art teachers' opinions of assessment criteria

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9" black and vtfiite photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA

800-521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ART TEACHERS’ OPINIONS OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

A dissertation presented to

the Faculty o f the Graduate School University of Missouri-Columbia

In Partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor o f Philosophy

byCHERYL VENET

Dr. Larry Kantner, Dissertation Supervisor

MAY 2000


UMI Number 9974694

Copyright 2000 by Venet, Cheryl Lynn

All rights reserved.

UMIUMI Microform9974694

Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346


The undersigned, appointed by the Dean o f the Graduate School, have examined the dissertation entitled

ART TEACHERS’ OPINIONS OF ART ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

presented by Cheryl Venet

a candidate for the degree o f Doctor o f Philosophy

and hereby certify that in their opinion it is worthy of acceptance

-----------

6 - /

/ -iS *


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To Missouri art educators for sharing their time and experiences with art

assessment which made this research study possible.

To Dr. Larry Kantner, my advisor and dissertation supervisor, for encouraging me

to complete this degree before and after a IS year hiatus. Through his professional

reputation and friendships, I was able to meet and work with national experts in art

assessment. He coached me toward success with skill, kindness, and support.

To Dr. Adrienne Walker Hoard, for her friendship, encouragement, knowledge o f

aesthetics, and for broadening my perspectives by looking through multicultural lenses.

To Dr. Lloyd Barrow, for sharing his knowledge of survey methodology, leading

me toward my goals though succinct and probing questions, and for responding

thoughtfully to all drafts o f work-in-progress.

To Frank Stack, for being my mentor and artistic role model for the past twenty

years during which he used his time and expertise to help me improve my paintings.

To Dr. Wendy Sims, for her attention to detail, insightful questions, and for

guiding me toward receiving a dissertation grant which helped fund this study.

To my fellow doctoral students who, along with Dr. Kantner, provided a forum for

discussing issues and stimulating my thoughts about art education.

To my mother and deceased father, Dianne and Harry Venet, for raising me to ask

questions and find answers, and for their unwavering belief in my abilities.

To my siblings, Barbara Horler (who showed me that you can get a Ph.D. while

working more than full-time), Judi Phelps, and Allen Venet for the their love and support.

To my children, Samantha Heisler Myers and Kimberly Heisler, for their constant

love, understanding, encouragement, and faith in me and to whom I dedicate this work.

ii


ART TEACHER’S OPINIONS OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Cheryl Venet

Dr. Larry Kantner, Dissertation Supervisor

ABSTRACT

The arts are a basic part o f contemporary education (U.S. Department of

Education, 1998; National Assessment o f Educational Progress, 1996). Like teachers in

the core subjects o f language arts, mathematics, science, and social sciences, arts

practitioners established expectations for student knowledge and production/performance

through national and state standards (Higgins, 1989; U.S. Department of Education, 1991;

National Standards for Arts Education, 1994; Missouri State Board of Education, 1996).

To determine whether standards increase student achievement - as intended - student

knowledge and performance must be assessed. As a consequence of arts’ inclusion in

basic education, its practitioners must develop, implement, and publicly report the results

of art achievement. States can assess their standards through multiple choice/essay tests,

performance tasks, and/or portfolios.

In Missouri, without a mandatory textbook or state curriculum, there exists great

diversity among schools regarding what students are taught in art classes. Therefore,

standards can be assessed by creating a generic rubric which can be adapted to a wide

variety o f art products/assignments. Teachers, trained as judges, would use the rubric’s

criteria and levels o f achievement to score student portfolios. Scores obtained through this

assessment could be used to: monitor student growth, provide teachers with feedback for

iii


improving instruction, and inform stakeholders (parents, administrators, the public) about

student achievement (Armstrong, 1994; Beattie, 1997; Eisner, 1996).

The purpose o f this study was to provide a model for school districts or states to

use when designing large-scale, authentic assessments. The research problem was to

determine which criteria should be included on a Missouri art assessment rubric. One

question investigated whether there should be different rubrics for elementary, middle, and

high school grade levels. Another, proposed four sets o f aesthetic criteria representing the

aesthetic theories of Formalism, Expressionism, Instrumentalism, and Imitationalism.

Significant differences in opinions among teachers of different grade levels suggested the

use of multiple rubrics. Significant differences among aesthetic theory criteria indicated

that each could be used interchangeably depending upon the project or artist’s intent.

To determine which component criteria and descriptors should be included in the

questionnaire, a search was made o f the related literature, experts in the field provided

feedback, and teachers offered input through focus groups held at a Missouri Art

Education Association Conference.

Using survey methodology, 382 (19% o f population) Missouri art teachers were

asked to respond to a list o f criteria. For each criterion statement, teachers indicated (on a

5-point Likert scale) the degree to which they felt it was important for assessment.

The methodology consisted of the development and mailing o f a questionnaire to

a random sample o f Missouri art teachers. As a follow-up, a second cover letter and

survey were mailed to non-respondents, then a letter was faxed to building principals, and

finally, phone calls were made to a sample o f non-respondents. A total o f 78% of teachers

iv


in the sample responded.

Descriptive statistics, ANOVA, Tukey’s Post Hoc Comparisons, and Contrasts

were computed for each criterion. Written teacher comments were tallied and used to

provide a deeper understanding o f survey responses.

This study found that Missouri art teachers agreed upon a list o f criteria for

inclusion in a state art assessment rubric. The conclusions follow, presented by survey

category.

Greater than 70% o f art teachers (the cut off for recommending inclusion on a

state rubric) indicated that it was important to include the following Responding to Art

criteria on a state rubric: 1) explains perceptions o f artwork; 2) identifies connections

among arts and with other subjects; 3) relates art from historical periods, movements

and/or cultures to own work; 4) uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and

evaluate artworks; and 5) student self-evaluates.

The Creating or Process criteria recommended for the rubric were: I) correctly

uses assigned processes, media, and techniques; 2) demonstrates problem-solving process;

and 3) demonstrates originality, creativity, or inventiveness.

All Attitude or Habits-of-Mind criteria were included: 1) is persistently on task; 2)

respects materials, equipment, other students, and their art; 3) shows commitment; and 4)

is responsive to teacher’s feedback.

The Art Product criteria recommended for the state rubric were: 1) demonstrates

skill or craftspersonship, 2) demonstrates planned, effective composition; 3) work shows

improvement from past products; 4) demonstrates assigned concepts, processes, elements

v


and/or principles; and S) intent of artist is communicated.

The four aesthetic theory scales were significantly different at the p< 0001 level.

Under Aesthetic criteria, none of the Instrumentalism criteria were thought to be

important by 70% o f responding teachers.

All Formalism criteria were deemed to be important: 1) use o f elements o f art; 2)

use o f principles o f design; 3) distorts, exaggerates for purpose o f design; and 4)

composition.

Three Expressionist criteria were included: 1) expresses ideas, attitudes, or

feelings; 2) evokes emotions or feelings in viewer; and 3) communicates a point o f view.

All Imitationalist criteria were believed to be important for inclusion on a state

rubric: 1) real or idealized representation o f life; 2) shows realistic form (3-D)

or illusion o f form (2-D); 3) shows realistic texture (3-D) or the illusion o f texture (2-D);

and 4) shows space (3-D), or the illusion of depth (2-D).

The results were used by the Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task Force to

develop a draft o f an interdisciplinaiy arts rubric for teachers to use when conducting local

assessment o f the state education standards.

vi


LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Frequency o f Grade Levels Currently Taught by Art Teachers in Sample.......... 117

2. Years o f Teaching Experience for Art Teachers in the Sample............................. 118

3. Number o f Art Students Taught in a Year by Grade Level.................................. 119

4. Products Considered Important for Teachers to Assess....................................... 122

5. Additional Products Teachers Assess Comments.................................................. 123

6. What is included in Student Portfolios Comments.................................................125

7. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for “Responding” Criteria........................................ 127

8. Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to AssessStudent Response Criteria....................................................................................... 129

9. Responding to Art Criteria Comments....................................................................1283010. Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess

Process Criteria........................................................................................................ 132

11. Table Creating or Process Criteria Comments....................................................... 133

12. Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to AssessAttitude or Habits of Mind Criteria........................................................................135

13. Attitude or Habits of Mind Comments....................................................................136

14. Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to AssessArt Product Criteria................................................................................................. 138

15. Art Product Criteria Comments...............................................................................139

16. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for all “Aesthetic” Criteria....................................... 141

17. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Aesthetic M eans...................... 142

vii


18. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for Aesthetics Subcategories:Formalist, Expressionist, Instrumental, and Imitationalist Criteria........................144

19. Contrasts for Aesthetics Subcategories: Formalist, Expressionist,Instrumental, and Imitationalist Criteria....................................................................145

20. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Formalist Aesthetic Criteria.................................. 146

21. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to AssessFormalist Aesthetic Criteria....................................................................................... 147

22. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to AssessExpressionist Aesthetic Criteria.................................................................................149

23. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Instrumental/Pragmatic Aesthetic Criteria...........150

24. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to AssessInstrumental or Pragmatic Aesthetic Criteria............................................................151

25. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Imitationalist o r Mimetic Aesthetic Criteria.........152

26. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to AssessImitationalist or Mimetic Aesthetic Criteria..............................................................154

27. Aesthetic Criteria Comments.......................................................................................156

28. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to TeachSpecific Content...........................................................................................................159

29. “What do you Teach?” Comments............................................................................. 161

30. Assessment Criteria not Included in this Survey Comments...................................162

31. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the Mean o f Formalist Criteria, UsesElements/Principles, and Abstracts/Non-Objective................................................ 164

32. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Expressionist Criteria and TeachingStudents to Express Feelings/Attitudes....................................................................165

33. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Instrumentalism, “Create Functional Art”and “Communicate Social, Political, or Personal Messages...................................166

34. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Imitationalism andDraw/Paint/Sculpt/Print Realistically from Observation......................................... 167

viii


35. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: II,RoughDrafts................................................................................................................ 204

36. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: II, Rough Drafts................ 205

37. Contrast for Dependent Variable: II , R ough...........................................................206

39. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 12, FinalProduct......................................................................................................................... 207

39. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: 12, Final Product..............208

40. Contrast for Dependent Variable: 12, Final Product................................................ 209

41. General Linear Models Procedure for Dependent Variable: 14, Art Criticism ... 210

42. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: 14, Art Criticism................. 211

43. Contrast for Dependent Variable: 14, Art Criticism................................................ 212

44. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 15, ArtHistorical Writing....................................................................................................... 213

45. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: 15, Art HistoricalW riting........................................................................................................................ 214

46. Contrast for Dependent Variable: 15, Art Historical W riting.................................215

47. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 17,Portfolio......................................................................................................................216

48. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for Variable: 17,Portfolio........................217

49. Contrast for Dependent Variable: 17, Portfolio........................................................218

50. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 114,Uses Vocabulary....................................................................................................... 219

51. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: 114, Uses Vocabulary........220

52. Contrast for Dependent Variable: 114, Uses Vocabulary........................................ 221

53. General Linear Models Procedure for Dependent Variable: 115, Self-Evaluate...222

ix


54. Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: 115, Self-Evaluate...............223

55. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: 115, Self-Evaluate.............................................224

56. General Linear Models Procedure for Dependent Variable: III4,Sketchbook/Journal................................................................................................... 225

57. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: III4 ,Sketchbook/Journal................................................................................................... 226

58. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: III4, Sketchbook/Journal................................ 227

59. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: IV3,Shows Commitment................................................................................................... 228

60. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: IV3, ShowsCommitment............................................................................................................... 229

61. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: IV3, Shows Commitment.,.............................230

62. General Linear Models Procedure Dependent Variable: VI,Craftspersonship.........................................................................................................231

63. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VI,Craftspersonship.........232

64. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VI,Craftspersonship........................................233

65. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: V2,Plans Composition..................................................................................................... 234

66. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: V2, PlansComposition............................................................................................................... 235

67. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: V2, Plans Composition................................... 236

68. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VII2,Realism from Observation......................................................................................... 237

69. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VTI2, Realism fromObservation................................................................................................................ 238

70. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VII2, Realism from Observation....................239

x


71. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VII7,Historical Style................................................................. 240

72. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VIT7, Historical Style........ 241

73. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VIT7, Historical Style.......................................242

74. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: V,Category o f Art Product Criteria...............................................................................243

75. Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: V, Category o f ArtProduct Criteria.......................................................................................................... 244

75. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: V, Category o f Art Product Criteria.............. 245

77. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VI,Category o f Aesthetic Criteria................................................................................... 246

78. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VI, Category o fAesthetic Criteria........................................................................................................247

79. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VI, Category o f Aesthetic Criteria................. 248

80. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: AestheticSubcategory of Formalism.........................................................................................249

81. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: AestheticSubcategory o f Formalism.........................................................................................250

82. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: Aesthetic Subcategory of Formalism..............251

83. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: AestheticSubcategory o f Imitationalism................................................................................... 252

84. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: AestheticSubcategory o f Imitationalism................................................................................... 253

85. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: Aesthetic Subcategory ofImitationalism............................................................................................................. 254

86. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VTF3,Abstracts..................................................................................................................... 255

87. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VIF3, Abstracts.................256xi


88. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VIF3, Abstracts.................................................257

89. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VTF4,Composition.................................................................................................................258

90. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VIF4, Composition........... 259

91. Dependent Variable: VTF4, Composition...................................................................260

92. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VIM1,Realism..........................................................................................................................261

93. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VIM1, Realism..................262

94. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VIM1, Realism..................................................263

95. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable:VIM2, Shows Realistic Form..................................................................................... 264

96. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VTM2, Shows RealisticForm................................................................................................... 265

97. Table for Dependent Variable: VIM2, Shows Realistic Form................................266

98. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VTM3,Shows Realistic Texture.............................................................................................267

99. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VIM3, Shows RealisticTexture..........................................................................................................................268

100. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VTM3, Shows Realistic Texture..................... 269

101. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable.VTM4, Shows Realistic Space.................................................................................... 270

102. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VIM4, ShowsRealistic Space............................................................................................................. 271

103. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VTM4, Shows Realistic Space....................... 272

104. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha Correlation Analysis.................................................... 273

xii


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Recommended Criteria for Grade Level, State Art Rubrics.............................191


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..........................................................................................................ii

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................vii

LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................xiii

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1

Purpose o f Study...............................................................................................5

Importance of the Study....................................................................................6

Statement of the Problem..................................................................................7

Study Design..................................................................................................... 7

Definition of Terms........................................................................................... 8

Assumptions of the Study................................................................................10

Delimitations of the Study...............................................................................11

Summary........................................................................................................... 12

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE........................................................... 13

Introduction......................................................................................................13

Functions o f Assessment.................................................................................13

History o f Arts Testing.................................................................................... 15

Standardized Achievement Tests...................................................................21

Criterion-Referenced Multiple Choice Tests................................................25

xiv


Alternative Forms o f Assessment................................................................... 27

Performance-Based Assessment.....................................................................29

Authentic Assessment..................................................................................... 30

Portfolio Assessment........................................................................................33

Performance Assessment Criteria.................................................................. 36

Aesthetics......................................................................................................... 47

Definition of Aesthetics...................................................................................47

Philosophy o f Aesthetics.................................................................................48

Aesthetic Theories o f Art................................................................................50

Imitational or Mimetic Theory...........................................................52

Expressionist Theory.......................................................................... 54

Formalist Theory.................................................................................56

Pragmatic or Instrumental Theory..................................................... 58

Open Theory........................................................................................60

Institutional Theory............................................................................ 62

Postmodern Theory............................................................................ 64

Aesthetic Education in Art Education............................................................66

Aesthetic Theories and Student Art Production........................................... 77

Rationale for this Study Based upon Literature Review............................. 81

Summary............................................................................................................85

3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES.......................................................................87

Introduction...................................................................................................... 87

xv


Research Questions.......................................................................................... 89

Relationship to the Literature..........................................................................92

How will this Study Answer Research Questions?...................................... 95

Subjects............................................................................................................. 97

The Instrument.................................................................................................. 99

Themes o f Questionnaire Categories.......................................................... 101

Reliability and Validity................................................................................. 105

Administration o f the Survey.......................................................................107

Coding o f Surveys...........................................................................................108

Optimizing Return Rate..................................................................................108

Data Analysis.................................................................................................110

4. RESULTS.............................................................................................................113

Introduction................................................................................................... 113

Demographic Variables................................................................................ 115

What do Art Teachers Assess?.................................................................... 120

Portfolio Assessment.................................................................................... 123

Responding Criteria........................................................................................ 126

Creating or Process Criteria.........................................................................131

Attitude or Habits-of-Mind Criteria............................................................134

Art Product Criteria......................................................................................136

Aesthetics Criteria.........................................................................................139

Formalist Criteria............................................................................. 145

xvi


Expressionist Criteria........................................................................ 148

Instrumental Criteria......................................................................... 149

Imitationalist Criteria........................................................................ 151

What do You Teach?.....................................................................................157

Relationship Between Aesthetics and Instruction.......................................163

Sample o f Non-Respondents........................................................................ 167

Summary..........................................................................................................169

5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................... 173

Introduction.................................................................................................... 173

Summary..........................................................................................................176

Discussion of Results.....................................................................................187

Conclusions..................................................................................................... 190

Recommendations.......................................................................................... 195

Implications.................................................................................................... 198

APPENDIX............................................................................................................................. 203

Tables........................................................................................................................... 204

REFERENCE LIST....................................................................................................274

Questionnaire, A rt Assessment Survey..................................................................... 295

Initial and Follow-up Cover Letters.........................................................................299

Results Sent to Participants........................................................................................302

Draft Missouri Art Assessment Rubric.................................................................... 306VITA .........................................................................................................................................................................................3 0 8

xvii


CHAPTER ONE

Assessment should look directly at skills and principles essential to thinking in the arts, such as craftsmanship, originality, willingness to pursue a problem in depth, development o f work over time, ability to work independently and in a group, ability to perceive qualities in a work, and ability to think critically about one’s work. The assessment should reflect the rigorous standards routinely applied to the professions in the arts as valid fields o f intellectual endeavor.(Rayala, 1995, p. 176)

Introduction

The arts are a basic part of contemporary education (U.S. Department of

Education, 1998; National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1996). Like teachers in

the core subjects o f language arts, mathematics, science, and social sciences, arts

practitioners established expectations for student knowledge and production/performance

through national and state standards (Higgins, 1989; U.S. Department of Education, 1991;

National Standards for Arts Education, 1994; Missouri State Board of Education, 1996).

To determine whether standards increase student achievement - as intended - student

knowledge and performance must be assessed. As a consequence o f arts’ inclusion in

basic education, its practitioners must develop, implement, and publicly report the results

of art achievement.

In the absence o f a national or state curriculum in the visual arts, the broadly-

stated standards are translated into practice by art teachers and/or school districts. Given

the diverse interpretations o f standards which are taught in art classrooms, how can the

1


standards be assessed? One answer is that if there are criteria that describe quality in art

processes and products, then it would be possible to use them to create a rubric that

transcends individual teachers’s assignments. In addition to a set o f core criteria that

could be applied to all student artwork, are there some criteria that could selectively be

applied to works based upon the subject matter and intent o f the artist? If so, then

aesthetic theories o f art may provide the lenses or windows for framing different sets o f

content-related criteria. Criteria and descriptors o f quality production/performance,

assembled into a scoring rubric, could be used by students when creating art, and by

teachers and/or external moderators when assessing student artwork. Scores obtained

through this assessment could be used to: monitor student growth, provide teachers

feedback for improving instruction, and inform stakeholders (parents, administrators, the

public) about student achievement. The subject o f this study is the search for such criteria

and for teachers’ subsequent validation o f the criteria as important enough to be

considered for large-scale assessment.

In response to the request of the United States Congress for a study on the state o f

the arts, the National Endowment for the Arts published Toward Civilization (1987)

which advocated full inclusion of the arts in American education. The report recommends

that state education agencies and local school districts make arts education part o f the

basic school curriculum, K-12, and determine an essential body of content that all students

should know. Toward C ivilization specified that each district should implement a

comprehensive testing program to measure student achievement in the arts, using both

qualitative and quantitative measures, and addressing creation, performance, history,

2


critical analysis, and the place of the arts in society. State education agencies were asked

to develop comparative evaluation procedures based upon state arts education goals for

each district and school arts program. This landmark document set the stage for high-

stakes assessment in the arts (Finlayson, 1988; Rudner & Boston, 1994).

When Am erica 2000: An Education Strategy (U.S. Department of Education,

1991) was amended to include the arts, school districts and state agencies began to search

for ways to document student achievement in the arts (Sabol, 1994). This task continues.

From survey results, Peeno (1997) reported diversity among states in arts evaluation

methods, including essay, multiple-choice, short answer, embedded, performance, and

portfolio assessment. Six states were already assessing the arts; another eight were

planning to do so; 18 had not decided; and 18 had no plans to test in the arts. Vermont,

Utah, California, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, while not administering state-wide tests, have

produced guidelines for teachers to assess achievement o f state standards in their

classrooms (Vermont Arts Council, 1995; Stubbs, 1985; Taylor 1991; Mitchell, 1993;

Rayala, 1995; Higgins, 1989).

Zimmerman (1999) comments that authentic assessments in which students are

asked to use knowledge and skills to solve out-of-school realistic problems is becoming

common. She states that “in the near future, most art teachers as well as art education

researchers probably will be involved in some aspect o f large-scale arts assessment” (p.

45). Traditionally, large scale assessments have been multiple-choice tests because they

are familiar, report scores which are easily ranked, and cost less than alternative types o f

assessment. The trend across content areas is currently away from standardized tests and

3


toward performance-based, authentic instruments (Wiggins, 1989; Maeroff, 1991). Kohn,

in an interview with O’Neil and Tell (1999), explains the rationale for a trend to conduct

assessment embedded in classroom instruction:

Learning doesn’t take place at a district or a state level; it takes place in a classroom... a teacher-designed - and perhaps externally validated - assessment doesn’t meet only the teacher’s needs. If it’s done right, it also meets the needs o f parents and citizens to make sure that the teachers and schools are doing a decent job. (p.21)

External validation involves assessment by a panel o f trained judges using common

criteria. (Gaston, 1977; Weate, 1999). These criteria, when organized with descriptors

that indicate the differences among various levels o f success or quality, are called rubrics

(Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). With such an instrument, raters are able to score a variety of

teacher-developed assessments. An advantage o f this approach is its flexibility in

assessing artwork created in the diverse cultural contexts found in contemporary life

(Broughton, 1999). A disadvantage is that assessments which require judges are labor

intensive, costing more than machine-scored tests (Wiggins, 1998).

The state o f Missouri is in the process o f developing arts assessment with a limited

budget. Therefore, one component will be a multiple-choice exam in which students

respond in writing to images presented in videotape format (Peeno, 1999). Because the

selected-response format limits students’ critical and/or creative responses, this test will

focus on students’ knowledge o f art vocabulary. Art production, aesthetics, and in-depth

responses regarding historical/cultural contexts o f art will not be assessed through this

state-wide test. Instead, the state will support teachers’ local scoring o f these art

4


disciplines using a common rubric. Matrix sampling o f scored work will be used to

communicate degrees o f achievement statewide. The rubric should represent, not only the

state standards which are being addressed, but also the teachers’ practice and

understanding o f what is important in assessing students’ art products.

The Purpose o f the Study

Assessments in education influence curriculum and instruction. Therefore, state

wide assessment has far-reaching power to change education. One way to improve the

quality of instruction and student achievement is to design an assessment which allows

students to perform or produce tasks that simulate professional practice. In the arts, this

practice is best demonstrated through portfolio assessment. A generic rubric, aligned with

state standards, provides the framework from which to score diverse student artworks and

writings included in portfolios.

The purpose o f this study is to provide a rubric development model for states or

school districts to use when designing large-scale portfolio assessments. To determine

which component criteria and descriptors should be included in the instrument, a search

was made of the related literature, experts in the field were asked to provide feedback, and

teachers were asked to provide input during a state art association meeting.

5


The Importance o f the Study

The study will serve as a model which can be adapted by states or school districts

as they begin to discuss achievement and plan ways to document it. Component parts of

the survey might be changed to include items o f regional or cultural significance.

Discussions o f the model could generate local standards of quality. The study is intended

to stimulate a process in which art teachers, the experts in analyzing quality in student

artworks, determine which criteria should be valued highly enough to become

expectations for all students.

In the state o f Missouri, the study results will help determine which criteria should

be included in a state rubric. The rubric will be given to art teachers to help them evaluate

their students’ achievement o f state art standards. The specific knowledge standards for

the arts are:

In Fine Arts, students in M issouri public schools w ill acquire a so lidfoundation which includes knowledge o f1) process and techniques for the production, exhibition or performance of

one or more o f the visual or performed arts;2) the principles and elements o f different art forms;3) the vocabulary to explain perceptions about and evaluations o f works in

dance, music, theater, and visual arts;4) interrelationships o f visual and performing arts and the relationships o f

the arts to other disciplines;5) visual and performing arts in historical and cultural contexts. (Show-MeStandards, 1996, p. 1)

These standards require high levels of thinking and creating which can be judged through

portfolio assessment. The rubric will function as an operational definition o f the

6


standards, making the general more specific, and therefore o f greater practical use. It is

assumed that opinions reflected by the random sample of art teachers should generalize to

others in the population.

The Statement o f the Problem

The problem of this study is to identify criteria for a portfolio assessment rubric

that would assess critical and creative thinking, problem-solving, and production in the

visual arts. The study was designed to gather art teachers’ opinions o f criteria that could

be used when assessing students’ art achievement o f Missouri’s art standards.

Study Design

The study is quantitative. A survey will be mailed to 382, randomly-selected

Missouri art teachers. A questionnaire was developed using a Likert, five-point scale. It

was used to obtain art teachers opinions about the relative importance o f various criteria

when assessing student art products. Categories on the questionnaire relate to

demographic information and various aspects o f assessment. They are: Demographics,

What do you Teach?, Responding to Art, What do you assess?, Creating or Process

Criteria, Attitude or Habits-of-Mind Criteria, Art Product Criteria, and Aesthetic

Approach Criteria.

7


Definition o f Terms

In the discussion o f related literature many terms will be used that have specific

meanings in the fields of assessment and aesthetics. These terms are defined below:

Evaluation and Assessment are synonymous (Eisner, 1996, New W ebster’s dictionary o f

the English Language, 1992, Charles, 1998). Both are processes that obtain

information through measuring, testing, or judging for the purpose of determining

value. Both use quantitative and qualitative sources o f data.

Formative Evaluation and Summative Evaluation have become accepted descriptions for

mid-progress versus final evaluation (Scriven, 1981).

Authentic Assessment implies the evaluation of complex tasks in an out-of-school context,

during which students face challenging, “il-structured” (no single known solution)

problems (Wiggins, 1989).

Test refers to a quantitative evaluation/assessment for purposes o f reporting or

comparison.

Standardized Tests, typically multiple- or cued- choice, are accompanied by norms that

permit comparison of individuals (Charles, 1998).

8


Selected-Choice. Cued-Choice. or Multiple-Choice test items ask students to choose the

one correct answer from a list of four or five possible answers.

Criterion-Referenced tests compare a student’s performance “to a whole repertoire of

behaviors, which are, in turn, referenced to the content and skills o f a discipline”

rather than to the performance of other students (Beattie, 1997, p. 4).

Standards are “quantifying thresholds of what is adequate for some purpose established by

authority, custom, or consensus“ (Sadler, 1987, p. 192).

Content Standards specify exit learning criteria.

Achievement Standards “specify achievement levels pertaining to exit learning criteria”

(Beattie, 1997, p.4).

External Assessment describes a situation where the observer is not a normal part o f the

situation, and/or the assessment instrument (usually a test) was constructed by

persons outside o f the school district.

Internal Assessments use locally developed instruments and are usually administered by

the teacher as part o f instruction or subsequent to it (Armstrong, 1994).

9


Portfolio assessment is a “purposeful collection o f student work that tells the story o f the

student’s efforts, progress, or achievement in (a) given area(s)” (Beattie, 1997, p.

15).

Aesthetics is a group o f concepts for understanding the nature of art (Lankford, 1992).

Within the field o f aesthetics, theories explain phenomena in different ways. Major

aesthetic theories relevant to this research project are Imitationalism/Mimeticism,

Expressionism, Formalism, and Pragmatism/Instrumentalism.

Imitationalism or Mimeticism proposes that an artifact is art if it copies the real or

imagined world.

Expressionism considers works that either evoke or represent emotions to be art.

Formalism looks for meaning solely from the analysis o f the object’s formal qualities such

as line, shape, or color.

Pragmaticism or Instrumentalism views art in terms o f it’s social function in a culture.

Assumptions o f the Study

This study is based upon the following assumptions:

10


1) The respondents in the sample are representative o f Missouri art teachers.

2) The respondents of the sample provided, to the best o f their ability, accurate

information to the questions posed.

3) The art teachers represented in the sample assess their student’s work.

4) The art teachers represented in the sample understand the terminology used in the

instrument.

5) The Art Assessment Survey, developed for this study, measures opinions about the

importance of using specific assessment criteria to evaluate student art production.

6) The questionnaires were completed by Missouri art teachers.

Delimitations o f the Study

The results o f this study were interpreted in relationship to the following

delimitations:

1) The findings are subject to sampling errors.

2) The findings o f this study generalize only to Missouri art teachers.

3) Art teachers’ names provided by the Missouri Department o f Elementary and

Secondary Education, listed teachers from the previous year, therefore the sample

contained names o f teachers who have moved or retired.

4) Missouri has no statewide art textbook or curriculum, therefore teachers may have

different understandings o f terms used in the survey.

11


5) The sample of 382 is 19% of the population o f 2030 art teachers in the state. Most

dissertations reviewed used a sample o f 15%-20% o f similar-sized populations. Postage

and printing costs made it necessary to limit the sample size.

6) Some data are not reported in this study. Since the problem was to identify criteria for

a state rubric, the decision was made to report only the percentage o f teachers who

favored inclusion o f each item. Information on the percentage o f teachers who answered

“no opinion”, “little importance”, or “no importance” for each item is available from the

researcher.

Summary

Chapter One included the importance o f the study, the statement o f the problem,

definition o f terms, assumptions and delimitations o f the study. Chapter Two presents a

review of literature related to the study. Chapter Three contains a description of the

procedures and methods used in the study. Chapter Four provides an analysis of the data

gathered in the study. Chapter Five reviews and discusses conclusions, recommendations

for further study, and implications o f the results.

12


CHAPTER TWO

Review o f Related Literature

Introduction

The scaffold o f theory that supports this study is presented in this chapter. The

topics covered in the literature review are: 1) functions o f assessment, 2) history o f arts

testing, 3) standardized achievement tests, 4) criterion-referenced multiple-choice tests, 5)

alternative assessment, 6) performance-based assessment, 7) authentic assessment, 8)

portfolio assessment, 9) performance assessment criteria, 10) aesthetics, 11) aesthetics as

a philosophy o f art, 12) aesthetic education, 13) aesthetic theories o f art, 14) aesthetic

theories as criteria for assessment.

Functions o f Assessment

Thirteen assessment roles and the function o f each are presented by Boston and

Rudner (1994) in the Visual Arts Education Reform Handbook. Those directed toward

student learning are listed as numbers 1-6. Those directed toward the evaluation,

maintenance, and improvement o f art programs are numbered 7-13.

1) Criticism (informing students about the quality o f a performance)

13


2) Grading (informing students, parents, and others about achievement levels)3) Qualification (to decide which students may enter or leave a course or

program)4) Placement (to identify the type or ability level most suitable for

students)5) Prediction (to help predict success or failure based upon past or current

achievement)6) Diagnosis (to identify students... particular learning attributes)7) Didactic Feedback ( to provide... feedback concerning ...teaching process)8) Communication (to convey information about the goals of educational

programs)9) Accountability (to provide information regarding the extent to which

goals for educational programs have been achieved)10) Representation (to operationalize...the general or abstract goals o f art

education)11) Implementation (to provide information about the extent to which the arts

program is being implemented)12) Curriculum Maintenance (to ensure that certain elements of the arts

program continue to be included)13) Innovation (to encourage the introduction o f new...elements into the

arts curriculum), (p. 7)

Armstrong (1994) discusses three basic reasons for assessment o f student learning: 1) it is

educationally sound; 2) required by some states or school districts; and 3) it is an

opportunity to inform others about art education (p.5). Eisner (1994) lists five functions

o f assessment: 1) educational temperature-taking (measuring the educational health o f the

nation); 2) “gatekeeping” (selecting the most accomplished to receive further schooling);

3) determining if course objectives have been attained; 4) providing feedback to teachers

on the quality o f their work; and 5) providing feedback on the quality of programs (pp.

201- 202) .

Depending upon their functions and contexts, various assessments gather different

kinds o f data. Generally, the types fall into quantitative and qualitative categories. The

14


typical quantitative test is a standardized achievement test, while qualitative assessments

occur informally during instruction, through observation, interviews, portfolio, and

production analyzes.

History o f Arts Testing

Beattie (1998) reviewed the history o f arts testing noting its origins in the pre-Qin

Dynasty o f China. Socrates tested thinking through his method o f orally examining

students (Beattie, 1998; Eaton, 1994). The first arts tests probably occurred in the middle

ages when artists and musicians had to pass exams to gain admittance to guilds (Zerull,

1990).

Evaluation and assessment were embedded in the scientific tradition dating to the

Enlightenment in Europe and the work o f Descartes and Newton. After 1850, scientific

study of human behavior and the child study movement emerged in Germany, while in

England, Galton developed statistics for describing mental performance (Eisner, 1994).

The first “draw a man” test dates to Schuyten (1901-1907). Correlations were

found between drawing ability and intelligence by Ivanof in 1909 (Clark, Zimmerman, &

Zurmuehlen, 1987).

Scientific inquiry was based upon the search for variables that could be measured,

predicted, and control outcomes. The testing movement in America adopted a scientific

approach. Before 1910, the use of surveys, descriptive studies, and psychometric tests

predominated in testing theory.

15


From 1913-1929, the efficiency movement, based upon Taylor’s time and motions

studies (a model for improving the productivity o f factory workers) led a drive for

standardized testing (Eisner; 1994; Clark, Zimmerman, & Zurmuehlen, 1987) and the era

of quantitative testing began. Thorndike, developed the first standardized test in 1913,

and invented “connectionism”, learning through reinforcement o f stimulus response

(Castiglione, 1966). In 1926, Thorndike used inter-rater judging for the first time;

Whipple used tests to differentiate gifted from other students; and Terman published the

first Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test. The M anuel Test, developed in, 1919, was used to

discover special ability in drawing using psychological traits. Between 1919 and 1942,

fifteen art tests were developed including the M eier-Seashore Art Judgment Test (Clark,

Zimmerman, & Zurmuehlen, 1987).

During the early twentieth century drawing assessment was not popular due to the

influence o f Dewey. In 1916, he was influenced by Darwin’s theory of the nature o f

human organisms. In Dewey’s child-centered approach, as the human sought equilibrium

through problem-solving, the mind grew. For him, the child could grow best when he had

the ability to frame and pursue his own purposes. This philosophy, underlying the

Progressive Education movement in the 1920's-50's, viewed art as a means for children’s

self-expression.

In 1926, Goodenough published the Draw a M an Test. Tests o f Fundamental

Abilities o f Visual Art, by Lewemz, in 1927, included production, aesthetic perception and

art history, for grades three through 12 (Hoepfner, 1983).

From 1942 to 1966, while art education emphasized creative production,

16


exploration o f media, and personal expression, art test development was depressed. An

anti-test bias was promoted in the literature by Cizek, Dewey, Cole, D’Amico, Read ,

Lowenfeld, Shaefer-Simmem, Kellogg, and Clark, Zimmerman, & Zurmuehlen.

During the same period, educational psychology was developing technological,

systematic theories led by Harap, and Tyler, and followed by Anderson, Bloom, Cronbach,

Goodlad, and Taba. They ushered in the Behavioral Objective Movement which gained

strength after Russia’s ascent of Spudnik in 1957 (Eisner, 1985). The national drive to

reform education focused on the “basics” and changed prevailing educational philosophy

from child-centered growth to the presentation and assessment o f clearly-articulated,

measurable objectives.

Eisner developed two tests in 1966, the Eisner Art Information Inventory and the

Eisner Art Aptitude Inventory to measure students’ knowledge and attitudes about the

visual arts. Analysis o f his research with secondary school students demonstrated that

neither attitude towards the arts, nor knowledge o f art increased over four years of high

school (Clark, Zimmerman, & Zurmuehlen, 1987).

The 1974 and 1978 versions o f the National Assessment o f Educational Progress

(NAEP) arts assessments, led by Wilson, collected data to describe students’ abilities to:

1) perceive and respond to aspects o f art; 2) value art, 3) produce art, 4) know about art,

and 5) make and justify judgments about the aesthetic merit o f art. Included were

multiple-choice questions which required complex thinking, open-ended essay questions

based upon art reproductions and sculpture, and production activities (Clark, Zimmerman,

& Zurmuehlen, 1987; Gaitskill, Hurwitz, & Day, 1982). In analyzing the results o f the

17


first NAEP studies, Clark, Zimmerman, and Zurmuehlen (1987) noted that students’ taste

in art became more conventional and realistic during the late seventies. At the same time,

the importance they place upon art decreased. The items used to assess knowledge about

art and art history included identification of artworks, their dates, and places of creation.

Results o f the assessment indicated that American students had limited knowledge about

art. An explanation was that American art curricula generally emphasized production of

art works rather than art history or art criticism. However, in spite o f this focus, student

performance on design and drawing skills was lower than expected.

ARTS PROPEL, a program developed by Gardner o f Harvard’s Project Zero, the

Educational Testing Service, and the Pittsburgh schools presented a portfolio assessment

model centered upon studio production, perception, and reflection which has influenced

the field (Gardner & Grunbaum, 1986; Clark, Zimmerman, & Zurmuehlen, 1987; Gardner,

1989; Gardner, 1990; Yau, 1990; W olf& Pistone, 1991; Winner & Simmons, 1992;

Gitomer, 1992; Arter, 1995). Never intended as large-scale assessment, there were no

provisions for aggregation o f data from the PROPEL studies.

In the 1980-1990's, public criticism of education focused on graduates’ deficient

entry level skills for work in the information age (SCANS Report, 1992) and the United

State’s poor standing in international tests. Standards were viewed as a panacea. The

standards model o f assessment included training judges to identify multiple right answers

(Castiglione, 1996). Arts educators from the visual arts, music, theatre, and dance formed

a consortium and responded to the standards movement by writing the National Standards

fo r Arts Education (1994). The states were charged with responsibility for assessment

18


(national testing, defeated by Congress in 1997, is likely to be revived in the future).

The first large-scale arts assessment based upon national standards, the National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) planned to conduct a field test o f fourth,

eighth, and twelfth grade students in 1996-97 (NAEP Arts Education Assessment and

Exercise Specifications, 1996). However, funding limitations necessitated cutting the

proposed administration o f the NAEP art test to a national sample of only eighth grade

students. The test was innovative in its scope and performance components. The sample

of the general population, rather than those in art classes, was drawn from public and

private schools. Both paper-and-pencil tasks (used to assess responding) and performance

tasks (used to assess creating) were prepared by the Educational Testing Service. They

wrote:

The visual arts assessment covers both content and processes. Content includes (1) knowledge and understanding o f the visual arts and (2) perceptual, technical, expressive, and intellectual/reflective skills.Processes include (1) creating, and (2) responding. (National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department o f Education, NCES-526, p. 2)

Results indicate that students who did well on the responding, paper-and-pencil, activities,

also did well on the creating tasks. In both categories, students were challenged. In the

responding category, average scores ranged from a high o f 55 percent of students who

could identify an example of contemporary Western art, to a low of 25 percent o f students

who could select a work that contributed to Cubism from four choices. On essay

responses, only four percent o f students could write a complete, in-depth analysis,

compared with 24 percent who could give a limited, or partial score, answer. The average

creating score in the visual arts was 43 percent of the possible points. Between one

19


percent and three percent o f students scored at the optimal level on tasks that asked them

to create expressive artworks which showed consistent awareness of qualities such as

contrast, texture, and color. Demographically, 52 percent o f students attended schools

where visual arts were taught to the typical eighth-grader at least three or four times a

week, though no significant relationships were found between frequency o f instruction and

student scores (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). Another large-scale assessment

project, measuring art creation and reflection, is being developed by the Arts Education

Consortium o f the Council o f Chief State School Officers.

Art education textbooks, expressing prevailing philosophies, disseminated anti

testing attitudes. Lowenfeld and Brittain in Creative and M ental Growth (1957,1987),

viewed testing as an impediment to growth. Kellogg (1969) wrote that tests interfered

with children’s natural development. Chapman, in Approaches to Art in Education

(1978), discussed program evaluation, o f which one component was evaluation of

learning, represented by a list of qualitative ways to assess student progress. Eisner, in

Educating Artistic Vision, noted that “in Tests in P rint, the most comprehensive catalogue

o f published tests available in the world, only 10 o f the 2,100 tests listed are for the visual

arts” (1972, p.206). He identified production and criticism as appropriate subjects for

testing. In Children and Their Art, Gaitskell, Hurwitz, and Day, (1982) espoused

evaluation through questioning students on personal expression, pupils’ reactions to work

o f others, and students’ behaviors during participation in art activities. They reviewed the

work o f Bloom, behavioral objectives, the NAEP studies, Eisner’s theories o f art

connoisseurship and criticism, and suggested that standardized tests were neither reliable

20


nor applicable to the classroom. In these texts, evaluation was relegated to the end o f the

book rather than integrated with curriculum development and instruction. Teaching

strategies for art activities ended with production. With systematic evaluation absent from

major resources, generations of teachers modeled their classroom assessment on their

personal recollection o f college instruction in studio courses. Eisner (1996) expressed the

predominant attitude.

Testing typically is predicated on the assumption that the desired outcomes o f educational activities are known in advance; artistic creation seeks surprise. Testing aspires for all a set o f common correct responses; in the arts, idiosyncratic responses are prized. Testing typically focuses on pieces or segments o f information; artistic work emphasizes wholes and configurations, (p. 1-2)

Clark (1987) wrote that throughout history, art tests were most frequently

developed for descriptive purposes in research studies with minimal transference to the

classroom. Available art tests were idiosyncratic and specific to individual research

projects.

