its chosen gallery spaces and scenario? | * Proposed program of events is extremely underdeveloped * Does not engage effectively with chosen gallery spaces/scenario. | * Proposed program of events is limited in scale and scope. * May not engage with gallery spaces and/or scenario effectively or comprehensively. | * Proposed program of events is well considered, and engages well with chosen gallery spaces and scenario. * May be limited in terms of diversity/scope of events proposed. | * Proposed program of events is very effective and well thought through. * Engages thoughtfully and realistically with chosen gallery spaces and scenario. * Presents a range of different proposed events. | * Proposed program of events is extremely effective and imaginative. * Engages critically and realistically with chosen gallery spaces and scenario. * Presents a range of different proposed events, each with defined goals. |
Does the proposed program of events reflect the goals and strengths of the School of Art & Design (SoAD)? | * Proposal does not take into account the goals and strengths of SoAD at all. | * Proposal reflects some goals and strengths of SoAD, but on a superficial or very brief level | * Proposal reflects some goals and strengths of SoAD, but could be clearer. * Links and connections between the events and SoAD might not be developed in depth. | * Proposal engages clearly and purposefully with the goals and strengths of SoAD. * Program of events clearly and thoughtfully responds to these goals and strengths. | * Proposal engages very intelligently and imaginatively with the goals and strengths of SoAD. * Program of events responds to these goals in a critical and highly informed manner. |
Does the proposed program of events critically consider its target audience(s)? | * Proposal does not demonstrate a consideration of audience(s). | * Proposal considers its audience(s) on a very minimal level. | * Proposal considers its audience(s) quite well, but remains underdeveloped. | * Proposal considers its audience(s) on multiple, well-developed levels. | * Proposal considers its audience(s) on multiple levels, extremely well-developed and critically astute. |
How well does the oral presentation convey the proposal’s key goals? | * Presentation is not effective, lacks clarity and organisation. * Does not keep to time. | * Presentation is not entirely effective in conveying goals. May lack clarity, organisation or focus. * Does not use time effectively. | * Effective presentation. Describes proposal well, but could convey goals more clearly. * May not keep to time or use time effectively. | * Very effective presentation. Clearly and engagingly conveys the proposal’s key goals. * Keeps to time. | * Extremely effective presentation. Compellingly & imaginatively conveys the proposal’s key goals. * Keeps to time. |
Assessment Task 4
Learning Outcomes: 1,2,4
Final Reflective Analysis Essay
In this task, you will critically reflect on key elements of the course and what you have learned. Through choosing specific weekly themes or tasks you should consider how you built on your knowledge during the semester, what insights you gained, and how you might continue to apply/develop this knowledge and experiences in the future. Students are encouraged to choose around 3 key weeks from the course, and use them to developed focused and comparative reflections on the different elements of curating and exhibition-making.
As part of your reflection, you should draw critically on the various kinds of discussions, guest lectures, activities and readings that you engaged with across the semester. While this is not a research task, the Reflective Essay does need draw on relevant readings and scholarly materials in order to deepen the reflective analysis. Students should use the Chicago style referencing (footnotes and bibliography) to cite these references.
