Authentic Secondary Art Assessment: Snapshots from Art Teacher Practice 1032503211, 9781032503219

Citation preview

Authentic Secondary Art Assessment

Offering a contemporary overview of how visual art teachers assess learning in their classrooms, this book provides an outline of the role of assessment in reporting not only student achievement but also how student assessment ties to the intrinsic and external assessments of teacher performance. Compiled using stories from the classrooms of 19 visual art high school teachers who share their approaches to benchmarking student success, the text encourages teachers to consider assessment both for guiding their students to achieve artistic goals and for re-envisioning their own curriculum and instruction. The featured assessment snapshots fall along four strands: Visual Narratives and Visual Literacy; Capturing Empathic Understandings and Social Engagement; Measuring Risk-taking and Ingenuity; and Assessing Collaborative and Integrated Learning Outcomes. Across these sections, teacher contributors offer different perspectives for student assessment, capturing a snapshot of the work of skilled practitioners and focusing on various aspects of what can be evidenced and analyzed through formative and summative evaluation. The voices of university level art educators are also included to expand the range of context from curriculum and instruction content that is covered in preservice art methods courses. All sections also conclude with a summary, questions, and discussion points. Including diverse teacher voices as well as presenting assessment perspectives with an eye to the National Core Art Standards (NCAS), this book is ideal for pre-service and in-service secondary art educators, as well as for use in art education teacher certification courses that focus on secondary methods, and art education graduate classes in assessment. Cathy Smilan is a Professor of Art Education and the Master of Art Education Graduate Program Director at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. She serves a reviewer for the International Journal of Education through Art, and the Journal of Visual Culture and Gender. Dr. Smilan served as a member of the NAEA Professional Materials Committee and as a permanent editor of the IJETA IMAG. Richard Siegesmund is a Professor Emeritus of Art+Design Education at Northern Illinois University. An elected Distinguished Fellow of the National Art Education Association, he is also a recipient of the organization’s Manuel Barkan Memorial Award for significance of his published research on the 1997 NAEP Arts assessment.

Authentic Secondary Art Assessment Snapshots from Art Teacher Practice

Edited by Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund

Designed cover image: Compiled by Cathy Smilan First published 2024 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Smilan, Cathy, editor. | Siegesmund, Richard, editor. Title: Authentic secondary art assessment : snapshots from art teacher practice / edited by Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund. Description: New York, NY : Routledge, 2024. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2023010528 (print) | LCCN 2023010529 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032503219 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032493572 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003397946 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Art--Study and teaching (Secondary)--Evaluation. | Art--Study and teaching (Secondary)--United States. Classification: LCC N350 .A92 2024 (print) | LCC N350 (ebook) | DDC 707.1/2--dc23/eng/20230523 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023010528 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023010529 ISBN: 978-1-032-50321-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-49357-2 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-39794-6 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946 Typeset in Minion Pro by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.

Contents

Editorsix List of contributors xi Acknowledgmentsxix Foreword xxi Introduction: Authentic Secondary Art Assessment: Snapshots from Art Teacher Practice Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund

1

SECTION I  Overview to Assessment

11

1 Art Education Assessment and the Industrial Educational Complex Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan

13

2 Educational Aims, Goals, and Objectives: Balancing Instructional Objectives and Expressive Outcomes Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan

20

3 Contemporary Dilemmas in the Assessment of Art Learning: Promoting Creativity, Assessing Teachers, and “Doing” the Standards Doug Boughton

24

SECTION II  Models of Assessment

31

4 Commentary Section II: Standards and the Assessment of Competencies Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan

33

5 Can’t you just give them a quiz? Resistance as a Means to Promote Authentic Assessment Deborah N. Filbin 6 The End Justifies the Means: Assessment and Backward Design Cathy Smilan

39 46

vi

7 Advanced Placement in Studio Art: Assessment and Advocacy Mark Graham 8 Internationale Baccalaureate: Art Educators as Leaders in Models of Student Thinking and Assessing What Matters Roger D. Tomhave 9 Studio Thinking and Assessment in High School Visual Art Lois Hetland 10 Assessment Literacy and edTPA: Seeing the Bigger Picture Debrah C. Sickler-Voigt 11 The Danielson Framework for Teacher Evaluation and Student Assessment Samantha Goss

Contents

50

55 60 65

69

12 Summary Section II Cathy Smilan

73

Section II: Questions and discussion points

76

SECTION III  Assessing Visual Narratives and Visual Literacy

79

13 Commentary Section III: Visual Narrative: Assessing How We Tell Our Stories Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund

81

14 Beyond the Color Wheel: Assessing for Habits of Mind in the Art Classroom91 Najuana P. Lee 15 Authentic Assessment Through a Summative Bookmaking Unit Debi West

98

16 Expressive Portraits: Visual Narratives of Affective and Technical Assessment103 Deborah N. Filbin 17 Drawn Personalities Laura Milas

110

18 Summary Section III: The Role of “Context” in Assessment gloria j. wilson

117

Section III: Questions and discussion points

120

SECTION IV  Measuring Risk-taking and Ingenuity

121

19 Commentary Section IV: Nurturing and Assessing Risk-taking in the Art Room: A Framework for Teachers Raymond E. Veon

123

Contents

vii

20 Assessing the Student Over the Work: Grading with Studio Habits of Mind130 JoE Douillette 21 Holistic Assessment Through the Photographic Lens135 Morgan Bozarth 22 Risk and Chance: Portrait Lessons for Advanced Students from Rural and Suburban Communities144 Stan Dodson and Drew Brown 23 Risk-taking and Empowering Students with Interdependent Artmaking153 Michael Jon Skura 24 Summary Section IV158 Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan Section IV: Questions and discussion points162 SECTION V  Capturing Empathic Understandings and Social Engagement

163

25 Commentary Section V: Empathy and Socially Engaged Art165 Samantha Goss and Richard Siegesmund 26 Starting a Conversation: Student-directed Projects Designed to Engage the Community171 Nicholas Hostert 27 An Evolution of Assessment in the Wake of a Cultural Revolution178 Roxanne Brown 28 Building School Community with Artist Trading Cards184 Lauren Phillips 29 What breaks your heart? Socially Engaged Artwork in the High School Art Classroom190 Abby Newland 30 Summary Section V: Assessing Socially Engaged Art Education 196 Ross H. Schlemmer Section V: Questions and discussion points200 SECTION VI  Assessing Collaborative and Integrated Learning Outcomes

201

31 Commentary Section VI: Integrated and Collaborative Assessments 203 Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund 32 Sculptured Landscapes: Art Lesson and Assessments 209 Lorinne Lee

viii

Contents

33 Ceramic Whistle Sculpture Bjana Lunde

214

34 Critique as Assessment Jamie Lynch and Christine Neville

221

35 The Art Throwdown: Process and Production in an Interscholastic Competition John Brandhorst

232

36 Summary Section V: An Assessment: Art-integrated Instruction and Collaborative Learning Michelle Tillander

236

Section VI: Questions and discussion points

242

SECTION VII  Closing Thoughts

245

37 Conclusion Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan

247

38 Afterword: Addressing Social Issues and Mental Health as Contemporary Culture Megan K. Mettmann

254

Afterword: Rethinking Assessment—Post-Pandemic Cathy Smilan

263

Index

267

Editors

Cathy Smilan, EdD, is a Professor of Art Education at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. She serves as the MAE Graduate Program Director and revised the program with a studio focus and synchronous online format in Fall 2021. Dr. Smilan serves on the International Society of Education through Art (InSEA) editorial review board for IJETA and as a reviewer for the Journal of Visual Culture and Gender. She is a past editor of IJETA IMAG. She served multiple terms on NAEA’s Professional Materials Committee (PMC) and on the editorial board for Art Education. Dr. Smilan was recognized as the 2011 Massachusetts Higher Education Art Educator of the year. Research interests include artbased research and assessment, conceptually based inquiry, and socially engaged practice. Richard Siegesmund, PhD, is a Professor Emeritus of Art and Design Education from Northern Illinois University. A recipient of Fulbright awards to both the National College of Art and Design, Ireland in Art Education and KU Leuven, Belgium in Visual Sociology, he is also an elected Distinguished Fellow of the National Art Education Association (NAEA). He received the NAEA’s Manual Barkan Award for his research related to the 1997 NAEP Arts assessment. Dr. Siegesmund has been honored for Distinguished Service to the Field by the Illinois Art Education Association and presented with the Distinguished Service within the Profession Award by the Georgia Art Education Association.

List of contributors

Doug Boughton, PhD, is the Director of the School of Art and Design at Northern Illinois University. He has served as the World President of the International Society for Education through Art, Chief Examiner Visual Arts for the International Baccalaureate Organization, and Consulting Professor in Art Education to the Institute of Education in Hong Kong. He is the Chair of the Distinguished Fellows of the National Art Education Association, has won the NAEA Higher Educator of the Year Award, the Illinois Higher Educator of the Year and the Studies in Art Education Invited Lecture Award for consistent contributions to the direction and scope of the profession. In 2006, he won the USSEA Edwin Ziegfeld Award for his outstanding contribution to international art education. He has published in nine languages, including multiple articles and book chapters, a monograph, and three co-edited books on the topics of art education curriculum policy, assessment, and multiculturalism. Morgan Bozarth, MAE, teaches Visual Arts, grades 9–12, at Dartmouth High School, in the Dartmouth Public Schools district in Massachusetts. She is in her 15th year of teaching, the past seven years serving in her current district. She is a part-time instructor at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, teaching in the AED/BFA and MAE/Post-bac licensure programs. She earned a Master of Art Education degree from UMass Dartmouth in 2018. Morgan’s scholarly work has been presented at the state and national levels. In 2014, she presented at the Massachusetts Art Education Association Conference (MAEA) on designing effective community partnerships that expand learning through visual art beyond the classroom. In 2015, Morgan presented in a webinar for the National Art Education Association (NAEA) on applying research practices in teaching art. In 2017, she presented at the NAEA National Convention on applying art-based inquiry in the studio and art classroom. John Brandhorst, EdS, is the Chair of Fine and Performing Arts at Midtown High School (formerly Henry W. Grady High School) in Atlanta, Georgia. He is in his 24th year of formal teaching at this site. He received a BFA in Graphic Design from the University of Michigan in 1990, an MAEd specializing in Art Education, and an EdS in School Leadership from Georgia State University. He sponsors the National Art Honor Society chapter and is the Director and Coach of the interscholastic ART THROWDOWN team. He was recognized by the Georgia NAHS in 2018 as the Art Teacher of the Year for his work authoring, organizing, and introducing the Art Throwdown model at the Georgia State NAHS conference in Columbus, Georgia.

xii

List of contributors

Drew Brown, PhD, is a Visual Arts Teacher at Milton High School in Milton, Georgia. Dr. Brown has taught university courses at Augusta, Kennesaw State, and Georgia State. In 2015, she earned her PhD in Art from the University of Georgia. Recently, she completed a Drawing and Painting course written for the Georgia Department of Education, now available online for teachers. She has conducted numerous workshops including summer sessions for the Tennessee Arts Academy and the Woodruff Arts Center Educator Conference in Atlanta. Currently, Dr. Brown serves on the Georgia Art Education Association Executive Board as Member-at-Large, after having served as President in the mid-2000s. On a national level, she has presented at numerous National Art Education Association Conferences, as well as Harvard’s Project Zero Conference. Dr. Brown was named 2021 Georgia Art Educator, 2021 Milton High School Teacher of the Year, and 2015 National Elementary Art Educator. She was especially proud to earn the 2014 Robert Nix Award for Excellence in Teaching from the University of Georgia. She lives in Roswell, Georgia, with her husband, Kirk. Roxanne Brown, MAE, retired from a 35-year career of teaching Elementary, Middle and High School Art in Hampton City Schools in 2022. She served as the City of Tidewater Art Education Association Representative and Treasurer. Leadership roles include teacher mentor, instructional leader, and co-writer for the Tidewater elementary art curriculum. Advanced training includes AP Studio and Art History and Internationale Baccalaureate Visual Arts. Roxanne earned K-12 Gifted Endorsement from Shenandoah University, National Board Certification in Adolescent – Early Adult Art, and a Masters in Art Education from Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU). Through her coursework at VCU, she collaborated in a service-learning opportunity with a graduate art class in Helsinki, Finland. The experience culminated in a two-week visit to Finland and presentations at the International Society for Education through Art (InSEA) European Regional Conference. She also presented at the 2018 Virginia Art Education Association Conference and the 2019 NAEA Convention in Boston. Stan Dodson, EdD, is the Visual Arts Department Chair at Burke County High School located in Waynesboro, Georgia, and is the current Georgia Art Education Association President. Dr. Dodson is a 2023 EdD doctoral graduate in Educational Innovation from Augusta University. After ten years as a professional graphic artist following graduation from Ringling College of Art and Design, he entered the teaching profession and just completed his 16th year. Additionally, he serves as a faculty adjunct at Augusta University working with graduate students seeking initial teacher certification in art education. Along with his state arts advocacy, Dr. Dodson works on the national level by partnering with the NAEA where he presents workshops, lectures, and sessions during the annual convention along with being a delegate. His lessons and work are often shared as he is a frequent contributor to Art of Education University. Dr. Dodson was named the 2015 Georgia Secondary Art Educator, 2012 Burke County Teacher of the Year, and 2017 Burke County High Teacher of the Year. He lives in Martinez, Georgia, with his wife, Michelle, son Caleb (13), and daughter Hannah (10). JoE Douillette, MAT, teaches Visual Arts at Swampscott High School in Massachusetts (since 2015). He teaches Digital Film Production and TV Studio Production and is certified in both Visual Arts and Radio and TV Broadcasting, Vocational. He previously taught teenagers in urban afterschool arts programs, as a resident artist in special education facilities, and in the education department at the Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston. He has a Bachelor of Science in Broadcasting and Film from Boston University and a Master of Arts in Teaching Visual Art from Salem State University. His assessment method was recently

List of contributors

xiii

featured as a chapter exemplar in Sheridan et al. (2022). Studio Thinking 3: The Real Benefits of Art Education. Teachers College Press. His own artwork includes single- and multi-channel video installation, screenplay writing, rhythm tap dancing choreography, and three children. Interests include beekeeping, hiking in New England, coaching town recreational soccer, and shell fishing. Deborah N. Filbin, PhD, has worked as a High School Art and Design Educator in the Chicago area throughout her career spanning over 25 years. She has spent a majority of her career in a Title I school; to expand her knowledge about quality education and performancebased assessment methods, she received her PhD in Art and Design Education from Northern Illinois University. In addition to teaching high school, Deborah has also taught adjunct at the university level, provided professional development locally at her school district, and presented at conferences at the state, national, and international levels on a variety of topics related to high school level art education with an emphasis on performance-based art assessment. She is published in several journals, the International Encyclopedia of Art and Design Education, and has received numerous honors, including the Minx Auerbach Education Award and the NAEA Women’s Caucus Carrie Nordlund Award. Samantha Goss, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at the University of Northern Iowa, where she teaches secondary art methods, history of design, and various art education and research courses in the graduate art education program she coordinates. Prior to working in higher education, she was a high school ceramics teacher and taught multi-age courses at a community art center. Her main research interest in engrossment has extended her work across various contexts to consider teaching and assessing engrossment, including pedagogical tools to scaffold and capture student engrossment, especially in the initial stages of the art and design process. She enjoys collaboration in both teaching and research, which lead to work on art education research history through citation network analysis and data visualization. Mark Graham, EdD, is a Professor at Brigham Young University in the Department of Art. He received his EdD degree from Teachers College of Columbia University and his MBA from New York University. He recently co-directed field study programs in Scotland, Europe, Ecuador, India, Nepal, and Malawi. Dr. Graham is an internationally known illustrator and has illustrated 30 children’s picture books. He has exhibited his work at the Society of Illustrators exhibition and the Bologna Children Book exhibition. He continues to create various kinds of art objects, including mandalas and complex installations. His scholarship includes place-based education, graphic novels, ecological/holistic education, secondary art education and assessment, and Himalayan art and culture. Lois Hetland, EdD, Professor Emerita in Art Education at the Massachusetts College of Art and Design, trained in music and visual arts and taught K-12 students for 17 years. She co-authored Studio Thinking 3: The Real Benefits of Visual Arts Education (2022, 3rd Edition) and Studio Thinking from the Start: The K-8 Art Educator’s Handbook (2018). She was affiliated with Harvard Project Zero (1992–2018; PI 2001–2011); led USDOE-funded research and professional development in Alameda County, CA (2003–2011); evaluated the Art21 Educators’ program (2010–2012); and conducted meta-analytic reviews of academic outcomes from arts learning (1997–2000). Currently, she Co-PIs an NSF project, Cool Science: Art as a Vehicle for Intergenerational Learning and a Woods Hole Sea Grant project, Traditional Ecological Art & Science: Designing Sustainable Shorelines. She is also podcasting about the intersections between world and educational challenges and opportunities: https://www.chllpodcast.com/

xiv

List of contributors

Nicholas Hostert, MAE, is a National Board-certified Art Educator and Past-President of the Illinois Art Education Association whose pedagogical expertise centers contemporary art practices at the core of high-quality arts curriculum and instruction. Nicholas has taught for 19 years at Palatine High School in Township District 211 in Palatine, Illinois. Additionally, he has guided cohorts of educators in improving curriculum through district-wide professional development programs, as a lead facilitator of the Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago’s Teacher Institute, and via the Collaborating for Excellence project supported by the National Endowment for the Arts. He presents nationally on a regular basis and his writings have been included in multiple publications. Nicholas earned his Bachelor’s from Illinois State University as a Bone Scholar and his Master of Arts in Art Education from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago as a Trustee Merit Scholar. Lorinne Lee, MAE, is retired after 40 years in education, 32 years as a high school art educator and district wide art curriculum coordinator and supervisor. She served as the NAEA Publications Material Review Coordinator for 12 years. She holds an MAE from the University of Washington. Her state and national leadership past-roles include Washington State OSPI Assessment Writing team, WAEA President, WAEA State Conference Chair, Youth Art Month Chair, NAEA Secondary Director, NAEA Facilities Committee, NAEA Lesson Plan Committee. State and national recognition includes the Washington Award of ExcellenceChrista McAuliffe Teaching Award, WAEA Art Educator of the Year, WAEA Secondary Art Educator of the Year, WAEA Art Specialist and Supervisor of the Year, WAEA/OSPI Tribute Award, USA West Art/Technology Award, a Gates Technology Grant Award, Elementary Teacher of America Award, NAEA Secondary Art Educator Award, NAEA Pacific Region Secondary Award, and the International Sculpture Teacher of the Year Award. Lorinne continues her art practice and curates community art shows in public spaces, collaborating with outstanding art teachers and professional artists for over ten years. NaJuana P. Lee, PhD, is the Graduation Coach and Response to Intervention Chair at Chattahoochee High School in the Fulton County School District in Atlanta, Georgia. She provides training for teachers on implementing effective intervention strategies, using data to measure student growth, and modifying classroom practice to support student academic success. She served as the Fulton County School’s CTE Program Specialist. Secondary teaching experience includes career tech courses in animation and digital media, and fine arts courses in ceramics, drawing, graphic design and sculpture. She was a Visiting Assistant Professor of Art in the Art Education Department at The University of Georgia (UGA) where she earned a PhD in Art Education and received the UGA Dissertation Completion Fellowship Honors Award. Her dissertation research has been published in Art Education and Studies in Art Education and presented at NAEA and AERA National Conferences as well as regional conferences in Georgia. Bjana Lunde, MAE, has passionately served her community as an art educator for the past 18 years primarily teaching in Community Unit School District. She has taught a variety of art courses 2-d and 3-d at the middle, high school, and college levels. Currently, she teaches 6th thru 8th grade art at Dundee Middle School within Community Unit School District 300 located in Dundee, Illinois. She has developed an after-school art program for her middle school art students with three separate rotations of 2-d Art, 3-d Art, and Advanced level art enrichment for her students. In 2018, she earned her Master’s degree in Art Education from Northern Illinois University. She continues her involvement at Northern Illinois University through Summer in the Arts: a program for young aspiring artists, which she has been a part of for the past 20 years. Bjana considers herself to be predominantly a 2-d artist and has

List of contributors

xv

exhibited work at Starline Gallery in Harvard. Devoted wife and mother of two young boys, she and her family reside in a suburb of Northern Illinois. Jamie Lynch, MAE, has been teaching for 17 years, 13 at Fairhaven High School. Over the last few years, she has been shifting into a student choice classroom. Transition is still in the works and will continue to improve with each project, student, and reflection. She is passionate about process over product. Jamie guides students to gain experiences and skills they can to employ and investigate, while creating personal and meaningful work. She teaches Digital Art, Art II, AP® 2D Art, & AP® Drawing. As an NAHS Advisor, she has the opportunity to work with dedicated art students with a mission to bring art into the Fairhaven community. As an active member, Jamie has presented at Massachusetts Art Education Association (MAEA) conferences, National Art Education Association Conventions (NAEA) as well as MassCue, and enjoys the sharing and gaining experiences of the conference setting. Jamie is from RI where she currently resides with her husband Liam, and her two children Piper and Miles. Megan K. Mettmann (formerly Webb), MAE, Faith Lutheran Middle School & High School, Las Vegas, NV, since 2007, has taught both middle school and high school visual art in Utah, Washington, Alaska and most recently Nevada. Megan is Internationale Baccalaureate certified for the MYP Programme as well as a current AP 2D Design high school teacher. Megan has presented her graduate research on addressing social issues in the classroom at NAEA in 2018 as well as her own personal research on incorporating mental health into art curriculum at NAEA in 2019. Megan’s artwork is often focused on her personal connection to nature. Megan’s collaborative printmaking has been displayed at the Harn Museum in Gainesville, FL. Her silversmithing pieces are primarily commissioned work. Her drawings have been sold or donated for charitable auction in Las Vegas. Megan’s upcoming combined student and teacher show will be at the Sahara West Library in Las Vegas in the Spring of 2023. Megan holds an MA in Art Education from the University of Florida. Laura Milas, MAE, NBCT, is a Retired Teacher and Art Department Chairperson at Hinsdale Central High School, Hinsdale, IL. AP Art History, AP Studio Art, Painting, and Studio Art students visited her classroom each day. A Past Illinois Art Education President, Newsletter Editor, and Youth Art Month Chairperson, Laura has been honored with the NAEA Art Honor Society Sponsor Award, IAEA Art Educator of the Year and IAEA Distinguished Member. Ms. Milas attended the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (1988, 1990) and has completed doctoral coursework in Educational Leadership at Loyola University in Chicago. Laura served as the Vice President of the Western Region of National Art Education Association and as a member of the New Core Art Standards Model Assessment Writing Team. Christine Neville, MAE, has been teaching art at Fairhaven High School in Fairhaven, MA, for the past 16 years. Her classroom is a mostly digital environment utilizing MAC computers and the Adobe software suite, but she also includes a traditional media experience as well. The focus of Christine’s class curricula are digital photography, darkroom photography, and digital arts ranging in levels from introductory to AP. Her goal is for her students to create meaningful artwork using skills presented through lecture, hands-on demonstrations, oneon-one mentorship, video tutorials, and collaboration. As an active member, Christine has presented at Massachusetts Art Education Association (MAEA) conferences, National Art Education Association (NAEA) Conventions as well as MassCUE. She was also recognized as the Massachusetts Secondary Art Educator of the Year 2016 by the MAEA, and Fairhaven Women of the year 2018 for her teaching and leadership in the South Coast, MA community. Christine resides in Swansea, MA with her husband Craig and her daughter Ella.

xvi

List of contributors

Abby Newland, PhD, is a Visual Arts Teacher at Ebenezer Middle School (formerly Madison County High School, Danielsville, GA) in Rincon, Georgia. Abby is in her 12th year of teaching K-12 public education and recently completed her PhD at the University of Georgia. Abby spent the first 11 years of her teaching career in the Athens, Georgia area (Go Dawgs!) and recently relocated to South Georgia, closer to her family and the beach. In addition to teaching K-12, Abby is an adjunct faculty member at Appalachian State University working with pre-service teachers. Within the classroom, Abby is passionate about helping students find their niche, the art style or medium that they are most excited to explore. Outside of the classroom, Abby can be found at the tennis court cheering on her ten-year-old daughter or at the softball field cheering on her husband’s high school team. Lauren Phillips, PhD, has been teaching art in Gwinnett County Public Schools for the past 24 years. She spent 11 years at Norcross Elementary and 7 years at Nesbit Elementary before teaching art at the Gwinnett School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology. Lauren is a past president of the Georgia Art Education Association (GAEA) and has presented at numerous local, state and national conferences. Lauren holds a PhD in Curriculum and Instruction from Georgia State University. Her dissertation from Georgia State University examined how elementary art teachers encouraged care in their classrooms. Her students have used their artistic talents to raise money for several charities, including the Norcross Cooperative Ministry, a local food bank, and Street Grace, a local organization fighting against human trafficking. Ross H. Schlemmer, PhD, teaches Art Education at Kutztown University, where as an artist, teacher, and researcher, he continues to form alliances with community groups outside the school in an effort to provide alternative perspectives toward teaching and learning for his students through service-learning and socially engaged art education. His work focuses on the lived experiences of communities and the social geographies that often lie in conflict and contradiction—and subsequently how socially engaged art and education serve as a catalyst to mediate dialogs in those spaces. Ross earned his PhD in Arts Administration, Education and Policy from The Ohio State University. He currently sits on the editorial review boards for Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education and the International Journal of Education & the Arts, as well as having authored several publications on Socially Engaged Art Education. He is also one of the founding board members of the Community Arts Caucus. Debrah C. Sickler-Voigt, PhD, is a Professor of Art Education at Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN. She is the author of Teaching and Learning in Art Education: Cultivating Students’ Potential from Pre-K Through High School (2020)—a widely adopted art methods textbook. Her professional body of work emphasizes a “Yes, We Can” approach by providing educators, students, and others interested in art and education with a sense of empowerment as they learn innovative methods for teaching, learning, creating, managing, and assessing the visual arts. Topics of equity, diversity, and inclusion are central to her teaching and research practices. Sickler-Voigt serves as the senior editor for NAEA’s Assessment Papers for Art Education. She received the United States Society for Education Through Art’s (USSEA’s) Ziegfeld Service Award in 2022. Her latest book is STEAM Teaching and Learning Through the Arts and Design: A Practical Guide for PK-12 Educators (2023). Learn more at https://routledgetextbooks.com/textbooks/_author/sickler-voigt/ Michael Jon Skura, MAE, Oswego High School, Oswego, IL, earned a BFA in Studio Art (1995) and Art Education (1997) from the University of Illinois at Chicago. He received a Master’s of Education from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (2004) and

List of contributors

xvii

Advanced Study in Educational Organization & Leadership (2007). Mr. Skura is a National Arts Education Association member and the Past President of the Illinois Art Education Association. He lives in Wheaton with his three children, Linea, Karen, and Daniel. George Szekely, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY (retired), since 1969, has pioneered creative principles and methodologies in art teaching. Dr. Szekely has authored 14 books and more than 100 journal and magazine articles. Szekely’s writings were among the first to emphasize the importance of children’s play and home art in artistic development and as a foundation of school art. Szekely’s films create vivid portraits of significant creative moments in children’s lives and celebrate the artist in every child. George Szekely’s life is a portrait of an artist-teacher who views teaching as an art medium and an art room as a canvas. Szekely maintains an active studio with a busy art exhibition and film screening schedule. Thirty-five books of George Szekely’s Art are now available on Amazon. Szekely’s teaching texts and films can be viewed at georgeszekely.org. He is a Founder and Director of the national center for studying and supporting creative art teaching (CCAT) and the International Association of Play and Art. He emphasizes his Play-Based Art Teaching approach: The organization has a Facebook Site and a weekly popular PODCAST for over 10,000 active members. Michelle Tillander, PhD, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, is an Associate Professor in the School of Art and Art History and an Affiliate Faculty in the Center for Arts and Medicine. Dr. Tillander is an artist/art educator specializing in engaging art education, technology, and culture as integrated processes and approaches to expand art educational technology practice. Conceptualizing, creating and implementing are her passions as exemplified with the creation of the online MA in Art Education in 2009. Dr. Tillander worked with Pinellas County Schools five-year DOE grant Elevate A. R. T. S. (Arts Relationships Technology Steam, 2014). Current research projects include Visual Knowledge Building: Art Instruction to Develop Analytic and Critical Thinking in a Veterinary Medical Curriculum. She has several upcoming chapters “Explorations for Decolonizing the Curriculum in Regard to Technology (2023)” and “Running the Numbers: Rich and Dense Everydayness Stories with Data (2024)”. Roger D. Tomhave, PhD, Professor Emeritus of James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA (retired), received the Virginia State Art Educator of the Year Award; Virginia, Southeastern Region, and National Supervision/Administration Art Educator of the Year Awards for the NAEA, and has been a keynote speaker for the West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Virginia NAEA conferences. Art education research highlights include inclusive curricular perspectives, portfolio assessments, and advocacy initiated by 11 years as a high school art teacher on the White Earth Indian Reservation in northwestern Minnesota, a Research Assistantship with the Getty Center in Los Angeles, and Master’s/Doctorate at the University of Minnesota. Professor Tomhave served as a Fine Arts Coordinator (8 years) and Art Specialist (12 years) for Fairfax County Public Schools, Virginia. During his tenure, FCPS arts curricula were recognized for excellence by the President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities. He is a Distinguished Fellow of both Virginia and National Art Education Associations. Raymond E. Veon, MFA, is currently the Assistant Dean for Arts Education in the Caine College of the Arts at Utah State University, Logan, UT, a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Art & Design and is also the Founding Director for the college’s Beverly Taylor Sorenson Arts Access Program, an endowed program serving students with special needs through the arts. Professor Veon was formerly the Director of Fine and Performing Arts in the Atlanta Public Schools (APS) in Atlanta, GA, and taught at Georgia State University. He has been recognized for his artwork and teaching, and has received numerous grants, totaling

xviii

List of contributors

$1.3M, including two large grants from the U.S. Department of Education to improve arts education in the Atlanta Public Schools. His artistic research deals with social and identity boundaries, while his academic research includes work in creativity and pedagogy, educational assessment, and disability studies. Debi West, EdS, taught children through the vehicle of the visual arts for 24 years at both the elementary level and the secondary level as a Nationally Board Certified and licensed public school teacher and an out-of-school teaching artist. She was the department chair for the fine arts for ten years at North Gwinnett High School, Suwanee, GA (retired). She holds a BA in Studio Art from the University of South Carolina. She obtained her teaching degree from the Moore College of Art and Design, Philadelphia. She holds her MAEd and her EdS from the University of Georgia in Art Education and conducted her PhD coursework at UGA in Language and Literacy. She has held multiple leadership positions in the Georgia Art Education Association (including President and conference coordinator) and the National Art Education Association (including Southeastern Regional Vice President). Her numerous awards include Gwinnett County Teacher of the Year, Georgia Art Educator of the Year, the National Elementary Art Educator, the Southeastern Secondary Art Educator and was recently named the 2021 National Emeritus Art Educator. She is now in her sixth year as a Graduate Instructor in Art Education at the Art of Education University. gloria j. wilson, PhD, is the Co-Founder/-Director of the Racial Justice Studio and Associate Professor of Art and Visual Culture Education at the University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. An artist and public scholar, gloria has presented her research nationally and internationally highlighting the intersections of structural racism, racial identity and critical arts engagement. Her scholarship is informed by critical pedagogy, critical human geography, Black studies, cultural studies, transnational feminisms and critical arts-based engagements. She pushes disciplinary boundaries of existing art and visual culture education praxis by exploring how the intersections of race and arts participation might be explored through critical and collective aesthetic interventions. For more information: gloriajwilson.com and [email protected]

Acknowledgments

This book would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of many individuals. It was born out of discussion of the National Art Education Association’s (NAEA) Professional Materials Committee (PMC) and has gone through a long gestation period. We wish to thank George Szekely, who while chairing the PMC first expressed the need for this book and suggested that we take up this challenge. In turn, subsequent NAEA leaders steered this project forward, in particular former PMC Publications manager Lynn Ezell. However, the NAEA is a complex organization with many demands on its resources. Executive Director Mario Rossero graciously allowed us to bring this manuscript to the attention of Routledge/ Taylor and Francis Group. There, Commissioning Editor, Julia Dolinger, welcomed the manuscript. Not only are we grateful for all of this support, but perhaps this book helped open the doorway to further collaboration between Routledge and NAEA PMC. To prepare this book, we turned to teachers. We are deeply indebted to NAEA’s state affiliate associations that have nurtured the ideas of this book: the Georgia, Illinois, and Massachusetts Art Education Associations. These organizations have brought together the leading art educators in their states in the spirit of improving education for all students. It has been a privilege to work with individuals in these associations. We have presented many of their voices, but there are many more we wish we could have included. Richard would first like to acknowledge Cathy’s leadership throughout a challenging process of keeping the project on course. He would also like to thank his colleagues at Northern Illinois University (NIU), who have provided insightful and challenging discussions to issues of assessment: Doug Boughton, Kerry Freedman, Kryssi Staikidis, and Shei-Chau Wang. These discussions are led by the challenges and opportunities continually presented by the students in pre-licensure, masters, and doctoral programs. Several of those graduate students have written for this book as well and he is grateful for their contributions. The program at NIU carries on the legacy of Elliot Eisner, whose thought reverberates throughout the pages of this book and resonates with what skilled practitioners in the field of art education consider to be the enduring outcomes of art. Finally, Richard would like to express his appreciation for the support and critical feedback he has received from his wife, Brigitta Hangartner, throughout this process. Cathy Smilan acknowledges those who practice active listening and move their understandings to action. To that end, she wishes to thank Deborah Reeve and Pat Franklin for taking the time to listen with intention, for their continued support of this manuscript in particular, and of the power of teacher voice, in general. This project would not have come to fruition without their dedication to the cause. To my PMC colleagues, most especially

xx

Acknowledgments

Barbara Laws and my dear friend Lorinne Lee: Thank you for your advocacy for this project on behalf of our NAEA membership. And to Debrah Sickler-Voigt, for your support of this book and your tireless editorial efforts on the NAEA Assessment Papers which serve as companions to this anthology. Many thanks to Richard for being such a stalwart collaborator and for your artistic vision. To my students who allowed me the privilege of walking with them on their art teacher journey: Thank you for sharing your experiences and for your contributions to my continuing growth in visual arts research and assessment. Through your collaborative support, I have developed a concept of assessment as mentorship. Finally, to my son Justin Smilan and my new daughter, Elisama Llera, thank you for being present and for your support—technologically and emotionally—for this project and all of my creative endeavors.

Foreword George Szekely I am deeply honored that Cathy and Richard recalled our convention conversations many years ago and thought that it would be fitting to have my voice added to their book. Readers may know my work as a long-time advocate for joy and play. To demonstrate the effectiveness of different instructional approaches, art educators need to understand that assessment is about communicating with students, parents, and administrators and helping them to reflect on meaningful growth. It is our challenge as art teachers to not allow limited, desiccated conceptions of assessment to devastate our most significant forms of pedagogical engagement. Assessment can be a tool that improves pedagogy and curriculum, but we cannot allow it to be a mindless industrial synthesizer that destroys the potential of art. This text is not a dull or entirely theoretical book on assessment. Dr. Smilan and Dr. Siegesmund have succeeded in capturing a detailed, dynamic image of what good teachers are achieving in today’s art classes. Reading the voices from the field makes the book highly relevant. Not satisfied only with models from contemporary art rooms, the writers skillfully balance higher educator’s voices and visions about what high school art education could be. This book features sections on Studio Thinking, Advanced Placement, and Internationale Baccalaureate. The writers address how currently favored systems of assessment in general classrooms and art such as Backward Design, and the Danielson Model are beginning to alter how we teach, for good or ill. The creators of this book successfully place on exhibit what is going on today; they do not present this book as a “you ought to” lecture. The work is a direct response to the “you can’t assess that!” crowd. The authors do an excellent job of describing what many art teachers work diligently to do. “Art teachers sensitively assess the ephemeral and do so in the service of helping students understand themselves, helping parents understand their kids, and helping administrators understand who these young people are who happen to be populating the classrooms”. This book is the most useful publication on assessment to have close-by on a future art teacher’s bookshelf and the practicing art teacher’s desk. Art teachers admit to the difficulties of assessing their own work. Perhaps the most common discussion on our chat sites is art teachers asking other art teachers what to do with their own art. “What should I do with the right side of this painting?” “Should I change the background?” Like students looking to their teacher for answers to their art. I often take my daughter, a painter, to lunch with an essential group of friends who are willing to sit at a coffee shop and pass the phone around to view and discuss paintings underway. Art teachers are personally familiar with the difficulties in assessing their own works’ progress. And perhaps here lies a part of the learning from this book about the importance of teaching students

xxii

Foreword

about assessment to be able to examine and assess their own art. Learning to independently make decisions and steer from one artwork to the next is a life-long challenge for independent innovators and designers in every media to study. This volume acknowledges and discusses many essential assessment questions instead of offering simple or single solutions; “here is what you do”. This volume underscores the importance of meaningful class discussions between young school artists and their teachers, and the future artist or designer learning to guide and assess the progress, possibilities, and directions of their own works. Like no other book on this subject, the reader is treated to the beauty of assessment as a subject, and the creativity and open-mindedness of an artist it requires in the practice of art teaching.

