The Three Task Assessment Model
Redesigned components with clear standard and higher level pathways
The new curriculum keeps three assessment tasks but redesigns each one with clearer focus, weighting, word limits, and balance between visual and written evidence. The new model also separates Standard Level and Higher Level expectations more clearly so each pathway feels coherent and equally rigorous.
Task 1: Art Making Inquiry Portfolio
External assessment – common for Standard Level and Higher Level
Weighting: Standard Level 40% and Higher Level 30%
Purpose: This task replaces the old Process Portfolio with a stronger focus on inquiry. Students no longer only record studio activity, they curate visual and written evidence that shows how they have followed personal lines of inquiry guided by clear artistic intentions.
What students submit
- Maximum 15 screens, roughly 15 to 20 digital pages
- Maximum 3,000 words including all annotations and reflections
- A single digital file that combines artworks, process images, research and written reflection
What examiners look for
The portfolio should give clear evidence that students:
- Pose visual and conceptual questions that drive their inquiry. These questions or statements should be written in the portfolio so examiners can follow what the student is investigating.
- Engage with a range of art making forms and creative strategies. Students explore varied media and approaches and explain why they chose them and what they discovered.
- Develop a personal visual language through sustained material and conceptual exploration. The portfolio reads as a coherent journey, not a collection of unrelated experiments.
- Document thinking visually and verbally. Sketches, process photos, test pieces, research images and annotations show how ideas move from first trials to more resolved work.
- Connect personal experience to wider contexts. The inquiry grows from the student’s own interests and experiences but also links to contemporary art, history, and cultural conversations.
What has changed from the Process Portfolio
The old Process Portfolio often encouraged isolated experiments. The new Art Making Inquiry Portfolio asks for one clear line of inquiry that can be followed across the whole submission. Fewer words and stronger visual focus mean that images carry more of the story and text supports them in a concise way.
Students must name their artistic intentions and guiding questions. This prevents portfolios that look impressive but are not conceptually clear.
Implications for teachers
- Support students to shape real lines of inquiry by asking what visual or conceptual territory interests them and how it links to their lives and influences.
- Model visual research and annotation, so documenting and commenting on process becomes a natural studio habit.
- Build regular portfolio checkpoints into the year where students add evidence, reflect and plan their next steps.
- Teach the difference between recording what they did and reflecting on what they learned and what changed in their thinking.
Task 2: Connecting and Projecting
External assessment – differentiated for Standard Level and Higher Level
Task 2 is where the most visible structural change appears. It clearly separates expectations for Standard Level and Higher Level and shifts the focus from detached analysis of other artists to meaningful connections between student work and wider artistic contexts.
Standard Level: Connections Study
External assessment – weighting 20%
Purpose: The Connections Study replaces the Comparative Study at Standard Level. Instead of focusing mainly on external artworks, it starts with the student’s own piece and uses research and artistic dialogue to place it in a wider context.
What students submit
- Maximum 10 screens
- Maximum 2,500 words
- A digital file that combines analysis and visual documentation
What students do
Students select one resolved artwork from their internal assessment selection and:
- Situate it in their personal context. They explain what experiences, interests or questions generated the work and how it reflects their background and community.
- Connect it to at least two other artists. They show how other artists explored similar ideas or forms and use this to better understand their own work.
- Explore cultural significance. They explain why the work matters conceptually and culturally and how context changes the way we read it.
What examiners look for
- Evidence that the student understands how their own artwork sits in wider artistic conversations
- Purposeful research into contextual influences such as cultural traditions, historical precedents and contemporary practices
- Analysis that goes beyond surface comparison and reveals meaningful conceptual or cultural connections
- A clear personal voice rather than generic art history writing
What has changed from the Comparative Study
The old Comparative Study placed external artworks at the center. The Connections Study reverses this relationship and puts the student’s own work first. External artists now act as reference points that help students understand and position their practice.
Implications for teachers
- Model how artists research references to understand what conversations they are entering.
- Help students write concise artist statements that summarise what their work is about and why it matters.
- Teach research approaches that are specific to visual culture and help students move past simple description.
