IBDP Visual Art: Process Portfolio January 2016 Sources: http://www.thinkib.net/visualarts/page/16909/part-2-process-portfolio http://www.occ.ibo.org & others as noted

[PP] Assessment Component 2 The Process Portfolio, or PP, is 40 % of the final mark and it is the testimony of the student's artistic journey during the two-year course. It is not intended to be of polished, refined, or even resolved work; final work is presented for the Exhibition component of the course. The PP is a collection of carefully selected materials which document the students experimentation, exploration, manipulation and development of a variety of visual arts activities over the whole course.

[PP] Style & Content The PP doesn't have a set format, though it must be a PDF file type in the end and a maximum of 20MB. It is presented for assessment on screen, so it makes sense to create a landscape orientated document. It can be compiled from various sketchbooks and other sources. Some students will create their PP entirely on screen, others will scan journal pages and most will do a combination of both. Pages from the Visual Journal (as well as elements from other sketchbooks, notebooks, loose drawings, folios etc) can be included in the PP which is aiming to document the development of both resolved and unresolved works.

[PP] Requirements – Art making forms SL students should work with at least two art- making forms from separate columns of the table. HL students with at least three art-making forms, selected from a minimum of two columns of the table. There is a requirement that encourages students to work across a range of media in the PP. The art making forms table breaks art forms into 3 main categories of 2D forms, 3D forms and lens based or electronic media.

[PP] What NOT to include Work that appears in the PP may not be used for the Exhibition Presentation and vice versa. This means… students can and should include developmental stages of work and various related experiments, including "failures" but the finished piece selected for the exhibition should not be included in the PP. It's merely a question of not repeating photographic documentation.

[PP] Quantity Students submit a given number of screens rather than pages. There is no set specification as to how many words etc. A balance of visual and written content is desirable. SL students submit 9–18 screens HL students submit 13–25 screens

[PP] Grading Criteria – in detail See handout for IBDP VA PP criteria! http://occ.ibo.org/ibis/occ/Utils/getFile2.cfm?source=/ibis/occ/home /subjectHome.cfm&filename=dp%2Fgr6%2Fvisual%5Farts%2Fd%5F6 %5Fvisar%5Fgui%5F1403%5F1%5Fe%2Epdf

Examples http://richardsonarts. weebly.com/process- portfolio.html

Current student examples from other schools: “Having looked at all other examples, and looking at everyones comments, we are not graphic designers and our students shouldnt be getting hung up on that - keep it simple, effective and understandable is the message i'm getting.” http://occ.ibo.org/ibis/occ/fusetalk2/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=32&threadi d=15521227&enterthread=y

OCC post with important clarifications: http://occ. ibo PLEASE DON'T DUPLICATE HAND WRITTEN TEXT WITH TYPED TEXT (Unless handwritting is absolutely illegible) The examples where this is found on the TSM and in the Workshop material was originally done so that the samples could be easily translated into Spanish and French for workshops in those languages. Unfortunately, most of the sample process portfolios we see in the TSM are fabricated from student work submitted from old Investigation Workbooks. Please don't mistake the Process Portfolio with the former Investigation Workbook or even the current Visual Arts Journal. They are different beasts. The Process Portfolio is much more summative in nature. It is completed towards the end of the course and is compiled electronically as a narrative or exposition of their art-making practices which encompasses their engagement with material and technical practice (that is, the processes of making art), critical practice (the process of engaging critically with other artist’s works and allowing it to inform their artmaking) and conceptual practice (that is, exploring how to communicate ideas and their intentions through their art-making). Potentially, the Process Portfolio could look entirely different from what has been seen in Investigation Workbook pages in the past. The nomenclature we are using is “screens” which is a constant reminder of how the work is viewed by examiners, but also that we have moved beyond the confines of a written or printed page. The screens that we will be viewing could include: ·       single pages scanned directly from the Visual Arts Journal with no other interventions by the candidate; ·       single pages scanned directly from the Visual Arts Journal, but with additional annotations that have been added (possibly electronically) when the Process Portfolio has been compiled that clarifies further, updates, reflects or makes connections to other screens in the submission; ·       compilations of smaller extracts scanned directly from the Visual Arts Journal that correlate with each other to illustrate a particular aspect of the candidate’s art-making practice; ·       screenshots of work-in-progress taken from a range of digital art-making platforms, such as the Adobe™ Creative range of programmes with additional annotations explaining what the candidate is doing; ·       slides completely developed on programs like Microsoft’s PowerPoint ™ that use images, graphics and text; ·       photographs of preliminary work the candidate has undertaken such as designs, cartoons, sketches, artist’s proofs, marquettes and other mock-ups with annotations such as title, media and size; ·       photographs of resolved works that were not included in the exhibition, but none-the-less, an important part of the art-making process. This list is not exhaustive – it’s just what I have come up in previously answered posts on the OCC. I’m confident that teachers and students that are more creative than I am will come up with other unique and exciting ways of articulating a candidate’s art-making practice through a series of screens than what I have come up with, but because this is a task that can be completed summatively, there is the potential for the presentation to be more coherent and polished than what in the past has been restricted to a selection of best pages from a book that provides a sometimes disjointed picture of a diverse practice. ------------------------- Mr Jayson Paterson OCC Faculty Member DP Visual Arts Head of Visual & Performing Arts St Paul's Grammar School, Penrith, AUSTRALIA

More OCC discussion threads… The examiners of the process portfolio are not looking for resolution in the artwork or artmaking practices in the work submitted in the process portfolio. There is no reference to resolution in the marking criteria. This is the domain of the exhibition component. The process portfolio is looking for evidence of experimentation and manipulation of forms and media, the justification of the selection of materials, imagery, style etc. Even when it comes to reflection, at the highest level of achievement, the reflection is on the candidate's development as an artist rather than what they see in a finished work. Such reflections can be made and are valid at any point in the creative cycle. http://occ.ibo.org/ibis/occ/fusetalk2/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=32&t hreadid=15506238&enterthread=y

More OCC discussion threads… I am beginning to consider if a good approach will be to have students focus on a limited range of pieces from their ouvre that meet the form requirements and show these in greater detail than try to cover their whole artistic output.  I worry about students having too much breadth and not enough depth if they were to submit process screens for each and every artwork. Some students are so meticulous in their research that showing the process of work of too many pieces might actually hurt them as it won't allow them to highlight the successes of their ability for depth. Since "depth" is such an important aspect of the criteria laid out and in the Grade Descriptors, I think this approach is definitely worth investigating. I'm thinking that in order to adequately reach the higher levels of the marking criteria, it might be a better strategy for students to focus (for Higher Level) on three works, not included in the exhibition that are across a minimum of three forms (and at least two of the columns in media table), and clearly and throughly articulate processes and media experiements that allowed these works to develop, the critical investigation into other artists that influenced the work, the developement of ideas and to communicate these in the works and the process of reflecting, reviewing and refining the works. Students would still maintain this practice for all of the work they produce in their Visual Arts Journal, but only the work pertaining to the three selected exclusively for the process portfolio would be included in the final process portfolio. http://occ.ibo.org/ibis/occ/fusetalk2/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=32&threadid=15521227&en terthread=y