Over the past few years, 3-D has become an integral part of people’s lives – we watch movies in 3-D, play games in 3-D, and design models for an architecture plan, animated movie, etc. in 3-D. Therefore, being able to use 3-D techniques efficiently predetermines how great the impression a specific project will make (Gwahana & Zlatanova, 2011). With the help of the grading scale below, a student will be able to understand the basic demands towards 3-D design, while a teacher will be able to adequately evaluate the student’s work.
|Rubric/Grade||F (0–30)||D (31–50)||C (51–74)||B (75–90)||A (91–100)|
|Dimensionality||The project is only one- or two-dimensional or does not mention dimensions at all (3 points)||The students use three dimensions to develop a 3-D model, yet fail (5 points)||The students have developed a three-dimensional model, yet the geometry of the model is flawed (8 points)||The students have built a 3-D model successfully, with minor flaws in the calculation (9 points)||The student(s) have come up with a perfectly working 3-D model for the project. (10 points)|
|Composition||The students’ project does not have any coherent composition and there is no connection between its elements (3 points)||The project lacks several important compositional elements, such as the use of various 3-D layers, etc. (5 points)||The composition of the project seems rather well-developed; however, there are some serious mistakes in it (8 points)||The project composition is clear and well-developed; however, there are two to five mistakes concerning the form, textures, etc. (9 points)||No mistakes (0–1) were made in the course of developing the project composition (10 points)|
|Message||The work does not have any message whatsoever and is very confused (3 points)||The student attempted to get his/her message across, yet failed. (5 points)||The message is there, yet the work is very choppy (8 points)||The project has two to five original messages that need some development (9 points)||The project offers several well-thought-out messages (10 points)|
|Use of 3-D Techniques||Modeling||The students did not use any type of modeling whatsoever (1 point)||The students have not defined the type of modeling that they have used. (1 point)||The students have applied a specific type of modeling, yet with a poor result (2 points)||The students have applied one of the three types of modeling, yet have not provided their reasons for choosing this exact modeling type (2 points)||The students can use polygonal modeling, curve modeling, or digital sculpting (Capizzi, 2002) and justify their choice of a modeling method (3 points)|
|Animation||No animation as used (1 point)||The animation was of very poor quality (2 points)||Animation techniques were used, yet no particular type of animation was chosen (2 points)||The basic animation types were used (2 points)||The students choose one of the three key types of animation (stop motion, claymation, CGI (Faber & Walters, 2004)) and justify their choice (3 points)|
|Visual Effects||No visual effects were used (1 point)||There was an attempt to use visual effects (1 point)||Clichéd visual effects were used (2 points)||Several original animation effects were used (2 points)||The students have used only original visual effects (2 points)|
|Rendering||There is no trace of rendering in the project (1 point)||The quality of rendering is deplorable. (1 point)||Only one tool for rendering was used (2 points)||The students use only one or two tools for rendering (3 points)||The students display the ability to use different tools for rendering successfully (2 points)|
|Use of 3-D elements||No 3-D elements were used (3 points)||The 3-D elements are done poorly. (5 points)||Only one 3-D element was used successfully (7 points)||Two to five 3-D elements were used successfully (9 points)||The paper provides an ample amount of successfully used 3-D elements (10 points)|
|Following the principles of 3-D design||The students did not follow any 3-D principles (3 points)||Some key 3-D principles were neglected. (5 points)||Most of the 3-D principles were followed (7 points)||All 3-D principle were used (9 points)||All 3-D principle were used and their use was justified (10 points)|
|Use of 3-D design methods||No design methods were used (3 points)||The chosen design methods did not work (5 points)||The use of design methods was not justified (7 points)||The design methods were justified and worked well, yet a better option was possible (9 points)||The chosen design method proved optimum for the task. (10 points)|
|Creativity||All elements of the work are clichéd and resemble the example in textbooks (3 points)||Some unique elements are introduced, yet the work does not have any original thought (5 points)||The author of the project came up with one to three unique elements (7 points)||The paper has original conclusions and introduces |
an original research method (9 points)
|The project has a unique set of the method, original conclusions and a unique design (10 points)|
|Effort||The students did not put any effort whatsoever (3 points)||The students have made an effort, yet stopped at the first sign of a problem (5 points)||The students made an effort yet the work has a lot of mistakes (7 points)||The students have made a considerable effort without making more than 10 mistakes (9 points)||The students have made a great effort, and there are 0 to 5 mistakes in the project. (10 points)|
|Cooperation (in case of a group project)||None of the students cared what the other(s) did, which resulted in a poorly put together project (2 points)||Less than half of the group took part in the project. (5 points)||Most of the students cooperated; however, the presentation does not look quite homogenous (7 points)||All of the students cooperated; however, the paper is somewhat awkward (9 points)||The entire group of students was involved, which resulted in a well put together work (10 points)|
Capizzi, T. (2002). 3D modeling and texture mapping. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Faber, L. & Walters, H. (2004). Animation unlimited: Innovative short films since 1940. London, UK: Lawrence King Publishing.
Gwahana, T. & Zlatanova, S. (2011). The increasing significance of 3D topology for modeling of urban structures. Web.