Overview
Students are expected to exhibit epistemological development and intellectual growth in their approach and execution or research and creative work throughout the two and a half year program. Although first-year students are expected to take an exploratory approach to their work, evidence of substantial work is expected by the end of the year. By the end of the second year, evidence of a developing focus is expected. This focus will culminate with an oral presentation and research document at the end of the second year, and an integrated body of creative work and distribution event by the end of their final semester. Continuation in the ADP program requires successful completion of end-of-year reviews after the first and second years. An exhibition of the thesis will be the culminating event of the final semester and will lead to the awarding of the Advanced Diploma. Guidelines for the Oral Presentation, research document, and exhibition of the Thesis are provided in the next section of this handbook.

Mid-Year Reviews
Mid-Year reviews happen just before the start of interim semester and provide an opportunity to get feedback, share ideas, and check progress. Students will demonstrate their creative and investigative process and proficiency by submitting a portfolio composed of three things:
1. notes and questions assembled from their work as part of reading group,
2. a well-written and research proposal for research, artist residency, grant or other form determined in consultation with CEMA faculty, and
3. documentation of the creative work, research, or other undertakings in which they emphasize both the process and products revealed as a result.

First Year End-of-year Review
The End-of-year Review for first year students is a one and one-half hour meeting between the student and an ad-hoc Graduate Review Committee (GRC) comprised of at least one faculty who has served as an advisor to the student. The first half of the review will be a well-planned summary presentation of work to date in the program, including discussion of their research, creative work, exhibitions, and plans for the coming years. The second half of the review will be spent as a faculty/student advising session. This session is an opportunity for the student to have a conversation with the faculty committee to discuss themes and focus found in the work and education experience. The student will have an opportunity to ask faculty for recommendations and will be expected to bring questions for discussion.

Second Year End-of-year Review
The End-of-year Review for second year students is a one and one-half hour meeting between the student, an ad-hoc Graduate Review Committee (GRC) comprised of at least one faculty who has served as an advisor to the student, and the community-at-large. The first half of the review will be a well-planned oral presentation of a proposal for thesis work with a review of how the proposed thesis work relates to work produced to date in the program and a discussion of distribution events and exhibitions that took place in the current year with time for questions from the public. The second half of the review will be spent as a faculty/student advising session. This session is an opportunity for the student to have a conversation with the faculty committee to discuss themes and focus found in the work and education experience. The student will have an opportunity to ask faculty for recommendations and will be expected to bring questions for discussion.

Purpose
• In-depth reflection by the student on their personal approach to research and creative work, the milestones and achievements reached, design challenges, and relative risks taken within the program.
• An opportunity for mutual feedback between students and faculty to insure that the students recognize their role in the CEMA program, their agency in making things happen, and to identify potential obstacles to their success. To that end, faculty will assess student performance relative to the CEMA context and for each student’s objectives.
• Students will outline their strategy for completing projects and obtaining goals with the opportunity to receive advice and feedback from faculty.

Pre-Review
Two weeks prior to the end-year review, students will submit 3 copies of the following items to Mary Sundari who will distribute the copies to the faculty committee:
• One-page outline of planned presentation. The structure of the presentation will be focused on the development of your research and creative work and your growth as an artist/designer/researcher/nice human being.
• Outline of ALL courses/labs completed to date with instructors and grades.
• Current resume, including URL of personal website.
• Brief statement on future plans and how these plans relate to development of thesis work.

Evaluation Criteria
You will be provided feedback and assessed on the following:
• Epistemological development and intellectual growth
• Approach and execution of research and creative work
• Evidence of imagination/creativity/risk-taking/innovation
• Evidence of realization skills: Has the student successfully manifested their concepts and/or been able to articulate the barriers to realization?
• Level of sincere/forthright/passionate engagement
• Depth of critical reflection
• Articulation of future goals

Review Committees
The Graduate Review Committees (GRC’s) will be comprised of three full-time artists-in-residence or faculty one of which will have served as an advisor for the student being reviewed and will be designated as chair.

Post-Review Procedure for 1st and 2nd Year Reviews
The GRC assesses the presentation and discussion and based on this assessment the committee chair submits 1) a written evaluation of the student’s status and progress in the ADP program, and 2) a recommendation to the ADP Coordinator and Director, who are responsible for notifying the student of the recommendation and for carrying out necessary administrative steps. The recommendation will typically be one of the following courses of action:
• Continue in the program.
• Re-review at a specified time.
• Withdraw temporarily from the program, with re-entry conditions specified.
• Withdraw permanently from the program.

The GRC may recommend a qualified version of any of the above actions, or may recommend an alternate course of action.

The GRC recommendation and written evaluation, a copy of which is provided to the student, becomes part of the student’s record.

A student may appeal a review recommendation to the ADP Coordinator and Director by submitting a letter stating the reasons for the appeal.