- Frame the Connections Study as guided self reflection using contextual research, not as a detached academic essay.
Task 2 at Higher Level: Artist Project
External assessment – weighting 30%
The Artist Project creates a distinct path for Higher Level students. It is not just a heavier version of Standard Level. Instead, it asks students to work as emerging artists who manage a long term project with real autonomy and responsibility.
What students develop
Across their two years in Higher Level Visual Arts, students develop one substantial project that:
- Forms a coherent work or series with strong conceptual and visual consistency
- Is realised for a chosen context such as a school space, gallery, community location or digital platform
- Is informed by deep research into at least two artists who engage with similar ideas or forms
- Shows evidence of feedback and dialogue with peers, teachers and possibly wider audiences
- Is presented through curated visual documentation and a short reflective video
What students submit
- Curated images or video stills that document the realised project and its context
- A reflective video of about three to five minutes where the student explains intentions, process and context
- A written rationale of roughly 1,000 to 1,500 words that frames the project conceptually and culturally
What examiners look for
- Evidence that the project was thoughtfully conceived, planned and realised
- Quality of the artistic outcome in relation to the complexity of the idea and chosen context
- Coherence between intention, concept and formal decisions
- Clear influence of researched artists without loss of the student’s own voice
- Insightful consideration of context and audience
- Honest and thoughtful reflection on successes, limitations and possible next steps
What makes this task different
The Artist Project positions Higher Level students much closer to university and professional practice. They carry a project over time, take creative risks, and must speak about their own work in both written and spoken form. The video element mirrors real artist talks and helps them practise presenting their practice to others.
Implications for teachers
- Move from giving set projects to mentoring students as they design and manage their own artistic challenges.
- Teach project planning skills such as milestones, timelines, risk management and regular check ins.
- Make critique and dialogue central. Plan regular sessions where students share work in progress and receive structured feedback.
- Ask students to consider audience and context from the very beginning rather than at the end of the project.
- Build documentation and reflection routines into weekly practice so the final submission is an organic record of the whole journey.
Task 3: Resolved Artworks
Internal assessment – with extra expectations for Higher Level
Task 3 replaces the old Exhibition. It focuses on a smaller, carefully chosen set of resolved works and the student’s ability to curate and explain them, rather than simply filling a space with as many pieces as possible.
What students submit at both levels
- Five resolved artworks that show strong technical skill and conceptual clarity
- A curatorial rationale of up to 700 words, spread over up to three screens, explaining the selection and how the works function together
- Short texts for each artwork, about 200 words per piece, that situate each work within the student’s practice and relevant contexts
Additional expectations for Higher Level
- Visual evidence of at least three artworks that were not selected, with brief notes explaining each rejection
- Greater conceptual and technical coherence across the final five works
- Deeper contextual analysis in the artwork texts with more explicit links to wider artistic conversations
What has changed from the Exhibition
In the previous model, the Exhibition was externally assessed and usually contained more works. The new task reduces the number of pieces and raises the expectation of curatorial and reflective quality.
- Selection and justification are central. Students must explain why these five works represent their practice best.
- Each piece receives its own short discussion so it is understood both on its own and as part of the whole.
- Higher Level students show rejected pieces and speak about why they did not include them, which mirrors real curatorial practice.
- Schools are still encouraged to exhibit student work, but the exhibition is now a learning event rather than a formal assessment requirement.
Implications for teachers
- Introduce curatorial concepts early so students can practise thinking about coherence, variety and visual dialogue across their work.
- Encourage regular reviews of the body of work so students can see which pieces feel strongest and where there are gaps.
- Build audience questions into class discussions. Ask who will see the work and how sequence and text can help viewers read it.
- Talk about rejected and unresolved pieces in a positive way, especially with Higher Level students, so they see them as proof of serious exploration rather than failure.
We denounce with righteous indignation and dislike men who are so beguiled and demor alized by the charms of pleas ure of the moment.
The intruders chased the girl in the house and threatened her when she hid from them, according to the PSNI to Limavady Facebook.
It’s no secret that the digital industry is booming. From exciting startups to need ghor fore global and brands, companies are reaching out.