Introduction Authentic Secondary Art Assessment: Snapshots from Art Teacher Practice Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund

Authentic Secondary Art Assessment, written largely by and for secondary art educators, offers a contemporary overview of how excellent visual art teachers assess learning in their classrooms. It provides an overview of the role of assessment in not only reporting student achievement, but also looking at how student assessment ties to the intrinsic and external assessments of teacher performance. This book looks at different perspectives for student assessment. Nineteen visual art teachers share stories from their classrooms and share their approaches to benchmarking student success. This book does not attempt to present one point of view or advocate for a “best practice” approach to assessment. Each section captures a snapshot of the work of skilled practitioners, focusing on various aspects of what can be evidenced and analyzed through formative and summative evaluations. Beyond assessment to enter grades for stakeholders, we encourage teachers to consider assessment both for guiding their students to achieve artistic goals and for re-envisioning their curriculum and instruction. It is our hope that the variety of approaches presented in this book can help pre-service and in-service teachers better articulate their own distinctive forms of practice. For decades, the educational concept of assessment has haunted the field of art education. Assessment is a critical function of the educational efficiency movement of the early 20th century that sought to model pedagogical and curricular practices along the innovations of the industrial assembly line. In this view, every educational move is precise, research-driven, and aimed at maximizing measurable student learning outcomes. With the onset of the No Child Left Behind era in the 1990s, the only outcomes of significance were student performance on language arts and math tests. The national educational goal was to focus on classroom instruction for optimal student accomplishment on these standardized tests. Nothing could be more antithetical to the teaching of art. As a result, assessment was the grim evaluator of how art teachers could increase student math or language arts test scores. As the bitter findings from Harvard’s Project Zero (Winner & Cooper, 2000) demonstrated, claims by arts teachers that student learning outcomes could meet the demands of the industrial educational complex were over-sold and under-delivered. In these decades, even if art educators attempted to resist the “academic achievement” trap of demonstrating how visual art studies improved reading or math scores, art assessment was DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-1

2

Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund

frequently utilitarian. Student achievement could be measured by the ability to complete color wheels, correctly identify the elements and principles, and recall memorized information on historical images. Our conception of art assessment firmly remained in the same conceptual framework as the four-answer multiple choice question assessment model that dominated mathematics and language arts—and, not insignificantly, bolstered the agenda of the industrial educational complex whereby capitalism trumped the qualitative and effective goals of public education. To counter these trends and create a richer learning environment, the national arts standards movement, first launched in 1994 and updated in 2014, has attempted to provide top-down assessment guidance to assure that high benchmarks are set and upheld. Nevertheless, many teachers still adhere closely to Victor Lowenfeld’s principles of educating the whole child. They continue to view assessment as a foreign intrusion into the art classroom. Art teachers learn the language of assessment because state departments of education demand it, not because they personally sense a value of assessment for their teaching. Thus, we have an odd disconnect of teachers who can do assessment but remain unconvinced of its ability to enhance instruction. Furthermore, what and how visual arts learning is assessed, including the underlying goal of teacher reflective practice, remains ambiguous as broad standards are easily reduced to quantifiable means. One must first and foremost consider the true goals of educational assessment: to maintain the contract between teachers and students to, respectively, present and master conceptual and skills-based knowledge of the discipline, to further visual communication and move forward a dialogue of ideas conveyed through visual language. As we begin the third decade of the 21st century, educational assessment has come to a new point. First, the charter school movement of the last 20 years—aided and abetted by the standardization of gateway testing that grades school districts and impacts property values, further lowering state appropriations of funds to underperforming schools—has opened the conversation that there is no one right way to pursue education. The conversation, orchestrated by private sector, for-profit education businesses, including secular schools, is free to provide propagandized curricula and teach students skewed perspectives by providing education focused on particular, oftentimes partisan agendas. Schools might be different. Curricula might be different. Initially, it was believed that common assessments would hold this growing array of educational approaches to a single high standard. However, as alternative models like Internationale Baccalaureate have emerged, they have raised the possibility that there may not be one single best way. Different contexts demand different concepts of assessment. Second, in the wake of the failure of the last great attempt by the Obama administration to equate academic success with performance on standardized language arts and math tests, there has been a decrease in top-down definitions of what constitutes student learning. There has been a noticeable willingness within the industrial educational complex to listen to the voices of classroom teachers as to what learning is in their classrooms, and how skilled educators measure the learning that they consider to be significant. We seem to be in a moment where there is greater openness to negotiated settlements on the forms that assessment might take. Our goal in this book was to turn to skilled professional K-12 educators and have them provide us with examples of assessment. We sought to take snapshots of practice. We did not attempt to have teachers shape their practice to a theme. This book does not present a grand narrative of the single best way to do assessment, nor does it call for high-priced evaluation consultants to apply prescriptive constraints. Our goal was to create a snapshot of what good art teachers do. There is a range of practice here. Good is relative to the cultural contexts in which you teach. Thoughtful assessment can take place in a variety of challenging circumstances—as this book attempts to show—but teachers should rightly be skeptical of easy, top-down, one-size-fits-all, models of assessment. We believe that classroom teachers are smart and capable, and hope that through sharing their approaches we will invite them and others to become more critically aware of their own

Introduction

3

assessment practice. They teach to their specific contexts and the specific needs of an everchanging student population. We acknowledge that even in the arts, the concept of what is worthy of assessment is fluid, and excellent teachers must be flexible enough to demonstrate that the arts can teach what society values, which extends beyond mere art content. These teachers are savvy about how they position their teaching within the context of schools. They realize that art has no special privilege in a school’s curriculum. These teachers need to earn their administrator’s support by demonstrating that the students in their classrooms are engaged in significant learning. Therefore, for these chapters, we have asked each teacher to provide a description about the context in which they work, because one style of teaching and one style of assessment do not fit all. Students have diverse needs and good teachers calibrate their assessments to help students succeed within their individual contexts. As the teachers responded to our call to participate, thematic threads appeared. Thus, we have divided their responses into four sections: (1) Visual Narratives and Visual Literacy; (2) Capturing Empathic Understandings and Social Engagement; (3) Measuring Risk-taking and Ingenuity; and (4) Assessing Collaborative and Integrated Learning Outcomes. The sections pose questions about what should be measured in secondary visual arts education curriculum and provide examples from art teachers that give us a glimpse into high school art classrooms across the United States.

SECTION STRUCTURE AND CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE FIELD Introductory essays on models of assessment precede and complement the four thematic sections of art teacher snapshots of lessons and assessments. Topics of these essays include assessment models like Understanding by Design, and curricular models like Internationale Baccalaureate, Advanced Placement, and Studio Thinking. There is also a new wrinkle for assessment. Individual student engagement, not just achievement, has become critical to the assessment of teacher performance and school evaluation. How classroom teachers assess students is now a critical component in judgments of teacher quality. This is a new territory for both in-service teachers and teacher education programs. To address this changing landscape, we have included introductory essays on edTPA and the Danielson Framework as skill in student assessment becomes critical to a teacher’s own professional evaluation. For example, the new national evaluation tool for pre-service teacher performance during student teaching, edTPA, is divided into three tasks: Planning, Instruction, and Assessment. National data on the visual arts show that student teachers have strong skills in Planning and Instruction, but scores drop precipitously in Assessment. It appears that student teachers either do not know how to do assessment or do not have the skills to properly document the assessments that they are doing. As annual professional evaluation of teachers moves in a similar direction through the increasing national implementation of the Danielson Framework, classroom teachers will face a similar challenge. Teacher snapshots of measures of learning comprise the remaining sections of this book. Each of these sections is introduced with a conceptual overview of the theme written by an art education higher education professor. Following the four case studies, another higher education professor responds as a discussant. Visual narrative overview gloria wilson summarizes the contributions of teachers in the Visual Narrative section stating that each essay provides an individual interpretation of the National Core Art Standards (NCAS) of creating, presenting, responding, and creating. She describes how each teacher designs

4

Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund

assessment to measure learning outcomes and to inform their own curriculum planning. NaJuana Lee explains the importance of translating one’s personal narrative and encourages teachers to use assessment to measure growth in the culture of an affluent suburban district based on a “student-oriented and teacher supported approach”. Deb Filbin presents another approach to affective learning and personal expression in her portrait lesson in a Chicago suburban, low-income district. Through the lesson assessment, Filbin guides her students to develop visual skills that communicate a personal narrative and open a pathway to introspection and community building. Laura Milas, working in an upper-middle-class Chicago suburb, shares differentiated assessment strategies that acknowledge each student’s creative journey. Through her assessments, she considers the balance between high school students’ art abilities, visual performance anxieties and the lesson aims of visual art technical content versus the importance of visual narrative and personal communication. Finally, Debi West describes a summative assessment of a book-making unit that guides student “autonomy and agency”. The lesson re-engages students with their own portfolio of work as they design a book of their own artistic journey through West’s course. The narratives provide a collective snapshot of thoughtful assessment strategies utilized throughout the learning process. Risk-taking overview Teacher contributors to the section on assessing risk-taking continue to consider the importance of personal narrative and the value of reflective change. They present strategies for encouraging a critical review of work through which students are rewarded for challenging themselves both technically and in their own self-reflection. JoE Douillette provides a lesson on digital story-telling through which each student’s final video invites the viewer to witness the process of the artistic outcome. This change over time and the risks involved in producing the outcome are the essential assessments. Stan Dodson and Drew Brown speak of an art teacher’s responsibility to develop a technical skill that advances practical knowledge tools and cultural context while simultaneously tracking individual artistic and creative evolution. Morgan Bozarth describes her application of work from her own graduate study in which she applied art-based educational research to her design of curriculum and modification of her instruction. In her chapter, Bozarth stresses the importance of providing students with the intellectual tools of inquiry, inviting them to self-assess through data collection and analysis in her photography studio courses. In this scenario of assessment, the role of the art teacher becomes one of research supervisors guiding student art-based researchers to take risks with their work and to evaluate the impact of those risks on their self-determined learning goals. Probing self-identified ideas ultimately becomes the assessment. Michael Skura expands upon the idea that assessments are road maps for applying and expanding upon previously learned art skills in the quest of unique visualizations. Designing curriculum and assessments that encourage intrinsic reward which is acknowledged by the teacher/facilitator is the essence to challenging learners to realize their own artistic vision. This self-realization creates an opportunity to take risks that lead to visual breakthroughs in the art classroom, as noted in Skura’s label of Independent as the highest level of achievement on the lesson rubric. Collectively, the authors present what Raymond Veon describes in his section commentary as developing student ability to participate in the inferential process of self-assessment for personal growth. Empathy and social engagement overview As stated by Ross Schlemmer in his summary of contributions to the section on Empathy and Social Engagement, caring art educators can assess artistic validity through a critical, socially engaged framework that activates ideas to create structures for change. The exemplars in this

Introduction

5

section provide an insight into various levels of what it means to challenge the status-quo and assess student understandings of art as a vehicle for transformation and caring. Now, more than ever, teacher reflection on what it means to practice cultural awareness and social justice—not just with respect to the students in their own classroom, but with respect to the quest for historical truth—is critical. Schlemmer suggests that intentionality is central to the “pedagogical implications of socially engaged artistic practices”. This begs the question of how we, as a field, move from the art project to the standards-based confrontation of complex societal issues as we assess not merely art content, to the intentional purposing of art content as critical exploration and social commentary. It is important to note that the contributions in this, as in other sections, were in response to a call for essays; as such, they represent teacheridentified resonance with the section concepts. In other words, they represent a snapshot of what art teachers believe to be empathetic and socially engaged practice. Nicholas Hostert presents a lesson based on initiating challenging conversation. The assessment of “Starting a Conversation” includes visual interpretation of engagement with and reactions of others in the creation of the digital media lesson. Hostert, whose professional experience beyond high school teaching includes museum-based learning opportunities, intentionally guided students to engage in personally and globally significant dialogue. The other contributors to this section re-envisioned traditional learning activities to include elements of empathetic learning. Roxanne Brown discusses how she considered the social and emotional needs of her students in recent events; Brown empathetically incorporated care and joy into pinwheels for peace lesson, encouraging her students to assess their own self-care and care for others. As Schlemmer discusses, while Brown shifted the lesson’s focus to more social and emotional concerns, her assessments largely remained bound by more technical, creative, and aesthetic criteria. Abby Newland similarly incorporates ideas of critical reflections and caring into a lesson that addresses technical and content-based skills. In the process of developing essential, foundational art skills, Newland encourages students to also develop essential attributes of caring and social awareness. These examples, which are widely available on the Internet, provide the opportunity to continue the art teacher inquiry of what we assess, and why we are making the judgments we choose to make, reminding us all that empathy begins with critical awareness. Finally, Lauren Phillips adapted a trading card lesson for her visual arts students at an STEM public charter school in Georgia that brings this translation to the next level. She describes her students as “highly motivated to succeed” implying that “success” is a quantifiable measure in her school. Citing Maxime Greene, Phillips strives to teach her students the value of qualitative reflection, and ultimately learning outcomes. Her lesson assessments thus reward progression over production and incorporate criteria of caring both in subject matter and in the way she, as a facilitator, guides student growth. Collaborative and integrated learning overview In the section summary on assessing collaboration and integrative learning, Michelle Tillander writes about the need for art educators to wholly reconsider the role and impact of assessment on student learning and on teaching experience. The contributors to this section present a variety of assessment strategies and can defend the discrete and individualized assessment choices based on district objectives to integrate curriculum and the complexity of mandated, oftentimes quantifiable measures of student and teacher accountability. In each essay, presenters struggled with the need to justify standardized learning outcomes with individual skills and supports. Lorinne Lee describes working with her math colleagues to incorporate 3D modeling and architecture in her sculpture lesson. Rather than teaching geometry herself—as with the subservient model of art integration (Bresler, 1995; Keifer-Boyd & Smith-Shank, 2006;

6

Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund

Smilan, 2004)—Lorinne engaged in collaboration and art integration as a teacher, modeling these practices for her students. Through her assessment, she guided students to observe, reflect, and evaluate the application of their art materials and creative strategies and their knowledge of mathematical principles. Through self-assessment and formative feedback, students expanded their understanding of how artist/architects collaborate to integrate multiple disciplines in their design and construction. Bjana Lunde presents a sculpture activity whereby students must integrate innovative design while maintaining the utilitarian criteria of sound. Integrating sound physics, at a rudimentary level, the lesson assesses students’ ability to craft an object that demonstrates both a visual aesthetic and musical functionality. She stresses the importance of suspending the desire to complete a step-by-step exercise and encourages her students to find their aesthetic voice within the exercise. Encouraging innovative sculptural design, her lesson assessments reward those who accept the challenge to expand the form—pushing the sculptural aspects of the lesson to the limits of the sound constraint. In this way, Ms. Lunde uses assessment as constraints to be tested by the individual learner. Jamie Lynch and Christine Neville incorporate critique as assessment in their art-based inquiry approach to collaborative learning. Utilizing formative and summative critique, they engage students in a co-constructed model of feedback and application in their visual arts classrooms. Lynch and Neville believe and integrate strong writing and oral debates into their courses, viewing the visual arts as a collaborative tool in communicating ideas and perspectives. As skilled art teachers, they remain committed to teaching fundamental art content, as noted in their rubric criteria; however, as master educators, they understand the imperative of expanding content to conceptual learning and critical evaluation. Finally, John Brandhorst offers a unique perspective on assessment: The Art Throwdown Challenge. In his essay, Brandhorst shares an account of the Art Throwdown as “a shift in art competition paradigms that presents art process and production in a head-to-head platform much like a track meet or debate tournament. It has only been rolled out at the High School level”. Assessment then becomes the competition criteria, where students provide formative review throughout the process, and adjudicators—judges, spectators, and teacher coaches— provide summative assessment and awards. The competition, in and of itself, motivates the artistic process. Closing thoughts We end this book with three chapters that not only reflect on the contributions to this book, but also to the changes to education triggered through the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic. As teacher Megan Mettmann points out, the crisis in student learning that the pandemic brought into focus was already visible in the preceding years. We leave this book with a new vista for what matters in the art classroom and the need for assessment to adapt to this challenge.

THE NATIONAL CORE STANDARDS In preparing this book, we debated how to incorporate the voluntary NCAS that were adapted in 2014. Since then, a majority of states have revised their arts standards to mirror this template. For example, in 2019, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts—birthplace of Horace Mann’s Common School and the genesis of public education—revised its 20-year-old framework for arts education to reflect the work of visual arts teachers and pupils more accurately. The new frameworks include standards under the goals of Creating, Presenting, Responding, and Connecting (http://search.doe.mass.edu/?q=visual%20arts%20curriculum%20frameworks).

7

Introduction

Other states and individual districts have adapted their standards to fit within the national framework. As in Massachusetts, many state art education organizations revised their own frameworks to conform to the national structure; as AP and IB pattern a global norm-based set of criteria for visual communication within art media, so the national standards seek to prepare students to compete in this arena. Standards are, at best, guidance for considering assessment, and the accompanying art teacher designed curriculum. In a NAEA professional learning webinar on incorporating the NCAS, secondary art educator and district arts coordinator Josh Drews provided insights into how secondary art teachers can utilize the Creating, Presenting, Responding, and Connecting strands to anchor opportunities for learner-centered lessons that enhance scaffolding of content knowledge and help art teachers and their students to think through the objectives with the end in mind. For example, to illustrate connections to a media literacy/film lesson, Drews demonstrated applying Anchor Standard 11: Relate artistic ideas and works with societal cultural and historical context to deepen understanding, directing learners to discuss themes in artists’ work. He further discusses how the NCAS can be broadly applied to discussion and analysis, of the student art making process, the summative analysis and, in significant ways, to themes that contextualize the learning in real-world perspectives that address thinking, making, responding, and displaying (Drews, 2021).

GOALS: ASSESSMENT BOOK FOR/BY TEACHERS It was important to us to stay true to our goal to report what teachers are doing. This is not a book that is meant to convey what teachers ought to be doing, nor is it an attempt by higher educators to directly critique teacher practice. Rather, it is a snapshot of actual assessment practice with what we hope are useful resources and questions to help educators reflect on the possibilities and potentials of what assessment is and might be in their practice. We approached good teachers; many used the standards, some did not. Several of our contributors have been forthright in writing how the standards help them articulate their learning objectives not only for their students, but also for parents and administrators as well. Furthermore, examples in this book demonstrate how the standards, when thoughtfully and purposefully applied, allow for robust teaching of the arts. These cases often demonstrate an imaginative interpretation of the language of a specific standard. These teachers are stretching the envelope. They use the standards as a creative springboard to engage their students. However, for some teachers, the standards are not a pressing issue. In these cases, we invite the reader to look closely at these cases and imagine how the standards might be re-thought to encompass this learning. This is often as simple as slight adjustments to language. We encourage an attitude of not thinking of the standards in a restrictive sense, but seeing them as opening a space of possibility. How might we creatively rethink possibilities to maximize the learning potential of the students we serve? Rather than thinking of the standards as a path to follow, the standards become a palette of possibilities that the individual teacher can creatively explore with their students.

REPORTING STUDENT RESULTS Another challenge we recognize in writing about assessment is that art teachers tend to only want to talk about their successes. They often write lesson plans as though success is the only option. Even if a lesson provides strategies for differentiated learning, success for all remains the only perceived outcome. In statistics, anticipating that an intervention will only have positive results is a one-tailed assumption. The only data collected is how the teacher’s

8

Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund

intervention generated greater student success. Methodologically, this is a weak experimental design. Moreover, from a qualitative research perspective, to only focus on successes does not inform a teacher’s reflection on how to improve their own practice. Interventions are more likely two-tailed. This means that our interventions may result in deteriorating work or unexpected deleterious consequences. Of course, in the visual arts, many teachers prize unexpected consequences, and the arts themselves have the ability to avoid calling these alternative results failures or mistakes. They could be creative re-imaginings. As an example of how excellent teachers reimage this problem of assessment, we initially asked for teachers to provide examples of high/medium/low achievement in their classrooms. Some teachers objected to the concept of low achievement, for students were frequently engaged, but they were engaged in ways that produced a variety of outcomes. Again, reinforcing the concept of “failure” as a negative in art is counter-productive and antithetical to the underlying purposes of experiment and creative solution seeking that is—or should be—a goal of contemporary art education. Building assessments that intrinsically value process and growth over a frame-worthy product makes room for more successes within a framework of beginning, proficiency, and exemplary. Sometimes, although the student was a conscientious worker, the student did not appear to make a great deal of progress. In other cases, students produced results that the teacher had not anticipated. These students changed the problem into something else. This is not a problem of student learning; it is a problem of how one might conceptualize a rubric. Low achievement is not an appropriate category for a student who is trying yet struggling, or a student, who has sailed to different horizon. The language of assessment needs to find room for describing student work that met stated educational objectives while at the same time noting the variety of worthwhile outcomes that could occur in any single lesson.

THE AUDIENCES FOR ASSESSMENT There are six audiences for assessment: (1) the student, (2) the teacher, (3) parents, (4) other teachers, (5) administrators, and (6) external funders and the public at large. These are all stakeholders. The first assessment audience, students, have a twofold stake. School is most readily associated with summative assessments that provide a final judgment for a student’s overall performance. We rank students. We honor the valedictorian: the individual with the highest summative achievement. But in the art classroom, especially in a process-based approach to artistic inquiry, there is also formative assessment, a powerful pedagogical tool where the teacher often provides continuous, rapid, formative assessment. In brief interactions, sometimes as short as 10–15 seconds, the teacher moves through the room offering advice on how a student can improve and make their work better. The student responds. Then, the teacher returns and repeats the cycle of providing rapid feedback. This produces a dialogic melding of student action and teacher response and ultimately and optimally leads to student self-reflection and independence from teacher assessment. These interactions do not tell the students what to do; they help students grasp their own vision of what next steps are possible. Elliot Eisner observes that such formative dialogues provide “a fuller reading of the work that will be useful to students and teachers alike for knowing what to do next” (Eisner, 2002, p. 170). While such interactions can be cleverly reduced to data, data is not really the point. Rather, self-reflective practice, and deep understandings of the discipline moving toward mastery, is the goal. The educational significance of these interactions is the emergence of narratives of student learning. These narratives take multiple forms. First,

9

Introduction

the student learns to narrate their own learning. By offering an array of possible interpretations, the teacher models to the student how to think about their work in language. In these situations, the teacher functions in the role of both critic and guide to help the student find a path of telling their own story (Schwab, 1969; Siegesmund, 2005). The student’s discovery of their own agency is an educational outcome of art. The next assessment audience is the teacher. Assessment is a way to check how you are doing and most importantly how you can adjust your own teaching to foster student success. The third audience for assessments is parents. Parents are not necessarily interested in data about their child; they want to hear a narrative backed by evidence. Their child’s growth through art is far more important to them than seeing a chart that demonstrates where the child falls on some random scale of visual art metrics. An art teacher is a member of the school’s faculty. Every member of the faculty has a stake in a student’s success and the knowledge that the art teacher gleans through assessment of what a child is capable of achieving in a specific learning context is critical information to share with peers. It can help foster a more unified strategy for building to individual student success. The school administration is another audience for assessment. It is probable that an administrator will need evidence that the classroom curriculum follows the legislatively approved state standards. While initially demanding for more data, a good administrator will probe deeper and will want to know what the data means. The administrator will not only need evidence that the curriculum aligns to state expectations, but that there is measurable evidence that the curriculum fosters student growth. Here too, the power of narratives of student learning is critical to communicate the effectiveness of the art program. Finally, assessment narratives of student learning and transformation can be instrumental in securing external support for a school’s art program. Parent organizations are the most obvious group to appeal to, but assessment narrative can be essential for propelling district initiatives.

WHY THIS BOOK NOW Our hope is that this book will open conversations on assessment by representing the voice of real teachers, dealing with the reality of assessment in their own school contexts and will be valuable to both in-service and pre-service teachers. In our view, it is critical that art educators understand that the task in meeting the educational demands of the future is not to duplicate the past. We are at a moment when we are asking new questions of what it means to learn, and what the enduring lessons of art are that we seek to impart to children. As we finish this book, the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted education. New questions arise of what it means to learn and how we could find evidence of that learning. What is exciting about the present moment is that these questions relate to the general project of education. The old pat answers are falling away: study hard, go to college, and get a good job. This old narrative is broken. In its place, we begin to find stories of art to engage in acts of deep personal fulfillment, the discovery of individual identity, engagement with social acts of caring and responsibility, as one breaks through past limitations and discovers new possibilities. This could be the core narrative of the meaning of a good education. It could be the essence of what we hope public education could provide to an informed citizenry ready to take on the challenge of accepting civic American responsibility.

10

Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund

REFERENCES Bresler, L. (1995). The subservient, co-equal, affective, and social integration styles and their implications for the arts. Arts Education Policy Review, 96, 31–37. Drews, J. (2021, May 12). Creating, presenting, responding and connecting: Secondary curriculum and the NCCAS Standards [Webinar]. NAEA Professional Learning Webinar Series. https://virtual.arteducators.org/products/creatingpresenting-responding-and-connecting-the-secondary-curriculum-and-the-nccas-standards Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. Yale University Press. Keifer-Boyd, K., & Smith-Shank, D. (2006). Speculative fiction’s contribution to contemporary understanding: The handmaid art tale. Studies in Art Education, 47(2), 139–154. Schwab, J. J. (1969). College curriculum and student protest. University of Chicago Press. Siegesmund, R. (2005). Teaching qualitative reasoning: Portraits of practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(1), 18–23. Smilan, C. (2004). The impact of art integration as an intervention to assist learners’ visual perception and concept understanding in elementary science [Doctoral dissertation]. Florida Atlantic University (Proquest AAT 3136133). Winner, E., & Cooper, M. (2000). Mute those claims: No evidence (yet) for a causal link between arts study and academic achievement. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3–4), 11–76.

SECTION I

Overview to Assessment

Assessment is frequently misunderstood as a punitive process associated with an industrial model of education that is intent on standardized outcomes for all students. In this view, assessment inappropriately constrains creative thinking and damages authentic outcomes of art education. This concern has validity. Throughout the world, education is conceptualized on the metaphors of the industrial factory and an assembly line. Art education is embedded within this model. Does this mean that the outcomes of all forms of classroom instruction are inherently compromised and doomed to be inauthentic?

GUIDED READING POINTS • • • • •

What is your aspiration for what your students can do at the end of the term? How have they grown? What evidence would you use to show each student their own individual growth? What evidence would be shared with parents, school administrators, and other teachers to discuss an individual student’s growth? Do your values of artist growth fit in with your school assessment policy? What evidence do you have that the outcomes reflecting student growth, that you value, are also valued by students themselves, parents, school administrators, and other teachers in your school? If your goals seem to conflict with those of your school, how might you reframe your teaching and assessment, so that school administrators and fellow teachers can better appreciate your pedagogical approach?

DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-2

1 Art Education Assessment and the Industrial Educational Complex Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan

For more than 120 years, public education has been modeled on the conception of the assembly line (Tyack & Hansot, 1982). During this period, education consciously shaped itself to mimic what was perceived as an industrial best-practice. An essential element of the assembly line was efficiency. In an efficient workplace, employees had a concise list of clearly delineated tasks and were evaluated on their ability to reliably complete their assigned tasks. To make an assembly line function properly, parts had to be standardized. A manufacturer producing the same model dishwasher in plants in Chicago and Los Angeles had to be sure that the products coming off both assembly lines were identical. Educational leadership around the world believed that it dealt with a similar problem. The key to assessing standardized outcomes was standardized testing. Teachers were given standardized tools and expected to produce results that could be compared across all regions of the country and around the world. Are 14-year-old South Koreans smarter in math than 14-year-old Americans? Standardized tests can answer that question by allowing comparison of products. The international assembly line of education rolls on. The first great champion of educational testing, at the beginning of the 20th century, was Edward Thorndike, a contemporary of and great rival to John Dewey, at Teachers College at Columbia University. Advocating for the new mathematical discipline of statistics, Thorndike persuasively argued for the applications of standardized scales and measures of student learning to monitor both student growth and teacher effectiveness (Haertel & Herman, 2005). He argued for a vision of education that would allow for efficient mass production of student success. Although Dewey’s writings on curriculum continue to be vital to art educators today, when it comes to assessment, people too often forget that Dewey lost and Thorndike won. Thorndike’s vision of educational mass production gained more momentum during the mid-20th century through the work of curriculum theorist Ralph Tyler (Tyler, 1950) who applied the industrial time efficiency studies of Frederick Taylor to education. Taylor suggested that through the careful monitoring with a stopwatch of each motion a worker made, extraneous gestures could be eliminated. Only those movements that directly led to effective product completion would be allowed. Tyler believed that Taylor’s lessons could be applied to classroom teaching (Eisner, 2005). DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-3

14

Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan

Tyler is best remembered for promoting educational learning objectives. By design, teachers could achieve Taylor’s operational efficiency by streamlining instructions by unrelentingly aligning each classroom move to predetermined objectives. All phases of education could be standardized and harnessed to the neo-liberal vision of economic productivity. The value of every single effort the teacher made in the classroom would be verified through valid, reliable, and generalizable standardized testing. If art could not comply with such a model, then art was out of step with best educational practice.

MAKING ASSESSMENT A NATIONAL CONCERN As the Constitution of the United States assigned the problem of education to the states, up until World War II, testing was decided by an individual state policy. The Federal government was supposed to keep its nose out of education. This was commonly accepted and not perceived as a major issue until 1957 when the Soviet Union launched its space satellite Sputnik. This event created a national hysteria that the United States was falling behind in science and engineering to its foremost geopolitical rival. There were political accusations claiming that the American educational system had failed to produce scientists who could keep up with the Soviet threat. Teachers were blamed for a lax curriculum. Schools had to get tough! The result was a sudden widespread popular interest in national external measurements of individual student progress. This produced the 1960s Instructional Objective Movement (Mager, 1962), and we still write lesson plans with observable instructional objectives today. The new curriculum and pedagogical reforms brought on by the Instructional Objective Movement in art education led to the 1964 conference at the Pennsylvania State University (Mattil, 1966). If art education was to keep up in these new times, it had to rethink itself. Out of the deliberations of the Penn State Conference, the conceptual framework for what would eventually be called Disciplined-Based Art Education (DBAE) was formed. However, not all the presenters at the 1964 Penn State Conference were sold on the idea that art education was best served through a fulsome embrace of the Objective Movement. One notable dissonant voice was the artist Allan Kaprow, who was famous for the creation of Happenings, the precursor for performance art. Kaprow, through intensive self-study of John Dewey’s Art as Experience, believed that art was a process of inquiry animated by states of play (Garoian, 2018). At the Penn State Conference, Kaprow presented the case for an organic approach to art education, grounded in an American Pragmatic vision of educational aesthetic engagement and authentic inquiry. However, his arguments were dismissed as a frivolous novelty and eschewed for a classic industrial approach to classroom instruction that focused on defined content and concrete learning objectives. Nevertheless, Kaprow’s ideas have animated contemporary art education, and one can even conceptualize the National Core Standards, approved in 2014, as being able to accommodate many of his ideas. During the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, the general fear mongering around the failure of American education extended through successive political regimes, Democratic and Republican. The Johnson administration attempted to standardize the national educational assembly line by launching Title I funding as sustained financial assistance to schools that American society systemically underfunded and discriminated against. Title I recognized the massive social failure to support education; and it attempted to level the playing field for classroom teachers: Everybody got the same assembly line. However, Title I did nothing to address the underlying social forces that created this condition. Later, the metaphor that American schools were under assault by hostile powers resurfaced in the 1980s. The landmark Federal study A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) was written in highly militaristic tones and accused the American education system of being an enemy of the state. There was a call to arms to clean

ASSESSMENT AND THE INDUSTRIAL EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX

15

house. This began by the creation of national standards for every discipline that would lay down the law as to what children were supposed to know and be able to do. As strident as these new clarion calls were, no one proposed changing the Constitution of the United States to bring education under Federal control. Instead, the mechanism was more insidious. The Federal government linked state educational funding to state compliance to “voluntary” national standards. By 1997, the visual arts were on the standards bandwagon. The Clinton administration educational policies of Goals 2000 would evolve into the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind, which grew ever more compulsory under the Obama administration’s Race to the Top. The Obama administration represented the last massive push in support of the educational efficiency movement where comparable test scores by students across the country would be considered evidence of educational equity. The Obama administration went all in on testing, while at the same time acknowledging the limited scope of learning this testing represented. To be more comprehensive, Race to the Top also tied eligibility for Federal educational funding to adapting new templates for common standards. These standards were not exclusively focused on student learning outcomes. The emergence of the Danielson Framework (Danielson, 2013) provided standards for teacher performance assessment. This was a telling change of culture as it shifted the measure of teacher effectiveness away from just student performance on standardized tests and on to the ability of the teacher to foster forms of authentic student engagement with learning in the classroom. The shift toward deemphasizing standardized tests accelerated under the Trump administration as educational policy focused on allowing local schools and parents to devise their own systems for educational assessment. Challenging the assembly line model, education was more of DIY project. Concurrently, colleges and universities dropped standardized tests for admissions claiming that classroom grades were a better predictor of student performance in college: Scoring systems that relied on the qualitative judgment of classroom teachers had more validity than industrial testing. While the industrial educational complex largely shrugged off the Trump administration’s attempts to dismantle it, the emphasis on local judgment in creating assessments often created new opportunities for art teachers to obtain school and district approval for new and innovative forms of student assessment if these could be justified as adhering to approved state standards. But old habits die hard. Superintendents, principals, and other school administrators, who have been forged in the 100-year traditions of the industrial educational complex and the ideology of standardized testing, may find it difficult to change. Therefore, it is up to the wit and wisdom of the art teachers to navigate their own path toward classroom assessment.

STANDARDS AND THEIR DISCONTENTS The industrial educational complex considers the student to be an empty vessel: a hollow container into which we pour measured amounts of content carefully extracted from the font of knowledge. In contrast, art education has maintained a tradition of adhering to the radical view that the child—at any grade level—is essentially competent. This can be seen in the decades-long concerns for structures of student problem solving that can be found in the art education assessment literature. For example, Northern Illinois University professor Carmen Armstrong (1994), at the dawn of the national standards movement, wrote a comprehensive book that linked systems for program evaluation to methods for teachers to conduct assessments of student learning. Published by the National Art Education Association, the assessment of student learning is conceptualized as more than providing data on student progress but reporting data back to stakeholders, including parents and school administrators. Discipline-based art education, with its constraining definitions of art history, aesthetics, and criticism, shaped Armstrong’s conceptual framework for assessment. With a strong nod to

16

Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan

Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy of higher order thinking (Bloom, 1956), she presented her own personal taxonomy of observable, measurable artistic behaviors for the art education classroom: Know, Perceive, Organize, Inquire, Value, Manipulate, Interact/Cooperate. This taxonomy, ahead of its time, laid out a foundation for performance standards, as each level led to higher levels of artistic thinking and offered the teacher a conception of how to organize curriculum to achieve the highest levels of student performance. As Doug Boughton observes in Chapter 3 of this book, performance standards set expectations for the scope of abilities that students are to master. Armstrong’s categories such as perceiving, organizing, and inquiring suggest realms of student performance. They are not checklists of what a student does at one moment. The performance standard does not tell the teacher what to teach; it points to the cognitive activity in which a student should be engaged. A performance standard does not provide the teacher with packages of content bricks to drop on students’ heads. Armstrong discussed how to weigh these conceptual threads within instructions to not only report back students’ strengths but to also form a report on learning within the scope and sequence of curriculum. Armstrong’s work—authentic to the visual arts—was abandoned by a felt political need that the visual arts need to align themselves with the performance arts: music, theater, and dance. The arts had to band together under one common flag (or standard). Therefore, the authentic visual art structures were abandoned in favor of educational political alliances pursuing an inclusive common assessment for all of the arts (see Consortium of National Arts Education Associations, 1994). The subsequent Cultural Literacy movement (Hirsch et al., 1987; Smith, 1987) was more than happy to provide the bricks of content that teachers could report dropping on students’ heads as an assessment of teaching effectiveness. From this new baseline, teachers often demonstrated strategies for reintroducing performance standards, as well as summative and formative performance assessments into their practice (Beattie, 1997, 2006).

DOING STANDARDS BETTER The creation of conditions that allow students to display their creative and reasoning abilities in ways that are unique to their temperaments, their experience, and their aims is of fundamental importance in any educational enterprise—in contrast to one concerned with training. And because such features are important, it is criteria that must be salient in our assessment. (Eisner, 1998, p. 183)

Schools are political institutions, supported by either public tax dollars, not-for-profit donations, or private contributions. There is a public expectation that students will learn stuff in school. Assessment is the process through which a school reports back to its stakeholders what students have learned. Standards are a necessary tool for accountability within the epistemological structure of contemporary schools. Art educators wrote the current National Core Standards (National Coalition for Core Standards, 2014) to gain control over this process. The Standards seek to offer a template for providing meaningful assessment data to all stakeholders, while at the same time retaining authentic art learning. Nevertheless, for some art educators, standards remain counterintuitive. These art teachers may accept standards as unavoidable, but they do not embrace them. They certainly would not apply standards to their assessment of learning if it was not required under state regulations. Throughout his career, Elliot Eisner (1998) offered a fierce and brilliant critique to leverage art education standards for their potential to be educationally transformative. Eisner argued that art educators should not resist standards; they should reinvent them. This required that teachers approach standards with an educational imagination.

ASSESSMENT AND THE INDUSTRIAL EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX

17

Eisner pointed out three concerns with standards; all have to do with three separate ways in which we think of them. First, a standard represents a minimal level of acceptability. A standard car is a stripped-down level of bare functionality. No one really wants the standard; we expect more. Second, a standard is a banner, the emblem around which the troops rally. It is a symbol to which we pledge allegiance—even if the meaning of what we are actually pledging alliance to is a bit vague. Third, a standard, like the metric system, can be a unit of measure. It is a functional measuring stick to see whether things add up. This is perhaps the best understanding of what educational standards are meant to achieve. However, measuring sticks are only useful in reporting quantities. None of these three conventional approaches to standards is fully educationally complete, and they can all be deleterious if applied carelessly. Eisner observes that it is possible to have a qualitative unit of measures, without quantitative measures (number of correct answers, number of steps successfully completed). These qualitative measures are benchmarks. Benchmarks serve as prototypes, which the student could aspire to complete. They require criteria for engagement, not checklists for specific tasks that a student will accomplish. However, benchmarks have drawbacks as well, as they may not encourage divergent thinking—unless perhaps the teacher entertains a range of benchmarks as possible examples and invites students to consider pushing these boundaries further. If the benchmarks are fully aspirational, it is likely that student work will not merely be a copy of the benchmark. Student works will diverge. Then, the assessor needs to fall back on norm-referencing: Compare different students’ work against each other to determine which work best seizes on the benchmark (or incorporates a range of benchmarks) to push to new expressive end. The visual arts tend to resist norm-referencing as art educators tend to discourage a sense of competition between students in the classroom. Yet, all the other art forms norm-reference: music competitions for first chair in the orchestra, or try-outs for the lead in the school play. Nobody may hit the benchmark, but someone is better. British professor emeritus of design assessment, Richard Kimbell (2010), cites the ongoing tension between benchmarks and norm-referencing in assessment. In art assessment, we might begin by looking at each piece individually and, using a rubric, apply an “objective” score, but soon we probably start a comparative process between students to assure ourselves that we are applying the rubric accurately: …to try to score 20 pieces of work on a scale of one to ten, I would start by having a go at locating some on the scale but very soon I find myself cross checking them. If Susan has scored six for that, then Jane must be more … say eight. Until I find one that is much better than both Jane and Susan and that forces me to push them back from six and eight to five and seven. Gradually I work from the criteria whilst at the same time checking scores against each other (this one with that one) to make sure I am happy with the rank. In other words, I am using the standards of the group as a normative guide. The harsh reality is that good assessment requires both norms and criteria and our research … has frequently turned on the challenge of understanding how they can best be made to work together. (p. 24)

Kimbell’s model of assessment is like an eye-exam; which is better: work A or work B? Again, work B or work C. It does not ask that the assessor begin with individual scores for works A, B, and C. The first task in Kimbell’s approach to assessment is rank ordering through norm-referencing. The assignment of a score through a rubric comes second. Kimbell has demonstrated that this approach, when completed by assessors who are competent in the discipline domain, produces scoring of individual student achievement that is statistically more reliable than the results of standardized testing.

18

Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan

For Eisner, infusing standards with judgments of quality—the application of criteria—is critical to assuring that standards promote imaginative excellence rather than devolving into a checklist of things for students to complete by rote. Furthermore, as art teachers are professionally trained in contemporary artistic practice, we know that good art breaks rules. Good artwork can bust a rubric. Therefore, judgments by the teacher become a critical component in overall assessment. As Kimball writes, there comes a moment in art assessment when the evaluator must make a judgment if Susan’s work is better than Jane’s to test the overall validity of the scoring.

TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES FOR NORM-REFERENCING IN ASSESSMENT Abundant examples of student work strengthen norm-referencing. More comparisons for establishing norm-referencing generate higher validity of assessment scores. Art education research has demonstrated that high-quality digital images can broaden the pool of work for norm-referencing without a reduction of statistical validity (Dorn et al., 2004). While there continues to be a long-standing prejudice to assess only original objects, high-resolution digital images combined with diminishing cost of digital storage allow for accurate largescale comparisons of student work with a significant level of confidence in the results. Thus, the assessment of visual art does not need to be the decision of one teacher, guided by state standards. Instead, it is possible for art teachers working in separate locations within or across school districts to share student work and work toward common norm-referencing on a variety of educational criteria. One promise of technology is that it will allow multiple teachers to collaborate in assessment. Besides diminishing the lone-wolf syndrome of one art teaching making judgments by themselves, it will provide new insights into the competence of students and the imaginative ways that they respond to in an art classroom to demonstrate artistic thinking. In this way, there is promise for authentic assessment to build on the National Core Standards to make them a powerful tool for the aspirational, creative learning art teachers who strive to achieve in their classrooms.