Word limit: 1500 words
Value: 15%
Presentation requirements: Submit via upload to Wattle. 12-point font, double spaced, using Chicago style referencing (footnotes and bibliography)
Due date: Thursday 3 November 2022, 9.00am
Estimated return date: Thursday 1 December 2022
Rubric
| CRITERIA | FAIL (N) 0-49 | PASS (P) 50-59 | CREDIT (C) 60-69 | DISTINCTION (D) 70-79 | HIGH DISTINCTION (HD) 80-100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Range of examples from across the course are reflected on | * Extremely limited range of examples considered. * No understanding of the breadth of the course is demonstrated. | * Adequate but limited range of examples discussed. * More variety in choice of examples is needed. | * Considers a range of examples and experiences. * Diversity of examples chosen could have been improved. | * Considers a diverse, well-chosen range of examples that cover multiple elements of the course. | * Considers a diverse and imaginative range of examples that cover diverse, multiple elements of the course. |
Overall quality of reflections | * Does not adequately engage in self-reflection or description of examples and experiences. | * Elements of reflection are present, but overall poorly developed. * Mainly presents summaries rather than active reflections. | * Reflection is present, but not developed at a critical level. * Certain parts are more summaries than active reflections. | * Reflection is integrated across the submission, and is developed to a level that presents informed, critical analyses. | * Demonstrates a sophisticated level of reflection across the entire submission. |
Makes connections across and between different examples | * Examples are discussed entirely separately. No connections made across different examples. | * Examples are largely discussed separately. Very little connections made across different examples. | * Connections are made between different examples. Comparisons could be explored in greater reflective depth. | * Very strong, informed connections are made across examples. Comparisons are made that enhance the overall quality of the reflections. | * Submission seamlessly integrates comparative reflection and analysis across diverse examples. |
Structure and organisation | * Submission has no logical organisation or structure. | * Submission has a structure, but key sections or elements are lacking organisation. Discussion lacks flow. | * Submission has a clear and logical structure. Certain sections may lack flow between discussions. | * Submission is structured effectively and clearly, enabling a very well-developed discussion that flows well. | * Submission is structured in a way that is imaginative and/or is highly effective in presenting detailed critical reflections. |
Engagement with scholarly literature to strengthen and enhance reflections | * No engagement with scholarly literature. | * Minimal engagement with scholarly literature. * Does not reflect on processes of curation more broadly. | * Some engagement with scholarly literature, but limited and/or not used effectively. * Does not reflect much on broader processes of curation | * Very good engagement with scholarly literature. * Used to enhance reflections on broader processes of curation. | * Sophisticated engagement with scholarly literature. * Used to significantly enhance reflections on broader processes of curation. |
Conclusions drawn about personal learnings and their future applications | * Essay does not draw any meaningful conclusions. | * Essay draws some conclusions about student’s learnings, but not in depth. | * Essay draws solid conclusions about what student has learned, and how they might apply learnings in the future. Could be developed further. | * Essay draws very good and considered conclusions about what student has learned, and how they might apply learnings in the future. | * Essay draws excellent, highly considered conclusions about what student has learned, and how they might apply learnings in the future. |
Clarity of written expression | * Poorly written with many spelling and grammatical errors. | * Adequately written, but with errors in grammar and spelling. | * Well written. Usually correct grammar and spelling. | * Fluently written. Minimal grammatical and spelling errors. | * Highly articulate, written in an eloquent style. Very minimal grammatical and spelling errors. |
Referencing (Chicago, Footnotes & Bibliography style) | * Inadequate referencing. | * Adequate referencing, but with mistakes and inconsistencies. | * Good referencing, with a few mistakes. | * Careful referencing with almost no mistakes. | * Meticulous referencing. |
Assessment Task 5
Learning Outcomes: 1,2,3,4,5
Individual Participation in Course Activities
Seminars and workshops in this course are designed to facilitated active participation. Students are expected to attend regularly and actively participate in class activities.
Academic Integrity
Academic integrity is a core part of the ANU culture as a community of scholars. The University’s students are an integral part of that community. The academic integrity principle commits all students to engage in academic work in ways that are consistent with, and actively support, academic integrity, and to uphold this commitment by behaving honestly, responsibly and ethically, and with respect and fairness, in scholarly practice.
The University expects all staff and students to be familiar with the academic integrity principle, the Academic Integrity Rule 2021, the Policy: Student Academic Integrity and Procedure: Student Academic Integrity, and to uphold high standards of academic integrity to ensure the quality and value of our qualifications.
The Academic Integrity Rule 2021 is a legal document that the University uses to promote academic integrity, and manage breaches of the academic integrity principle. The Policy and Procedure support the Rule by outlining overarching principles, responsibilities and processes. The Academic Integrity Rule 2021 commences on 1 December 2021 and applies to courses commencing on or after that date, as well as to research conduct occurring on or after that date. Prior to this, the Academic Misconduct Rule 2015 applies.