There is no history of national, normally distributed art achievement tests.

Textbooks were inadequate in suggesting means for national accountability o f

achievement in the arts. Therefore, it is necessary to look for test models outside of the

arts.

Standardized Achievement Tests

The most broadly-based test instruments are standardized achievement tests which

21


use multiple-choice test formats and cover general knowledge. Results are designed to

match a statistical normal curve. Comparative tests are important where competition for

limited resources exists (admissions to degree programs, jobs) and for large scale research

(Castiglione, 1996). They contain multiple-choice items, are based on recall o f factual

knowledge and isolated skills, memorization o f procedures, do not require judgment, and

are reliable and valid (Frederiksen & Collins, 1989). Standardized tests’ long history

make them acceptable to a wide audience and they are easy to administer (Archbald &

Newman, 1988). Hamblen (1988) noted a trend toward standardized testing in the arts.

Traditional standardized testing was viewed by some educators as a political necessity and

could be used to report how students achieved in terms o f general aspects o f education

(Newman, 1990). Educational accountability requires reliable assessment to support

innovations in curriculum design, instructional methods, program funding, and student

evaluation (Gruber, 1994). These standardized tests are most frequently found in

mathematics, language arts, science and social studies subject areas.

“The relative lack o f systematic content and sequence in art instruction at the

elementary grades accounts for the paucity of useful devices to assess achievement in art”

(Hoepfiier, 1984, p. 251). Hoepfner (1984) believed his difficulty in finding art tests was

due to: uneven requirements for art in schools which generated only a small commercial

market for test developers, art educators’ lack o f agreement on uniform art curriculum

content, and the high cost o f printing and scoring good tests. In an analysis o f available

art tests, Hoepfiier characterized them as unstructured, verbally structured, or object

structured. Since empirical evidence did not exist on the reliability and validity o f these

22


tests, he logically predicted that unstructured would have the highest validity and lowest

reliability. He found no evidence for claims that art either changed attitudes or had an

effect upon creativity.

The Discipline-Based Art Education (DBAE) movement aspired to give all

learners a lay understanding of the arts by engaging them in the four disciplines o f artistic

production, criticism, aesthetics, and art history. Day (1985) explained that the process

and products o f all these learning activities were meaningful candidates for evaluation for

the improvement o f student learning. He saw congruence between DBAE goals and

testing “because evaluation is an essential component for validation o f student

achievement” (Day, 1985, p.232). Another advocate o f DBAE, Gentile, suggested a

balanced approach to assessment in which criterion-referenced grading using a mastery

learning process for production would be combined with standardized paper and pencil

tests of art criticism, aesthetics, and art history (Gentile, 1989).

Standardized art tests engender widespread interest in the United States and

abroad (Allison, 1977; Lai & Shishido, 1987). The Indiana Department of Education

(1988) developed a multiple choice test for eighth grade students. It attempted to

evaluate art historical, art critical, and aesthetic responses in a multiple choice format.

Students wrote on the 28 page booklet, filled with reproductions (many in full color).

Though promising, the cost became prohibitive and it was discontinued. At the post

college level, the Educational Testing Service (1998) developed a high-stakes art

knowledge test that is required by many states for teacher certification. The exam is

composed o f multiple choice items, constructed response hems, and an essay. The

23


multiple choice questions are typical of standardized tests while the other sections are

criterion-referenced and are scored by trained raters using a rubric for scoring.

Concerns were expressed about the exclusive use o f standardized tests. Popham

(1999) explained that standardized tests are poor indicators o f educational quality because

their primary purpose is to separate and sort people. From a test writer’s perspective, the

goal of each item is to produce the maximum variance meaning that items are discarded

unless close to 50 percent o f test takers get the wrong answer. Teachers emphasize the

most significant content in any subject area which results in too many test takers

answering those questions correctly. Therefore, the essential content is dropped from the

test while trivial pieces o f knowledge, better at discriminating, remain. Worthen and

Spandel (1991) suggested that standardized tests represent only a small part o f assessing

student learning, while teacher-centered assessment plays the greater role. Gordon (1977)

researched effects o f achievement testing on disadvantaged and minority populations and

found that measures o f diversity (such as differences in student interests, learning styles,

learning rates, motivation, work habits, personalities, ethnicity, sex, and social class) were

usually ignored in standardized assessments. Zimmerman (1992, 1994) noted that

standardized tests tend to reward districts with high socio-economic and entry level

scores; they are biased against women and minorities; there is a lack o f correlation

between test scores and improved learning; and minorities are under represented in test

development. She stated that, “students from diverse ethnic, racial, and social groups

possess unique characteristics that should be taken into consideration when art curricula

and assessment measures are being developed” (Zimmerman, 1994, p. 31). Instead o f

24


standardized tests, she advocates a socio-cultural approach in which teacher and

community establish art content. The criteria need to be sensitive to, and include non-

western values o f collectivism, traditionalism, non-permanence, and culturally meaningful

symbolism. Hamblen (1988) expressed concerns o f many:

Using testing as a legitimating rationale can be a dangerous game even if closely monitored and there is an explicit awareness ....Within the tautology of a self-fulfilling prophecy, what fits systematization becomes legitimate content. Art concepts can be easily limited to that which is technical, formalistic, and, hence testable, (p. 60)

Standardized tests could be used in the arts and would be appropriate instruments

for the assessment functions o f accountability, temperature-taking, reporting to the

community, and gatekeeping. If standardized tests were developed for the visual arts, the

writers should select meaningful rather than trivial content, build higher-order thinking

into complex questions, and address equity for multicultural, diverse populations.

Criterion-Referenced Multiple-Choice Tests

Criterion-referenced tests are linked directly to the learning objective established for the curriculum. No a priori attention is paid to the distribution of resulting scores. Successful completion o f criterion- referenced tests is one indicator o f mastery o f content. (Hoepfiier, 1984, p.252)

National consensus on art curriculum content will be needed in order to develop

national, criterion-referenced tests. Some arts educators believe a national curriculum

25


already exists because o f 1) state agency frameworks, 2) textbooks, 3) National Teacher’s

Exam, 4) NAEP and the National Art Education Association research agenda, and 5)

Getty’s promotion o f DBAE (Zimmerman, 1994). These are insufficient to provide

specific and agreed-upon art content, concepts, processes, or art historical emphases

necessary for a national, criterion-referenced test.

While not appropriate for national testing in the United States, Gentile (1989)

proposed that criterion-referenced tests be used for classroom assessment because they 1)

ensure that students do complete work, 2) establish criteria and standards for adequate

work, and 3) provide incentive to master and excel (Gentile, 1989). Grove (1996)

suggested that “Criterion-referenced tests can be appropriately used in small-scale testing

where common curriculum objectives exist” (p.358). Gaitskell, Hurwitz, and Day, (1992)

provided formats for teachers to use when developing multiple-choice, short answer, and

essay tests. Limitations o f both standardized and criterion-referenced multiple-choice tests

are summarized by Parsons (1990):

Understanding, or higher order thinking, is not all o f one kind, and can’t be represented or assessed by a single overall quantitative score. It requires facts, concepts o f different levels of generality, ways of organizing facts and concepts, procedures and strategies for answering questions and approaching tasks, and knowledge structures that allow one to organize all o f these, (p.31)

Wiggins (1989) criticized criterion-referenced tests as are inadequate because the

problems were contrived, and the cues artificial. Criterion-referenced tests can be

appropriately used for school, district, or state-level testing where common curriculum

objectives exist. They could serve the functions o f accountability, gatekeeping,

26


improvement of instruction, communication of achievement to all stakeholders, and

modifications of instruction based upon measurement o f student learning.

Alternative Forms o f Assessment

We can not be said to understand something unless we can employ our knowledge wisely, fluently, flexibly, and aptly in particular and diverse contexts. (Wiggins, 1993, p.200)

The umbrella category o f alternative assessment refers to a group of assessment

practices which do not employ standardized or criterion-referenced, multiple-choice

format tests. Performance-based assessments require students to create a product or to

perform a task. Scoring allows partial credit as a means o f evaluating process as well as

the final product. Authentic assessments are performances set in a real-world context, and

therefore may be i/-structured, without a single known solution, and frequently may be

evaluated by an audience o f experts. A portfolio is typically a collection of student works

demonstrating process, reflection, and final product(s). The portfolio is a methodology

which can be employed as a means of organizing and presenting documents for

performance-based or authentic assessments.

Wiggins (1989) explained that the movement to alternative forms of assessment

was driven by a reaction to:

the key assumptions o f conventional test design - the decomposability of knowledge into elements and the decontextualiztion o f knowing whereby it

27


is assumed that if we know something, we know it in any context....A true test o f intellectual ability requires the performance of exemplary tasks ...reform begins by recognizing that the test is central to instruction....The catch is that the test must offer students a genuine intellectual challenge, and teachers must be involved in designing the test.(p.704)

Assessments were performance-based from the time o f Socrates until the

development o f the Army Alpha multiple-choice exam during World War I (Popham,

1993). In response to deficits in American education publicized by the SCANS Report

(1992), they were resurrected. The business community reported that workers needed to

demonstrate complex skills such as problem-solving, working collaboratively, self-

direction, and effective communication instead o f knowing discrete facts being measured

in standardized achievement tests. Business and educational reform demands (America

2000: An Education Strategy, 1991) coincided and led to standards development. Broad

process skills, or “outcomes”, were included in national and state level standards in the

content areas (National Standards fo r Arts Education, 1994; Show-Me Standards fo r

Missouri Schools, 1996). Criteria are essential in alternative forms of assessment. The

determination of whether criteria are met usually depends upon a scorer’s judgment or

qualitative analysis (Grove, 1996).

28


Performance-based Assessment

Performance-based assessment requires students to be active participants.

Students are responsible for creating or constructing their responses (Rudner & Boston,

1994). Tasks that can be used to judge performance are: samples o f work in process,

final product, journals, research papers, group presentations or performances, peer

critiques, interviews, self-evaluations, portfolios, essays, discussions, audio tapes, video

tapes, sketches, notes, media experiments, exhibitions, behavior profiles, peer teaching,

and retrospective verbal responses (Siegler, 1989; Wiggins. 1989, 1993; Maeroff, 1991;

MacGregor, 1992; Beattie, 1992, 1994; Madaus, 1993; Worthen, 1993; Zimmerman,

1992, 1994; Gruber, 1994; Rudner & Boston, 1994; Grove, 1996; Boughton, 1997).

The limitation of performance-based assessment as a large scale assessment is the

cost. While standardized or criterion-referenced tests are machine-scored,

product/performance-based scoring requires intense training and time-consuming analysis.

Student products are initially scored by at least two independent raters. Often a third or

fourth is necessary to resolve differences of opinion. Though most classroom instruction

is performance-based, it differs from large scale assessment in that there is no feedback on,

or moderation of the teachers’ scoring of student works.

Performance-based assessment is appropriate for large-scale, high-stakes testing

and is currently being used in state tests in Rhode Island and Kentucky (Maeroff, 1991;

Kentucky, 1996). It would be appropriate for large-scale temperature-taking,

gatekeeping, determining if course objectives had been attained, providing feedback on

29


both individual students and on the quality o f art programs, and informing stakeholders

about student achievement.

Within the general category o f performance-based assessment there are two

variants common to the classroom and literature. They are authentic assessment, and

portfolio assessment.

Authentic Assessment

Authentic Assessment has students demonstrate what they might do outside o f

class in the course o f normal life (Kentucky, 1996). These assessments are typically

embedded (taught by the teacher as part o f the regular instructional program). A scenario,

or real-life context, is presented in which students are expected to solve problems that

adults deal with in contemporary society. (Popham ,1993; Wiggins, 1989, 1993, 1998,

1999; MacGregor, 1992; Beattie, 1992, 1994; Madaus, 1993; Worthen, 1993; Milbrandt,

1998). Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus (1981) suggested that students should have open

access to a variety o f reference materials when being tested for synthesis level thinking.

Ideally, synthesis problems should be as close as possible to the situation in which a scholar (or artist, or engineer, etc.) attacks a problem he or she is interested in. The time allowed, conditions o f work, and other stipulations should be as far from the typical, controlled examination situation as possible, (pp. 52-53)

Teachers are the best evaluators of their students’ authentic tasks (Zimmerman, 1992;

Beattie, 1998; Huffman, 1998). Authentic tests involve the following factors:

30


1) engaging and worthy problems or questions o f importance in whichstudents must use knowledge to fashion creative and effectiveperformances...similar to real world problem.2) faithful representation of contexts in real life3) non routine and multistage tasks - real problems4) tasks require a quality product/performance5) transparent or demystified criteria and standards6) interactions between assessor and assessee7) response-contingent challenges where process and product areimportant with

concurrent feedback and possibility o f self-adjustment during the test8) trained assessor judgment in reference to clear and appropriate criteria9) search for patterns of response in diverse settings (Wiggins 1993, p.206-207).

In authentic assessments, rubrics or scoring guides are used to list criteria and

describe levels o f achievement. Rubrics, the frameworks around which students build

their work are best when collaboratively created by students and teacher and include self-

assessments (Grove, 1996; Huffman, 1998). In order to discriminate levels o f

performance, some researchers contrast novice and sophisticated, rather than age-related,

responses. (Efland, 1990; Parsons, 1990). Exemplars or benchmark samples o f student

work provide models for students at the beginning o f an assignment, and help teachers

calibrate scores during scoring (Frederiksen & Collins, 1989). Critical issues facing

alternative assessment are:

1) conceptual clarity2) mechanisms for self-criticism3) support from well-informed educators4) technical quality and truthfulness5) standardization o f assessment judgments6) ability to assess complex thinking7) acceptability to stakeholders8) appropriateness for high-stakes assessment9) feasibility10) continuity and integration across educational systems

31


11) use o f technology12) avoidance of monopolies (Worthen, 1993, pp. 447-453).

Based upon authentic assessment in Great Britain, Madaus and Kellagham, (1993)

proposed that large-scale, high-stakes authentic assessments may be prematurely

discontinued due to constraints o f time, money, and training o f scorers. In a presentation

to the Missouri Art Education Association, head of state art assessment Peeno (1999)

stated that “authentic assessment costs the same amount as teachers’ salaries and supplies

- the district cost per student”. Popham’s (1993) solution was to use genuine matrix

sampling in which a low proportion o f both students and assessment tasks are formally

assessed. Students are prepared for many techniques, only a few o f which were assessed.

Teachers are influenced by what is eligible to be tested as well as what is actually tested.

The quality o f assessment stays high and the costs decrease. For those not participating in

the sample, Popham advised that the government provide “difficulty-equated, but non-

secure, authentic assessment to districts to allow teachers (on a voluntary basis) to show

how well their students are doing” (p.473). These locally-scored assessments keep the

focus o f assessment consistent among the districts selected for formal assessment and

those that are not part of the matrix sample.

Authentic assessments would be appropriate for large-scale temperature-taking,

gatekeeping, determining if course objectives have been attained, providing feedback on

both individual students and on the quality o f art programs, and informing stakeholders

about student achievement. The advantage o f authentic assessment, over other types o f

performance-based assessment, is that a connection is made between what the students are

32


producing and why anyone would ever produce it. Therefore, natural connections are

made to art careers and lifelong avocations. As such, what students learn in the process of

performing authentic assessment should be more meaningful, likely to be retained over

time, and tend to be transferred to other learning situations.

Portfolio Assessment

Portfolios have historically been used in visual arts, however, until recently little

was written about requirements, contents, and the interaction between student and teacher

regarding the portfolio. Portfolio Assessment is a type o f performance-based assessment

which appeared during the standards movement, beginning in 198S, in reaction to

standardized testing.

Many o f the tests students encounter, by virtue o f the tests’ design as a series o f unrelated questions, draw teaching and learning toward the mastery of facts and away from large ideas and processes. Students’ repeated encounters with multiple-choice, timed tests teach them that the bases for success in school are first draft answers rather than sustained explorations, correctness rather than risk, and information rather than conceptualization. (Wolf, 1991, p. 65)

Though traditionally used in the visual arts for admissions to art schools and to acquire

jobs, portfolios became a popular addition to traditional testing in language arts, science,

math, and social studies in the 1980-90's (Arter, 1990, 1995). Hamblen (1988) noted the

irony that as other subjects’ testing was becoming more open, the arts were becoming

more standardized. Arter (1995) explained that portfolios were not an end in themselves,

33


but a means to an end. She reviewed literature on portfolio assessment and concluded

that little hard evidence existed to show that portfolio assessment necessarily led to critical

thinking, self-reflection, responsibility for learning, skills or knowledge (p.l). When

exhibiting clarity o f purpose and criteria, the advantages o f portfolio use were: 1)

broader, in-depth picture of the student; 2) authenticity; 3) supplements or alternatives to

grade card and/or achievement tests; 4) communication to parents. In addition, portfolios

could be used for certification of competence, to track growth over time, and to

demonstrate accountability. Arter (1990) raised issues: To what extent must

process/content/performance criteria be standardized to be comparable? Were they

feasible, cost-effective? Would teachers buy in? Will conclusions be valid? (p.5-6). The

most influential model o f portfolio assessment in the arts has been ARTS PROPEL, in

which the theory o f multiple intelligences, developed by Gardner, led to studio-centered

production, perception, and reflection, and offered expanded opportunities for students to

learn beyond traditional logical-linguistic means. Performance tasks were more likely to

elicit a student’s f i i l i repertoire o f skills (Gardner, 1989). Portfolio assessment was

reclaimed by many in the arts (Gardner & Grunbaum, 1986; Clark, Zimmerman, &

Zurmeuhlen, 1987; Gardner, 1986, 1989, 1990; Yau, 1990; Taylor, 1991, 1993; W olf&

Pistone, 1991; Anderson, D., 1992; Winner & Simmons, 1992; Gitomer, Grosh, & Price

1992; Hausman, 1993; Coates, Gaither & Shauck, 1993; Carroll, 1993; Swann & Bickley-

Green, 1993; Reynolds, 1993; Thomas, 1993; Warner, 1993; Anderson, T., 1994; Beattie,

1994; NAEA Advisory, 1993, 1994; Vermont Assessment Project, 1995). Common

characteristics o f art portfolio assessment are: it is student-centered; assessment is both

34


formative and summative; learning is viewed as an active, constructive process; student

self-reflection is evident; criteria are specified for selection of works and for merit; and

process (documented by sketches, photographs, video-tapes, journals, self-reflective

writings, etc.) receives attention along with final products. Dialogues, between student

and teacher or student and peers, are credited with increased self-motivation, self-

direction, and increase in critical analysis abilities (Wolf, 1991). Though Vermont (1995)

and California (Taylor 1991, 1993) experimented with large-scale portfolio assessment,

problems occurred when attempting to aggregate data (Arter, 1995). Most portfolio use

was classroom-based and internally moderated. Notable exceptions are the large-scale,

high-stakes, externally moderated portfolio assessments used by the Educational Testing

Service on their Advanced Placement art exam, the British national assessment, the New

South Wales, Australia exam, and the International Baccalaureate Program (Anderson,

1994; Blaikie, 1994; Beattie, 1997; Boughton, 1997; Gaston, 1997; Weate, 1999).

Portfolio assessment is appropriate for functions related to individual student

achievement, monitoring growth, providing feedback to improve art curricula, and

demonstrating student progress to parents. It has potential for use in large-scale

assessment if means are developed for aggregation o f portfolio information, criteria are

standardized, and rater training issues are resolved.

35


Performance Assessment Criteria

A wide variety o f criteria have been employed in the evaluation o f student art.

Judgments are made about art products in diverse venues including an individual teacher’s

classroom and national assessments. These assessments serve different functions and

value different aspects o f art. Blaikie (1992, 1994) found that the Advanced Placement

exams concentrate almost exclusively on finished art products; while the International

Baccalaureate evaluates workbook process records and welcomes the art teacher’s

comments in addition to analysis o f final art products. In contrast, ARTS PROPEL places

greater emphasis on process and reflective thinking than on the final art product.

Furthermore, many rubrics include behaviors that reflect habits of mind such as

perseverence, fluency, flexibility, and skills in research, analysis, synthesis, and making

judgments. The type of products assessed also varies. In some cases, only studio art

production is assessed, while in others, historical, critical, and/or aesthetic products are

also evaluated.

Clark and Zimmerman (1984) reviewed the literature in art education looking for

observable criteria or indicators o f student success in art. In Educating Artistically

Talented Students, they created a composite list o f characteristics. Though their purpose

was to use criteria for the purpose o f separating the talented from the typical art student,

the descriptors can be viewed as the exemplary column o f a performance rubric for all

students. First, they considered criteria evident in artworks. Later, they looked at

behaviors o f the student that could be indicative o f success in art.

36


To assess the art product, Clark and Zimmerman (1984) identified five

components of product assessment. The first, “compositional arrangement” encompassed:

skillful composition; complete and coherent designs; purposeful, asymmetrical

arrangement with stability in irregular placement; three or more objects integrated by a

balanced arrangements; complex composition; and elaboration and depiction o f details.

The second subset o f criteria was “elements and principles” which included well-organized

colors; deliberate brilliancy and contrast; subtle blending o f colors; decisive use of line;

clarity of outline; subtle use of line; accurate depiction of light and shadow; intentional use

of indefinite shapes, hazy outlines, shapes blended into the background; and excellence in

use of color, form, grouping, and movement (p.53). The third characteristic o f products

was “subject matter” which included: specializes in one subject matter; draws a wide

variety of things; sometimes copies to acquire technique; adept at depiction of movement;

and uses personal experiences and feelings as subject matter. The fourth component was

“art-making skills” (p.56). Included attributes were: true-to-appearance representation;

accurate depiction of depth by perspective; use of good proportion; schematic and

expressive representation; effective use o f media; and products show obvious talent and

artistic expression. The fifth category under the art product was “art-making techniques.

Specifics listed were: areas treated to display boldness, blending, gradation, and textures;

visual narratives used for self-expression and as a basis for mature art expression; and uses

smaller paper (p. 56).

Clark and Zimmerman (1984) found that, in the literature, researchers looked

beyond the product to consider observational behavior as criteria for success in art. Under

37


the category o f behaviors, they divided identified two types: predispositional behaviors

and process behaviors. The predispositional behaviors were further subdivided into those

that were general and those that were art-specific.

The general predispositional behaviors included: superior manual skill and

muscular control; independence o f ideas and ability to experience events from multiple

points o f view; adherence to rules, regulations, and routine study; relative freedom from

ordinary frustration; highly individualized differences in psychological characteristics;

superior energy level and rapid turnover o f thoughts; desire to work alone; compulsion to

organize to satisfy desire for precision and clarity; highly adaptable in thought and activity;

high potential for leadership due to fluency o f ideas offered in a group; good

concentration; and flexibility in adaptation o f knowledge (p. 56-57).

The art-specific predispositional behaviors (Clark & Zimmerman, 1984) were:

dynamic and intuitive quality o f imagination; unusual penchant for visual imagery and

fantasy; intense desire to make art by filling extra time with art activities; high desire for

visual awareness experiences; high interest in drawing representationally or to emulate the

style of adult artists; self-initiative to make art work; finds satisfaction in engagement in

art activities with a high degree of sustained success; desire to improve own art work;

persistence, perseverence, enthusiasm, self-motivation to do art work; willingness to

explore and use new media, tools, and techniques; ambitious for an art career; acute

power of visualization and a fascination with visual things; requires a high degree o f

arousal and motivation; may manifest talents at either an early or later age, but talent may

not persist into maturity; may have motor skills specific to talent, not necessarily motor

38


superiority; early visual recall from an encyclopedic visual memory - “photographic” mind;

extraordinary skills o f visual perception and a highly developed visual sensibility; and

planning of art production activities prior to production (p.58).

In addition to the predispositional behaviors, Clark and Zimmerman’s (1984)

survey noted two kinds o f observable process behaviors, those related to art production

and those related to art criticism. The art process behaviors were: originality - use o f own

ideas and idiosyncratic depictions of content; demonstration o f completion o f specific

ideas throughout the process o f production; use o f subtle and more varied graphic

vocabulary than average and will build upon previous visual vocabulary to create new

images; fluent and experimental in use o f a greater picture vocabulary; demonstrates

fluency with ideas when creating art products; displays confidence and comfort with art

media and tasks; demonstrates purposefulness and directness o f expression with clarity;

and demonstrates a clear understanding of structure and sense of the interrelationships of

parts in an art work (p.60).

Clark and Zimmerman’s (1984) final category was a list of observable art criticism

behaviors. They were: gives less personal, more objective, reasons for critical judgment

o f art work o f others; shows greater, genuine interest in the art work of others and can

appreciate, criticize, and learn from the art work o f others; and applies critical insights to

own art work (p.60).

ARTS PROPEL (Gardner, 1989; Winner, 1992) approaches assessment through

student self-reflection and student-teacher dialogue. Characteristics observed in student

portfolios are divided into the areas o f production, perception, and reflection. Under

39


production, criteria are: craftsmanship, inventiveness, integration of skills and ideas,

effort, and expression. Perceptual skills involve awareness which is subdivided into:

looking closely at works by oneself and one’s peers; close study of the physical properties

and qualities o f art materials; cultural awareness; ability to discern qualities in the work of

other artists; and visual awareness o f the natural and human environment. Characteristics

of reflection are: message/purpose/intention (includes student’s values and intentions as

well as lesson objectives and concepts); awareness o f own process; strategies for revision;

sense of one’s own goals and artistic growth and development; and use of resources and

suggestions to develop artistic process (p. 78).

Brigham (1989) suggested that portfolio work samples and performances be

evaluated on the following criteria: perception (gestalt, expressive dynamics, synthesis,

metaphoric/figurative language), assimilation (personal associations, metaphoric and

figurative imagery), accommodation (openness, connecting, transforming, creates,

integrates), association (expressive, synesthetic, evaluates), and application (transforms

experiences into original art, integrates elements into unified compositions) (p. 70).

The International Baccalaureate’s (IB) Art and Design (1996) is a curriculum

currently used in half the countries o f the world. Different aspects of student work are

weighted as work is scored. The weights being used in the assessment o f student

portfolios are: 35 percent imaginative and creative thinking and expression, 20 percent

persistence in research, 15 percent technical skill, 10 percent understanding the

characteristics and function of the chosen media, 10 percent understanding the

fundamentals o f design, and 10 percent ability to evaluate own growth and development.

40


According to a communication with Boughton (April 7, 1999) the IB has recognized that

this system is biased in favor o f modernism. The rubrics are in the process o f being

changed to become more sensitive to various cultural contexts and aesthetics appropriate

to a postmodern period. He anticipates that the current system will be in place until

September 2001.

In reviewing English assessment, Gaston (1997) presented rubrics used to score

the GCSE exams which are mandatory for all students at age 16. The criteria on which

students’ work is marked are: 1) personal response, 2) recording/observation, 3)

sustaining idea from concept to realization, 4) independence in realizing intentions, 5)

evidence o f research and communication, 6) skills in controlling materials, 7) application

of materials techniques and processes, and 8) composition o f visual elements (line, tone,

form, shape, color, texture, pattern, space).

In the cross-Canada study (MacGregor, Lemerise, Potts & Roberts, 1993),

learning priorities were developing individuality and independence (71%), and developing

originality of response (71%). Other criteria were: technical skills, techniques o f

presentation, familiarity with tools/instruments, knowledge about subject, skills in

problem-solving, developing participation and involvement, and considering the subject in

a broader context.

The National Assessment o f Educational Progress (1997) divided the subject

matter of art into two categories: creating and responding. Created works were scored

on the basis of: 1) demonstration o f the theme; 2) materials used in deliberate ways to

represent ideas, forms, and objects; 3) effective organization and composition; 4) sense o f

41


pattern, texture, color, transparency, and contrast; S) variation in line quality; and 6)

unexpected, original interpretation o f the theme (p. 102). Written responses were rated

on the basis of: 1) supporting plausible interpretation with observation about specifics in

the work; 2) labeling and describing features; 3) identifying similarities in techniques

between different artworks; 4) supporting ideas with specific observations about style,

elements, or principles o f art; 5) explaining own work using appropriate vocabulary; 6)

identifying genre, styles, and periods o f art history; 7) describing characteristics o f media;

and 8) explaining how works fit concepts such as perspective (p. 105).

Armstrong (1994) lists media, tools, equipment, processes, techniques, and

concepts as examples o f knowledge that can be assessed in the art product. She

categorizes art into basic art behaviors: 1) know, 2) perceive, 3) organize, 4) inquire, 5)

value, 6) manipulate, and 7) interact/cooperate (p.27). Within each behavior, there is a

hierarchy o f levels of success. Students at the top o f this scale should: 1) have bodies of

knowledge, 2) visually analyze, 3) evaluate, 4) innovate, 5) maintain consistent attitude, 6)

demonstrate complex skills, and 7) show interpersonal skill (p.34). Armstrong’s

assessment approach includes art production, art history, aesthetics, and art criticism while

placing emphasis on the processes involved in each discipline. She encourages the use o f a

wide variety o f data sources from observation to discussion, essay, traditional tests, sketch

books, journals, unit criteria for art production, and student self-evaluation.

Beattie (1997), like Armstrong, encompasses art production, criticism, aesthetics,

and history in her criteria for student products. In addition, she includes integration of the

arts. Beattie lists a wide range o f sample products that can be used for assessment. For

42


the discipline o f art history products include: art-historical report, timeline, exhibition

catalog, field notes, or art museum room. Products useful for assessing art criticism are:

critical review, or criticism model. For aesthetics, students can develop theory or keep a

diary. Correspondence letters/postcards, dialogues, and dramatizations are suggested as

products for each of the three “responding” disciplines of art history, criticism, and

aesthetics. Art production can be demonstrated through the creation of an art object, an

art prospectus, demonstrations, or experimentations (p. 132). Beattie suggests the

following categories for inclusion on an analytic scoring rubric: researching, creating,

responding, resolving, and communicating.

The Advanced Placement (AP) exam sponsored by the College Board reviews high

school students’ portfolios, then determines a score which can be used by colleges or

universities to award credit. The portfolio must show breadth and depth o f artistic skills,

and a thematic “concentration” or development through several pieces. The only writing

submitted is a brief artist’s statement and there is no indication that it is scored during the

evaluation. Criteria used by AP are: 1) art methods and materials, 2) meeting portfolio

requirements, 3) formal elements, 4) conceptual clarity, and S) visual unity.

The Vermont Portfolio Project (1995) issued a generic rubric for local assessment

o f students’ artwork. The two major categories are use of elements and principles, and

use of medium. The “dimensions for quality o f product” include expression. The “quality

o f process standards” encompass exploration, pursuit o f work, making connections,

responding, and reflecting.

Venet (1999a) facilitated focus group discussions at a Missouri Art Education

43


Association Spring Conference to identify criteria for inclusion on a Missouri art

assessment rubric. The state rubric will be used for local assessment o f state standards.

Only ten percent of participating art teachers reported that they conduct portfolio

evaluation, and most o f those were teaching at the secondary level. Teachers explained

that number of minutes per week spent with each class, and total number o f students

taught were factors in their use of portfolios for assessment. Although teachers initially

worked in primary, middle level, and high school groups, all groups reached consensus on

important criteria. Categories that emerged from discussion were: 1) crafts-personship; 2)

individual creativity or originality; 3) composition (use of elements and principles); 4)

growth (student builds upon previous knowledge); 5) attitude (citizenship, cooperation,

respect for people and materials, effort, completion of work, etiquette); 6) process (use of

materials, equipment, vocabulary); and 7) knowledge of art history, art criticism, and

aesthetics. Teachers suggested that there might be separate scoring guides for the art

product, the process, and writing/speaking about art (history, aesthetics, criticism).

Scoring rubrics are frequently used by school districts and individual teachers to

conduct local assessment. Huffman (1998) includes a generic student conduct rubric

along with production rubrics at George Washington High School in Danville, Virginia.

Her criteria are: 1) preparation, 2) research, 3) assignment goals, 4) craftsmanship, S)

originality, 6) aesthetics, and 7) critique. Huffman empowers her students by having them

participate in writing descriptors for levels o f achievement on each criteria.

New York City Public Schools (Lonergan, 1998) conduct a district-wide eighth

grade art exam. It consists o f multiple choice, short answer, essay, and production

44


activities and covers history, criticism, and production. Criteria for a black and white

drawing are: 1) skill in drawing from direct observation; 2) quality o f composition; 3)

understanding o f how the illusion o f depth is created; 4) use o f a wide range o f dark,

medium, and light values to show form; and 5) use o f lines, shapes, patterns, and textures

to show variety and surface quality. A color poster that fosters pride in community

activity is included in the New York test. The criteria for scoring it are: 1) quality of

composition and design; 2) appropriateness o f color to theme; 3) effective use o f images,

symbols, and letters; 4) originality o f concept and slogan; and S) skillful use of media.

In Columbia, Missouri, Public Schools (1998) rubrics contain the following

criteria: l)experiment with a variety o f methods, media, techniques, themes, and styles

from art history; 2) use of elements and principles; 3) personal expression; 4) problem

solving; 5) creativity; 6) work habits; 7) production; 8) craftsmanship; 9) aesthetic

response; 10) relates work to art history; 11) art criticism; and 12) makes connections to

careers in art.

Columbia Schools (Venet, 1999) also conducts embedded, district-wide

assessment for all third grade (public sculpture) and fourth grade (portraiture) students.

Students use a test booklet and other materials over the course o f the unit (four to six,

one-hour lessons). Teachers are trained to score the assessments using a holistic rubric.

At least two raters score each student’s work independently (double-blind technique).

Rubrics for scoring sculpture models and drawings include criteria: 1) student’s ideas, 2)

expression o f the idea, 3) use o f elements and principles, 4) originality, 5) composition, 6)

craftsmanship, 7) representation o f space on a two-dimensional surface (drawing), and 8)

45


use of art vocabulary in discussing own artwork (reflection). In the fourth grade

assessment on portraiture, students draw from a projected image of another student’s

face, then draw a self-portrait while looking in a mirror. Score points are given for

accurately drawn facial features and correct proportions.

Monett, Missouri, schools (1998) list four criteria on a generic art rubric: 1)

creativity, 2) composition, 3) craftsmanship, and 4) work habits. For individual projects,

teachers add specific criteria to this framework.

The Fairfax County, Virginia (1999) school system uses a generic rubric based

upon degrees o f accomplishment o f the given task. For each unit this is supplemented

with specific self-evaluation forms that list art lesson objectives, concepts, and techniques.

Sargent and Fitzsimmons (1999) discussed the Mundelein, Illinois, school district

rubrics on writing, oral presentations, portfolios, and individual units. Criteria are

grouped in general categories: 1) technical skills, 2) use o f media, 3) craftsmanship, 4)

composition, 5) creativity, 6) presentation, and 7) self-evaluation. Specific concepts are

added to the framework depending upon the individual lesson.

There are some common criteria among the various assessments discussed in this

section. They became the criteria used in the questionnaire developed for this study, the

Art Assessment Survey, which is located in the Appendix.

46


Aesthetics

A subquestion in this study looks at the use o f aesthetic theories as criteria for

student production o f art. It is necessary to define both aesthetics in general and specific

aesthetic theories before they can be considered as indicators o f quality in student art

products. It is also useful to look at the role o f aesthetics in art education.

Definition o f Aesthetics

The term “aesthetics” was coined by philosopher, Alexander Baumgarten, to refer

to a special area of philosophy, a science o f beauty based upon sense perception (Eaton,

1988, p. 4). The word was derived from the ancient Greek work aisthetikos which meant

“sensory perception’. Aesthetics was first understood as the philosophy o f the beautiful,

an idea that lasted until the beginning o f the twentieth century. “Aesthetics emerged as a

distinct area o f philosophy as a consequence o f the growing centrality o f subjectivity in

modem societies. [Aesthetics is] the task o f understanding our relationship to the world

without the assistance o f dogmatic theology” (Bowie, 1990, p. 254). The definition of

aesthetics depends upon the writer’s definition of art and therefore varies among

philosophers. To Tolstoy, art was communication of emotion while to Santayana, it was

beauty. Crawford (1989) wrote that:

Aesthetics is the attempt to understand our experiences o f and the concepts

47


we use to talk about objects that we find perceptually interesting and attractive - objects that can be valued not simply as mean to other ends but in themselves or for their own sake, (p.227)

At the end o f the twentieth century, aesthetics is seen in the context of a global,

multicultural world. Various theories of art that represent different philosophies are

accepted. These theories are concerned with the nature of art as the product of artistic

creativity. Lankford (1992) defined aesthetics as a group of concepts for understanding

the nature o f art. They address process, product, and response from individual and

societal points of view. The importance o f art to civilization and culture lies in its nature,

value, and function in society. Several writers agree that concepts o f aesthetics are

dependent upon concepts o f art prevalent within a given culture at a given time, therefore

a definition o f aesthetics should be seen within the context of its time and place

(Anderson, 1990; Eaton, 1998; Lankford, 1992). Considering the challenge of finding a

universal definition o f aesthetics in a global society, Richard Anderson (1990) suggests:

...the best way to proceed seems to be by recognizing that when we use the word “art,” we usually have something in mind that is valued beyond its practical contribution to such instrumentalities as subsistence, that is made so as to have some sort o f sensuous appeal, and the production o f which reflects skills that are more highly developed in the maker than among other members o f the society, (p. 8)

Philosophy o f Aesthetics

Aesthetics literature covers two strands: philosophy and experience. This study is

concerned with the former strand, the field o f philosophy dealing with the nature o f art.

48


Aesthetics is the branch o f philosophy that involves critical reflection on our experience

and evaluation o f art. Crawford (1989) wrote, “The basic presupposition o f aesthetics as

a branch o f philosophy is that our experiences o f art - creating, appreciating, criticizing -

involve basic human values and, as such, are worthy o f serious inquiry” (p. 228). Barrett

(1997) listed key issues in art philosophy as artists' intentions and their importance to

understanding works o f art. Lankford (1992) noted that key topics in aesthetics are: the

nature, value, and function o f art in society.

There are a variety of issues within the field o f aesthetics. One deals with the

values and standards for the interpretation and criticism o f works o f art. “Aestheticians

ask two common but very thought-provoking and basic questions. They are: “What is

the nature o f art? and What is the value o f art?” (Armstrong, 1999, p. 115). Another issue

deals with the ways artworks have come to have significance or meaning. They might

represent the world, express feelings about it, serve a political or societal function, or exist

for the sake o f their form.

According to Rader (1952) and Eaton (1988) art can be categorized four ways: 1)

the creative, 2) the work o f art, 3) the audience's response, and 4) the relation o f art to the

social order. Stewart (1990) divides the discipline o f aesthetics into three parts: the

philosophy, the products, and the processes.

Aesthetics denotes concepts and methods in the philosophy of art. Students

benefit from its study as it allows explorations o f fundamental ideas about art from ancient

cultures as well as dialogues about contemporary issues (Lankford, 1992). Many writers

have described strategies for engaging students in discussions about the philosophy o f art.

49


Examples have been given for role-playing, puzzles, debates, and games which can be

appropriately modified for use with students o f various ages (Erikson, 1986; Eaton, 1988;

Battin Fisher, Moore, & Silvers, 1989; Lankford, 1992; Stewart, 1995, 1997).

Aesthetic Theories of Art

A theory is an attempt to explain phenomena. Aesthetic theories explain human

experiences related to art and art objects (Stewart, 1997). They address all aspects of art,

including process, product, response, individual context, and social phenomena (Eaton,

1988; Lankford, 1992). Questions about definitions of key terms like “ ‘beauty’, ‘art’, and

‘aesthetic’ led philosophers to formulate theories to explain these difficult

concepts...though in contemporary aesthetics, ‘art’ is more often discussed than ‘beauty’”

(Eaton, 1988, p. 5). Theories often present the necessary and sufficient conditions for

asserting that something is an aesthetic object, activity, experience, or situation (Eaton,

1988).

According to Rader (1952), there was a dispute between isolationist (art that is

separate and distinct from life) and contextual (art and life are integral) theories o f art.

However, he indicated that both can be viewed as harmoniously interconnected.

Smith (1989) reflected on the similarity between Weitz and Lanier’s viewpoints.

Weitz suggests that it is worthwhile to consider traditional theories o f art because they

lead us to attend in certain ways to certain features of art. This is similar to Lanier’s

50


suggestion that “imitationalist, emotionalist, intuitionist, and evaluative theories o f art

have the potential, when appropriately translated, to clarify....the nature, meaning, and

value of aesthetic objects” (Smith, 1989, p. 11). Anderson (1990) explains that a

distinctive feature o f Western aesthetics is its pluralism, allowing exceptionally diverse

ways of thinking about art. He describes:

Four schools of thought have developed in the West regarding the fundamental nature and purpose of the fine arts - and, by extension the popular arts. One tradition has emphasized art’s ability to portray its subject matter, either in superficial appearance or as an idealized essence.A second school has used art to promote the spiritual or social betterment of the individual or the community. Emotions have been the chief interest of a third group o f theorists - one that values art for its ability to purge the feelings and stir the passions o f artist and audience members alike. A fourth tradition has argued that art’s significance lies in its formal qualities, with the artist’s skilled use o f sensuous media provoking a distinctive response in audience members. ( p. 292)

In agreement with Anderson, Stewart (1997) notes that “consistent with a pluralistic

society is the view that art can be different things, have different purposes, and be

governed by a range of aesthetic standards” (p. 28). She suggests that an artwork can be

judged from different standards which reflect different theories of art, depending upon the

circumstances under which it was made and viewed. Throughout history, certain theories

of arts match particular world views. In today’s world, Stewart believes that it is

important for teachers to provide students with knowledge o f multiple theories o f art.

It is appropriate to teach theories of art to students through a contextual approach

to art history. Students can understand how an artwork was aesthetically related to its era

and also evaluate the same artwork from multiple theoretical perspectives relevant to

contemporary culture. Thus informed, they can analyze their own and peers’ artworks for

51


intentions related to one or more aesthetic theories. Ultimately, they should be able to

include aesthetics in the decision-making process they use to produce artwork.

Next, it is necessary to consider which theories o f art students should know and be

able to use.