ALTERNATE FORMS OF CREATIVE LEARNING Eisner considers a student who closely adheres to the rules and follows the given steps as pursuing a tactical outcome. The student is taking few chances and meeting expectations. The student will be progressing against established measures for excellence that conform to the stated institutional learning objectives. However, art teachers may confront an excellent student response that has reimagined a project rather than technically followed expectations. In this case, the student may be reaching for a strategic aspiration of the art classroom. The student may not be exactly on task, but they are moving in a larger direction of creativity and imagination that the teacher values. The student may not be exactly following the steps but has reached a significant destination that the teacher wishes to acknowledge. This shifts assessment to both what the student is doing and what the student has done. As standards may easily fail in the assessment of inventive work, art teachers need to be alert to this shortcoming and construct assessments that avoid this ensnarement. In Eisner’s view, standards need to allow for both tactical outcomes and strategic aspirations. To their credit, the National Core Arts Standards (National Coalition for Core Standards, 2014) can be read as promoting a more generous approach for assessing student engagement. For example, they emphasize the application of criteria to investigate contemporary cultural artifacts and the formation of the students’ own learning goals. Eisner points out that standards become effective, as opposed to burdensome, when they can serve to “reveal how students go about solving problems, not only the solutions they formulate” (1998, p. 141).

ASSESSMENT AND THE INDUSTRIAL EDUCATIONAL COMPLEX

19

Standards are most meaningful when they help the teacher align to their strategic objectives for the classroom and not just to their tactical objectives.1 Art teachers know that the high school art classroom has long been a site of resistance. The high school art classroom has always been about more than the teaching of art. It has been a site of personal transformation; it is the place where students, from across the full socio-economic and academic spectrum of the school, discover themselves. As art educator Debi West says: “We don’t teach art; we teach children”. When we assess, we don’t assess art; we assess children. The point of assessment is not to grind children down, or to pin them to a linear scale of good, better, and best, but to provide concrete practical guidance into how every child can be better tomorrow than they are today. That is the primary strategic outcome of art that we aspire the student to obtain. We encourage students to pursue tactical outcomes to move to strategic artistic aspirations. How each art teacher guides their students in this path, and assesses their progress in this journey, is the artistry of their individual practice. The major learning outcome is placing the child in a position to resist the industrial educational complex or placing the child in a position to master it to their benefit. In both cases, art empowers the competent child through critical, skillful application of knowledge. Assessment is simply the means of the art teacher to report this success to all educational stakeholders.

NOTE

1 For a classroom example of a teacher shifting from tactical outcomes to strategic learning aspirations midcourse in a lesson, see Phillips and Siegesmund (2013).

REFERENCES Armstrong, C. L. (1994). Designing assessment in art. National Art Education Association. Beattie, D. K. (1997). Assessment in art education [Art education in practice]. Davis. Beattie, D. K. (2006). The rich task: A unit of instruction and a unit of assessment. Art Education, 59(6), 12–16. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Longmans Green. Consortium of National Arts Education Associations (1994). National standards for arts education. Music Educators National Conference. Danielson, C. (2013). Rubrics from the evaluation instrument. The Danielson Group. Dorn, C. M., Madeja, S. S., & Sabol, F. R. (2004). Assessing expressive learning: A practical guide for teacher-directed, authentic assessment in K-12 visual arts education. Lawrence Erlbaum. Eisner, E. W. (1998). The kind of schools we need: Personal essays. Heinemann. Eisner, E. W. (2005). Reimagining schools: The selected works of Elliot W. Eisner. Routledge. Garoian, C. R. (2018). HAPPENINGS: Allan Kaprow’s experimental, inquiry-based art education. In M. Cahnmann-Taylor & R. Siegesmund (Eds.), Arts-based research in education: Foundations for practice (2nd ed., pp. 147–162). Routledge. Haertel, E. H., & Herman, J. (2005). A historical perspective on validity arguments for accountability testing. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Wiley-Blackwell), 104(2), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7984. 2005.00023.x Hirsch, E. D., Kett, J. F., & Trefil, J. S. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. Houghton Mifflin. Kimbell, R. (2010). The transient and the timeless: Surviving a lifetime of policy and practice in assessment. Design and Technology Education, 15(3), 18–27. Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. Pitman Management and Training. Mattil, E. L. (1966). A seminar in art education for research and curriculum development. Pennsylvania State University. National Coalition for Core Standards (2014). National core arts standards: A conceptual framework for arts learning. State Education Agency Directors of Arts Education (SEADAE). Retrieved January, 2015, from http://www. nationalartsstandards.org/ National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. United States Department of Education. Phillips, L., & Siegesmund, R. (2013). Teaching what we value: Care as an outcome of aesthetic education. In T. Costantino, & B. White (Eds.), Aesthetics, empathy, and education (pp. 221–234). Peter Lang. Smith, R. A. (1987). Excellence in art education: Ideas and initiatives. National Art Education Association. Tyack, D. B., & Hansot, E. (1982). Managers of virtue: Public school leadership in America, 1820-1980. Basic Books. Tyler, R. (1950). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press.

2 Educational Aims, Goals, and Objectives Balancing Instructional Objectives and Expressive Outcomes Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan

Assessment becomes authentic when it relates in meaningful ways to our deepest desires for what we want our students to learn in the art classroom. We have multiple aspirations for teaching art. Some of these are enduring: lessons from the past that we wish to introduce to a new generation. Some are shaped by the evolving needs of our students. We discover these aims as we care deeply about our students’ paths into the future. These aims can easily conflict with our current conceptions of assessment that are contextualized in historical narratives. Among these is the legacy of 20th-century psychological behaviorism, which dismissed social/emotional outcomes of education, arguing that the only valid assessable outputs were direct observable actions by students. Teacher would never be able to assess what students knew, understood, or internalized. All a teacher could do is note observable student actions. Looking for concrete student actions as evidence for assessment is still sound advice. However, our understanding of how those actions reflect habits of mind is far more complex. There are different approaches to how teachers balance authentic learning outcomes for the arts with the challenge of identifying clear assessable behaviors. Authentic assessment occurs when we align how we measure and report student achievement with our hopes for learning in and through visual art. Yet, art is an ethereal subject that speaks to inspiration and imaginative projection. Education is a rough business of industrial mass production. Schools are places with hard corners (Powell et al., 1985). Teachers are routinely forced to make tough judgments. The Core National Standards (National Coalition for Core Standards, 2014) now serve as a model for how we address the twin demands of teaching for inspirational aesthetic outcomes and the practical, sausage-making, day-to-day tasks of education that require data reports on how children are doing. The Standards serve a roadmap for finding a balance between what Elliot Eisner (1979) called the educational expressive outcomes of visual arts and the pedagogical demand for instructional objectives. With these terms, he wanted to emphasize the tension that can exist between our educational aims and our day-to-day instructional objectives for running an efficient classroom. These do not always align. As a discipline, art education has long been caught in the tension between these two poles. Eisner feared that DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-4

EDUCATIONAL AIMS, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES

21

teachers might opt for the more manageable goal of effectual instructional objectives and sacrifice more long-term and enduring educational lessons that the arts can teach. Eisner points out that the lure of the educational efficiency movement, that has dominated educational “best practice” for over a century, holds sway for administers and teachers, and exerts a compelling sway for how we frame the problem of assessment: According to the standard view, ends are supposed to be well defined, firmly held, and used to formulate means, which are theoretically related to the achievement of those ends. Once means have been employed, evaluation is to follow. If means are found wanting, new means are conceptualized and implemented, and their effects evaluated. Again, if means are ineffective, even newer means are implemented. Ends are held constant in the standard view of rational behavior. Means follow goals. It’s all quite neat. The problem is that it’s too neat. Life does not proceed that way, and for good reason. (Eisner 2002, p. 78)

Eisner cautions that in life—and more importantly in the authentic practice of art— contexts constantly change. Only in school can we entertain the conceit that we have syllabi that we will follow for a prescribed bounded time cycle, moving in lockstep, and reach a preconceived outcome that we articulated four or six months, or maybe even a year (perhaps even a decade), in advance. Doing this requires creating an artificial vacuum that blocks out the entry of any contaminating content. But that’s not the way life works. A laminated lesson plan-based curriculum, along with requisite assessment rubrics, eliminates the flexibility required for a comprehensive, issue-based art education grounded in inquiry into the visual culture in which a student is immersed. It erases authentic experience. While such models of education may produce stellar accomplishments within the rarefied bubble of the school classroom, such exercises do little to prepare students for the reality of life where present conditions continuously alter as new considerations emerge, while others recede. Life, like research, is about moving toward goals, and we frequently jettison the objectives we started with, when better objectives emerge mid-stream. In these moments, we pivot to seize new opportunities to not simply set out to accomplish our original intent, but to realize that there are new, more dynamic horizons to which we might aspire (Eisner, 2002). We set a new path from the one we originally intended. Eisner, drawing on the work of John Dewey, called this flexible purposing. In discrete or more dynamic ways, this is a critical lesson that the visual arts teach, and a critical lesson for art teachers as assessors of growth and change.

ALIGNING AIMS, GOALS, OBJECTIVES An educational aim is the big idea that you wish to teach in your classroom. It could be based on themes like social justice, visual culture, or Renaissance drawing. Goals are the benchmarks we establish to mark progress toward our aim. For example, an aim might be to address students’ social-emotional needs. A goal would be a specific lesson to address this problem. Goals would include moving through the stages of Bloom’s Taxonomy of higher order thinking (Krathwohl, 2002). The teacher would carefully scaffold activities that would allow students to demonstrate how they remember instructions, understand basic concepts, apply techniques, analyze a work of art, evaluate the artwork’s effectiveness, and create their own individual work. In the lesson plan, these goals would further be broken down into specific objectives that make it clear what each student is expected to do. Students would then be scored on how well they meet the expectations of each of these specific tasks. The teacher has created a matrix for providing data on student performance; the students know what is expected of them.

22

Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan

Objectives are specific, observable forms of student performance we set out to teach in each lesson so that we can reach our goals. But objectives can confuse our goals and aims. Consider the example of teaching an aim of caring through the goal of hosting an Empty Bowls event (Taylor, 2002), where students allegedly selflessly work to create ceramic bowls that are ultimately given away to support a fundraiser for the local food bank. Empty Bowls is now a nationally popular event and is in some schools institutionalized. Principals mandate the annual dutiful demonstration of caring. What happens to caring when it is mandated? What if students rebel against the prescribed program and wish to demonstrate an authentic caring in an unanticipated way? Students might challenge the educational goal—in this case an Empty Bowls event—for the greater educational aim of creating an engaged, caring citizenry. In one case, elementary students rejected making bowls for the food bank and proposed folding origami cranes to sell to raise funds in support of the victims of a tsunami (Phillips & Siegesmund, 2013). In this instance with elementary students, opening the lesson to an expressive outcome was essential in obtaining an authentic aim of engaging students in an aesthetic demonstration of care. However, following a predetermined instructional objective—no matter how initially well intentioned—would have undermined the authentic expressive outcome.

THE AIMS OF ART EDUCATION In the arts, the acquisition of the tools is all too often mistakenly confused with creating. Too frequently, gaining proficiency in specific techniques represents a primary, if not the only, form of investigation in visual arts education. Skills training substitutes for a process of inquiry. However, learning to use tools is only part of the process of any education. More important than the tools themselves is the growth in desire to use the tools, which is ultimately linked to the empowerment of voice and a student’s intrinsic yearning to personal inquiry. The enduring educational aspiration for the arts is that students can critically leverage their desire to the achievement of a personal vision. This requires more than knowing how to apply the tools of visual investigation; it means that students are prepared to analyze a given situation and evaluate the best tool to critically break down the problem they wish to explore. Of course, apply, analyze, and evaluate are sequential steps in Bloom’s Taxonomy that set the stage for the student being ready to create. Assessment has far too long focused on the manipulation of tools as substituting for creating. Contemporary assessment needs to focus on an unfolding of individual aspiration to embrace sustained inquiry. Art education is a journey. Our assessments should reflect a road traveled, not simply a report on a set of skills demonstrated at a stop along the way. A focus on mechanics too often fails to address forms of emotional engagement that further contribute to authentic learning. A focus on expressive outcomes of learning could establish as aims the ability to narrate one’s own experience, to take risks, to demonstrate a care of self, or to engage productively with others. Educational philosopher Nel Noddings has argued that another expressive outcome that is essential to our larger vision of the project of education is happiness (Noddings, 2003). Happiness is something that is often overlooked in education; in fact, we tend to associate a fair amount of suffering, as demonstrated by a long historical acceptance of corporal punishment, with education. For many educators and educational administrators, happiness is an irrelevant consideration in our relentless pursuit of attaining our highly designed, instructional objectives. However, happiness is an aesthetic problem of self and worth, for how is one to choose between a happiness that one finds personally authentic as distinguished from the inexorable onslaught of commercial advertising that purports to sell happiness (but is primarily interested in an unequal transfer of wealth)? The teaching of happiness—and with it the experience of joy—belongs to an art curriculum.

EDUCATIONAL AIMS, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES

23

ASSESSING ART AS UNLEARNING Reorienting the outcomes of art education toward joy and happiness requires a considerable reappraisal of what we have come to think of as the aims, goals, and objectives of art. Yet, our aspirations for the lessons that our students retain from learning art extend far beyond making stuff, and making stuff look good. We are reaching for more, but sometimes it may feel that we are caught in an educational box. We must teach this way because this is the way art has always been taught. It is the way our administrators, parents, and students expect as to teach. Curriculum theorist John Baldacchino (2019) argues that such rethinking, such unlearning of what we have become encultured to think art education to be, ought to be our primary aim, our primary aspiration, for art as it unfolds in our classroom. Fundamentally, art is a process of taking things apart so that we might think about rebuilding in new ways. Authentic assessment then becomes a quest for trying to keep all these divergent and competing aims, goals, and objectives in balance. It can all seem a bit overwhelming. However, the French philosopher Jacques Rancière (2004) has suggested that to think aesthetically requires learning how to think with contradictions. To think of authentic assessment in art requires thinking in contradictions. The challenge of assessment is not to give up or give in to expediency, but to attempt to continually better align learning in the art classroom to our highest ideals for the lessons that we believe art can teach.

REFERENCES Baldacchino, J. (2019). Art as unlearning: Towards a mannerist pedagogy. Routledge. Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. Yale University Press. Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school program. Macmillan. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–225. National Coalition for Core Standards (2014). National core arts standards: A conceptual framework for arts learning. State Education Agency Directors of Arts Education (SEADAE). Retrieved January, 2015, from http://www. nationalartsstandards.org/ Noddings, N. (2003). Happiness and education. Cambridge University Press. Phillips, L., & Siegesmund, R. (2013). Teaching what we value: Care as an outcome of aesthetic education. In T. Costantino & B. White (Eds.), Aesthetics, empathy, and education (pp. 221–234). Peter Lang. Powell, A. G., Farrar, E., & Cohen, D. K. (1985). The shopping mall high school: Winners and losers in the educational marketplace. Houghton Mifflin. Rancière, J. (2004). The politics of aesthetics: The distribution of the sensible (G. Rockhill, Trans.). Continuum. Taylor, P. G. (2002). Singing for someone else’s supper: Service learning and Empty Bowls. Art Education, 55(5), 46–52.

3 Contemporary Dilemmas in the Assessment of Art Learning Promoting Creativity, Assessing Teachers, and “Doing” the Standards Doug Boughton

We are living in a moment where seemingly impossible contradictions frustrate the work of art teachers and prevent engagement with the central purposes of the field of art education. These contradictions arise from three key responsibilities colliding in the work world of art teachers, namely commitment to the pursuit of creative outcomes in the art class, growth of teacher accountability, and implementation of national standards. Each of these has been debated separately, and at length, in the literature and teacher conferences for many years. Creativity has long been regarded by practitioners as a central plank underpinning the field of art. In recent years, art teachers have, reluctantly, experienced increasing scrutiny of their performance from administrators who, more often than not, have little or no background in the arts. And the national arts standards, released in 2014, have now been widely adopted, with some adaptations, in most states. While each of these discourses has manifested independent and parallel debates for some time, the relationships between them have been largely ignored. For example, the dictates implied by standards, and the demands for teachers to produce quantifiable assessment data necessary to demonstrate student learning run counter to the assessment conditions necessary to enable students to take the risks necessary for creative art production. Assessment conditions currently existing in schools set up essential contradictions that impede art teachers’ achievement of contradictory goals. I refer specifically to accountability expectations that, on the one hand, include the assessment of teachers’ work in the context of national standards, and, on the other hand, frustrate the fundamental ambition of teachers to however interpret in individual state systems across the nation. In many important ways, both conditions serve to frustrate and compromise the important work of art teachers because the forms in which they are manifested are inappropriate to the arts.

FOSTERING CREATIVITY One of the central ambitions traditionally held by art educators is that student experience in art programs develops the capacity for independent thought and the ability to express ideas visually. Individuality of expression and creative thinking has long been valued as a central DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-5

CONTEMPORARY DILEMMAS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF ART LEARNING

25

plank in the platform of art education. Much good work has been done in recent years to assist our understanding of the ways in which creative thinking can be fostered. From the 1940s, researchers, and ordinary people alike, credited creative action to personal attributes rather than contexts that promote creative behavior. In other words, it was believed that people were either born with creative capacity or they were not! Until the 1980s, environmental factors contributing to creativity were largely ignored (Kasof, 1995). According to Kasof, creative behavior was attributed to dispositional rather than situational causes. “The result has been a highly skewed research literature in which creativity is studied primarily by personality, and cognitive psychologists searching for characteristics of ‘creative people’ are paying comparatively little attention to external influences on creativity” (Kasof, 1995). Creative individuals participating in the art class do not provide the art teacher with their most significant pedagogical headaches. While it may be useful, to know how one might identify a creative individual through personality traits the major problem for the art teacher has always been deciding what to do with those students who were not identified as inherently creative. Such students constitute a far larger number in any given class than those identified as “creative”. The most powerful contemporary impetus for educators to examine context rather than disposition comes from the field of social psychology and the work of researchers such as Teresa Amabile (1982), Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1996), and Dean Keith Simonton (1979). These individuals have addressed the most pervasive misunderstanding about creativity which is the subjective reception of a creative product. According to social psychologists, for something to be regarded as creative, it must satisfy two basic criteria. First, it must be original, rare, or novel in some way. Second, it must be valued by individuals in the context in which it appears. In other words, it must be perceived as approved, accepted, appropriate, or “good” (Kasof, 1995). This definition entirely changes pedagogical strategies with respect to developing the capacity of students to think creatively. A creative performance by a student is no longer regarded as objective or fixed in a way that holds true irrespective of its time and place. Whether or not a student’s artistic product is creative, according to the definition outlined above, now requires a subjective judgment that must be conferred on the original product (Amabile, 1982; Csikszentmihalyi, 1988, 1990; Csikszentmihalyi & Robinson, 1986; Gardner, 1993; Kasof, 1995; Weisberg, 1986). In other words, the determination of creative artistic production is an issue of judgment rather than measurement. It is an assessment issue that has a profound effect upon the way art educators need to think about the development of curriculum and the assessment protocols employed for determining student learning. The fallacy of assuming that creativity is an objective and measurable outcome of learning has significant curriculum implications. So, how does the recent work of social psychologists help the ordinary art teacher working with their populations of students who do not measure high on “so-called” traditional tests of creativity? Most importantly, we can dispense with the assumption that creativity is contingent upon disposition and is therefore dichotomous, i.e. that one is either creative or not. Thanks to the work of social psychologists, we now know there are specific recommended steps we can take as art teachers that are likely to facilitate the development of creative thinking. First, Csikszentmihalyi’s (1996) work reveals that the initial step toward a more creative life is the cultivation of curiosity and interest, so if art practice is undertaken in the absence of student interest, creative production is unlikely to manifest. Interest is an essential prerequisite to creative endeavor. What is of the utmost consequence here, and what is so often overlooked, is the importance of recognizing and engaging the interests students bring to the classroom, and from those leading to new discoveries about techniques and artists. Students have a considerable advantage over adults in that their curiosity is easily engaged by many

26

Doug Boughton

things they encounter in their everyday lives. If invited to bring their interests to the classroom, students will willingly oblige. Second, we know that creative thinking is characterized by three fundamental activities: (1) in-depth investigation, (2) problem finding, and (3) risk-taking in the search for solutions. In-depth pursuit of ideas related to a theme is a well-documented hallmark of creative behavior. “Even more than particular cognitive abilities, a set of motivational attributes— childlike curiosity, intrinsic interest, perseverance bordering on obsession—seem to set individuals who change the culture apart from the rest of humankind” (Nakamura & Csikzentmihaly, p. 258). Themes develop from interests and provide unique lenses to view the world, thus enhancing curiosity and providing opportunity to develop novel outcomes. Investigating a theme requires work, so there is no point investing energy in a pursuit where there is no interest or passion for discovery. For this reason, some people need to explore a variety of thematic investigations before settling on something to pursue in depth. Finding solutions to problems requires divergent thinking and is another key way to engender creative behavior. This is not so much a function of creative disposition as it is a habit of mind. Such habits of thinking can be learned but this requires an individual to consciously seek alternative solutions to a single problem, to experiment, to play, and to take risks. Risk-taking, as Eisner (2002) said, means one needs to work at the edge of incompetence to produce something new. For the artist, this takes great courage because one needs to accept a high level of risk when we do not quite know what it is we are trying to do. For students, uncertainty is stressful. Without a supportive and trusting classroom, environment risktaking is not likely to occur. Given the frequency with which risk-taking is identified in curriculum documents and the everyday dialogue of teachers, I recently undertook a study in which I asked students about their understanding of risk and about the nature of risks they took in the high school art class (Boughton, 2016). Little previous research has been done to investigate the notion of risk which is a taken for granted concept in the field. The students in my study were drawn from three schools in Ireland and three schools in the United States, and were identified by their teachers as risk-takers. The reason for choosing two different settings, one in the United Kingdom, and the other in the United States, was that assessment conditions in both places are quite different. In Ireland, students are assessed at senior high school levels with high-stakes centrally administered examinations, whereas in the United States, assessment is usually the sole province of the individual art teacher. Examinations are not common and assessment moderation processes are typically not applied. I was interested in looking at differences in the way students regard the relationship of risks and grades in their efforts to create original work. Ultimately, it seemed however that responses between the two countries were very similar. Some interesting findings arose from the study. For example, students’ perception of risk appeared to be limited almost entirely to experimenting with unfamiliar media. When I asked students to bring examples of their work in which they believed they had undertaken a risk, it became clear that in most cases, risks with media did not necessarily produce innovative work. In fact, in most cases, the work was traditional and conservative. Students’ ambition for their work was to produce something that looked very much like previous artwork they had seen and admired, or to be able to reproduce an image in their mind that was consistent with existing artistic genres. Those students who succeeded in the production of novel imagery took different kinds of risks including risky content, the production of new forms of representation. A hierarchy of risk was suggested by the data. At the lowest level, students experiment with unfamiliar media

CONTEMPORARY DILEMMAS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF ART LEARNING

27

where the risk is simply embarrassment resulting from the appearance of ineptitude in the management of media, whereas subsequent levels of risk were associated with the dangers of undertaking the expression of risky content which carries with it the possibility of censure from friends and adults. Issues related to gender, sexuality, race, and religion, for example, carry the potential of greater consequence than simply failing to manage a new medium. Very few students attempted to abandon conventional forms of representation to create a new iconoclastic form of representation. The rare students who worked with all of these kinds of risks demonstrated the highest level of risk-taking behavior in the pursuit of creative outcomes.

TEACHER ASSESSMENT AND STANDARDS Conditions of learning in the United States are changing given the emergence of two new professional requirements, the assessment of teacher effectiveness, and implementation of national standards. The increasing expectation that teachers be reviewed and assessed to maintain their teaching positions has changed the Zeitgeist in art classrooms. Legislation enacted by governments in various states has signaled clearly that teachers are required to demonstrate effectiveness in their teaching through data-based evidence to keep their jobs. Increasingly, it is expected that valid and reliable measures of student learning, produced on an annual or semi-annual basis, are becoming critical to the future security of all teachers. Educational reforms in the United States have placed significant emphasis upon testing to improve standards in school subjects across the board. An unfortunate by-product for the arts from these reforms in the United States has been the homogenization of student outcomes expressed as standards that are frequently measured with inappropriate assessment instruments. The implications of this demand upon all art teachers are far more profound than appears at first reading. While nobody would argue that it is reasonable to expect that teachers should teach effectively and students should learn the content of the disciplines taught in school, the act of quantifying learning in ways that make data comparisons easy for administrators and parents to understand is far more complicated (and dangerous) than legislators appear to comprehend, particularly for the arts. What makes this phenomenon so disturbing is that assessment of student learning is used directly to determine individual teacher effectiveness. In the past, measures of student learning have been used for administrative and political reasons to examine the effectiveness of whole school performance, and increasingly, the performance of individual teachers. Typically, math and reading scores have been the indices used to express the quality of whole school performance. Now it is necessary for all subject areas to develop tests of student performance capable of quantifying learning in every discipline to make possible an assessment of teachers of all school subjects. Where is the room for risk-taking? How many art teachers will be interested in promoting student’s creative exploration and individual interests when certainty of outcome is necessary to ensure that they will retain their jobs? Whenever high-stakes pressures are applied in assessment contexts, the need to produce data demonstrating student learning results in the measurement of easily captured data. In other words, we measure what is easy rather than assess what we should. Creativity is an elusive concept for administrators, which is difficult to identify and is reliant upon expert judgment. While it is central to the discipline, it tends to be ignored in favor of assessment of more peripheral learning that can be easily measured. Student risk-taking has become too risky for teachers to encourage when predictability of successful student outcomes becomes essential. Slicing small pieces of the discipline of art into measurable sizes to satisfy administrative scrutiny is a natural consequence of the pressure of administrative surveillance. The

28

Doug Boughton

construction of tests that measure peripheral or ancillary art knowledge, albeit with an encouragingly high degree of reliability, should be regarded as a sellout to a misdirected school system that demands reliable assessment data irrespective of its validity to the field. Coinciding with the move to measure teacher effectiveness has been the introduction of national arts learning standards. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the notion of standards. We all know that the development of national standards is a necessary condition for survival in contemporary educational life. Public declaration of the expected levels of achievement within any discipline announces the legitimacy of the discipline and reflects the impression that members of the field have conducted research and reached agreement about its structure and core values. School districts in most states have now adopted these standards as a means to demonstrate commitment to effective learning in the arts. However, the national standards are unfortunately misleading because they are badged as “performance standards” which they are not. They are, in fact, “content standards”. The difference between them is significant (Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 1994; Kendall et al., 2005; Shepard et al., 2001). In simple terms, content standards express the content and skills students are expected to learn, and performance standards express how well they are expected to learn them. Or in other words, “how good is good enough at each level of schooling?” Shepard et al. (2001, p. 1) noted that “… content standards (subject-matter descriptions of what students should know and be able to do [emphasis mine]) are often confused with performance standards.” The difference between these two conceptions of standards is quite significant in terms of their effect upon both teaching and assessment. Content standards can be regarded as “inputs”, whereas performance standards describe “outputs”. In other words, the listing of knowledge and skills expected to be taught (content standards) simply requires inclusion of that content in the taught curriculum to satisfy the standard. This is what the national standards in the arts are! As such they are not so much standards as a laundry list of atomized art discipline content. Performance standards, however, require that expected levels of achievement are demonstrated by students in an assessment context using rubrics that differentiate levels of performance relative to the named standard. The Goals 2000: Educate America Act defines content standards as “broad descriptions of the knowledge and skills students should acquire in a particular subject area”. Performance standards should provide “concrete examples and explicit definitions” of proficiency in skills and knowledge. Our national standards do not do this, except, for the addition of ancillary cornerstone examples of assessment rubrics that are provided as illustrative examples. The second problem with the national standards is the sheer number of them (256). It is simply a list of everything the good folks on the committee could think of that might be useful to teach. As is usually the case with committee consensus in such endeavors, the list expands to satisfy the interests of all participants. The larger the committee, the greater the effort to be inclusive and the longer the list becomes. It is not based on theory or research, and a considerable body of research on standards has been undertaken in the past 30 years. There is no useful indication of how to judge excellence that may be drawn from this list of 256 curriculum content examples. The simple implication one draws from this directory is that the more standards that are ticked in a year, the better the program. The definition of standards as laid out in the national standards document do not pay attention to regional differences in populations, and most importantly deflect attention from the most central value of art education, that of creative thinking and the attendant behavior essential to engaging in creative activity—risk-taking. In recent months, I have heard teachers talking about “doing” the standards. “Are you doing the standards?” and “How are you doing the standards?” Conversation has even appeared on the NAEA website regarding how to do “standards-based assessment”. The use

CONTEMPORARY DILEMMAS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF ART LEARNING

29

of such language reveals the precepts held by practitioners about the ways in which standards are conceptualized. The current national standard statement is a list of things “to do”. Not an explication of performance levels to achieve by learners. The difference is incredibly important to ensure student valid art learning experiences. The sheer number of the standards is overwhelming. I am reminded of James Popham’s analogy in his reference to national standards when he said: Please suppose that you are having a dream in which you’re standing directly in the middle of a circular-shaped shooting gallery. On the walls surrounding you, there are 100 bullseye targets, each about 12 inches in diameter. You’ve been given a fully loaded gun and told to hit all targets dead center, or as close … as you can. However, and here is where the imaginary situation gets bizarre, you are only going to be allowed 20 seconds to do all your shooting.

And then, by the way, after the fact you are told not all targets are equally important. In the effort to address all the listed standards, relative value of achievement becomes blurred and the essence of artistic production is lost. This is the most disturbing impact of the national standards. They atomize the field and deflect attention away from the essence of art education. Teachers who are directed by administrators to demonstrate how standards are being addressed are confronted with the need to demonstrate that all standards have been covered. Failure to do so somehow suggests that the program is inferior to another which includes everything. The level of performance is irrelevant.

CONCLUSION Now, back to my argument about impossible contradictions. For art teachers who value creativity as the most desirable outcome of artistic practice and also accept that risk-taking is a necessary condition for the achievement of original outcomes, the contemporary administrative conditions of schooling create precisely the wrong working environment. The need for art teachers to produce quantitative assessment data demonstrating growth as a necessary condition to retain employment and the expectation that the 256 national standards be addressed is distracting to say the least. The underlying question is what to do about these problems. I recommend that assessment strategies be constructed to promote creative outcomes and assessment methods dependent upon expert qualitative judgment be used instead of quantitative tests. There are, of course, issues of reliability to be addressed, but this can be managed in a variety of ways including portfolio assessment methods and community of agreement (moderation) strategies within school districts. With respect to the standards issue, I strongly recommend curriculum approaches that resist the distraction of an atomized field, defined by multiple standards of unequal value, and instead keep focus upon the most important components that define artistic learning. In other words, keep it simple! To achieve this goal, an assessment structure based upon the following five criteria could achieve a far more valid outcome for the field. (1) Evidence of creative thinking, (2) independent and critical pursuit of student interests, (3) the development of technical skill, (4) ability to use visual qualities to support expression, and (5) knowledge of visual culture context each considered in the context of students developmental level are probably all that is needed. Assessment methodologies need to demand evidence of risk-taking such as reflective narratives and/or visual documentation of students’ exploration of alternative outcomes. Exploration of the unfamiliar should be rewarded rather than punishing a failed outcome.

30

Doug Boughton

To finish on an optimistic note, there are creative ways in which the contradictions I have discussed above can be overcome. To do so, however, will require significant grassroots effort from teachers and organized resistance to inappropriate expectations for assessment and adherence to the misnamed standards.

REFERENCES Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997–1013. Boughton, D. G. (2016). Risk-taking and the assessment of creative learning. Deltio Ekpaidfektikou Provlimatismou kai Epikoinonias, 57. http://www.deltio-imp.gr/ Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325–339). Cambridge University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domain of creativity. In M. A. Runco, & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 190–212). SAGE. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. Harper Collins. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Robinson, R. (1986). Culture, time, and the development of talent. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 264–284). Cambridge University Press. Eisner, E. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. Yale University Press. Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. Basic Books. Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, P.L. 103-227, Sec. 3[4]. Kasof, J. (1995). Explaining creativity: The attributional perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 8(4), 311–366. Kendall, J., Ryan, S., & Richardson, A. (2005). The Systematic Identification of Performance Standards. Regional Educational Laboratory contract #ED–01–C0–0006. A report commissioned by the US Department of Education. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89–105). Oxford University Press. Shepard, L., Hannaway, J., & Baker, E. (2001). Standards, assessments, and accountability [Education Policy White Paper]. National Academy of Education. Simonton, D. K. (1979). Multiple discovery and invention: Zeitgeist, genius, or chance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1603–1616. Weisberg, R. W. (1986). Creativity: Genius and other myths. Freeman.

SECTION II

Models of Assessment

Assessment can be thought of in different ways. We can look for evidence of learning in various places. What we conceptualize as evidence of learning determines, directly or indirectly, how we teach. What are some of the different approaches that we might consider?

GUIDED READING POINTS • • •

•

What evidence of student learning do these different approaches require? Where would you look for such evidence? How can the chapters in this section help you build your strongest case for student learning in your classroom? Why would students value the different forms of learning articulated in these chapters? Would parents value it? School administrators and fellow teachers? How might you as the art teacher present assessment of artistic and creative growth to other stakeholders? Is it possible that school administrators would insist on evidence of learning that is not valued by students and/or parents? How would you push back on school administrators who requested evidence of learning that you felt was inappropriate for the art classroom?

DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-6

4 Commentary Section II Standards and the Assessment of Competencies Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan

Schools are places where students learn things. An empty vessel conception of education sees students as hollow containers into which we pour content. This is an epistemological view of student achievement. It can lead to a punishing understanding of teaching with the child as an involuntary recipient. However, there is a second, competing conception of education. This is one where the child gains the tools to lead a personally fulfilling and socially rewarding life. This is an ontological view of curriculum. An ontological approach suggests that there is more to education than successfully navigating the game of school through the achievement of high marks on pre-determined checklists. Skills such as critical thinking, problem finding, and problem solving are not just internal benchmarks for academic advancement and professional awards, but enduring life skills that will reward the student in the years to come in whatever pragmatic path they choose to follow. However, we can manage to eviscerate an ontological approach to curriculum and assessment if we presume to know from the outset what a child’s life should be. If we think we know what is best for the child, it is tempting to start training the student in specific skills that meet presumed goals. We assume to know what future critical gatekeepers will expect from the child, and education begins to shift to meeting the expectations of these gatekeepers. We carefully benchmark our vision of who we anticipate the child to be and establish the marks that the child needs to hit to achieve our expectations. All too ironically, these curriculum designers have no idea what the needs of society will be when our students enter the workforce. In contrast, if we assume a student is competent—with legitimate desires and purposes of their own—then a different conception of education emerges. In this view, the teacher does not imprint content on the blank slate of the learner’s mind. Instead, the teacher is a guide and facilitator that helps the child find their own way. Seeing the child as essentially competent is core to ontological education. Elliot Eisner (2005) proposed nine assessable criteria for the art classroom focused on the development of the competent child. These nine criteria are as follows: (1) working for intrinsic satisfaction; (2) refining a personal, non-stereotypical, symbolic vocabulary; (3) inscribing personal DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-7

34

Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan

reflection; (4) exercising judgment; (5) relating images to cultural contexts; (6) attending to how others read the image; (7) allowing the qualitative relationships of materials to support expressive meaning; (8) selecting materials to maximize expressive meaning; and (9) sustaining aesthetic inquiry to produce new work. Each of these criteria will now be discussed. Eisner’s first criterion for assessment is if the child has found intrinsic satisfaction in the making of their art. Has the child stepped beyond following instructions and endued themselves into their own making? There are multiple approaches for teachers to entice students’ in personal investment with their work. These include strategies for opening an assignment to personal narrative, classroom agency and collaboration, and even the introduction of healthy competition. In all of these cases, students experience the materiality of art making. There is indeed satisfaction from the mastery of techniques that allow the learner to experience control over materials, but materials have their own agency and sometimes work in their own, unexpected ways. A significant part of the internal satisfaction that comes from the arts is learning to roll with the punches—given a set of materials and criteria, student artists must identify and resolve problems in order to communicate their personal narrative. They learn to improvise and adapt to unanticipated results when materials perform in ways that were not fully expected. This is an intrinsic satisfaction of recognizing one’s own skillfulness in adapting and adjusting. Such are the life skills that the visual arts teach beyond assignment completion and demonstration of proficiency. It is more than the demonstration of external control. These are observable behaviors. As the teachers in this volume demonstrate, they are assessable. These outcomes produce evidence of an intrinsically motivated, competent learner. A second assessable criterion that contributes to artistic competency is the generation of a personal, non-stereotypical, symbolic vocabulary. While these competencies carry forth from primary education, the foundational vocabulary is important to successful communication through the arts. In the empty vessel model of education, the child learns a wide array of linguistic, mathematical, and visual symbols. In this mode, assessment focuses on the child’s recognition within contained, prescribed semiotic circles. The rules of the game are all in place; how well can the child follow the rules, recognize the patterns of successful gameplaying, and reliably achieve the known result on demand? If the visual arts wish to follow this model of semiotic engagement, they can easily do so. We can teach students to reliably recognize the features of Impressionist paintings; we can also train pigeons to successfully complete this task too (Gardner, 2011). Eisner argues that symbolic learning in the visual arts is far more significant when students learn to make their own symbols. In our assessments, are we valuing the sentient creation of knowledge above rote identification? This is more easily said than done. A common experience in any art classroom, at any level of K-12 performance, is for students, when asked to consider creating meaningful personal symbols, revert to stereotypical choices of athletic or designer logos. Even in the visual realm, students first default response is to deal with the sets of visual culture symbols in which they are immersed. The development of personal symbolic inscriptions is a unique feature of the visual art classroom within the ecology of education. Eisner’s third criterion for art education is the child’s discovery that a personal visual vocabulary is also a mechanism to inscribe one’s personal consciousness. Symbols do more than carry meaning; they make the invisible phenomenological life of the mind visible. Education may assist the child to learn the invested cultural meanings in particular symbols, but education can also mean the child learns to express their personal experience through symbols. Furthermore, this manifestation of consciousness is not set in concrete. Indeed, as forms enter visibility, they can be edited and changed. Their meaning is constantly shifting and evolving. In fact, these forms of meaning might even begin to take on something of a life

COMMENTARY SECTION II

35

of their own. Students do not control this semiotic discourse; they are in dialogue with it. The student conjures images into existence that obtain their own agency. These images may even argue that they are something different from what the student initially intended. This dialogic consideration thrusts the student into a state of play. Play is an open condition of the possibility of new becomings. Rules may be discarded in favor of more serviceable adaptations. New unexpected opportunities are sensed, a more interesting horizon point is realized, and the student can change course in favor of greater personal satisfaction. This play gives rise to a concept that Eisner attributes to John Dewey: flexible purposing. Unlike more rigid disciplines such as math or physics, where students are judged by their ability to all arrive at a pre-determined, convergent, destination point, the visual arts value a process of curriculum where students realize that their purposes are increasingly divergent. Assessment is not centered at the number of students that reached a convergent point; assessment instead focuses on a range of divergent response. Such is the basis for assessing creative development (Torrance, 1998). The ability of the student to reinvent the initial constraints of a problem is prized. Developing a sound sense of judgment rather than following rules is Eisner’s fourth criterion. It draws from John Dewey’s (1934/1989) American Pragmatistic aesthetics. Dewey contended that standards, when conceived as a rulebook, are inimical to the production of art, and yet teachers function in an educational structure that mandates the applications of standards in student assessment. For art educators, this can appear as a paradox. It is only a problem if standards are conceived as a rulebook that dictates specific targets for the student to meet. In this metaphor, a student either measures up or falls short. The answer is correct or in error. Music works like that; so does classical dance. The student plays the note right or wrong. The expectation for how the student will keep time is clearly marked before the first note is played. The ballet method for completing a correct plié is clearly defined and repeated hundreds (if not thousands) of times to achieve perfection. The student is assessed on how closely (and in many cases rapidly) they can hit the predefined mark. Visual art does not work anything like that (rendering ever more peculiar why the visual arts, for the last 30 years, have insisted on shoehorning its educational processes into a performing arts standards’ framework). The concept of assessment as adherence to following instructional rules is insidious in multiple ways. For example, in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the visual arts scoring rubric establishes following instructions as a precondition for scoring creative results. If a child has the temerity to respond to the creative prompt using oil pastels for a task that is designated as collage, the student’s work is discarded as unscoreable. In the NAEP arts assessment, following the rules is the first and most critical criterion for analyzing learning in the visual arts. Similarly, the Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity (SCALE) edTPA performance assessment of student teachers requires applicants to apply SCALE’s definitions and terminology for teaching practice. Following SCALE’s nomenclature and preconceived operational structures for effective teaching can be at odds with the dynamic learning environment of a visual arts classroom. The visual arts buck conventional educational conceptions of assessment because they function through the exercise of judgment. As art educator Terry Barret has famously said, “there are no right interpretations in art, but some interpretations are better than others” (Barrett, 1992, p. 116). In art, when you open your 64-color Crayola Crayon pack, you do not get to choose any color you wish. Instead, on opening the crayon box, you are immediately faced with a task of exercising judgment. From these 64 colors, you consciously or intuitively create a palette. Judgments in art are open to analysis, adjustment, and ultimately evaluation. They are assessable. Thus, in the visual arts, the question of standards goes well beyond tracking the student’s adherence to preconceived statements in a lesson plan. The

36

Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan

question is, how have the standards opened a range of opportunities for the student to exercise judgment? Standards become effective when they become multiple avenues for allowing students to demonstrate their skills at making increasingly circumstantiated decisions. A fifth accessible criterion is the recognition of the visual image in context. We live in a world of visual culture. Images create ecologies of meaning that influence other surrounding images (Freedman & Siegesmund, 2024). Images have histories that reverberate in time. One image, one symbol, one rendering does not make a composition. There is space and negative space—each with significant importance to the whole. The background speaks to and relates to a foreground. It is even possible to refine this concept further with the introduction of middle ground. A symbol, face, or action figure does not exist in isolation. Objects take on meaning in context. And context is not frozen in form. It is dynamic, shifting, and mutable. The image has references and history. An image does not appear from nowhere. The question of a student’s purposeful use of space is, in fact, assessable if teachers build these measures into their teaching. Does the student recognize the contextual interrelations of their figures and understand how ultimately it is the context that creates the defining meanings of the form itself? Sixth, is the child cognizant that others read the work they produce? In this case, the child is no longer lost in their own self-absorption—obsessed with an idea of self-expression—but understands that the works they produce spark reaction, possibly even conversation, with others. There are multiple audiences for a work of art: the home, the classroom, the school at large, with peers that extend beyond the school, possibly in larger social dynamics within the community. It is in this dimension of assessment that art shifts from being a private relationship between the student and materials to a more social realm where the artwork becomes an agent in the construction of communities of practice and support. Eisner’s seventh criterion of assessment is a culmination of all the previous criteria: The manipulation of art materials generates expressive qualities with their own unique capacity for communication. This criterion focuses on the students’ ability to work with relationships of visual qualities, which Dewey points out is an entirely different form of thinking than the manipulation of visual symbols (1934/1989). Generally, students begin to work with a concrete objective that they wish to convey. What they soon begin to discover is that there is not a one-to-one correspondence to what they believe they see and how to depict perception through art materials. For example, if one wishes to paint a pair of blue jeans, the task involves more than outlining the desired shape of the jeans with a Sharpie and then mixing the single-color blue to fill in the delineated shape. In this case, the jeans are probably faded. How does one paint a faded blue? The problem becomes more complex if one is attempting to match an emotional state. What type hue of blue might capture one’s current faded feelings? Just what goes into a faded blue? Perhaps a touch of Mars Red? Maybe a Cadmium Red Deep is a bit too much (you’re not that edgy). Or might the coloristic route to a feeling of faded blue be counter-intuitive? Could it be found in a wash of Viridian Green touched by Alizarin Crimson? In any event, a complex emotional state is probably not a single color. Even the mono-chromatic, Minimalist, white-on-white paintings of Robert Ryman are not a single color—after all there is titanium white, zinc white, lead white, and ivory white even before one starts getting to colors like eggshell or considerations of how these colors play off the foundation of Belgian linen or duck cloth. Color is layered. It is transparent, translucent, and, when opaque, scumbled. Color, like feelings, unfolds in time. Intentionally or unintentionally, every layer of color is part of a building narrative. To build this narrative, students must be taught the subtle art of perception and translation—to represent that unique combination of what is observed and what is visualized in the artist’s mind. A student who is considering these choices now understands that materials are more than ways to construct a mirror of reality; they are their own multiple expressive avenues.

