Just to mention at the start, I won't be commenting on your digital drawings. In the future, please don't include them in your submissions.

Starting with your organic forms with contour lines, two things to keep an eye on:

• Your contour curves page has sausages where the ends are not equal in size, and are generally not adhering as closely to the characteristics of simple sausages. Your forms with contour lines are definitely doing a better job of this.

• The degree of your contour lines are all consistent, when they should be gradually shifting either narrower or wider as they slide along the length of the form. The degree of a contour line basically represents the orientation of that cross-section in space, relative to the viewer, and as we slide along the sausage form, the cross section is either going to open up (allowing us to see more of it) or turn away from the viewer (allowing us to see less), as shown here.

Moving onto your insect constructions, you've largely done a pretty good job of focusing on the core principles of construction. You're clearly showing that you grasp how these insects are made up of simple, solid masses, and you're clearly demonstrating that you think about how they relate to one another in space.

There are some places where you're perhaps a little sloppier - for example, your use of the sausage method tends to be a bit lacking, in that your sausages aren't always drawn all that conscientiously and appear a little more rushed at times, and you don't reinforce the joint between them as shown here.

In general, I do believe there is something to be said about just putting a little more time into each and every one of your marks. You're definitely drawing them with a great degree of confidence, but you're ending up with a degree of looseness to your ellipses. It's not that you shouldn't be drawing through your ellipses (you've got a few places earlier on where you neglect to), but tightening them up so the individual passes line up together better will help give your ball forms a greater sense of solidity, and will help sell the illusion that they are indeed three dimensional somewhat better. This one for example, is probably the weakest example where the individual components are placed correctly, they're just not each given enough planning and preparation to be executed in a way that really sells the idea that they're each solid, three dimensional forms.

I can see that you felt that drawing was definitely quite weak as well however, and you did a much better job after a few more iterations with this one.

Another issue I'm noticing is that your drawings tend to be quite small. Our ability to solve spatial problems benefits immensely from being given more room to draw. It results in larger sausages that are easier to construct, and allows us to identify the relationships between our forms more readily. While over time your ability to do this at smaller scales will improve, the first step to that is making a point of giving your drawings as much room as they require - so in the future, avoid cramming your drawing into a quarter of the page, leaving the rest open and unused.

The last thing I want to touch upon is your scorpion drawing. I've laid out two issues on this page. First off, when adding the plating along the scorpion's back, your linework is really scratchy and sketchy. Make sure that no matter how complex the problem you're dealing with, you always fall back to the techniques and habits you've been taught in earlier lessons. Apply the ghosting method, one mark per line, plan and prepare beforehand, etc.

The second issue is more complicated - basically here you're trying to cut back into a form. Everything we add to our constructions, as you well understand, is a three dimensional form. Something solid added in a 3D world, not just a mark or a shape on a page. We maintain this illusion by continually reminding ourselves of this fact, and by respecting this fact throughout the drawing process.

It can be very tempting however to use some of the extensive freedom we're given, in the fact that we're just drawing on a flat page. We can put down any mark we want, and treat them however we like - but many of the things we're free to do will undermine and contradict the illusion we're trying to create.

In this case, you modified the silhouette - a 2D shape - of that form, and cut back into it. In doing so, you reminded the viewer that what they were looking at is simply two dimensional. For this reason, it is critical that you distinguish between actions that are performed on the drawing as something two dimensional, and actions that are performed on the three dimensional construction. What you basically attempted there is known as subtractive construction - except that you did it incorrectly, as explained here. Generally subtractive construction doesn't work very well for organic subject matter, so it is generally better to draw our initial forms a little smaller and build them up with additional masses instead of trying to cut back into them at all.

This informal demo of a crab's claw helps illustrate this concept of working additively to build a similar kind of construction. Note how every form is added in a way that respects the three dimensional nature of the underlying structure - added forms wrap around whatever's beneath them, and they all reinforce the illusion that these surfaces turn in 3D space.

So! Overall you're doing a pretty good job, but there are some pockets of issues you'll need to keep in mind as you continue forwards. And again - don't submit any work done digitally. If you'd like to dig deeper into exploring your constructions further, adding detail, etc. do them in ink. You're welcome to draw digitally all you like outside of your submitted work, but within the context of these lessons, I do think that they're allowing you to lean more into a looser, less patient process of mark making with fewer repercussions. Dealing with that here, in ink, will allow you to put your marks more mindfully and patiently regardless of the medium you ultimately choose to work in.