Imitational or Mimetic Theories of Art

Advocates o f imitationalist or mimetic theories believe that an artifact is art if it

copies the physical or imagined ideal world. Ancient Greeks, Plato, Socrates, and

Aristotle, considered art a species o f imitation (Rader, 1952; Eaton, 1988). Plato

chastised art for being mere imitation. Aristotle disagreed, believing that art could convey

the essence o f the subject and express the universal (Anderson, 1990).

Medieval artists assumed that art was primarily mimetic, but they stressed the

religious functions of realism. Renaissance art showed renewed interest in Mimeticism for

its own sake, apparent in the development o f geometric perspective, portraiture, and

figurative painting techniques. During the neoclassical period, Realism communicated not

only classic beauty, but ideal principles o f ethical and moral perfection. Art was expected

to have an uplifting effect upon viewers (Anderson, 1990).

From the onset o f the Romantic movement, Mimeticism as an aesthetic attitude

waned. Read combined the classical theory o f imitation with the romantic theory o f

52


imagination. Nature became the "touchstone" on which imagination was hinged (Rader,

1952, p. 5). The artist's imagination reinterpreted imitation, based upon unconscious wish

fulfillment, and played an instrumental social role. To Santayana art was "beauty, the

expression o f the ideal, the symbol o f divine perfection" (Rader 1952, p. 193). E. H.

Gombich (1960, 1970) discussed the traditional view of Imitationalism in which an artist

imitates the external form o f an object, and a viewer recognizes the subject o f the work by

its form. It can be challenging to explain what takes place when an artwork represents the

real world since it conveys levels o f meaning regarding subject matter, representations,

symbolism, and metaphor (Eaton, 1988).

Imitationalism though always present to some degree, was superceded by

Romanticism, then Formalism for much o f the late nineteenth and the twentieth centuries.

In the 1970-1990's, Mimeticism regained stature through the Super- and Photo-Realism

movements.

Imitationalism is easily understood by school-age students who often share its goal

of representing life as they see it (Gardner & Winner, 1981). Application of

Imitationalism to studio assignments can be limited by a student’s developmental level

and/or degree o f skill. Many drawing lessons at the upper elementary through high school

grades are based upon imitationalist theory.

53


Expressionist Theory o f Art

Art is expressive rather than merely descriptive (Rader, 1952).

Expressionist theory which became popular during the nineteenth century

Romantic art movement. It considers an object to be art when the artist expresses

feelings, a personal viewpoint, or emotions which are communicated to viewers. The

focus is on the psychological, inner world o f the artist. Instead of one, universal theory,

there are a variety of theories of expression in art.

Eaton (1988) and Crawford (1989) discuss the distinction Tolstoy made between

science and art. Science was the transmission o f thought while art was the transmission of

feeling. He claimed that successful artists transmitted their feelings to their audience, and

that the viewers became more sensitive to the feelings and needs o f others as a result o f

viewing the work ( Eaton, 1988; Crawford, 1989). Tolstoy criticized European artists at

the end of the nineteenth century for focusing on pleasure rather than on an emotional

expression of the religious attitudes of the age. To Tolstoy, the role o f art was not to

make people smarter, but more humane.

From this point o f view, art is the communication of emotion and that

communication is indispensable to art. The question this theory asks is: Are the emotions

o f the art effectively communicated and are they worthwhile? (Rader, 1952). Rader

explained that from this perspective, art expresses values. However essential the

communication o f feeling, it is compatible with technical skill. “Emotion is not the same

as being overcome with emotion...Van Gogh’s distress did not keep him from exercising

54


the care and control required for the production of a skillfully crafted work.” (Eaton,

1988, p. 23).

Eaton (1988) explained Bouwsma’s philosophy that expression does not depend

upon a causal relationship between the object and the viewer’s emotions, but instead

locates expression within the object. People learn to recognize attributes of people who

feel certain emotions, then use them to express and interpret.

Langer (1957) discussed the power o f images to convey feeling:

A work of art expresses a conception of life, emotion, inward reality. But it is neither a confessional not a frozen tantrum; it is a developed metaphor, a non-discursive symbol that articulates what is verbally ineffable - the logic o f consciousness itself, (p.25)

Langer found that associations between emotions and formal qualities are not sufficient to

account for expression. Instead, she described the qualitites o f artworks that serve as

signs or a language based upon associations of “logical form”. While in language we have

to first learn a vocabulary, in art, feelings emerge directly from the form and are apparent

immediately.

Another way to look at communication is through the expression of ideas rather

than of emotions. What makes artists special is their ability to understand and therefore,

emphasis is put on the artist’s conception. Eaton (1988) explained that Croce believed

that art was an idea, in contrast to craft which was the physical act o f creating. Sircello’s

theory o f expression is tied to artists’ treatments o f their subject matter. The way in which

they show feelings is relevant (Eaton, 1988). From this point o f view, expression is

mental rather than physical.

55


A related theory o f expression accounts for artist’s feelings and conceptions as

well as the crafted object. Dewey based his theory o f art on experience which differed

from simply being alive. To Dewey (1958) an “experience” involved organized

perceptions such that the function of art was to organize experience meaningfully, more

coherently, more vividly, than ordinary life permitted. Art was articulate and adequate

experience. To achieve oneness of art and life, the means and ends were connected

consciously. For Dewey, experiences began with impulses that became intentions, then

surmounted obstacles to become reflections. Through this process, the emotion was

transformed into an object. Therefore, the object was as important as the artist’s feelings

and ideas.

Eaton (1988) doubted that there could be one general theory o f expression that

would explain all the uses o f “express”. Expressionist theories can be understood by

school-age students if their personal experiences and feelings are related to examples from

art history. Adolescents (Gardner & Winner, 1981; Jeffers, 1999) in particular, are

sensitive to expressive purposes of artwork. Expressionism could be used as a criteria for

studio production by asking students to select media, style, and subject matter to

communicate a feeling or mood.

Formalist Theory of Art

Formalist theory emphasizes meaning that is intrinsic in the formal qualities o f the

56


artwork. By analyzing the artwork’s color, texture, shape, line, space, form, and value,

the viewer arrives at an aesthetic response. Extrinsic information about the artist’s life,

intentions, subject matter content, and social context are considered irrelevant. Formalism

was promoted at the beginning o f the twentieth century to justify abstract and non

objective works. These theorists believe that a special feeling is associated with aesthetic

experience, but it can be evoked only by compositional qualities o f artworks. Formalists

value intrinsic properties o f the object or event itself, rather than what it represents or

expresses. How a work of art presents is more important that what it represents (Eaton,

1988).

Early in the twentieth century art critics, Bell and Fry, rejected criticism from

imitationalist or Romantic traditions, instead they defended modern, abstract art. Eaton

(1988) discusses them:

Paintings, the formalists urged, should not be construed as telling us stories about the world, They are not meant to make us think, for example, about apples. Rather they should be construed as telling us, for example, about colors and space, (p. 79)

Formalists promoted the idea that while creation was emotion and imagination, the work

of art was form. (Rader, 1952). Bell agreed with Tolstoy that art is communication o f

emotions, but he "thinks there is a peculiarly esthetic emotion, quite different from the

emotions o f ordinary life, that is directed to ‘significant form’ by which he means certain

combinations of lines, colors, and spacial elements which excite pure esthetic emotion"

(Rader 1952, p. 312). To Bell, significant form was the one quality common to all works

of visual art. Fry ignored a work’s history and context, insisting that aesthetic experience

57


was based only on the work’s form. A phrase that describes formalist intent is “art-for-

art’s-sake”.

Most teachers introduce formalism to students through activities based upon the

elements and principles o f art (Chapman, 1982). Studio assignments will best

communicate formalist theory when they are integrated with the art historic study of

abstract and non-objective art. If elements and principles exercises are presented as simple

activities, in isolation from a theoretical framework, it is unlikely that students will

understand Bell’s notion o f an aesthetic experience based upon significant form.

Pragmatic or Instrumental Theory o f Art

Pragmatic or instrumental theories require an artifact or event to serve a purpose

beyond art-for-art’ s-sake. The function may express ceremonial or spiritual beliefs,

promote political propaganda, sell a product, or make a positive contribution to the well

being of individual or society (Anderson, 1990). In many non-Western cultures, art is

indistinguishable from its societal function. Hart (1991), reporting on cross-cultural

research, identified and contrasted aesthetic standards form Western and non-Western

cultures. When non-Western art did not meet Western standards o f “high art”, it was

often omitted from art education classrooms. Key differences centered around concepts

of: individuality, originality, permanence, and form. Hart suggested that more than one

universal aesthetic exists, and that the standards should come from within the culture,

58


making it necessary to consider the social, cultural, and historical milieu in which the artist

acts. Western aesthetic, offering imitationalist, expressionist, and formalist philosophies

should be expanded to include a pragmatic or functionalist approach that accounts for the

social role of art in many cultures.

Social critical theories of art have been grouped within this category, in this paper,

since they also have a purpose beyond aesthetic experience. They differ from non-

Westem traditional art in that promoting or changing attitudes and conditions is an overt

part of their agenda. These theorists are interested in what has been called “aesthetic

sociology - the way art functions socially, politically, economically, and historically”

(Eaton, 1988, p. 86). The best-known social theory is Marxism. Marxists viewed art as a

form of indoctrination in which the context is essential to understanding art (Lankford,

1992).

Until recently, the academic study o f art history in United States classrooms was

limited to Western civilization masterpieces, sometimes irreverently referred to as the

work o f dead, white, European males. By the year 2025 the current minority (people of

color) will become the majority. The implications o f this trend for education suggest the

inclusion of artworks by African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and Asian-Americans.

Minority students need to be included fully in the curriculum; their self-esteem and their

ability to develop their talents are at stake (Stinespring & Kennedy, 1995).

Transformative academic knowledge requires an expansion o f the historical canon by

relating knowledge to cultures (Banks 1998).

Art historical inclusiveness requires a paradigm shift from ethnocentrism to cultural

59


relativity. Ethnographic data is essential for analyzing the art o f any culture. To

understand a culture’s art, it is necessary to understand it’s aesthetic, the philosophy that

indicates salient features and functions o f art within that culture. Furthermore, the art

must be appreciated from the perspective o f its creators. Definitions o f art are culture-

specific, however some commonalities can be found across groups. Usually art is valued

beyond its ability to meet subsistence needs, it has sensuous appeal, and its creation

requires special skills (Anderson 1990).

With Pragmatism/Instrumentalism, the distinction between high and low art is

blurred. Students can experience art through studies of cross-cultural or ceremonial

artifacts, popular arts, advertising or applied design, protest or propaganda posters or

films, or folk arts. Students can select options for studio production that mirror the

functions o f art studied. They can create ceremonial or functional objects, posters with

messages (e.g. fire prevention or environmental conservation), or political commentaries

on national or local issues.

Open Theory o f Art

Open theory had it’s roots in Wittgenstein’s 19S3 publication in which he argued

an anti-essentialist philosophy. Essentialist theories attempt to define art by listing

necessary and sufficient conditions. Contrary to the essentialist approach, Wittgenstein

argued that Plato was wrong, and that many words could not be defined. Instead of a

60


definition composed o f a set o f necessary and sufficient conditions, he described shared

traits or sets of common features that overlap. He called these traits, “family

resemblances” (Battin, Fisher, Moore, & Silvers, 1989). Weitz (1966) applied this

concept to the term ‘art’ since there had been radical changes in style, medium, critical

vision, and taste across time and cultures which precluded a single definition. He divided

language into open or closed concepts. Closed concepts can be defined while open

concepts can not. ‘Art’, an open concept, names things that have a “family resemblance”

to each other. Therefore, Weitz’s theory was labeled, “open theory”. Eaton (1988), in

commenting upon Weitz’s theory, stated: “the very expansive, adventurous character o f

art, its ever-present changes and novel creations, make it logically impossible to insure any

set o f defining properties” (p. 12). Mandelbaum suggested that there may be some

manifest properties that are discemable, while others may be invisible - like a common

history, special interests, or common purpose that cause them to be grouped in the same

family. Open theorists believe the definition of art will always be amendable and

corrigible, a necessary condition for creation o f novel works.

Students can engage in this debate by collecting and labeling objects that have a

“family resemblance” in place o f defining art by its attributes. They could then create an

object that shared the family traits. This assignment would require a high level of analytic

and synthesis skills and could prove daunting to the average student. In addition, using

open theory as a criteria for studio production would make it difficult to evaluate.

61


Institutional Theory of Art

Danto believed that the birth o f Modernism in the 1880's was the beginning of the

“Real Theory of Art”, a rebellion against imitationalist theory. “Real” theory was defined

as the creation o f forms that are not imitations (Dickie, 1984). According to this theory, it

is no longer possible to distinguish art from non art on the basis of observation. Looking

at Warhol’s Pop Art o f the 1960's, Danto (1992) introduced the idea o f an artworld,

composed of social institutions that operate from a shared theory of art in labeling objects

or events as “art”. Later, Danto declared that a child could not make art, even if his/her

creation looked like a Picasso because the child had not internalized the history o f art and

aesthetic theory. This point of view evolved into the institutional theory o f art. In the

debate over Weitz’s open theory, Dickie disagreed with the idea that art was indefinable.

Dickie’s (1971) original theory defined art as an artifact and set o f aspects which had been

given the status of art by a social institution The definition was later revised to include:

an artist who participates with understanding in the making of art; a work that has been

created in order to be presented to the artworld; an informed public prepared to

understand; a broader concept o f the artworld; and an artworld system that allows the

presentation o f artwork to the public. In this theory, a social institution, rather than a

formula, distinguishes artifacts that are called art from those that are not (Dickie, 1984).

Institutional theory emphasizes the role o f context in labeling and understanding

art. Rather than asking What is art?, institutional theorists, like Goodman, asks, When is

art? For an artifact or event to be considered art, the artworld (a loose association of

62


institutions including museums, galleries, critics, art teachers, and art historians) must

confer this status. Any object can be presented as a candidate, but must be justified to the

satisfaction o f the artworld to achieve that status (Armstrong, 1999).

The institutional theory o f art places emphasis on “who says, when, and where” an

object, experience, or process is considered to be art. Eaton (1988) explained

that the “art-is-what-anybody-says-is-art” attitude is often applied to only certain

authorities or experts. She observed that art has become so esoteric that it requires

viewers to use “explanatory aides in museums, lengthy written texts on the walls next to

paintings, and cassette players that can be rented at an exhibit” which indicate what to

look fo r and often at as well (p. 9).

Students can relate to institutional theory by role-playing debates that occur among

those in the artworld over the acceptance or rejection o f particular objects. In the case o f

student art production, the art teacher represents the classroom equivalent o f an artworld.

Each time students create something to meet their teacher’s standards, they are dealing

with a narrow example o f Institutionalism. A closer approximation, for advanced

students, would be to have them create works with the intention o f having them displayed

at a local gallery or museum. The completed artworks would be subject to the typical

selection process used by the institution. Works that were accepted would be considered

“art” . Though this is a possible scenario, it is contrary to prevailing pedagogical beliefs

and would not be recommended.

63


Postmodern Theory o f Art

Postmodernism began in architecture in the 1970's, then spread to other arts and

humanities. It’s popularity is due to its deliberate ambivalence and communicative

elasticity. Characterized by it’s transitory, transcendent, and transitional nature,

postmodernism’s ambivalence is a result o f movement away from objectivity, rationality,

and universality. Clark (1996) explained:

The sense o f meaning within art has moved away from the modernist emphasis on form toward issues o f content, issues which frequently involve the concept o f power - its source, exercise, and consequence. Artistic meaning is seen as a socially constructed entity, requiring the viewer to look beyond the formalist compositional qualities o f a work, decode its symbolic imagery, and expose its embedded cultural assumptions. Meaning is also seen as fluid and contextual; a disparate array o f interpretations can be derived from any given work since meaning is subject to the varied perspectives o f artists and viewers. ( p.2)

According to Danto (1999), postmodern artists try to reduce the distance between art and

real things, and they create objects that are ambiguously both art and real things. He calls

this period “Post Historical” because an artist can follow any theoretical position, style,

and intention in creating art. Art and the philosophy o f art have become the same thing.

Goodman, like Langer, differentiates between languages and nonlinguistic systems. To

understand an artwork, he believes it is necessary to understand which symbol systems are

relevant and how they work. Gablik (1995) explains that connective aesthetics is

postmodern, looking at art in terms o f social purpose in place o f style. Rather than a

focus on individual self-expression, postmodernism values art that is "found within a

64


dialogic collaborative, interactive, and interdependent processes" (Irwin, 1999, p. 36).

Under the broad umbrella o f Postmodernism are a variety o f social critical theory

constructs. Poststructuralism emphasizes that forms of knowledge do not exist as

universal absolutes, instead they are socially constructed. Deconstruction/Reconstruction

adds that artifacts and social interactions are passed on and modified through successive

generations. Since knowledge is socially constructed, therefore it can be deconstructed,

or taken apart, to reveal social forces embedded within (Clark, 1996). Feminist pedagogy

introduces the values o f collaboration and nurture in addition to female perspectives.

Multiculturalism raises issues o f ethnocentrism, racism, prejudice, sexual preference, and

geographical determinism. Groups that have been historically disenfranchised in the

artworld have called for reevaluation of, and inclusion in, the canon. One example is the

African-American or Black aesthetic which can: reflect prevailing European or Euro-

American ideas; honor their heritage as part o f the African diaspora; record United States

history from a black perspective; express religious, spiritual, social, or political messages;

or synthesize their personal world views with any o f these traditions (Museum o f Fine

Arts, Boston, 1970; Klotman 1977; Dallas Museum of Art, 1989; Driskell 1995). Hoard,

1990, explained:

Black American ethnic culture has its roots in the African aesthetic which presents the felt reality or expressive quality from any work o f art with such intensity that it seeks to evoke movement or utterance (activity, visual and verbal) in the context o f aesthetic response. ( p. 155)

Hoard discussed depth o f feeling and physical responsiveness as part o f the Black

aesthetic. Franklin and Stuhr (1990) identified formal structure which includes the use of

65


color intensity, form, and pattern, as a characteristic o f Black aesthetics.

Students can relate to postmodern theory from a multicultural or social issues

approach by selecting ideas o f personal interest. Due to its broad acceptance of multiple

perspectives, postmodernism could be used alone, or in conjunction with imitationalist,

expressionist, formalist, or pragmatic theories as criteria for students’ studio production.

This study will focus on aesthetic theories that tend to be an underlying purpose o f

student artworks - either due to the teacher’s lesson expectations or to the student’s

artistic intent. The four considered relevant to K-12 art education are: Formalism,

Expressionism, Instrumentalism/Pragmatism, and Imitationalism/Mimeticism. Post

modern attributes are considered to be subsumed within some Expressionist and all

Instrumentalism/Pragmatism Criteria. Although open theory and Institutionalism should

be discussed with students, neither is applicable to most student artwork.

Aesthetic Education in Art Education

Art education can introduce aesthetics experiences that help explain, expand upon and/or change children’s naive value judgments by taking the time to discuss ways that people regard art...The aesthetics experience invites students to sort through specifics and to think critically about the comprehensive or general ideas about art. (Armstrong, 1999, p. 15)

According to Crawford (1989) aesthetic education benefits students by bringing

them to: 1) understand the nature of art and through their experiences with it to better

understand themselves and their values; 2) increase perceptual sensitivity; and 3) introduce

66


them to the study o f philosophy. Smith (1989) cited five clusters o f concepts that define

the discipline: 1) the art object, 2) appreciation and interpretation, 3) critical evaluation,

4) artistic creation, and S) the cultural context.

Children as young as elementary school can discuss aesthetics issues if they are

translated into age-appropriate games or puzzles (Battin, Fisher, Moore, & Silvers, 1988).

“Even young children ask such questions as, ‘Why is this object art and that object is not

art’” (Hurtwitz & Day, 1995, p. 578). Parsons (1994) explained that children think in

characteristic ways about the arts, have implicit philosophies of art which are shaped in the

development o f underlying cognitive abilities and which determine their level o f aesthetic

response. Issues, often taken from local newspapers, become debate or essay items

designed to heighten aesthetic awareness (Stewart, 1987; Battin, Fisher, Moore, &

Silvers, 1988; Eaton 1988; Hurwitz & Day, 1995; Erickson & Katter, 1996; Stewart,

1997; Armstrong, 1999).

Aesthetic education was ushered in as the Progressive Education Movement

declined in popularity. The underlying assumption was that concepts drawn from

aesthetic philosophy would provide the art curriculum with “discipline-centered” subject

matter (Pittard, 1985, p. 166). For more than the first half o f the twentieth century, art

(primarily production) in the schools served an instrumental purpose, supporting general

education, and promoting social harmony and mental health. During the post World War

II era, under the influence o f Lowenfeld, a philosophy o f art as “self-expression” infused

schools in the rapidly growing, affluent suburbs o f America. For Lowenfeld, aesthetic

growth was basic to art experience. It was evident in the creative products o f children as

67


“a sensitive ability to integrate experiences into a cohesive whole” (Lowenfeld & Brittain,

1975, p.40).

In 1958, Ecker and Kaelin expressed the view that principles o f modern aesthetics

would contribute to general education (Smith, 1989). Barkan (1962) predicted the

aesthetic education movement when he wrote that an aesthetic life was an educational

frontier and would become a reality for students in the in 1960s. Lanier, in 1963,

discussed the role o f the visual arts in providing an aesthetic experience which could only

be achieved through interaction between a student and an object. Marantz, in 1964, stated

that appreciation o f art should be the principal concern o f art education rather than art

production. Smith, in 1965, wrote that an integration of child-centered and discipline-

centered curriculum was needed (Smith, 1989). In the mid-1960's, Ecker and Barkan

marked the change to an essentialist perspective by proposing that “artistic activity was a

form of qualitative problem-solving” and “the discipline o f art consisted of three modes of

scientific inquiry: studio, art history, and art criticism” (Clark, 1996, p. 19). Elliot Eisner,

in 1965, predicted that humane education would occur through the arts (Smith, 1989). In

1967, as a reaction to the post-Sputnik emphasis on math and science in education, The

Central Midwest Regional Education Laboratory (CEMREL) was charged with the

development o f an aesthetic education curriculum for elementary students.

The Central Midwest Regional Laboratory (CEMREL) project (Madeja &

Onuska, 1977) conceptualized in 1965 at a national aesthetic education conference, was a

program o f curriculum modules for grades K-6 designed to supplement general education,

not replace, traditional arts education. Led by Barkan and Chapman, national experts in

68


the arts were brought together to develop guidelines. Madeja oversaw the creation o f

instructional units o f aesthetics activities for the visual arts, music, literature, theater,

dance, film, the natural world, and popular culture which were designed to increase

students’ perception and exploration. Each grade level was based upon a theme: level

one - aesthetics in the physical world; level two - aesthetics and art elements; level three -

aesthetics and the creative process; level four - aesthetics and the artist; level five -

aesthetics and the culture; and level six - aesthetics and the environment. Only 12 o f 44

planned units made it through the process o f development, implementation, and

evaluation. Funding cuts stopped the development of the remaining units. The program’s

evaluation, published in 1976, concluded that the Aesthetics Education Program had been

successful in addressing general problems in aesthetics, development, and learning; that

aesthetic development was better conceptualized as a profile than as a trait; and that

aesthetic criticism and appreciation contain important and intriguing subproblems of

preference, judgment, and justification (Madeja, 1976). Clark (1984) commented that the

units were complex and difficult to use and repackage, with many parts being difficult or

impossible to replace (Efland, 1989). For several years, the materials were available for

purchase from CEMREL.

At the same time as CEMREL, the Southwest Regional Laboratory (SWRL)

developed its own art program for classroom teachers, organized into blocks o f four units,

each with four media, four types o f subject matter, and four styles. Every studio

production unit involved the study and practice of beginning concepts and techniques from

the fields o f aesthetics, criticism, and history (Efland, 1989). Activity, analysis, media, and

69


student evaluation guides were included. The program included a series o f filmstrips that

were keyed to production and criticism activities.

The Kettering curriculum for elementary art was developed in 1967 by Eisner at

Stanford University so that classroom teachers without artistic training would be able to

teach significant art content. It was based upon six premises: 1) art offers unique and

essential content; 2) artistic learning is complex and benefits from sensitive instruction; 3)

in addition to studio, students should learn art criticism and history; 4) both an art

curriculum and support materials were necessary; 5) at least some art learning could be

evaluated; and 6) classroom teachers could improve art instruction by using a sequentially

ordered curriculum with support materials (Efland, 1989). Student activities involved

three “domains”: productive, critical, and historical. It stressed a sequential, written

curriculum, appropriate support materials, the product of student’s work as well as the

process, and evaluation. Activities and support materials were placed in “Kettering

Boxes” that could be moved from room to room. Each unit was field tested and evaluated

using short and long-term, formal and informal techniques. The curriculum was never

made available for commercial use, however it was adopted by the state o f Hawaii (Eisner,

1968).

Langer, (1957) wrote that words could not adequately convey human feelings.

Art, however, is the objectification of feeling. In addition, developing a discriminating eye

through art experiences transfers to an ability to extract meaning in other areas. Artistic

expression projects thoughts and feelings. Art freezes tensions o f life so that they can be

examined. Langer saw two purposes of artistic images: they articulate our own life o f

70


feeling so that we become conscious o f its elements, and they show that the basic forms o f

feelings are common to most people.

In 1969, Chapman presented a curriculum planning paper which refined and

clarified structures from the CEMREL project. Encouragement o f personal fulfillment

was one o f the functions she listed for general education. The parallel goal for art

education was personal response and expression in art. Subgoals were for students to

perceive visual qualities as sources o f feeling, interpret the meanings of visual qualitites,

and judge and explain the significance o f the encounter (Efland, 1989).

In 1971, the Aesthetic Eye project, funded by the National Endowment for the

Humanities, was a collaboration o f universities and schools in Los Angeles, California. A

series o f teacher workshops were presented over a period o f 18 months. During that time,

teachers were introduced to aesthetic content, developed a curriculum, implemented it in

their classrooms, and provided feedback. The program was influenced by Broudy’s

approach which identified four levels o f aesthetic perception and three levels o f aesthetic

criticism. According to Broudy (1987), since imagery affects life and learning, the skills o f

aesthetic perceiving should be a major focus o f instruction in conjunction with

performance skills. He recommends “aesthetic scanning” whereby students point to

sensory properties, formal qualities, expressive properties, and technical merits o f an

object. Students also engage in aesthetic criticism (historic, recreative, and judicial).

Aesthetic education was viewed as the development and refinement of aesthetic perception, that is, the process o f helping the pupil respond to the appearance of objects in a given medium in terms o f its sensory, formal, technical, and expressive properties. (Efland, 1989, p. 83)

71


The emphasis o f the program was to be true to the way artists work. All participants

developed an individualized aesthetic education curriculum to implement in their own

classrooms.

In 1972, after guidelines had been published by the National Center for School and

College Television, Schwartz and Cataldo, advised by Feldman, prepared a 30-program

television series, “Images and Things”, that provided analyzes o f artworks and history.

Tollifson developed a supplementary learning resource kit that consisted o f 180 slides of

artworks shown in the series (Efland, 1989).

Feldman (1970) and Eisner (1972) promoted school curricula in which critical

thinking skills are applied to interpret aesthetic meaning. “Aesthetic organizing”, a type of

creativity, involved students’ ability to organize components with a high degree o f

coherence and harmony. During the same time period, Ecker and Kaelin suggested that

the aesthetic experience become the basis for research in art education.

Feldman (1973) presented his model o f art criticism for student analysis o f works

of art. The process consisted o f four steps: description, analysis, interpretation, and

judgment. He warned that adults or children who were functioning as critics had to “resist

the tendency to reach a premature closure to our aesthetic experience” and rush to making

a judgment (p. 60).

Amheim, in 1974, explained that perception intertwines feeling and thinking, that

people “think with their senses”, and that artistic representation in children’s work

progresses from a preference for simple structures to more complex ones. (Smith, 1989, p.

13).

72


Goodman, in 1976, promoted symbol systems as an approach to understanding the

nature and meaning o f art. Chapman (1977) wrote that aesthetic perception is not limited

to decoding symbols with fixed meanings. It is particularized rather that generalized; it is

connotative, not denotative. Multisensory associations can be developed by having

students translate from one sense or art form to another.

Madeja and Onuska’s definition o f aesthetic education was “learning how to

perceive, judge, and value aesthetically what we have come to know through our senses”

(Madeja & Onuska, 1977, p.3). They included the aesthetic experience, the artistic

process, the object or event, and the cultural or historical tradition in which the art was

produced. In 1987, Parsons described developmental stages in the growth o f aesthetic

awareness (Smith, 1989).

Madeja, in 1981, suggested that the content of teaching art derives from all four

disciplines of art: aesthetics, artistic creation, the history of art, and art criticism (Smith,

1989). These became the cornerstones o f Discipline-Based Art Education (DBAE), an

antecedent of the aesthetic education movement. Beardsley’s rationale for the study o f art

was adopted by Smith in early writings on DBAE. Benefits to students would be:

perception, response, and understanding of artworks; development o f a store of images;

and increased understanding o f visual metaphor (Clark, Day, & Greer, 1989). The term

Discipline-Based Art Education was selected to suggest a comprehensive approach to the

study of art. Influenced by Bruner’s suggestion that math and science be taught using the

disciplines as models, the proponents o f DBAE chose to use practices of the four arts

disciplines as the basis for their proposed curriculum. From these fields, they drew upon a

73


community o f scholars and artists, methods o f inquiry, and conceptual structure.

The discipline o f aesthetics under DBAE consisted o f five main clusters of

concepts: the art object, appreciation and interpretation, critical evaluation, artistic

creation, and the cultural context (Clark, Day, & Greer, 1989). Students explored

questions: What is art? and How is quality determined? Aesthetics was not included to

train future aestheticians, rather its goal was to be a part o f liberal arts education designed

to broaden perspectives and to develop critical skills (Crawford, 1989). Curricula were

written sequentially and articulated for all grade levels, making modifications for the

developmental level o f the child.

Funded by the Getty Center for Education in the Arts, DBAE was promoted

nationally through the 1980's and 1990's. Grants to regional development sites provided

free teacher inservice workshops and dissemination o f materials. In California, where art

specialists had been eliminated from the elementary schools, classroom teachers were

trained to use DBAE with their students. National workshops, such as the one in

Cincinatti in the summer o f 1990, brought together aestheticians, aesthetics educators, and

teachers. Strategies, including games and puzzles, were shared as ways of engaging

students in aesthetic inquiry (Stewart, Russell, & Eaton, 1990). Aesthetics was taught as

an essential component o f general education and as a foundation for specialized art study.

Works o f art were central to all units o f instruction. Artworks included folk, applied, and

fine arts from Western and non-Western cultures which ranged in time from ancient to

contemporary times. Student achievement and program effectiveness were to be

confirmed through evaluation. Though written, sequential curricula were requirements o f

74


DBAE, the Getty Center did not produce a curriculum guide, believing teachers should

write individualized documents for their communities (Clark, Day, & Greer, 1989).

Gardner (1973) proposed that in the aesthetic domain, human feelings and

messages are communicated through images. In 1983, he published his theory o f multiple

intelligences as well as a cognitive view o f the arts. To Gardner, artistry was an activity o f

the mind. “By manipulating symbol systems, the artist shapes form and gives voice to his

perceptions, ideas, and feelings” (Gardner, 1983, p. 102). Harvard’s Project Zero started

in 1967 as a research group under the leadership o f philosopher, Goodman. Its goal was

to study cognition and its relationship to human development, the arts, and education.

Project Zero attempted to enhance individuals’ capacity for encoding and decoding artistic

symbols (Gardner, 1989; Lankford, 1992). The Rockefeller Foundation made a

commitment to fund development o f non-traditional models o f assessment, based upon

Gardner’s theory, which would be appropriate for students engaged in artistic processes.

From a collaboration among Harvard’s Project Zero, the Educational Testing Service, and

the Pittsburgh Public Schools, the Arts PROPEL model was developed and field tested

between 1986 and 1991. This model offered an alternative to the DBAE approach. The

three components were: perception, production, and reflection. The central aspect was

studio production, with teacher-student dialogue guiding the student into investigation of

art history as it fit the student’s work. Tenets o f the approach were: students are active

learners, making art is not only for the gifted few, making art is the central activity, and

assessment is an integral part of learning. Aesthetics, through the segment labeled

perception, was described by Winner (1992) as:

75


the processes by which students come to see and understand the world around them and to look closely at works o f art - their own and their peers’ as well as the work o f artists from diverse cultures and eras. (p. 9)

Erickson, Katter, and Stewart published the Basic Curriculum fo r A rt (1988).

Their section on aesthetics minimized the aesthetic experience, placing greater emphasis

upon the philosophy of art. Their goals were for students to: understand the philosophy

of art, engage in aesthetic inquiry, and appreciate the value o f aesthetic inquiry. Students

were involved with considering, presenting and evaluating use o f words, statements, and

definitions; making and sharing supported judgments; listening to, recognizing, and

evaluating divergent views; using philosopher’s statements and theories; and respecting

alternative answers as long as they are backed by reasons.

Eaton (1994) proposed that aesthetics be included in the art curriculum in two

ways: asking philosophical questions in the context o f artworks to engage students in

addressing the nature and value o f art, and asking philosophical questions as a way of

directing attention to specific artworks.

The standards movement o f the 1990's included aesthetics in general education

requirements. The National Standards for Arts Education, 1994, stated that students

should “reflect upon and assess the characteristics and merits o f their work and the work

of others” as well as “understanding the visual arts in relation to history and cultures”

(Consortium o f National Arts Educators, 1994, p. 34). Missouri’s Show-Me State

Standards asked students to “have a knowledge o f the vocabulary to explain perceptions

about and evaluations o f works in dance, music, theater, and visual arts” (Missouri Board

of Education, 1996, p.2).

76


Aesthetics has been valued in art education since the 1960s. Though some

programs described included studio production, and one, ARTS PROPEL, made

production the centerpiece of their program, the predominant emphasis within aesthetics

education has been on students acquiring and using vocabulary to describe artworks, and

engaging in the philosophical debates about the nature and value o f art.

Aesthetic Theories of Art and Student Art Production

The major impetus of aesthetic education has been focused upon students’

responses to art. However, a few writers have suggested that a consideration of aesthetic

theories should be a part of students’ art production.

Barrett (1997) promotes the idea that the teacher should include aesthetics as part

of the student’s creative decision making and intent. "Students benefit from considering

intent, the worthiness o f the art, and whether they effectively fulfilled it in shaped media

that others can see" ( p. 50). In addition, he suggests that students should be taught to

select media for the expressive properties that may be independent o f their intent.

Chapman (1982) in discussing the inadequacy of current art curricular content

notes that most teachers base lessons on the elements and principles o f art. “These

concepts are part o f ‘formalist aesthetic theories’ - those which place great value on the

form or design within a work of art” (p. 137). She is concerned that art history and

aesthetics play small roles in practice, and that the other aesthetic theories are ignored.

77


Hamblen (1984) addresses the social context that influences student attitudes and

art activities. Stout (1999) indicates that students must make a significant connection

between themselves and ideas. To achieve meaning, students must recognize the critical

connection between personal experience and knowing. Jeffers (1999) notes that teachers

are part o f the context that defines for students their own beliefs about the nature o f art.

As such, teachers need to recognize their influence and make their embedded philosophy

overt.

In a study o f high school students responding to fine and popular art images,

researchers found that students interpret on the basis o f a creator, not audience. Students

thought o f imagery “as a form o f communication involving a sender, a message and a

receiver” (Freedman & Wood, 1999, p. 3 5). None of these students thought that an art

career an be chosen to influence people and society. Instead, they see the purpose o f art

in terms of self-expression. Their interpretations o f art are viewed as personal statements

independent o f sociocultural norms.

Erikson (1994) similarly found that students from elementary through college age

all focus on the artist more than the viewer in aesthetic responses to art. Parsons (1987)

reports that high school students cite expressiveness as the most important characteristic

o f visual imagery. This attitude reflects two belief systems: the intention o f the artist, and

the viewer projecting his/her emotions onto the image.

Day (199S) suggests that aesthetic approaches be built into art production. Field

(1982) studied criteria that were used to evaluate students in three settings: an art college,

an art department in a large university, and an amateur art club. She organized the criteria

78


on a continuum. At one end were attitudes within the artist such as expression,

confidence, and honesty. At the opposite end were object-centered qualities such as

beauty, economy, and rhythm (Anderson, 1990). In art colleges, the most important

criteria emphasize artist-centered qualities relating to the spirit in which the work was

created (expressionism). Art club teachers are most interested in the objective features of

the work itself (imitationalism, formalism). The university artworks fell between these

two poles.

Jeffers (1999) explored the relationship between diverse students’ and teachers’

preferences and definitions of art by asking them to answer the question, “ What is art?”

She compared her own research with studies conducted by Johnson (1982) and Stokrocki

(1986). Findings were similar across studies and diverse cultural groups. Fourth grade

children defined art in terms of doing or making activities. Tenth grade students,

preservice teachers, and elementary teachers conceived of art as a way to express

themselves or communicate. Many definitions were subjective and relativistic. Frequent

comments indicated that art was “everything or nothing”, or depended upon any

individual’s opinion. Stokrocki and Johnson both found that elementary school students

identified art with a place and time where and when they created art. This definition was

more common for students who were taught art by a specialist than those who were

taught art by their classroom teacher. Jeffers’s results support Hamblen’s theory (1984)

that socially relative, learned expectations create a predisposition for the aesthetic. She

calls for art teachers to become aware o f their roles in the socialization process through

which students learn answers to “What is art?” One way to do this would be for teachers

79


to make conscious connections about the art they have children create and the multiple

theories of the nature o f art.

Two practitioners, Jones (1999) and Armstrong (1999) advocate incorporation o f

aesthetic theories in curriculum for art production as well as reflection. Both have

experimented with this integration through assignments used in their college-level classes.

Jones (1998) outlined his approach to teaching introductory art appreciation. Each

of his studio assignments included the four primary aesthetic theories with other concepts

(such as elements and principles). For example, an assignment might ask students to

create a mimetic artwork with line using block printing media and the portrait as subject

matter. He found that students have a better understanding o f aesthetics after having

theories integrated with production than they had when studying aesthetics from a solely

responsive mode.

Armstrong, (1999), made aesthetic integration the premise o f her book on

curriculum development. She suggests that teaching students to respond aesthetically and

to be knowledgeable about different aesthetic theories is insufficient. Teachers, and

ultimately, students should select aesthetic theories as part o f their intent in the creation o f

art. Lankford (1992) agrees:

As educators strive to strike a balance o f theoretical perspectives, they should bear in mind that indoctrination is possible whenever points of view are presented as fact, unexamined concepts prevail, and alternatives remain unexplored. ( p. 14)

Many studio assignments given in art classrooms have implied or embedded

criteria that, upon examination (or deconstruction), reflect a bias toward a particular

80


aesthetic theory. If, as Danto says, it takes an aesthetic theory to make something art,

then students should be told which theory o f art informs the evaluation of their work.

Unfortunately, according to Hamblen (1990) teachers value classroom activities for their

own sake rather than for adhering to goals or theory. She found that art teachers can be

resistant to theory unless it fits their personal value system.

For students to become empowered to create aesthetic works of art, it is necessary

for them to do more than reflect upon their products using appropriate vocabulary. They

need didactic information about aesthetics and self-reflection to determine the effect they

want to have on the audience that will view their works. In particular, students need to

understand aesthetic theories so that they will be able to select an aesthetic approach along

with subject matter, materials, and techniques when creating artworks. To prepare

students to create art, teachers should go beyond the presentation o f aesthetics

information and make explicit aesthetic theory a part o f the criteria for studio production

activities.

Rationale for this Study Based upon the Literature Review

Based upon studies reviewed in this paper, the possibility exists that large-scale,

high-stakes art assessment that meets demands for accountability could be developed for

the state o f Missouri. Zerull (1990) stated that

Where states have initiated testing requirements, the arts education

81


community is in a position to take a leadership role in the design and implementation of arts evaluation. This will ensure two important outcomes. First, arts educators, rather than legislative committees, will devise and pilot test evaluation instruments for use with students. Second, this exercise will lead to an examination o f the content and quality o f arts curricula, (p. 20)

Before Missouri criterion-referenced tests can be developed, its art educators need

to reach consensus on a common core of curriculum content that is appropriate for

testing. Drawing from the formalist tradition of twentieth century art education, the

elements and principles o f art would be key concepts (N ational Standards fo r Arts

Education, 1994). To assess art history, art educators first need to answer questions.

Which art should all students be able to recognize, analyze, respond to, and discuss?

Which cultures and time periods should be included, and in which contexts? In addition to

the western canon, selections must be sensitive to post-modernist concerns for traditional

and folk artforms, multiplicity o f solutions, representation o f diversity, multiple

perspectives, and socio/cultural/political meanings. The role o f aesthetic theories in the

judgment o f student artwork should be explored. This study focuses on the four aesthetic

theories that are most relevant to K -12 art education: Formalism, Expressionism,

Instrumentalism/Pragmatism, and Imitationalism/Mimeticism. Post-modern attributes are

subsumed in Expressionism and Instrumentalism/Pragmatism subcategories. Although

open theory and institutionalism should be discussed with students, neither is applicable to

most student artwork.

To begin the art accountability process in Missouri, the Missouri Art Education

Association conducted a survey based upon the Frameworks fo r M issouri Schools (1996).

82


Its goal was to determine art teachers’ preferences for specific art historical and cultural

content that could be assessed at grades 4, 8, and 12 by a state art test (Venet, 1998).

Results from that survey were used to inform development o f the Missouri Fine Arts

Assessment by CTB McGraw Hill. The NAEP studies, never developed into standardized

tests, serve as the best models for test developers. They included multiple-choice and

cued-choice responses to art images that were written to require application and analytic

levels o f thought, short answer, open-ended essay, and production activities in which both

process and final product were evaluated. The challenge will be to infuse standardized

tests with items that require higher level thinking and to build performance into the exam.