COMMENTARY SECTION II

37

The eighth criterion for assessment is the recognition that materials speak, and acknowledging a responsibility to give these materials voice that is appropriate to the material itself. The student needs to master listening to the art materials with which they work. This is visual, non-discursive literacy. The student most likely achieves the first level of non-discursive literacy intuitively through the direct manipulation of materials. But this understanding does not lie beyond language. Critique is a tool within the art classroom to help secure an appreciation for non-discursive visual thinking by approaching it through language (Soep, 2004). This does not mean that thinking only happens when a student talks about their art. It means that language can help the student better appreciate and gain insight into the non-discursive visual thinking that they articulated through their artwork. There is a difference between a student going through the motions of empty art rhetoric and being able to find the words that appropriately represent the agency of the materials. Eisner’s ninth criterion is the reflective appreciation of non-discursive visual thinking as a pathway for thinking about being in the world. In this way, the study of visual art separates from the classic epistemological aims of education and champions an ontological, holistic outcome. Have the visual arts provided strategies for how the student finds satisfaction in the world? The measure of success is not in external tests for content knowledge, but in the student’s ability to integrate productively in society while engaging in work that they find deeply satisfying and rewarding. Thus, in one sense what children eventually learn when they paint is a way of looking at life – is a stance, a kind of perspective that frees them from the unrelenting demands of practicality. They learn how to savor the quality of experience that flow from the qualities they encounter. Such experience, in turn, becomes the sources for artistic expression. Work in the arts, in sum provides children with the opportunity to develop sensibilities that make aesthetic awareness of the world possible. And such awareness provides the content not only for aesthetic experience, but for art itself. (2005, p. 66)

To summarize, these are the nine criteria that Eisner suggests for a pivot from epistemological to ontological assessment: 1. Does the student find intrinsic satisfaction through their art making? 2. Can the student generate a personal symbolic vocabulary? 3. Through play, can the student explore evolving inscriptions of personal consciousness with symbols? 4. Can the student leverage standards to demonstrate a range of judgments? 5. Does the student recognize the visual cultural contexts of their work? 6. Does the student appreciate how others might read their work and the multiple interpretations the work might assume? 7. Can the student visually recognize and dialogically respond to agency of visual materials? 8. Can the student authentically address through written and spoken language the agency of the non-human materials that have been activated in the artwork? 9. Have the visual arts provided strategies for how the student finds satisfaction in the world? These nine criteria capture the aspirations of many art teachers, but art teachers are not solitary educators who work in isolation. Art teachers are professionals who are part of the international, technocratic, and institutional process of contemporary education: an industrial educational complex. For the art teacher, this system is most evident when completing

38

Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan

reports of student achievement that are required to conform to official state content area standards. The challenge for art educators is to envision their standards in ways that allow the competencies they value to be reported through the structure that administrators demand.

REFERENCES Barrett, T. M. (1992). Criticizing art with children. In A. Johnson (Ed.), Art education: Elementary (pp. 115–129). National Art Education Association. Dewey, J. (1989). Art as experience. Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1934) Eisner, E. W. (2005). Reimagining schools: The selected works of Elliot W. Eisner. Routledge. Freedman, K. & Siegesmund, R. (2024). Visual methods of inquiry: Images as research. Routledge. Gardner, H. (2011). Truth, beauty, and goodness reframed: Educating for the virtues in the twenty-first century. Basic Books. Soep, E. (2004). Visualizing judgment: Self-assessment and peer assessment in arts education. In E. W. Eisner, & M. D. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 667–687). National Art Education Association: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Torrance, E. P. (1998). Torrance tests of creative thinking norms-technical manual: Figural (streamlined) forms A and B. Scholastic Testing Service.

5 Can’t you just give them a quiz? Resistance as a Means to Promote Authentic Assessment Deborah N. Filbin

Although assessment is a necessary part of teaching, it is usually the least favorite part of an art teacher’s day. Quite often, the term assessment makes an art teacher uncomfortable because it is associated with testing or assigning grades which can feel overwhelming when the stakes are high. In reality, an art teacher continually evaluates and judges their student’s work by providing constructive criticism, critique, or other feedback as part of good practice. The meaning of assessment as described by Beattie (1997) is “the method or process used for gathering information… for the purpose of making an evaluation” (p. 2). This definition frames assessment as an essential and natural component in the cycle of visual art curriculum and instruction rather than a punitive task. Formative assessments can illustrate this when they are used as a best practice to facilitate learning, promote achievement, help students develop skills, and inform the pacing of instruction. Because many states have adopted teacher evaluation policies that include quantifiable student growth data as a means for judging teacher performance, the importance of assessment has become a high priority for many art teachers (Boughton, 2018; Filbin, 2020). The challenge associated with data collection in a performance-based discipline like the arts is that the data may look different from other disciplines. Because of this, the arts are sometimes viewed as less valuable because they are non-tested. To help explain this, a study examining assessments used by high school art teachers found most outsiders to the field of art education adhere to underlying assumptions that data is numerical and must be derived from some type of right/wrong answer-choice test rather than through qualitative measures (Filbin, 2020). This assumption was shared by visual art and design teachers because of the data-driven culture in response to school reform efforts. In these kinds of educational environments, art teachers lacked confidence in their own best practices. They assumed that qualitative forms of assessment lacked validity because it didn’t look like the assessments used in other disciplines. On the contrary, best practice in art education utilizes many different kinds of valid qualitative ways to authentically assess student work which can be a way to communicate student growth (Beattie, 1997; Boughton, 2013; Filbin, 2020). Explaining qualitative assessment methods to other educators and administrators outside the field becomes a challenge for many art teachers. DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-8

40

Deborah N. Filbin

Some states have evaluation policies that require student growth data and school-wide standardized test scores as part of a teacher’s evaluation (Boughton, 2018). Although well intentioned, this may put art educators in a precarious position because art is not included in the tested disciplines. Keep in mind, the primary purpose of teacher evaluation is to help improve practice, not data collection. For any teacher to grow as a professional, it is important to get useful feedback from someone who understands the nuances of the discipline (Eisner, 1996). A familiar problem for many art teachers is having to explain how visual art students should be assessed and what valid performance-based assessment data looks like to evaluating administrators who have no background in the arts (Eisner, 1996; Smilan & Miraglia, 2009). Advocacy for appropriate assessment is necessary for a valid evaluation of an art teacher’s performance. To explain the depth of this problem, research revealed a disconnect between teachers and administrators when it came to authentic assessment methods used in visual art education (Filbin, 2020).1 Perhaps the best way to encapsulate this problem is in a question that administrators have often asked art teachers: Can’t you just give them a quiz? Depending on your pedagogical beliefs, the answer may not be simple. If the answer an art teacher would like to give is ‘no’, the potential repercussions for that response could be multifaceted. Furthermore, in the current climate of educational accountability, if it is perceived that an art teacher did not fulfill their professional duties which may include providing valid and reliable student growth data, the teacher’s tenure status could potentially be jeopardized (Boughton, 2018; Filbin, 2020). Reflecting further on the question Can’t you just give them a quiz? some factors that could shape the response could be years of experience, quality of the professional relationship between teacher and administrator, make-up of the student body, expectations of a school by community members, socio-economic status (SES) of a school, a school’s performance ranking, or other accountability measures. Furthermore, the administrator’s experience with the arts, expectations they must fulfill as part of their duties, the kind of teacher performance evaluation tool they are instructed to use, and other overriding responsibilities could further affect how the answer would be received. Navigating how to answer the simple question Can’t you just give them a quiz? becomes complicated. Although a quiz may be a useful way to conduct a formative assessment to check for understanding on things such as proper use of materials, safety procedures, or specific artistic processes, a quiz is not an effective tool for measuring student success in the act of art making: This is something that should be judged by the teacher using their professional expertise with a qualitative measurement tool like a rubric. Perhaps before answering the question Can’t you just give them a quiz? questions should be asked about the ultimate goal of the curriculum. Is art making the primary outcome of the course? Are there possibilities offered for creative or unexpected outcomes? Are students encouraged to take risks? And if so, what are the most valid ways to assess what students do and learn in the art room? Is foundational content knowledge best assessed by a quiz, or an alternate format? Understanding how to select the best type of assessment tool to measure what students have actually learned, and how to best communicate that to others outside the field is key to answering the question of whether a quiz is indeed appropriate. If it is not, knowing how to explain why to outsiders becomes essential.

MANIFESTATIONS OF RESISTANCE Frustration in art teachers is understandable when American public education seems to have a never-ending thirst for data and very little priority is given to creativity in the classroom (Ravitch, 2014). This creates a potential conflict when balancing compliance with schoolwide policies and doing what is in the best interest of art students’ learning experiences

CAN’T YOU JUST GIVE THEM A QUIZ?

41

(Filbin, 2020). What may surface is the desire to resist ‘one-size-fits-all’ mandates that do not fit the visual art learning environment. The possibility for a contentious relationship to develop between teacher and administrator is best illustrated in the following vignette (Filbin, 2020). Vivian was a tenured art teacher with 18 years of experience. She worked in a high school district with a high population of minority students that were economically disadvantaged. The high school struggled with low test scores. Because of Race to the Top (RTT), there were school-wide requirements for all faculty to integrate reading and writing activities into curriculum regardless of the discipline in an effort to raise test scores. Vivian described a meeting with an administrator when she was on evaluation. It is important to note that her evaluating administrator had no background knowledge in art education: So, the administrator said, let’s say there’s a kid, he just can’t shade. He can’t do the gradation shading. But what if he can write a paper for you, and he’s got all the steps down, and he can explain gradation. Doesn’t it mean that he actually learned the concept? And shouldn’t that be what you’re evaluating and assessing? So, I said, you know what? I’m going to go along with you on this. What you’re saying is, Jim and I are in carpentry school. And Jim can use those tools and cut every piece of wood perfectly straight. Every board is perfectly cut. But I really can’t do it. But I could tell you how to build a house on paper perfectly. And we both get A’s in carpentry school. According to your theory who do you want to come build your house? Do you want me to show up? I got it on paper perfectly. No, we’re not gonna grade like that.

What this administrator asked of Vivian, regardless of how well intentioned, was not far from the question: Can’t you just give them a quiz? Although Vivian was an experienced tenured teacher and felt that she was in a position to disagree with her administrator, this type of request can potentially put teachers in a precarious situation. Outsiders from the field may question grading practices because it is different from the ones used in traditionally tested disciplines. As previously mentioned, difference and valuable are not mutually exclusive concepts with regard to student learning experiences and outcomes. The story shared by Vivian was not unique; it is a familiar quandary shared by many art teachers. Resisting an administrative request becomes a problem worth exploring. Examining the role resistance plays in promoting authentic assessment for the benefit of a quality art experience becomes a delicate balance, while conveying that students are the ultimate beneficiary of a quality art educational experience. To use resistance as a catalyst for positive change, it is imperative to understand authentic assessment; Beattie (1997) defines this as “An assessment that uses realistic, meaningful, open-ended problems, true to [the] discipline” (p. 3). Resistance can be a means to advocate for authentic assessment, even when the measures of student learning are different from school-wide, administration-supported assessments, and are particularly concerning when initiatives in schools prioritize raising school-wide test scores over a well-rounded curriculum. Resistance can manifest subtlety. Some teachers may appear to be quite agreeable with an administrative request at a crucial time, like in a faculty meeting or when an evaluator is in the classroom conducting an observation. A teacher ensures that the onlooker is given exactly what they want to see; however, when the teacher is alone with their students, business as usual in the art room returns. How many of us have done this? This kind of resistance is covert; a way of doing what you know is right for your students without making it obvious by avoiding drawing negative attention to yourself. Sociologist Erving Goffman (1959) described this kind of normal human behavior as a coping mechanism in the workplace. We may do things with which we may not agree; however, it maintains a peaceful status quo.

42

Deborah N. Filbin

Remaining subtle is not always possible. Teacher frustration over inappropriate (or ignorant requests) may lead to overt resistance by blatantly refusing to follow direction. Teachers may argue with administrators when what is asked of them is not in the best interest of their students. Vivian overtly refused to change her grading practice for her art students. Although this kind of activism seems noble and is encouraged by some critical education theorists like Giroux (2001), it carries potential risks. Depending on factors like tenure, longevity, or relationships with colleagues and administrators, resistance could be a successful way to advocate for the discipline, or potentially lead to disciplinary action. Although it can be a catalyst for change, knowing how to weigh the risk is important. Sometimes actively resisting is exhausting. Passive compliance surfaces out of frustration. For experienced teachers, this feels like surrendering to what seems like a never-ending battle or waiving the proverbial ‘white flag’. Newer, less experienced teachers may be in a more difficult position compared to tenured colleagues when it comes to pleasing their administrator. They may feel powerless to disagree so; they may comply even if they know it goes against best practice. A study by Hanawalt (2018) described how newer teachers entering the profession were taught in their university program to promote contemporary issues such as social justice, visual culture, and a learner-centered curriculum. However, these teachers experienced a repressive environment in their schools because of a culture of compliance to test-based accountability. Although they knew what they wanted to implement in their classrooms, they had to adjust their practices to appease evaluators. This kind of compliance, regardless of level of experience, is a much quieter form of resistance. From a perspective of maintaining employment, it is a much safer path. So, if asked Can’t you just give them a quiz? a teacher may do just that: Give a quiz to their students for the sake of satisfying a request for easily understood numerical data. Even if it does not measure the quality of student artwork, it is a means to an end. Passive compliance becomes a survival mechanism to situations that are sometimes out of a teacher’s control, and the most subtle form of resistance. The skill becomes knowing what content is most appropriately measured through quantitative means in the visual arts discipline. With these different ways to resist, art teachers are not fixed in their position but may transition through different stances depending on conditions. It does not make them bad teachers. Rather, it allows what drew them to the profession, which is teaching art! There is another key player in these scenarios to consider: the administrator. Resistance may surface from administrators based on the kinds of direction they are given as part of fulfilling their jobs. As described in the story relayed by Vivian, an administrator may not understand alternate forms of assessment, especially if they have never been taught to interpret qualitative data or understand how it could be valid or reliable. Administrators who respect art teachers’ professional expertise are less likely to insist on inappropriate measures of art learning. Rather, they will be open to expanding their own knowledge of performance-based assessment, art lesson rubrics, and process-based, authentic assessments that consider actual art making ability and growth. Ideally, it is best to foster a productive working relationship between teachers and administrators built on mutual trust and respect; however, this takes an investment on both parties. Clearly to foster this kind of a relationship, there is a need to include administrators in the conversation about performance-based assessment. In this context, resistance may be a productive way to promote authentic assessment.

REALITIES IN EDUCATIONAL PRACTICE: BEYOND RESISTANCE The complexity of the current educational landscape begs further consideration of the realities a teacher faces in their practice. Differences in teacher’s unique classroom experiences and the quality of a student’s individual art education experience bring attention to an

CAN’T YOU JUST GIVE THEM A QUIZ?

43

elephant in the room that must be discussed: SES matters! Although there is research available on the equity gap in American education (Ladson-Billings, 2017; Ravitch, 2014), a significant part of the equity gap is the lack of access to quality art education based on SES and race (Katz-Buonincontro, 2018; Kraehe & Acuff, 2013). Families of students who attend high-performing schools in economically advantaged areas understand that college admission is not just about test scores. They have more opportunities to engage in diverse learning experiences where holistic forms of measurement are embraced and the arts tend to be valued. Conversely, minority students in economically disadvantaged areas that attend schools with lower test scores are in a continual cycle of struggling to close the learning gap. Opportunities to offer rich art experiences in the curriculum are reduced producing a race- and class-based creative inequality (Katz-Buonincontro, 2018). Ladson-Billings (2017) described numerous institutionalized barriers that are put in place to maintain a disadvantaged position educationally and economically, especially for African-Americans. Reflecting on some of the problems discussed, you may wonder, what is an art teacher to do? First, it is helpful to know how to advocate for appropriate assessments in your discipline. One way you can do this is to build a knowledgeable repertoire of authentic assessment strategies, and learn to communicate how this is part of a strong foundation of visual arts education. The discipline is rooted in performance-based learning optimally requiring divergent response; it is best assessed using authentic methods like rubrics to evaluate work based on criteria using qualitative judgment. Next, it is helpful to strengthen the fluency of your language about assessment. Understanding when formative assessments should be used, how to articulate their implementation, and how assessments inform instruction is a great way to communicate their strengths. Selecting appropriate summative assessments and describing the criteria students must meet is a great way to communicate the rigor of a quality art program. Validity and reliability are crucial components in this process. A valid assessment measures what it actually intends to measure and reliability refers to the consistency of the scored results (Beattie, 1997). Selecting valid methods to assess the arts is easily attainable; however, establishing reliability with performance-based assessments can be the biggest challenge for teachers in the United States. Most art teachers are not provided professional development time specifically for the purpose of collaborating with colleagues in their discipline to determine the reliability especially if one is the only art teacher in a school or district. Helpful resources to look to are the Advanced Placement (AP) or Internationale Baccalaureate (IB) programs which have established capstone assessments for high school students that have successfully demonstrated reliability (Filbin, 2019). The resources for these exams utilize visual rubrics to demonstrate benchmarks. These examples may be useful tools to strengthen your own assessments and can help you communicate with administrators the possibilities for valid and reliable performance-based art assessment. Communication with administrators to garner their support can minimize the requests for inappropriate assessments and maximize authentic assessment practices.

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS Every state has different graduation requirements, and each community has different opportunities for students to access art programs. It is important to note the diverse and unique educational settings within each region of the United States and nuances of local school communities. Although the arts are a necessary part of a well-rounded education, they are not always considered ‘core’ courses, meaning that art may not be required for all students. To assist practitioners, this book contains the voices of many different educators from the field who have shared ways to convey student learning and resources. The different

44

Deborah N. Filbin

rubrics or variations of scoring based on their experience and unique circumstance can be a helpful tool. For those of you entering the field, or possibly preparing to begin student teaching, you will be faced with the challenge of providing evidence of authentic assessment. It will be your responsibility to find innovative ways to engage students in performancebased learning and successfully communicate how it was evaluated. Furthermore, completion of your student teaching may require you to successfully complete the edTPA exam, an extensive Candidate Assessment of Performance, or other state-administered performance measure. Documenting how you engaged students, demonstrating ways that you extended your lessons to provide pathways for students to make their own choices, and providing evidence of authentic assessment are all keys to scoring high on these tests and performance portfolios. These practices are ones that can be carried on and developed throughout your professional career. Perhaps the most salient point and the impetus of this book is the fact that there is very little if any site-based professional development offered to art teachers specifically for art assessment and the determination of its validity and reliability (Filbin, 2020). This vacuum leaves art teachers having to fend for themselves, putting them at a disadvantage to their peers in other disciplines. Some seek graduate programs in art education where they begin to understand the value of qualitative assessments, reflective analysis, and other ways to document student learning outcomes. This book provides a much needed and valuable resource for practicing professionals and their evaluating administrators to help find ways that work best for assessing student artwork. Ultimately, more traditionally tested disciplines are beginning to understand the value of authentic, process-based assessments, long provided by master art teachers. Conversations with administrators about the higher levels of learning and real-world application that takes place in these kinds of classrooms are the essence of authentic education. As a final thought, the pandemic has definitely pushed teachers and administrators out of their comfort zone. New ways of thinking about education are evolving; remote learning, hybrid models, and emerging conversations about assessing student learning may help the larger educational landscape consider the value of authentic assessment. Perhaps the resistance described in this chapter was more of an advocacy for what art teachers value – promoting learning that is deeply rooted in performance-based skills, and opening opportunities to authentic ways to assess student knowledge.

NOTE

1 In 2010, Illinois enacted a law that changed teacher evaluation throughout the state known as (PERA). Part of the changes became the requirement that all classroom teachers provide valid and reliable data to measure student growth, in addition to standardized test scores as an indicator of teacher performance. https://www.isbe.net/ documents/pera-final-report-160630.pdf

REFERENCES Beattie, D. K. (1997). Assessment in art education. Davis. Boughton, D. (2013). Assessment of performance in the visual arts: What, how, and why. In A. Karpati & E. Gaul (Eds.). From child art to visual culture of youth: New models and tools for assessment of learning and creation in art education. Intellect. Boughton, D. G. (2018, September). The community as arbiter of quality: Models or the determination of reliability in the assessment of student art products. Paper presented at Art Education Research Institute 3rd Annual Symposium, Northern Illinois University, Naperville, IL. Eisner, E. (1996). Evaluating the teaching of art. In D. Boughton, E. W. Eisner, & J. Lighvoet (Eds.). Evaluating and assessing the visual arts in education: International perspectives (pp. 75–94). Teachers College Press. Filbin, D. N. (2019). International art programs in secondary schools. In K. Freedman (Ed.). International encyclopedia of art and design education. Wiley Press.

CAN’T YOU JUST GIVE THEM A QUIZ?

45

Filbin, D. N. (2020). Art assessment policy and practice at the high school level: Validity, reliability, and resistance (Doctoral dissertation). Northern Illinois University. Giroux, H. A. (2001). Theory and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the opposition. Bergin & Garvey. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor. Hanawalt, C. (2018). School art in the era of accountability and compliance: New art teachers and the complex relations of public schools. Studies in Art Education, 59(2), 90–105. Katz-Buonincontro, J. (2018). Creativity for whom? Art education in the age of creative agency, decreased resources, and unequal art achievement outcomes. Art Education, 71(6), 34–37. Kraehe, A. M., & Acuff, J. B. (2013). Theoretical considerations for art education research with and about “underserved populations”. Art Education, 54(4), 294–309. Ladson-Billings, G. (2017, September). Makes me wanna holler. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 673, 80–90. Ravitch, D. (2014). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools. Vintage. Smilan, C., & Miraglia, K. M. (2009). Art teachers as leaders of authentic art integration. Art Education, 62(6), 39–45.

6 The End Justifies the Means Assessment and Backward Design Cathy Smilan

A basic tenant of backward design holds that what matters within a discipline should be measurable and learning units should be designed to provide evidence that these important discipline objectives are met. Surrounding this rather straightforward concept, however, are national, state, and district mandates that oftentimes conflate ideas that are noteworthy with ideas that are worthy of deep and enduring knowing, leaving essential concepts lost in the translation of what can most easily be counted or scored. As more and more districts continue to move to the Understanding by Design (UbD) model of assessment, it is important for art teachers to consider (1) their performative artspecific goals; (2) what will serve as evidence of goal attainment and (3) how to work backward to design an instructional plan. Most commonly attributed to educational theorists Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, this construct is deeply rooted in art education philosophy as well as that of creativity and entrepreneurship. In his treatise on reconsidering curriculum in art education, Elliot Eisner (1994) reminded us that simply defined, curriculum is a “course to be run”. In order to design the course for learning, one must have a clear understanding of the starting point, as well as the endpoint. Following the publication of Curriculum Reconsidered, educational researchers Wiggins and McTighe published their widely adopted approach to unit and lesson planning: Understanding by Design® (UbD) (2005). UbD is a framework that guides teachers to “begin with the end in mind”, a concept the authors attribute to Stephen Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.1 Considering the idiom, “the end justifies the means”, in the educational context, teachers determine that the path toward the goal of learning is, in fact, justified by the pre-determined and clearly stated criteria of the lesson. These criteria, then, must be carefully identified before any lesson or project is selected. According to Wiggins and McTighe (2005), “Our lessons, units and courses should be logically inferred from the results sought, not derived from the methods, books, and activities with which we are most comfortable” (p. 14). UbD is championed by the authors as an approach to evidence-based learning that helps students to focus on the multiple facets of knowing in a discipline. These knowledge perspectives are delineated as the Six Facets of Understanding2 that are used to determine student learning. An overview of assessing these knowledge perspectives and determining what discipline DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-9

THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS

47

concepts are worthy of deep investigation versus surface knowledge is considered with respect to secondary art education. Assessment of content and the conceptual underpinnings of our field of art education are applied to the general education assessment model proposed 20+ years ago by Wiggins and McTighe, and, as I argue, follow the precepts established by art education’s own Elliot Eisner. Like the ill-fated, and largely misinterpreted disciplined-based art education model, application of the UbD model is oftentimes subject to acquiescence, not to the course to be run, but instead to the path of least resistance of measurable outcomes: quantifiable standards. Thinking like assessors, teachers must determine how meaning comprehension is measured. In the UbD model, Understanding is the desired result of teaching and includes explanation, interpretation, application, perspective, empathy and self-knowledge. Wiggins and McTighe (2012) ask teachers to consider where the evidence of learning lies and how to determine the extent of those conceptual, technical and compositional understandings. In order to make these determinations, what kinds of performance and assessment tasks situate the learning in our curriculum? “What counts as evidence of conceptual teaching” and “What counts as evidence of understanding?” (p. 63). McTighe (2011) cautions educators to avoid a “defacto narrowing of curriculum” (p. 2) that is an almost inevitable outcome of strictly adhering to a standard-based assessment model. Again, a similar argument was made by Eisner (1994) who cautioned educators about an implicit null curriculum that is part of any curriculum decision-making process. Rather, Wiggins and McTighe recommend a portfolio of assessments that consider core 21st-century skills—some might say taking a page from what art educators do on a daily basis. Further, using a process-folio approach of measurement, educators are able to capture evidence of student growth in all aspects of learning, offering “longitudinal (i.e., developmental) rubrics … to guide judgments about student achievement and enable more systematic tracking of growth (i.e., progress toward meeting standards)” (McTighe, 2011, p. 7). UbD presents a quintessential challenge for art teachers as curriculum planners in that the visual arts as creative learning requires the development of creative attributes such as risk-taking, perseverance, elaboration and the ability to find multiple problems and pose multiple solutions from a variety of perspectives. As an artist and qualitative researcher, Dr. Eisner knew this all too well, arguing that these attributes and behaviors, which ultimately have become the cornerstone of 21st-century skills, are the very essence of an education in the visual arts; thus, evidence of such learning must be intrinsic within each lesson. Unlike the performative arts (improvisation notwithstanding) and the sciences which prize convergent response, best-practice in the visual arts employs skill in applying artistic mediums to develop divergent responses. Further, the ultimate goal of artistic exploration is, in fact, process over product which leads to deeper knowledge of technique for a larger purpose of investigation and communication of important concepts. In his 2011 essay, Jay McTighe called for an overhaul of the assessment system, stating: … many subject areas for which standards exist are not tested at all in many states (e.g., history/ social studies, science, visual and performing arts, technology). To put it more starkly, important academic learning outcomes are falling through the cracks of the current large-scale assessment system. Selected-response assessments (or even brief, constructed responses) are simply incapable of measuring students’ responses to open-ended problems and issues, discussion and debate, extended writing for real audiences and purposes, substantive research and experimental inquiry—yet these are surely vital outcomes. Furthermore, the so-called 21st Century Skills of creative thinking, collaborative teamwork, multi-media communication and use of information technologies are typically not tested on today’s accountability measures. Accordingly, they

48

Cathy Smilan

are less likely to receive instructional emphasis. In sum, current standardized assessments capture what is easiest and inexpensive to test, but fail to assess many of the most valued goals of schooling. (McTighe, 2011, p. 2)

McTighe (2011) suggests the following adjustments in approaches to formative and summative assessments that require multiple ways to determine learning: “1) assessing the most important educational goals in appropriate ways; 2) providing the specific and timely feedback needed to improve learning; and 3) supporting curriculum planning, local assessment and instruction for meaningful learning” (p. 4). If one accepts the broader premise—which parallels the idea that conventions of writing and sentence formation are but requisite skills to competent written communication— how, then, do art teachers develop assessments that measure student-conceived, divergent outcomes? Could it be that measuring ideas, ability to articulate concepts, ability to collaborate with a design team, as well as artistic growth are what the standards are asking us to do? Early childhood educator and author, Sydney Gurewitz Clemens, famously wrote, “Art has the role in education of helping children become like themselves instead of more like everyone else”; yet in our quest to be acknowledged among the other academic subjects, art assessments oftentimes rubricize to the common denominator. Where is the individual within the rubric that quantifies mark making, expenditure of effort and ability to remain on task? According to McTighe (2011), performance tasks (like those that would optimally be designed for a visual arts curriculum) require students to contextualize and apply situation knowledge. Art teachers must always consider the place of individual narrative in this contextualization. In adopting measures from other disciplines, art educators must carefully determine the purpose of the evaluation and the evidence of learning. Are we seeking evidence of understanding for the sake of art, for the learner, for creativity, for society? As an extension of this problem, in my experience of teaching curriculum design, I see the challenge between incorporating a student-centered approach to lesson planning and assessment and acquiescence to teacher as a purveyor of materials. I began teaching curriculum design in 2004, using Wiggins and McTighe’s UbD as the model for developing conceptually based units focused on determining and defining measurable lesson objectives. Initially, my classes consisted of secondary education students, some of whom were art teachers. By 2008, my courses were designed solely for pre-service art teachers. Employing the UbD model (as was the mandate of both universities at which I taught) provided particularly unique insight into the challenges of developing criterionbased assessment for teaching creative behaviors, risk-taking through materials exploration, and valuing divergent response.3 In the years since that first class, I have seen art teachers regress back to focusing lessons on that which they can most easily quantify: counting of elements and principles. And I wonder how we as a field might develop a “rubric” for risk-taking, empathetic thinking, expressive communication (including joyfulness and play), materials exploration leading to unconventional responses, and the development of creative dispositions. If these factors are, in fact, the content of art teaching, how can we as a field embrace these outcomes and work in a backward manner to fashion lessons that guide students to these end goals? Wiggins and McTighe ask teachers and curriculum planners to think like assessors to determine evidence of learning before selecting the materials, resources, and activities of the lesson. I contend that we as teachers must think of ourselves as researchers and our students as participant artists/researchers. The basic principles of UbD—identifying desired results, determining evidence of learning, and designing lessons to provide opportunities to uncover

49

THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS

the results—are in essence the tenants of artistic research. If we substitute “desired results” for inquiry questions and “evidence of learning” for data, our lesson plans become our study design. Our assessments, then, become our data collection tools and our inquiry questions might be what is the impact of exploring an art medium-specific technique on the communication of ideas about social issues impacting students’ lives today. If the desired outcomes are for students to gain an understanding of developing empathy for others and the world, principles of design and media techniques must be applied to communicate the insights that learners are developing about more universal human understandings that move beyond the isolated episode of a studio learning experience.

QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION • • •

How can art teachers incorporate concept and metaphor into their lessons? How can art teachers assess performance skills and techniques and formal elements with a conceptual framework? Can UbD be applied to formalist content? How? Some possible prompts for lesson ideas:

1. Create an artwork that utilizes positive and negative spaces to conceptually represent a disenfranchised portion of society. 2. Create an artwork using real and implied line to communicate the concept of “crossing a line”.

NOTES

1 To begin with the end in mind means to start with a clear understanding of your destination. It means to know where you’re going so that you better understand where you are now so that the steps you take are always in the right direction (Covey, 1989, p. 98). 2 Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005), pp. 82–104. 3 See Smilan, C. (2015). I wish my assignments were more creative!. In F. Bastos and E. Zimmerman (Eds.). Connecting creativity research and practice in art education (pp. 159–164). NAEA.

REFERENCES Eisner, E. W. (1994). Cognition and curriculum reconsidered. Teachers College Press. McTighe, J. (2011). “Measuring What Matters: Part 1 – The Case for an Assessment Overhaul” in What’s Working in Schools Newsletter, December 2010. The Hope Foundation. https://jaymctighe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/ Measuring-What-Matters.pdf McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2012). Understanding by Design® Framework. ASCD Whitepaper. https://www.ascd.org/ ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/publications/UbD_WhitePaper0312.pdf Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

7 Advanced Placement in Studio Art Assessment and Advocacy Mark Graham

Inspired by my experiences and ongoing exploration as a young Black male in a predominantly White and Hispanic private/isolated arts education, in this “SELF BOOK”, I am bringing awareness to the reality of being isolated while still being apart of a community in order to try and break down the stereotypical ways of thinking when it comes to segregation, judgment, and mental limitations within the African-American people. (Dylan Etienne-Ramsay, Student Design Portfolio Statement, The College Board) I remember feeling blended into society within this world and desperately wanting to stand out … My primary focus is to express to the audience that I existed, that I was here, and that I felt more than what I showed others. (Jessica McElprang, Student Drawing Portfolio Concentration Statement, The College Board)

These commentaries from Advanced Placement in Studio Art Portfolios suggest the complex, sophisticated, and poignant possibilities of adolescent artistic expression. The work that accompanies these statements is visually compelling and thought-provoking. For one week in June, I am a reader for the Advanced Placement Studio Art Portfolio (AP) in Studio Art program and review thousands of student portfolios gathered from schools all over the world. With the scoring rubric in hand, I slowly walk up and down the rows of portfolios, assigning each one a number that corresponds to the detailed assessment rubric that we studied that morning. I am impressed by both the volume and range of work. Some pieces are profoundly moving, exquisitely crafted, daring, and expressive. Other work is awkward and pedestrian in concept and execution. Assessment in visual art is difficult and full of contradictions. Yet, measures of student learning in art are needed for both advocacy and art education policy. If our concerns as art teachers are that students understand art as a way to construct meaning, as a sustained investigation of issues of personal and social importance, it is useful to ask how these concerns are reflected in our assessment of student work. If we value divergent, idiosyncratic, and imaginative outcomes, if experiment is more important than efficiencies, then how can assessments support these values? What do large-scale summative assessments DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-10

ADVANCED PLACEMENT IN STUDIO ART

51

such as the Advanced Placement Portfolio afford or how might they limit learning and arts advocacy policy?

THE PROBLEM FOR ART EDUCATORS Assessments, particularly large-scale assessments, influence funding and educational policy at all levels. Assessments are needed that are compatible with the character of the art experience and that can create reasons and evidence for art education within an educational culture that stresses accountability, testing, and comparing. It is useful to ask if there are ways to assess inventive and divergent learning in ways that communicate the value of art education to those outside the arts without compromising or distorting what is most valuable about the art experience. One response to the need for a visual art assessment is the Advanced Placement Program, which has created a credible assessment of high school artwork. The annual evaluation of AP Portfolios provides an external evaluation of student art making that is both public and rigorous (Graham & Sims-Gunzenhauser, 2009, 2010; Myford & Sims-Gunzenhauser, 2004). The Advanced Placement Program may influence educational policy at the high school level in ways that allow art to become a legitimate and valued part of the secondary educational experience for a broad range of students. The AP Portfolio and assessment rubric define an influential point of view about what is considered important in visual art within a large-scale assessment based primarily on student artwork.

