Performs drawing tasks using generative design processes to explore a large number of ideas in a wide solution space against set constraints to produce a full scroll of annotated sketch concepts.

(LOs 1, 5)

Scroll presents 100 or more distinct concepts that consistently demonstrate open exploration through a high degree of originality and diversity in ideas that are imaginative, unconventional, and span a wide range of possibilities. (LO 1)

The full 'canvas' is activated with sketches that flow organically with one idea leading to another, reflecting the emergent nature of the generative design process. (LOs 1, 5)

Sketches are visually legible and contain explanatory annotations to communicate concepts. (LO 1, LO 5)

The scroll is presented on time for the scheduled critique and critique participation is insightful and substantive. (LO 1)

Scroll presents at least 80 different concepts that demonstrate open exploration and draw from a range of prompts. (LO 1)

The majority of the 'canvas' is utilised with some indications of ideas sparking more ideas. (LOs 1, 5)

Sketches are usually visually legible and contain sufficient annotations to communicate the main concepts and ideas effectively. (LOs 1, 5)

The scroll is presented on time for the scheduled critique, and critique participation is relevant and constructive. (LO 1)

Scroll presents fewer than 80 distinct concepts, with limited exploration, originality, and diversity in ideas that may lack imagination and do not sufficiently span a range of possibilities. (LO 1)

A significant portion of the 'canvas' is under-utilised, with sketches that appear isolated or show limited progression from one idea to the next. (LOs 1, 5)

Visually legibility is inconsistent or lacking, and annotations are insufficient or absent, failing to effectively communicate the concepts and ideas (LOs 1, 5)

The scroll is presented late for the scheduled critique, and/or participation in the critique is negligible, lacking relevance or constructiveness. (LO 1)

Selects and refines viable concept sketches, developing detailed preliminary drawings that explore and resolve key design details.

(LOs 1, 4, 5)

Selects 3 diverse concepts from the scroll and consistently refines them into highly detailed preliminary drawings, effectively translating blue-sky ideas into viable designs that retain the conceptual essence. (LO 1, LO 5)

Demonstrates a thorough exploration of design details, including form, function, and material considerations. (LO 1, LO 5)

Shows an advanced understanding of timber properties, incorporating considerations for grain orientation and wood movement in the design refinements. (LO 4)

Preliminary drawings are detailed, well-annotated, and clearly demonstrate how the concepts are intentionally communicated and supported through specific design decisions. (LO 1, LO 5)

Selects 3 concepts from the scroll and refines them into preliminary drawings. (LO 1, LO 5)

Demonstrates adequate exploration of design details, including form, function, and material considerations. (LO 1, LO 5)

Shows some understanding of timber properties, attempting to address grain orientation and wood movement in the design refinements. (LO 4)

Preliminary drawings include adequate detail to convey the basic connections between concepts and design decisions. (LO 1, LO 5)

Selects less than 3 concepts from the scroll, with inconsistent or minimal refinement into preliminary drawings. (LO 1, LO 5)

Demonstrates limited exploration of design details, lacking consideration of form, function, and material properties. (LO 1, LO 5)

Shows a poor understanding of timber properties, failing to adequately address grain orientation and wood movement in the design refinements. (LO 4)

Preliminary drawings lack detail and annotations, failing to effectively communicate the links between concepts and design decisions. (LO 1, LO 5)

Produces precise scale drawings and orthographic projections that clearly demonstrate accurate dimensions, several views, and joinery details, facilitating the transition from concept to fabrication.

(LOs 1, 4, 5)

Consistently produces highly accurate, tidy and detailed scale drawings and orthographic projections, clearly demonstrating all construction details and accurate dimensions across multiple views. (LOs 1, 4, 5)

Consistently shows exceptional skill in representing joinery construction with clarity, precision and detail views including correct dimensions that take tooling into consideration (LO 4)

Annotations are comprehensive and effectively communicate the construction process, ensuring clarity and readiness to commence fabrication. (LOs 1, 4, 5)

Produces accurate scale drawings and orthographic projections, including most of the significant construction details and dimensions across the three required views. (LOs 1, 4, 5)

Indicates joinery techniques adequately, usually attempting to convey dimensions. (LO 4)

Annotations are sufficient to communicate the construction process, providing adequate clarity requiring minor corrections prior to fabrication. (LOs 1, 4, 5)

Scale drawings and orthographic projections are insufficient, lacking accuracy, detail, correct dimensions, or less that three views that represent the design. (LOs 1, 4, 5)

Joinery techniques are poorly represented, and drawings lack visual clarity and precision. (LO 4)

Annotations are insufficient or unclear, failing to effectively communicate the construction process, leading to potential lack of preparedness or issues requiring major revisions prior to fabrication. (LOs 1, 4, 5)

Criteria: Research and Knowledge (LO 3)

Excellent evidence of independent research: Utilises a wide range of sources including books, online archives, and museum collections. Contextual information is highly relevant and presented in depth.