If the testing agency (state or school district) is willing to use performance

assessment (despite increased time and costs required to develop scoring guides, gather

exemplars, train and use judges to evaluate large numbers o f artworks), then the

recommended format would be an authentic assessment embedded in instruction. To

guide students during creation of artwork, and raters in scoring, it will be necessary to

develop a rubric that lists criteria and descriptors of various levels o f quality. Rubric or

scoring guide criteria, itemized with descriptive levels of quality, might include:

• research and critical analysis;• creative thinking and synthesis;• problem-solving;• appropriate selection of media and techniques;■ application o f elements and principles o f art to create desired aesthetic effect;• reflection on the process and meaning o f the work;• relation to an artistic tradition; and• indicators o f quality products.

Opportunities for students to select a context for the artistic problem would allow

83


adaptations that account for individual differences in gender, race, ethnic background,

socio-economic status, and interests. To minimize costs, a system o f internal grading with

external moderation could be adapted from the British or Australian models. Using

Popham’s suggestion, small, genuine matrix sampling could provide statistically useful

comparative data while those students not participating in the test would be solving similar

problems that teachers could score at the local level, using the same standards, and scoring

guides as the state exam. The portfolio process could become the model for organizing

and reflecting upon the component parts o f the authentic task, the means for formative

assessment, and presentation o f the total assessment package. It would be important to

standardize, to the degree possible, the results of these assessments. Without systematic

comparability, authentic assessments would be unable to provide information needed to

“take the temperature o f ’ art achievement, inspire curriculum and program modifications,

monitor progress, and inform stakeholders.

If large-scale assessment is not supported by the state, then criterion-referenced

portfolio assessment is recommended at the classroom, school, and/or district level for

monitoring student growth, achievement o f objectives, and communication to parents.

Student work should reflect the common content and standards expected for all students

which are specified in a rubric. Authentic tasks would be ideal assignments for use in

portfolio evaluation. This is supported by Burton (1998) who conducted a national survey

o f assessment and evaluation among United States teachers o f art. Eighty-seven percent

believed that assessment and evaluation were helpful to their students. Main components

of the curricula being taught were studio art and art history, although art exhibition,

84


interdisciplary, and multicultural components were also valued. He found that current

assessment practices “tended toward informal, subjective and interactive purposes. This

suggests the assessment process may be used more for ongoing instructional purposes

than to ascertain clearly the student’s achievement or ability” (p.2).

Summary

During the history o f testing in the visual arts, a wide range o f instruments and

philosophies have been employed. Major categories for types of assessment are:

standardized, criterion-referenced, performance-based, authentic, and portfolio. Aesthetic

theories o f art represent ways o f defining art. The aesthetic focus o f this study is limited

to four aesthetic theories, Formalism, Expressionism, Instrumentalism/Pragmatism, and

Imitationalism/Mimeticism that can be the purpose o f student-created artworks.

Large-scale, high-stakes, criterion-referenced assessment can co-exist with high

quality art instruction. Standardized tests can be used in addition to qualitative and

quantitative measures teachers employ to measure student achievement. Each serves

particular functions. Common, basic, content in art must be agreed upon by art educators

before criterion-referenced assessments can be developed. Without this core, any attempts

at large-scale testing will remain measurements o f interest or natural aptitude. Authentic

assessment in art has been used elsewhere and could be adapted to large-scale assessment

in the United States. Trained scorer/raters, using rubrics, can make highly reliable

judgments o f student artworks and written work. Embedded authentic assessments are

85


integrated with instruction, becoming learning activities as well as demonstrations o f what

has been learned. Therefore, teachers (who may have avoided systematic assessment due

to anti-test bias) could be taught to design and evaluate complex, meaningful, life-related

art tasks through presentation and scoring of the test. As participants in authentic

assessment, students would be thinking, reflecting, researching, discussing, problem

solving, and creating using real-life artistic issues. The best o f all assessments could drive

high quality, art instruction, improving programs and student achievement while informing

the school administration, parents, community, and government that supporting the arts in

education is an excellent investment of time, energy, and tax dollars.

86


CHAPTER THREE

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Introduction

Survey research methodology was used to gather data on local assessment of

Missouri standards. The data consisted o f Missouri art teachers’ opinions o f criteria

planned for an art production scoring rubric. The Art Assessment Survey, an instrument

using a Likert five-point scale, was developed as a vehicle for obtaining teacher responses.

The survey was sent to a random sample o f 382 (19%) o f the population

consisting of all Missouri art teachers, kindergarten through twelfth grade. A

questionnaire, cover letter, and self-addressed stamped envelope were mailed in to sample

participants in early November, 1999. Non-respondents received a second mailing in late

November with a deadline for return of surveys by December 15. No letters were

returned by the postal service as undeliverable. A letter was faxed to the building principal

of each non-respondent teacher. The letter asked for principals to check options and

return the form by fax or mail. Options indicated that the teacher would return the

survey, had retired, had moved, chose not to participate, or that another teacher would

respond. The sample size was reduced to 344 as a result o f teachers eliminated because

they had retired or moved. The number o f teachers responding to the mail survey was 259

(75%). Phone interviews were conducted with an additional sample (10%) o f non-

87


respondents to indicate whether non-respondents were similar to respondents in their

answers to survey questions.

Descriptive statistics were used to determine which criteria a rt teachers prefer for

inclusion on the state rubric. Percentages o f teachers, at each grade level, who responded

that a criterion was important for inclusion on a state rubric are presented in Tables 8, 10,

12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 23, and 25 in Chapter Four.

Additional statistical procedures were employed. One Way-Analysis of Variance

(ANOVA) was used to compare responses o f elementary, middle, and high school

teachers on each criterion (Myers & Weil, 1995). To control for Type 1 error, which can

occur if the null hypothesis is not accepted, Tukey’s post hoc comparisons were computed

(Myers & Weil, 1995). Where ANOVA differences were significant at alpha = 05,

contrasts were used to identify the pair(s) which represented the significant difference(s).

Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient was used to determine the internal reliability o f scales in

each survey category (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994). Pearson Product Moment

correlations were used to determine relationships between aesthetic approaches and

importance of teaching related content (Myers & Weil, 1995).

The results o f this study were shared with the Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task

Force and are being used to support the creation o f a state-wide rubric for local

assessment of student art products.

88


Research Questions

Main Research Question

The main research question o f this study was driven by a practical consideration.

The researcher, as a member o f the Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task Force, had been

assigned the task of developing a state rubric. Having examined a wide variety o f rubrics

used in the field, a list of criteria was compiled. To determine the applicability o f each

criteria in light o f practice in Missouri, teachers’ expert opinions were being sought. The

main research question being addressed by this study was:

■ Which criteria for assessing student art production do art teachers recommend for

inclusion on a state rubric?

Subquestions

Subquestions ask whether multiple versions o f a state rubric should be considered.

Construction o f multiple rubrics could be based upon differences in expectations for

students among elementary, middle, and high school art teachers. Differences in

expectations related to the aesthetic approach inherent in the instruction and assignment

could also suggest a need for “mix and match” sets o f criteria. Each set o f criteria could

be thought o f as a “window” or lens (Armstrong, 1999, Broughton, 1999). If significant

differences among aesthetic approaches exist, then a flexible rubric that provides aesthetic

approach options would be most useful for teachers. More customized rubric options

would allow the students’ work to express a variety o f cultural contexts (Broughton

89


1999). The subquestions o f this study were:

1. What are differences among elementary (k-5), middle (6-8), and high school (9-12)

teachers’ selections o f criteria used to judge student art products? The null hypothesis is:

There is no significant difference at the p< 05 level among mean scores o f elementary,

middle, and high school teachers on criteria recommended for inclusion on a state art

production rubric.

2. What are differences among aesthetic approach criteria selected by teachers forjudging

student art products? The null hypothesis is: There is no significant difference at the

p<05 level among the mean scores of the four aesthetic approaches (imitationalist,

expressionist, formalist, pragmatic) on criteria recommended for inclusion on the state

rubric.

3. What are differences in teacher selection o f aesthetic approach criteria related to the

value they place on teaching different kinds o f art content? Written as four null

hypotheses:

A. There is no significant relationship between the imitationalist aesthetic approach

score and having students draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation (item

VTI-2).

90


B. There is no significant relationship between the expressionist aesthetic

approach score and having students express their feelings or attitudes (item VI1-6).

C. There is no significant relationship o f between the formalist aesthetic approach

score and having students use elements and/or principles to create abstract or non

objective art (items VII-1 and VII-3).

D. There is no significant relationship between the instrumental aesthetic approach

score and having students create functional art or communicate social, political, or

personal messages (items VTI-5 and VTI-4).

Three other questions will be examined that relate to the demographic data.

4. How many students are taught by elementary, middle, and high school teachers,

respectively?

5. What are the percentages of teachers who attended staff development or college

classes on assessment in the last two years?


classes on art assessment?

91


Relationship to the Literature

Beliefs have been regarded as one’s evaluation o f the truth or falsehood o f something...The term ‘opinion’ is o f a similar nature...an opinion is what a person believes to be factually true. (Severy, 1974, p. 2)

Most educational surveys reviewed were not subject-specific, rather they sampled

teachers o f all subjects as a class. The Educational Research Service conducted major

teacher opinion polls in 1984 and 1985 using national samples o f K.-12 teachers. Though

teachers were asked to identify the level at which they taught, they were not asked to

identify the subjects they taught. Self-administered, anonymous, written questionnaires

included demographics, status and experience questions, and opinions o f current issues. A

Likert scale was used to obtain a range o f responses. With a population o f over two

million teachers, names were randomly selected in the ratio o f one teacher in the sample

for every thousand in the population (Educational Research Service, 1984, 1985). Pena

and Henderson (1986) studied the sampling procedures used for national surveys o f public

school teachers. They found that representativeness and adequacy were basic criteria o f

good sampling procedures. In addition, results indicated that bias was the result o f a lack

of randomness due to incomplete returns or to oversampling one group of respondents. A

major problem was the incompleteness o f the sampling frame, or list o f the total

population. “The inherent problems in sampling teachers are the availability o f home

telephone numbers, the difficulty o f accessing teachers through the districts, and the

absence o f nationwide data sets” (Pena & Henderson, 1986, p.l). This problem exists in

Missouri where the Department o f Elementary and Secondary Education records list

92


teachers’ names for the preceding year. Therefore, teachers who have retired or moved

from one district or school to another may not be located.

Studies were also reviewed to suggest ways o f reporting survey data. In some o f

the studies reviewed, a 5 or 6 point Likert scale was be collapsed. For example, the

Center for Education Statistics (1987) national survey o f K-12 private school teachers’

opinions used a six point scale on the survey questionnaire. However, when analyzing the

data, ratings of 1, 2, and 3 were grouped to indicate disagreement, while ratings o f 4, 5,

and 6 were grouped to indicate agreement. A similar reporting technique was used in this

study. Teachers who rate a criterion as important (rating of 4) or very important (rating

o f 5) were grouped into a category labeled “important”.

In another educational research study, Henderson (1991) surveyed Texas K-12

classroom teachers (undifferentiated by subject taught) to determine their common

characteristics. A questionnaire was used with 78 discrete questions, three continuous

data questions, and one open-ended question. Questions were answered on a Scantron

Form 882. The return rate was 40% and no follow-up mailing was done. This study

adopted the use o f discrete and open-ended questions. However, in an effort to increase

the response rate, teachers were asked to circle and write on the survey rather than using a

Scantron form (which could be perceived as less personal) and follow-up mailings were

conducted.

National surveys of art teachers that included questions on assessment practices

were done by Burton (1998) for the United States, and MacGregor, Lemerise, Potts, and

Roberts (1993) for Canada. Likert scales were used to obtain teachers’ attitudes and

93


opinions and checklists were used to identify practices. In both cases, results were

reported in percentages o f teachers falling into each category. Sabol (1994), Finlayson

(1988) and Peeno (1996) conducted surveys o f state departments o f education to give

progress reports on state assessment of the arts. Both Sabol and Finlayson analyzed

copies of state tests, then categorized and summarized the content covered. Peeno

obtained information from telephone interviews about each state’s time line for art testing

and the format o f those tests.

In this study, art teachers’ professional opinions will be elicited to identify criteria

for assessment o f K-12 students’ art production and reflection. Local school districts are

responsible for assessing standards which are not included in the statewide Missouri Fine

Arts Assessment (Missouri State Board o f Education, 1996). The results o f this study

will be used by the Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task Force, Department of Elementary

and Secondary Education, as it develops a rubric for local assessment o f state standards.

For this purpose, a survey instrument was developed, pilot tested in May, 1998, and

revised. Douglas Broughton (1999), chief examiner for the International Baccalaureate,

has written that assessment in the multi-faceted, postmodern era, may necessitate

“windows” of grouped criteria that can be matched with the intent and cultural context of

particular student products. Aesthetic theories o f art provide a structure for recognizing

the various intents and purposes for which artworks are created (Lankford, 1992).

Therefore, the aesthetic theories o f imitationalism, expressionism, formalism, and

instrumentalism were used as categorical windows for sets o f related criteria in the Art

Criteria Survey.

94


How will the Study Answer the Research Questions?

Which criteria fo r assessing student art production do art teachers recommendfor

inclusion on a state rubric?

A quantitative approach was selected as the best means for obtaining agreement.

By using a survey format with a five point Likert rating scale, all teachers will be

considering the same criteria with consistent measures o f emphasis. An open-ended

qualitative approach was not selected as teachers’ responses would have been limited to

the criteria they have traditionally used, and their answers might not be aligned with the

standards which are to be assessed. To provide teachers with a list of criteria that

represent best practice in the field, examples o f criteria were compiled from: art education

text and professional books (Armstrong, 1994 & 1999; Beattie, 1997; Boughton, 1996 &

1999; Chapman, 1978; Clark, Zimmerman & Zurmuhlen, 1987; Eisner, 1972; Gaitskell,

Hunvitz, & Day, 1982; Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987;); journal articles (Blaikie, 1994;

Burton 1998; Clark & Zimmerman, 1984; Gardner, 1989 Zimmerman, 1992); assessment

rubrics used by other states, provinces, and countries (Alberta Department o f Education,

1993; Board o f Education o f the City o f New York, 1997; Boughton, 1996; Finlayson,

1988; Gaston, 1997; Karpati, 1995; Kentucky, 1996; MacGregor, Lemerise, Potts, &

Roberts, 1993; Manitoba Department o f Education and Training, 1990; Maryland State

Department o f Education, 1990; Sabol, 1994); ARTS PROPEL (Gardner, 1989; Winner

& Simmons, 1992; W olf & Pistone, 1991); the Advanced Placement Art Portfolio Review

95


(Educational Testing Service, 1992); the International Baccalaureate (International

Baccalaureate, 1996); local school districts (Columbia Public Schools K-12 Art

Curriculum, 1998; Fairfax, VA County Curriculum, 1999; Huffman, 1998; Indiana

Department o f Education, 1988; Monett School District, 1999; Mundelein, Illinois

Assessment Rubrics, 1999; Vermont Arts Assessment Project, 1995; Wisconsin State

Department o f Public Instruction, 1995); and focus groups at the Missouri Art Education

Association Spring Conference, 1999 (Venet, 1999).

Are there differences among aesthetic approach criteria selected by teachers fo r judging

student art products?

Aesthetic approaches can influence the kind o f criteria that teachers consider

important for assessment (Jeffers, 1999; Armstrong, 1999). Four aesthetic approach sets

of criteria were included in the survey: Imitationalism, Expressionism, Formalism, and

Instrumentalism. Each aesthetic philosophy was described by four criteria. Summative

scores in each category were compared to determine if a difference exists in the degree to

which teachers consider the criteria important in assessing student work. Boughton

(1999) suggests that there should be “windows” of criteria that can be matched to the

cultural context o f students being assessed. If his theory is demonstrated by teachers

responses, then it would suggest that a single set of criteria is insufficient, instead,

interchangeable sets might be matched to the intent o f the student artist.

96


Are differences in teacher selection o f aesthetic approach criteria related to the value

they place on teaching different kinds o f art content?

Since teacher assessment could be expected to mirror values evident in their

selection o f art content to teach, correlations among aesthetic approach sets and particular

content taught were calculated. If aesthetic sets do exist, then internal validity would be

demonstrated by high correlations between lesson content and assessment criteria.

Subjects

The population for this study was K-12 art teachers currently teaching in the state

of Missouri. The frame used to identify the population was a list o f 2065 art teachers

obtained from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Thirty-

five art teachers from Columbia Public Schools were deleted from the population because

they had been subjects in the pilot test of the survey instrument, leaving a list o f art

teachers is 2030. The sample size in doctoral dissertations reviewed was generally 15% to

20 % o f the population. A random sample o f 382 teachers, 19% o f the population, was

selected by starting from a random point on the list and referring to a SAS generated list

of random numbers.

A limitation o f the study is that the only available frame, Missouri Department of

Elementary and Secondary Education records, lists teachers employed for the previous

97


year by district and school. Pena and Henderson (1986) critiqued the sampling procedures

used for surveys o f teachers. They discuss the inadequacy o f State Department lists o f

teachers as a frame, however, they agree that this is still the best list available. Transfers

among school buildings and districts is common for art teachers since art is offered as an

elective after grade six. As annual enrollments change, art teachers’ jobs change.

Surveys that could not be completed due to teachers’ retirements or transfers to other

school were eliminated from the sample, lowering the total N o f the sample.

Two questions of sample stratification were considered before being dismissed.

The first was grade level stratification. Multiple grade levels are taught concurrently by

many art teachers, particularly those in small or rural districts. Since many art teachers

also travel among school buildings, if stratified by grade level, it could be possible for the

same teacher to be selected in all three grade-level sample groups raising the concern of

oversampling. Therefore, no attempt was made to stratify the sample by grade level

taught. Instead, teachers were asked to self-report the grade levels they teach as well as

to indicate which o f three grade level categories they are considering when completing the

survey. If they teach at more than one level, teachers were offered the opportunity to

copy the survey and respond to the statements from a second, or third grade-level

perspective. The question o f regional stratification was also considered. Larry Peeno,

Missouri Supervisor for Fine Arts indicated (phone conversation, August 26, 1999) that

since the Show Me Standards are a constant for all state teachers, regardless o f region,

community, or school size, he believes that a random sample were sufficient. In order to

be certain that all regions are represented, and to look for skewness toward any region,

98


the surveys were identified by district code from which the location of respondents was

tracked.

The Instrument

Questionnaires and interviews are used extensively in educational research to collect information that is not directly observable (p. 288)...Questionnaires have two advantages over interviews for collecting research data: The cost o f sampling respondents over a wide geographic area is lower, and the time required to collect the data typically is much less. (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996, p.289)

According to Bourque and Fielder (1995) a checklist to determine when to use a

self-administered mail questionnaire listed the following criteria.

Respondents are literate and can answer all questions.Respondents are motivated.

They want to know the information.They feel part o f a group that has reason to want the information.

The topic is amenable to study, (p. 30)

This study met those criteria. Art teachers are literate and able to answer the questions.

As survey results were intended to be given to the Department o f Elementary and

Secondary Education as data for the construction o f a state-wide scoring rubric for local

assessment, teachers should have been motivated to effect the content o f that rubric. The

study is focused, it deals with teachers’ present practice, and questions are written so they

can be answered by everyone in the sample. Therefore, a survey questionnaire was

determined to be the best format for reaching art teachers throughout the state o f

Missouri. While interview or open-ended questions would provide a deeper level o f

99


understanding, it would also provide more shades o f difference. Since the results were

intended to become part o f a scoring rubric, prepared statements, listed as criteria, will

match edthose in a rubric format with the least change in meaning. Krathwohl (1993)

suggests that phrasing and language be understood and appeal to all segments o f the

intended population. In addition to obtaining a clear picture o f teacher opinions, it was

desirable to provide the opportunity for a range o f responses, so a five point Likert, scale

was selected over checklists. Likert’s scale appears to be the most popular in present

research (Severy, 1974; Bertie, 1979). “The goal o f this approach is to generates a series

of statements which reflect the subject’s opinion regarding... the [item] in question”

(Severy, 1974, p.6).

“A small pretest helps ‘debug’ operational procedures: provides a basis for early

check and edit techniques, and aides in the elimination o f ambiguously worded items and

poor overall instrument design” (Bertie, 1979, p, 43). The A rt Assessment Survey

(Appendix, p.295) instrument is a four page questionnaire consisting o f 51 items requiring

responses on a five-point Likert scale where categories are: very important, important, no

opinion, little importance, and no importance. According to Bertie (1979), “it is helpful to

provide the respondent with a safety valve as one o f the options, such as ‘undecided’,

‘don’t know’ or ‘no opinion’” (p.39). The items were grouped into seven categories.

Each addresses a different set o f criteria related to a part o f the art production process. In

addition, there were six demographic questions and eight areas for open-ended comments

at the end of each section.

During the development o f this instrument, feedback was obtained from university

100


professors, (including national art assessment experts who teach at other institutions),

graduate students, and art teachers. Categories o f criteria were discerned from the

literature and a focus group during the Missouri Art Education Association Conference in

February, 1999. In March o f 1999, a six page version o f the instrument was pilot tested

with a group of 35 art teachers in Columbia, Missouri, who were eliminated from the

population for the dissertation study. As a result o f feedback from all sources, the scope

of the instrument changed from portfolio to general production assessment. One factor

was that only 10% of Missouri Art Education Association members who participated in

focus groups indicated that they conducted portfolio assessment. In the pilot

questionnaire, one section asked teachers to indicate the percentage o f class time spent on

different types o f art content, and other questions asked for short essays. After analyzing

the responses, it was determined that both sets of questions should be converted into the

Likert scale format used in the rest of the instrument. Redundant and confusing items

were deleted. Wording was changed in response to suggestions. Suggestions for the

construction o f the survey were taken from Bertie (1979), Gall, Borg & Gall (1996), Fink

(1995), and Krathwohl (1993).

Themes of Questionnaire Categories

Criteria were grouped into categories most frequently mentioned in Chapter Two,

the literature review. They came from a variety o f sources including art education texts,

101


journals, professional books, the Advanced Placement exam, International Baccalaureate

exam, Arts PROPEL, state and school district curriculum guides, and art assessment focus

groups. Each is briefly explained.

What do you assess?

A wide variety o f processes, behaviors and art products are considered as the

subject o f assessment. This category sought information about teachers’ art assessment

practices.

Responding C riteria

This broad category includes oral and written products. Art history, aesthetics,

and art criticism standards can be assessed under this heading (NAEP, 1996). It includes

students’ responses to their own work, self-evaluation according to assignment criteria,

and responses to both historical works and those of peers.

Creating or Process Criteria

This category includes creative thinking and problem-solving considered to be

fundamental to art production (Beattie, 1997 & 1999; Armstrong 1994 & 1999; NAEP,

1996).

Attitude or H abits-of-M ind

On standardized tests, there is no way to assess these qualities o f persistence,

102


respect, ongoing reflection and revision, commitment through difficulty, and

responsiveness to feedback. However, these traits are valued both by researchers who

study portfolio processes (Gardner, 1989; Wolf & Pistone, 1991; Beattie, 1999) and art

teachers (Huffman, 1998; Kotler, 1999; Columbia Public Schools, 1998; Venet, 1999).

A rt Product C riteria

This category o f criteria are those that can be discerned through observation o f the

students’ artwork. Evaluation of the inherent quality o f final artworks are considered o f

primary importance in most approaches to art assessment (Armstrong, 1994; Blaikie,

1992; Gaston, 1997; Beattie, 1997; International Baccalaureate, 1996; Advanced

Placement, 1992; Venet, 1999).

Aesthetic Approach Criteria

This category has not been a traditional part of art assessment. However, a few art

educators have raised the question o f a connection between aesthetics, art production, and

assessment in the literature and at National Art Education Association conference

presentations (Armstrong, 1999; Jeffers, 1999; Jones, 1999). After a century o f formalist

domination, postmodernist thinkers are questioning tradition. Aesthetics was included in

this study to identify existing connections between aesthetics, instruction, and assessment.

Historically, one aesthetic theory at a time prevailed, influencing both artists and

viewers (Rader, 1952; Lankford, 1990). At the end of the twentieth century, travel,

television, popular arts, and the internet have placed various world cultures and their arts

103


in close proximity (Anderson, 1990; Duncum, 1999). Within the United States, cultural

diversity brings contrasting artistic approaches in contact with each other. No longer is

there one aesthetic approach for art. A few art educators are calling for aesthetic

approaches to become an overt part o f the art production process (Armstrong, 1999;

Jones, 1999). Even when covert (Jeffers, 1999), aesthetic philosophies are embedded in

the type of assignments given to a student. One characteristic o f the contemporary,

postmodern era, is the juxtaposition o f art from different cultural and aesthetic contexts

(Clark, 1996). Though the artworld is in a postmodern period, the current practice of art

education is primarily modernist or formalist (Lloyd, 1997). If this is true, then aesthetic

approach criteria for the formalist category will be viewed as important more frequently

that other aesthetic approach categories.

What do you Teach?

This category was included to describe current art education practice in Missouri.

It is hypothesized that correlations will be found between what is taught and the aesthetic

approach criteria judged as important for assessment. This would indicate that aesthetic

theories are embedded in instruction.

Demographics

Demographic information includes the grade level considered when completing the

questionnaire, the number o f students taught, the grade levels taught, years o f teaching

experience, and staff development or college background in assessment. Teachers were

104


also asked to list criteria they use for assessment that were not included in the survey.

Reliability and Validity

It is necessary to minimize error in data collected (Litwin, 1995). To minimize

random error, a sample size was selected to provide in excess of 100 subjects for each

group category. The survey was written to be precise to eliminate as much measurement

error as possible. The instrument did not measure a construct, therefore a split-half

coefficient o f internal consistency (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996) is not being done. A

limitation of the study is that there is no test-retest opportunity to establish that teachers

would rate criteria in an identical manner on a different day.

“The extent to which the answer given is a true measure and means what the

researcher wants or expects it to mean is called v a lid ity (Fowler, 1993, p.80). Content

validity (Litwin, 1995) was established in three ways. After the questionnaire was initially

written, the researcher held focus groups at the Missouri Art Education Association

conference in February, 1999. Teachers were divided into groups o f elementary, middle

level, and high school teachers. Approximately 80 teachers participated. They were

roughly divided into the three grade level groups with slightly fewer in the middle level

group than the other two. There are fewer middle level art educators teaching in Missouri

since there is no state requirement for art at that level. Each teacher was asked to answer

the question: What criteria should be included on state scoring guides for student art

production? Answers were discussed in the small groups, then criteria that received

105


consensus were written on chart paper and reported to the assembled teachers.

Categories that emerged from discussion were: Craftspersonship, Individual

Creativity/Originality, Composition (use o f elements and principles), Growth (student

builds upon previous knowledge), Attitude (citizenship, cooperation, respect for people

and materials, effort, completion o f work, etiquette...), Process (use o f materials,

equipment, vocabulary), Knowledge o f Art History, Art Criticism, and Aesthetics. It was

suggested that there might be separate scoring guides for the art product, the process, and

writing/speaking about art (history, aesthetics, criticism). The report from the focus group

discussions echoed most statements on the questionnaire. Where they did not, the

questionnaire was modified.

The second validation came from mailing the revised questionnaire to nationally

prominent art assessment experts, Carmen Armstrong, author o f D esigning Assessm ent in

A rt (1994) and Including A esthetics in A rt Curriculum Planning (1999), Robert Burton,

chair of the National Art Education Association Demographics Task Force and author o f

A Survey o f Assessm ent and Evaluation am ong U.S. K-12 Teachers o f A rt (1998), and

Donna Kay Beattie, chair o f the National Art Education Association Assessment Task

Force and author o f Assessment in A rt Education (1997). A cover letter asked for

feedback on the questionnaire. I arranged to meet with each o f these experts at the

National Art Education Association Conference in April, 1999 to discuss the survey. In

addition, I received detailed written feedback for both Dr. Armstrong and Dr. Burton.

The questionnaire was revised again based upon their suggestions.

The third opportunity for validation occurred in a pilot test when the survey was

106


mailed to 32 art teachers in the Columbia Public Schools, in Columbia, Missouri. The

format included an open-ended essay question asking “What criteria do you use to assess

student work? Write your answer.” Those responses, along with comments made to

other items on the questionnaire, indicated that survey items were similar to criteria listed

on the survey. Again, based upon responses, the questionnaire was further refined.

Administration o f the Survey

Application was made to and approved by the Review Board for Research

Involving Human Subjects. The survey, a cover letter, and a stamped return addressed

envelope was mailed to a random sample o f 382 art teachers drawn from a list of

approximately 2000 provided by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education. Columbia Public School District art teachers were eliminated from the

population since they had participated in the pilot. The survey was mailed to the sample

population through the school district to which teachers were assigned in the previous

academic year. Since art is provided only one hour per week to elementary students and

on an elective basis to secondary students, art teachers change buildings and districts

more frequently than full-time classroom teachers. This resulted in a lower rate o f return

as some questionnaires never reached the selected participants. A code was used for each

participant to track responses. A follow-up letter and survey were mailed to those who

did not respond by November 29, 1999. A letter was faxed or mailed to building

107


principals of teachers who had not responded by December 15, 1999. To minimize bias

that could result if non-respondents would have answered differently from respondents, a

random sample o f non-respondents was telephoned and asked to complete the survey

orally. Frequency and percentage data from the phone surveys was compared to those of

respondents.

Participation was voluntary, as teachers chose whether to complete and return the

survey. Six teachers responded that they did not choose to participate. They were

included in the sample as non-respondents.

Coding o f Surveys

Surveys were coded to provide identification of respondents by school district and

to allow follow-up letters to be sent to non-respondents.

Optimizing Return Rate

“Generally speaking, almost anything that makes a mail questionnaire look more

professional, more personalized, or more attractive will have some positive effect on

response rates” (Fowler, 1993, p. 45). In order to increase the likelihood that respondents

will complete and return the survey, the following factors were incorporated into the

108


methodology (Bertie, 1979; Fowler, 1993; Krathwohl, 1993; Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996;

Fink, 1995).

The instrument:

• was copied on bright yellow paper

• required the respondent to mark (circle, check, write) on the instrument toeliminate negative reaction toward machine scoring

• uncrowded, clear, easy to read, and limited to four pages with 12 point type

• included the response deadline

The cover letter:

• was personalized using a mail merge program

• was signed with a blue ballpoint pen that leaves an imprint

• appealed to teachers’ desire to have input in a state rubric

• was included the response deadline

The mailing included:

• a stamped-self addressed return envelope

• colorful, special edition stamps on both the packet and return envelopes

Follow-up procedures were:

• a second survey and modified cover letter were mailed to non-respondents

• a third letter was faxed or mailed to each non-respondent’s building principal

• fourth, phone surveys were conducted with a random sample o f non-respondents


Data Analysis

Criteria were grouped into categories to clarify the intention o f each statement and

make the layout o f the instrument easy to read and complete. Whether criteria within a

category were correlated was a question o f interest, but not essential for the purpose of

the survey. Rather, it was important to determine which o f the individual criteria were

thought to be important enough to be used on a rubric for large-scale

performance/production assessment.

Data for Likert responses to items in categories: Responding Criteria, Creating

Criteria, Attitude Criteria, Art Product Criteria, and Aesthetic Approach Criteria (A

Formalist, B Expressionist, C Instrumental/Pragmatic, D Imitationalist/Mimetic treated

separately) were analyzed for response frequencies and percentages o f total sample.

Scores were obtained for each item from a rating scale: very important, important, no

opinion, little importance, no importance. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient analyzes were

computed to determine whether each category represented a scale with internal reliability

(Hatcher & Stepanski, 1996). A one-way Analysis o f Variance was used to compare

mean scores among elementary, middle, and high school teachers on each criteria. For

criteria found to exhibit differences significant at the p<05 level, Tukey’s Post Hoc

Comparisons were calculated to determine the confidence level after accounting for Type I

errors which can occur when a null hypothesis is rejected. Finally, follow-up Contrasts

were run to determine where differences occurred. Since the purpose o f this survey is to

determine which criteria should be included on a state rubric, only two categories, very

110


important, and important were considered. The two were summed to represent the

frequency and percentage of teachers who believe it is important for the item to be

included on the rubric.

Seventy-percent agreement was determined (with input from Larry Peeno,

Missouri Fine Arts Supervisor) to be the cut off for recommending a criterion be included

on the state rubric. The rationale for this choice was based upon a belief that if most

teachers agreed that the criteria were important, they would be more likely to use the

rubric for state assessment. Significant differences between teachers of different grade

levels indicate varying priorities and therefore, suggest that separate elementary, middle,

and high school rubrics should be considered.

Descriptive statistics were computed for categories: Demographics, What do you

Assess? and What do you Teach? The data is presented in Chapter Four in Tables 1, 2, 3,

4, and 8.

Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients were calculated for scores on

categories o f aesthetic approaches and teaching content. A correlation o f .7 or higher was

interpreted to mean that teachers value assessment criteria that are consistent with the

information they think it is important to teach. This indicated internal reliability for part of

the survey instrument.

Interview and written responses were recorded. The data were reviewed to look

for patterns where either identical words were used or the same idea was described in

slightly different ways. Those that were similar were grouped together and tallied. The

data are reported in descending order by the frequency o f similar comments that were

111


written independently by more than one teacher. Comments that typified a particular

perspective have been quoted. Since written responses followed each section o f the

questionnaire, the results are discussed along with the statistical findings by section.

112


CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

Introduction

The purpose o f this study was to provide a rubric development model for states or

school districts to use when designing large-scale authentic assessments. The key to

performance-based assessment is the development o f rubrics which can be used to score

diverse artworks and writings. Specifically, this study was intended to determine which

criteria were important for inclusion on a state rubric for the local assessment of Show-Me

Standards fo r M issouri Schools (1996).

The results o f this study are discussed in nine parts, corresponding to the

questionnaire categories and research questions: (1) Demographics, (2) What do you

Assess? (3) Responding Criteria, (4) Creating or Process Criteria, (5) Attitude or Habits-

of-Mind Criteria, (6) Art Product Criteria, (7) Aesthetic Approach Criteria, (8) What do

you Teach? (9) Relationship Between Aesthetics and Instruction. Parts one through eight

address the main research question: Which criteria for assessing student art production do

art teachers recommend for inclusion on a state rubric? and subquestions: What are

differences among elementary (k-5), middle (6-8), and high school (9-12) teachers’

selections o f criteria used to judge student art products? and What are differences among

aesthetic approach criteria selected by teachers forjudging student art products? The

113


ninth section o f this chapter addresses the research subquestion: What are differences in

teacher selection o f aesthetic approach criteria related to the value they place on teaching

different kinds of art content?

Criteria had been grouped for the survey but had not been previously tested to

determine if each category would function as a reliable scale. To answer the main

research question, the presentation o f results focuses on individual criteria and their

relevance for teachers at different grade levels rather than on categories o f criteria,

therefore an ANOVA was conducted for each individual hem. In the tables, each criterion

is followed by the percentage (rounded to the nearest whole number) o f elementary,

middle, and high school level teachers who indicated it was important for inclusion on a

Missouri art rubric. The hypotheses stated that the level o f significance being sought was

alpha=.05. In cases where the actual alpha level indicated a stronger probability, the

actual level of significance is reported.

For the stated purpose o f determining which criteria should be included on a

generic rubric, only those deemed “important” are reported. The survey utilized a five-

point Likert scale. However, in the analysis, categories labeled “important” and “very

important” were collapsed and treated as one unit called “important” to simplify the

decision about which should be used on a state art assessment rubric. Percentages o f

teachers who rated the item “undecided”, “little importance”, or “no importance” are not

reported in this document but are available to interested researchers. A criteria will be

recommended for inclusion on the state rubric if at least 70% of teachers in a grade level

category rated it “important”.

114


The population was Missouri art teachers. A list was provided by the Missouri

Department o f Elementary and Secondary Education that included each art teacher’s

name, the district and school code, school address, school phone number, and school fax

number, if available. The sample was selected by generating a list o f random numbers

using the SAS statistical program. This random sample consisted o f 382 individuals, 19%

of a reported population o f2030. Thirty-five Columbia Public Schools art teachers were

excluded from the population as they had participated in the pilot study. Thirty-eight

subjects who had retired or moved were removed from the sample resulting in a sample o f

344 individuals. The number o f surveys returned was 259, a return rate o f 75% of the

sample, and 13% o f the total population. An additional 8 teachers, randomly selected

from the group o f non-respondents, completed the survey as part o f a phone interview,

increasing the percentage of participating teachers to 78%. The interviewed non-

respondents’ ratings, generally similar to those o f mail respondents, are listed later in this

chapter.

Part One: Demographic Variables

Many configurations exist in the grades levels taught by Missouri art teachers.

They range from K-12 teachers to those who teach a single grade level. Teachers were

asked to select one grade level category (elementary K-5, middle 6-8, or high school 9-12)

when responding to the survey. However, participants who taught more than one grade

level were allowed to photocopy the survey and complete it from the perspective o f a

115


second and/or third grade level category.

O f the 259 teachers who returned surveys, 110 selected elementary for their first

response, 11 copied the survey after first responding to either middle or high school thus

the total number o f elementary surveys was 121. Fifty-one teachers selected middle level

for their first response, 13 copied the survey after first responding to either elementary or

high school thus the total number o f middle level surveys was 64. Ninety-six teachers

selected high school for their first response, 9 copied the survey after first responding to

either elementary or middle levels thus the total number o f high school surveys was 105.

Teachers were also asked to circle each grade level they were currently teaching. The

frequencies for each grade level are shown in Table 1.

The reduction in numbers of teachers at the middle level is a reflection o f Missouri

education requirements. Missouri requires art to be taught for 50 minutes per week at the

elementary level. Departmentalized middle or junior high schools are required only to

offer art as an elective. In some middle schools art is taught as part o f a “wheel” in which

all students are enrolled in art for one block (ranging from 5-8 weeks). In those programs,

all students in a grade level will rotate through art in the course o f a year. At the high

school level students must obtain one unit o f fine arts credit to graduate. This credit can

be earned in any fine arts area including visual art, theater, music, dance or humanities.

116


Table 1.

Frequency o f Grade Levels Currently Taught bv Art Teachers in Sample

Grade Level Frequency n=292*

K 136

1 140

2 147•*>j 147

4 146

5 136

6 116

7 109

8 109

9 119

10 124

11 126

12 126

* n=292 some inflation is due to teachers who completed multiple surveys

Table 2 indicates the number o f years o f teaching experience for art teachers in the

sample. The majority o f teachers have more than five years of experience. This either

represents typical experience for Missouri art teachers, or experience may have been a

factor in causing teachers to complete and return the survey. One teacher interviewed by

phone as part o f the follow-up sample of non-respondents volunteered that she had not

completed the previously mailed surveys because, as a second-year teacher, she felt she

117


had little to contribute. O f non-respondents interviewed, 38% had taught 1-5 years, 25%

for 6-10 years, and 38% for 21=years.

Table 2.

Years o f Teaching Experience for Art Teachers in the Sample

Range o f Years % o f K-12 Teachers

1-5 20

6-10 14

11-20 32

21+ 33

n=259

Teachers indicated the number o f students they taught each year in Table 3. There

is a large discrepancy among the number of art students taught by elementary, middle

level, and high school art teachers. Elementary art teachers have the largest caseloads but

meet less frequently with each student. Since 50 minutes o f art per week is required for

elementary students, most elementary art teachers must teach 20-30 classrooms of

students each week. Middle level schools vary greatly in the programs they offer to their

students. Many buildings rotate art with other “exploration” subjects so that the art

teacher is responsible for art instruction with all students during the year. High school

courses meet one class period (approximately 50 minutes on a traditional schedule) per

118


day for a year in order to fulfill requirements for a graduation unit of credit. Elementary

teachers’ comments indicated that although they value portfolios, rough drafts, and

written reflections, they did not use them due to limited teaching time and large numbers

o f students they taught each week.

Table 3.

Number o f Art Students Taught in a Year bv Grade Level

Number of

Art Students

* % Elementary

Teachers n=l21

% Middle

Teachers n=64

% High

Teachers n=105

1-99 3 15 23

101-199 5 25 61

200-399 25 25 13

400-599 52 20 2

600+ 15 14 1

* Percentages have been rounded to nearest whole number

Geographic location o f respondents was tracked with a county code written on the

surveys. Responses were received from 85 o f the 115 counties in Missouri. More schools

from highly populated counties in Kansas City, St. Louis, and Springfield metropolitan

areas were in the frame and, therefore, the sample included more teachers from those

regions than less populated areas of the state. No statistical analysis was done on this

data. It’s purpose was to confirm that the sample was geographically dispersed across the

119


state.

Teachers were asked if they had attended staff development or college classes on

assessment in the last two years. Seventy-seven percent o f all teachers answered “yes” .

Fifty-four percent o f all teachers indicated they had attended staff development or college

classes on art assessment in the last two years. Teachers were interested in continuing

education in assessment. Since only 20% o f respondents had been teaching 5 or less

years, the majority of art teachers in the sample would have taken graduate classes or

attended staff development in order to be informed about assessment.

Part Two: What do Art Teachers Assess?

Table 4 illustrates the percentage o f elementary, middle level, and high school art

teachers who believe it is important to assess a variety o f art products. Frequencies and

percentages were calculated by teachers’ selection o f a grade level category. The “final

product” was considered important by 93% o f elementary, 95% o f middle level, and 98%

of high school teachers. The other product considered important by greater than 70% of

all teachers was the “student’s self-evaluation” . Results were analyzed using a one-way

ANOVA between-groups design, followed by Tukey’s Post Hoc Comparisons and

Contrasts (Tables 36-48 in Appendix) were calculated for each criteria to isolate the

significant differences among teachers by level taught. There were significant contrasts

between elementary and high school teachers’ mean scores on the importance o f assessing:

120


“rough drafts”, p< 0007; and the “final product”, p< 029. Significant differences were

found between elementary and middle level teachers, p< 0019, and between elementary

and high school teachers, p< 0002 on the importance of assessing “art criticism” .

Significant differences were found between elementary and middle level teachers, p<.0001,

and between elementary and high school teachers, p<.0001 on the importance o f assessing

“art historical writing”. Significant differences were found between elementary and middle

level teachers, p< 01, and between elementary and high school teachers, p<.0001 on the

importance o f assessing “portfolio of student work”.