THE ADVANCED PLACEMENT IN STUDIO ART ASSESSMENT The Advanced Placement in Studio Art program is designed to prepare students for entrance to post-secondary schools, by modeling the type of artistic instruction of university level art foundations programs. The AP Art program has defined first-year college courses in drawing, 2D design, and 3D design for secondary students. In 2018, over 60,000 student portfolios were evaluated at the annual AP reading. Many more students participated in AP Studio Art courses without submitting portfolios. Among other things, the AP scoring rubric and other course descriptors emphasize purposeful decision-making using the elements and principles of design (McElroy, 2009). The rubric also describes other attributes of student art, including technical competence, sustained investigation, concept, transformation, growth, originality, experimentation, and student vision. The emphasis for the AP Studio Art Portfolio is on research, experimentation, discovery, inventive thinking, and problem solving. Students and teachers are reminded that there is no preferred or unacceptable content or style. They are instructed to use the elements and principles of art or design to support ideas in an integrative way. The Educational Testing Service (ETS) has developed, and continues to develop, a complex rubric for scoring each of the three portfolios that provides useful descriptors of a range of quality in student work (The College Board, 2023). Personal, sustained investigation is emphasized in the latest, 2019 iteration of course requirements, which eliminate the breadth section of the portfolio, so that the entire portfolio will consist of what is now called sustained investigation. The portfolio requirements are based on surveys of college-level foundation programs and embody prevailing assumptions about art making and the preparation of young artist. The evaluation of AP Portfolios is done in June at one location. The adjudicators are AP Art teachers and university level foundations instructors. The annual portfolio review provides a rare opportunity for high school and university teachers to discuss student art making, curriculum, and teaching. The evaluation of the portfolios includes substantial investment

52

Mark Graham

in training the examiners during the annual reading (Haanstra & Schonau, 2007). In this training, standards and qualities of judgment are discussed at length before and during the evaluation of portfolios. This is a difficult project because any standard of artistic quality can always be represented by multiple kinds of work that may be very different from each other (Boughton, 1997). In the case of visual arts education, the judgment task is complex because the products being judged are expected to reflect original thought and the idiosyncratic character of their creators. One way to make sense of this is to look at the qualities of good judgment and the qualities of a good judge rather than trying to describe the qualities of good art (Boughton, 2016; Gude, 2014). The qualities of a good judge might include nuanced perception developed through long years of artistic and pedagogical practice.

LIMITATIONS Evaluating outcomes based on students’ artworks without recognizing the limitations of product-based arts assessment can lead to a narrowing of arts curriculum and arts experiences for participants. The learning experience can become product-oriented and the values of the process or failed experiments may be marginalized. The AP Portfolio does not consider collaborative work or socially engaged projects, which eliminates many important methodologies of contemporary art making. In some schools, the selection process for AP Art may eliminate students who have no intention to pursue a post-secondary art or design major. An emphasis on learning narrowly defined foundational skills may continue to defeat students whose artistic interests diverge from Modernist notions of art and design. The College Board has attempted to address this limitation by placing more emphasis on sustained investigation, inquiry-based learning, and documentation of process, experimentation, and revision1 (Appendix). Affordances In spite of the limitations of large-scale assessments of student artwork, such assessments can influence advocacy and policy. The AP program has demonstrated its value in establishing art as a credible discipline at the secondary school level (Barney & Graham, 2014; Graham & Sims-Gunzenhauser, 2009). For some schools, a strong AP Art program provides a cogent justification for maintaining or developing art courses at all levels. Participation in an AP course is something that many school leaders and parents see as a standard that is valued in college admissions based on the assumption that the College Board holds teachers and students to high standards of learning that is uniformly assessed. The AP assessment provides one answer to the difficult question; how can student artistry, which has such a subjective and personal character, be assessed in a way that is fair and meaningful? The AP experience gives students an opportunity to develop a body of work that can be used for admission to university level art programs or art school. The rigorous portfolio requirements encourage students to develop habits of sustained investigation and specific artistic skills. For some students, the constraints of the portfolio provide a platform from which divergent artistic directions can be taken.

OBSERVATIONS AND QUESTIONS I have evaluated thousands of AP Portfolios as an AP reader and taught the course many times. I have also observed many other AP Art teachers. What is most interesting to me in the Advanced Placement experience is when students and teacher forget about laying a foundation and focus on more divergent kinds of art making. Some AP teachers make contemporary

ADVANCED PLACEMENT IN STUDIO ART

53

art practices the focus of the course. A personal sustained investigation informed by contemporary art is evident in many of the student portfolios, which demonstrate impressive quality of craft, style, composition, and a wide range of personal visions that reflect a nuanced investigation of ideas and medium. Some teachers use the portfolio requirements to cultivate exceptional student investment in craft and concept. The best teachers I have observed use the constraints of the AP Portfolio as a loose structure for investigation of meaningful ideas. They use the AP test as a way to establish credibility for their own art program, as a way for students to reflect on their work, and a way to encourage sustained investigations of concepts or issues of personal or social importance. The AP Portfolio cannot be the personal, reliable, and knowledgeable teacher that every student needs, but it might make the experience of having such a teacher more of a possibility. In the hands of a capable art teacher, the AP requirements can provide a platform to enable a generous flowering of artistry.

CONCLUSION Assessment in art is notoriously difficult and is probably best approached with skepticism (Gude, 2014). After all, the aim is to encourage the not yet imagined. It requires nuanced subjective judgment and good judges. The most important people in this process are the student and the art teacher. Nevertheless, the field of art education requires robust ways to communicate the value of art learning and art making. The AP Studio Art program has established itself as an influential and credible descriptor and advocate of art education. In the hands of a capable art teacher, a portfolio assessment such as the AP Portfolio can provide a platform for divergent artistic inquiry, exploration, investigation, engagement with ideas, and personally meaningful expression.

NOTE

1 Starting in 2019-20, AP Studio Art: 2-D Design, AP Studio Art: 3-D Design, and AP Studio Art: Drawing became AP 2-D Art and Design, AP 3-D Art and Design, and AP Drawing. The portfolios now have two sections: Sustained Investigation and Selected Works. Students submit fewer required works of art, giving them more time to focus on in-depth, inquiry-based art and design making (The College Board, 2023).

REFERENCES Barney, D., & Graham, M. (2014). The troubling metaphor of foundations in art education: What foundations affords or limits in high school and college art programs. Fate in Review, 31(2013–2014), 46–51. Boughton, D. (2016). Assessment of performance in the visual arts: What how, and why. In A. Karpati, & E. Gaul (Eds.), From child art to visual language of youth (pp. 21–142). Intellect. Boughton, D. (1997). Reconsidering issues of assessment and achievement standards in art education: NAEA studies lecture. Studies in Art Education, 38(4), 199–213. Graham, M. A. & Sims-Gunzenhauser, A. (2009). Advanced placement and secondary policy: Countering the null curriculum. Art Education Policy Review, 110(3), 18–24. Graham, M., & Sims-Gunzenhauser, A. (2010). Advanced placement in studio art and the contested territory of college art foundations. Fate in Review, 29(2010–2011), 26–31. Gude, O. (2014). Skeptical assessment society Manuel Barkan Award Lecture. https://naea.digication.com/omg/ Skeptical_Assessment_Society_posted_June_2014 Haanstra, F., & Schonau, D. (2007). Evaluation research in visual arts education. In L. Bresler (Ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 427–442). Springer Science & Business Media. McElroy, P. (2009). Evaluating the AP portfolio in studio art. The College Board. Myford, C., & Sims-Gunzenhauser, A. (2004). The evolution of large-scale assessment programs in the visual arts. In E. Eisner, & M. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education (pp. 637–666). National Art Education Association. The College Board (2023). AP Studio Art Course Description. Retrieved April, 2023, from https://apcentral.collegeboard. org/courses/about-ap-art-and-design

54

Mark Graham

APPENDIX Advanced Placement in Studio Art Portfolio Updates (The College Board, 2023). Starting in 2019–20: • • •

AP Studio Art: 2-D Design, AP Studio Art: 3-D Design, and AP Studio Art: Drawing will become AP 2-D Art and Design, AP 3-D Art and Design, and AP Drawing. The portfolios will now have two sections: Sustained Investigation and Selected Works. Students will submit fewer required works of art, giving them more time to focus on in-depth, inquiry-based art and design making. Beginning in 2019–20, the AP Art and Design portfolios will each consist of two sections: 1. Sustained Investigation (60% of exam score) For all three portfolios, students will submit images and writing to document their inquiry-guided investigation through practice, experimentation, and revision: • A minimum of 15 digital images that include works of art and design and process documentation. • Typed responses to prompts, providing information about the questions that guided their investigation and how they practiced, experimented, and revised, guided by their questions. 2. Selected Works (40% of exam score) For all three portfolios, students will submit works of art and design and writing to demonstrate skillful synthesis of materials, processes, and ideas: • For AP 2-D Art and Design and AP Drawing: five physical works or high-quality reproductions of physical works with written responses on paper describing the materials, processes, and ideas used. • For AP 3-D Art and Design: Digital images of five works (two views of each) with typed responses describing the materials, processes, and ideas used.

With the elimination of the Range of Approaches (Breadth) section of the current portfolios, students can focus on in-depth, inquiry-based art and design making; on skillful synthesis of materials, processes, and ideas; and on articulating information about their work. These updates are designed to better support inquiry-based learning, encouraging students to document their sustained investigation of materials, processes, and ideas through practice, experimentation, and revision. The updated portfolios are open to diverse approaches to thinking and making, aligning with college, university, and contemporary disciplinary practices. The Advanced Placement Program® (AP) enables willing and academically prepared students to pursue college-level studies while still in high school. Benefits include standing out on college applications, earning college credit, and/or skipping introductory courses in college. The College Board encourages the elimination of barriers that restrict access to AP courses for students from ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic groups that have been traditionally underrepresented in the AP Program. Schools should make every effort to ensure that their AP classes reflect the diversity of their student population. The AP Program does not supply syllabi for AP courses. The College Board provides detailed expectations about what content a college-level course in that subject should cover. AP teachers design their own syllabi with these standards in mind.

8 Internationale Baccalaureate Art Educators as Leaders in Models of Student Thinking and Assessing What Matters Roger D. Tomhave

The tide is turning, the pendulum is swinging, and we are on the precipice of a great opportunity for art education and for our art teachers across the land. The era of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is slowly coming to an end, and we in art education need to be ready to lead the way as the educational community moves away from rote learning, teaching to the test, and one size fits all, one right answer expectations of student learning. Signs are all around us. Which ones are you seeing and hearing? The proliferation of makerspaces both in and out of schools, project-based learning discussions across school subjects and disciplines, performance-based assessments discussions, and more seem to be going on all around us as if they are new and exciting methodologies. As I was writing this essay, I attended my monthly Professional Education Coordinating Council (PECC) meeting at my university. Representatives from all teacher licensure programs and invited school personnel were in attendance to hear the report from our local consortium meeting. The notes from the larger consortium meeting, comprising representatives from four universities and seven school systems, reported the lack of teacher expertise and preparation for project-based learning. No clear definition was given of project-based learning, but there was general consensus that we weren’t ready for it. New teachers had grown up in the era of NCLB focused on rote learning. I stated that my current class of seniors in college, who would be student teaching next semester, were in Kindergarten when NCLB was enacted. Our PECC lamented a whole generation of students’ expectations for needing to know the one right answer to put on the standardized test, “Just tell me what it is!” as if the world operates in black and white, right and wrong, and one right answer solutions. I felt hopeful and gratified knowing that in the visual arts, we had always been about project-based learning in our teacher training. We could be leaders in helping other disciplines to find their way back to strong, critical thinking skill models that could reach far beyond the walls of our classrooms (Figure 8.1). But are we ready? Do we know what it is that we want for our students? Could we clearly articulate it? Are we prepared to lead the way in tide-turning educational discussions? At the Fall Conference of the Virginia Art Education Association, Dr. Barbara Laws and I, in our session entitled “Artmaking and More”, asked approximately 40 attending art teachers to DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-11

56

Roger D. Tomhave

FIGURE 8.1  Pendulum of learning

divide into four groups and discuss the following questions as we pushed them to be clear about what it is that we stand for in the educational discussion post-NCLB. • • • •

What do we really want students to know, understand, and be able to do as a result of an art education? What dispositions do we ultimately want our students to exhibit? What are our expectations for how students use artistic processes? What is our role in helping students… • • • •

build their own skills and techniques to be used independently? develop their own visual voices? communicate their own ideas? understand that they are part of an artistic continuum?

What Dr. Laws and I were heartened to hear was that the teachers were all in agreement that teaching thinking skills is among the most important skills that we want our students to gain as a part of an art education. They also named the importance of learning media skills, elements of art and principles of designs, culturally diverse and relevant artwork—both historic and contemporary from around the world, arriving at critical and informed judgments about works in the arts, creativity/innovation, collaboration, and many more dispositional descriptors such as respect, appreciation for, and acceptance of others and their points of view. In fact, their comments were very much in alignment with 21st-century skills (http:// www.p21.org/about-us/p21-framework). Our follow-up observations, based on teacher responses, were as follows: •

Shouldn’t all of our art education goals and objectives include student thinking and personal solutions in response to artistic challenges? Shouldn’t these goals be the ones

INTERNATIONALE BACCALAUREATE

• • • • •

57

that we are assessing as to whether students are making progress over time toward higher and higher levels of achievement? Can we any longer be satisfied with teacher-solved problems in which students simply follow the teacher’s steps toward a “successful” conclusion? Instead, shouldn’t we be expecting and assessing student-solved responses to an art teacher’s challenges? Aren’t media, techniques, elements of art, principles of design, and other art learnings merely tools for independent art making decisions that enhance the student’s visual communication skills and visual literacy? Shouldn’t we expect divergent thinking, support complexity in art making, and develop independent visual voices? At all grade levels? Whose exploration are our lessons based upon, ours or theirs? Who is making the decisions, teachers or students?

Our conclusion? You can always tell by looking at the resultant work of the students. Choice-empowered students, in response to great challenges, do not naturally converge in their thinking; they diverge. In my opinion, if all resulting student works look alike based on a teacher-solved problem in which students merely participate in the activity to a single, convergent, “successful” final project, we are doing no better in teaching thinking skills than do rote learning exercises and teaching to the test. In my own research, with the study of comprehensive art education curricula in mind, I compared Advanced Placement (AP) Studio Art practices and assessments to Internationale Baccalaureate (IB) Visual Art practices and assessments for high school juniors and seniors. At the time, I was the visual art supervisor for over 200 public schools in the 12th largest public school system in the nation, which included 25 high schools. These high schools were in the midst of determining whether to offer AP college preparation courses or IB high school diploma programs. As an end result, 12 high schools opted for AP, 12 schools went the route of IB, and one high school determined to offer both. As the art supervisor, I would often be asked which of these programs I felt was superior in relationship to visual arts education. My own experience told me that the answer to this question was dependent on how you judged “superior”. I was very familiar with AP Studio Art, and that it was essentially productoriented, at least in its ultimate assessment, since the result of whatever instruction occurred, or whatever artwork was made, was images of final student products alone being sent on to the College Boards for AP adjudication. However, I found IB Visual Art curricula to be very process-oriented, expecting students to do independent research, keep a research workbook, portfolio, research in comparative visual studies, sketches, planning matrices, critiques, and final products. Then, an IB adjudicator would come to the school and interview the students. They would see the students’ research workbooks, artist statements, and other portfolio evidence, and see an exhibition of the students’ resulting works. For this interview, the students needed to be prepared to present their independent research, visual communications, written work, and orally respond to the adjudicator’s questions. Recognizing that IB Studio Art expected evidence far beyond the “product” of projectbased learning, I was interested in the following question (pertinent in this essay) among three that I had posed. Will students enrolled in Advanced Placement Studio Art who receive an [Internationale Baccalaureate Visual Art] treatment requiring that time be spent learning in the disciplines of art history, art criticism, and aesthetics, as well as time spent learning and practicing oral and written presentation skills, score the same on studio-based portfolio assessments as Advanced Placement Studio Art students who do not have these additional requirements? (Tomhave, 1999, p. 4)

58

Roger D. Tomhave

All AP Studio Art teachers who taught in the school system were eligible for the experimental study designed to respond to this question and more. Six schools’ AP Studio Art teachers and their students were originally randomly selected for the experimental group from among 12 possible. By the beginning of the school year, however, three of the six schools selected were dropped from the experiment because they did not have enough student registration to warrant offering AP Studio courses the year of the study. Nine AP Studio Art teachers and their students were a part of the control group. The three teachers and their students selected for the experimental group were brought together for a one-day training session during the summer in which they learned to deliver IB Visual Art course syllabi and assessment rubrics in the manner recommended by the Internationale Baccalaureate Organisation (www.ibo.org). Experienced and successful IB Visual Art teachers were brought in to oversee the training and to ensure that clear expectations and goals of the program were delivered. Each experienced IB teacher presented, in turn, the training that they had received in the delivery of IB, and described how the program was working currently at each of his/her schools. At the end of the presentations, teachers in the experimental group were allowed to ask questions of the IB teachers to gain clarification on specific areas of delivery. Where there were variations on a theme among the IB teachers, an agreed upon course of action was determined so that consistent delivery of instruction, methodology, and assessments could be achieved by the experimental teachers. The teachers in the experimental group were instructed to follow IB methodology throughout the teaching of their AP studio course. Parents, teachers, and schools signed on to participate. Additionally, the teachers were instructed to provide the students with the course syllabus and assessment information the first day of class. The teachers agreed to use the same comprehensive, portfolio assessment form with their students four times during the school year, once at the end of each quarter. During each of these assessment sessions, the student would perform a self-assessment of their developing portfolio according to the six criteria in the assessment form. They would then write comments rationalizing the selection of their rubric score for each criterion. The teacher would next assess the portfolio using the same criteria and respond to the students’ comments in writing. Finally, the student and teacher would orally discuss the scores and comments. Near the end of the year, both AP Studio Art control group portfolio images and IB Studio Art experimental group portfolio images were sent to the College Boards for AP adjudication. As an end result, when the AP adjudications’ scores were returned to the students from the College Boards, no significant difference was found between the score of experimental and control group artworks. Excellent AP scores’ ratings are all about, and only about, what can be discerned from the student’s artwork. Though time had been taken away from making artwork to meet all of the other requirements of IB Visual Arts, there was no discernable difference in the scoring of these works from those of the control group; AP portfolio works. Yet, at the highest level of scoring, an IB Visual Art student’s assessment ventures far beyond the assessment of the final artworks. At the highest level of IB assessment, an interviewed student: Demonstrates in-depth and comprehensive knowledge and understanding of the media used with precise use of terminology to communicate this understanding. Highly effective use of research, investigation and technical skills. In-depth understanding of artistic intention and engagement with the artistic process demonstrated in consistent development of ideas, creativity and critical reflection. (www.ibo.org)

Through insistence upon seeing and hearing about the student’s process, and not solely product, measures are in place to ask about, read about, and otherwise examine students’

INTERNATIONALE BACCALAUREATE

59

thinking processes. To me, one of the most interesting indications, in connection with convergent vs. divergent thinking on the part of students, was that the resulting work of AP Studio Art students appeared more convergent. The work could be discerned by school and by teacher from which it came, and seemed based on student responses to teacher-provided assignments, similar in style and approach. The resulting work of IB Visual Art-trained students appeared more divergent based on students’ independent thinking and visual solutions to independently researched and personally directed challenges in their art making. Are we ready to be leaders in an emphasis on student independent thinking in education? As we determine our role in the changing tide toward student thinking skills as important aspects of education, I believe that approaches such as those found in IB Visual Art warrant more study, and not only for students enrolled in such courses. It is my recommendation that if we are to lead the way in a pendulum swing back to student thinking as opposed to rote learning, IB Visual Art is a model methodology including assessment strategies that get to the heart of and intentionally assess for divergent student thinking.

REFERENCES Internationale Baccalaureate Organisation. www.ibo.org P21 Partnership for 21st Century Learning. http://www.p21.org/about-us/p21-framework Tomhave, R. D. (1999). Portfolio assessment in the visual arts: A comparison of advanced secondary art education strategies [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Minnesota.

9 Studio Thinking and Assessment in High School Visual Art Lois Hetland

Assessment in the arts is vexed and visual arts teachers face severe challenges. On one hand, accountability—the ghost of Behaviorism—and efforts to affirm the status of art as equal in value to scholarly subjects, pressure teachers to assign grades by using rubrics or, worse, tests. Authenticity to artistic practice, on the other hand, suggests using alternate forms of assessment traditional to artistic practice and based on critique, review, exhibition, artist notebooks, and/or processfolios (Council of Arts Accrediting Organizations, 2007; Winner, 1991). High student:teacher ratios create daunting obstacles for teachers who differentiate assessment of individual students progressing along unique pathways of artistic growth. Teachers, again, are caught between a rock and hard place. Yet, it’s the professional privilege and responsibility of teachers to decide what needs to be assessed and why. Vestiges of Behaviorism still haunt our schools, even though the heyday of that theory was ended by the cognitive revolution in the 1950s (Gardner, 1987). Behaviorism does exist in useful ways in schools, such as structuring settings for neurodiverse learners. It also persists in outmoded ways, such as the expectation that teachers set “Behavioral Objectives” and conduct assessment using “measurable outcomes,” even though Behaviorism, the doctrine on which such practices sit, asserts that the mind is not an appropriate subject of psychological study! “Tests” and “finished work” are weak proxies for what educators really strive to nurture in students—the internalization of disciplinary dispositions that mirror the embodied minds of field experts—but these assessment practices hold sway in schools. That is not only a problem in the arts, although it may be most obvious here where it collides so starkly with disciplinary practices. All school subjects struggle with how to index disciplinary achievement, whether that’s in comparison to self (growth) or others (ranking). How should student learning be judged? What are valid (checking what experts generally accept, in this case, as artistic) ways to assess what students need to learn, and assess that reliably (checks that hold over time and across different evaluators)? Here, I explore how using the Studio Thinking Framework (Hetland et al., 2007, 2013; Hogan et al., 2018; Sheridan et al., 2022) as an assessment lens might support high school visual arts teachers in facing some of the challenges that assessment presents. DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-12

STUDIO THINKING AND ASSESSMENT IN HIGH SCHOOL VISUAL ART

61

STUDIO THINKING IN BRIEF The goal of quality arts education is for all students to develop well-rounded, artistic minds appropriate to their developmental level. This means that what is taught—the curriculum— needs to allow opportunities for students to use all of the habits, and to do so with skill (Can they do it?), inclination to use them (Will they do it?), and alertness about when to deploy them (Do they know when and why to do it?). (Hogan et al., 2018, p. 112)

The Studio Thinking Framework, created through research conducted at Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education, from 2001 to 2010, asserts that the purpose of curriculum and assessment is to support development of students’ artistic minds; that prepares them to use the lenses of artistic expertise in diverse contexts across their lives, whether as artists or members of the general public. The framework was not designed for assessment—or for any specific practice. Rather, through ethnographic research methods based on observed classroom practice, it was developed to describe what teachers intend visual arts students to learn (Hetland et al., 2007, 2013; Sheridan et al., 2022). How the framework is used derives from the practices of teachers who have found it of value. The Studio Thinking Framework has two parts: Studio Structures and Studio Habits of Mind. The four Studio Structures are Demonstration-Lecture (or Teacher Presents), Students at Work, Critique (or Talking About Art), and Exhibition (or Showing Art); teachers mix and match versions of these structures when planning instruction to organize time, space, and interactions in their studio classrooms. For assessment, all but Demonstration-Lectures— and even those when students conduct them and reveal assessable content—make student learning visible; thus, the structures provide opportunities for assessment. The eight Studio Habits of Mind make up the other part of Studio Thinking. These categories have become well-known over the 20+ years since their identification, and many teachers, schools, and districts use them to organize planning, instruction, and assessment. Please see our website for definitions and other resources: http://www.studiothinking.org/ the-framework.html Assessment using Studio Habits of Mind is made up of a series of iterative checks on the development of artistic mind and how that shows up in students’ studio practice and artifacts; finished artworks are but one indicator. The habits serve as lenses to view minds from different angles; the projects students make and the structures they participate in reveal different instances of artistic thinking and action (i.e., understanding, from a performance perspective) (Blythe & The Researchers and Teachers of the Teaching for Understanding Project, 1998; Wiske, 1998). Because the eight habits are dispositions—that is, they comprise skills, inclination to use skills, and alertness to know when to do so—it’s important to look for evidence of all three elements of each disposition when assessing and not to settle for skill alone. That’s a lot of moving parts. How can teachers begin to manage the assessment of such complexity?

CHALLENGE: WHAT TYPE OF ASSESSMENT? Our most recent books, Studio Thinking 3: The Real Benefits of Visual Arts Education (Sheridan et al., 2022) and, Studio Thinking from the Start: The K-8 Art Educator’s Handbook (Hogan et al., 2018), include chapters on assessment which detail our thinking about using Studio Habits as assessment lenses. Here, I want to address the crux of the issue of what to assess— and why: Of what benefit and potential harm are formative assessment—“gathering information about students through observation, documenting that information, interpreting it, and

62

Lois Hetland

communicating conclusions to various audiences” (Hogan et al., 2018, p. 108)—and summative assessment—what “adds up” to a final grade? As assessment tools, Studio Habits of Mind have mainly been used in ongoing, formative assessment. Perhaps that is because summative assessment often violates the fundamental premise of medicine, which should also be education’s foundation: “First, do no harm.” We are not convinced that summative assessment is necessary, nor that it benefits anyone. On the other hand, we see several ways in which it can harm students and teachers—by convincing students not to bother with art because they learn early on that “they aren’t good at it”; by demoralizing teachers who strive to engage every child in artistic inquiry; and by forcing teachers to succumb to assessing only what is easy to see (technical skill and/or knowledge of art history or vocabulary) at the expense of assessing important qualities of artistic thinking. We challenge those who insist on summative assessment in art to persuade us that its benefits outweigh its potential harm. (Hogan et al., 2018, p. 108)

Of course, simply stating our aversion to summative assessment of students does not change what most teachers are required to do: assign final grades. When required, teachers need to grade in ways that are as helpful to students as possible. Then, they can spend their real energy focusing on how to motivate and support students in learning, including by using formative assessment. Please see the article in this volume by JoE Douillette (Chapter 20) for an example of how one high school teacher uses the Studio Habits of Mind as a lens both to support his students’ learning and to grade them. Also see the profiles about JoE’s, Todd Elkin’s, and Kimberley D’Adamo’s assessment practices in Studio thinking 3 (Sheridan et al., 2022).

CHALLENGE: OVER-ASSESSING SKILL IN TECHNIQUE There is tyranny in linking the quality of objects students make to judgments of their developing minds, so teachers need to think carefully about how much emphasis to place on assessing elements and principles of modernist aesthetics in finished works. Focusing on final products to the exclusion of information revealed during the making process hides much that educators need if they are to make valid judgments of what matters most. Viewing objects made by students readily reveals qualities of craft, but there is more to know even about technique than finished student works reveal. I worry that even within the category “Develop Craft: Technique,” over-attention to skill in technique ignores and potentially eclipses the other two dispositional aspects of Develop Craft, which is only one-eighth of a full artistic mind. For example, judgments about craft frequently neglect an investigation of how and how well a student strives to attain high-quality craft (inclination). Focusing overly on skill in technique also reduces attention to students’ sophistication in recognizing when and where to use particular techniques (alertness). Teachers may wonder whether these aspects of Craft are as important as the aesthetic success or failure of a particular object. I believe inclination and alertness are more important, because that object is only one moment in an evolving stream of works that students make. If judgment about one object disrupts or does not fuel the student’s passion (inclination) and sensitivity to opportunity (alertness) to make work well, then the assessment has done a disservice to learning and learner, and to educators who mean to nurture growth. And, those limitations do not even consider the neglect of the other half of Develop Craft: Studio Practice, which also has skill, inclination, and alertness to consider. Without internalization of Studio Practice, students do not develop the resources that support participation in visual art in any role (e.g., maker, audience) across their lifetimes.

STUDIO THINKING AND ASSESSMENT IN HIGH SCHOOL VISUAL ART

63

CHALLENGE: SEEING THE OTHER SEVEN DISPOSITIONS Over-valuing technique in final works can readily fail the student and the educator by undervaluing other artistic modes of thinking. In final works, reviewers can see Craft, guess at expression (how the student understands meaning in artworks), and possibly evince a few other habits of mind—Understand Art Worlds: Domain, for example, if there are obvious visual connections to work of other artists or designers. The rest of the habits are revealed best in the process itself and in its documentation. Using documentation, teachers and students can identify areas of growth by comparing developments in works, actions, and talk or text throughout making and over time. Seeing what students make, do, and say through the lenses of each Studio Habit allows both teachers and students to attend to strengths, gaps, and weaknesses, and to make explicit decisions about how to address these. When process is well-documented, comparisons among works by the student and by other artists, both peers and professionals, reveal connections to broader artistic discourses. That is a move essential to the developmental level of high school students, who may see their work as “for myself alone.” All this implies that assessment must rely on more than completed work, which is only one snapshot of a single event in a series of artistic endeavors. Remember: Student artwork is not the teachers’ product—although its quality is certainly what students themselves must chase, just as professional artists do. Educators, though, need to be driven and alert to their students’ choices and decisions throughout the process of making so that they can rightly judge the product that matters most: not the works, but the student’s mind. For these reasons, documentation is essential to valid assessment that emphasizes the quality of process and, hence, the internalization of artistic dispositions. Once a progression of thought is documented—including revisions of what students make from inception (idea finding) to resolution, what students say (during desk-, in-process-, and final-critiques), and what they do (actions that reveal their choices and decisions throughout the process) —the other seven Studio Habits and how students connect them become visible. Since assessment is, at root, observation, comparison, and interpretation, that is the core of how Studio Habits serve assessment and learning.

CHALLENGE: HOW DO TEACHERS COPE? There is no easy solution to the assessment dilemmas teachers face—they can only be managed (Lampert, 1985). The Studio Thinking Framework can assist teachers in doing so by helping them do the following: emphasize formative assessment, keep the entire artistic mind in view through documentation, share the Studio Habits with students, ask students to conduct iterative, ongoing self-assessment using these lenses, and assign grades in ways that do no harm to the development of the fragile, artistic minds evolving in each student’s own unique manner.

REFERENCES Blythe, T., & The Researchers and Teachers of the Teaching for Understanding Project (1998). The teaching for understanding guide. Jossey-Bass. Council of Arts Accrediting Organizations (2007). Achievement and quality: Higher education in the arts. Council of Arts Accrediting Organizations. https://www.arts-accredit.org/council-of-arts-accrediting-associations/achievementquality/ Gardner, H. (1987). The mind’s new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. Basic Books. Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. (2007). Studio thinking: The real benefits of visual arts education. Teachers College.

64

Lois Hetland

Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. (2013). Studio thinking 2: The real benefits of visual arts education. Teachers College. Hogan, J., Hetland, L., Jaquith, D., & Winner, E. (2018). Studio thinking from the start: The k-8 art educator’s handbook. Teachers College. Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55(2), 178–194. Sheridan, K., Veenema, S., Winner, E., & Hetland, L. (2018). Studio thinking 3: The real benefits of visual arts education. Teachers College. Winner, E. (Ed.). (1991). Arts PROPEL: An introductory handbook. Project Zero at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and Educational Testing Service. Wiske, M. S. (Ed.). (1998). Teaching for understanding: Linking research with practice. Jossey-Bass.

10 Assessment Literacy and edTPA Seeing the Bigger Picture Debrah C. Sickler-Voigt

Seeing the bigger picture in art education involves teachers’ abilities to take panoramic views of all aspects of teaching and learning to plan tasks, apply instructional methodologies, and integrate appropriate assessments. Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity’s edTPA is a performance assessment designed by education professionals and distributed by Pearson to measure pre-service teachers’ readiness to teach and their abilities to see the bigger picture (Pearson Education, 2018). Pre-service teachers, called teacher candidates, are prompted to apply their knowledge of assessment throughout edTPA’s three tasks—planning, instruction, and assessment—and submit evidence of their effectiveness as educators through multimedia portfolios. Given these expectations, teacher candidates benefit from being prepared to enter the edTPA experience as assessment-literate practitioners who recognize that there are multiple ways to qualitatively appraise student dispositions, quantitatively measure learning outcomes, and analyze their teaching (Chappuis et al., 2012; Sickler-Voigt, 2020). They attain this ability by learning and applying assessments during their pre-service studies and continue to enhance their knowledge during their edTPA clinical residency and beyond by studying existing scholarship on assessment. Given a solid foundation, assessment-literate art educators have the ability to use their professional knowledge to cultivate students’ potential. Assessment-literate teachers can explain the meanings of learning tasks and describe how and why they assess students to make teaching and learning most effective. They also take steps to identify what successful teaching and assessment mean to them and are self-directed in finding solutions to challenges. This chapter addresses holistic approaches to employing assessment literacy skills to prepare personally driven edTPA teaching portfolios that center on best teaching and assessment practices and can serve as a general guide to facilitate teaching, learning, and assessment beyond edTPA.

USING ASSESSMENTS TO PLAN AND CULTIVATE STUDENT LEARNING Quality, well-planned art lessons combine teachers’ professional knowledge with student learning needs and meaningful subject matter. Teacher candidates must demonstrate evidence that they have pre-assessed the classroom learning environment and identified DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-13

66

Debrah C. Sickler-Voigt

relevant context, including students’ diversified abilities and their prior learning to make connections between students and the lessons they will be teaching. All lessons must be developmentally appropriate and link student performances to standards, artistic behaviors, and the dispositions valued in the visual arts, such as creativity, problem solving, and experimentation (Douglas & Jaquith, 2018; Hetland et al., 2013; Sickler-Voigt, 2015). Planning and assessment in the visual arts are unique from other disciplines because most learning outcomes are performance-based, meaning that students are expected to perform by producing products and performances that include developing artworks, portfolios, critiques, and presentations (Chappuis et al., 2012; Etheridge, 2018; Sabol, 2018). edTPA calls upon teacher candidates to present subject matter in context to promote student inquiry through big ideas, essential questions, and global artistic productions. Many desired learning outcomes in the visual arts require multiple steps to complete. Applying a backward design approach (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) to edTPA planning can help teacher candidates identify curricular goals and their associated assessments as they develop sequential lessons that teach art production, inquiry, and academic language skills and break complex learning tasks into manageable portions to design an original unit of study that consists of three to five lessons, called a learning segment. Teacher candidates unify the lessons within their learning segment by selecting a central focus.

INSTRUCTING WITH INFORMAL AND FORMATIVE ASSESSMENTS Informal assessment is the most common form of assessment. Assessment-literate art educators begin instruction with informal assessments that include direct observations and wait time so that they can determine if students are ready to learn and instruction can begin. Teachers’ informal assessments continue throughout the learning process and become a natural component of the classroom routine (Marzano, 2007). They assist teacher candidates in building a positive rapport, anticipating students’ needs, reinforcing productive behaviors, and stopping off-task ones before they escalate. Like informal assessment, formative assessment is an important part of instruction. Formative assessment includes qualitative methods such as teacher observations, oral discussions, and directed questioning (Meier, 2018; National Art Education Association, 2017). When teachers integrate formative assessments into their instruction, students have multiple means to attain learning targets because teachers check for understanding and help students work through challenges before submitting works for summative grades. During instruction, teacher candidates must construct logical pathways for students to learn information in context as they guide students through open-ended objectives that provide curricular choices and make connections to students’ interests, cultures, and/or communities. The edTPA learning segment integrates the National Visual Arts Standards’ framework of creating, presenting, responding, and connecting (National Coalition for Core Arts Standards, 2014b). Students create art, learn about art’s rich history, apply academic language to diversified learning tasks, and participate in inquiry methods to make personally driven connections. Due to the comprehensive nature of the learning segment, students benefit when teacher candidates present instructional requirements formatively. For example, teacher candidates can create “I can” statements that break down complex objectives into manageable tasks to assist students in reaching them (Moss & Brookhart, 2012). Additionally, teacher candidates can develop checklists and rubrics and teach students how to use them as formative assessment tools. Teacher candidates should model how students can refer to them independently to self-assess their progress. They can orally reinforce their content with students who are developing language skills and/or need additional teacher guidance and

ASSESSMENT LITERACY AND edTPA

67

accommodations. In addition to benefiting students, formative assessments are useful tools for teacher candidates to self-assess the effectiveness of their instructional methodologies and plan revisions to instruction to facilitate student learning.

ANALYZING, INTERPRETING, AND PRESENTING THROUGH ASSESSMENT edTPA requires teacher candidates to analyze, interpret, and present the results of their planning, instruction, and assessments in the form of a portfolio that includes quantitative assessments that result in numeric scores and qualitative assessments that appraise student dispositions. Teacher candidates can also utilize mixed method approaches to assessment by interpreting the results of quantitative assessments using qualitative reflections as selfassessments in teacher journals, educational blogs, and professional conversations (Giobbia, 2018; Meier, 2018). Furthermore, when teacher candidates explain how their planning, instruction, and assessments connect to established educational theories and best practices, they demonstrate how they have used their edTPA portfolios to present a bigger picture. This ability enables teacher candidates to showcase how they have modeled professional practices in personally meaningful ways. For example, teacher candidates may have incorporated some of the best practices identified in the Model Cornerstone Assessments (National Coalition for Core Arts Standards, 2014a) and also focused on ways to develop a choice-based art curriculum (Douglas & Jaquith, 2018; Sickler-Voigt, 2020, 2023). The completed edTPA portfolio will contain evidence, including instructional videos, student artworks, targeted class discourse related to the learning segment’s central focus, use of academic art vocabulary, and written commentaries. Because the edTPA learning segment involves multiple learning tasks, teacher candidates will need to explain how they selected the best assessments and instructional methodologies to measure and appraise student learning outcomes. They will articulate how their applications of informal and formative assessments resulted in student growth. For instance, a focus student described in the assessment section might have made successful revisions to an artwork based on an informal assessment such as a teacher-student interview or an in-process class critique. Perhaps teacher candidates performed a pretest to predetermine students’ competencies before instruction began. Teacher candidates might have developed a rubric with open-ended objectives as a formative assessment to guide students during an art production task and then used it as a summative assessment to grade students’ completed artworks. They might have developed checklists to assist students as they created artist statements, wrote essays about art, and/or developed presentations so that they would understand and apply essential qualities and graded criteria. They can also provide evidence of how they utilized authentic assessments to measure and appraise student growth that has applications and worth beyond the course of study to foster lifelong learning skills.

SEEING THE BIGGER PICTURE: PLANNING, INSTRUCTION, AND ASSESSMENT BEYOND edTPA Investing the time and effort necessary to produce a high-quality edTPA portfolio should not be merely for the sake of passing a test. Rather, the performance assessment will have an intrinsic value when teacher candidates use it as a means to see the bigger picture and apply it as a foundation for navigating their professional teaching careers (Sickler-Voigt, 2018). Teacher candidates’ designs of edTPA planning, instruction, and assessment tasks should make authentic connections to their teaching philosophies. Like the backward design approach teachers apply to curriculum development, teacher candidates should reflect on

68

Debrah C. Sickler-Voigt

their professional goals and the outcomes they want students to achieve. After they complete their edTPA residency, they can prepare for employment by identifying relevant pre-service experiences that include developing their edTPA portfolios and using assessment literacy skills. They can articulate how students made deep connections to learning processes under their guidance as well as describe their future aspirations for becoming great art educators who care about students and know how to utilize their professional skills and life experiences to design, teach, and assess a rigorous choice-based art curriculum that meets and exceeds student learning needs.