Comprehensive coverage: Provides a detailed description of the period/style, including when and where it originated, with rich examples of typical pieces and design features.

Deep understanding of societal context: Concisely explains the key philosophies, concepts, societal attitudes, or basic needs that influenced the design and making of furniture during the period.

Prominent makers and techniques: Clearly identifies the most relevant key makers and designers, and demonstrates how the techniques characterising the style/movement aligned with and supported the underlying concepts.

Good evidence of independent research: Utilises several sources, demonstrating a solid understanding of the context. Contextual information is relevant but may lack depth.

Adequate coverage: Describes the period/style, including when and where it originated, with examples of typical pieces and design features, though examples may be less detailed.

Good understanding of societal context: Explains the key philosophies, concepts, societal attitudes, or basic needs that influenced the design and making of furniture during the period, but the explanation may lack conciseness or depth.

Prominent makers and techniques: Identifies key makers and designers, and describes typical techniques, but may not fully demonstrate how these techniques supported the underlying concepts.

Limited evidence of research: Uses a limited number of sources, providing basic and/or unfocused contextual information. Contextual information may be partially relevant or incomplete.

Inadequate coverage: Provides an incomplete or unclear description of the period/style, with few or poorly chosen examples of typical pieces and design features. Description may be unclear or lacking sufficient detail.

Poor understanding of societal context: Provides a basic, superficial, or no meaningful explanation of the key philosophies, concepts, societal attitudes, or basic needs that influenced the design and making of furniture during the period. Explanation may be unclear or lack depth.

Inadequate coverage of makers and techniques: Identifies few or no key makers and designers, with minimal or no description of techniques. Fails to demonstrate how these techniques supported the underlying concepts.

Organisation and Communication (LO 3)

Highly engaging and well-organised presentation: The presentation is logically structured, with each slide contributing to a clear, coherent narrative.

Visually appealing slides: Uses high-quality images and a clear layout.

Confident and clear delivery: Demonstrates a strong understanding of the topic, with a well-paced and engaging presentation style.

Adheres to time/word count limits: Sticks to the 5-8 minute timeframe and 600-1000 word limit, ensuring clarity and completeness without exceeding limits.

Effective engagement in Q&A: Actively initiates or engages in discussion during the post-presentation Q&A session, providing insightful and relevant responses to questions.

Clear and organised presentation: The presentation is well-structured, generally maintaining a coherent narrative.

Visually clear slides: Uses good quality images and a clear layout.

Clear delivery: Demonstrates a good understanding of the topic, with a clear and well-paced presentation.

Adheres to time/word count limits: Generally sticks to the 5-8 minute timeframe and 600-1000 word limit, with minor deviations.

Participation in Q&A: Engages in the post-presentation Q&A session, providing relevant responses to questions.

Poorly organised presentation: The presentation has inadequate structure and coherence, making it difficult to follow.

Inconsistent visual clarity: Uses some adequate images and layout, but may be confusing, cluttered or unclear.

Poor delivery: Demonstrates inconsistent or lack of understanding of the topic, delivery may lack clarity, with poor pacing or lack of engagement.

Deviates from time/word count limits: Exceeds or falls short of the 5-8 minute timeframe or 600-1000 word limit, making presentation partial or verbose.

Minimal participation in Q&A: Shows limited engagement in the post-presentation Q&A session, providing brief or off-topic responses.

Referencing (LO 3)

Meticulous referencing: All sources are consistently and accurately cited and properly formatted on the last slide, with images properly labelled.

Comprehensive bibliography: Includes a thorough and accurate list of all sources used.

Good referencing: Sources are cited and mostly formatted correctly on the last slide, with images properly labelled and minor errors or omissions.

Complete bibliography: Includes an accurate list of all sources used, with few errors.

Inadequate referencing: Sources are inconsistently cited or are incorrectly formatted. Images are inadequately labelled or not labelled at all.

Incomplete or missing bibliography: Fails to include a list of sources used, or the list is significantly incomplete or inaccurate.

Identifying and Understanding Joinery Concepts (LO 2, 4)

Annotated drawings are consistently carefully rendered, detailed and accurate, using correct vocabulary to label joint components. Demonstrates a thorough understanding of joinery concepts, material properties, and structural integrity. Consistently prepared for class with all readings and homework completed, actively engaging in discussions.