121


Table 4.

Products Considered Important for Teachers to Assess

Type o f Product

Percentages rounded to nearest whole number

ElementaryK -5%

Middle6-8%

High9-12%

Rough drafts or process sketches, *p<0007 between elementary-high school

54 65 74

Final product,*p<.029 between elementary-high school

93 95 98

Aesthetic reflections about own or other artists’ work

65 69 76

Art criticism analysis of own/other artists’ work, *p< 0002 between elementary-middle and *p<0019 between elementary-high school

60 78 80

Art historical writing,*p< 0001 between elementary-middle and *p< 0001 between elementary-high school

15 37 39

Student’s self-evaluation 71 79 85

Portfolio of student work,*p< 01 between elementary-middle and *p<0001 between elementary-high school

44 61 75

*In Appendix: ANOVA Tables 35,38,41, 45; Tukey’s Tables 36, 39, 42, 46; Contrasts Tables 37, 40, 43, 47. Alpha level o f significant contrasts is shown below criteria.The number of respondents is:Elementary teachers. K-S, n=l 10 who completed the survey on the yellow paperElementary teachers, K-5. n=l 1 who copied the survey, responding first to middle or high schoolTotal elementary teachers, K-S, n=121Middle level teachers, 6-8, n=51 who completed the survey on the yellow paperMiddle level teachers, 6-8, n=I3 who copied the survey, responding first to elementary or high schoolTotal middle level teachers, 6-8, n=64High school teachers, 9-12, n=96 who completed the survey on the yellow paperHigh school teachers, 9-12, n=9 who copied the survey, responding first to elementary or middleTotal High School Teachers, 9-12, n=105Total teachers who returned the survey. K-12, n=259

122


Portfolio Assessment

Table 5.

Additional Products Teachers Assess Comments

Statement listed under comments Number o f Teachers

Sketches, journals, rough drafts, process 9

Attitude, behavior 8

Work ethic, effort 7

Tests 6

In process work 5

Follow directions 4

Art history 4

Craftsmanship, media skill 4

Elements and principles of art 4

Use o f rubrics 4

Reports or term papers 4

Research on styles, cultures tied to assignment 4

Knowledge o f art vocabulary terms 4

Daily participation 3

Masterworks identification 3

Writing 3

Neatness 3

Working in a group when applicable 3

Effort 3

Finish on time 3

There were two open-ended comment sections related to student

123


portfolios. The first asked what else teachers assessed, results o f which are in Table 5.

Some teachers commented about what they do not assess. Three mentioned that

portfolios were not used due to a lack o f storage space, one mentioned that time

constraints didn’t allow for aesthetics, criticism, or history to be taught. A typical

statement was made by an elementary art teacher:

We do not use a formalized assessment in our school district. I know this will be forthcoming. My concerns are how can you fairly evaluate 600 pieces o f artwork? What will this do to the discovery and experiential process for the elementary student?

Teachers who indicated that they assessed portfolios were asked to itemize the

contents of their students’ portfolios. Most teachers indicated that their portfolios

contained final art products (n=38), and that the portfolio also contained all works over a

period o f time such as a grading period or semester (n=35). Many (n=24) also included

the student’s self evaluation. Table 6 shows the comments mentioned by 3 o r more

teachers.

124


Table 6.

What is included in Student Portfolios Comments

Art Product Number o f Teachers

Finished product 38

All student work for a grading period/semester 35

Self-evaluation/reflections 24

Rough drafts or sketches 19

Depth and breadth (range o f 2-D and 3-D) 16

Daily exercises/process 13

Evaluation sheets/rubrics from teacher/peers 12

Journal writings 11

Aesthetic reflections/journals 10

V ocabulary/handouts/notes 10

Art criticism about masterworks/cultures 8

Do not use portfolios in elementary 8

Technical or process skills 6

Improvement 6

Sketchbook 5

Portraits 5

Perspective 5

Peer critique 4

Still life 4

Assess only advanced high school students 4

Homework 4

Graphite drawings 3

Elements and principles assignments 3

Vocabulary 3

125


Part Three: Responding Criteria

The survey category of “Responding” criteria focused on art products which do

not involve studio production. They include the disciplines o f art history, art criticism, and

aesthetics which are required by the Show-Me Standards fo r M issouri Schools (1996), and

Frameworks fo r M issouri Schools (1996). Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient test was used

determine if scores on “Responding” individual criteria were correlated and therefore

could be considered a reliable scale. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates exceeded .70

(considered a rule o f thumb for determining significance) and are reported on the diagonal

of Table 7 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994).

126


Table 7.

Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for “Responding” Criteria

for RAW variables: 0.74

for STANDARDIZED variables: 0.74

Raw Variables Std. Variables

DeletedVariable

Correlation with Total Alpha


n i 0.50 0.69 0.50 0.70

112 0.51 0.69 0.51 0.69

113 0.44 0.71 0.45 0.72

114 0.54 0.68 0.54 0.68

115 0.51 0.69 0.52 0.69

K-12 n=273

Frequencies and percentages o f individual Responding category criteria were

analyzed for each group o f teachers. Each criterion was viewed as being increasingly

important as students moved through the K-12 school system except for criteria two,

“identifies connections among arts and with other subjects”. Based upon elementary and

middle level teachers’ comments, thematic integration is most important at the elementary

level, is used in middle schools, and is not considered very important at the high school

127


level. All criteria were considered important by more than 70% o f teachers and would be

recommended for inclusion on a state rubric. ANOVA indicated that a significant

contrast, p< 006, was found between elementary and high school teacher’s mean scores

for the criteria “uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate artworks” .

“Student self-evaluation” was significantly different, p<007, between elementary and

middle level teachers, and, p<02, between elementary and high school teachers. These

results are shown in Table 8.

Teachers responded with open-ended comments about Responding to Art criteria.

The most frequently mentioned comment involved self- evaluation. A K-12 art teacher

wrote, “Self-evaluation permits a student to make aesthetic reflections and technical

observations about work. It also promotes and reinforces problem-solving”. Another K-

12 art teacher explained, “My main objective in this area is to make sure that students

value their own work and appreciate the time and effort of other students. I also want

them to have an appreciation for various artists, styles, periods, methods, and time

periods”. A high school teacher commented, “I believe in DBAE [discipline-based art

education] but find my students rebel against writing in art. At this point I am holding

off.. .Next year and an 8 block schedule will give me time I need to change”. Another high

school teacher expressed similar sentiments, “I feel these are all very important but it is

very difficult to get most of my students to take them seriously”.

128


Table 8.

Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Student ResponseCriteria

Type of Response

Percentages rounded to whole numbers

Explains perceptions of artwork

Identifies connections among arts and with other subjects

Uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate artworks,*p< 006 between elementary-high school

Student self-evaluates,*p< 007 between elementary- middle and *p< 02 between elementary-high school

Elementary Middle HighK- 5 6-8 9-12n=110 n=51 n=96% % %

76 82 79

79 77 73

72 82 80

86 92 94

79 87 87

Relates art from historical periods, movements, and/or cultures to own work

* in Appendix: ANOVA Tables 50, 53; Tukey’s Tables 51, 54; Contrasts Tables 52, 55; were computed with mean scores o f elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. The p value for Alpha level o f significant contrasts are indicated below the statement.

Teachers’written comments regarding the Responding category are displayed in

Table 9.

129


Table 9 .

Responding to Art Comments

Self-evaluation is very important 13

At elementary, integrating art with other subjects has a dramatic effect 5

Writing and speaking about artworks in proper art vocabulary is very important 4

Ideally I find these important. Realistically my schedule does not allow me to 4do most when I evaluate work.

Art history-based projects 3

At middle school, we do big projects on history integrated with social studies 3

At elementary level we just start introducing these ideas, don’t assess them 3

Basic writing (terms, poem) as intro to artwork with grades 3, 4, 5 2

This is all important 2

Depends upon the level taught 2

Explains perceptions is very important 2

Explaining perceptions is very important but not assessed 2

Know the value o f differences in individual expression 2

Critique 2

I am not sure what this means 2

130


Part Four: Creating or Process Criteria

Process criteria were correlated using Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient. The raw

score was less than .7, therefore this category can not be treated as a reliable scale.

Frequencies, shown in Table 10, indicated support for “correctly uses assigned processes,

media, and techniques”; “demonstrates problem-solving process”; and “demonstrates

originality, creativity, or inventiveness”, and suggest these be included on a state rubric.

On the other hand, “documents process in sketchbook or journal entries” should not be

part o f the rubric based upon the percentages and comments. ANOVA, Tukey’s Post Hoc

Comparison, and Contrasts were calculated for each criteria, comparing mean scores o f

the three grade level groups o f art teachers. The only criteria that showed a significant

difference, alpha=.05, was “documents process in sketchbook or journal entries”, where

the contrast for elementary - middle was p<.005 and between elementary - high school

teachers, p<0002.

131


Table 10.

Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Process Criteria

Type of Process


Elementary K -5 n=l 10%

Middle6-8n=51%

High9-12n=96%

Correctly uses assigned processes, media, and techniques

98 100 96

Demonstrates problem-solving process: brainstorms, develops and revises idea, produces final product, self-evaluates

96 95 100

Demonstrates originality, creativity or inventiveness

98 98 100

Documents process in sketchbook or journal entries, *p<005 between elementary and middle level and, *p<0002between elementary and high school level

32 47 52

*In Appendix: ANOVA Table 56, Tukey’s Table 57, Contrasts Table 58 compared mean scores o f elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. Alpha level o f significant contrasts are indicated below the statement.

Teachers had the opportunity to write open-ended comments about Creating or

Process criteria. Comments mentioned by three or more writers are displayed on Table

11. Typical o f many comments, an elementary art teacher said, “There is very little time in

art class for this kind o f reflection. Ideally it would be great but kids expect to ‘work’ in

my room, not write reflectively1’. A middle school teacher expressed, “O f my coworkers

132


(five teachers at middle level), three assign sketchbooks. I have found that my extra credit

drawing projects work well for me. Students who struggle are overwhelmed by

sketchbooks”. A high school teacher focused on a common dilemma, “The first criteria

[correctly uses assigned processes, media and techniques] seems vague. How can I assess

Tania who breaks all the rules o f process, but turns out exciting pieces to Carl who does

everything by the rules and there is no ‘life’ in his work?” Another high school teacher

offered another perspective, “It is a delight to see a student though all o f the criteria.

They are learning to learn if they meet these objectives.”

Table 11.

Creating or Process Criteria Comments


Don’t find time to do sketchbook or journals in elementary/middle levels 7

Journal documents process/production 4

Developing and revising/problem-solving are most important 4

Unique approach to media beyond demonstrated technique is important 3

Creativity/originality are important 3

Do not use sketchbooks or journals in elementary 3

In middle school, the “good students” have sketchbooks of their own. The 3others don’t care and don’t do them. I don’t assign them anymore.

133


Part Five: Attitude or Habits of Mind Criteria

Correlation among criteria was calculated using Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient.

The raw score was less than .7, therefore, this category can not be treated as a reliable

scale. In this category more than 90% o f art teachers at all grade levels answered that

each criteria was important, therefore, all would be recommended for inclusion on a state

rubric. ANOVA, Tukey’s Post Hoc comparisons, and Contrasts were calculated for each

criteria, comparing mean scores of the three grade level groups o f art teachers. Only one

criteria “shows commitment, pursues problem through revisions” demonstrated a

significant contrast, p<01, between elementary and high school. The high percentages

might represent a philosophical viewpoint mentioned in teacher comments. Many art

teachers believe that all students can be successful in art if they follow directions and put

forth effort. On a large scale assessment, it would be difficult to factor in habits-of-mind

criteria. At the classroom level, which is were local assessment will most likely take place,

these criteria are considered appropriate. Results are shown in Table 12.

134


Table 12.

Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Attitude or Habits

of Mind Criteria

Type o f Attitude



Middle6-8n=51%

High9-12n=96%

Is persistently on task 95 98 99

Respects materials, equipment, other students and their art

99 97 100

Shows commitment, pursues problems throughrevisions,*p<01 between elementary and high school

92 97 99

Is responsive to teacher’s feedback 94 90 97

*In Appendix: ANOVA Table 59; Tukey’s Table 60; Contrasts Table 61 compared mean scores o f elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. Alpha level o f significant contrasts are indicated below the statement.

Teacher comments included a debate over whether students should take a

teacher’s feedback. One teacher wrote, “students are not expected to take my suggestions

unless it fits their vision”. Another art teacher presented a different point o f view, “The

student may choose to follow his/her own notion of design, but I feel they need to be

receptive to the instruction input” . A third commented, “I expect students to listen to my

advice but make their own decisions” . The comment section responses are listed in Table

13.

135


Table 13.

Attitude/Habits o f Mind Comments


Determination, hard work, persistently on task 10

Students should follow their own vision rather than the teachers 7

Responsibility 5

Discipline 3

Respect for people’s work 3

Part Six: Art Product Criteria

Correlation among Art Product criteria was calculated using Cronbach’s Alpha

Coefficient. The raw score was less than .7, therefore this category can not be treated as a

reliable scale. Frequencies and percentages were computed for each teaching level on

each Art Product criteria, and are shown on Table 14. All criteria were important to more

than 70% of art teachers and should be included on a state art assessment rubric with the

exception of “artwork includes relevant art historical influences” which should not be

included. ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, and contrasts were calculated for each criteria,

136


comparing mean scores o f the three grade level groups o f art teachers. Two criteria were

significantly different. One criteria that showed a significant difference among teachers of

three grade levels, alpha=.05, was “demonstrates technical skill or craftspersonship”,

p< 05 between elementary-middle, and p<0001 between elementary-high school. The

other criteria that showed a significant difference among teachers o f three grade levels,

alpha=.05, was “demonstrates planned, effective composition”, p<01 between

elementary-middle, and p< 0002 between elementary-high school.

137


Table 14.

Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Art Product Criteria

Type o f Product



Middle6-8n=51%

High9-12n=96%

Demonstrates technical skill or craftspersonship. *p<05 between elementary and middle level *p>.0001 between elementary and high school

83 90 95

Demonstrates planned, effective composition *p<01 between elementary and middle *p<0002 between elementary and high school

87 97 97

Work shows improvement from past products 92 94 93

Artwork includes relevant art historical influences 45 48 56

Demonstrates assigned concepts, processes, elements, and/or principles

95 97 98

Intent o f artist is communicated 77 79 85

*In Appendix: ANOVA Tables 62, 65; Tukey’s Tables 63, 67; Contrasts Tables 64, 67; compared mean scores of elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. The alpha level of significant contrasts are shown below the statement.

Under the teacher comment section for art product criteria, the highest frequency

o f responses related to art historical influences on student work. Several teachers

indicated that these criteria depended upon the assignment and type o f work. Table 15

shows comments made by three or more independent respondents.

138


Table 15.

Art Product Criteria Comments


Historical influences if it is a focus o f the assignment 9

Depends upon the assignment 6

Spelled out in rubric 3

Part Seven: Aesthetics Criteria

This study focused on the four aesthetic theories that were most relevant to K-12

art education: Formalism, Expressionism, Instrumentalism/Pragmatism, and

Imitationalism/Mimeticism. Some post-modern criteria were used in Expressionism and

Instrumentalism/Pragmatism. A variety o f analyzes were computed on data in the

Aesthetics section.

First, aesthetics was treated as a single category in order to determine if all the

aesthetics criteria could be considered as a single scale (Table 16). Then, the four

subcategories of Formalism, Expressionism, Instrumentalism, and Imitationalism were

compared to see if each was significantly different from the others (Tables 17, 18, 19).

Next, the four subcategories were examined to determine if each represented a reliable

139


scale (Tables 20, 23, 25). If four different aesthetics scales exist, then teachers would be

able to select the most appropriate subcategory o f aesthetic criteria for assessing a

particular assignment. Finally, percentages o f teachers who deemed each criteria

important for inclusion on a state rubric were reported (Tables 21, 22, 24, 26). ANOVA

was run on each criterion and, where significant, was followed by Tukey’s Post Hoc

Comparison and Contrasts.

First, the category of Aesthetics was viewed as a whole. Cronbach’s Alpha

Coefficient test was used determine if scores on all aesthetic categories combined would

be a reliable scale for measuring an aesthetic component o f art production. Individual

criteria were correlated and therefore, could be considered a reliable scale. Coefficient

alpha reliability estimates exceeded .70 (considered a rule of thumb for determining

significance) and are reported on the diagonal o f Table 16 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994).

The variables represent the mean score o f Formalist criteria, Expressionist criteria,

Instrumental or Pragmatic criteria, and Imitationalist or Mimetic criteria. Since the raw

score exceeded .7, it can be anticipated that aesthetics functions as a distinct scale.

140


Table 16.

Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for all “Aesthetic” Criteria

for RAW variables : 0.71 for STANDARDIZED variables:

Raw Variables0.71

Std. Variables

Deleted Correlation Variable with Total Alpha


Formalism 0.37 0.71 0.38 0.71

Expressionism 0.57 0.60 0.55 0.61

Instrumentalism 0.59 0.59 0.57 0.60

Imitationalism 0.49 0.66 0.49 0.65

K-12 n=279

One facet o f this study was to see if the four subcategories o f aesthetic criteria

could be used as interchangeable “windows” (Boughton, 1999). A three-way ANOVA

was used to determine if there were significant differences among the means o f Formalist

Criteria, Expressionist Criteria, Instrumental Criteria, and Imitationaiist Criteria. The

result, shown in Table 17, was a difference significant at the p<0001 level. Tukey’s Post

Hoc Comparisons, Table 18, showed that differences at alpha=.05 level were significant

for all pairings o f the four variables except the mean o f Expressionist criteria versus the

mean of Imitationaiist criteria. Follow-up Contrasts were calculated are displayed in Table

141


19. This would suggest that for aesthetics survey categories do describe distinctly

separate sets o f criteria. The analysis o f variance is shown in Tables 17.

Table 17.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Aesthetic Means

Sum o f Mean

Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F

Model 3 145.08 48.36 91.04 0.0001

Error 1141 606.06 0.53

Corrected Total 1144 751.14

R-Square C.V. Root MSE III4 Mean

0.19 18.40 0.73 3.96

Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F

LEVEL 3 145.08 48.36 91.04 0.0001

Source DF Type HI SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F

LEVEL 3 145.08 43.36 91.84 0.0001

142


Tukey’s Post Hoc Comparisons were computed to determine the significance o f

contrasts when controlling for Type I errors Results are presented in Table 18.

Contrasts comparing the mean scores o f Formalist, Expressionist, Instrumental,

and Imitationaiist criteria demonstrated significant contrasts for all combinations except

the means of Formalist versus instrumental criteria. These contrasts are reported in Table

19.

143


Table 18.

Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for Aesthetics Subcategories: Formalist.

Expressionist. Instrumental, and Imitationaiist Criteria

NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate.

Alpha= 0.05 Confidence^ 0.95 df=280 MSE= 1.50

Critical Value o f Studentized Range= 3.33

Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'.

Simultaneous Simultaneous

Lower Difference Upper

LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence

Comparison Limit Means Limit

Formalism- Imitationalism 0.21996 0.37651 0.53305 ***

Formalism-Expressionism 0.24372 0.39999 0.55625 ***

Formalism-Pragmatism 0.83715 0.99355 1.14996 ***

Imitationalism -Formalism -0.53305 -0.37651 -0.21996 ***

Imitationalism -Expressionism -0.13360 0.02348 0.18056

Imitationalism - Pragmatism 0.45982 0.61704 0.77427 ***

Expressionism -Formalism -0.55625 -0.39999 -0.24372 ***

Expressionism-Imitationalism -0.18056 -0.02348 0.13360

Expressionism-Pragmatism 0.43662 0.59356 0.75051 ***

Pragmatism-F ormalism -1.14996 -0.99355 -0.83715 ***

Pragmatism -Imitationalism -0.77427 -0.61704 -0.45982 ***

Pragmatism -Expressionism -0.75051 -0.59356 -0.43662 ***

144


Table 19.

Contrasts for Aesthetic Subcategories o f Formalism. Expressionism. Instrumentalism, and

Imitationalism

Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F

Formalism vs. Expressionism 1 23.04 23.04 43.37 0.0001

Formalism vs. Instrumentalism 1 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.70

Formalism vs. Imitationalism 1 50.29 50.29 94.68 0.0001

Expressionism vs. Instrumentalism 1 20.34 20.34 38.29 0.0001

Expressionism vs. Imitationalism 1 141.89 141.89 267.13 0.0001

Instrumentalism vs. Imitationalism 1 54.16 54.16 101.97 0.0001

Formalist Criteria

Formalism is the aesthetic theory that considers good design to be sufficient

content for an object to be labeled ‘art’. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient test was used

determine if Formalist Aesthetic Criteria would be a reliable scale for measuring an

aesthetic component o f art production. Individual criteria were correlated and therefore

could be considered a reliable scale. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates exceeded .70

(considered a rule o f thumb for determining significance) and are reported on the diagonal

o f Table 20 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994).

145


Table 20.

Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Formalist Aesthetic Criteria

for RAW variables: 0.75for STANDARDIZED variables: 0.77


DeletedVariable



Criteria 1 0.57 0.69 0.59 0.70

Criteria 2 0.66 0.63 0.68 0.65

Criteria 3 0.49 0.75 0.49 0.75

Criteria 4 0.52 0.70 0.51 0.74

K-12 n=286

Frequencies and percentages were computed for each teaching level on each criteria

within Formalist Criteria sub category and are shown on Table 21. On three o f the four

criteria, “use o f elements”, “use o f principles”, and “composition”, teachers o f all grade

levels were in greater than 70% agreement that they were important. One the criteria,

“distorts, exaggerates for purpose o f design”, only more than 70% o f high school teachers

agreed that it is important. It would be recommended that separate rubrics be used, with

this item included only on the high school rubric. ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, and

contrasts were calculated for each criteria, comparing mean scores o f the three grade level

146


groups of art teachers. Three sets o f contrasts showed a significant difference, alpha=. 05.

One was the mean o f all formalist criteria, p<.04 between middle-high school, and p< 009

between elementary-high school. The second was “distorts, exaggerates for purpose of

design”, p< 02 between middle-high school, and p<0007 between elementary-high school.

The third was “composition”: p<05 between elementary-middle, and p<0008 between

elementary-high school.

Table 21.

Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Formalist AestheticCriteria

Criteria


Elementary K-5 n=l 10 %

Middle 6-8 n=51%

High9-12n=96%

Use of elements of art 97 95 98

Use of principles o f design 96 99 97

Distorts, exaggerates for purpose of design *p<02 between middle-high school *p<0007 between elementary-high school

66 67 80

Composition 90 98 96*p<.05 between elementary-middle *p<0008 between elementary-high school

* In Appendix: ANOVA Table 86, 89; Tukey’s Tables 87, 90; Contrasts Tables 88, 91; compared mean scores o f elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. Significant contrasts are indicated below the statement.

147


Expressionist Criteria

Expressionism is the aesthetic theory that considers an object to be ‘art’ if it either

expresses the artist’s feelings or emotions or evokes emotional responses in the viewer.

Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient test was used determine if scores Expressionist Aesthetic

Criteria would be a reliable scale for measuring an aesthetic component o f art production.

Individual Expressionist criteria were not highly correlated and therefore could not be

considered a reliable scale. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates did not exceed .70

(considered a rule of thumb for determining significance).

Frequencies and percentages were computed for each teaching level on each

criteria within Expressionist Criteria sub category and are shown on Table 22. Teachers

of all grade levels were in greater than 70% agreement that the following criteria should

be included on a state art assessment rubric: “Expresses ideas, attitudes, or feelings”, and

“evokes emotions or feelings in viewer”. It would be recommended that “communicates a

point o f view” be included only on middle level and high school rubrics. ANOVA,

Tukey’s post hoc, and contrasts were calculated for each criteria, comparing mean scores

o f the three grade level groups o f art teachers. No set o f contrasts showed a significant

difference, alpha=.05.

148


Table 22.

Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Expressionist Aesthetic Criteria

Criteria Elementary Middle HighK- 5 6-8 9-12n=llO n=51 n=96

Percentages rounded to whole numbers % % %

Expresses ideas, attitudes, or feelings 91 84 92

Evokes emotions or feelings in viewer 74 69 79

Communicates a point o f view 68 71 78

Responds to personal, social, or spiritual contexts 62 60 66

Instrumental or Pragmatic Criteria

Instrumentalism is the aesthetic theory that considers an object to be ‘art’ if it

serves a function in it’s society. For the purpose of this study, post-modern as well as

multicultural artworks that serve political, moral, or spiritual purposes were included in

this category. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient test was used determine if scores on

Instrumental or Pragmatic Aesthetic Criteria would be a reliable scale for measuring an

aesthetic component o f art production. Individual Instrumental/Pragmatic criteria were

correlated and therefore could be considered a reliable scale. Coefficient alpha reliability

149


estimates, presented in Table 23, exceeded .70 (considered a rule o f thumb for

determining significance) and are reported on the diagonal of Table 23 (Hatcher &

Stepanski, 1994).

Table 23.

Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Instrumental/Pragmatic Aesthetic Criteria

for RAW variables : 0.851289for STANDARDIZED variables: 0.853169


DeletedVariable

Correlationwith Total Alpha


Criteria 1 0.71 0.80 0.71 0.81

Criteria 2 0.74 0.79 0.75 0.79

Criteria 3 0.73 0.79 0.73 0.80

Criteria 4 0.60 0.85 0.60 0.85

K-12 n=280


criteria within Instrumental/Pragmatic Criteria sub category and are shown on Table 24.

No criteria in this category were considered important by 70% o f teachers, therefore it

would not be recommended for inclusion on a state rubric. ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc,

150


and contrasts were calculated for each criteria, comparing mean scores o f the three grade

level groups of art teachers. There were no significant differences on any criteria.

Instrumental/pragmatic criteria described Post-Modern or multicultural ideas about the

function o f art in a society. Teachers may have been unfamiliar with these non-traditional

ideas about art and therefore have not incorporated them into the curriculum.

Table 24.

Pragmatic Aesthetic Criteria

Criteria Elementary Middle High

K -5 6-8 9-12

n=l 10 n=51 n=96

Percentages rounded to whole numbers % % %

Reflects a society, culture or group o f people 62 61 49

Shows personal interpretation of art history or culture

63 61 59

Responds to environmental or political contexts 40 44 52

Serves a functional purpose 36 47 45

Imitationaiist or Mimetic Criteria

Imitationalism is the aesthetic theory that considers an object to be ‘art’ if it copies

151


the real or idealized world. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient test was used determine if

scores on Imitationaiist or Mimetic Aesthetic Criteria would be a reliable scale for

measuring an aesthetic component o f art production. Individual criteria were correlated

and therefore could be considered a reliable scale. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates

exceeded .70 (considered a rule o f thumb for determining significance) and are reported

on the diagonal of Table 25 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994).

Table 25.

Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Imitationaiist or Mimetic Aesthetic Criteria

for RAW variables: 0.88for STANDARDIZED variables: 0.88


DeletedVariable



Criteria 1 0.59 0.90 0.59 0.90

Criteria 2 0.82 0.81 0.82 0.81

Criteria 3 0.78 0.82 0.79 0.83

Criteria 4 0.76 0.83 0.77 0.84

K-12 n=281


152


criteria within Imitationalist/MimeticCriteria sub category and are shown on Table 26.

More than 70% of art teachers at all grade levels agreed that three criteria were important,

therefore “shows form”, “ shows texture”, and “show space” would be recommended for

use on a state art assessment rubric. “Real or idealized representation o f life” should be

included only on a high school rubric. ANOVA, Tukey’s Post Hoc, and Contrasts were

calculated for each criteria, comparing mean scores o f the three grade level groups of art

teachers. There was a significant contrast, p<004, between the mean scores of all

Imitationalist/Mimetic Criteria between elementary and high school teachers. Significant

contrasts, alpha=.05, were found for each criteria in this category. “Real or idealized

representation o f life”, had a contrast, p<05, between elementary and high school groups.

“Shows realistic form” scored contrasts between elementary and middle level, p<02, and

between elementary and high school groups, p< 01 . “Shows realistic texture” had a

significant contrast, p< 02 between elementary and high school groups. “Shows space”

demonstrated contrasts between elementary and middle levels, p<05, and between

elementary and high school, p<001. The significant contrasts on all criteria in this

category suggest that teachers view representational drawing/painting skills to be, at least

partially, developmental, supporting Lowenfeld’s theory o f the stages o f artistic growth

(Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987).

153


Table 26.

Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Imitationalist or Mimetic Aesthetic Criteria

Type o f Product


Elementary Middle HighK- 5 6-8 9-12n=110 n=51 n=96% % %

Real or idealized representation o f life 66*p< 05 between elementary- high

Shows realistic form (3-D), or illusion o f 78form (2-D)*p< 02, between elementary-middle level, and *p<.01 between elementary- high school

Shows realistic texture (2-D), or illusion o f 78texture (3-D)*p< 02 between elementary-high school

Shows space (3-D), or illusion o f depth (2-D) 83*p< 05, between elementary-middle levels, and *p< 001 between elementary-high

64

89

85

92

79

88

86

92

*In Appendix: ANOVA Tables 92, 95, 98, 101; Tukey’s Tables 93, 96, 99, 102; Contrasts Tables 94, 97, 100, 103; compared mean scores o f elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. Significant contrasts are indicated below the statement.

The means o f the four aesthetic subcategories were compared to determine if they

were significantly different using a four-way ANOVA (Table 17). The difference was

significant at p<0001, therefore the separate treatment of the four sets of aesthetic criteria

(formalist, expressionist, instrumental, imitationalist) was appropriate.

There was a comment section in which teachers could write their responses to the

154


category of Aesthetics. Many art teachers noted that these four sets o f aesthetic criteria

were important at different times. One middle school teacher wrote,

All of these areas are probably of equal importance depending upon the unit of study in each grade. For example, Imitationalism is stressed during still life, Expressionism is stressed more in 8* grade who have some foundation in the elements and principles (Formalism). Depends on objective for particular project.

A high school teacher expressed a similar point o f view,

I teach both Formalist and Imitational. In some classes we start with realism and then switch to Formalism (Cubism) with the same subject. I also teach other approaches in various classes. In painting class, while doing “realism” some students work impressionist, expressionist, while others are more imitational though all must achieve form through value.Usually the more expressive students were those with more experience and confidence.

Elementary teachers were concerned about the appropriateness of aesthetics for

younger students. One wrote that aesthetics was “relevant for older elementary students,

but were not developmentally appropriate before fifth grade”. Another said, “not

applicable at elementary level, they don’t have thinking skills”.

The idea that realism must precede abstraction was frequently mentioned. A high

school teacher wrote, “First need to be a draftsperson, then work on expressing ideals,

etc. through breaking rules or emphasizing and exaggerating”.

Some teachers commented that formalism, the elements and principles of art, were

the basis for their curriculum and instruction. A high school teacher explained, “I deal

very little with imitationalism. Formalism is an approach most welcomed and manageable

by past and present students...emotionalism evolves miraculously through this approach”.

155


On the other hand, an elementary teacher warned, “if elements are stressed too early, it

limits creativity'’. Table 27 lists comments independently mentioned by three or more art

teachers.

Table 27.

Aesthetic Criteria Comments


Depends upon the assignment 17

Realism before abstraction is important 11

Not developmentally relevant for elementary 6

Expression is more advanced than grades 1-3, aesthetic concepts too advanced S

Criteria depend more on grade level than on philosophical stance S

Giving students a vocabulary for the visual 4

My curriculum stresses Formalist, Imitationalist, Expressionist 4

Formalist criteria are the basis for what we teach 4

All have importance at elementary 3

Results demonstrate that aesthetic criteria can be considered a reliable scale. In

addition, the four subcategories o f Formalist, Expressionist, Instrumental, and

156


Imitationalist Criteria were significantly different from each other, indicating that these are

alternate ways of assessing student artwork. Teachers communicated through comments

that they were confused whether the all aesthetic theory criteria were expected to be used

to assess all student work. This pointed out a deficit in the survey instrument which

should be remedied before it is used again. In the directions, teachers should be instructed

that these may be interchangeable depending upon the intent o f the project. Formalist

criteria received the strongest teacher support. The Expressionist Criteria that referred to

the expression of emotion were strongly supported. In contrast, both Expressionist and

Instrumental Criteria that described attributes o f post-modernism were viewed as less

important: “communicates a point of view”; “responds to personal, social, o r spiritual

contexts”; “reflects a society, culture, or group o f people”; “shows personal interpretation

of art history/culture”; “responds to environmental or political contexts”; and “serves a

functional purpose”. Imitationalist criteria were more important at upper grade levels,

perhaps because they are more developmentally appropriate there.

Part Eight: What is Important to Teach?

This category was included in the Art Assessment Survey so that it would be

possible to find out if a correlation existed between what teachers believe is important for

them to teach and their scores on aesthetic criteria. The data provides a picture o f art

practice at the current time in the representative sample. Frequencies and percentages

157


were calculated by teachers’ selection o f a grade level category. Table 28 illustrates the

percentage of elementary, middle level, and high school art teachers who believe it is

important to assess a variety o f art products. Over 90% of respondents teach the elements

of art and/or principles of design. More than 80% of participating art teachers reported

that they teach students to work from observation; to abstract or create non-objective art;

and to express their feelings and attitudes. Based upon the data, teaching students to

“create art based upon a particular historic period, style, or culture” decreases in

importance as grades advance. This phenomena could mean that at higher grade levels

teachers expect students to begin developing their own styles. ANOVA, followed by

Tukey’s Post Hoc Comparisons and Contrasts were calculated for each criteria to

compare the difference among teachers by level taught. Significant contrasts were found

on two criteria: “draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation” showed p<.04

between elementary and middle levels, and p<0004 between elementary and high schools;

“create art based upon a particular historical period, style, or culture” was p<005 between

elementary and high school.

158


Table 28.

Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Teach Specific Content

Type o f Art Content



Middle6-8n=51%

High9-12n=96%

Use elements o f art and/or principles o f design 95 97 97

Draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation*p<04 between elementary-middle levels, and *p<0004 between elementary-high schools

80 97 93

Abstract or create non-objective art 83 82 87

Communicate social, political, or personalmessage

60 71 56

Create functional art 56 62 54

Express their feelings or attitudes 87 85 82

Create art based upon a particular period, style, or culturep<005 between elementary-high

81 71 68

*In Appendix: ANOVA Tables 68, 71; Tukey’s Tables 69, 72; Contrasts 70, 73; compared mean scores of elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. Significant contrasts are indicated below the statement.

Teachers’ open-ended comments regarding the category, “What do you Teach?”

are presented in Table 29. The most prevalent comment was that the “elements and

principles” were important was illustrated by a high school teacher who wrote:

159


What I teach or emphasize varies from work to work and level o f the class.I teach specialized classes. The only thing above that is constant on every project is elements and principles.

A middle school teacher supporting this point o f view explained, “If they can understand

the elements and principles, they will be successful in lifelong creative problem-solving” .

An elementary teacher expressed,

I feel that small children need to become familiar with the basic aspects o f art such as line, color, texture, shape, etc. before they can begin to fully make a social statement or purposely “evoke emotions or feelings” from their viewers.

A high school teacher described a different reason for a similar perspective, “Expressing

feelings or attitudes is getting hard to accomplish with restrictions on what is or is not

‘school appropriate’” .

A middle school teacher explained her philosophy o f teaching art:

I always try to keep the perspective with 7* and 8* that I am not sending them to a life o f a professional artist. (If they are so inclined I will give them all I can.) I want them to see the importance o f art in cultures and in their lives and to have an understanding o f why things in their life look the way they do, to be able to interact with a painting, a sculpture, a building, and to be able to express , using intelligent vocabulary, their views, to have an awareness.

160


Table 29.

“What do vou Teach?” Comments

Statement listed under comments Number of Teachers

Elements and principles o f art 10

Multicultural and global art studies 4

Expose students to many different kinds and styles o f art 4

Depends upon the project 4

Theme-based integration 4

All are covered during year 3

Teachers were given a final opportunity to answer this question: What other

criteria do you use in assessing student work that were not included in this survey?

Most of the comments repeated criteria already included. The most frequently mentioned

statements are included in Table 30.

161


Table 30.

Assessment Criteria not Included in this Survey Comments

Statement listed under comments Number of Teachers

Student effort, work habits and/or participation 29

K-4 students do not receive grades, should enjoy art 12

Rubrics created by teacher, or teacher-students 12

Tests 7

Some teachers used this section as an opportunity to express their concerns and

frustrations. An elementary teacher wrote, “I have taught art ed assessment at the college

level (K-4 teachers) . Situations are so varied that a blanket assessment is extremely

dubious and, I doubt, can be justified” . Another elementary teacher echoed this concern

by writing, “ I believe that grading a child’s artwork is counterproductive”. An urban

elementary art educator shared:

The urban elementary school cannot be put in the same category as suburban elementary. I have made great strides if by the end of first grade I have most children able to: identify colors, cut on ‘the line’, paint the paper rather than themselves, use glue appropriately, not eat, steal or destroy supplies. By the upper elementary I am able to get some children to understand Art/Design principles, make sense o f historical periods or even find worth in their own art. Basically students have done well if they have followed directions, created a pleasing product, and are themselves pleased with their work.

Several teachers indicated that the survey “covered everything”. A K-12 teacher

162


shared a positive experience, “Art integrated with communication allows my students to

"voice’ in an appropriate manner, their views and opinions about themselves, their

community, and their beliefs” .

Relationship Between Aesthetics and Instruction

To identify a relationship between aesthetic approach criteria and what a teacher

believes it is important to teach, Pearson Product Moment Correlations were calculated

for each aesthetic criteria subcategory.

To test the null hypothesis, there is no significant relationship o f between the

formalist aesthetic approach score and having students use elements and/or principles to

create abstract or non-objective art (items VII-1 and VII-3), the mean K-12 score for the

sub category Formalist Criteria was compared to criteria, it is important to teach students

how to “use elements o f art and/or principles o f design” and “abstract or create non

objective art” . The Pearson Correlation Coefficients .38 and .32, shown in Table 31, did

not exceed .8 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994), therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected.

163


Table 31.

Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the Mean o f Formalist Criteria. Uses Elements/Principles, and Abstracts/Non-Objective

/ Prob > |R| under Ho: Rho=0 / N = 286

Formalism VIII VII3

Formalism 1.00 0.38 0.32

0.0 0.00 0.00

VIII 0.38 1.00 0.18

0.00 0.0 0.00

VII3 0.32 0.18 1.00

0.00 0.00 0.0

To test the null hypothesis, there is no significant relationship between the

expressionist aesthetic approach score and having students express their feelings or

attitudes (item VO-6), the mean K-12 score for Expressionist Criteria was compared to

teaching students to “express their feelings or attitudes”. The correlation coefficient or .5

is lower than .8 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994) needed to reject the null hypothesis,

therefore, it is not rejected. Results are shown in Table 32.

164


Table 32

Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Expressionist Criteria and Teaching Students to Express Feelings/Attitudes


Expressionism VII6

Expressionism 1.00 0.50

0.0 0.00

VII6 0.50 1.00

0.00 0.0


instrumental aesthetic approach score and having students create functional art or

communicate social, political, or personal messages (items VI1-5 and VTI-4)., the K-12

mean scores for Instrumental Criteria were compared to teaching students to “create

functional art”, and “to communicate social, political, or personal messages”. The

coefficient scores, .02 and .46, are lower than .8 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994) needed to

reject the null hypothesis and therefore it is not rejected. Results are shown in Table 33.

165


Table 33.

Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Instrumentalism. “Create Function Art” and “Communicate Social. Political, or Personal Messages


Instrumentalism VH4 VII5

Instrumentalism 1.00 0.52 0.46

0.0 0.00 0.00

VU4 0.52 1.00 0.47

0.00 0.0 0.00

VII5 0.46 0.47 1.00

0.00 0.00 0.0


imitationalist aesthetic approach score and having students draw, paint, sculpt, or print

realistically from observation (item VII-2) the mean K-12 score o f the criteria in the

imitationalist category was correlated with the criteria It is important to teach students

how to “draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation”. The correlation

coefficient of .51 is lower than the .8 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994) needed to reject the

null hypothesis, therefore, it is not rejected. Results are in Table 34.

166


Table 34.

Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Imitationalism and Draw/Paint/Sculpt/PrintRealistically from Observation


Imitationalism VIL2

Imitationalism 1.00000 0.50853

0.0 0.0001

VTI2 0.50853 1.00000

0.0001 0.0

Sample of Non-Respondents

In order to generalize from the returned questionnaires (75%) to the entire sample,

twelve (14%) o f the non-respondents were randomly selected for a phone interview.

More than forty phone calls were made in an attempt to contact these teachers. Messages

were left with requests for home numbers and times when the art teacher might be

available. In the end, eight participants were interviewed.

The interviewees answers were generally parallel to those who returned surveys by

mail. Three of the teachers were elementary, two middle level, and three high school.

Frequencies and percentages were calculated and compared with K-12 answers obtained

167


previously.

Non-respondents’ rated criteria as important more frequently than the sample of

respondents on: assessing the “final product” (100% versus 96%); “art criticism” (88%

versus 72%); “explaining perceptions” (88% versus 78%); “self-evaluates” (88% versus

84%); “documents process in sketchbook/journal” (63% versus 43%); “work shows

improvement” (100% versus 93%); “artwork includes relevant art historical influences”

(75% versus 50%); “intent of artist is communicated” (88% versus 80%); “expresses

ideas, attitudes, or feelings” (100% verus 90%); “communicates a point o f view” (88%

versus 73%); “uses elements/principles” (100% versus 96%), and “draw realistically from

observation” (100% versus 89%).

Non-respondents’ rated criteria more important less frequently than the sample of

respondents on: “rough drafts” (50% versus 64%); “portfolio” (43% versus 59%);

“problem-solving” (75% versus 97%); “persistently on task” (88% versus 98%); “shows

commitment (88% versus 96%); “responsive to teacher’s feedback (88% versus 94%);

“craftspersonship” (63% versus 89%); “evokes emotions or feelings in viewer” (50%

versus 75%); “responds to personal, social, or spiritual contexts” (38% versus 63%),

“reflects a society, culture, or group o f people” (29% versus 57%); shows personal

interpretation o f art history or culture (38% versus 62%); “responds to environmental or

political contexts” (38% versus 45%); “shows realistic texture” (75% versus 82%);

“shows space” (75% versus 88%); “communicate social, political, or personal messages” (

38% versus 60%); “create functional art” (50% versus 57%); express feelings or

attitudes” (75% versus 84%), and “create art based upon a particular historical period,

168


style, or culture” (50% versus 73%).