REFERENCES Chappuis, J., Stiggins, R., Chappuis, S., & Arter, J. (2012). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right—Using it well (2nd ed.). Pearson. Douglas, K. M., & Jaquith, D. B. (2018). Engaging learners through artmaking: Choice-based art education in the classroom (TAB) (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press. Etheridge, J. (2018). Experimenting with assessment: A yearlong process. https://www.arteducators.org/learn-tools/ assessment-papers-for-art-education Giobbia, T. (2018). Using blogs and ePortfolios to assess student growth in middle and secondary school art classrooms in West Virginia: A cross-case analysis. https://www.arteducators.org/learn-tools/assessment-white-papers-for-art-education Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. (2013). Studio thinking 2: The real benefits of visual arts education. Teacher’s College Press. Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching. ASCD. Meier, M. E. (2018). Assess what matters most: Recommendations for gathering information about student learning. https:// www.arteducators.org/learn-tools/assessment-white-papers-for-art-education Moss, C. M., & Brookhart, S. M. (2012). Learning targets: Helping students aim for understanding in today’s lesson. ASCD. National Art Education Association. (2017). Formative assessment for learning in the visual arts. National Art Education Association. National Coalition for Core Arts Standards. (2014a). National Core Arts Standards. https://www.nationalartsstandards.org National Coalition for Core Arts Standards. (2014b). National Core Arts Standards: A conceptual framework for arts learning. https://www.nationalartsstandards.org/content/national-core-arts-standards Pearson Education. (2018). edTPA. http://www.edtpa.com/Home.aspx Sabol, F. R. (2018). Model Cornerstone Assessments (MCAs): A powerful tool for measuring student achievement in visual arts education. https://www.arteducators.org/learn-tools/assessment-white-papers-for-art-education Sickler-Voigt, D. C. (2015). Big ideas in children’s artistic development. http://arted.us/development.html Sickler-Voigt, D. C. (2018). Changing mindsets about edTPA: From test anxiety to demonstrating teacher competencies through authentic teaching and assessment practices. https://www.arteducators.org/learn-tools/assessment-whitepapers-for-art-education Sickler-Voigt, D. C. (2020). Teaching and learning in art education: Cultivating students’ potential from pre-k through high school. Routledge. Sickler-Voigt, D. C. (2023). STEAM teaching and learning through the arts and design: A practical guide for pk-12 educators. Routledge. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Pearson.

11 The Danielson Framework for Teacher Evaluation and Student Assessment Samantha Goss

A critical part of any meaningful educator evaluation is an assessment of the student learning that has occurred under the teacher’s guidance. Just as one standardized test score should not be representative of a student’s abilities, achievements, and future success, teacher evaluation must be considered holistically through appropriate tools. Portfolios provide a better way to document both student achievement and teacher effectiveness. However, portfolios that are limited to just summative assessments of teaching through finished student artwork and external awards may also be at best partial, and at worse misleading, to the effectiveness of teaching. An accurate portfolio of teaching needs to include dynamic data of formative assessment with students. This becomes particularly complex in an art classroom where educators aspire to a dynamic of social/emotional learning outcomes in addition to traditional assessments that focus on the form of art objects and creative interpretation. Documenting formative, processoriented assessments, that form the basis of personal evaluation, is a new concept for many educators. Therefore, teachers require adequate training in the use of these assessment and evaluation tools, and the allocation of sufficient time to properly implement them. The Danielson Framework for Teaching (Danielson Group, 2017), developed by former classroom teacher Charlotte Danielson and in widespread national use, was designed to support teacher growth, but can also be used as a teacher evaluation tool. The Framework is a detailed rubric for scoring four different domains, covering 22 essential components, of observed teacher practice that are evaluated across four classification of achievement: Unsatisfactory, Basic, Proficient, and Distinguished (Danielson Group, 2017). Within this matrix, the Framework’s criteria provide a detailed map for “knowing what to do next” (Eisner, 2002, p. 170) to advance to exemplary performance. The Illinois State Board of Education now mandates that all school districts adopt the Danielson Framework, or a variation of it, as their basis for teacher evaluation. Consequently, Illinois teacher education programs, to prepare pre-service teachers for professional evaluation, must adopt this Framework as well. Using a Framework like Danielson’s could ideally provide evaluators and teachers with a less subjective evaluation, a guide for professional discussion on practice, and a shared language (Kraft & Gilmour, 2016). The Danielson Framework articulates what the progression toward expert teaching looks like and offers DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-14

70

Samantha Goss

significant insight into the kind of assessment data that provides evidence of students’ learning. Teachers need to have student learning data that address the criteria by which they will be evaluated. With its emphasis of formative assessment, Danielson changes the game for what student learning in an art classroom is supposed to look like. However, as promising as the Danielson Framework is for more fine-grained models of student assessment, its language may still be overly ambiguous to capture the rich social/ emotional learning that occurs in the visual arts classroom. I will discuss how the Danielson Framework might be revised to further articulate the kinds of thoughtful forms of classroom assessment that I have seen highly accomplished high school art teachers employ.

THE DANIELSON FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHING The Framework provides a constructivist conception of teaching and learning. The four domains cover planning and preparation, the classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities. The Danielson Group highly recommends training on the framework for all the school staff, including evaluators and teachers. Implementation with informed goals and attitudes is important for using this tool for holistic, supportive, growthfocused evaluation, especially for art teachers. In Illinois, it is not unusual for a school to train at least one teacher as an internal Danielson coach. The domains and their subparts work well for professional educators who approach their individual evaluation with positive intentions, a vision of solid educational goals, and a socially inclusive attitude that every child can achieve more tomorrow than today. However, some of the language in the framework limits certain components and does not provide for the full range of achievement that Distinguished teachers achieve. As an example, the Danielson Framework is concerned that expert teachers demonstrate respect for and rapport with students. Feminist educational philosopher Nel Noddings (2013)—who is best known for advocating attention to care as a component of successful teaching—contends that the exemplary teaching of care requires that the teacher demonstrate engrossment. She claims that engrossment—a dedicated and authentic commitment to knowing another person—is a critical component for engaging in reciprocal caring, which is the educational point of establishing respect and rapport in a classroom. Noddings sees this quality of pedagogical practice as important for valid empathy. Furthermore, for art educators, it underpins authentic socially engaged art.1 However, the Danielson Framework fails to articulate this higher range of caring that characterizes Distinguished teaching. Noddings’ concept of engrossment is not prohibited in the Danielson Framework; it is simply a higher level of performance than is captured in the Framework’s rubric for Distinguished teaching. As a result, this aspect of high achievement (widely practiced in art education) remains an invisible a rung above the Framework’s ladder. Therefore, art educators may need to critically deconstruct the Danielson Framework to not only describe their own practice language, but to define for external evaluators the exceptional level of their performance. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that the Framework provides a common lens to better define, support, and help teachers achieve Distinguished levels of performance, which, in turn, improves the student assessment.

CRITICALLY REAPPROACHING THE FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHING Domain 2 of the Danielson Framework addresses the classroom environment; Component 2a specifically looks at how a teacher creates respect and rapport in their classroom. Respect is important, but it can remain disconnected from engagement with students. The Danielson

DANIELSON FRAMEWORK

71

Group provides examples of a Proficient teacher that include greeting students by name and using polite phrases like please and thank you. A Distinguished teacher might inquire into a student’s extracurriculars (Danielson, 2014). The examples that the Danielson Group provides are basic regard for other people, which is a fundamental requirement of teaching. However, by not extending the criteria further, it can unintentionally prevent recognition of teachers who build significant caring relationships that support student success. Therefore, it could be better to expect that a teacher meeting the Distinguished classification should be described as engrossed in their students and demonstrating classroom choices based on a deep knowledge of them as individuals (Goss, 2018). Calling this respect could possibly capture this exceptional pedagogical performance, but it is a vague enough term that both the evaluator and the teacher could remain disconnected in their understandings of success. As an example, high school art teacher Nancy2 demonstrates engrossment by getting to know her students in order to support their success in learning. By meeting with each student, she works to define individual learning goals that complement the goals she initially plans for the course. A Danielson Distinguished Standard of this process would simply be to allow students to define and submit their own additional learning goals. However, the time that Nancy takes with each child is especially distinguished because of her engrossment. She works with the students to define and understand their goals. Thereby, she has enhanced each student’s learning experience. In addition, engrossment makes a difference for being able to challenge students to aspire to higher achievement. In this way, her engrossment with the students explains how her students reach the Danielson goal of students being comfortable to take risks. Furthermore, Nancy’s ability to intercede with her students in progress and push them to higher aspirations demonstrates an important step in formative assessment that is central to understanding her impact as a teacher. Student assessment isn’t all about a finished, final product; it occurs in steps along the way. Nancy’s effort in fostering individual learning goals allows her to not only create and encourage intrinsic motivation, but support and assess a student’s progress toward those goals. Nancy believes that allowing her students to make personal modification, based on their interests, to her existing course is an important contribution to student success (Goss, 2018). The Danielson Framework offers a tool that can capture this high level of teacher commitment that results in exceptional student performance, but art educators will need to modify it and educate evaluators to what those modifications mean.

ISSUES OF COMPETENCY AND THE CHALLENGE TO ART EDUCATORS Evaluators must invest time in understanding a teacher’s practice, which includes not only comprehending the content discipline, but appreciating the pedagogical norms. Only then could an external evaluator properly discern a Danielson Proficient teacher from a Distinguished teacher. Time invested by evaluators also allows a supportive working relationship to form with the teacher so that formative evaluations can lead to growth. For some schools, it may not be possible to make an internal investment of time. As a result, schools may need to bring in external competent content specialists or peer summative evaluators could provide teachers with feedback (Ford et al., 2018; Kraft & Gilmour, 2016). This will prove to be perhaps both a challenge and a new opportunity for art educators’ whose practice pushes the upper ranges of the Danielson Framework. On the one hand, it may require art teachers to educate their evaluators. These teachers will need to understand the Danielson Framework and understand how their instructional method represents exceptional practice. On the other hand, highly proficient art teachers could be well positioned to

72

Samantha Goss

not only serve as peer evaluators for other teachers in their discipline, but to serve as schoolwide or district-wide coaches.

CONCLUSION The current discussion around authentic teacher evaluation is important for all teachers, but especially for art educators. Currently, teacher evaluators are often coming from very different content backgrounds. It requires time and attention to overcome issues of disciplinary competency and to have a shared understanding about the language used in evaluation tools. Art educators can provide a clearer picture for evaluators by creating a connection between student assessments and teacher evaluations. In the example above, Nancy demonstrated a level of engrossment that brought students to a higher level of success. Students could articulate this engagement to an evaluator by explaining their progress toward their individual learning goals. In this way, teacher evaluation provides richer evidence for student assessment. That’s the game changer. The pivot to observation as the basis of teacher evaluation (as opposed to reliance on student performance on standardized testing) demands that art educators advocate for themselves. By being able to articulate the nuances of their practice, art teachers should insist that any evaluator spend time with them to create a shared understanding of the art classroom and the evaluation tool prior to evaluation process. Teachers who are unsure of how their teaching maps on to an evaluation tool should seek out feedback from another art teacher in the district who can provide insight for both the teacher and the summative evaluator. Aligning the performative evidence of teaching with formative student assessments will support understanding of the bigger picture of art teacher performance. Ultimately, it can be an important tool for allowing expert art teaching to be seen, recognized, and rewarded.

NOTES

1 Engrossment as a key to developing empathy and a foundation for socially engaged art will be explored in more depth in a later chapter. 2 Name is a pseudonym. Classroom description is based on observation (Goss, 2018).

REFERENCES Danielson, C. (2014). The framework for teaching: evaluation instrument 2013 edition. https://www.danielsongroup.org/ download/?download=448 Danielson Group. (2017). The framework. https://www.danielsongroup.org/framework/ Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. Yale University Press. Ford, T. G., Urick, A., & Wilson, A. (2018). Exploring the effect of supportive teacher evaluation experiences on U.S. teachers’ job satisfaction. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(59), 1–36. Goss, S. A. (2018). The role and impact of engrossment for the caring art teacher (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (Order No. 10839235). Kraft, M. A., & Gilmour, A. F. (2016). Can principals promote teacher development as evaluators?: A case study of principals’ views and experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(5), 711–753. Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education (2nd ed.). University of California Press.

12 Summary Section II Cathy Smilan

Art teachers find themselves in a unique situation within schools and within the paradigm of learning assessment. As the politics of education further entangles schools in a standardsbased model of education, art teachers are largely compelled to fit into the school or district adopted model of curriculum design and assessment. Some of these models are more adaptable to a comprehensive, performance-based art education than others. In fact, administrators who value a process-based, growth-oriented view of assessment have adapted portfolio and qualitative measures associated with the visual arts to other discipline subjects. However, art teachers are often called to provide quantitative measures to be aggregated with other school-wide assessments more for the purpose of satisfying stakeholders, justifying teachers’ salaries, and attaining funding allocations, than determining how best to assist all learners. In this section, we discussed several popular curricular models: Understanding by Design (UbD); College Board Advanced Placement (AP); Internationale Baccalaureate (IB); Studio Thinking; edTPA; and the Danielson Framework. Each of these models can apply to our work as art teachers and teacher preparation educators, if appropriately used to determine visual art goals and student advancement. As suggested by Wiggins and McTighe, UbD posits that teachers first determine where students will arrive, then design the course of the lesson to guide them along the way. While not specifically developed for the arts, this model of assessment requires teachers to use their district, state or national standards as a beginning point for unpacking the materials, methods, techniques, and conceptual underpinnings of the discipline. Using these tools, teachers must determine what evidence is required for students to demonstrate their knowledge of each of these components. For visual arts teachers, this evidence will be found in the process of art making, the visual artifacts, and the ability to speak critically about the art making and the art work. UbD requires art teachers to create a hierarchical structure of components of their discipline and to develop instruments for collecting data to determine their own teaching effectiveness by analyzing these student learning outcomes. The College Board started to offer AP visual art courses, and thus assessments, in 1965. The College Board cyclically reviews and revises their assessments every seven years. Additionally, AP offers trainings for teachers and ensures inter-rater reliability for scorers. DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-15

74

Cathy Smilan

AP offers different assessments for different disciplines, creating rubrics that reward divergent response to art problems. They are among the first company to develop tools for measuring student portfolios and to articulate a conceptual, technical, and compositional measure of student learning. As Mark Graham suggests in his essay, AP offers students the opportunity to develop competitive portfolios for college admissions; it also allows students whose schools offer AP courses to accrue college credits based on the norm-referenced assessment scores. One notable issue of equitable access: Not all school systems have funding to support AP classes and AP visual arts courses are not offered uniformly across the districts. As a side note regarding purposes of assessments in visual arts programs, art teachers might encourage administrators to consider expanding opportunities such as AP and dual enrollment for their students. IB is another norm-referenced assessment model that spans multiple disciplines within the curriculum. As the name suggests, IB is a global system that directs teachers to use an agreed upon set of portfolio assessment tools. A comparative study reported in scoring techniques between AP and IB presented in Roger Tomhave’s essay suggests that these normreferenced means resulted in similar, excellent scores on the AP portfolio exam. However, another finding from the study suggests a correlation between IB and divergent responses in student work. Tomhave credits IB attention to the development of student thinking skills above rote memorization. Forming assessment tools that identify and value such performative, analytical behaviors is key to guiding students to find important issues within the discipline and to translate solutions through materials. The importance of student decision making in the studio is further discussed by Lois Hetland in her essay on the Studio Thinking Framework. The Framework encourages students to work artistically contextualizing their art practice within their own lives. While not specifically designed for assessment, the Studio Thinking Framework incorporates assessment through observation, analysis, and a continued cycle of adjustments by students and teachers. It is based on developing and documenting student skill and decision-making about when, why and how to use those skills. The Studio Thinking Framework guides art teachers through the curriculum development, instruction, and feedback cycle and includes the four studio structures: demonstration/lecture, students at work, critique and exhibition. According to Hetland, teacher decisions within the curriculum provide opportunities for assessment in each of the four studio structures. Within these structures, teachers invite students to engage with the eight Studio Habits of Mind to conduct on-going formative self-assessment that is incorporated into supportive teacher assessments and grades. Summative assessments are seen as disadvantageous, representing real opportunity costs for students and teachers. Another national model of assessment presented in this section is Pearson’s Stanford University developed edTPA. edTPA is designed to measure pre-service teachers’ knowledge of planning, instruction, and assessment as evidenced through multi-media teaching portfolios. The edTPA portfolio is designed to shift the focus from passing a test or quiz, to the development of a high-quality, subject-specific performance assessment portfolio that captures the nuances of the art of teaching. This portfolio development for pre-service teachers can serve as a model for in-service practice as teachers share this bigger-picture view of artbased learning for their students. The ability to curate a body of work that demonstrates conceptual connections and authentic voice is an important aspect of visual arts learning. While edTPA is specifically designed to be used for teacher preparation and licensure programs, the tasks and approach to curriculum, instruction, and portfolio assessment can be applied to secondary student learning as well. When effectively utilized by art teachers, the structure of the edTPA portfolio assessment, like that of the Backward Design approach and the Studio Thinking Framework, can be used to as a foundation for collaborative assessment and student-based reflection on their own artistic learning goals. Just as pre-service educators

SUMMARY SECTION II

75

develop their assessment literacy skills, they can create student-centered assessments that teach learners to become literate assessors of their own visual process and production. The Danielson Framework, like the edTPA SCALE, is used to assess teachers and teaching. Again, teacher effectiveness is an integral component of student assessment; student learning outcomes are evaluated for evidence of teacher efficacy; therefore, looking at models for teacher evaluation has a rightful place in the discussion of assessment. The Danielson Framework of teacher effectiveness is designed to guide teachers toward expert practice; using student learning data, teachers analyze and address the elements by which they are evaluated. Applying formative assessment and cyclical analysis, the Danielson model captures qualitative evidence of discipline specific learning as well as social-emotional learning focusing on the domains of planning and preparation, the classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities. The Framework provides for holistic measures that focus on support and measuring growth toward expertise; it also provides an excellent model to be applied to art student formative assessment. Approaches for determining learning, including pre-service and in-service teacher effectiveness, are at the core of each chapter essay. However, beyond designing rubrics and scales, many of the authors ask art teachers to carefully consider what merits measuring. As Wiggins and McTighe more generally ask, what is worthy of enduring knowledge? And as Hetland suggests, how can teachers develop artistic minds? Finally, Danielson’s model guides art teachers to consider the social and emotional learning that is at the very heart of a wellrounded art education. In the sections to follow, these attributes and practices beyond the elements and principles of design and the technical development of skill (or craft) within a given medium are considered by veteran art teachers who share a glimpse of their assessment practices and purposes. The chapters in each section are not prescriptive recipes for assessment or meant to be viewed as best practice assigned by higher art educators. Rather, they are snapshots of what is really happening in visual arts classrooms. They are insights into the real-world practice of visual arts assessment.

Section II: Questions and discussion points

•

•

•

•

Create a map of everything you assess in student work. • Label each item that corresponds to one of the assessment theories in this book. For example, how is what you are assessing valued by your state standards, Understanding by Design, Advanced Placement, etcetera. • Consider what is not on your map. Are there theories from Studio Thinking, edTPA, or the Danielson Framework that are not represented? • Have you neglected points from the state standards? What do you make of this? • Do you consider your present system for assessment complete? • How might you realistically consider changing your assessments, recognizing the time demands that any additional assessment work will impose? How do you use formative and summative assessments in your teaching? • How do you assess to help a student know what to do next? • How does assessment become a tool that the student can use to improve the quality of their work? Review Eisner’s nine criteria for visual art assessment (Chapter 4: (1) working for intrinsic satisfaction; (2) refining a personal, non-stereotypical, symbolic vocabulary; (3) inscribing personal reflection; (4) exercising judgment; (5) relating images to cultural contexts; (6) attending to how others read the image; (7) allowing the qualitative relationships of materials to support expressive meaning; (8) selecting materials to maximize expressive meaning; and (9) sustaining aesthetic inquiry to produce new work. • How many of these do you include in your assessments? • How often do you allow students to demonstrate their knowledge in these areas? • Identify a state standard that supports one of Eisner’s points. • Describe a classroom art room task that would allow you to assess one or more of Eisner’s learning outcomes. Shirley Brice Heath (1983) distinguishes between the teachers use of inauthentic and authentic questions in the classroom. An inauthentic question is one that the teacher knows the answer to when they ask the question. In this case, the student’s role is to confirm what the teacher already knows. Most questions that teachers pose in school

DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-16

Section II: Questions and discussion points

77

are inauthentic. An authentic question is one that the teacher does not know the answer to when they pose the question. The question invites genuine speculation on the part of both students and the teacher. The art classroom can be replete with authentic questions. • How do you allow for authentic questions in your teaching, and how do you assess student responses? • Identify specific standards that support authentic questions and discuss formative and summative assessment strategies.

REFERENCE Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge University Press.

SECTION III

Assessing Visual Narratives and Visual Literacy

Education has two parts. One requires pedagogical methods for teachers to guide students in their acquisition of knowledge. The second requires students developing the skills to do something personally meaningful and socially useful with that knowledge. As our 21st-century society becomes overwhelmed with information—stuff that we can know with a quick search of a mobile digital device, and artificial intelligence that can author plausible essays—retaining content becomes less of a concern. It is always there on the phone. Instead, meaningful, uniquely individual storytelling becomes a 21st-century learning skill: the ability to share with an audience a compelling personal narrative.

GUIDED READING POINTS • • •

How do these skilled educators push their students to reach deeply into personal experience through the visual arts? How do these educators extract visual evidence of learning that tells more than what the student might be able to say in words? How is technical skill leveraged in the service of personal storytelling. Where do you look for evidence?

DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-17

13 Commentary Section III Visual Narrative: Assessing How We Tell Our Stories Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund

Since the earliest records of image making on the caves of Lascaux, human beings have exhibited a compulsion to tell stories. We look at the world and seek to make recordings to tell others what we have seen. The urge is primal. Tied to the desire of storytelling is attention to the skill of manipulating media to effectively render detail. We seek increasing control of chalk, clay, stone, and pigment to accurately inscribe our vision. Another lesson from Lascaux is the inseparable connection between eye, hand, and heart. Our eyes are not cameras. Our hand is not a robotic extension of the brain controlled by the eye. We are emotionally moved by what we see, and our senses guide not only the focus of our perception, but the gestures of our entire body that guide our hand. Indeed, we not only draw from our shoulder, but from our hips and knees as well. Narrative needs to exceed the proficiency in a toolkit of pleasing visual tricks that make pictures look good. Accomplished visual narratives are judged by their ability to demonstrate skill in three dimensions of practice: (1) effectively communicate authentically complex culturally contextualized stories; (2) demonstrate skill in controlling the fine distinctions of expressive visual qualities of selected media; and (3) aesthetically capture embodied experience. Together, these three dimensions of visual narratives allow the individual to construct and communicate personal meaning.

EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATING COMPLEX STORIES Communicating is different from illustrating. Approaching art education as a success-forall performance of a fool-proof, step-by-step method (like those practiced at a “learn to paint” party or on a “how-to” video) fails to acknowledge, let alone develop, the experiences and voice of the student/artist. Pervasive, popular blog lessons, like Birch Trees in Winter, do nothing to promote the voice of the child. These lessons are educational diversions that succeed in producing decorative wallpaper for the school hallway. During the Discipline-Based Art Education (DBAE) curriculum reforms at the end of the 20th century, a narrative approach to art education was conceived as developing core skills in reading culturally significant texts (Smith, 1987); however, art education no longer limits DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-18

82

Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund

itself to the interpretation and appreciation of canonical images that have been curated into art museums. Today, we live in an immersive world of visual culture. Students do not need to be introduced to this world, as much as they struggle not to drown and be victimized by it. The major curriculum change of the last two decades has been the recognition that students need to understand the full spectrum of visual culture in which they participate, both as makers and as consumers (Freedman, 2003). This knowledge prepares them both to critique and to guard against the inundation of visual propaganda. Students are makers who have something to say by charting a path through a mesh of interweaving circles of analogue and digital communities (Rosner, 2019). Social media creates multiple platforms where students narrate their lives and consume the personal stories of others.

CONTROLLING EXPRESSIVE VISUAL QUALITIES Developmental psychology informs us that high school students will be attracted to representation (Arnheim, 1954/1974; Lowenfeld, 1947). For multiple reasons dealing with growth and coming of age, adolescents generally desire a firm grasp on the world as it appears to be; this, in turn, leads to the desire to represent the world as it is seen or imagined. Even popular fantasy narratives are fleshed out in extraordinary detail. This ability to articulate with exacting detail, of course, requires fluency with visual vocabulary and composition. A classic approach to visual arts education is teaching formal and technical vocabularies related to compositional techniques of modern and post-modern arts. Vocabulary is easily tested and provides an excellent content base to show longitudinal growth in students. For example, from early childhood textbooks to current state and national content examinations for pre-service teacher licensure, naming and applying Elements of Art and the Principles of Design are a common and comforting form of assessment. Although they are relatively recent historical inventions that have been in constant stages of changeableness, they are easily recognizable as the academic language of visual arts and thus form, for many teachers, a bedrock of disciplinary knowledge. Similarly, teachers ask students to complete color wheels, or, for performative assessments, mix secondary or tertiary colors. In Great Britain and Ireland, high school students must complete invigilated exams: draw like Raphael on demand, under supervision, in a limited time. In the United States, for example, the Georgia art teacher licensure test once required the test-taker, in the course of the multiple-choice and short-answer-timed examination, to draw three geometric solids in a two-point perspective, clearly showing the horizon line and two vanishing points. Students who accurately produced a rendering of the geometric forms had assessment points deducted if they did not clearly include the vanishing point dots. Throughout formal standardized visual art assessments, there appears to be a continuing preoccupation with following directions. The recent National Core Visual Arts Standards offer a more open appeal to incorporating post-modern conceptions of artistic structure and expression (Gude, 2004). Nevertheless, these calls for additional contemporary language often do not change the old-fashioned memorization and recall assessment strategies for reporting student growth.

AESTHETICALLY CAPTURED EMBODIED EXPERIENCE In art education, Victor Lowenfeld (1947) made the distinction between visual and haptic perceptions and responses. The student oriented to visual perception attempts to precisely record what they see. The haptic student responds with gestural motions. Perception becomes a vital, fully embodied experience that consummates in a robust somatic response. Post-modern

COMMENTARY SECTION III

83

pedagogies like walking and mapping (Powell, 2016) offer students opportunities to link mark making and their own physical movement in space. Other forms of embodied engagement can include allowing students to dance in the classroom to explore how the body somatically conveys meanings (Riddett-Moore & Siegesmund, 2014). As students physically begin to juxtapose, collage, and overlay their bodies to find metaphorical meaning, they become inspired to secure these newly discovered meanings into more stable art forms. Embodied activities allow students to discover experiential qualities. In turn, arts media provide tools for aesthetically shaping somatic qualities into relationships of visual qualities that subsequently communicate meaning. In a small, simple, yet powerful book, Picture This: How Pictures Work, award-winning children’s illustrator Molly Bang (2000) demonstrates principles of visual storytelling by working wordlessly with relationships of visual qualities. She applies the Elements and Principles of art, to visually communicate the children’s story Little Red Riding Hood. These qualities include resilience, vulnerability, and danger. Artist and Art Educator Nick Sousanis (2018), on a far more ambitious level, demonstrates how the Elements and Principles form a core toolkit that can sustain complex visual thinking through the medium of adult comics and graphic novels. As the Elements and Principles are foundational to the teaching of Modernism in the visual arts and the aesthetic stance of Formalism, they are often conflated to compositional tools. Regrettably, this is how they are often taught. However, as Molly Bang and Nick Sousanis demonstrate, the tools open up the ability for visual tacit communication. This information can speak not only to what is simply seen, but what is felt as well. For example, in a high school art classroom, the teacher might draw attention to the student’s use of washed-out, bleeding colors that speak to the student’s expressed narrative of addressing depression. The student has intuitively used a dissipated green, grayed with a touch of red. This has emotional resonance. It conveys the feeling of what it is to be depressed without offering a direct symbol or sign. This demonstrates Dewey’s (1934/1989) claim that the media draws forth the meaning of the word. The critical claim that Dewey makes in Art as Experience is that relations of qualities offer a mode of thought: To think effectively in terms of relations of qualities is as severe a demand upon thought as to think in terms of symbols, verbal and mathematical. Indeed, since words are easily manipulated in mechanical ways, the production of a work of genuine art probably demands more intelligence than does most of the so-called thinking that goes on among those who pride themselves on being “intellectuals”. (Dewey, 1934/1989, p. 52)

A quality does not express meaning. In the example above, the hue green has no meaning. It only begins to take on significance when it comes into relationship with red: A large amount of green is contrasted with a small amount of red. Dewey has no problem if the student cannot explain what they are doing. This thinking began and was developed outside of language. Language can discover the meaning, but the meaning was first inscribed by the student in the manipulation of relationship of qualities. Furthermore, Dewey claims that this is a more rigorous form of thinking that simply states meaning through signs and symbols.

VISUAL NARRATIVE AND LITERACY The three dimensions of visual narrative—communicating complex stories; skillfully controlling visual media; and aesthetically capturing embodied experience—are core to many art educators’ practice (Olshansky, 2008; Olson, 1998), and slip the practice of art education

84

Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund

out of the problematic paradigm of teaching contemporary art as defined by the archetype of the contemporary artworld (Danto, 1997) that continues to privilege curricula emphasizing studio production. Art education, however, is something different from the mirroring of artworld. As Jerome Hausman (1959) cautioned in his inaugural editorial for Studies in Art Education, the roles and responsibilities of the artist are different from those of the art teacher. The artist is concerned with cultural transmission and navigating the authoritative concepts of what art is or ought to be. The art educator focuses more on overall student learning rather than professional artistic development. Art education is more than the teaching of art (Eisner, 2001); it is a process of individual growth whose ultimate purpose is to prepare young people to be thoughtful, critically reflective individuals who are prepared to participate in and sustain democratic institutions (Siegesmund, 2013; Smilan, 2007, 2017a). Art education prepares students to visually write their own stories as they deconstruct the cultural worlds in which they live. John Dewey (1934/1989) believed that the arts sustained this critical function of public education by developing skills in perception and communication. Thus, encouraging students to articulate voice is a fundamentally educational aim of public education. Critical societal issues can be translated into a visual narrative format through carefully planned objectives and criteria to guide learners to form new visions and communicate co-constructed perspectives (Smilan, 2017a). Visual narratives provide a sense of ownership, giving us the courage to stand by our own voice and to make our own choices in the democratic arena. The guided co-construction of meaning achieved through engaging in the critical analysis of art processing does more than recognize individual voice; it challenges learners to engage in meaning-making and quite possibly moves them to action (Smilan, 2017a). This is the process of teaching visual literacy. Assessing visual literacy The definition of literacy extends beyond the ability to recognize and remember words. It now embraces knowledge of emerging technologies and the innovative thinking required to innovatively use these tools. In fact, this contemporary definition of literacy has become a significant part of state and national goals and standards as well as initiatives such as 21st Century Skills (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2008) for developing learners who are ready to participate in the global creative economy (Florida, 2002; Smilan, 2007). These skills include the four Cs: Critical Thinking, Creativity, Collaboration, and Communication (National Education Association, 2012)—all featured prominently in the National Core Visual Arts Standards. To be literate entails the abilities to read and invest meaning in multiple forms of representations (Eisner, 2002), including the visual symbols that have increasingly replaced linguistic texts. As society moves further away from a written dialogic into a shorthand of symbolic representations, the ability to interpret the visual—to ascribe meaning based on information deduced and inferred through image—is critical in the development of competent communication skills. Semiotic literacy To find one’s path and voice in visual culture, students must learn and demonstrate skills that allow them to successfully navigate signs and symbols (Smith, 2004; Smith-Shank, 2014). These messages might be direct and straightforward, but frequently they are cloaked in irony and double entendre that assume the viewer has core cultural knowledge (Hirsch et al.,

COMMENTARY SECTION III

85

1987), such as references to the Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci, or Washington Crossing the Delaware by Emanuel Leutze. Therefore, students need a sophisticated understanding of how visual semiotics work. A major factor that differentiates man from all other animals is his capacity to utilize symbols. It is a symbolic thought and expression that enables him to conceptualize about other places and times (Hausman, 1959, p. 4). From the early 20th-century work on iconography in classical paintings by Erwin Panofsky, to contemporary post-modern work that often traffics in language games such as One and Three Chairs, 1965, by conceptual artist Joseph Kosuth, in which he shows a physical chair, a photograph of the same chair, and a printed dictionary definition of a chair: three realistic modes of representation of the same object; the discipline of art history grounds itself in the reading of signs and symbols. Teachers, especially those who are digital immigrants, must be aware that visual semiotics is rapidly evolving as social media iconography supplants traditional literacy skills. Communication professor Michael Dezuanni (in a book edited by Language and Literacy Education expert Donna Alvermann) states: Rather than media and popular culture being a trivializing or corrupting influence in young people’s lives, they are significant symbolic resources for young people’s active identity formation. Media and popular culture texts work alongside other symbolic systems operating in young people’s lives, for example, written texts and everyday dialogue, to enable young people to produce their identities and make sense of themselves and others. (Dezuanni, 2010, p. 127)

HOW CAN TEACHERS MEASURE STUDENT PERFORMANCE IN INTERPRETING AND DEVELOPING SEMIOTIC STRUCTURES? Often the greatest hurdle to overcome is moving beyond common, stereotypical solutions, a shorthand of what is remembered, rather than the documentation of what is seen or imagined interpreted through the lens of individual experience. One possible approach for secondary art education classrooms is to design assessments that focus on using reflective semiotics to tell a story. Thus, the assignment criteria, and ultimately the assessment challenge, would be for students to find a way of personalizing the semiotic tradition—such as Amerimanga comics in which individual students chose to work. By designing aspects of the lesson to include student choice, teachers can invite individualization while maintaining control of learning objectives, which is, in fact, a vital component of their jobs. In the teaching process, this personalization must be guided by the art teacher through well-articulated lesson criteria, including measures of student individual narrative development and visual communication. Such lessons may require art teachers to bridge the gap between ELA and the visual arts, incorporating parallel and intersecting content such as point of view, story boarding, ideation, and progression (Smilan, 2017b). Attention to developing semiotic systems and using metaphor-sensitivity to fine-grain distinctions of quality could result in the following examples of assessment criteria: • • •

Students develop and pitch a visual storyline through sketching/storyboarding and making a presentation of the proposal to peers and teacher. Students select from a range of semiotic choices to find a voice that conveys a personal point of view. Students select a visual voice and technique that demonstrates progression of the storyline.

86

Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund

LITERACY AS MULTI-DISCIPLINARY COLLABORATION Learning to read and form rich, non-stereotypical symbols is foundational to both art education and English language arts instruction. Professors of Literacy and Language Arts Education along with classroom English teachers have embraced the visual arts for making an essential contribution to an educationally significant conception of what it means to be literate (Fleckenstein, 2003). The image-word connection is more than an elementary education learning strategy; it is a successful means for engaging students at all educational levels in complex, non-stereotypical meaning-making. Students move bidirectionally from image into language and from language into image. For example, English Professor Kristie Fleckenstein (2003) and Art Educator Janet Olson (1998) have separately pointed to the parallels in the writing theory of Donald Murray (1984). Murray advocated a five-staged pathway to writing: collect, focus, order, draft, and clarify. The development of visual communication follows a similar process. Collecting is an open process of discovery in which students begin to experientially explore objects or ideas that attract them and gather examples. Focusing is a process of categorization; one makes decisions to include more of this, less of that. Ordering denotes development discrimination and judgment. Somethings are better than others. There are qualitative differences that establish excellence. After all of this research, the student is ready to draft a statement of what this all means to them. In this piece, they can begin to communicate the qualities they have discovered and share this with the viewer. Once the first draft is established, the artist continues to clarify their idea. Blending these mutual pathways for deep learning provides an example of arts-based curriculum. Each step along the way provides a point for assessment and provides students with formative feedback. The skillful art educator recognizes the natural proclivities of the student. For some, it is easier to first begin by working visually; for others, it is easier to work in writing. However, for both learners, development accelerates by moving between the two modes of knowledge: image and word. This is a multimodal approach to literacy (Albers & Sanders, 2010). Multimodal visual learning Contemporary art educators construct learning opportunities that provide criteria and formative feedback cycles for [re]interpreting visual media and reframing one’s visual environment in both image and word. Teachers must design learning activities that challenge students to be consumers, translators, and producers of their visual culture; all three are required aspects of visual literacy. This shifts the assessable measurable objectives in the art classroom from skills-based evidence to concept-based evidence and guides learners in this transformative process. Further, to be a literate, competent communicator, requires that learners develop visual means by which to demonstrate empathetic understandings of self and others. Meanings, or interpretation of images, are dependent on students’ lived experiences, which oftentimes differ from the experiences of the teacher and their culture. In assessing lessons that encourage narrative, teachers must acknowledge the investiture of their students in creating personal narratives with which the assessor may be unfamiliar: …the lesson may be in teacher as learner as we shift perspectives from forced assimilation and acculturation to mutual understandings, shared experiences and the weaving of various perspectives into a stronger, more vibrantly authentic cloth. (Smilan, 2017b, p. 222)

COMMENTARY SECTION III

87

Sample criteria for assessment tasks for students might include the following: • • • •

Compose visual narratives that provide multiple points of information and establish context for a point of view. Organize completed compositions or installations in a social media context that invites sustained participatory dialog and commentary (i.e., a virtual exhibit and dynamic forum). Provide a statement of artist(s)’ perspective based on negotiated meaning and evidence from process images/sketches and reflections. Demonstrate skill in representation and use of metaphor.