The University commits to assisting all students to understand how to engage in academic work in ways that are consistent with, and actively support academic integrity. All coursework students must complete the online Academic Integrity Module (Epigeum), and Higher Degree Research (HDR) students are required to complete research integrity training. The Academic Integrity website provides information about services available to assist students with their assignments, examinations and other learning activities, as well as understanding and upholding academic integrity.
Online Submission
You will be required to electronically sign a declaration as part of the submission of your assignment. Please keep a copy of the assignment for your records. Unless an exemption has been approved by the Associate Dean (Education) submission must be through Turnitin.
Hardcopy Submission
For some forms of assessment (hand written assignments, art works, laboratory notes, etc.) hard copy submission is appropriate when approved by the Associate Dean (Education). Hard copy submissions must utilise the Assignment Cover Sheet. Please keep a copy of tasks completed for your records.
Late Submission
Late submission permitted. Late submission of assessment tasks without an extension are penalised at the rate of 5% of the possible marks available per working day or part thereof. Late submission of assessment tasks is not accepted after 10 working days after the due date, or on or after the date specified in the course outline for the return of the assessment item. Late submission is not accepted for take-home examinations.
Referencing Requirements
The Academic Skills website has information to assist you with your writing and assessments. The website includes information about Academic Integrity including referencing requirements for different disciplines. There is also information on Plagiarism and different ways to use source material.
Returning Assignments
Grades and feedback on assignments will be returned to students via Wattle.
Extensions and Penalties
Extensions and late submission of assessment pieces are covered by the Student Assessment (Coursework) Policy and Procedure. Extensions may be granted for assessment pieces that are not examinations or take-home examinations. If you need an extension, you must request an extension in writing on or before the due date. If you have documented and appropriate medical evidence that demonstrates you were not able to request an extension on or before the due date, you may be able to request it after the due date.
Resubmission of Assignments
Resubmission of individual assignments is not available for this course.
Privacy Notice
The ANU has made a number of third party, online, databases available for students to use. Use of each online database is conditional on student end users first agreeing to the database licensor’s terms of service and/or privacy policy. Students should read these carefully. In some cases student end users will be required to register an account with the database licensor and submit personal information, including their: first name; last name; ANU email address; and other information.In cases where student end users are asked to submit ‘content’ to a database, such as an assignment or short answers, the database licensor may only use the student’s ‘content’ in accordance with the terms of service – including any (copyright) licence the student grants to the database licensor. Any personal information or content a student submits may be stored by the licensor, potentially offshore, and will be used to process the database service in accordance with the licensors terms of service and/or privacy policy.
If any student chooses not to agree to the database licensor’s terms of service or privacy policy, the student will not be able to access and use the database. In these circumstances students should contact their lecturer to enquire about alternative arrangements that are available.
Distribution of grades policy
Academic Quality Assurance Committee monitors the performance of students, including attrition, further study and employment rates and grade distribution, and College reports on quality assurance processes for assessment activities, including alignment with national and international disciplinary and interdisciplinary standards, as well as qualification type learning outcomes.
Since first semester 1994, ANU uses a grading scale for all courses. This grading scale is used by all academic areas of the University.
Support for students
The University offers students support through several different services. You may contact the services listed below directly or seek advice from your Course Convener, Student Administrators, or your College and Course representatives (if applicable).
- ANU Health, safety & wellbeing for medical services, counselling, mental health and spiritual support
- ANU Access and inclusion for students with a disability or ongoing or chronic illness
- ANU Dean of Students for confidential, impartial advice and help to resolve problems between students and the academic or administrative areas of the University
- ANU Academic Skills and Learning Centre supports you make your own decisions about how you learn and manage your workload.
- ANU Counselling Centre promotes, supports and enhances mental health and wellbeing within the University student community.
- ANUSA supports and represents undergraduate and ANU College students
- PARSA supports and represents postgraduate and research students
Convener
|
|
|||
Research InterestsContemporary Art (Australian and International); Art and Media; Art Historiography; Arts Criticism and Writing; Film, Video and Moving Image Art; Photography; Modern Australian Art |
||||
Dr Kate Warren
|
|
|
Instructor
|
|
|
|||
Research Interests |
||||
Dr Kate Warren
|
|
|