The non-respondents sample is incomplete since some participants could not be

reached. It is also too small for generalization. Though percentages vary, responses

between the sample and the sample of non-respondents are generally similar.

Summary

In this chapter, the findings of this study were presented. Qualitative analyzes

were used to describe art assessment practices and the values placed upon including

specific criteria on a state level rubric.

Over 90% o f teachers assessed their students’ final art products. Other products

such as rough drafts, aesthetic reflections, art criticism, student’s self-evaluation, and

portfolios were considered important more frequently at upper grade levels. In portfolios,

the final product and all work for a grading period were the most frequently mentioned

comments.

All criteria in the Responding category were considered important at all grade

levels. Included in this category were non-production activities such as talking or writing

about aesthetics, criticism, or art history.

In the Creating or Process category, the use o f assigned processes, media, and

techniques; demonstrating problem-solving; and creativity were considered important at

all grade levels. In contrast, documenting process in sketchbooks or journals o f lesser

169


importance.

All criteria in the Attitude or Habits-of-Mind category were considered to be

important by over 90% o f teachers at all grade levels. This encompassed students being

on task, respecting students and materials, showing commitment, and being responsive to

teacher’s feedback.

All criteria in the Art Product category were highly regarded by teachers o f all

grade levels except the criteria “artwork includes relevant art historical influences”.

Criteria considered important referred to the demonstration of: skill, craftspersonship,

planning, composition, assigned concepts/processes/elements/principles, growth over time,

and communication of intent. Teachers appeared to value students’ knowledge o f art

history, but not their ability to create art based upon it. This may be due to teachers’

emphasis on creativity which would be diminished if students were limited to expressing

themselves as others had.

Aesthetics was viewed as a construct with separate, component subcategories o f

Formalism, Expressionism, Instrumentalism, and Imitationalism. The Formalist criteria

were considered important by the highest number o f art teachers at all grade levels. Two

Expressionist criteria, students’ ability to “express ideas, attitudes, or feelings”, and to

“evoke emotions or feelings in viewer” were well supported. Other Expressionist and

Instrumental criteria which described post-modem and multicultural ideas were not

considered important as frequently. The descriptors related to: expressing a point o f

view, responding to a variety o f contexts (personal, social, spiritual, environmental,

political), and reflecting a society or group o f people. While all criteria in the subcategory,

170


Imitationalist criteria, were considered important, high school teachers valued them more

frequently. In all, teachers valued aesthetics o f traditional art criteria: those tied to

representing life, expressing emotion, and demonstrating design qualities. Although post

modernist art, which responds to the contemporary, multicultural world can be found in

galleries in art centers across the United States, Missouri art teachers have not yet adapted

it to art classroom activities.

Missouri art teachers reported that it was important to teach: the elements and

principles; how to represent reality; how to abstract and create non-objective art; and how

to express feelings. They considered it less important to teach students how to:

communicate messages, create functional art, or create art based upon art history.

Most elementary art teachers have weekly contact with many more students than

middle or high school teachers. Missouri requires: all K-S students to receive art

instruction for 50 minutes per week, middle school students to be able to choose art as an

elective, and high school students to complete one unit o f a fine arts to graduate from high

school. The number o f students taught is directly connected to the Missouri requirements.

Sixty-five percent o f respondents indicated they had been teaching for more than

11 years. Over 3/4 o f participants had participated in staff development or college courses

on assessment within the last two years. Since the Missouri Assessment Project

(statewide tests in core content areas, fine arts, health and physical education) have been

phased in over the last few years, assessment has been a popular staff development topic

across the state. Information on assessment from the Department of Elementary and

Secondary Education has been disseminated through regional professional development

171


sites. Fifty-four percent o f survey respondents had attended staff development or college

classes on art assessment. The results will be further discussed in the next chapter.

172


CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS,

CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

This project demonstrated that a representative sample of Missouri art teachers

agreed that designated criteria were important for inclusion on a state art assessment

rubric. Criteria were presented for their review in an instrument designed for the purpose

of the study, Art Assessment Survey. This questionnaire was developed from: the

literature in the field; a state-level focus group of K-12 Missouri art teachers; a

compilation of rubrics currently used by art teachers, Advanced Placement exam,

International Baccalaureate, Arts PROPEL assessment rubrics; a pilot study; and feedback

from national experts in assessment, (Carmen Armstrong, Donna Kay Beattie, and Robert

Burton).

Teachers were randomly selected from year-old data provided by the Missouri

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Surveys were mailed to 382

teachers. The sample size was reduced to 344 when teachers who had retired or moved

were eliminated. There were 259 responses returned by mail, a 75% return rate. A

random sample o f 8 non-respondents were interviewed by phone. Their responses were

scripted during the conversation, raising the total response rate to 78%.

Data was analyzed comparing the Likert five-point ratings for each criteria among

173


teachers in broad grade level categories: Elementary, K-5; Middle, 6-8; and High School,

9-12. Percentages indicated differences by grade level on most items. For the purpose o f

defining criteria for a state rubric, the Likert scale scores for “important” and “very

important” were combined to form a single category, “important”. Three statistical

procedures were used: ANOVA to identify differences among groups, Tukey’s Post Hoc

Comparisons to correct for Type I errors and establish the level o f confidence; and

Contrasts to pinpoint the groups with significant differences. Written teacher responses

for each section o f the questionnaire were grouped into like statements which were then

tallied to provide frequencies. Their comments supported the numeric data, adding

understanding o f teachers’ meanings.

The results were used by the Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task Force to

develop a draft o f an interdisciplinary arts rubric for teachers to use when conducting local

assessment o f the state education standards. A copy of this rubric is in the appendix.

The main research question for this study was: Which criteria for assessing student

art production do art teachers recommend for inclusion on a state rubric? Subquestions

that expanded upon the main question were:

1. What are differences among elementary (k-5), middle (6-8), and high school (9-12)

teachers’ selections o f criteria used to judge student art products? The null hypothesis is:

There is no significant difference at the p>.05 level among mean scores o f elementary,

middle, and high school teachers on criteria recommended for inclusion on a state art

production rubric.

174


2. What are differences among aesthetic approach criteria selected by teachers forjudging

student art products? The null hypothesis is: There is no significant difference at the

p>.05 level among the mean scores o f the four aesthetic approaches (imitationalist,

expressionist, formalist, pragmatic) on criteria recommended for inclusion on the state

rubric.

3. What are differences in teacher selection of aesthetic approach criteria related to the

value they place on teaching different kinds of art content? Written as four null

hypotheses:

A. There is no significant relationship between the imitationalist aesthetic approach

score and having students draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation (item

VTI-2).

B. There is no significant relationship between the expressionist aesthetic

approach score and having students express their feelings or attitudes (item VII-6).

C. There is no significant relationship o f between the formalist aesthetic approach

score and having students use elements and/or principles to create abstract or non

objective art (items VII-1 and VII-3).

D. There is no significant relationship between the instrumental aesthetic approach

175


score and having students create functional art or communicate social, political, or

personal messages (items VU-5 and VII-4).

Three other questions will be examined that relate to the demographic data.

4. How many students are taught by elementary, middle, and high school teachers,

respectively?


classes on assessment in the last two years?


classes on art assessment?

Summary

The purpose o f Chapter Five is to answer the research questions introduced in

Chapter Three and restated above. The research findings were presented in Chapter Four.

The results are examined in this section. Criteria were categorized into eight sections, and

discussion follows each category. Teachers indicated the degree to which they believed

each criterion was important for assessment. It was assumed that if 70% o f teachers were

in agreement, that the likelihood of the rubric being used would increase. Therefore,

176


criteria deemed important by at least 70% o f art teachers would be recommended for

inclusion on a state rubric.

What do Teachers Assess?

Art products that were considered important by K-12 Missouri art teachers are

followed by the percentage of support each received: “final product”, 96%; “aesthetic

reflections about own or other artist’s work”, 70%; “art criticism analysis of own or other

artists’ work”, 72%; and “student’s self-evaluation”, 78%.

Art products considered important by fewer than 70% of K-12 Missouri art

teachers are followed by the percentage o f support each received: “rough drafts or

process sketches”, 64%; “art historical writing”, 28%; and ‘portfolio of student work”,

59%.

Comments supported the percentages. The final product was mentioned by 38

teachers who responded to the question, “I f you assess portfolios, what is included in the

portfolio?” Teachers, especially at the elementary and middle levels, commented that

they frequently lacked time for students to develop an idea through a series of drafts, or to

have students engage in the disciplines o f aesthetics, art criticism, and art history, and that

they lacked storage space to save portfolios o f student work. Some elementary teachers

commented that as soon as work was completed, they would put it on display, then send it

home.

Student’s self-evaluation was important to all teachers while art criticism was

177


considered important to middle and high school teachers. Aesthetic reflections and use of

portfolios were important to only high school teachers. An explanation for this

phenomenon is that most art teachers were trained with a studio focus, and the majority of

classroom instructional time is allocated to art production, therefore it is logical that

teachers most frequently assess student artwork.

Responding Criteria

Teachers’ responses indicated that all criteria that involve students responding to

artworks were considered important. The percentages o f support follow each criteria:

“explains perceptions o f artwork”, 78%; “identifies connections among arts and with

other subjects”, 77%; “relates art from historical periods, movements, and/or cultures to

own work”, 77%; “uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate

artworks”, 91%; and “student self-evaluates, 84%. Theses criteria were sufficiently

correlated to be considered a scale. Teachers’ comments placed high value on student

self-evaluation, and highlighted the importance o f integration with other subjects at the

elementary and middle levels. Teachers’ strong support of criteria in the Responding

category appear to have been influenced by Discipline-Based Art Education which is

embedded in the, Show-Me Standards fo r M issouri Schools (1996).

178


Creating or Process Criteria

Three o f the criteria in this category had extremely high support from K-12 art

teachers: “correctly uses assigned processes, media, and techniques”, 99%;

“demonstrates problem-solving process”, 97%; and “demonstrates originality, creativity,

or inventiveness”, 99%. The lower approval rating o f the fourth, “documents process in

sketchbook or journal entries”, 42%, was explained in teacher comments. Constraints

mentioned were time, cost, and that students were unwilling to complete assignments

outside o f class. A non-respondent to the mail survey who was interviewed by phone, said

that sketchbooks had been eliminated from the introductory level high school courses in

his district because they had a negative impact on grades. In the advanced courses

sketchbooks had symbolic associations for students with career aspirations in art. The

strength o f responses in the Creating Category demonstrate a common philosophical belief

, that the artistic process is as important as the final art product.

Attitude or Habits-of-M ind Criteria

All four criteria in this category were strongly supported by K-12 art teachers: “is

persistently on task”, 98%; “respects materials, equipment, other students and their art”,

99%; “shows commitment”, 96%; and “is responsive to teacher’s feedback”, 94%. In

comments, teachers placed emphasis on students working hard, being on task, following

directions, and showing responsibility. A few teachers expressed that they didn’t want

179


students to do as the teacher requested, but rather to be independent creators. The

philosophical belief held by many art teachers and suggested by these findings is that the

creation of artwork is not limited to those labeled as ‘talented’, but that all students are

capable of finding success in art if they follow directions, show commitment by staying on

task, and put forth their best effort.

Art Product Criteria

Five of the six criteria in this category were considered important by K-12 art

teachers: “demonstrates technical skill or craftspersonship”, 89%; “demonstrates planned,

effective composition”, 89%; “work shows improvement from past products or

performances”, 93%; “demonstrates assigned concepts, processes, elements and/or

principles”, 97%; and “intent o f artist is communicated”, 80%. The criteria that was not

highly valued for the purposes of state art assessment was “artwork includes relevant art

historical influences”, 50%. Comments explained that teachers were ambivalent about the

importance of having student art look like historic exemplars. Nine teachers wrote that

historical influences only applied if they were a focus of the assignment, while another six

replied that it depended upon the assignment. Teachers appear to value students’

knowledge of art history, but not their ability to create art based upon it. This may be due

to teachers’ emphasis on creativity which would be diminished if students were limited to

expressing themselves as others had.

180


Aesthetics Formalist Criteria

All criteria in this category were valued as important for a state rubric by greater

than 70% of K-12 art teachers. The criteria and associated percentages were: “use of

elements o f art”, 97%; use of principles o f design”, 97%; “distorts, exaggerates for

purpose o f design”, 72%, and “composition”, 94%. A few teachers commented that

formalist criteria were the basis for what they teach. The strength o f this aesthetic

category reflects the pervasive influence o f modernist art in the last century.

Aesthetics Expressionist Criteria

Three o f the four criteria were rated important by more than 70% of art teachers:

“expresses ideas, attitudes, or feelings”, 90%; “evokes emotions o f feelings in viewer”,

75%; and “communicates a point o f view”, 73%. Though “responds to personal, social or

spiritual contexts” was important to only 63% o f the survey participants, teachers who

were interviewed indicated that they believed personal contexts to be very important, but

not social or spiritual ones. Even though “or” rather than “and”, was used to connect the

three contexts, teachers may have discounted the entire question if they disagreed with

one part of it. If the survey is used again, or serves as a model for another study, the three

contexts should be listed as separate criteria. These findings support the research of

Freedman and Wood, 1999, who found that most students saw self-expression as the

181


purpose o f art.

Aesthetics Instrumental Criteria

None o f the criteria in the Instrumental subcategory was considered to be

important by 70% of art teachers. Percentages o f K-12 art teachers who considered each

criteria important follow: “reflects a society, culture, or group o f people”, 57%; shows

personal interpretation of art history or culture”, 62%; responds to environmental or

political contexts”, 45%; and “ serves a functional purpose”, 42%. One possible

explanation for the low percentages is that instrumental criteria are most relevant to post

modern or multi-cultural art. Although postmodernism is prevalent in contemporary

museums and galleries in art centers o f the United States, most Missouri art teachers have

relied upon traditions o f the past and have not integrated current attitudes toward art into

their curricula. As shared previously, teachers strongly favored the modernist criteria,

elements and principles o f art.

Aesthetics Imitationalist Criteria

All criteria in the imitationalist aesthetic subcategory were viewed as important by

70% or more art teachers. The criteria and the percent of teachers who valued each

182


follows: “real or idealized representation o f life”, 70%; “shows realistic form”, 84%;

“shows realistic texture”, 82%; and “shows space”, 88%. In their comments, elementary

teachers expressed the opinion that realism was not developmentally appropriate for

young children. Some suggested that these criteria depended more on grade level than on

philosophical stance which supports Lowenfeld’s developmental theories o f artistic

growth (Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987). There is a strong belief in the value of assessing

students on their ability to represent life as they observe it, especially at the upper grade

levels.

What do Teachers Consider Important to Teach?

More than 70% o f teachers reported that it was important to teach students how

to: “use elements and principles”, 96%; “draw...realistically from observation”, 89%;

“abstract or create non-objective art”, 84%; “express their feelings or attitudes”, 84%; and

“create art based upon a particular historical period, style, or culture:, 73%. Less than

70% believed it was important to teach students how to: “communicate social, political,

or personal messages”, 60%; and “create functional art” .

This indicates that most art teachers focus both instruction and assessment on the

elements and principles o f art; observational drawing, painting, sculpting, or printing;

abstracting or creating non-objective art; having students express their feelings; and

creating art based upon an historical period or culture. Teachers’ comments, reported in

Chapter Four, supported this conclusion. The traditional models set forth by Formalism,

183


Imitationalism, and Expressionism appear relevant to teachers while the political, social,

environmental, spiritual, multicultural concerns found in post-modern art (presented as

criteria 3 and 4 in Expressionist Criteria, and criteria 1-4 o f Instrumental Criteria) are

considered to be less important.

Aesthetics

All criteria in the four subcategories o f Formalist, Expressionist, Instrumental, and

Imitationalist Criteria were correlated and functioned as a scale. Each o f the criteria in

subcategories o f Formalist Criteria, Instrumental Criteria, and Imitationalist Criteria, were

highly correlated and could be considered to be individual scales.

Research question two asked: What are differences among aesthetic approach

criteria selected by teachers forjudging student art products? The significant differences

among aesthetics criteria suggest that the instrument measures four constructs which

could be used as “windows” for scoring different types o f artwork.

To answer the third research question Pearson Product Moment Correlations were

calculated between the aesthetic criteria subcategories and specific items in the survey

section, What do you Teach? In spite o f the superficial similarity between aesthetic

criteria and what teachers believe is important to teach their students, correlations between

mean scores on each aesthetic category and teaching were limited. There was a moderate

relationship between the Imitationalist aesthetic approach and having students draw, paint,

sculpt, or print realistically from observation. The Pearson correlation between

184


Expressionist aesthetic approach score and having students express their feelings or

attitudes was moderate. There was no correlation between the formalist aesthetic

approach score and having students use elements and/or principles to create abstract or

non-objective art. A moderate relationship existed between the instrumental aesthetic

approach score and having students create functional art or communicate social, political,

or personal messages.

It was anticipated that there would be a high correlation among the aesthetic

means and the teaching contents, sufficient to show internal reliability o f the questionnaire.

Though some relationship exists, teachers seem to consider production activities and

aesthetics as discrete entities. This is not surprising since aesthetics has traditionally been

relegated to perception and reflection activities. The groundbreaking notion that

aesthetics should be a conscious component of art production activities has only been

recently discussed (Armstrong, 1999; Jones, 1999; Jeffers, 1999). One purpose for

including aesthetic categories with production assessment criteria on the A rt Assessment

Survey was investigate this issue from a research perspective.

How many students are taught by elementary, middle, and high school teachers,

respectively?

There are differences in numbers of students taught in a year depending upon the

grade level of art instruction. Most elementary art teachers (77%) are responsible for

teaching between 200-600 students a year; with only 8% teaching fewer than 200

185


students. At the middle level, percentages are more evenly spaced with 25% teaching

100-199, 25% teaching 200-399, and 20% teaching 400-599. The shift to smaller

numbers continues into the high school level where 23% teach 1-99, and 61% teach 100-

199 students per year. The discrepancy is due, in part, to the differential number of

minutes o f art instruction per week. While most elementary teachers see each classroom

group of students for 50-60 minutes per week, most high school credit art courses teach

each class group for 250 minutes per week.

What are the percentages o f teachers who attended sta ff development or college classes

on assessment in the last two years?

Results show that 77% of respondents received instruction in assessment during

the last two years. This is a surprisingly large number since 80% had been teaching for

more than five years so that it was not part o f their undergraduate education. A possible

explanation is the change from the multiple-choice, fact-based Missouri achievement tests

to the Missouri Assessment Project (MAP), which is a more performance-based state

wide assessment in math, science, communication arts, social studies, health and physical

education, and the fine arts. To inform teachers about the new assessments, regional

professional development centers have disseminated information, and grass-roots, school-

based teachers’ assessment teams have been formed.

What are the percentages o f teachers who attended sta ff development or college classes

186


on art assessment?

The percentage o f art teachers who participated in art assessment instruction was

54%. Since the Fine Arts MAP test is the last to be implemented, with field testing

occurring in March, 2000; voluntary school participation in 2001; and mandated

participation in 2002; additional opportunities to learn about art assessment should be

available soon. Another possible reason that more teachers had not attended college

classes on art assessment could be that assessment is usually subsumed under an umbrella

of curriculum and/or instruction rather than being offered as a single course.

Discussion

In many ways, this research project reported results similar to those considered in

the review o f related literature, Chapter Two.

Portfolio contents mentioned in teacher comments were typical of the field (Wolf

& Pistone, 1991; Vermont Portfolio Project, 1995; Arter, 1995). Respondents to this

study agreed with the emphasis on reflective thinking found in the ARTS PROPEL model

(Gardner, 1989) and the International Baccalaureate (1996). However, they were less

supportive o f the workbook and process emphasis o f the International Baccalaureate than

Blaikie reported (1992, 1994). One reason for this discrepancy is that the IB involves

students at the upper high school levels while participants in this study taught K-12, and

187


the strongest support for sketchbooks/process documentation occurred at the high school

level.

Performance assessment criteria also supported writers in the field. Clark and

Zimmerman, 1984, looked at criteria evident in artworks and student behaviors that

indicate success. The strong responses to Art Product as well as the Attitude or Habits-

of-Mind criteria indicate that Missouri art teachers valued the same aspects o f assessment.

In addition, high percentages o f this study’s respondents valued the specific criteria

considered important to Clark and Zimmerman: creativity; composition/design; elements

and principles; skill at representation; use o f media; and techniques. A difference between

the two studies was that subject matter, highly important to Clark and Zimmerman, was

infrequently mentioned by study participants.

Criteria used in the ARTS PROPEL project which were similarly important in this

study were craftsmanship in production, inventiveness, expression, and effort (Gardner,

1989; Winner, 1992). Some International Baccalaureate (1996)criteria were similar:

creative thinking and expression, technical skill, and persistence; while there was a

difference in the value placed upon design and composition. A large percentage o f

Missouri teachers considered the elements and principles as important while is was worth

only 10% on the IB examination. Chapman’s 1982 research found that teachers based

lessons on elements and principles which represented formalist principles. Armstrong’s

(1994) recommended rubric criteria included items Missouri teachers also mentioned:

media, tools, equipment, process, techniques and concepts o f discipline-based art

education. Beattie, 1997, also included DBAE along with creating, responding, using

188


formal elements, and resolving as criteria for art assessment. While agreeing with the

former characteristics, Missouri teachers did not support Beattie’s emphasis on research,

the intent o f the artist being communicated, nor that students should respond to personal,

social, political, environmental, or spiritual contexts. Fewer Missouri teachers rated the

latter ideas as important. The concept o f socially relevant art, typical o f multicultural and

post-modern art, was not held to be important among survey respondents. It is possible

that the rural nature o f much of the state has kept teachers from being aware o f less

traditional and more contemporary artforms. In a similar way, Missouri teachers who

downplayed historical research, may have been responding to the lack o f research

resources in their schools and communities.

Survey participants validated the criteria found by Venet (1999a) in Missouri art

teacher focus groups: Craftspersonship; respect; growth; composition; elements and

principles o f art; growth; attitude; and knowledge o f art history, art criticism and

aesthetics.

Missouri teachers frequently did not support the literature which recommended a

connection between aesthetics and production o f art. Danto’s (1992, 1999) belief that it

takes an aesthetic theory to make something art was not supported since there were no

significant correlations between aesthetic criteria and what was taught. Other writers who

promoted the union o f aesthetic approaches and studio projects were Day, 199S; Barett,

1997; Jones, 1999; and Armstrong, 1999.

In the area o f aesthetics, Missouri teachers did support Hamblen, 1990, who found

that art teachers valued classroom activities for their own sake. Like respondents to this

189


study, there were several writers who valued expression (Erikson, 1994; Parsons, 1997;

Freedman & Wood, 1999).

Conclusions

The findings describe what a sample of Missouri art teachers teach and assess, and

what they consider important in that process. This data can become part of the framework

of future art educational research in Missouri. Many o f the criteria listed on the survey

instrument are appropriate for inclusion within the context o f a state rubric. The specific

criteria are reported in Figure 1.

The figure is divided into sections by the category headings used on the

questionnaire. Under each category is a list o f criteria recommended for inclusion on a

state rubric. Criteria have been included if 70% or more teachers at a grade level agreed

that they were important. Columns represent the three grade levels: elementary, middle,

and high school. A check mark recommends that the individual criterion should be

included on a grade level rubric.

In Figure 1, the category names and numbers refer to their placement on the

questionnaire.

The following symbols are used in figure one:

✓ means that the criterion is included on the specific grade level rubric, and

0 means that the criterion is not included on the specific grade level rubric.

190


Figure 1.

Recommended Criteria for Grade Level. State Art Rubrics bv Category

Category n . Responding Criteria Include on Rubric for Grade Level:


Explains perceptions o f artwork ✓ ✓ ✓

Identifies connections among arts and with other subjects

✓ ✓ ✓

Relates art from historical periods, movements, and/or cultures to own work

/ ✓ ✓

Uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluated artworks

/ ✓ ✓

Student self-evaluates ✓ ✓ ✓

Category in . Creating or Process Criteria Include on Rubric for Grade Level:


Correctly uses assigned processes, media, and techniques

✓ ✓ ✓

Demonstrates problem-solving process: brainstorms, develops and revises, produces final work, self-evaluates

/ ✓ ✓

Demonstrates originality, creativity, or inventiveness

/ ✓ ✓

191


Figure 1, continued

Category IV. Attitude or Habits-of-Mind Criteria Include on Rubric for Grade Level:


Is persistently on task ✓ ✓ ✓

Respects materials, equipment, other students and their art

✓ ✓ ✓

Shows commitment, pursues problems through revisions

✓ ✓ ✓

Is responsive to teacher’s feedback ✓ ✓ ✓

Category V. Art Product Criteria Include on Rubric for Grade Level for:


Demonstrates technical skill or craftspersonship

✓ ✓ ✓

Demonstrates planned, effective composition ✓ ✓ ✓

Work shows improvement from past product/performances

✓ ✓ ✓

Demonstrates assigned concepts, processes elements, and/or principles

✓ ✓ ✓

Intent o f artist is communicated ✓ ✓ ✓

192


Figure 1, continued

Category VI. Aesthetics, Formalist Include on Rubric for Grade Level for:


Use of elements o f art ✓ ✓ ✓

Use of principles o f design ✓ ✓ ✓

Distorts, exaggerates for purpose o f design 0 0 ✓

Composition ✓ ✓ ✓

Category VI. Aesthetics, Expressionist Include on Rubric for Grade Level fo r


Expresses ideas, attitudes, or feelings ✓ ✓ ✓

Evokes emotions or feelings in viewer ✓ 0 ✓

Communicates a point o f view 0 ✓ ✓

Category VI. Aesthetics, Imitationalist Include on Rubric for Grade Level.


Real or idealized representation o f life 0 0 ✓

Shows realistic form (3-D), or illusion of form (2-D)

✓ ✓ ✓

Shows realistic texture (3-D), or illusion of texture (2-D)

✓ ✓ ✓

Shows space (3-D), or illusion o f depth (2-D) / ✓ ✓

193


An analysis o f the data in this study suggests the following conclusions:

1. There should be three separate Missouri art assessment rubrics, one each for

elementary, middle, and high school levels. The percentages o f teachers who believe each

criterion to be important varied by grade level, in some cases showing significant

differences. Criteria that garnered greater than 70% support from teachers at each grade

level are included in the rubric recommendations for that grade level. Twenty-three

criteria are included on all three rubrics. When less than 70% of teachers at a grade level

agreed that a criterion was important, it was not recommended for inclusion on a Missouri

rubric. Each o f the criteria were manifest at all grade levels with four exceptions. Two

criteria, “distorts, exaggerates for purpose o f design”, and “real or idealized representation

o f life”, are recommended for only the high school rubric. The criteria, “evokes emotions

or feelings in viewer”, is not suggested for the middle-level rubric. “Communicates a

point o f view” was deemed important at both middle and high school levels, but not at the

elementary level.

2. Aesthetic subcategories o f Formalist, Expressionist, Instrumental, and Imitationalist

criteria are significantly different from each other. Teachers would select one or more sets

o f aesthetic criteria to use when judging a particular artwork. The decision would be

based upon the intent or style o f the work. Teachers who responded with written

comments stated that the use o f aesthetic criteria depended upon the assignment.

194


3. This research indicates that teachers make few connections between given aesthetic

theories (Formalist, Expressionist, Instrumental, Pragmatic) and what they teach their

students. Aesthetics, when taught at all, is limited to students’ responses to art. Even

though the elements and principles o f art are highly valued and frequently taught, the data

show that in teachers’ practice they are not related to a formalist philosophy o f art.

4. Teachers in Missouri are interested in assessment. This is supported in two ways by

study results: the return o f 75% o f mailed questionnaires; and the 77% of teachers who

participated in staff development or college classes on assessment in the previous two

years.

Recommendations

As a result o f the findings and conclusions of this study, the following

recommendations related to the study o f art assessment are made:

1. The results o f this study suggest the need for three state rubrics, one each for

elementary, middle, and high school levels, as displayed in Figure 1. The questionnaire

criteria manifest at all grade levels with four exceptions. The criteria teachers did not

support were:

1) under the Creating category, “documents process in sketchbook or journal entries”;

2) under the Art Product category, “artwork includes relevant art historical influences”;

3) under the Expressionist subcategory of Aesthetic Criteria, “responds to personal,

195


social, or spiritual contexts”; and

4) all descriptors listed under the Instrumental subcategory o f Aesthetic Criteria

a) “ reflects a society, culture, or group o f people”;

b) “ shows personal interpretation o f art history or culture”;

c) “ responds to environmental or political contexts”; and

d) “ serves a functional purpose”.

2. In order to create a rubric based upon the results o f this study, descriptors must be

added that depict various achievement levels. The Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task

Force (2000) reviewed the A rt Assessment Survey developed for this study, and decided

that the criteria, overall, could be used on a single rubric for all the arts: visual, music,

theatre, and dance. They developed a rubric with descriptors gleaned from the significant

criteria selected by teachers in this study. The Missouri rubric rearranged all presented

criteria into categories previously used in Frameworks fo r M issouri Schools (1996).

These categories are: Art Production, Art History, Art Criticism, and Aesthetics. All

aesthetic theories and references to expression were deleted to forestall criticism from

political factions opposed to having aesthetics in the state goals. The Missouri Art

Assessment Rubric, draft version, is located in the Appendix on page 306.

3. In the process o f rubric development, once a rubric has been constructed, it should be

field tested for validation by art teachers working with students’ artworks and writings.

Benchmark, or anchor, examples should be selected from student works which illustrate

196


each described level o f quality. If the rubric doesn’t function to help teachers differentiate

among works of various levels of quality, then the state will have the responsibility for

making revisions. After the field test results have been used to improve the rubric,

teachers can be trained in its use.

4. Further study is needed to determine whether or not the specific criteria considered

important to a sample o f Missouri art teachers would also be important to art teachers

outside of this state. Missouri teachers tend to value criteria similar to those used in

Advanced Placement (1992), Arts PROPEL (1992), and International Baccalaureate

(1996) assessments. This alignment could suggest that the Missouri rubric can be

generalized. Future research should be sensitive to regional, cultural, and language

differences to determine if modifications would be necessary.

5. Research should be conducted on definable connections between aesthetic approaches

to art and practice in K-12 classrooms. The scales used to describe the four subcategories

of aesthetic criteria were significantly different from one another, making them applicable

to future research that examines the relationship o f aesthetic theories to curriculum and

instruction. If the Art Assessment Survey, presented in this study, is used again, directions

should be clarified to explain that each aesthetic theory would be used only when relevant

to a specific image or project goal.

6. The problem considered in this study was limited to identifying criteria that teachers

197


agreed were most important for assessing student artwork and related writing. Additional

manuscripts that highlight a single survey category should report the range o f teachers’

opinions regarding that specific category o f art assessment criteria. Results should include

percentages of teachers’ responses for each criteria, and would report them by points on

the Likert scale: “very important”, “important”, “no opinion”, “little importance”, and “

no importance”.

Implications

As a result o f the findings o f this study, the following list presents broad

implications for research and practice:

1. Assessment has the power to drive curriculum development and instructional practices.

If the assessment requires students to use higher order thinking and creating skills, then

the quality o f teaching and learning will increase. A generic rubric for student portfolios

(composed of diverse, teacher-designed assignments) is a tool for reaching higher

standards. The rubric suggested in this study can be flexibly adapted at the regional, state,

local, and classroom levels. However, the rubric must be paired with teacher training in

assessment o f student work. Portfolio scoring should be a group activity during which

critical attributes o f quality artwork are the focus of teacher discussions. Teachers who

participate in this group scoring experience will bring improved focus and new ideas back

to the classroom.

198


2. The process, used in this study, which asks teachers to reflect upon the importance o f

various aspects o f assessment, could be used as a model by school districts and/or other

states. At the state level, the process can lead to achievement o f state standards. At the

district or building level, a survey o f this type could become part o f the self-study

component of a school improvement plan.

3. The data suggest a major discrepancy between what is being taught in Missouri art

classrooms and what is being presented as important by significant art education journals.

Formalism, represented by an emphasis on teaching the elements and principles o f art, is

most important to teachers in this state. Outside the classroom, postmodernist art

communicates social, personal, political, environmental, spiritual, technological, or

cultural messages. In order for students to understand art in society, they must be

exposed to aesthetic points o f view beyond the formal, or modernist perspective. It is

essential for them to be able to analyze artworks in light o f aesthetic theories of

Imitationalism, Instrumentalism/Pragmatism, and Expressionism as well as formalism.

4. Students should be able to produce art from a variety o f aesthetic viewpoints. It is

important for them to understand that, as artists, they can create for various intents and

purposes. To improve visual communication, students should be able to select among a

variety of aesthetic theories as tools, just as they would select from diverse media and

technical skills

199


5. Teachers consider the artistic process and problem-solving to be important but do not

embrace assessment o f these processes. Even though growth, improvement, and

experimentation were listed as important by teachers, they frequently do not assess

sketchbooks, journals, rough drafts, sketches, o r developmental drawings. Teachers

spend the majority o f their time assessing the final product. In contrast, energy spent

assessing the process may be more effective since it gives students the opportunity to

reflect upon and improve their work. Teachers should be trained to assess critical and

creative thinking so that their feedback can help students improve their process skills.

6. Missouri art teachers indicate little support for art historical writing even though it is

required by the Show-Me Standards fo r M issouri Schools (1996) and Frameworks fo r

M issouri Schools (1996) with which all local curricula must be aligned. Teachers’ low

opinions of art history could stem from a lack o f art historic knowledge, writing skills, and

traditional methods o f college instruction. Results from the Art History Assessment

Survey o f Missouri A rt Teachers (Venet, 1998) indicate that when asked which art

historical figures, periods, and works should be included on a state test, teachers had

limited preferences. Missouri art teachers chose white, male, Euro-American artists with a

few exceptions such as Faith Ringgold, and Mary Cassatt. Missouri standards state that

students should know the work of artists from various cultures, but teachers lack the

knowledge base to implement this plan. Though all Missouri art teachers had college

courses in art history, most courses were isolated from educational theory and involved

memorization o f images, artists, and dates from the Western canon. Art education majors

200


were not given models for teaching K-12 students to conduct art historical research.

Public school art history is generally taught as shorter versions o f college lectures. Art

educators and art historians on college campuses should jointly develop non-traditional art

history courses which integrate history, multiculturalism, and art education while teaching

writing skills. Further educational practices that could impart this vital information include

in-service workshops and/or staff development opportunities.

7. The strong support for including Attitudes or Habits-of-Mind criteria on a state rubric

indicates that in many cases (especially at the elementary and middle levels) art grades

reflect students' behavior more than it does achievement o f artistic skills in reflection,

problem-solving, or art production. Especially in early childhood art education, teachers’

goals for their students have little to do with art knowledge or skill, but more with

wanting the child to enjoy art. Though all teachers want students to find personal pleasure

in artistic endeavors, it becomes evident that little actual assessment occurs in art

classrooms, in spite o f grades assigned during each marking period. When students are

not held accountable for learning, teachers can relieve themselves of the responsibility for

teaching art content. To counteract this tendency, art teachers at all three grade levels

need to discuss grading practices and find a comfortable middle-ground where students

are both encouraged to enjoy art as well as to demonstrate art knowledge and skills.

201


Summary

This study encompassed many aspects o f teacher’s opinions about assessment and

led to the development o f a Missouri Art Assessment Rubric. Beyond the state of

Missouri, this study provides a model for determining which criteria are appropriate for

assessment o f student art products at the elementary, middle, and high school grade levels.

Unlike a teacher’s typical classroom rubric, the criteria in this study are generic, so that

they translate to a variety o f media and projects. Large-scale assessment in the United

States has been hindered by the pluralistic art content, curricula, and contexts in which it is

taught. Following the example of the Advanced Placement and International

Baccalaureate Exams, which test high level thinking and creating, national rubrics could be

constructed to provide a means for reporting achievement while encouraging the creativity

and production skills inherent in quality art. The use o f assessment rubrics could guide

and increase student achievement as teachers and students use them to discuss portfolios.

When both teachers and students are held accountable to high standards, the quality of

instruction and student achievement tend to increase. It is the goal o f this research that

the implications o f teacher preferences for assessment criteria will help the states review

their standards and practices. Portfolio assessment, guided by the rubric recommended in

this study could inform teacher practice and thereby, help to elevate student achievement.

202


APPENDIX

203


Table 35.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: II . Rough Drafts

Source DF

Sum of Mean

Squares Square F Value Pr > F

Model 2 19.33726043 9.66863022 7.42 0.0007

Error 282 367.44870448 1.30300959


R-Square C.V. Root MSE 11 Mean

0.049995 32.99452 1.141494 3.459649


LEVEL 2 19.33726043 9.66863022 7.42 0.0007


LEVEL 2 19.33726043 9.66863022 7.42 0.0007

elementary teachers n=l 19

middle level teachers n=64

high school teachers n=102

204


Table 36.

Tukev’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: II . Rough Drafts


Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 df= 282 MSE= 1.30301







3 -2 -0.2052 0.2237 0.6526

3 - 1 0.2239 0.5868 0.9498 ***

2 -3 -0.6526 -0.2237 0.2052

2 - 1 -0.0537 0.3632 0.7801

I -3 -0.9498 -0.5868 -0.2239 ***

1 -2 -0.7801 -0.3632 0.0537


Table 37.

Contrast for Dependent Variable: II. Rough Drafts


elem vs. middle 1 5.48941831 5.48941831 4.21 0.0410

elem vs. high 1 18.91413488 18.91413488 14.52 0.0002

middle vs. high 1 1.96705941 1.96705941 1.51 0.2202

206


Table 38.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 12. Final Product

Source

Sum o f Mean

DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F

Model 2 2.44997329 1.22498665 3.60 0.0285

Error 285 96.87988782 0.33992943


R-Square C.V Root MSE 12 Mean

0.024665 12.33754 0.583035 4.725694

Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value P r> F

LEVEL 2 2.44997329 1.22498665 3.60 0.0285

Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value P r > F

LEVEL 2 2.44997329 1.22498665 3.60 0.0285

elementary n=T20

middle n= 64

high n=104

207


Table 39.

Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: 12. Final Product


Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 df=285 MSE= 0.339929







3 -2 -0.20742 0.01082 0.22906

3 - 1 0.00699 0.19103 0.37506 ***

2 -3 -0.22906 -0.01082 0.20742

2 - 1 -0.03242 0.18021 0.39283

1 -3 -0.37506 -0.19103 -0.00699 ***

1 -2 -0.39283 -0.18021 0.03242

208


Table 40.

Contrast for Dependent Variable: 12. Final Product


elem vs. middle 1 1.35548007 1.35548007 3.99 0.0468

elem vs. high 1 2.03305861 2.03305861 5.98 0.0151

middle vs. high 1 0.00463599 0.00463599 0.01 0.9071

209


Table 41.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 14. Art Criticism

Source DF

Sum of Mean


Model 2 16.45961376 8.22980688 8.48 0.0003

Error 284 275.47766847 0.96999179


R-Square C. V. Root MSE 14 Mean

0.056381 25.76673 0.984882 3.822300


LEVEL 2 16.45961376 8.22980688 8.48 0.0003


LEVEL 2 16.45961376 8.22980688 8.48 0.0003

elementary n=l 19

middle n=64

high n=104


Table 42.

Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: 14. Art Criticism


Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 dfi= 284 MSE= 0.969992







3 -2 -0.3554 0.0132 0.3819

3 - 1 0.1795 0.4910 0.8025 ***

2 -3 -0.3819 -0.0132 0.3554

2 - 1 0.1181 0.4778 0.8375 ***

1 -3 -0.8025 -0.4910 -0.1795 ***

1 -2 -0.8375 -0.4778 -0.1181 ***

211


Table 43.

Contrast for Dependent Variable: 14. Art Criticism


elem vs. middle 1 9.50136684 9.50136684 9.80 0.0019

elem vs. high 1 13.38114599 13.38114599 13.80 0.0002

middle vs. high 1 0.00692537 0.00692537 0.01 0.9327

212


Table 44.

General Linear Models Procedure ANQVA for Dependent Variable: 15. Art Historical

Writing

Source DF

Sum o f Mean


Model 2 32.30107210 16.15053605 14.00 0.0001

Error 278 320.80213075 1.15396450


R-Square C V Root MSE 15 Mean

0.091478 38.06531 1.074227 2.822064


LEVEL 2 32.30107210 16.15053605 14.00 0.0001


LEVEL 2 32.30107210 16.15053605 14.00 0.0001

elementary n=l 18

middle n=63

high n=100


Table 45.

Tukev's Studentized Range fHSDI Test for variable: 15. Art Historical Writing









-2 -0.3824 0.0248 0.4319

3 - 1 0.3522 0.6963 1.0403 ***

2 -3 -0.4319 -0.0248 0.3824

2 - 1 0.2765 0.6715 1.0665 ***

1 -3 -1.0403 -0.6963 -0.3522 ***

1 - 2 -1.0665 -0.6715 -0.2765 ***


Table 46.

Contrast for Dependent Variable: IS. Art Historical Writing


elem vs. middle 1 18.52030019 18.52030019 16.05 0.0001

elem vs. high 1 26.24111958 26.24111958 22.74 0.0001

middle vs. high 1 0.02369851 0.02369851 0.02 0.8862


Table 47.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 17. Portfolio

Source DF

Sum of Mean


Model 2 41.05331938 20.52665969 13.17 0.0001

Error 258 402.25702545 1.55913576



0.092606 34.81822 1.248654 3.586207


LEVEL 2 41.05331938 20.52665969 13.17 0.0001

Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F

LEVEL 2 41.05331938 20.52665969 13.17 0.0001

elementary n=109

middle n=58

high n=94

216


Table 48.

Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD1 Test for Variable: 17. Portfolio









3 -2 -0.1214 0.3701 0.8616

3 - 1 0.4814 0.8958 1.3101 ***

2 -3 -0.8616 -0.3701 0.1214

2 - 1 0.0472 0.5256 1.0040 ***

1 -3 -1.3101 -0.8958 -0.4814 ***

I -2 -1.0040 -0.5256 -0.0472 ***


Table 49. Contrast for Dependent Variable: 17. Portfolio


elem vs. middle 1 10.45898933 10.45898933 6.71 0.0101

elem vs. high 1 40.49913219 40.49913219 25.98 0.0001

middle vs. high 1 4.91408754 4.91408754 3.15 0.0770


Table 50.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 114. Uses Vocabulary

Source DF

Sum of

Squares

Mean

Square F Value Pr > F

Model 2 4.85272723 2.42636362 3.99 0.0196

Error 279 169.78557064 0.60855043


R-Square C V Root MSE 114 Mean

0.027787 17.79832 0.780096 4.382979


LEVEL 2 4.85272723 2.42636362 3.99 0.0196

Source DF Type HI SS Mean Square F Value P r> F

LEVEL 2 4.85272723 2.42636362 3.99 0.0196

elementary n=l 17

middle n=63

high n=102

219


Table 51.

Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD1 Test for variable: 114. Uses Vocabulary


Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 dfi=279 MSE= 0.60855

Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.332






3 -2 -0.2194 0.0752 0.3697

3 - 1 0.0398 0.2888 0.5378 ***

2 - 3 -0.3697 -0.0752 0.2194

2 - 1 -0.0736 0.2137 0.5009

1 - 3 -0.5378 -0.2888 -0.0398 ♦**

1 -2 -0.5009 -0.2137 0.0736

220


Table 52.

Contrast for Dependent Variable: 114. Uses Vocabulary

Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value P r> F

elem vs. middle 1 1.86965812 1.86965812 3.07 0.0807

elem vs. high 1 4.54624062 4.54624062 7.47 0.0067

middle vs. high 1 0.22002377 0.22002377 0.36 0.5481


Table 53.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 115. Self-Evaluate

Source DF

Sum of

Squares

Mean


Model 2 7.16778596 3.58389298 4.73 0.0096

Error 279 211.48824241 0.75802237



0.032781 20.68423 0.870645 4.209220


LEVEL 2 7.16778596 3.58389298 4.73 0.0096


LEVEL 2 7.16778596 3.58389298 4.73 0.0096

elementary n=l 18

middle n=63

high n=101

222


Table 54.

Tukev's Studentized Range fHSDi Test for variable: 115. Self-Evaluate


Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 279 MSE= 0.758022







2 -3 -0.2395 0.0899 0.4193

2 - 1 0.0513 0.3714 0.6915 ***

3 -2 -0.4193 -0.0899 0.2395

3 - 1 0.0034 0.2815 0.5596 ***

1 -2 -0.6915 -0.3714 -0.0513 ***

1 -3 -0.5596 -0.2815 -0.0034 ***

223


Table 55.

Contrasts for Dependent Variable: 115. Self-Evaluate


elem vs. middle 1 5.66541439 5.66541439 7.47 0.0067

elem vs. high 1 4.31258386 4.31258386 5.69 0.0177

middle vs. high 1 0.31353519 0.31353519 0.41 0.5207


Table 56.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: III4.

Sketchbook/Journal

Source DF

Sum of Mean


Model 2 24.02059663 12.01029832 7.98 0.0004

Error 280 421.17374966 1.50419196


R-Square C.V. Root MSE IH4 Mean

0.053955 38.73736 1.226455 3.166078


LEVEL 2 24.02059663 12.01029832 7.98 0.0004


LEVEL 2 24.02059663 12.01029832 7.98 0.0004

elementary n=l 17

middle n=63

high n=103


Table 57.

Tukev's Studentized Range (HSDl Test for variable: 1114 . Sketchbook/Journal

NOTE: This test controls the type I experiment wise error rate.








3 -2 -0.3904 0.0718 0.5340

3 - 1 0.2259 0.6164 1.0068 ***

2 -3 -0.5340 -0.0718 0.3904

2 - 1 0.0930 0.5446 0.9962 ***

1 -3 -1.0068 -0.6164 -0.2259 ***

1 -2 -0.9962 -0.5446 -0.0930 ***

226


Table 58.

Contrasts for Dependent Variable: 1114. Sketchbook/Journal


elem vs. middle 1 12.14383394 12.14383394 8.07 0.0048

elem vs. high 1 20.81124313 20.81124313 13.84 0.0002

middle vs. high 1 0.20159788 0.20159788 0.13 0.7146


Table 59.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: IV3. Shows Commitment

Source DF

Sum of

Squares

Mean


Model 2 2.46407635 1.23203818 3.34 0.0369

Error 285 105.18870143 0.36908316


R-Square C V. Root MSE IV3 Mean

0.022889 13.23498 0.607522 4.590278


LEVEL 2 2.46407635 1.23203818 3.34 0.0369

Source DF Type i n SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F

LEVEL 2 2.46407635 1.23203818 3.34 0.0369

elementary n=121

middle n=62

high n=105


Table 60.

Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: IV3. Shows Commitment


Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 d£= 285 MSE= 0.369083







3 -2 -0.14692 0.08233 0.31159

3 - 1 0.01673 0.20763 0.39854 ***

2 -3 -0.31159 -0.08233 0.14692

2 - 1 -0.09826 0.12530 0.34886

1 -3 -0.39854 -0.20763 -0.01673 ***

1 -2 -0.34886 -0.12530 0.09826

229


Table 61.

Contrasts for Dependent Variable: IV3. Shows Commitment


elem vs. middle 1 0.64361708 0.64361708 1.74 0.1877

elem vs. high 1 2.42363086 2.42363086 6.57 0.0109

middle vs. high 1 0.26426042 0.26426042 0.72 0.3982


Table 62.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: Vl.Craftspersonship

Source DF

Sum of

Squares

Mean


Model 2 8.93556999 4.46778499 7.85 0.0005

Error 283 161.12387057 0.56934230


R-Square C.V Root MSE VI Mean

0.052544 17.61638 0.754548 4.283217


LEVEL 2 8.93556999 4.46778499 7.85 0.0005


LEVEL 2 8.93556999 4.46778499 7.85 0.0005

elementary n=l 17

middle n=64

high n=105

231


Table 63.

Tukev's Studentized Ranee (HSD) Test for variable: Vl.Craftspersonship









3 - 2 -0.10872 0.17321 0.45515

3 - 1 0.16125 0.40024 0.63924 ***

2 -3 -0.45515 -0.17321 0.10872

2 - 1 -0.04938 0.22703 0.50344

I -3 -0.63924 -0.40024 -0.16125 ***

1 - 2 -0.50344 -0.22703 0.04938

232


Table 64.

Contrasts for Dependent Variable: Vl.Craftspersonship

Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value P r> F

elem vs. middle 1 2.13232516 2.13232516 3.75 0.0540

elem vs. high 1 8.86486816 8.86486816 15.57 0.0001

middle vs. high 1 1.19302620 1.19302620 2.10 0.1488


Table 65.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: V2. Plans

Composition

Source DF

Sum of

Squares

Mean


Model 2 5.89220355 2.94610177 7.73 0.0005

Error 285 108.55224090 0.38088506


R-Square C V Root MSE V2 Mean

0.051485 14.15141 0.617159 4.361 111

Source DF Type 1 SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F

LEVEL 2 5.89220355 2.94610177 7.73 0.0005

Source DF Type in SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F

LEVEL 2 5.89220355 2.94610177 7.73 0.0005

elementary n=l 19

middle n=64

high n=105

234


Table 66.

Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: V2. Plans Composition









3 - 2 -0.16333 0.06726 0.29786

3 - 1 0.11679 0.31148 0.50618 ***

2 -3 -0.29786 -0.06726 0.16333

2 - 1 0.01882 0.24422 0.46962 ***

1 -3 -0.50618 -0.31148 -0.11679 ***

1 -2 -0.46962 -0.24422 -0.01882 ***

235


Table 67.

Contrasts for Dependent Variable: V2. Plans Composition


elem vs. middle 1 2.48226340 2.48226340 6.52 0.0112

elem vs. high 1 5.41204482 5.41204482 14.21 0.0002

middle vs. high 1 0.17989575 0.17989575 0.47 0.4925

236


Table 68.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VTT?., Realism from

Observation

Source DF

Sum of

Squares

Mean


Model 2 8.91200405 4.45600202 6.63 0.0015

Error 284 190.97649770 0.67245246


R-Square C V Root MSE VH2 Mean

0.044585 18.91874 0.820032 4.334495


LEVEL 2 8.91200405 4.45600202 6.63 0.0015


LEVEL 2 8.91200405 4.45600202 6.63 0.0015

elementary n=l20

middle n=62

high n=105


Table 69.

Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VII2. Realism from Observation




Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by





3 -2 -0.1889 0.1206 0.4300

3 - 1 0.1323 0.3905 0.6487 ***

2 -3 -0.4300 -0.1206 0.1889

2 - 1 -0.0323 0.2699 0.5721

1 -3 -0.6487 -0.3905 -0.1323 ***

1 -2 -0.5721 -0.2699 0.0323

238


Table 70.

Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VH2. Realism from Observation


elem vs. middle 1 2.97771476 2.97771476 4.43 0.0362

elem vs. high 1 8.53841270 8.53841270 12.70 0.0004

middle vs. high 1 0.56681568 0.56681568 0.84 0.3593

239


Table 71.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VII7. Historical Stvle

Source DF

Sum of

Squares

Mean


Model 2 6.97745408 3.48872704 3.97 0.0199

Error 282 247.82956346 0.87882824


R-Square C V Root MSE VII7 Mean

0.027383 23.96194 0.937458 3.912281


LEVEL 2 6.97745408 3.48872704 3.97 0.0199


LEVEL 2 6.97745408 3.48872704 3.97 0.0199

elementary n=l 19

middle n=62

high n=104

240


Table 72.

Tukev's Studentized Range (USD) Test for variable: VII7. Historical Style









1 -2 -0.1897 0.1563 0.5022

1 - j 0.0580 0.3545 0.6510 ***

2 - 1 -0.5022 -0.1563 0.1897

2 -3 -0.1562 0.1982 0.5526

3 - 1 -0.6510 -0.3545 -0.0580 ***

3 -2 -0.5526 -0.1982 0.1562

241


Table 73.

Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VT17. Historical Style


elem vs. middle 1 0.99550029 0.99550029 1.13 0.2881

elem vs. high 1 6.97348876 6.97348876 7.93 0.0052

middle vs. high 1 1.52590885 1.52590885 1.74 0.1887

242


Table 74.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: V. Category o f Art

Product Criteria

Sum o f Mean

Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F

Model 2 2.73760945 1.36880472 6.20 0.0023

Error 286 63.09417063 0.22060899


R-Square C.V. Root MSE V Mean

0.041585 11.16991 0.469690 4.204960


LEVEL 2 2.73760945 1.36880472 6.20 0.0023


LEVEL 2 2.73760945 1.36880472 6.20 0.0023

elementary n=120

middle n=64

high n=105

243


Table 75.

Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: V. Category o f Art Product Criteria









3 -2 -0.06736 0.10813 0.28363

3 - 1 0.07304 0.22091 0.36879 ***

2 -3 -0.28363 -0.10813 0.06736

2 - 1 -0.05851 0.11278 0.28406

1 -3 -0.36879 -0.22091 -0.07304 ***

1 - 2 -0.28406 -0.11278 0.05851

244


Table 76.

Contrasts for Dependent Variable: V. Category o f Art Product Criteria


elem vs. middle 1 0.53087279 0.53087279 2.41 0.1219

elem vs. high 1 2.73293554 2.73293554 12.39 0.0005

middle vs. high 1 0.46495883 0.46495883 2.11 0.1477


Table 77.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VI. Category of

Aesthetic Criteria

Source DF

Sum o f

Squares

Mean


Model 2 1.84539831 0.92269916 3.27 0.0394

Error 286 80.66449572 0.28204369


R-Square C V Root MSE VI Mean

0.022366 13.39995 0.531078 3.963283


LEVEL 2 1.84539831 0.92269916 3.27 0.0394


LEVEL 2 1.84539831 0.92269916 3.27 0.0394

elementary n=120

middle n=64

high n=105


Table 78.

Tukev's Studentized Range fHSD) Test for variable: VI. Category o f Aesthetic Criteria









3 -2 -0.10152 0.09690 0.29533

3 - 1 0.01433 0.18153 0.34874 ***

2 -3 -0.29533 -0.09690 0.10152

2 - 1 -0.10905 0.08463 0.27830

1 -3 -0.34874 -0.18153 -0.01433 ***

1 -2 -0.27830 -0.08463 0.10905

247


Table 79.

Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VI. Category o f Aesthetic Criteria


elem vs. middle 1 0.29893270 0.29893270 1.06 0.3041

elem vs. high 1 1.84539794 1.84539794 6.54 0.0110

middle vs. high 1 0.37338437 0.37338437 1.32 0.2509


Table 80.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: MEANFORM.

Aesthetic Subcategorv o f Formalism

Source DF

Sum of

Squares

Mean


Model 2 2.97979601 1.48989800 5.87 0.0032

Error 285 72.28062066 0.25361621


R-Square C V Root MSE MEANFORM Mean

0.039593 11.44733 0.503603 4.399306


LEVEL 2 2.97979601 1.48989800 5.87 0.0032


LEVEL 2 2.97979601 1.48989800 5.87 0.0032

elementary n=120

middle n=64

high n=104

249


Table 81.

Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD1 Test for variable: MEANFORM. Aesthetic

Subcategorv of Formalism


Alpha=0.05 Confidence= 0.95 df= 285 MSE= 0.253616







3 -2 -0.02054 0.16797 0.35648

3 - 1 0.06812 0.22708 0.38605 ***

2 -3 -0.35648 -0.16797 0.02054

2 - 1 -0.12454 0.05911 0.24277

1 -3 -0.38605 -0.22708 -0.06812 ***

1 -2 -0.24277 -0.05911 0.12454

250


Table 82.

Contrasts for Dependent Variable: MEANFORM. Aesthetic Subcategorv o f Formalism


elem vs. middle 1 0.14585881 0.14585881 0.58 0.4489

elem vs. high 1 2.87300967 2.87300967 11.33 0.0009

middle vs. high 1 1.11779204 1.11779204 4.41 0.0367


Table 83.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: MEANMIM1.

Aesthetic Subcateeorv o f Imitationalism

Source DF

Sum of

Squares

Mean


Model 2 4.75166541 2.37583270 4.54 0.0114

Error 279 145.85927332 0.52279309


R-Square C V Root MSE MEANMIMI Mean

0.031549 17.97386 0.723044 4.022754


LEVEL 2 4.75166541 2.37583270 4.54 0.0114

Source DF Type i n SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F

LEVEL 2 4.75166541 2.37583270 4.54 0.0114

elementary n=l 18

middle n=62

high n=102

252


Table 84.

Tukev's Studentized Range fHSDl Test for variable: MEANMIMI. Aesthetic Subcategorv

of Imitationalism



Critical Value o f Studentized Range= 3 .332






3 -2 -0.18922 0.08515 0.35952

3 - 1 0.05713 0.28747 0.51781 ***

2 -3 -0.35952 -0.08515 0.18922

2 - 1 -0.06492 0.20232 0.46956

1 - j -0.51781 -0.28747 -0.05713 ***

1 -2 -0.46956 -0.20232 0.06492

253


Table 85.

Contrasts for Dependent Variable: MEANMIML Aesthetic Subcategory o f Imitationalism


elem vs. middle 1 1.66370008 1.66370008 3.18 0.0755

elem vs. high 1 4.52113357 4.52113357 8.65 0.0035

middle vs. high 1 0.27959906 0.27959906 0.53 0.4652

254


Table 86.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VTF3. Abstracts

Source DF

Sum of

Squares

Mean


Model 2 6.38752467 3.19376233 4.47 0.0123

Error 284 203.07588997 0.71505595


R-Square C V Root MSE VTF3 Mean

0.030495 21.53416 0.845610 3.926829


LEVEL 2 6.38752467 3.19376233 4.47 0.0123


LEVEL 2 6.38752467 3.19376233 4.47 0.0123

elementary n=120

middle n=64

high n=103

255


Table 87.

Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD1 Test for variable: VTF3. Abstracts









3 - 1 0.0419 0.3095 0.5772 ***

3 -2 -0.0034 0.3137 0.6308

1 -3 -0.5772 -0.3095 -0.0419 ***

1 -2 -0.3042 0.0042 0.3126

2 -3 -0.6308 -0.3137 0.0034

2 - 1 -0.3126 -0.0042 0.3042

256


Table 88.

Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VTF3. Abstracts


elem vs. middle 1 0.00072464 0.00072464 0.00 0.9746

elem vs. high 1 5.31088133 5.31088133 7.43 0.0068

middle vs. high I 3.88478868 3.88478868 5.43 0.0205

257


Table 89.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VTF4. Composition

Source DF

Sum of

Squares

Mean


Model 2 4.63173509 2.31586755 6.02 0.0027

Error 283 108.85427889 0.38464410


R-Square C V Root MSE VIF4 Mean

0.040813 13.76077 0.620197 4.506993


LEVEL 2 4.63173509 2.31586755 6.02 0.0027

Source DF Type m S S Mean Square F Value Pr > F

LEVEL 2 4.63173509 2.31586755 6.02 0.0027

elementary n=l 19

middle n=63

high n=104

258


Table 90.

Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VTF4. Composition


Alpha= 0.05 Confidence^ 0.95 df= 283 MSE= 0.384644







3 -2 -0.14462 0.08868 0.32197

3 - 1 0.08673 0.28289 0.47904 ***

2 -3 -0.32197 -0.08868 0.14462

2 - 1 -0.03347 0.19421 0.42189

1 - 3 -0.47904 -0.28289 -0.08673 ***

1 -2 -0.42189 -0.19421 0.03347

259


Table 91.

Dependent Variable: VTF4. Composition


elem vs. middle 1 1.55368814 1.55368814 4.04 0.0454

elem vs. high 1 4.44118698 4.44118698 11.55 0.0008

middle vs. high I 0.30850479 0.30850479 0.80 0.3712

260


Table 92.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VIM1. Realism

Source DF

Sum of

Squares

Mean


Model 2 5.07622389 2.53811195 2.95 0.0542

Error 277 238.63449039 0.86149636


R-Square C.V Root MSE VIM1 Mean

0.020829 24.54080 0.928168 3.782143

Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value P r > F

LEVEL 2 5.07622389 2.53811195 2.95 0 0542


LEVEL 2 5.07622389 2.53811195 2.95 0.0542

elementary n=l 16

middle n=62

high n=102

261


Table 93.

Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VTM1. Realism



Critical Value o f Studentized Range= 3 .333






3 -2 -0.1593 0.1929 0.5451

3 - 1 0.0075 0.3044 0.6013 ***

2 -3 -0.5451 -0.1929 0.1593

2 - 1 -0.2326 0.1115 0.4556

1 - 3 -0.6013 -0.3044 -0.0075 ***

1 -2 -0.4556 -0.1115 0.2326

262


Table 94.

Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VTM1. Realism

Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value P r > F

elem vs. middle 1 0.50243404 0.50243404 0.58 0.4457

elem vs. high 1 5.03005533 5.03005533 5.84 0.0163

middle vs. high 1 1.43510591 1.43510591 1.67 0.1979

263


Table 95.

General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VTM2. Shows

Realistic Form

Source DF

Sum of

Squares

Mean


Model 2 6.30388427 3.15194214 4.33 0.0141

Error 279 203.13228594 0.72807271


R-Square C.V Root MSE VTM2 Mean

0.030099 20.94192 0.853272 4.074468


LEVEL 2 6.30388427 3.15194214 4.33 0.0141


LEVEL 2 6.30388427 3.15194214 4.33 0.0141

elementary n=l 18

middle n=62

high n=102

264


Table 96.

Tukev's Studentized Range fHSD) Test for variable: VIM2. Shows Realistic Form


Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 d£= 279 MSE= 0.728073







2 -3 -0.3102 0.0136 0.3374

2 - 1 -0.0040 0.3114 0.6267

3 -2 -0.3374 -0.0136 0.3102

3 - 1 0.0259 0.2978 0.5696 ***

1 -2 -0.6267 -0.3114 0.0040

1 -3 -0.5696 -0.2978 -0.0259 ***

265


Table 97.

Contrast for Dependent Variable: VTM2. Shows Realistic Form


elem vs. middle 1 3.94058988 3.94058988 5.41 0.0207

elem vs. high 1 4.85099852 4.85099852 6.66 0.0104

middle vs. high 1 0.00713118 0.00713118 0.01 0.9212


Table 98.


Realistic Texture

Source DF

Sum of

Squares

Mean


Model 2 3.78900250 1.89450125 2.86 0.0587

Error 278 183.85512562 0.66134937


R-Square C.V. Root MSE VTM3 Mean

0.020192 20.15156 0.813234 4.035587


LEVEL 2 3.78900250 1.89450125 2.86 0.0587


LEVEL 2 3.78900250 1.89450125 2.86 0.0587

267


Table 99.

Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VTM3. Shows Realistic Texture

NOTE: This test controls the type I experiment wise error rate.



Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by ’***'.





3 -2 -0.2054 0.1038 0.4130

3 - I 0.0018 0.2615 0.5213 ***

2 - 3 -0.4130 -0.1038 0.2054

2 - 1 -0.1428 0.1577 0.4583

1 - 3 -0.5213 -0.2615 -0.0018 ***

1 -2 -0.4583 -0.1577 0.1428


Table 100.

Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VINO. Shows Realistic Texture


elem vs. middle 1 1.01126602 1.01126602 1.53 0.2173

elem vs. high 1 3.72242631 3.72242631 5.63 0.0184

middle vs. high 1 0.41392918 0.41392918 0.63 0.4295

269


Table 101.


Realistic Space

Source DF

Sum of

Squares

Mean


Model 2 6.70601289 3.35300645 5.69 0.0038

Error 278 163.90608675 0.58959024


R-Square C V. Root MSE VTM4 Mean

0.039306 18.23882 0.767848 4.209964


LEVEL 2 6.70601289 3.35300645 5.69 0.0038

Source DF Type in SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F

LEVEL 2 6.70601289 3.35300645 5.69 0.0038

elementary n=l 18

middle n=62

high n=101

270


Table 102.

Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VTM4. Shows Realistic Space


Alpha= 0.05 Confidence- 0.95 dfi= 278 MSE= 0.58959

Critical Value o f Studentized Range— 3.332






3 -2 -0.18988 0.10204 0.39396

3 - 1 0.09707 0.34234 0.58761 ***

2 -3 -0.39396 -0.10204 0.18988

2 - 1 -0.04351 0.24030 0.52410

1 - 3 -0.58761 -0.34234 -0.09707 ***

1 -2 -0.52410 -0.24030 0.04351

271


Table 103.

Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VIM4. Shows Realistic Space


elem vs. middle 1 2.34688354 2.34688354 3.98 0.0470

elem vs. high 1 6.37782840 6.37782840 10.82 0.0011

middle vs. high 1 0.40003782 0.40003782 0.68 0.4108

272


Table 104. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha Correlation Analysis

for RAW variables : 0.728608

for STANDARDIZED variables: 0.736474


Deleted

Variable

Correlation

with Total

Correlation

Alpha with Total Alpha

MEANPRAG 0.564840 0.640424 0 566960 0.642732

VIM 0.575504 0.610966 0.580847 0.626137

VTI5 0.533684 0.676011 0.533417 0.682093

k-12 n=279


REFERENCES

Alberta Department of Education. (1993). Educational quality indicators in art and mathematics. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Amburgy, P. (1985). Loved illusions and real beliefs: The concept o f aesthetic experience. In The history o f art education: Proceedings from the Penn State conference. College Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Abruscato, J. (1993) Early results and tentative implications from the Vermont portfolio project. Phi Delta Kappan, 74 (6), 474-477.

Anderson, D. (1992). Portfolio assessment as a record o f artistic learning. In M. Stokrocki (Ed.) New Waves o f Research in Art Education, 126-137.

Anderson, R.L. (1990). Calliope’s sisters: A comparative study ofphilosophies o f art. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Anderson, T. (1998). Aesthetics as critical inquiry. Art Education, 51(5) 49-55.

Anderson, T. (1994). The international baccalaureate model o f content-based art education. A rt Education, 47(2), 19-24.

Archbaud, D.A., & Newman, F.M. (1988). Beyond standardized testing: Assessing achievement in the secondary school. Reston: VA. National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Armstrong, C. (1994). Designing assessment in art. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Armstrong, C. (1999). Including aesthetics in art curriculum planning. Sycamore, IL: ABAFA Systems.

Arter, J. (1990) Curriculum-referenced test development workshop series. Addendum to workshops two and three: Using portfolios in instruction and assessment. Northwest Regional Education Lab. Portland, OR. Paper. ERIC Digest ED335365. Greensboro,NC.

Arter, J. (1995). Portfolios fo r assessment and instruction. ERIC Digest ED38889095. Greensboro, NC.

Arter, J. (1990). Using portfolios in instruction and assessment. Portland, Or:Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. ERIC Digest ED335364. Greensboro, NC.

274


Banks, J. A. (1998) Multicultural education and curriculum transformation. In F.Schultz (Ed.), M ulticultural Education 98/99. Sluice Dock, Guilford, Connecticut: Dushkin/McGraw H ill.

Barkan, M., Chapman, L., and Kem, E. (1970). Guidelines: Curriculum development fo r aesthetic education. St. Louis, MO: CEMREL.(Central Midwest Regional Education Laboratory).

Barrett, M. (1990). Guidelines for evaluation and assessment in art and design education 5-18 years. Journal o f Art and Design Education, 9(3), 229-313.

Barrett, T. (1997). Talking about student art. Worcester, Massachusetts: Davis Publications.

Battin M.P., Fisher, J., Moore, R., and Silvers, A. (1989). Puzzles about art: An aesthetics casebook. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Beardsley, M. (1958). Aesthetics: Problems in the philosophy o f criticism. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Beattie, D. K. (1997). Assessment in art education. Davis publications, Worchester,Mass.

Beattie, D. K. (1992). The feasibility of standardized performance assessment in the visual arts lessons from the Dutch model. Studies in Art Education, J-/(l), 6-17.

Beattie, D. K. (1994). The mini-portfolio: Locus o f a successful performance examination. Art Education, 47(2), 14-18.

Beattie, D. (1997). Visual arts criteria, objectives, and standards: A revisit. Studies in Art Education, 38(4), 217-231.

Beattie, D. (1999). Assessing current conceptions o f creativity. Presentation at National Art Education Association Conference in Washington, D C.

Berty, E. (1979). Ye olde maile surveye. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 177710: Charleston, WV.

Bezruczko, N. (1992). Development and evaluation o f a visual arts achievement test. Vernon Hills, IL: Illinois State Board of Education.

Bingham, D. (1989). Focus on fine arts: Visual arts. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association and National Art Education Association.

275


Blaikie, F. (1992). Structures and values inherent in senior secondary student assessment in studio art in Britain and North America. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.

Blaikie, F. (1994). What’s being measured in qualitative secondary studio assessment. Studies in A rt Education, 35(4), 237-251.

Bloom, B., Hastings, J.T., Madaus, G. (Eds.) 1981. Evaluation to improve learning.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Boughton, D. (1996). Introduction to the evaluation and assessment o f the visual arts. In D. Broughton, E. Eisner &J. Ligtvoet (Eds.) Evaluating and Assessing the Visual Arts in Education, 17-26. New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Boughton, D. (1997). Reconsidering issues of assessment and achievement standards in art education. Studies in Art Education, 38(4), 199-213.

Boughton, D. (1999). Unpublished draft o f book chapter to be published in Wul£ C. (Ed.) European studies in education. New York: Waxman .

Bourque, L.B. and Fielder, E.P. (1995). How to conduct self-administered and m ail surveys. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bowie, A. (1990). Aesthetics and subjectivity: from Kant to Nietzsche. New York: Manchester University Press.

Bradley, W. (1984). National examinations in art. In R.W. Ott, and A. Hurwitz, (Eds.), Art in education: An international perspective, 251-162. State College, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Broudy, H.S. (1981). Arts education as artistic perception. In Foundations fo r curriculum development and evaluation in art education. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company.

Broudy, H.S. (1981). How basic is aesthetic education? Or is ‘rt the fourth R? In Foundations fo r curriculum development and evaluation in art education. Champaign,IL: Stipes Publishing Company.

Broudy, H.S. (1987). The role o f imagery in learning. Los Angeles: The Getty Center for Education in the Arts.

Burton, D. (1998). A survey o f assessment and evaluation among U.S. K-12 teachers o f art. Grant Report to National Art Education Fund.

276


Carroll, D. (1993). The portfolio review process in practice at Ridgewood high school. Chicago: Paper presented at National Art Education Association.

Castiglione, L., (1996). Portfolio assessment in art and education. Arts Education Policy Review, 97(4), 2-9.

Cayne, B ., (1992). New W ebster’s dictionary and thesaurus o f the English language. Danbury, Ct: Lexicon Publications, Inc.

Center for Educational Statistics. (1987). Private school teachers’ opinions, 1985-86. Washington, D.C.

Chamberlin, J. (1988). Aesthetic scanning. [Workshop materials and additional lecture by Connie Newton during a workshop for Columbia Public Schools, Columbia, MOJanuary 27, 1989],

Chang, L. (1991). Higher education criticism: Do university faculty members and community professionals have different viewpoints? Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 339287: Charleston, WV.

Chapman, L.H. (1978). Approaches to art in education. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.

Chapman, L. (1985). Curriculum development as process and product. Studies in Art Education, 26(4) 206-11.

Chapman, L.H. (1982). Instant art, instant culture'. The unspoken policy fo r American schools. New York: Teachers College Columbia University.

Chapman, L. (1987). Lecture on aesthetics presented to audience at the University o f Missouri-Columbia.

Charles, C.M., (1998, 3rd ed.). Introduction to educational research. New York: Longman.

Clark, G. A., Day, M.D., and Greer, W.D. (1989). Discipline-based art education: Becoming students of art. In Smith, R.A. (Ed.). Discipline-based art education: Origins, meaning, and development. Urbana, II: University o f Illinois Press.

Clark, G., Zimmerman, E. (1984). Educating artistically talented students. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Clark, G., Zimmerman, E., Zurmuehlen, M. (1987). Understanding art testing. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

277


Clark, R. (1996). Art education: Issues in postmodernist pedagogy. Reston, VA:NAEA.

Clark, R. (1998). Doors and mirrors in art education: Constructing the postmodernist classroom. Art Education, 5 J(6) 6-11.

Coates, M., Gaither, J., Shauk, B. (1993). Dimensions o f portfolio assessment: Pushing practice beyond reflection. Chicago: Paper presented at National Art Education Association Conference.

Columbia Public Schools. (1998). Art Curriculum K -l2. Columbia, MO: Columbia Public Schools.

Council o f Chief State School Officers. (1998). Arts Education Consortium Field Test of Arts Assessment Materials. Unpublished materials available from 1 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20001-1431.

Costa, A.L. (1989). Guest editorial: Re-assessing assessment. Educational Leadership. 46(7), 2-3.

Crawford, D.W. (1989). Aesthetics in discipline-based art education. In Smith, R.A.(Ed ). Discipline-based art education: Origins, meaning, and development. Urbana, II: University o f Illinois Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology o f optimal experience. New York: Harper Collins Publishers

Curriculum Update. (1998). Arts Education: A Cornerstone of Basic Education. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Spring, 1998.

Dallas Museum of Art, and Driskell, D. (1989). Black Art Ancestral Legacy. Dallas: Abrams, Inc.

Danto, A. (1999). A conversation with Arthur Danto. Conference radio script. New York: Columbia University. Http://www.columbia.edu/cu/conference/conf7ldanto.html

Danto, A (1992). Beyond the Brillo box. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux.

Day, M.D. (1995). Art education in action: Aesthetics. Santa Monica, CA: Getty Center for Education in the Arts.

Day, M.D. (1985). Evaluating student achievement in discipline-based art programs. Studies in Art Education, 26(4), 232-40.

278


Http://www.columbia.edu/cu/conference/conf7ldanto.html

Day, M.D. (1998). Focus on NAEP and the visual arts: Framework, field test, and assessment. Art Education, 57(5)37-43.

Dewey, J. (1958). Art as experience. New York: Dover Publications.

Dewey, J. (1944). Experience and thinking. Reprinted in (1970) Pappas, G. (Ed.). Concepts in art and education: An anthology o f current issues. London: Macmillan Company.

Dickie, G. (1971). Aesthetics: An introduction. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc.

Dickie, G. (1984). The art circle: A theory o f art. New York: New Haven Publications.

Dobbs, M. (Ed.). (1988). Research readings fo r discipline-based art education: A journey beyond creating. Reston, VA: NAEA.

Dorn, C. (1994). Thinking in art: A philosophical approach to art education. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Dorn, C. and Azcuy, R. (1992). Teaching aesthetics, a discipline-based art education approach. Presentation to the National Art Education Association Atlanta, GA.

Driskell, D. C. (1995). African American visual aesthetics: A postmodernist view. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Duncum, P. (1999). A case for an art education o f everyday aesthetic experiences.Studies in Art Education. 40(4) pp. 295-311.

Eaton, M.M. (1994). Philosophical aesthetics: A way o f knowing and its limits. In Moore, R., (fid.) Aesthetics fo r young people. Reston, VA National Art Education Association.

Education Update. (1994). Making assessment meaningful. Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development, 36(6).

Education Update. (1995). Designing performance tasks. Association fa r Supervision and Curriculum Development, 37(6).

Education Update. (1997). Assessment that serves instruction. Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development, 39(4).

Education Update. (1997). Using assessment to motivate students. Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development, 39(8).

279


Educational Testing Service. (1992). Advanced placement studio art scoring rubric. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Educational Testing Service. (1998). The praxis series: Art, music, and theater.Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Efland, A., (1990). An approach to the assessment o f art learnings, In P. Stuhr (Ed.) Arts and Learning Research, 50-65.

Efland, A.D. (1989). Curriculum antecedents o f discipline-based art education. In Smith, R.A. (Ed ). Discipline-based art education: Origins, meaning, and development.Urbana, II: University of Illinois Press.

Efland, A., Freedman, K., Stuhr, P. (1996). Postmodern art education: An approach to curriculum. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Eisner, E. (1972). Educating artistic vision. New York: Macmillan.

Eisner, E. (1996). Evaluating the teaching of art. In D. Broughton, E. Eisner & J. Ligtvoet (Eds ). Evaluating and Assessing the Visual Arts in Education, 15-95. New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Eisner, E. (1996). Overview o f evaluation and assessment: Conceptions in search o f practice. In D. Broughton, E. Eisner & J. Ligtvoet (Eds.) Evaluating ami Assessing the Visual A rts in Education, 1-16. New York: Teacher’s College Press.

Eisner, E. (1993). Supersession: Why standards will not work in art education. San Francisco: Presentation at National Art Education Association Conference.

Eisner, E. (1985). The art o f educational evaluation a personal view. New York: The Falmer Press.

Eisner, E. (1994). The educational imagination: On the description and evaluation o f school programs. New York: Macmillan.

Eisner, E. (1968). The Kettering curriculum for elementary art. In (1988) Dobbs, M., Feinstein, H., and MacGregor, R.N. (Eds). Research readings fo r discipline-based art education: A journey beyond creating. Reston, VA. National Art Education Association.

Elliot, S. (1995). Creating meaningful performance assessments. ERIC Digest, E531.Ed381985.

280


ERIC Clearinghouse. (1997). Praxis H: Subject assessments, arts. The ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. Washington, DC: Educational TestingService.

Erikson, M. (1986). Teaching aesthetics K -12. In (1988) Dobbs, M., Feinstein, H., and MacGregor, R.N. (Eds). Research readings fo r discipline-based art education: A journey beyond creating. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Erickson, M. (1994). Evidence for art historical interpretation referred to by young people and adults. Studies in Art Education, 35(2), 71-78.

Erickson, M. and Katter, E. (1986). Teaching aesthetics K-12: Activities and resources.

Erikson, M, Stewart, M. and Katter, E. (1988). Basic curriculum fo r art: Balanced, articidated, sequential, instructional core curriculum fo r art. Kutztown, PA: Published by authors.

Ernst, Karen. (1996). Art in your curriculum: Assessment in the workshop. Teachingpre K-8, 26(1), 34-35.

Evans, J.W. (1977). Introductory remarks. In M.J. Wargo and D.R. Green (Eds.), Achievement testing o f disadvantaged and minority students fo r educational program evaluation, 1-18. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Feldman, E.B. (1967). Varieties o f visual experience: Art as image and idea.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Feldman, E.B. (1970). Becoming human through art: Aesthetic experience in the school. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Feldman, E.B. (1973). The teacher as critic. In (1988) Dobbs, M., Feinstein, H., and MacGregor, R.N. (Eds). Research readings fo r discipline-based art education: A journey beyottd creating. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Feur, M., and Fulton, K. (1993). The many faces of performance assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6), 478.

Fink, A. (1995). The survey handbook. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Finlayson, S. (1988). A critical description o f selected state level arts assessment instruments. Unpublished masters thesis, University o f Oregon.

Frameworks fo r M issouri Schools. (1996). Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

281


Franklin, P. G., and Stuhr, P. (1990). Black adults’ aesthetic responses to selected African American and African art. In B. Young (Ed.), Art, Culture, and Ethnicity. Reston. VA: National Art Education Association.

Frederiksen, J. and Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 27-32.

Freedman, K. and Wood, J. (1999) Reconsidering critical response: Student judgments of purpose, interpretation, and relationships in visual culture. Studies in Art Education, 40(2), 128-142.

Fuch, L. (1995). Connecting performance assessment to instruction: A comparison of behavioral assessment, mastery learning, curriculum-based measurement, and performance. ERIC Digest, ES70.Ed381984.

Gaitskell, C., Hurwitz, A., and Day, M. (1982). Children and their art (4th edition). New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Gall, M.D., Borg, W.R., and Gall, J.P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. Longman Publishers USA: New York.

Gardner, H. (1990). Art education and human development. Los Angeles: The Getty Center for Education in the Arts.

Gardner, H. (1983). Artistic intelligences. Art Education, 36(2) 47-49.

Gardner, H. (1983). A cognitive view o f the arts. In (1988) Dobbs, M., Feinstein, H., and MacGregor, R.N. (Eds). Research readings fo r discipline-based art education: A journey beyond creating. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Gardner, H. (1990). Multiple intelligences: Implications for art and creativity. InW.J. Moody (Ed.), Artistic intelligences: Implications fo r education, 57-59. New York: Teachers College Press.

Gardner, H. (1989). Zero-based arts education. An introduction to ARTS PROPEL. Studies in A rt Education, 30(2), 71-83.

Gardner, H., and Grunbaum, J. (1986). The assessment o f artistic thinking: Comments on the national assessment of educational progress in the arts. Paper commissioned by the study group on NAEP. U.S. Department o f Education.

Gardner, H. and Winner, E. (1981). How children learn...Three stages o f understanding art. In Hardiman, G.W. and Zemich, T. (Eds.). Foundations fo r curriculum development and evaluation in art education. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company.

282


Gaston, D. (1997). The Brits got it right. New Orleans: Unpublished manuscript presented at the National Art Education Association Conference.

Gentile, J.R. (1989). How shall students be graded in discipline-based art education? Art Education, 42(6), 33-41.

Getty Center for Education in the Arts. (1990). Inheriting the theory: New voices and multiple perspectives on DBAE. Seminar proceedings, Austin, TX. 1989. New York: Keens Company.

Gilchrist, D. (1993). Evaluation and assessment handbook fo r secondary visual arts (draft document September 1992). Chicago: Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association Conference.

Gitomer, D., Grosh, S. and Price, K. (1992). Portfolio culture in arts education. Art [education, 45( 1), 7-15.

Gombrich, E. H. (1970). Meditations on a hobby horse or the roots o f artistic form. In Pappas G., Concepts in art and education: An anthology o f current issues. London: The Macmillan Company.

Gordon, E.W. (1977). Diverse human populations and problems in educational program evaluation via achievement testing. In M.J. Wargo and D.R. Green (Eds.), Achievement testing o f disadvantaged and minority students fo r educational program evaluation, 29- 40. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Greer, W.D. (1984). Discipline-based art education: Approaching art as a subject of study. Studies in Art Education. 25 (4) 212-218.

Grove, B. (1996). Assessing student achievement in the visual arts: Collaborative inquiry as a model fo r professional development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.

Gruber, D. (1994). Evaluation o f student achievement in k-12 art education programs: A balanced approach. Art Education, 47(2), 40-45.

Hamblen, K. (1984). Artistic perception as a function o f learned expectations. Art Education, 37(3), 20-30.

Hamblen, K. (1988). If is to be tested, it will be taught: A rationale worthy of examination. Art Education, 41(5), 59-62.

283


Hamblen, K. (1990). Theory-practice schisms of the 1990s. In Little, B.E. (Ed.). Secondary art education: An anthology o f issues. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Hardiman, G.W. and Zemich, T. (1981). Foundations fo r curriculum development and evaluation in art education. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company.

Hart, L. M. (1991). Aesthetic pluralism and multicultural art. Studies in Art Education, 32(3) 145-159.

Hatcher, L. and Stepanski, E. (1994). A step by step approach to using the SAS system fo r univariate and multivariate statistics. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc.

Hausman, J. (1992). On the use o f portfolios in evaluation - an editorial. Art Education. 46( 1) 4-5.

Hausman, J. (1993). Portfolio evaluation. NAEA Advisory.

Henderson, D.L. (1991). Profile of Texas teachers: A study o f the characteristics of Texas teachers in 1990. Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 329523: Charleston, WV.

Higgins, R. (1989). Approaches to evaluation in art education at the state level. Paper for the Minnesota State Department o f Education.

Hoard, A. W. (1990). The Black aesthetic: An empirical feeling. In B. Young (Ed.), Art. Culture, and Ethnicity. Reston. VA National Art Education Association.

Hoepfher, R. (1984). Measuring student achievement in art. Studies in Art Education, 25(4), 251-258.