Transactional inquiry These intersections involve a guided practice with transactional inquiry (Smilan, 2012) that involves learners in applying art investigations that incorporate multiple entry points of embodied experience and engage with complex ideas and visual culture. English professor and reading scholar Louise Rosenblatt suggested in her transactional theory of reading that the strategies generally used to teach reading of simple text apply to complex literary works of art. These strategies include tapping into readers’ experiences to create a framework from which to find meaning in the written word. Through a discussion of readings, the framework is expanded as additional experiences, points of view, and possibilities for interpretation are offered. In many ways, then, reading can be seen as a communal activity (Rosenblatt, 1969).1 In developing visual literacy skills beyond acquiring a preliminary visual vocabulary, art teachers can similarly apply these reading strategies. When viewing, analyzing, and discussing works of art by other artists, guided exploration of the image or object in relation to the experiences of the viewer must be fostered. To expand the possible interpretations, guiding questions about the relationship of the image or object with other objects curated in museum exhibits or public are to be presented by the teacher as well as encouraged from the learner. Finally, perhaps most significantly to the benefit of an art literate public, opportunities to develop connections between the work of art and important issues confronting the world must be carefully embedded into the curriculum (Smilan, 2017a). Just as skilled art teachers understand the role of viewing and aesthetics development in the meaning-making and visual literacy process, so too do they respect the need to develop a conceptually based “making” literacy that guides students to connect their ideas. This process must involve the narrative qualities of expressing one’s interpretation of experiences through communicating information about the self through a given medium. Quality art teaching and learning also incorporates knowledge of historical and contemporary arts by others, guiding conceptual as well as material-based connections between images and objects and student making. Finally, well-developed lessons leading to visual literacy in art education must include guided exploration of the socio-political issues that empower learners to activate their voice through the making and exhibition process and to translate their thoughts and feelings into actions (Smilan, 2017a). Visual art is a discipline that makes meaning through sense. It is built on perception. It is easy to develop an antagonism toward language, for as Dewey suggested, the easy symbol and sign identification systems that language provides are perhaps detrimental to seeing. DBAE recognized the important symbiotic role of language in the art classroom by elevating criticism to one of four pillars of instruction and assessment. Students were encouraged to find and verbally explain the visual narratives in art. This role remains in the new national standards and the revised state standards they inspire. For example, in Responding, Anchor Standard 8’s Enduring Understandings and Essential Questions2 are dedicated to exploring how the tools of criticism allow one to read a picture as a text. What is less clear in the Visual

88

Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund

Standards is a lesson from the literacy classroom; reading is a gateway back into writing. For the art classroom, that would mean that criticism is not a summative exercise to derive meanings from art work as the capstone experience of a lesson, but instead criticism becomes a formative tool for reentering, reflecting, and re-envisioning the work of art. Assessment objectives could include the following: •

Apply insights articulated through criticism in class discussion and personal reflection into practical revisions of the art work that result in increased clarity of design and expression of artistic intent.

Eisner suggests that criteria prove tools for “a fuller reading of the work that will be useful to students and teachers alike for knowing what to do next” (2002, p. 170). Such a deep reiterative engagement in reflection and revision can connect students to deep structures of meaning that can build greater emotional connection and, in turn, help to sustain learning beyond the classroom experience (Stiggins et al., 2004). Just as Eisner questions whether we can call a student literate who will not initiate reading on their own, can we claim that a child has learned art if they don’t want to initiate their own art-making in the non-school hours? In this sense, is a child really involved in personal narrative in art, if they are not exploring on their own the ways that they can narrate themselves through the process of art-making? Human beings have a profound desire to find symbols—to see the butterfly in a Rorschach Test, to translate marks and shapes into images with which they can connect meaning. We are constantly making sense: sorting out visual experience, naming objects, and assigning them to their proper categories. A simple act like driving is constantly demanding that one correctly distinguishes between the blowing leaf across the road and a small animal, the correct identification if a single headlight approaching is a motorcycle or a four-wheeled vehicle with a headlight burned out. Analysis and translation, then, become an automated response, something we do without cognizance of the significance of the activity. We survive through rapid and accurate recognition and categorization of the visual information around us. However, Dewey observed that “recognition is perception arrested before it has a chance to develop freely” (1934/1989, p. 58). In an art classroom, art works are in a state of becoming. The student may have a narrative that he wishes to tell, but the art work—the media itself—has some say in what the story will be. Can the student persevere beyond what is already known to discover what might be? Can the student set aside their own strong desires to understand the affordances that the media offers? Can the student seize opportunity and recognize that a different, more promising destination has arisen (Eisner, 2005)? Perhaps more significantly, are art teachers developing questions and curricula that guide students to these unforeseen outcomes (Smilan, 2015)? What, in fact, are the goals of such lessons, and how can these goals be measured? Oftentimes, the recognition of relationships of visual qualities is key to recognizing moments of opportunity: to read what the materials say separate from what the student intended to do. Dewey advocated that we linger (and even play) in experiences of wonder where we absorb into our sensory banks the qualities of visual materials. Bresler (2014) elaborated on the lessons of art as exercises in suspending closure and remaining highly attuned to sensory qualities. In these moments, recognition is reorganized. We see anew. That is a significant educational objective. • • •

The student experiments by sustained resistance to premature closure allowing multiple, non-stereotypical, narrative possibilities to emerge within the work. The student analyzes and selects from multiple possibilities to achieve closure. Students “surprise” themselves and others through their unique ideation and representations through materials in the narrative.

89

COMMENTARY SECTION III

Measures of these objectives include the following: (1) effectively communicate authentically complex culturally contextualized stories; (2) demonstrate skill in controlling the fine distinctions of expressive visual qualities of selected media; and (3) aesthetically capture embodied experience (see Appendix, Table 13A.1).

NOTES

1 See subsequent chapters in Integrative and Collaborative Assessment Section. 2 National Core Arts Standards: A Conceptual Framework for Arts Learning outlines the philosophy, primary goals, dynamic processes, structures, and outcomes that shape student learning and achievement in dance, media arts, music, theatre, and visual arts, as articulated in the National Core Arts Standards (National Core Arts Standards, n.d., www.nationalartsstandards.org).

REFERENCES Albers, P., & Sanders, J. (Eds.). (2010). Literacies, the arts, and multimodality. National Council of Teachers of English. Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. University of California Press. (Original work published 1954) Bang, M. (2000). Picture this: How pictures work. Chronicle Books. Bresler, L. (2014). “Seeing as” versus “seeing more”: Cultivating connections in arts-based research. In K. M. Miraglia, & C. Smilan (Eds.), Inquiry in action: Paradigms, methodologies and perspectives in art education research (pp. 218–226). NAEA. Danto, A. C. (1997). After the end of art: Contemporary art and the pale of history. Princeton University Press. Dewey, J. (1989). Art as experience. Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1934) Dezuanni, M. (2010). Digital media literacy: Connecting young people’s identities, creative production and learning about video games. In D. E. Alvermann (Ed.), Adolescents’ online literacies: Connecting classrooms, digital media and popular culture (pp. 125–144). Peter Lang. Eisner, E. W. (2001). Should we create new aims for art education? Art Education, 54(5), 6–10. Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. Yale University Press. Eisner, E. W. (2005). Reimagining schools: The selected works of Elliot W. Eisner. Routledge. Fleckenstein, K. S. (2003). Imageword: An alternative imaginary for a poetics of meaning. In K. S. Fleckenstein (Ed.), Embodied literacies: Imageword and a poetics of teaching (pp. 10–41). Southern Illinois University Press. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. Basic Books. Freedman, K. J. (2003). Teaching visual culture: Curriculum, aesthetics, and the social life of art. Teachers College Press, National Art Education Association. Gude, O. (2004). Postmodern principles: In search of a 21st century art education. Art Education, 57(1), 6–14. Hausman, J. (1959). Editorial. Studies in Art Education, 1(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.2307/1319946. Hirsch, E. D., Kett, J. F., & Trefil, J. S. (1987). Cultural literacy: What every American needs to know. Houghton Mifflin. Lowenfeld, V. (1947). Creative and mental growth. Macmillan. Murray, D. (1984). Write to learn. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. National Education Association (2012). Preparing 21st century students for a global society: An educator’s guide to the “four Cs”. Author. Olshansky, B. (2008). The power of pictures: Creating pathways to literacy through art. Jossey-Bass. Olson, J. L. (1998). Encouraging visual storytelling. In J. W. Simpson, J. Delaney, & K. L. Carroll (Eds.), Creating meaning through art: Teacher as choice-maker (pp. 163–205). Merrill. Partnership for 21st Century Skills (2008). 21st century skills: How can you prepare students for the new global economy. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Centre for Educational Research and Innovation Powell, K. (2016). Multimodal mapmaking: Working toward an entangled methodology of place. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 47(4), 402–420. Riddett-Moore, K., & Siegesmund, R. (2014). The visual space of literacy in art education. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Teaching dilemmas and solutions in content-area literacy, grades 6-12 (pp. 103–131). Corwin. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1969). Towards a transactional theory of reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1(1), 31–49. Rosner, T. L. (2019). Creative convergent culture: Practice to profession. International Journal of Education through Art, 15(2), 217–234. Siegesmund, R. (2013). Art education and a democratic citizenry. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 32(3), 300–308. Smilan, C. (2015). I wish my assignments were more creative! In F. Bastos, & E. Zimmerman (Eds.), Connecting creativity research and practice in art education (pp. 159–164). National Art Education Association. Smilan, C. (2007). [The] creative art [of] education. International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(4), 242–249.

90

Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund

Smilan, C. (2012). Teaching literacy in and through the visual arts. In J. L. Towell (Ed.), Hooked on books (2nd ed., pp. 337–374). Kendall Hunt Publishing. Smilan, C. (2017a). The art of climate change: Art education for global citizenry. In R. Shin (Ed.), Convergence of contemporary art, visual culture, and global civic engagement (pp. 100–117). IGI Global Publications. Smilan, C. (2017b). Visual immersion for cultural understanding and multimodal literacy. Arts Education Policy Review, 118(4), 220–227. Smith, R. A. (1987). Excellence in art education: Ideas and initiatives. National Art Education Association. Smith-Shank, D. L. (Ed.). (2004). Semiotics and visual culture: Sights, signs, and significance. National Art Education Association. Smith-Shank, D. L. (2014). Social semiotics and material culture research strategies. In K. M. Miraglia, & C. Smilan (Eds.), Inquiry in action: Paradigms, methodologies and perspectives in art education research (pp. 211–217). National Art Education Association. Sousanis, N. (2018). Thinking in comics: An emerging process. In M. Cahnmann-Taylor & R. Siegesmund (Eds.), Artsbased research in education: Foundations for practice (2nd ed., pp. 190–199). Routledge. Stiggins, R., Arter, J., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2004). Classroom assessment for student learning: Doing it right—using it well. Assessment Training Institute.

APPENDIX TABLE 13A.1

Sample rubrics for visual literacy criteria. Not Evident

Emerging

Proficient

Advanced

Student analyze visual images to read complex stories

Students struggle to identify features within a work of art.

Students can provide a narrative based on some features of the work.

Students provide an extended narrative based on multiple features in the work.

Students consider multiple possible reading of the work based on evidence.

Student analyze visual images to communicate complex stories

Students struggle to construct a story from visual features.

Students can construct a limited number of visually features into a simple narrative.

Students construct an extensive array of coherent narrative features.

Students construct a complex narrative through features that evoke multiple possible readings.

Students infer complex, nonstereotypical meanings between images and words for personal expression.

Students make facile connections between image and word.

Students can make limited or stereotypical connections between language and visual image.

Students demonstrate extended language, but still retain some stereotypical connections, between language and image.

Students show a strong ability for non-stereotypical choices and selections in both their images and the language selected to describe the work.

Student technically controls the fine formal distinctions of expressive visual qualities of selected media

Students apply a single unvarying approach to visual expression.

Students can manipulate a partial range of expressive qualities in one selected media.

Students can demonstrate the ability to fully manipulate the expressive range of one selected media.

Students demonstrate the ability to combine visual qualities of multiple media for expressive purposes.

Students translate felt, embodied experience to visual form.

Students fail to demonstrate a personal experience through form.

Students can partially articulate an embodied experience in form.

Students can successfully communicate a felt, embodied experience in visual form.

Students communicate a felt embodied experience in visual form AND connect it to personal narrative.

14 Beyond the Color Wheel Assessing for Habits of Mind in the Art Classroom Najuana P. Lee

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT OF TEACHING Teaching fine art and digital art at an affluent, extremely high-performing public high school—which boasts a graduation rate of 98%—shaped my perspective on what qualifies as authentic assessment in art. In a top-tier school like Chattahoochee High School, the importance of assessing, collecting and analyzing student achievement data is not only paramount; it is expected in all subject areas, including art. Art teachers are expected to be able to develop authentic assessments that reflect measurable student growth.

SETTING THE STAGE FOR GROWTH MEASUREMENT The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) era created an educational climate focused on minimum learning targets for all student performance and sparked an assessment frenzy in the race for all students to meet or exceed state-determined proficiency levels. While NCLB raised awareness and worked to narrow achievement gaps, the myopic focus on proficiency drew criticism from education stakeholders. Many raised concerns that the one-size-fits-all proficiency goals and assessments were not developmentally appropriate for all students. Students who struggled to understand concepts, needed additional supports, were advanced, or who worked at a different pace than other students, fell through the cracks under NCLB. In 2015, President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in an effort to address NCLB’s limited and prescriptive approach to measuring student outcomes. ESSA shifted priority to student growth targets rather than proficiency targets. As a result, student learning is now beginning to be re-defined and re-designed to address individual student needs. How we facilitate and measure these personalized learning outcomes must also change to accurately reflect an individual student’s growth. This paradigm shift is also reflected in Fulton County School’s initiatives, which are primarily focused on personalized learning for each and every student. When art teachers personalized learning with fidelity, best practice transitions beyond low-level assessments of color wheels and elements of art toward rethinking how arts assessments demonstrate more complex, individualized and abstract learning—habits of mind—which reflect meaningful student growth in art. DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-19

92

Najuana P. Lee

LESSON The Context of Teaching. As a burgeoning high school art teacher, not yet tarnished by too many sleepless nights grading, endless faculty meeting and countless parent conferences, I was full of energy, excited to teach every day and passionate about arts learning. I desperately wanted my students to share in my enthusiasm. Many of these students planned to attend college and compete for the highest SAT scores in the school. There was also fierce competition for art scholarships at some of the best art schools in the Nation. Chattahoochee High School highly values the arts, has a dedicated beautiful gallery space and has a strong AP art program that includes 3D, 2D and Design. My art classroom was reflective of the larger demographic of the school, with the majority of students self-classifying as White or Asian. The classes were mixed level, meaning that sculpture levels 1–4 were taught in the same classroom. This also meant that all grades, 9th–12th, took art classes together. The students ranged from quiet and timid freshman who had never touched a piece a clay to boisterous seniors who were counting down the seconds to graduation and only signed up for an art class to earn their last remaining required credits in a course that had the unfortunate prior reputation of being an “Easy A”. These students were not interested in color wheel worksheets. Nor were they interested in copying the art style of artists who did not look like them or think like them. Carefully constructed Picasso-esque blue period painting lesson plans were met with eye rolls and yawns and left half-completed. Sad and wrinkled watercolor landscapes lay abandoned on drying racks. So, it was not very long after I began teaching in this Atlanta suburban high school that I disbanded from the “Cult of the Almighty Color Wheel”. I threw out all of my worksheets and stopped asking my students to produce work in art styles I thought were important. Instead, I tried to personalize their learning experience and empower my students to create art that reflected their lived experiences. I wanted their learning to be passionate, authentic and meaningful (Brown, 2012). Models such as Studio Thinking (Hetland et al., 2007) made me question not only what I was placing value in and prioritizing in my art classroom, but also made me want to discover the higher learning—those patterns of intellectual behavior—that were developing in my students once they were freed to learn meaningfully. I was learning quickly that creating meaningful learning experiences that held relevance in my student’s lives delineated the daily battle lines between 33 fully engaged art students and all-out teenage mutiny in an art classroom where acetylene tanks and blow torches were entirely too close for comfort. I needed to facilitate arts learning that fully engaged my diverse students in deeply meaningful art learning experiences and then be able to make that growth not only visible, but measurable. The design of this lesson and assessment attempted to achieve these goals. Lesson Content. The title of this lesson is “Aesthetic Inquiry: A Journey into Beauty & the Grotesque”. This lesson utilizes a Circle of Knowledge1 teaching strategy, similar to a Socratic seminar, to introduce students to the process of aesthetic inquiry (Silver et al., 2007). Students examine and engage in informed dialogue about concepts of beauty and the grotesque in art. Students participated in a group activity where they read a story related to the concept of beauty or ugliness and discussed aesthetic questions about what they had read. Students then shared summaries of their discussions with the whole class. Next, they participated in an interactive presentation and watch a PBS Art 21 video about the contemporary artist Kiki Smith. Students then reflected both visually and verbally in their journals about what they had learned thus far. Students then created their own personalized work of art to visually demonstrate their understanding of beauty and the grotesque. The overall goal of the lesson was to facilitate personalized arts learning while cultivating critical thinking and nurturing specific habits of minds: empathy/gratitude, perseverance/resilience and flexibility/metacognition (Hetland et al., 2007).

BEYOND THE COLOR WHEEL

93

Assessment. The assessment was organized into four Depth of Knowledge (DOK) (Hess, 2013; Webb, 1997/2002) questions aimed at measuring learning outcomes at high, medium and lower learning levels. Remembering questions assessed low and medium levels, while the relating, reasoning and reorganizing questions assessed higher level learning. Each assessment DOK was aligned not only to state standards, but were specifically developed to also assess growth in specific habits of mind (Costa & Kallick, 2009) as well as growth in the four-process component of the National Core Art Standards: Creating, Presenting, Responding and Connecting. The relationship between these can be seen Table 14A.1 in the Appendix. Students chose how they would demonstrate their learning (written response, video, class presentation, etc.). Students’ understanding was assessed on a 3-point growth scale: Beginning, Proficient and Mastery. The grading criteria below was used to assess the level of student growth for what students understood, knew and could do (see Appendix Table 14A.1—Table 14A.2).

OUTCOMES OF THE LESSON AND ASSESSMENT Students really enjoyed the discussion portion of the lesson. They were intrigued by the aesthetic problems presented to them (as assessment questions), related to them on a personal level and participated fully in the small group discussions and whole class discussion. They also seemed engaged during the presentation and while watching the Kiki Smith film. Students collaboratively answered the reflection questions for the readings and the film. However, there were a few students who struggled with the DOK questions and created a synthesizing artwork that was both beautiful and grotesque. Both the artwork and the student responses to the DOK questions were used in tandem to assess the students. Example 1 depicts a student’s artworks submitted for this assessment which demonstrates this students’ beginning understanding of the concept of the grotesque (Figure 14.1). While horrific images are one aspect of this artwork (i.e., Goya’s painting Saturn Devouring His Son),2 the grotesque really addresses artworks outside of the accepted form—artworks that move toward visual interest, push boundaries and play with exaggerations and distortions. This student’s written response also indicated a beginning level of understanding. In response to the relating DOK question, “In what ways does your artwork strive to be grotesque? How is it also beautiful?” this student responded, “It is gross, but the colors are beautiful”. In contrast,

FIGURE 14.1  Student example—Beginning understanding

94

Najuana P. Lee

FIGURE 14.2  Student example—Proficient Understanding

a student who scored in the proficient range created a drawing that explored concepts of life and death as both beautiful and grotesque (see Figure 14.2). In her written response to the same relating DOK question above, she responded: Death and life can both be understood as beautiful and grotesque. In my image I depict skulls, which some may find grotesque. However, as an artist, I see beauty in the forms and shapes of the skull. The concept of the cycle of life and death, a rebirth of sorts, is also very beautiful to me.

The last example demonstrates a score of Mastery (see Figure 14.3). This student wrote in response to the question above: My work examines the concept of beauty and ugliness from the past to the present. The television set represents societal views over time and the idea that each former generation finds the next generation’s idea of beauty to be grotesque. Additionally, as one ages their ideals of beauty and ugliness often change. The brightly colored stuffed animals, tarnished with black paint, and spilling from the television set represent this idea. When I was a child I found those brightly colored stuffed animals seen on TV to be quite beautiful and as I grew into a young woman, they begin to look garish and unattractive to me. Time, place, and personal experience influence what is accepted as beautiful and ugly. These concepts are fluid, as represented in this artwork.

FIGURE 14.3  Student example—Mastery Level Understanding

95

BEYOND THE COLOR WHEEL

This lesson and assessment aimed to engage students in meaningful personalized learning. It also aimed to introduce students to a concept of assessment that moved them beyond multiple-choice tests, authentically assessed their learning and growth, and measured growth in key habits of mind as well as arts understanding. This lesson and assessment capture the other important learning, beyond content and skill building, which occurs in the art classroom.

NOTES 1 See http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/107059/chapters/Circle-of-Knowledge.aspx 2 See https://www.wikiart.org/en/francisco-goya/saturn-devouring-his-son-1823-1

REFERENCES Brown, B. (2012). Daring greatly: How the courage to be vulnerable transforms the way we live, love, parent, and lead. Gotham Books. Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2009). Learning and leading with habits of mind: 16 essential characteristics for success [Kindle iOS version]. ASCD; Illustrated edition. Hess, K. (2013). A guide to using Webb’s depth of knowledge with common core state standards. Retrieved December 29, 2018, from https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Teaching/Educator-Evaluation-System/How-toDesign-and-Select-Quality-Assessments/Webbs-DOK-Flip-Chart.pdf.aspx Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. M. (2007). Studio thinking: The real benefits of visual arts education. Teachers College Press. Silver, H. F., Strong, R. W., & Perini, M. J. (2007). The strategic teacher: Selecting the right research-based strategy for every lesson. ASCD. Webb, N. (1997/2002). Depth of knowledge in four content areas. Retrieved May 15, 2021, from http://ossucurr.pbworks. com/w/file/fetch/49691156/Norm%20web%20dok%20by%20subject%20area.pdf

APPENDIX TABLE 14A.1

Alignment of DOK, Habits of Mind, and National Core Art Standards.

•

•

• •

DOK assessment questions

Habits of Mind

NCAS

Remembering

Accuracy and Application

Connecting

What are the stylistic characteristics of the grotesque in art? Share your process for developing your artwork in your journal, via video documentation, or in a PPT presentation. Include steps from ideation to completion. Share an example of the grotesque in art from the past and relate it to a similar style found in everyday items today (products, films, music, etc.).

•

• • • •

•

Take great care with their work and check their work for quality. They have an inquiry mindset. They can demonstrate their understanding. They can apply what they have learned. Can abstract meaning from one learning experience and apply it to another. Use accurate terminology.

VA:Cn10.1.Ia [Proficient] • Document the process of developing ideas from early stages to fully elaborated ideas. VA:Cn10.1.IIa [Accomplished] • Utilize inquiry methods of observation, research, and experimentation to explore unfamiliar subjects through art making. VA:Cn10.1.IIIa [Advanced] • Synthesize knowledge of social, cultural, historical, and personal life with art making approaches to create meaningful works of art or design. (Continued)

96

Najuana P. Lee TABLE 14A.1  (Continued)

Alignment of DOK, Habits of Mind, and National Core Art Standards. DOK assessment questions

Habits of Mind

NCAS

Relating

Perseverance and Resilience

Creating

• In what ways does your artwork strive to be grotesque? How is it also beautiful? • What do you think is the most successful part of your artwork? • What would you change if you could change anything about your work? • Share a challenge you experienced in your art making process and describe how you analyzed the problem and how you overcame that challenge.

Reasoning • Why might an artist choose to create a work of art that is grotesque? • Why might one person find something to be ugly while another believes the same thing to be beautiful? • Why might it be important to live in a world with both beauty and ugliness? • Find or create a collection of five to eight objects, artifacts, or artworks that could impact a viewer’s understanding of beauty and ugliness. Explain how these pieces might influence a viewer’s thinking.

• Analyzing problems and seeking solutions. • Understanding when and why revision is necessary. • Seeking multiple solutions. • Utilizing resources, data, information to inform decisions. • Utilizing prior knowledge to find problems and solutions. • Rebounding from setbacks.

Empathy and Gratitude • Understanding multiple perspectives. • Setting aside one’s own value judgments. • Paraphrasing another’s point of view. • Providing examples of views outside of one’s own. • Seek to find meaning. • Open to learning new things and concepts.

VA:Cr1.2.Ia [Proficient] • Shape an artistic investigation of an aspect of present day life using a contemporary practice of art or design. VA:Cr2.1.IIa [Accomplished] • Through experimentation, practice, and persistence, demonstrate acquisition of skills and knowledge in a chosen art form. VA:Cr3.1.IIIa [Advanced] • Reflect on, reengage, revise, and refine works of art or design considering relevant traditional and contemporary criteria as well as personal artistic vision. Presenting VA:Pr6.1.Ia [Proficient] • Analyze and describe the impact that an exhibition or collection has on personal awareness of social, cultural, or political beliefs and understandings. VA:Pr6.1.IIa [Accomplished] • Make, explain, and justify connections between artists or artwork and social, cultural, and political history. VA:Pr6.1.IIIa [Advanced] • Curate a collection of objects, artifacts, or artwork to impact the viewer’s understanding of social, cultural, and/or political experiences. (Continued)

97

BEYOND THE COLOR WHEEL TABLE 14A.1  (Continued)

Alignment of DOK, Habits of Mind, and National Core Art Standards.

•

•

•

•

DOK assessment questions

Habits of Mind

NCAS

Reorganizing

Flexible Thinking and Metacognition

Responding

Analyzing the parts of the whole and being able to see how they fit in the bigger picture. Generating many ideas. Describing how they found a problem and/or solved the problem. Can see the missing parts and articulate this awareness. Can explain why they think a solution is the best solution. Aware of their thinking and can evaluate it.

VA:Re.7.1.Ia [Proficient] • Hypothesize ways in which art influences perception and understanding of human experiences. VA:Re9.1.IIa [Accomplished] • Determine the relevance of criteria used by others to evaluate a work of art or collection of works. VA:Re9.1.IIIa [Advanced] • Construct evaluations of a work of art or collection of works based on differing sets of criteria.

If we lived in a society where only “beautiful” art was allowed to be made, who should decide which pieces are to be considered “beautiful”? Would you want to live in a society that only allowed “beautiful” art? Why or why not? Find an object, work of art, etc., that you truly find ugly. Find one thing that is beautiful about it and write about it or talk about it with the class.  Before starting this lesson, what were your set ideas about beauty and ugliness? How has your thinking about these concepts changed? Think about this process of learning was it difficult or easy for you? Why? How might one’s experience with art influence their understanding of beauty?

•

• •

• • •

TABLE 14A.2

Grading criteria to assess growth. Understand

Know

Do

a. The concepts of beauty and ugliness are subjective, not universal. b. The ideas and values of what are considered beautiful/ugly changes over time. c. One’s personal experiences, ideals, values, and beliefs inform one’s artworks. d. Artworks have meaning and are reflective of the people who create them.

a. The value placed on artworks is reflective of individual’s ideals and beliefs regarding beauty. b. There are similarities between ideals of beauty/ugliness in the past and today. c. There is meaning in artworks and these are reflective of the people who create them. Personal experiences influence the creation of artworks and are reflected in the artist’s voice.

a. Analyzes the origins of one’s own ideas of beauty/ugliness in relation to community, culture, and the world. b. Analyzes the origins of one’s own ideas of beauty/ugliness in relation to community, culture, and the world. c. Make connections between people, place, time and culture in which artworks are made and the meanings within artworks. d. Make connections between their own lives and their artistic voice.

15 Authentic Assessment Through a Summative Bookmaking Unit Debi West

My name is Debi West and I’ve been teaching children through the vehicle of the visual arts for 24 years. Art education is my passion and I’ve been fortunate to have the opportunity to teach at the elementary level and the secondary level, while doing my student teaching at the middle level. Having the opportunity to teach at each level makes me even more mindful that we all teach children first and foremost and all kids want to be recognized and appreciated for their marks, because their marks truly matter!

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT At the time of this writing, I am the Department Chair of the Visual Arts, Co-Department Chair of the Fine Arts and Art Educator at North Gwinnett High School (NGHS) where I have now been teaching for ten years. We have 2,900 students, 9–12 in our school. We are located in Gwinnett County, the largest school district in the state of Georgia with close to 180,000 students. We are in the city of Suwanee in the great state of Georgia and our school just celebrated its 59th year. NGHS is a suburban school where students have a strong desire to succeed; they are quite competitive. The student population is 54% white, 21% Asian, 12% African-American, 9% Hispanic, and 4% Multi-Racial. In 2016, 96% of the 667 students in the senior class graduated and 92% continued their education. Two hundred and eighty-five were honor graduates. It is pretty impressive, and due to the culture of our school, we have very few discipline issues. The school fosters a culture where students respect education and teachers respect students. The lesson presented here is a performance final bookmaking unit for my Intro Secondary art courses. I designed this lesson to showcase exactly what my students learned and retained over the course of the semester. Via a thorough review of our lessons, students had the opportunity to reflect on their learning and recreate art in an accordion-style, theme-based book. This was the perfect tool to assess a semester’s worth of learning. These books are created approximately three weeks before the end of the first semester and act as a semester review. They are graded as their performance final, which is a required assessment for our county but fortunately we are encouraged to create our own. I call these books, “Summative Assessment DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-20

ASSESSMENT THROUGH A SUMMATIVE BOOKMAKING UNIT

99

Books”, and it is one of the most anticipated lessons I teach.  Students and administrators alike look forward to this lesson in that it showcases authentic learning and retention while combining technical and creative lessons and allows students the freedom of choice, which ultimately results in risk-taking and student voice, reiterating that their marks truly matter! This bookmaking unit is a summative assignment for the 14 lessons that compose “Visual Composition I”, the 2D semester class that is the gateway class to the entire visual arts curriculum, also known simply as Intro 2Ds. Visual Comp I is the first class in the foundations sequence. Because demand for the class is high, each year there are six sections of the course offered with generally 34–38 students per class. As this is an intro course, it might appear that it would be relatively simple to teach, but quite the contrary, it is very challenging. Students range in the age from 14 to 18, and they all come with a layered amount of artistic experience. Some have not had an art course since they were ten years old, if any at all. There is a vast spectrum of maturity levels as well as technical skills. The composition of any particular class is unpredictable. Our team of art teachers want all children to learn at high levels as they begin to master the skill sets that they will need as they progress through the curriculum; yet, the students have a multitude of starting points. Each art class requires differentiated learning. It is a daunting pedagogical challenge and it is quite a task developing creative, summative assessments. To introduce the lesson, students begin by creating a list on the board of the 14 lessons they have already completed throughout the semester. These lessons include Name Designs, Elements of Art Study Guide “Cones”, Visualizing Vocabulary, Contour Studies (hand studies and partner portraits), Creative Color Wheels, Value Scale work, Grid Art, Perspective, Mid Term Triptychs, Art History Learning Spheres, Printmaking, Painting 101, and their weekly visual journal prompt-based work that includes direct observation drawing, collage, and text. Just having the kids reflect on this list of a semester’s worth of learning in a class discussion makes for an exciting art day in that I remind them where they were when they walked into the room four months earlier; they were excited, scared, challenged, intimidated, nervous, and eager to learn! If we remember where our kids are coming from, it helps in the planning of the curriculum, determining educational expectations, and designing appropriate assessment tools. This moment of taking stock is an opportunity for me to note where each student is coming from, and, in turn, it serves as an opportunity for determining individual assessment expectations. Once this list is complete, we discuss elements, principles, media, and techniques learned. Finally, the students chose their personal top eight lessons. These can be their favorites or perhaps a few that challenged them and they would like to rework.  They will reimagine these eight lessons on miniature 4" × 6" cards to align with their own individual themebased books. The exciting part is that the recreations are purely THEIRS in that they only need to show the technique and media used. Students must identify a personal theme for their book and then rework each card using a subject matter that flows with their theme, so they have an awesome opportunity to be divergent thinkers. Talk about risk-taking! These recreations move past a mere performance of acquired techniques. Students explore a selfselected theme! Students had opportunities throughout the semester to take risks and they are encouraged to think divergently, but this final lesson demands it! Students need to show this in their final book. In class, students begin to consider their book theme by making lists of things they like and enjoy. The assignment is open to their interests and the visual culture in which they actively participate. When they have their themes narrowed down, they begin planning out which lesson “miniature” will fit most creatively into their book theme.  After each of the 4" × 6" miniature artworks is organized and glued down to the 24" × 6" accordion frame, students create a table of contents, a front cover, a back AND they are required

100

Debi West

FIGURE 15.1  High performance (under the sea)

to write a critique on one of their works using Feldman’s critical method—describe, analyze, interpret, and judge (Feldman, 1994) and insert this creatively on the inside back cover. As an example, one student made her book a jellyfish, with an “Under the Sea” theme and each of the eight inserts was creative underwater scenes (Figure 15.1). Her contour study was a fish drawing, her name design was Dolphin, and her grid art was a beautiful rendering of a sea turtle. The entire book was incredibly done, and completely hers! She showed mastery of the essential county standards but she did it her own unique way and created a Summative Assessment accordion-style book she was proud of and took complete ownership over!  Overwhelmingly, my intro students create original, thoughtful, themed books that showcase individual growth. Even my struggling artists are proud of how well their books end up. As an example of medium performance, Figure 15.2 shows a quite creative book, but there are craftsmanship issues and some technical issues that would move it out of the highperformance range.

FIGURE 15.2  Medium performance (my phone book)

ASSESSMENT THROUGH A SUMMATIVE BOOKMAKING UNIT

101

FIGURE 15.3  Low performance (girls just wanna have fun)

Most teachers would be thrilled with this one, but my students are generally working above this range and this student had the ability to go beyond the work shown above. Figure 15.3 shows low performance. This book was on its way to becoming a strong book as it’s quite creative but the student didn’t complete each of her inserts and her craftsmanship was lacking. As you can see, this student knows how to work at a high level of ability, she chose not to. See Table 15A.1 in the Appendix for the full rubric. Through the construction of the Summative Assessment Book, students realize for themselves all that they have learned. They synthesize and apply knowledge in large part because they are thrilled to have complete ownership over their themes.  Students further demonstrate their ability to talk about what they have learned when they present their art to the class. Often, they are shy and a bit nervous. However, most of them cannot wait to show off their creations and share what they learned with the class, because they have had the freedom to make something deeply personal. The eight assignments are no longer an externally imposed task, but a different lens through which the students can now speak. The Summative Assessment Book demonstrates how all students can learn at high levels. Although most students earn As (90–100), we do have a few students earn Bs, Cs, and Ds when they are missing portions or they lack the care that comes with their craftsmanship. A few students have even failed over the years but this was due to students not completing the books and only earning credit for the work submitted. I believe there are several reasons for this high rate of success and the most obvious is that students have three weeks of in-class studio time devoted to working on their inserts and their overall book. I am able to monitor their individual progress and continually guide them as their art teacher. Students also realize that this assessment project is their course performance final which is worth 10% of their overall grade and as mentioned earlier, this is a school where students want to succeed and work hard because they know that education matters. Individual student’s performance is different, but achievement is scored by personal growth, not the attainment of pre-assumed technical benchmarks. Students from past years are always anxious to see what this year’s intro art students have created and many reflect that this was one of their all-time favorite lessons. The returning students contribute to building a positive art community based on an in-school experience. This aligns to upper administrative objectives of creating positive energy in the school as a place where students want to be.

102

Debi West

While assessment is first and foremost a tool to help students, assessment is also important for communicating evidence of learning to the school administration. As mentioned, the assessment provides evidence of obtaining externally articulated standards, but it does far more than this. This assessment resonates with the administration as its emphasis on projectbased learning and responsibility for individual inquiry aligns with the school’s educational goals. It does more than meet learning objectives; it fulfills educational goals. Members of our administrative team come down to the art room to see the in-process work, to talk to the kids about their ideas, and to applaud their risk-taking and creativity! Imagine if every assessment tool created garnered this much respect and enthusiasm and actually assessed student’s learning so authentically.

REFERENCE Feldman, E. B. (1994). Practical art criticism. Prentice Hall.

APPENDIX TABLE 15A.1

Bookmaking assignment rubric. Final Project Evaluation—“Bookmaking Assignment” Name:                 Period:         Cover:

10 points

     

Table of Contents Page:

5 points

     

8 Projects:

5 points each (40)

     

Back Cover:

5 points

     

Overall Creativity:

10 points

     

Overall Craftsmanship:

10 points

     

Essay Critique:

10 points

     

Presentation:

10 points

     

Total Grade:

100

     

Student Comments:  Teacher Comments: Presentation Grade:         

Final Grade:          ©dewestudio2013

16 Expressive Portraits Visual Narratives of Affective and Technical Assessment Deborah N. Filbin

INTRODUCTION: THE SCHOOL SETTING I teach at Bloom High School, an urban/suburban district in the south suburbs of Chicago, Illinois. A majority of the incoming students are identified as members of an underserved population. The student body consists of approximately 1,600 students; 73% are low income, 47% Black, 44% Hispanic, 5% White, and 4% identify as mixed race. I have taught there for 20 years, and in that time, I have witnessed notable changes including a reduced budget, reduction in the number of teachers in the art department, and changes in educational policy that have increased emphasis on reading and math, leaving our students with fewer opportunities for enrollment in electives, including the arts. The school has multiple elementary districts feeding into the high school district, and many students enter with inconsistent art and design foundational experiences from their middle schools ranging from some experience to none at all; many students who are interested in art are self-taught. While our department curriculum offers a robust selection of courses with two-dimensional and three-dimensional classes, including AP Studio Art, the limited number of electives students can take has interrupted course sequencing for students wishing to pursue learning in the visual arts. In some cases, the first time a student may be able to take an art elective is during their junior or senior year. To maintain our advanced level studio art classes, waiving prerequisites for enrollment in introductory level courses are made based on student need. To ensure all courses in the art department have an opportunity to run, upper-level classes like Drawing and Painting run concurrently in the same classroom with AP Studio Art. In my district, there is a maximum enrollment of 29 students per class. Introductory level courses such as Art Fundamentals may have the maximum number; however, in the advanced level class described in this chapter, there are multiple small classes within one room keeping the total number of students enrolled to the cap size of 29. Without this accommodation, none of the higher-level courses would run potentially eliminating our advanced level studio and AP program entirely. DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-21

104

Deborah N. Filbin

THE LESSON: EXPRESSIVE PORTRAIT The ‘Expressive Portrait’ lesson was taught mid-way through the Drawing and Painting class at a time when students had refined their drawing ability, became aware of their personal artistic style and limitations, and had developed a rapport with their classmates creating a caring studio environment that fosters peer-teaching. Because the Drawing and Painting class takes place in the same room at the same time as the AP classes, there is often a cross-over of student communication and peer-teaching between classes. The lesson began with students learning the technical skills of creating, stretching, and priming a canvas. When the canvas preparation was complete, the students were instructed to develop pre-sketches to use in a portrait painting with acrylic media. After developing pre-sketches, a variety of interpretations of ‘portrait’ and ‘self-portrait’ were shown to the class, including those from the visual art community and acrylic-painted exemplars from former students, some including mixed-media with the acrylic paint. The breadth of examples included realistic, symbolic, and expressive, widening the scope of possibilities and leaving open opportunities for students to individually interpret their own meaning of an ‘expressive portrait’. Students were presented with the lesson objective: Create an expressive portrait painting on canvas using acrylic media. The objective was intentionally written in broad terms to encourage individual interpretation; it was not prescribed if the portrait had to be of themselves or someone else, nor was it required for the portrait to be realistic or symbolic, opening a gateway for students to navigate the term expressive. Multiple demonstrations of acrylic painting techniques were provided for students, showing them how to incorporate paint additives such as thickening and thinning agents, how to add other materials, and proper care of materials and tools, including clean-up. After these demonstrations, students were encouraged to make an informed choice of style, choosing between realistic, abstract, or combining qualities in an expressive way. Students could also choose a painterly or blended acrylic painting technique, or incorporate other media with the acrylic paint. Finally, to address the expressive component, the portrait had to be a visual narrative of an experience, thus telling a story through the image or creating a metaphor. Examples of previous student work were introduced demonstrating multiple approaches to this assignment and brief discussion of levels of performance which demonstrated visual benchmarks. Many students embraced this lesson as a way of telling visual stories about themselves or experiences through their paintings, and the examples helped students understand that there could be multiple interpretations of a portrait. The layers of meaning within the finished products became rich visual narratives, which included grappling with personal identity, gender, ethnicity, and grief. One student shared a meaningful experience of losing someone she cared about deeply, however could not bring herself to talk about it. Her painting became a way of ‘telling’ her story, expressing her emotions in a safe space, and working through her grief. Her tears became the wisps of dandelion seeds that float away, carrying away her tears (Figure 16.1). Another student shared her story of dealing with understanding her ethnic identity in a family of immigrants, and the complex layers of confusion she contended with when understanding her roots as a Mexican-American young woman. She was inspired by an image of a person of color being painted ‘white’ as the erasure of their heritage. This moved her deeply, and she created her portrait with traditional colors from Mexico in the background; however, the symbolic image of herself is facing the viewer with confused ambivalence about her multiple identities: She struggled with her sexual identity as a lesbian; however, in her family, it is not accepted or discussed, erasing the value of her sexual orientation. Her diminishing self-worth is magnified by the pressure she feels by her family to deny

105

EXPRESSIVE PORTRAITS

FIGURE 16.1  Student artwork: grief

her Mexican heritage and the need to project ‘whiteness’ in American society symbolized by white silhouettes of hands removing the brown of her skin. The image accompanying this description is not included out of respect for the student’s privacy. While most of the students approached the ‘portrait’ assignment literally by ensuring the painting contained a recognizable image of a face, some of the students worked abstractly. One student who struggled with his portrait-drawing skills chose to create an abstract image intentionally to avoid the pressure of having to paint a portrait (Figure 16.2). Another student, who was very talented with portrait skills, grappled with depression and chose to work completely abstract, painting different shades of blue colliding with one another illustrating the emotional turmoil and conflicting views of self within her own personality (Figure 16.3). While the student did not paint a ‘portrait’ in the traditional notion, the student clearly embraced the idea of ‘expression’ by visually describing the emotions she internalized and hid from view.