Annotated drawings are generally accurate and adequately detailed, using correct vocabulary. Demonstrates a moderate understanding of joinery concepts, material properties, and structural integrity. Generally prepared for class with most readings and homework completed, engaging in discussions adequately.

Annotated drawings lack detail and accuracy, with insufficient or incorrect labelling of components. Demonstrates a limited understanding of joinery concepts, material properties, and structural integrity. Frequently unprepared for class with incomplete readings and homework, showing limited engagement in discussions.

Executing Timber Joinery Samples (LO 2, 4)

Joints are precise, accurate, and demonstrate exceptional craftership. Samples show consistently clean, square, and close-fitting joints with only nominal gaps. Extended experimentation with variations on the required joints is evident, showing independent exploration and practice exceeding task requirements. Demonstrates exceptional safety practices and proper tool use consistently.

Joints are reasonably well crafted. Joint samples are generally square with some variability in snug surfaces with minor gaps. At least the two required joint samples are successfully completed. Adheres to good safety practices and proper tool use.

Joints are imprecise, inaccurate, loose, lacking contact surfaces, and/or requiring significant adjustments to fit. Samples show poor crafting with significant gaps, mis-cuts and/or out of square. The minimum required joints are incomplete or lack viability as joint structures. Demonstrates lapses in safety practices and/or improper tool use.

Planning and Organisation (LO 6)

Demonstrates exceptional planning and organisation, including comprehensive cut lists, detailed order of operations, and a meticulously maintained project log. Consistently makes thoughtful adjustments and corrections throughout the project. Timber components are well-organised, labeled, and stored.

Demonstrates good planning and organisation, including adequate cut lists, order of operations, and a maintained project log. Makes necessary adjustments and corrections throughout the project. Timber components are adequately organised, labeled, and stored.

Demonstrates poor planning and organisation, with incomplete or inaccurate cut lists, order of operations, and project log. Struggles to make necessary adjustments and corrections. Timber components are poorly organised, labeled, or stored.

Execution and Crafting Quality (LO 2, 4)

The project is executed with exceptional crafting quality, demonstrating high precision, excellent joinery, and a high-quality finish. All parts fit together seamlessly, and the finish enhances the overall presentation. Shows advanced proficiency in woodworking techniques and a deep understanding of timber properties.

The project is executed with good crafting quality, demonstrating adequate precision, good joinery, and a good-quality finish. Most parts fit together well, with minor imperfections in the finish. Shows good proficiency in woodworking techniques and an understanding of timber properties.

The project shows poor crafting quality, with significant issues in precision, joinery, or finishing that affect the overall quality and structural integrity. Parts do not fit well together, and the finish is poor. Shows limited proficiency in woodworking techniques and a poor understanding of timber properties.

Adaptability and Problem Solving (LO 4, 6)

Demonstrates exceptional problem-solving skills and adaptability, effectively addressing challenges and making necessary adjustments throughout the project. Provides clear evidence of thoughtful solutions to complex issues, considering the limitations of timber properties such as grain and movement.

Demonstrates good problem-solving skills and adaptability, adequately addressing challenges and making necessary adjustments throughout the project. Provides evidence of adequate solutions to issues encountered, considering the limitations of timber properties such as grain and movement.

Shows limited problem-solving skills and adaptability, struggling to address challenges or make necessary adjustments, negatively impacting the final outcome. Provides insufficient evidence of solutions to issues encountered, poorly considering the limitations of timber properties such as grain and movement.

Conceptual and Contextual Understanding (LO 3, 5, 6)

Provides a thorough and insightful understanding of the project's concept and context. Effectively integrates and discusses other creative works and theoretical concepts that inform and contextualise the project. Clearly demonstrates how the design choices support the concept and go beyond the constraints of functionalism. The final project is fully assembled and finished, ready for final critique. The presentation is highly organised and engaging, effectively communicating the project's narrative, design evolution, and the connection between concept, form, and fabrication choices.

Provides a good understanding of the project's concept and context. Adequately integrates and discusses other creative works and theoretical concepts that inform and contextualise the project. Demonstrates how the design choices support the concept and attempt to go beyond the constraints of functionalism. The final project is assembled and finished, ready for final critique. The presentation is well-organised and communicates the project's narrative, design evolution, and the connection between concept, form, and fabrication choices.

Provides a superficial or limited understanding of the project's concept and context. Poorly integrates and discusses other creative works and theoretical concepts. Fails to demonstrate how the design choices support the concept and stay within the constraints of functionalism. The final project is incomplete or poorly finished, not ready for final critique. The presentation is poorly organised and fails to effectively communicate the project's narrative, design evolution, and the connection between concept, form, and fabrication choices.