Huffman, E.S. (1998). Authentic rubrics. Art Education, 51(1)64-68.

Hurwitz, A., Carroll, K., and Sandell, R. (1993). Assessment k-12 art education.National Endowment for the Arts grant report 88-5170-0086.

Hurwitz, A. and Day, M. (1995). Children and their art: M ethods fo r the elementary school. New York: Harcourt Brace.

International Baccalaureate. (1996). Art and design assessment criteria. Cardiff, Wales.

Irwin, R. L. (1999). Listening to the shapes of collaborative artmaking. Art Education52(2), 35-39.

284


Isaac, S., and Michael, W.B. (1990). Handbook in research and evaluation fo r education and the behavioral sciences. EdITS Publishers: San Diego, CA.

Jeffers, C. (1999). What happens when we ask, “what is art?” Art Education, 52(1) 40-45.

Johnson, M., and Cooper, S. (1974). Developing a system for assessing written artcriticism. Art Education, 47(5), 21-26.

Johnson, N.R. (1982). Children’s meanings about art. Studies in Art Education, 25(3), 61-67.

Jones, L. (1999). Aesthetic basis for assessment. Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association Conference in Washington, D.C.

Karpati, A. (1995). Assessment o f art education in Hungary: Historical problems in contemporary perspective. NCAD. United Kingdom: National Society for Education in Art and Design.

Kellogg, R. (1969). Analyzing children’s art. Palo Alto, California: National PressBooks.

Kentucky. (1996). Arts education in the states: An information clearinghouse o f state legislation and policies.

Klotman, P. R. (Ed.). (1977). Humanities through the Black experience. Dubuque, LA Hunt Publishing, Co.

Kotler, W. (1999). Art curriculum rubrics. Unpublished manuscript, Fairfax County, Virginia: Fairfax County Schools.

Krathwohl., D.R. (1993). Methods o f educational and social science research. Longman Publishers USA: New York.

Lai, M., and Shishido, J. (1987). A model fo r evaluating art education programs. Washington, DC: Paper presented at annual meeting o f the American Educational Research Association.

Langer, S. (1957). Philosophy in a new key; A study in the symbolism o f reason, rite, and art. Cambridge, M A Harvard University Press.

Lankford, L. (1992). Aesthetics: Issues and Inquiry. Reston, Virginia: National Art Education Association.

285


Lankford, L. (1990). Preparation and risk in teaching aesthetics, Art Education, 43(5)50-56.

Litwin, M.S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lloyd, B., (1997). Souvenirs o f formalism: From modernism to postmodernism and deconstruction. A rt Education, 50(23), 15-22.

Lonergan, N. (1997). Eighth grade acceleration in art examination. New York: Board o f Education o f the City of New York.

Lowenfeld, V. and Brittain, W.L. (1987). Creative and mental growth (8th ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Luehrman, M. (1999). The relationship between the art experiences o f public school principals and their attitude toward art education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University o f Missouri-Columbia.

MacGregor, R. (1992). A short guide to alternative assessment practices. Art Education, 45(6), 315-327.

Macgregor, R., Lemerise, S., Potts, M., and Roberts, B. (1993). Assessment in the arts:A cross-Canada study. Vancouver: University o f British Columbia.

MacGregor, R. (1990). Reflections on art assessment practices. Journal o f Art and Design Education, 9(3), 315-327.

Madaus, G., and Kellagham, T. (1993). The British experience with “authentic” testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6), 458-469.

Madeja, S. (1976). The aesthetic education program: A report on the accomplishments 1969-1975. St. Louis, MO: CEMREL, Inc.

Madeja, S. and Onuska, S. (1977). Through the arts to the aesthetic. St. Louis, MO: CEMREL, Inc.

Maeroff, G. (1991). Assessing alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4), 272- 281.

Mandelbaum, M. (1965). Family resemblances and generalization concerning the arts. American Philosophical Quarterly (2) 219-28 .

286


Manitoba Department o f Education and Training. (1990). Art education guidelines, K- 12. Winnipeg, Canada: Curriculum Support Series.

Manitoba Department o f Education and Training. (1983). Manitoba art assessment program. Winnipeg, Canada: Curriculum Support Series.

Maryland State Department o f Education. (1990). Outcomes for criterion-referenced tests in the fine arts.

Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., McTighe. (1993). Assessing student outcomes: Performance assessment using the dimensions o f learning model. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Milbrandt, M. (1998). Postmodernism in art education: Content for life. A rt Education,51(6) 47-52.

Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task Force. (2000). Draft Rubric fo r Local Art Assessment o f the Show-Me Standards, Jefferson City, Missouri: Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Mitchell, Ruth. (1993). A prelude to performance assessment in the arts: Towards art assessment project (TAAP). Sacramento, CA: Bureau o f Publications, California Department of education.

Monett. Middle School. (1999). Unpublished scoring guide for Monett middle school art. Monett, MO: Monett Public Schools.

Moore, R. (Ed.) 1995. Aesthetics fo r young people. Reston, V A: National Art Education Association.

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. (1970). Afro-American artists: New York and Boston. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

Myers, J.L., and Well, A.D. (1995). Research design and statistical analysis. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

NAE A Advisory. (1994). Student portfolios: Classroom uses, November, 1993 Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

NAEA Advisory. (1994). Student portfolios: Administrative uses, Spring 1994. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

287


NAEP. (1981). A rt and young Americans, 1974-79: Results from the second art assessment. Report # 10- A-01. National Assessment of Educational Progress. Denver, CO: Education Commission o f the State.

NAEP (1996). NAEP arts education assessment and exercise specifications. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

National Art Education Association. (1994). The national visual arts standards.Reston, VA. The association.

Newman, W B. (1990). The effect o f standardized testing on education in the arts. In W.J. Moody (Ed.), Artistic intelligences: Implications fo r education, 52-56. New York: Teachers College Press.

O’Neil, J. and Tell, C. (1999). Why students lose when “tougher standards” win: A conversation with Alfie Kohn. Educational Leadership, 57(1)18-23.

Panofsky, E. (1955). Meaning in the visual arts. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.

Parsons, M.J. (1990). A comparison o f novice-expert and developmental paradigms in terms of their use in work on the assessment o f student learning in art education. In P. Stuhr (Ed ), Arts and Learning Research, 30-49.

Parsons, M.J. (1994). Can children do aesthetics? A developmental account. In Moore, R., (Ed.) Aesthetics fo r young people. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Parsons, M.J. (1987). How we understand art: A cognitive development account o f aesthetic experience. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Patchen, J. and Borgmann, C.B. (1988). Indiana eighth grade diagnostic visual art achievement test. Indianapolis, Indiana: Indiana Department o f Education.

Peeno, L. (!997). Update on status o f arts assessment. Presentation to Missouri Art Education Association Fall conference, Knob Noster, MO.

Peeno, L. (1996). Status o f arts assessment in the states. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Peeno, L. (1999). Presentation to Missouri art education association. Lake of the Ozarks, MO. February 25.

288


Pena, D M and Henderson, R.D. (1986). Sampling procedures used for national surveys of public school teachers - problems and possible solutions. Unpublished manuscript presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco,CA.

Perrone, V. (Ed.). (1991). Expanding student assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Perry, J. (1993). Art portfolios: Reflection and knowledge. Chicago: Paper presented at National Art Education Association Conference.

Pittard, N.K. (198S). Preliminary considerations concerning aesthetic education. In The history o f art education: Proceedingfrom the Penn State conference. College Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Popham, W.J. (1993). Circumventing the high costs o f authentic assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 7-1(6), 470-473.

Popham, W.J. (1999). Why standardized tests don’t measure educational quality. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 8-16.

Rader, M. (1952). A m odem book o f esthetics. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Rayala, M. (1995). Art education: A guide to curriculum planning. Bulletin #95185. Madison, WI: Wisconsin State Department o f Public Instruction.

Reynolds, J. (1993). A portfolio fo r portfolio assessment. Chicago: Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association Conference.

Rudner, L. (1993). Test Evaluation. Internet: [email protected]

Rudner, L. and Boston, C. (1994). Visual arts education reform handbook. M aintaining a substantive focus: A look at performance assessment fo r art education. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Sabol, R. (1994). A critical examination o f visual arts achievement tests from state departments o f education in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Bloomington, Indiana. Indiana University.

Sadler, R. D. (1987). Specifying and promulgating achievement standards. Oxford Review o f Education, 13(2), 191-209.

Sandell, R. and Spiers, P. (1999). Feminist concerns and gender issues in art education. Translations from theory to practice, 8(1). Reston, VA: NAEA.

289


mailto:[email protected]

Sargent, B. and Fitzsimmons, D. (1999). Statements o f authentic assessment and rubric use. Mundelein, Illinois, High School. Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association Conference in Washington, D.C.

Schonau, Diederik. (1999). Integrated arts as a nationwide exam. Presentation at National Art Education Association Conference in Washington, D.C.

Scriven, M. (1981). The methodology o f evaluation. In G. Hardiman & T. Zemich (Eds.), Foundations fo r Curriculum Development and Evaluation in Art Education, 242- 279. Champaign, II: Stipes Publishing Company.

Seidel, K. (1994). Developing successful arts program evaluation. National Association o f Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 78(561), 7-19.

Severy, L.J. (1974). Procedures and issues in the measurement o f attitudes. ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurement, and Evaluation: Princeton, NJ.

Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1992). Skills and tasks fo r jobs: A SCANS report fo r America 2000. U.S. Department of Labor. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Show-Me Standards fo r Missouri Schools. (1996). Jefferson City, MO: Missouri State Board o f Education.

Siegler, R.S. (1989). Strategy, diversity and cognitive assessment. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 15-20.

Smith, R. A. (1970). Aesthetic criticism: The method of aesthetic education. In Pappas, G. (Ed.), Concepts in art and education. London: Macmillan Company.

Smith, R.A. (1989). Discipline-based art education: Origins, meaning, and development. Urbana, II: University o f Illinois Press.

Smith, R. A. (1981). Justifying aesthetic education. In Foundations fo r curriculum development and evaluation in art education. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company.

Smith-Shank, D., and Hausman, J., (Eds.), Evaluation in art education. Vernon Hills, IL: Illinois Art Education Association.

Stake, R. (1981). To evaluate an arts program. In G. Hardiman & T. Zemich (Eds.), Foundations fo r Curriculum Development and Evaluation in Art Education, 242-279. Champaign, II: Stipes Publishing Company.

290


Stankiewicz, M. (1998). Reflecting on postmodemisms. Art Education, 57(6) 4-5.

Stavropoulos, C. (1995). Assessing student learning in the arts: Building a bridge between theory and practice. San Francisco: Unpublished manuscript presented to annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

Stewart, M. (1995). Aesthetics and the art curriculum. In R. Moore, (Ed ). Aesthetics fo r young people. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

Stewart, M. (1997). Thinking through aesthetics. Worcester, Massachusetts: Davis Publications.

Stewart, M, Russell, R, and Eaton, M. (1990) Unpublished notes from Getty Institute for Teachers Workshop on Aesthetics. Cincinnati: Getty Foundation.

Stinespring, J. A., and Kennedy, L. C. Meeting the need for Multiculturalism in the Art Classroom. The Clearing House, January 11, 1995.

Stokrocki, M. (1986). Expanding the artworld o f young, elementary students. ArtEducation, 39(4), 13-16.

Stolnitz, J. (1960). Aesthetics and the philosophy o f art criticism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Stout, C. J. (1999). The art o f empathy: teaching students to care. A rt Education52(2),21-24, 33-34.

Stout, C. J. (1990). Critical thinking and writing in the visual arts classroom. A workshop for Columbia Fine Arts Faculty, Columbia, MO.

Stubbs, C. (1985). Evaluating a conceptually based course of study. A rt Education,38(2), 23-27.

Stuhr, P. (1990). Arts and learning research, 1990. The Journal o f the Arts and Learning Social Interest Group, 8(1).

Swann, A. and Bickley-Green, C. (1993). Basic uses o f portfolio in art education assessment. NAEA Advisory, Summer 1993.

Taylor, P. (1991) In the process. Carmichael, CA: California Art Education Association.

Thomas, Jackie. (1993). Curriculum assessment using portfolio. Chicago: Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association Conference.

291


U.S. Department o f Education. (1991). America 2000: An education strategy. Washington D.C. ED 332380

U.S. Department o f Education. (1998). National assessment o f educational progress and the visual arts: Framework, fie ld test, and assessment. Washington D.C. NCES 98-526.

U.S. Department o f Education. (1998). The National assessment o f educational progress 1997 Arts Report Card. Washington D.C. NCES 1999-486.

U.S. Department o f Education. (1999). CD ROM addendum for The National assessment o f educational progress 1997 Arts Report Card. Washington D.C. NCES 1999-486.

U.S. Department o f Education and the Arts Education partnership. (1998). Arts literacy fo r a changing America. National Teleconference December 1, 1998. Washington D.C.

Venet, C. (1998). Art History Assessment Survey of Missouri Art Educators. Unpublished manuscript presented at the Missouri Art Education Association conference in Lake Ozark, MO.

Venet, C. (1998a). Creating a model for state art assessment. Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association conference in Chicago, II.

Venet, C. (1999). Third grade art assessment. Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association conference in Washington, D.C.

Venet, C. (1999a). Focus group: What criteria should be on a state-supported rubric for local assessment of Missouri standards? Unpublished manuscript presented at Missouri Art Education Association spring conference. Lake of the Ozarks, MO.

Vermont Arts Assessment Project. (1995). Montpelier, VT: Vermont Council on theArts.

Warner, F. (1993). Performance assessment - in progress a t an elementary school. Chicago: Paper presented at National Art Education Association Conference.

Weate, A. (1999). Phone conversation May 10, 1999.

Weitz, M. (1956). The role of theory in aesthetics. Journal o f Aesthetics and Art Criticism (15)32. Cited in Eaton, M. Basic Issues in Aesthetics.

Weitz, M. (1988). Theories o f concepts: The history o f the major philosophical tradition. New York: Routledge.

292


Weitz, M. (1966). Twentieth-century philosophy: The analytic tradition. New York: Free Press.

White, J.H.. (1998). Inspecting magic words. Art Education, 5/ ( 6) 12-21.

Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, May 1989, 703-713.

Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessment: Authenticity, context, and validity. Phi Delta Kappcot, 75(3), 200-214.

Wiggins, G. (1999). Assessment Reform Overview. Presentation to Columbia Public Schools on June 11, 1999.

Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Wiggins, G. (1996-97). Practicing what we preach in designing authentic assessments. Educational Leadership 54(4), 18-25.

Wilson, B. (1971). Evaluation o f learning in art education. In B. Bloom, J. Hastings, and G. Madaus, (Eds.), Handbook on formative and summative evaluation o f student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Winner, E. and Simmons, S. (Eds.) (1992). Arts PROPEL: A handbook fo r visual arts. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service and the President and Fellows o f Harvard College.

Wolcott, A. (1992). Is what you see what you get? A postmodern approach to understanding works of art. Studies in Art Education, 37(2), 69-79.

Wolcott, A. (1994). Whose shoes are they anyway? Art Education, 47(5), 14-20.

Wolf, D. and Pistone, N. (1991). Takingjull measure: Rethinking assessment through the arts. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Worthen, B.R. (1993). Critical issues that will determine the future o f alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6), 444-454.

Worthen, B.R., and Spandel, V. (1991). Putting the standardized test debate in perspective. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 65-69.

Yau, M. (1990). A holistic approach to evaluation: An example from the visual arts. Ontario, Canada: Paper presented to the Toronto Board o f Education.

293


Zerull, D. (1990). Evaluation in arts education: Building and using an effective assessment strategy. Design fo r Arts in Education, 92(1), 19-24.

Zimmerman, E. (1999). A cautionary tale for those involved in large-scale arts assessments. Art Education, 52(5) 44-50.

Zimmerman, E. (1992). Assessing students’ progress and achievements in art. Art Education, 45(6), 14-24.

Zimmerman, E. (1994). How should students’ progress and achievements in art be assessed? A case for assessment that is responsive to diverse students’ needs. Visual Arts Research, 20(1), 29-35.

Zimmerman, E. (1997). Standardized testing and authentic assessment research. In LaPierre, S.D., and Zimmerman, E. (Eds.). Research Methods and Methodologies for Art Education. National Art Education Association: Reston, VA.

294


1

Art Assessment Survey

This survey asks your expert opinion in identifying the most important criteria to use when grading two* and three-dimensional artworks at the completion of a: project, unit, term, semester, or a “portfolio” of work over time. Spaces have been provided for your comments. Your participation is completely voluntary and you do not have to answer any specific question that is asked. Your responses will be keptconfidential.

Check one grade-level category for your responses. If you teach more than one level and would like to respond to additional grade-level categories, please copy the survey. elementary K-5 middle 6-8 high school

C ircle the number hat indicates the importance of assessing each kind of student a r t product.

5 4 3 2 1

very important important undecided little importance no importance

I. W hat Do You Assess?1. rough drafts or process sketches............................................................................. ..........5 4 3 2 12. final product.............................................................................................................. ..........5 4 3 2 I3. aesthetic reflections about own or other artists’ work.......................................... ..........5 4 3 2 14. art criticism analysis of own or other artists’ work..........................................................5 4 3 2 15. art historical writing................................................................................................. ..........5 4 3 2 16. student’s self-evaluation.......................................................................................... ......... 5 4 3 2 1

7. portfolio of student work (please comment if the portfolio is electronic)......... ......... 5 4 3 2 1If you assess other products, please list them:

If you assess portfolios, what is included in the student’s portfolio?

II. Responding Criteria

1. explains perceptions of artwork 5 4 3 2 12. identifies connections among arts and with other subjects...............................................5 4 3 2 13. relates art from historical periods, movements, and/or cultures to own work................5 4 3 2 1

4. uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate artworks.....................5 4 3 2 15. self-evaluates......................................................................................................................... 5 4 3 2 1

Comments: 295


Circle the number that Indicates the importance of each criteria in assessing student art work.

5 4 3 2 1


IU. Creating or Process Criteria1. correctly uses assigned processes, media, and techniques............................................ 5 4

2. demonstrates problem-solving process:brainstorms, develops and revises idea, produces final work, self-evaluates..................5 4

3. demonstrates originality, creativity, or inventiveness......................................................5 4

4. documents process in sketchbook or journal entries........................................................5 4

Comments:

3

33

222

IV. Attitude or Habits-of-Mind Criteria

1. is persistently on task 5 4 3 22. respects materials, equipment, other students and their art............................................ 5 4 3 23. shows commitment, pursues problem through revisions................................................ 5 4 3 2

4. is responsive to teacher’s feedback................................................................................... 5 4 3 2Comments:

V. Art Product Criteria1. demonstrates technical skill or craftspersonship 5 4 3 22. demonstrates planned, effective composition...................................................................5 4 3 23. work shows improvement from past products/performances.........................................5 4 3 24. artwork includes relevant art historical influences..........................................................5 4 3 2

5. demonstrates assigned concepts, processes, elements, and/or principles.......................5 4 3 26. intent of artist is communicated......................................................................................... 5 4 3 2Comments:

296


3

Circle the number hat indicates the importance of each criteria in assessing student art work.5 4 3 2 1


VI. Aesthetic Approach Criteria -Sets of criteria are based upon different philosophies of art

A. Formalist Criteria consider formal design qualities as art content.

1. use o f elements o f art (line, shape, color, value, form, texture, space) 5 4 3 2 1

2. use of principles o f design (balance, emphasis, contrast rhythm, proportion, unity)...5 4 3 2 13. distorts, exaggerates for purpose o f design......................................................................... 5 4 3 2 14. composition............................................................................................................................ 5 4 3 2 1

B. Expressionist Criteria express and/or evoke moods or feelings.

1. expresses ideas, attitudes, or feelings 5 4 3 2 12. evokes emotions or feelings in viewer.................................................................................5 4 3 2 1

3. communicates a point of view...............................................................................................5 4 3 2 14. responds to personal, social, or spiritual contexts.............................................................. 5 4 3 2 1

C. Instrumental or Pragmatic Criteria emphasize moral, social, or political functions of art.1. reflects a society, culture, or group o f people....................................................... ............ 5 4 3 2 12. shows personal interpretation o f art history or culture.......................................... ........... 5 4 3 2 13. responds to environmental or political contexts.................................................... ...........5 4 3 2 14. serves a functional purpose...................................................................................... ........... 5 4 3 2 1

D. Imitationalist or Mimetic Criteria represent the real or ideal.

1. real or idealized representation o f life.................................................................... .......... 5 4 3 2 12. shows realistic form (3-D), or illusion o f form (2-D).......................................................5 4 3 2 13. shows realistic texture (3-D), or illusion o f texture (2-D).................................... .......... 5 4 3 2 14. shows space (3-D), or illusion o f depth (2-D)....................................................... ........... 5 4 3 2 1Aesthetic Approach Comments:

297


4

5 4 3 2 1


VII. W hat Do You Teach?

Circle the number that indicates the importance o f teaching your students how to:1. use elements o f art and/or principles o f design 5 4 3 2 1

2. draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation..............................................5 4 3 2 1

3. abstract or create non-objective art....................................................................................5 4 3 2 14. communicate social, political, or personal messages...................................................... 5 4 3 2 15. create functional art............................................................................................................ 5 4 3 2 1

6. express their feelings or attitudes...................................................................................... 5 4 3 2 1

7. create art based upon a particular historical period, style, or culture............................ 5 4 3 2 1Comments:

VIII. Demographics

1. Check your yearly number o f art students: 1-99, 101-199, 200-399, 400-599, 600+

2. Circle each grade you currently teach: K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

3. Check your years o f experience including this y e a r 1-5, ___6- 10,____11-20, ___ 21+

4. Did you attend staff development or college classes on assessment in the last two years? Yes No

5. Have you attended staff development or college classes focusing on art assessment? Yes No

6. What other criteria do you use in assessing student work that were not included in this survey?

The following section is optional.Do you want a copy o f the results of this survey? Yes NoAre you willing to be interviewed by phone to follow-up on your comments? Yes No

Home phone ( j_____________ School phone ( )______________ Best time to call______Name__________________________________________ School___________________________Address______________________________________________________________________________

Please return by December 15, 1999 to Cheryl Venet, 28J3 Rain Tree Court, Columbia, MO 65201.


COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

555 Vandiver Dr., Suite A Columbia, MO 65202-1508

(573) 886-2227 Fax #(573) 886-2078

e mail: [email protected]

Cheryl Venet. Coordinator Elementary and Secondary Art

November 4, 1999

Dear

We need your help in deciding w hat will be on a rub ric for Missouri Art Assessment. You have been selected as one of a small group o f Missouri art educators to contribute to the development o f a rubric forscoring two- and three-dimensional art.

We are required to conduct K-12 assessment of the Show-Me Standards. Even in fifth grade, where art history and criticism are part of the state arts test, art production and aesthetics will be evaluated in your school districL The Missouri Department o f Elementary and Secondary Education is supporting the development

want input from Missouri art teachers, so I decided to focus my Ph.D. dissertation on teachers' opinions on the content o f the state-supported rubric. Your responses will benefit both my study and the task force.

Rubric criteria on the enclosed survey were obtained from: art education literature, other states and countries, ARTS PROPEL, the Advanced Placement Exam, the International Baccalaureate, school districts, and teachers at the Missouri Art Education Association Spring Conference, 1999.

To ensure the rubric matches your classroom expectations, we need your expert opinion on which of the criteria on the survey are most im portant for inclusion on a state rubric. Consider those that could be useful whether a teacher assesses work daily, at the end o f a unit, or in a year-long portfolio. After each section of the questionnaire, space is provided for your comments. It has typically taken art teachers fifteenminutes to complete.

A code on your surveys tracks responses state region. The code will be destroyed after I receive your survey and vour responses will be kept confidential. Your participation is completely voluntary and you do not have to answer any specific question that is asked. If you should have any questions about this research project, please feel free to contact me at (573) 441-4017 or my adviser, Dr. Kantner, at (573) 882-6462. For additional information regarding human participation in research, please feel free to contact the UMC Campus IRB Office at (573) 882-9585.

Please return the completed questionnaire by November 24, 1999. You will find a self-addressed stamped envelope included in this packet. At the conclusion o f the study, I’ll be happy to send you a summary o f results. Thank you for sharing your time and knowledge.

o f a rubric that teachers may use to score student work. I serve on the Fine Arts Assessment Task Force and

Sincerely,

Cheij^Venet



C O L U M B IA C o l u m b i a P u b l i c S c h o o l s Cheryl Venet, Coordinator Elementary and Secondary Art

555 Vandiver Drive, Suite A Columbia, MO 65202-1508

(573) 886-2227 Fax (573)886-2078

«First_Name» «Last_Name»«Schoob>«Address»«City», «State» «Zip»

November 29, 1999Dear «First_Name» or Current Art Teacher (if this teacher has left your school),

I recently wrote requesting your help in deciding which criteria should be included on a rubric for M issouri A rt Assessment. I teach art in addition to coordinating a K-12 art program, so I know how busy you are meeting the needs o f your students, their parents, your administrators, and communities. I hope the Missouri Art Assessment Survey is in your “to do” pile and that this reminder will encourage you to give it your attention. In case you did not receive it, or it has been lost, I've enclosed another copy with a self-addressed, stamped envelope.

You were one o f a select group o f art teachers asked to provide input. As a member o f the Missouri Art Assessment Task Force and a Ph.D. student conducting research, I'm asking for you to please take a few minutes to complete and return the enclosed survey. In order to predict that the responses we receive represent Missouri art teachers, we need to receive surveys from every teacher who receives this letter.

A code on your survey tracks responses by state region. This identification will be destroyed after I receive your survey and vour responses will be kept confidential. Your participation is completely voluntary and you do not have to answer any specific question that is asked. I f you have any questions about this research project, please feel free to contact me at (573) 442-4017, or my advisor, Dr. Kantner, at(573) 882-6462.

Your expert opinions a re important! Please re tu rn the survey by December 15,1999.

Thank you for sharing your time and knowledge.

Sincerely,

Cheryl Venet

300


C O L U M B IA COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS ART OFFICE555 Vandiver Dr., Suite A

Columbia, MO 65202-1508 (573) 886-2227

Fax #(573) 886-2078

Cheryl Venet, Coordinator Elementary and Secondary Art

Fax to: Principal

From: Cheryl Venet, Fax (573) 886-2078

December 19, 1999

I am conducting research on Criteria for Missouri Art Assessment for my Ph.D. dissertation and for the Department o f Elementary and Secondary Education’s Fine Arts Assessment Task Force o f which I am a member. The task force is developing a rubric/scoring guide to help art teachers conduct local assessment o f the Show-Me Standards. A survey provides your building art teacher with an opportunity to help shape that document

A code on the survey tracks responses by state region. This identification will be destroyed after I receive the survey and all responses will be kept confidential. Participation is completely voluntary and the teacher does not have to answer any specific question that is asked. If you should have any questions about this research project please feel free to contact me at (573) 442-4017 or my advisor, Dr. Kantner, at (573) 882-6462. For additional information regarding human participation in research, please feel free to contact the UMC Campus IRB Office at (573) 882-9585.

Two copies of the Art Assessment Survey with stamped, return envelopes were mailed to your art teacher who was included in a random sample o f Missouri art teachers. The list o f teachers provided by DESE was based upon last year’s faculty, so it is possible that this teacher is no longer working in your building. Please help us update our records by completing and returning this page by fax or mail. Below is a copy of the mailing label used to reach your building’s art teacher.

Please Check:

This art teacher will complete and mail the survey.

This art teacher will not mail the survey but is willing to answer survey items by phone inwhich case his/her evening phone number is :___________________________

This art teacher is no longer working in this building and no survey will be returned.

Another art teacher in this building will complete and return the survey.

An art teacher is employed in this building, but chooses not to participate in the survey.

Thank you so much for your help.

Cheryl Venet


1

Cheryl Venet, 555 Vandiver, Columbia, MO, 65202, (573) 886-2227, [email protected] Results o f Missouri Art Teachers Art Assessment Survey

Each survey criterion is listed with a percentage of teachers at elementary, middle, and high school levels who scored it as important for inclusion on an art assessment rubric/scoring guide. A one-way analysis of variance was computed for each criterion to determine whether there was a significant difference among mean scores of elementary, middle, and high school teacher groups. Follow-up contrasts were calculated when a significant difference of p<.05 occurred.

The number of respondents is:Elementary teachers, K-5, n=l 10 who completed the survey on the yellow paperElementary teachers, K-5, n=l 1 who copied the survey, responding first to either middle or high school levels Total elementary teachers, K-S, n=121Middle level teachers, 6-8, n=51 who completed the survey on the yellow paperMiddle level teachers, 6-8, n=13 who copied the survey, responding first to either elementary or high school levels Total middle level teachers, 6-8, n=64High School teachers, 9-12, n=95 who completed the survey on the yellow paperHigh School teachers, 9-12, n=9 who copied the survey, responding first to either elementary or middle levels.Total high School Teachers, 9-12, n=105

Total teachers who responded to survey, K-12, n=259

Table 1. Percentage of teachers who Think it b Important to Assess Various Types of Art Products

I. What Do You Assess? •/.K-12

•/.K-5

%6-8 9-12

1. rough drafts or process sketches, *p<0007 between elementary-high school 64 54 65 74

2. final product, *p<029 between elementary-high school 96 93 95 98

3. aesthetic reflections about own or other artists’ work 70 65 69 76

4. art criticism analysis of own or other artists’ work, *p<.0002 between elementary-middle and p<0019 between elementary-high school

72 60 78 80

5. art historical writing, *p<0001 between elementary-middle and elementary-high school

28 15 37 39

6. student’s self-evaluation 78 71 79 85

7. portfolio of student work, *p<OI between elementary-middle and p<..0001 between elementary-high school

59 44 61 75

Table 2. Percentage of Art Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Responding Criteria.

II. ResDonding CriteriaK-12

%K-5

%6-8

%9-12

I. explains perceptions of artwork 78 76 82 79

2. identifies connections among arts and with other subjects 77 79 77 73

3. relates art from historical periods, movements, and/or cultures to own work 77 72 82 80

4. uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate artworks,*p<..006 between elementary-high school

91 86 92 94

5. student self-evaluates, * p<007 between elementary-middle and p<02 between elementary-high school

84 79 87 87

302



2

Table 3. Percentage of Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Creating or Process Criteria

III. Creatine or Process Criteria •/.K-12

•/.K-5

•/.6-8

%9-12

1 correctly uses assigned processes, media, and techniques 99 98 100 96

2 demonstrates problem-solving process: brainstorms, develops and revises idea, produces final work, self-cvaluates

97 96 95 100

3 demonstrates originality, creativity, or inventiveness 99 98 98 100

4 documents process in sketchbook or journal entries, *p< 0048 between elementary-middle and p<0002 between elementary-high school

43 32 47 52

Table 4. Percentage of Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Attitude or Habits-of-Mind Criteria

IV. Attitude or Habits-of-Mind Criteria %K-12

%K-5

%6-8 9-12

1 is persistently on task 98 97 98 9?

2 respects materials, equipment, other students and their art 99 99 97 10C

3 shows commitment, pursues problem through revisions, p< 01 betweenelementary-high school

96 92 97 95

4 is responsive to teacher’s feedback 94 94 90 97

Table S. Percentage of Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Art Product Criteria.

V. Art Product Criteria %K-12

•/.K-5

%6-8

%9-12

I demonstrates technical skill or craftspersonship, *p< 05 between elementary- middle and p< 0001 between elementary-high school

89 83 90 95

2. demonstrates planned, effective composition, *p< 01 between elementary-middle and p< 0002 between elementary-high school

89 87 97 97

3 work shows improvement from past products/performances 93 92 94 93

4 artwork includes relevant art historical influences 50 45 48 56

5. demonstrates assigned concepts, processes, elements, and/or principles 97 95 97 98

6. intent of artist is communicated 80 77 79 85

Table 6. Percentage of Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Formalist Aesthetic Criteria.

VI.A. Formalist Criteria consider formal desien qualities as art content. %K-12 K-5

•/.6-8

%9-12

1. use of elements of art (line, shape, color, value, form, texture, space) 97 97 95 98

2. use of principles of design (balance, emphasis, contrast, rhythm, proportion, unity) 97 96 99 97

3 distorts, exaggerates for purpose o f design, *p<007 between elementary-high andp< 02 between middle-high school

72 66 67 80

4 composition, *p< 05 betw een clcm cntary-m iddlc and p< 0008 bcuwx-n clcm cntary-high school 94 90 98 96303


3

Table 7. Percentage of Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Expressionist Aesthetic Criteria.

VLB. Exnressionist Criteria express and/or evoke moods or feelings %K-12

%K-5

%6-8

•/«9-12

1. expresses ideas, attitudes, or feelings 90 91 84 92

2. evokes emotions or feelings in viewer 75 74 69 7?

3. communicates a point of view 73 68 71 7*

4 responds to personal, social, or spiritual contexts 63 62 60 6<

Table 8. Percentage o f Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Instrumental Aesthetic Criteria.

VI.C. Instrumental or Pragmatic Criteria emphasize moral, social, or political functions of art.

%

K-12

%

K-5

%

6-8

%

9-12

1. reflects a society, culture, or group o f people 57 62 61 49

2. shows personal interpretation of art history or culture 62 63 61 59

3. responds to environmental or political contexts 45 40 44 52

4. serves a functional purpose 42 36 47 45

Table 9. Percentage o f Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Imitationalist Aesthetic Criteria.

VI.D. Imitationalist or Mimetic Criteria represent the real or ideal. %

K-12

%

K-5%

6-8%

9-12

1. real or idealized representation of life, *p<02 between elementary-high school 70 66 64 79

2. shows realistic form (3-D), or illusion o f form (2-D), *p<02 between elementary-middle and p<01 between elementary-high school

89 78 89 88

3. shows realistic texture (3-D), or illusion o f texture (2-D), *p>.02 between elementary-high school

82 78 85 86

4 shows space (3-D), or illusion of depth (2-D), *p>.001 between elementary-high school and p<05 between elementary-middle

88 83 92 92

304


4

Table 10. Percentage or Teachers who Think it is Important to Teach Specified Content.

VII. What Do You Teach? %

K-12

%K-5

%6-8

%9-12

1. use elements of art and/or principles o f design 96 95 97 97

2. draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation, *p< 04 between elementary-middle and p< 0004 between elementary-high school

89 80 97 93

3. abstract or create non-objective art 84 83 82 87

4. communicate social, political, or personal messages 60 60 71 56

5. create functional art 57 56 62 54

6. express their feelings or attitudes 84 87 85 82

7. create art based upon a particular historical period, style, or culture, *p<005 between elementary-high school

73 81 71 68

Table 11. Percentage of Teachers who Indicated they Fit each Demographics Category.

VIII. DemoeraDhics

1. number of art students taught 1-99 101-199 200-399 400-599 600+

% elementary K-5 3 5 25 52 15

% middle level 6-8 IS 25 25 20 14

% high school 9-12 23 61 13 2 1

2. Frequency of K-12 Teachers, n=254, Teaching each Grade Level

Grade K I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

# 136 140 147 147 146 136 116 109 109 119 124 126 126

3. Years ofTeaching Experience K-12, n=254

number of years 1-5 6-10 11-20 21+

% of teachers 19 14 34 33

4. Percentage of K-12 Teachers, n=254, who attended staff development or college classes onassessment in the last two years.

77%

5. Percentage of K-12 Teachers, n=254, who attended staff development or college classes onart assessment in the last two years.

54%

305


March 6 ,2000 DRAFT Rubric for Local Arts Assessment of Show-Me Standards

Criteria Advanced Level 4 Proficient Level 3 Nearing Proficient Level 2 Novice Level 1

Fine ArtsProduct/Performance

PartiProcess

The process through which an artwork evolves.

Show-Me Standards: FA 1 ,0 1.1,0 1.3, G 1.5, G 2.1, G 2.2, G 2.5, G 3.1, G 3.2, G 3.3, G 3.4, G 3.6

4 independently expands upon assigned processes, media, and techniques

4 independently formulates problems and demonstrates problem-solving process:1 investigates, 2) develops and revises, 3) produces/performs, 4) reflects (with others if required)

4 demonstrates originality on a consistent basis

4 composes original works that reflect careful planning and are effective for desired purposes

4 improves, in a continuous, self-directed manner from past performances

✓ correctly applies assigned processes, media, and techniques

✓ identifies problems and demonstrates problem-solving process: 1) investigates, 2) develops and revises, 3) produces/performs, 4) reflects (with others if required)

/ demonstrates originality with prompting

/ composes original works that are well organized

✓ improves from past performances

/ - uses some assigned processes, media, and techniques

/ - demonstrates most steps of problem-solving process:1 )investigates, 2) develops and revises, 3) produces/performs, 4) reflects(with others if required)

/ • modifies ideas of others

/ - composes original works that reflect some planning

/ - improves minimally from past performances

• as attempts to use signed processes, media, and techniques

- demonstrates few steps of the problem-solving process:1 )investigates, 2) develops and revises, 3) produces/performs, 4) reflects(with others if required

- copies ideas of others

- composes works without planning

-remains the same as past performances

Fine ArtsProduct /Performance

Part IICompleted Work

Terminal exhibition or performance that demonstrates knowledge and skills in the fine arts: dance, music, theater, and/or the visual arts.

Show-Me Standards: FA I , FA 2, G 4.1, G 4.8

4 demonstrates high degree of technical skill, craftspersonship, and/or artistry

4 synthesizes relevant historical influence with student's personal interpretation in artwork

4 creates/recreates complex works that demonstrate assigned concepts, processes, elements, and/or principles

4 articulates clear, well thought- out intent of artist

✓ demonstrates technical skill, craftspersonship, and/or artistry

✓ demonstrates relevant historical influences, modified by student

/ creates/recreates works that demonstrate many assigned concepts, processes, elements, and/or principles

/ communicates intent of artist

/ • demonstrates developing technical skill, craftspersonship, and/or artistry

/ • restates relevant historical characteristics, copied instead of personalized

/ - creates/recreates work that demonstrate some assigned concepts, processes, elements and/or principles

/ - attempts to communicate the intent of artist

•attempts to demonstrate technical skill, craftspersonship, and/or artistry

- lacks relevant historical characteristics

- creates/recreates work that attempt to demonstrate some assigned concepts, processes, elements and/or principles

- does not communicate the intent of artist

8

Rep

rodu

ced

with

pe

rmis

sion

of

the

copy

righ

t ow

ner.

Fu

rthe

r re

prod

uctio

n pr

ohib

ited

with

out

perm

issi

on.

March 6 .2000 DRAFT Rubric for Local Arts Assessment of Show-Me Standards

Criteria Advanced Level 4 Proficient Level 3 Nearing Proficient Level 2 Novice Level 1

Fine Arts HistoryRecords and analysis of the past as seen through works of art. Show-Mc Standards: FA S,G 1.6, G 1.7, G 1.9, G 2.4, G 4.1

4 identifies and categorizes art

4 compares, contrasts, and evaluates characteristics in historic artworks

4 Analyzes cultural context of historic artworks their influences on own artwork

/ identifies many artworks

/ compares and contrasts characteristics in historic artworks

/ explains cultural context of historic artworks and their relationship to own artwork

✓- identifies few artworks

/ - explains characteristics in historic artworks

/ - relates art from some historical periods, movements and/or cultures to own artwork

- attempts to identify artworks

-lists characteristics in historic artworks

•attempts to relate historic artworks to own artwork

Fine Arts CriticismCritical analysis of artistic work based upon the elements and principles of the art form. Show-Me Standards: FA 2, FA 3, FA 4, G 1.5, G 1.6, G 1.9, G 2.4, G 4.1

4 uses precise art vocabulary to fluently describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate artworks created by: 1) self, 2) peers, and 3) artists of historical/cultural significance

4 analyzes connections among arts and other disciplines

J uses relevant art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate artworks created by: 1) self, 2) peers, and 3) artists of historical/cultural significance

/ identifies connections among arts and other disciplines

/ - sometimes uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, or evaluate artworks created by: 1) self, 2) peers, and 3) artists of historical/cultural significance

/ - makes some connections among arts and other disciplines

- rarely uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, or interpret artworks

-attempts to make connections among arts and other disciplines

Fine Arts AestheticsThe nature of art and it’s impact on an audience.Show-Me Standards: FA 3, G 1.6, G 2.3, G 2.4, G 4.1

4 formulates and defends complex perceptions of artwork

4 supports and defends others' responses to artwork

/ formulates detailed perceptions of artwork

/ compares and contrasts others' responses to artwork

/ - explains perceptions of artwork

/ - describes others’ responses to artwork

-attempts to explain perceptions of the artwork

-attempts to describe others' responses to artwork

The following category refers to attitudes and behaviors conducive to success. They are to be encouraged but not assigned score points.

Responsibility 4 is consistently on-task / is usually on-task / - is frequently on-task - is rarely on-task

Show-Mc Standards 4 independently uses and / uses materials and equipment ✓- frequently uses materials - rarely uses materials andG4.5, G4.6, G4.7 assists with materials and appropriately and equipment appropriately equipment appropriately

equipment appropriately✓- frequently respects students - rarely respects students and

4 consistently respects students / usually respects students and and their artistic their artistic products/equipmentand their artistic their artistic products/equipment products/equipmentproducts/equipment

✓ collaborates, with assistance, / - works in groups, with - works poorly in groups4 collaborates as required as required assistance, as required

Rep

rodu

ced

with

pe

rmis

sion

of

the

copy

righ

t ow

ner.

Fu

rthe

r re

prod

uctio

n pr

ohib

ited

with

out

perm

issi

on.

VITA

Cheryl Venet was bom December 11, 1947, in Chicago, Illinois. After graduating

from New Trier Township High School in Winnetka, Illinois (1965), she received the

following degrees: B.F.A. in Art and Education from the University o f Illinois at Urbana,

Illinois (1969); M.S. in Education from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Illinois

(1972); Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction, Art Education, from the University o f

Missouri-Columbia (2000). She has taught art in the Columbia, Missouri, Public Schools

from 1975 to the present, and has also served as Coordinator o f Art, K-12, since 1988.

308


art teachers' opinions of assessment criteria

Education

copyright owner

cheryl venet

umi films

umi number

contact umi

bell howell information

original manuscript

missouri art educators