Review: Capstone Proposals, Portfolio Claims, Credits, and Feasibility
Prepare an original capstone that is feasible and honestly documented. Reconcile limits with required evidence, distinguish artifact work from unobserved performance, retain provenance and reserve time for a specific criterion-based revision.
Bring the unit skills together
Use these 4 new cases to check your reasoning. Choices are temporary and are not saved to an account, sent to staff or recorded as school grades. Download your current review choices before leaving or reloading.
The download contains your current choices and any checked feedback. Keep the separate transfer-task work in your own document; downloading its instructions does not mark it complete.
Use the skills in a new task
Complete this four-part arts evidence sheet. 1. Original capstone brief: use at most4 paper pages, stay within 27 planning minutes, include an original artifact and a criterion-based revision note. Which proposal satisfies the supplied constraints? Supplied candidates: (A) 4 pages, 25 minutes, artifact plus documented revision (B) A promise of guaranteed audience impact without an artifact (C) One extra page beyond the cap with no revision note (D) Only an uncredited copied image. Then Propose a three-page original storyboard within twenty-five planning minutes, including a source log and criterion-based revision note. Criteria: The proposal names the artifact, respects both limits and allocates work for the source and revision evidence. 2. A portfolio contains exhibit plan plus an evidence paragraph, but no recorded performance or outside review. Which claim matches that evidence scope? Supplied candidates: (A) It documents the supplied planning/analysis and artifact work; performance quality remains unverified (B) It establishes an accredited arts qualification (C) It guarantees every audience reaction (D) It proves expert singing, acting and dance performance. Then Write an evidence statement for a score and timing audit with no performance recording. Criteria: The statement names the planning and calculation evidence and clearly leaves execution quality unverified. 3. A fictional process record labels the work source recording rights unresolved. Which portfolio practice preserves integrity? Supplied candidates: (A) Assume a remix automatically removes all prior restrictions (B) Keep that actual provenance, document changes, and retain the stated rights status (C) Remove uncertainty from the record without checking it (D) Rename every source “my original work”. Then Create a fictional credit record distinguishing an original layout from an adaptation of a documented CC0 item. Criteria: The source and original contribution are separated, the transformation is stated and the recorded status is not silently expanded. 4. An original paper-production plan budgets parts [5, 5, 4] minutes, within a 18-minute cap. With no overlap between parts, how much time remains for a revision check? Supplied candidates: (A) 3 minutes (B) 4 minutes (C) 5 minutes (D) 6 minutes. Then Budget five minutes for thumbnails, seven for a draft and four for a note within a twenty-minute cap, then define a four-minute check. Criteria: The parts total sixteen minutes, leaving four; the proposed check fits the reserve and the timing remains explicitly a plan.
Work on paper or in your own document. Explain the choices you made.
- Answer each supplied changed-input analysis with its visible evidence, rule or calculation.
- Include the original artifact required for each lesson; paper/text equivalents are acceptable.
- Apply the stated criteria and document one concrete revision.
- Describe planning/analysis accurately; do not claim unobserved musical, acting or dance execution.
Compare with a model response
1. 4 pages, 25 minutes, artifact plus documented revision. The proposal stays within both numerical limits and includes the two required evidence types. A valid plan does not ensure artistic quality by itself; the artifact and revision reasoning must still be produced and reviewed against transparent criteria. An original artifact is acceptable when The proposal names the artifact, respects both limits and allocates work for the source and revision evidence. 2. It documents the supplied planning/analysis and artifact work; performance quality remains unverified. The artifact and accompanying analysis demonstrate what is actually present in the record. Without a performance or suitable review, execution quality remains unverified. This distinction protects an honest portfolio statement while still recognizing substantial original planning and reasoning. An original artifact is acceptable when The statement names the planning and calculation evidence and clearly leaves execution quality unverified. 3. Keep that actual provenance, document changes, and retain the stated rights status. The actual provenance states which choices are original and which depend on a source. Keeping changes and rights status visible avoids false authorship or invented permission. The task uses supplied fictional records and original alternatives rather than requiring a real legal determination. An original artifact is acceptable when The source and original contribution are separated, the transformation is stated and the recorded status is not silently expanded. 4. 4 minutes. The parts sum to 14 minutes. Subtract from cap 18: 18−14=4 minutes remain. That limited margin is a planning constraint, not a measured completion time; a more ambitious revision would require cutting another part or increasing the allowed budget. An original artifact is acceptable when The parts total sixteen minutes, leaving four; the proposed check fits the reserve and the timing remains explicitly a plan.
A different response can also meet the criteria. Compare the evidence and reasoning, rather than copying the wording.