FIGURE 16.2  Student artwork, untitled

106

Deborah N. Filbin

FIGURE 16.3  Student artwork ‘Confusion’

The unit culminated with students participating in a class critique which leads to the assessment process. At the beginning of the course, group norms were established about conducting critiques, which put the responsibility of group critique on the students. This encourages students to develop trust in each other, and a comfort level allowing for honest and often unfiltered conversations. Being an observer rather than the facilitator of the discussion provides me with insight into the student work that may not have been evident by looking at the finished product alone, and welcomes the voice of the student’s interpretation adding to my understanding of the meaning of their work during the grading process. Students have the option to refine their paintings based on feedback from the group critique before submitting their work for a grade through a teacher-student rubric-based critique. During the critique, the student who painted the art in Figure 16.2 shared with his peers how he struggled with this assignment, and was afraid that his work would not be good enough, so he chose the abstract image to avoid having to work realistically. He was not proud of the quality of his work; however, his peers were very supportive, and congratulated him on trying, but gave him feedback on how to improve his painting. As a result of this encouragement, he refined his painting by adding more color and crisping the edges before the work was graded.

ASSESSMENT The assessment process begins with observing the group critique, allowing students to reflect on their work, process feedback from peers, and analyze their growth in the class. Assessments are a holistic approach which considers pre-sketches, development of work throughout the course, and work on the specific assignment. Grading work from students who have a wide span of foundational experiences becomes a delicate balance of weighing technical merit, creative expression, use of materials, and meeting the objective, while demonstrating growth in artistic ability and expression; this is not always an easy task, and a standard rubric that prescribes outcomes for the grade level is not always practical with this population of students. The general rubric for the art department is rooted in the four artistic processes of the National Core Arts Standards; creating, presenting, responding, and connecting which has been described; however, a strong component of assessing and documenting student growth is a primary concern for teachers. This general department rubric is most often used with beginning level students (Appendix, Table 16A.1). Student growth is monitored when working with advanced level classes; however, I find that the most important component in accurately measuring growth is encouraging student voice in the assessment process by

107

EXPRESSIVE PORTRAITS

having the student partner with me when assessing work. The rubric for this assignment judges how students met the objectives of creating an expressive portrait, and utilized acrylic paint material on canvas, and monitors their growth in the class using a 4–1 scale, with 4 indicating excellent work and 1 indicating work that was poorly executed (Appendix, Table 16A.2). Also, students are encouraged to take risks with either material or subject matter as a way to demonstrate their artistic and creative growth. Risk taking is a component on the rubric, so students are aware that it is an option if they feel comfortable doing so. Students in higher-level courses are building a portfolio for their final assessment, so it is important for them to take the responsibility of communicating how they see themselves progressing in the course, and charting their growth in the class. The rubric is discussed with the student, part of the holistic process of measuring the levels at which students are demonstrating learning, and rewarding the student with a grade that accurately reflects their achievements at their ability level. This is quite different from the summative exam of the portfolio because the development of work is still in process; however, it is necessary in public education to assign grades at the conclusion of assignments to indicate how the student is progressing. By having students be active participants in the assessment process, they are able to take ownership in charting their growth in the class which will help them make informed choices for their final portfolio exam. Not all students were successful in achieving a truly ‘expressive’ portrait; for example, the student who completed the painting in Figure 16.2 struggled with the creation of an expressive portrait because he lacked confidence in his portrait-drawing skills. He did persevere, however, with painting and learning acrylic painting technique to ensure he completed the assignment. It was evident the care and support provided by peers gave guidance to this struggling student to complete his work to the best of his ability. The student who had excellent portrait-drawing skills chose not to use them in her expressive portrait painting (Figure 16.3). Rather, she embraced the opportunity to take a risk with content and technique and explored an abstract expressionist style solution to the painting assignment. During critique, she was afraid that her peers would not like her painting because she felt there were no identifiable ‘portrait’ elements; however, she openly expressed her emotional response to the assignment, describing her battle with depression, and how her color choice and brushstrokes symbolized what she was actually feeling on difficult days. Much to her surprise, classmates embraced her response and supported her with positive feedback, and even some hugs.

APPENDIX TABLE 16A.1

General department rubric

Name                  Assignment:           Artistic Process: Creating

60 Points Possible

Demonstrates evidence of: Understanding the goals and objectives of the assignment: Generating original ideas Develops ideas with good work ethic Demonstrates positive studio behavior Points earned:          dvanced (60-54) Accomplished (53-48) Proficient (47-42) Below Standard (41-36) Little A to No evidence (35-0)

108

Deborah N. Filbin

Artistic Process: Presenting

20 Points Possible

Demonstrates evidence of: •

Presenting work, conveying meaning, or discusses artistic process

•

Ability to self-critique or positively participate in class critique

•

Care in the completion of work

Points earned:          dvanced (20-18) Accomplished (17-16) Proficient (15-14) Below Standard (13-12) Little A to No evidence (12-0)

Artistic Process: Responding and Connecting

20 Points Possible

Demonstrates evidence of: • •

Ability to utilize feedback from critique to improve work, or learn from artistic experience Ability to utilize artwork to make connections with contemporary culture, historical context, or personal experience

Points earned:           dvanced (20-18) Accomplished (17-16) Proficient (15-14) Below Standard (13-12) Little A to No evidence (12-0)

Total points earned for the assignment:          TABLE 16A.2

Holistic rubric for Expressive Portraits

Name                   Creation of an Expressive Portrait 4 Excellent solution to an expressive portrait; the painting clearly expresses a narrative, visual metaphor, or describes an experience. Took a risk in subject matter, or presented a creative solution to the problem. 3 Very good solution to an expressive portrait; the painting shows a narrative, visual metaphor, or an experience. May have taken some risk in subject matter, or tried to present a creative solution to the problem. 2 Good solution to an expressive portrait; the painting is unclear about a narrative, visual metaphor, or an experience; however, there was an attempt. Did not take any risk with subject matter, or presented a safe solution to the problem.

EXPRESSIVE PORTRAITS

109

1 Poor solution to an expressive portrait; the painting does not address a narrative, visual metaphor, or an experience. Did not choose to take any risks, or didn’t present a successful solution to the problem. Application and Use of Acrylic Paint Materials and Technique 4 Excellent application of paint materials and use of techniques; all materials were cared for properly and the painting technique selected was an excellent choice to support the expressive portrait. May have chosen to take a risk with trying something new with materials or technique. 3 Very good application of paint materials and use of techniques; materials were cared for properly most of the time, and the painting technique was a good choice to support the expressive portrait. May have chosen to make a safe selection of materials or technique to ensure a good quality painting, or made an attempt to be experimental. 2 Good application of paint materials and use of techniques; materials were sometimes not cared for, and the painting technique was sufficient to support the idea for the expressive portrait. Did not take any risks with materials or techniques, used materials and technique as demonstrated. 1 Poor application of paint materials and use of techniques; careless with materials, not much consideration was given to painting technique or to choosing a technique to compliment an expressive portrait. Minimal use of materials or application of technique. Growth and Development in the Class 4 Excellent evidence of growth and development in the class; shared multiple artifacts from sketchbook or other work that clearly demonstrates growth, clearly described evidence of growth and development throughout the assignment and during the critique, and self-identified struggles or areas that are in need of improvement. 3 Very good evidence of growth and development in the class; shared an artifact from sketchbook or other work that demonstrates growth, described evidence of growth and development during the assignment and during critique, and was open to identifying struggles for areas that are in need of improvement. 2 Good evidence of growth and development in the class; shared an artifact from sketchbook or other work that showed some growth, was open to providing evidence of growth or development during the assignment or during critique, and needed some guidance to identify struggles or areas of improvement. 1 Poor evidence of growth and development in the class; did not share artifacts from sketchbook or other work to demonstrate growth in the class, was not open to exchange information during critique and reluctant to identify areas of improvement. Agreed upon grade after considering the indicators in the rubric:         * This rubric is completed with both the teacher and student during the teacher/student assessment critique.

17 Drawn Personalities Laura Milas

LESSON CONTEXT As a comprehensive, college preparatory high school, Hinsdale Central High School art classrooms average 22 students, with the maximum of 18 in three-dimensional studios and 24 in two-dimensional classes. The school district average class size is 20. Studio Art students represent all segments of our school and represent the diversity found in all art classes. The 24 students in Studio Art include three special needs students who have one-to-one instructional aides; three students on the Autism spectrum; two students who are English Language Learners; two foreign exchange students; six Special Education students; five regular education students; and three honor students. There are nine freshmen, four sophomores, six juniors, and five seniors. The school is situated in an upper-middle-class community with 8% low-income students. Studio Art/Studio Art Honors is a beginning level course in our program. The semester course exposes students to all other studio course offerings: drawing, painting, ceramics, metal jewelry making, and digital design. With a general course goal of individual improvement, students work on class projects and keep sketchbooks. Sketchbooks are used to document the creative process, to take notes, and to complete three monthly assigned pages. Students are able to select either regular or honors designation for this class. To fulfill the honors credit, students are expected to find more complex solutions and complete an enrichment option, such as entering an art contest or exhibition, attending an artist talk, or participating in a workshop or art class outside of school. In this course, six students are enrolled for honors credit.

LESSON CONTENT: LAYERED PERSONALITIES The drawing unit has many foci. The overarching question is: How do artists create a portrait that reveals aspects of the personality of the sitter to an audience? Improving one’s ability to see and draw are goals, as is, material exploration, and design decision-making that increases meaning in the work. Students are involved in a creative process that has affective DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-22

111

DRAWN PERSONALITIES TABLE 17.1 Practice media and strategies for a layered personality lesson. Drawing materials

Drawing strategies

Pencil Colored Pencil Charcoal/pastel Embroidery White pencils on black paper

Seeing simple shapes (and ± spaces) Using comparisons to draw Siting/measuring Line/mark-making/edges Seeing patterns of light and shadow

components (overcoming anxiety, perseverance) and intellectual challenges (selecting from options, developing a likeness, designing composition). In this unit, students use pencil, colored pencil, charcoal, and embroidery. Practice with each medium and with the six drawing strategies precedes the portrait instruction, as did a day explaining how vision works and how memories may interfere with seeing. The drawing media and strategies were paired for daily practice in Table 17.1. By increasing the period of practice, a teacher can increase the odds that students will be receptive to feedback (Brookhart, 2015; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Practice allows students to see which materials best suit them and their ideas. It also builds time for students to consider many options instead of rushing them into one solution prematurely. These preliminary drawings were used as collage material in many of the final projects. For beginner studio artists and their teachers, drawing poses a unique challenge since it tends to polarize students into two groups: those who have faith in their drawing skills or those who do not. Since emotions are the gateway to learning, students need to be supported to find success (Immordino-Yang, 2015). Explicitly teaching drawing strategies can counteract the sketchy, generalized memories of things that our brains construct. Teaching drawing strategies expands the repertoire available to all students as it also demystifies the drawing process and expands the problem-solving abilities of all. These young artists need support throughout the creative process to minimize the anxiety, fear, and frustration that can occur. Art-making is a complex act and students need encouragement and feedback to achieve personal improvement.

ASSESSMENT AND FEEDBACK In our District, we reviewed state and national art standards (Illinois State Board of Education, 2016; National Coalition for Core Standards, 2014) and have identified four key areas: Creating: students will ideate and complete artistic work; Connecting: students will connect art-making and art to themselves and contemporary life; Responding: students will critique art; and Presenting: students will share artistic work purposefully. Some criteria for this project, such as craftsmanship, can be observed readily. The conceptual sophistication found in the Creating standard is more variable among early and late teen learners but can be demonstrated by oral or written comments and reflection. Since Studio Art attracts a diverse population, the rubric assessment leans toward observable criteria. The use of tools, the compositional design, and development of value in a drawing can be observed by an examining student work. Consider the portrait scoring “Above” (Figure 17.1). The drawing shows advancement beyond symbolic representation of facial features and shows a more refined use of pencils. The work identified as  Medium  (Figure 17.2) shows average marks, and the work identified as Low (Figure 17.3) shows below average mark making on this assignment. A trained art educator can see that the three areas—use of tools, the compositional

112

Laura Milas

FIGURE 17.1  Student sample: Above

design, and development of value—need further development before the works scored MEDIUM or LOW would receive the highest scores on the rubric.  Students help to create and approve the assessment criteria for their drawings. They listed appropriate and inventive use of a creative medium; the use of design to convey meaning; the development of a visual theme to display the unique personality of the sitter; and craftsmanship through achieving a likeness and successful use of drawing medium. A modified assessment tool was also constructed for certain members of the class. A shorter criteria list was distributed and glued into sketchbooks. Having these, “at your elbow” goals, simplifies the language of the rubric for easy accessibility; keeps students focused on the project criteria; and allows students to assess their work for strengths and weaknesses. Two open-ended questions on the final rubric try to address the affective aspects of the drawing process (see Appendix: Tables 17A.1 and 17A.2). Sentence stems of “I am proudest of …” and “Next time I draw a person …” may allow a student to discuss personal priorities and reflect on the drawing process. Since our emotional selves influence our comprehension of knowledge and determine our experience of learning, questions of this sort are important feedback for teachers (Immordino-Yang, 2015).

FIGURE 17.2  Student sample: Medium

113

DRAWN PERSONALITIES

FIGURE 17.3  Student sample: Low

These questions also allow teens to safely and privately share their thoughts. A formal project rubric is important because it clarifies the project expectations. However, to help students make the most progress, our District favors the use of daily feedback and interim critiques. Daily verbal feedback is invaluable and has been said to double the speed of learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Dialogue in the studio provides opportunities to build trust and contribute to a positive creative climate that can foster confidence and experimentation (Cropley, 1992). To be effective, feedback should be descriptive, not judgmental, and never attached to a grade (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Feedback can underscore problemsolving, work method, or technical aspects of the work. When possible, it is best to have the student lead the discussion. This can be accomplished with a simple prompt, such as “What do you notice about your work today?” Individual feedback may lead to identification of trends best suited to whole-group instruction. An interim critique, at a half-way point, enables the project criteria to be underscored and brought back to the consciousness of the student artists. The mid-way critique also allows the teacher to reteach or encourage students to share solutions. At the interim critique, a teacher can also note each student’s progress by recording a rating or by photographing results. With a reasonable interval, these notes or images can be compared to the final results and provide evidence of growth or progress. Both daily feedback and interim feedback allow students the time to make changes and improvements, whereas the rubric assessment is summative and thus, too late to give guidance.

HIDDEN CURRICULUM OF RUBRICS The widespread use of rubrics in art rooms is common but should be recognized for its shortcomings and benefits. One limitation to rubrics is that they do not easily accommodate divergent solutions. For example, in this drawing unit, one student decided to explore embroidered line for her final project (Figure 17.4). If the rubric was strictly applied to this student, their work would have been not met project criteria. Project rubrics may limit student ideation to just the teacher’s predetermined outcome. Studio Art students reported in a post-unit survey that they never considered doing more than the top descriptors on the rubric. Is there a way to encourage students to seek solutions that take chances and stretch students beyond the top level of teacher assumptions? A well-written rubric reinforces learning targets, provides consistency

114

Laura Milas

FIGURE 17.4  Student materials choice—embroidered line

in assessment, and may improve student performance and motivation. Criterion-based rubrics may allow a team of teachers to assess work with more consistent and focused teaching (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). But a rubric may also have a damping effect on student exploration and divergent thinking. Balancing rubrics with daily feedback and writing rubrics to support divergent solutions needs to be explored by art educators. Student motivation for art-making needs to remain intrinsic and mastery-driven (Pink, 2009). If a rubric can limit reasonable exploration, perhaps, art teachers should find new ways to write and use them.

REFERENCES Brookhart, S. (2015). How to give effective feedback to your students (2nd ed.). ASCD. Cropley, A. J. (1992). More ways than one: Fostering creativity. Ablex. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. Illinois State Board of Education. (2016). Illinois arts learning standards: Visual arts standards. Springfield, IL: Illinois State Board of Education. Immordino-Yang, M. H. (2015). Emotions, learning, and the brain. Norton. National Coalition for Core Standards, (2014). National core arts standards: A conceptual framework for arts learning. State Education Agency Directors of Arts Education (SEADAE). http://www.nationalartsstandards.org/ Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Riverhead. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd expanded ed.). ASCD.

TABLE 17A.1 

Drawn identities rubric. Final grading rubric—STUDIO ART-PORTRAIT UNIT Ideate/Creativity: Appropriate and inventive use of the creative medium

Composition: Evidence that Design is used to convey meaning

Content/Concept: Development of Theme

Craftsmanship: Skill with tools and techniques

Excellent Work

I used multiple approaches to work throughout the process I was inventive in my use of materials and my work is original The collage layer highlights the personality of the person in the portrait

Design unifies the work Collage uses texture and direction to express meaning about the person to the audience

The personality of the individual drawn is communicated to a viewer The pose and placement on the page help reinforce the personality of the portrait Drawing tools are used to further the meaning of the work

Image reflects accurate proportions and facial features—a likeness is achieved (drawing strategies were successfully used) Drawing tool is used with skill Quality is consistent in tonal areas; highlights and shadows create drama

Emerging Work

I used one or two approaches throughout the process I used materials in a routine way; my work is typical of other portraits The collage layer tried to develop the personality of the person in the portrait

Designs are partially successful in unifying the work Collage has limited use of texture and direction but it doesn’t help convey meaning

The personality of the portrait is partially communicated to the viewer The pose and placement could have been more deliberate Drawing tools are not used for expressive purposes

Image is somewhat accurate in proportion and facial features. Drawing tools are used inconsistently. Tonal areas do not represent the complete range from black to white Some highlights and/or shadows are missing

Work needs additional improvements

Creative problem-solving needs to happen to improve my work Decisions need to be made about the portrait to improve its uniqueness

The design is incomplete Collage elements are missing/ unfinished

The personality of the portrait is not clearly communicated and needs further work. Drawing tools could be used to increase the meaning of the work

Image is out of proportion in areas and/ or as a whole- changes are needed Drawing tools are not used with care Tones are not developed

115

Answer one or both: I am proudest of …. Next time I draw a person … I

DRAWN PERSONALITIES

APPENDIX

116

Laura Milas TABLE 17A.2

Drawn identities modified rubric. Final grading rubric—STUDIO ART-PORTRAIT UNIT Ideate/Creativity: Appropriate and inventive use of the creative medium

Composition: Evidence that Design is used to convey meaning

Content/Concept: Development of Theme

Craftsmanship: Skill with tools and techniques

Excellent Work

I tried many different ideas I used materials in new ways My collage layer is unique

My work is unified. Collage layer tells us something about the person.

I showed the personality of the person in my portrait. My portrait is not looking directly at the viewer.

I was able to draw the face accurately. I used the drawing tool with skillshighlights and shadows are included.

Emerging Work

I used one or two approaches in the drawing. I used materials in a routine way. The collage layer is less unique.

My work is partially unified. Collage has limited use of texture and movement.

The personality of the portrait is partially communicated to the viewer. My portrait looks straight at the viewer.

Image is somewhat accurate in proportion and facial features. Drawing tools are used inconsistently. Tonal areas are attempted by may be incomplete.

Answer one or both: I am proudest of …. Next time I draw a person … I

18 Summary Section III The Role of “Context” in Assessment gloria j. wilson

Over the last eight years as an art educator in higher education, I have listened to many novice art teachers describing the concept of assessment as “daunting.” As a former high school art teacher, I too recall a feeling of overwhelm during my early years of teaching. For many pre-service and in-service teachers, assessment conjures up notions of standardized testing, multiple choice responses, and rigid structures. Assessment becomes a taboo word for others, suggesting that visual art cannot (or should not) be judged. Others are struck by the idea that assessment can, indeed, exist in a variety of formats and can take place at various points across a lesson and/or unit plan. Many are thrilled to know that assessment strategies can be formal and informal. In all, assessment is a critical facet of the teaching and learning process, but may initially feel intimidating. I recall the many hours I have spent trying to craft authentic learning and growth opportunities for each student. The preceding chapters in this section have addressed the nuances of technical and affective assessments within high school art classrooms in Chicago and Atlanta, some with varying combinations of both. Foremost, the narratives presented are critically contextualized by a candid reveal of the demographics of schools, students, and surrounding communities. To begin here is to acknowledge that teaching and learning are influenced by various social, material, and economic resources within and around communities, schools, and classrooms. These contexts are further influenced by policy requirements in the form of State and National Standards. When combined, these details matter when considering what types of assessment will serve and support student learning, inform the teaching process, while also meeting policy expectations. Assessments are often viewed as something for students; however, meaningful assessment strategies can and should influence the overall educative process of teaching and learning. The narratives of assessment provided by these four high school art teachers resonate deeply with me. As a former high school art teacher, I know the importance of creating meaningful lessons, which connect to the lived experiences of students. Within their narratives, each art teacher references the influence of national core art standards: creating, presenting, responding, and creating as a springboard and tool to guide their curriculum planning. These standards also serve as a means to encourage student voice in the assessment process. Working with students’ varied levels of artistic experience, each teacher aims to achieve a DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-23

118

gloria j. wilson

thoughtful balance of formal and informal assessment strategies that include rubrics, dialogic methods of inquiry, idea-processing/research in sketchbooks, peer-to-peer critiques and studio practice, each with the intention of setting high expectations and challenging students to take ownership of their learning, while simultaneously charting growth in the process and through final products. Students are pushed through exploration of materials and decisionmaking processes that aims to deepen meaning in their studio habits and practices. Georgian teacher, NaJuana Lee, emphasizes this importance and utilizes a variety of technical and affective assessment strategies in order to measure student growth. Describing her school demographics as affluent and high-performing, she states that these characteristics influenced her considerations for authentic assessment. To this end, she chose aesthetic inquiry as a point of departure for her lesson. Lee writes about her student’s deep engagement with “aesthetic puzzles,” as a starting point for discussions about beauty and ugliness in artworks. An often popular starting point for aesthetic inquiry and great way to engage young adults in thinking about and through art and their own lives, this strategy aligns with her motivation for a student-oriented and teacher-supported approach. In contrast to the self-described affluent culture of Lee’s school, Deb Filbin details her Chicago, Illinois South suburb district as low-income, with a majority of students identifying as Black and Hispanic. She takes into consideration that her students arrive to her classroom with varied levels of experience in art; yet, her “expressive portrait” lesson is thoughtfully conceptualized to support students’ refined technical construction (building a canvas) and drawing skills, while also providing opportunities for students to explore the possibility of creative expression. Filbin is thoughtfully attuned to her student’s experiences and provided an affective feature, which served as a gateway into deeper reflection into visualizing a narrative of student’s lives. In this assignment, students were able to characterize their emotions and the challenges associated with their gendered and ethnic identities. Laura Milas’ describes a variation of how assessment might be addressed with her Chicago upper-middle-class art students. Like many art teachers, she must creatively address the challenges of a combined multi-level art class. In her case, she must design curriculum and assessment for foundational studio art and honors-level studio art. She provides an example of differentiation of assessment strategies as a means to support each student in their creative journey, while aiming to minimize anxiety that may come when engaging with technical processes (drawing, painting, etc.). To support this, she includes specific questions to address affective aspects of technical processes (I am proudest of …), while also highlighting that dialogue, in the form of in-process critiques, allows for opportunities of trust-building as a means to foster an encouraging creative climate for experimentation. Debi West describes a creative summative assessment strategy which supports student autonomy and agency. Her bookmaking project acts as a semester review, while also serves as a way for students to reflect on their learned skills and processes. This form of reflective assessment allows students to review their portfolio of 14 completed studio assignments and then choose, re-imagine, and re-engage with eight of these lessons to create something new—a personal individual theme-based book. As they re-work their prior lessons, they are able to take ownership of their growth of learning by applying prior knowledge and synthesizing this knowledge into a new whole and new understandings. Not only does this type of summative assessment demonstrate how each student is supported to engage at nuanced levels of learning; it also communicates evidence of learning aligned with the broader State and National educational goals. Each of these narratives provides a snapshot of how assessment strategies can be thoughtfully inserted at various stages of the learning process. Assessment does not have to be scary or elusive, nor does it need to be limited to traditional tropes of standardization. Which brings me back to my earlier mention of the anxiety it may cause for some educators. In my current role as an art educator to pre-service art teachers, I remind students that assessment strategies

119

SUMMARY SECTION III

should occur the second one begins (formative) and continue in varied ways through to the close of the lesson (summative). In other words, a critical approach to assessment would mean to first understand that students’ lived experiences (prior and current knowledge) should be considered when approaching the teaching and learning process. This knowledge must not be limited to formal learning but must include informal knowledge as well. It is only when we are able to critically understand student’s varied lived experiences and varied ways of being and knowing that we can become more effective in designing strategies well-suited to support the learning of all students. In other words, our assessment strategies are a reflection of our own effectiveness as teachers. NaJuana Lee alludes to this idea, stating “…creating meaningful learning experiences that held relevance to my student’s lives delineated the daily battle lines between thirty-three fully engaged art students and an allout teenage mutiny in the art classroom” (page number). What I believe she is saying here is: We must be critically thoughtful when designing curricula and assessments that meet and support the needs of students. This may lead us to ask: How might teachers make assessment equitable and effective? It has been over two decades since Beattie (1997) offered a wealth of suggestions for making this happen; yet, each suggestion holds true today. Over the years, I have been able to collect a few keen insights about developing meaningful assessment strategies. I often suggest to preservice and in-service teachers that they seek out and utilize the State and National Standards as springboards for writing curricula. Once these standards have been identified, it is up to the teacher to make keen and critical observations of the cultures of/in their students, classrooms, schools, and the surrounding communities. These actions must work in tandem in order to meet the needs of stakeholders (policy-makers and those for whom policy should serve). I have also discovered recent evaluative measures (edTPA, for instance) that require educators to be attuned to student demographics when designing curriculum. Though not a panacea for resolving historic educational inequities, it inspires a critical place to start. In order to structure an equitable assessment program, differentiation must occur, not only during the instruction process, but also in the means of measuring student learning. This cannot happen if we are not deeply invested in understanding the history of education, the history of a people, and thus, educational disparities which have resulted in inequitable opportunities. Within the scope of the educational landscape, assessment may not be perceived as a glamorous concept to engage with; yet, it is a necessary part of the educative process and pipeline. As a former K-12 teacher, and now art educator, I have spent numerous hours re/designing curricula and working alongside those who are new and veteran to the field of art education. I have experienced and learned that much intimidation occurs when aiming to understand and implement assessment measures which indicate learning and growth in and through art. Assessment texts/books such as this one, which offer practical examples are key to allay some of these anxieties. These chapters offer real stories from teachers who work with students when designing and implementing authentic assessment strategies. These strategies, as revealed in the preceding narratives, are responsive to various types of student knowledge. They highlight both process and product, contain an array of formal and informal measures, reveal a continuous process of evaluation measures, and are responsive to multiple notions of intelligence and creativity (Beattie, 1997). Having a clear view of intersecting, and sometimes competing forces, within the educational landscape is a move toward understanding the critical importance of contextualizing the lived experience, when designing assessment strategies.

REFERENCE Beattie, D. K. (1997). Assessment in art education. Davis.

Section III: Questions and discussion points

1. What do teachers need to know about the lived experiences of their students in order to develop assessments that promote student engagement and learning? a. What does it mean to be inclusive and equitable? b. How does this paradigm relate to content and materials choice? c. How does this paradigm relate to concept and contextual choice? 2. Considering Dr. wilson’s concluding remarks, list some intersecting and/or competing forces that you have identified in the educational landscape of your school or district that impact your ability to construct assessments for learning. 3. How can you work within these parameters to contextualize learning opportunities that honor and invite communication of student lived experiences? 4. Propose ways in which your assessments can measure these important aspects of learning that transcend skills acquisition. 5. Compare some of the strategies outlined in this section to your own teaching of portraiture. What are the essential, priority components of a portrait lesson for secondary students? Explain. 6. How has your own world view shifted through reflecting on conceptual and contextual decisions for your lessons?

DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-24

SECTION IV

Measuring Risk-taking and Ingenuity

Modernist art introduced the idea that art was about breaking rules. Fostering creative classrooms includes inviting students to exceed benchmarks, explicit teacher expectations, and thereby becoming creatively flexible. Such flexibility runs the risk of failure—student art may not always look as good as it might. Flexibility with assignments and assessments also leads to additional, unplanned outcomes, not the least of which might be social-emotional growth and empathetic understandings. As discussed in Chapter 1, Elliot Eisner called this accepting falling short of an educational outcome in order to obtain a strategic aspiration. This is also what Eisner called pursuing an educational expressive outcome rather than an instructional objective (see Chapter 2).

GUIDED READING POINTS • • • • •

How can formative student self-assessment, where students have the opportunity to reflect and modify during the process of art making, be incorporated into end of assignment or end of term summative assessments? What is the impact of a focus on student inquiry that invites the exploration of educational expressive outcomes rather than students closely adhering to instructional objectives? How can dialogue and critique be constructively structured to encourage students to move outside of their comfort zones and embrace authentic personal exploration? What types of core visual knowledge guide creative flexibility? How can artwork move beyond formalistic concerns to reflect important societal issues?

DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-25

19 Commentary Section IV Nurturing and Assessing Risk-taking in the Art Room: A Framework for Teachers Raymond E. Veon

Students encounter risk throughout the art-making process, from the first mark made on a blank canvas or the next coil added to a pot, to mounting an exhibit and watching viewers’ reactions to their work. Learning to risk and respond to the consequences helps students become creatively flexible and confident when facing the unknown. But how do we make risk-taking an explicit part of the educational process and of daily life in the art classroom? While working as part of team writing the Georgia Performance Standards in the Visual Arts in 2009, I was approached by a State Department of Education official about our inclusion of risk-taking in the new standards.1 She objected to its inclusion because risk-taking, according to the Department, did not qualify as a student behavior that is directly observable. Although an artist, I also have a background in the philosophy of science, and this was a perfect opportunity to put this knowledge to use. “Is heat in the Science Standards,” I asked. “Yes, because it is directly observable,” she replied. “Students can use a thermometer.” “Actually, heat isn’t directly observable,” I replied. “The idea that scientific knowledge comes from direct observation harkens back to a century old and disproven view of how science works. Heat comes from the transfer of energy between two objects as the result of a difference in temperature, typically as the result of convection, radiation or convective circulation. Heat comes from the microscopic motion of particles. When energy is transferred from one object to another, it increases the energy of the heated object’s microscopic particles. We don’t directly observe heat but rather the signs of energy transfer. So just as a thermometer gives us a sign of this transfer of energy, teachers can look for signs of risktaking in the creative process.” The official offered no further objections and ultimately risk-taking was included in the Georgia Performance Standards for the Visual Arts (Georgia Department of Education, 2009). Specifically, under the domain of Meaning and Creative Thinking (Standard VAHSVAMC.2), high school students in visual art classes are expected to “Find and solve problems through open ended inquiry” that includes risk-taking in a process that “incorporates existing knowledge, brainstorming…and the discovery of unexpected DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-26

124

Raymond E. Veon

connections” (Georgia Performance Standards for the Visual Arts, 2009, p. 68). Risktaking was also a part of the domain Assessment and Reflection. The term appeared a total of seven times in the 2009 document. The 2015 National Standards did not choose to build on making risk-taking as an assessable outcome (it appears three times – once as an essential question not an assessable outcome). Georgia in 2017, following the National model, edited risk-taking out to a single mention.

FROM STANDARD TO CLASSROOM PERFORMANCE It’s an achievement to get risk-taking into a state performance standard, but it’s another matter to help teachers unpack what it means. State standards are interpreted and used in many different teaching contexts. What qualifies as risk-taking in an urban environment may be very different from risk-taking in a rural one. Whether, how, and in what ways one takes a risk vary greatly by individual and are influenced by age, gender, and background. What, then, is risk-taking and what are some signs that it is happening? Risk is the consequence of an intentional action or choice taken in the face of an unpredictable, uncontrollable, and uncertain outcome. Everything we do has some risk because life is not always predictable. A routine action like walking with a tray in the lunchroom can, at times, be unpredictable: If you trip or someone bumps you, the food could crash to the floor. But art-making is an arena full of the unforeseen because it involves a complex set of intentions, procedures, and materials used to explore, create, and reflect. In this process, the unexpected is often embraced, while the routine is sometimes consciously avoided.

WHERE AND WHEN DOES RISK-TAKING OCCUR IN THE ART CLASSROOM? What is at risk in the art-making process? Again, answers vary by context, culture, and individual. In general, when a student feels fear or uncertainty, there is often the perception of risk. Some areas where we might expect students to encounter risk include use of materials and tools, self-concept and social status, and expression. Use of materials and tools As art teachers, we can miss the risk-taking inherent in wrestling with materials and tools. For some students, developing and improving their skills take them out of their comfort zones. For example, drawing from observation can feel threatening to a student who likes drawing cartoon characters based on a formula or visual convention. Trying a new media might also seem risky; using clay might seem exciting to some, but new, unwieldy, and unsatisfying to others. Finishing a work after early success can also involve risk; having successfully completed the eyes in a portrait, adding the rest of the face might seem like a big step into the unknown. Self-concept and social status Another source of risk in art-making comes from the thought, “What will others think?” “What will others think if I fail, if it doesn’t look good, if my idea isn’t cool or is rejected?”

COMMENTARY SECTION IV

125

Students take pride in the exhibition of their artistic skills because they feel it makes them unique or because others value the images and objects they produce. Exploring new imagery or trying new approaches and media can make a student’s self-concept or social standing seem uncertain, while the responses of peers and the adults whose opinions they value might become unpredictable. Perhaps this is a place where inserting risk-taking as an essential question is a contribution of the National Standards. Your questions here provide guidance on how to unpack a discussion. There is a social dimension of risk-taking that needs to be talked through. Expression Students can be afraid to reveal their values, opinions, and interests to those around them, and they might also be leery of exploring sensitive themes and issues in their art for personal, family, or cultural reasons. Art-making is closely associated with human development, individual psychology, and cultural meaning. We make art to celebrate, to identify something as significant, to acquire status, to map ourselves in space and time, to carve out an identity, to play, to develop our capacity to communicate and conceptualize, and more. Risk can occur throughout the art-making process, and whether we avoid it or embrace it affects our experience of the art we make.

WHY IS RISK-TAKING IMPORTANT? Critical and creative thoughts begin with the unknown and unfamiliar, and so, by their nature, often entail risk. If what we are experiencing at any given moment feels familiar and predictable, there is no need to think critically or creatively about it. In her book on the neuroscience of aesthetic experience, Gabrielle Starr writes that art … makes possible the unexpected valuation of objects, ideas, and perceptions and enables new configurations of what is known, new frameworks for interpretation, and perhaps even a new willingness to entertain what is strange or to let the familiar and the novel live side by side. (Starr, 2015, p. 20)

Risk-taking allows us to expand our intellectual, aesthetic, and emotional horizons. When we take a risk, we attend more closely and are ready to respond to the unexpected; when the unexpected happens, we are ready to respond with the skills we have and improvise if needed. Risk teaches us that we are resilient. Many art educators use the Studio Habits of Mind Framework (Hetland et al., 2013) to structure their teaching, and risktaking connects to the “Stretch and Explore” studio habit: to explore without a preconceived plan or guarantee of success and to embrace the unanticipated opportunities that result. In short, risk-taking helps develop the ability to persist and improvise when the next step, or even the final outcome, is unknown – an important skill both in art-making and in life.

HELPING STUDENTS RISK I’ve taught in classrooms where asking kids to take a risk is about as easy as bathing a cat. Even adolescents, who are biologically predisposed to take risks, avoid risk-taking in classrooms in front of peers. Nurturing students who take appropriate risks in the context of a classroom

126

Raymond E. Veon

involves both teaching (showing and explaining why risk-taking is important) and coaching (motivating and guiding). The following tips can help us develop students who are willing to take artistic risks: 1. Give Permission and Make Risk a Value: It’s important to tell students they have permission to be risk-takers – that it is valued in your classroom. For instance, students think they know what “Bravo!” means, so tell them the real story of how it was first used in the English-speaking theater. We use the word “Bravo!” as a way of saying something is excellent and well-done, but originally it was shouted out when an actor took a chance, when they publicly risked doing something daring on stage to enhance their performance. Whenever you notice a student who takes a chance or tries something new, shout “Bravo!” to them and see how celebrating the courage to risk changes the character of a classroom for the better. 2. Model Risk-Taking: When demonstrating a process, purposely try something new and tell students you haven’t done it before. If it works, everyone has learned something new; if not, you’ve shown students how to take a chance – and you can still show them how to do it the way you are more familiar with. When students see your willingness to risk, they’ll feel safer and more confident that they can risk, too. 3. Remind and Reinforce: Once is not enough. Let the vocabulary of risk-taking become part of how you interact with students every day. Examples include saying: “Be bold! That’s daring! Take a chance with different colors!” 4. Connect Risk-taking to Intrinsic Motivators: Internal motivations include autonomy, belonging, curiosity, mastery, and personal meaning; external motivations include badges, gold stars, points, fear of failure, and grades. Students engage in activities for intrinsic reasons because they are enjoyable and personally satisfying. Creative behavior that leads to exploration, sustained engagement, extended problem-solving, and risk is driven by internal motivations, whereas external rewards have been shown to decrease these behaviors. Since grades are external rewards, risk-taking should not be graded. 5. Encourage Play: Find opportunities for students to play with materials, ideas, and approaches to art. Play can be seen as a form of risk-taking without serious consequences, where it is OK if there is an unpredictable or unfamiliar consequence to an action because its significance is temporarily suspended. Opportunities to play in the art room are often natural consequences of the materials we use: For instance, students love to play with clay before making a pinch pot. Handling collections, which are a group of objects students play with before a lesson, have been extensively studied as effective ways to cognitively prime students for creative problem-solving.

ASSESSING RISK-TAKING Risk-taking is not going to look the same in every student, nor will it look the same in every class or school building. What counts as a risk depends on an individual’s personality, background, and state of mind when the risk is taken. Given this variability, how can we assess risk-taking behavior in the art classroom? Having taught at all levels between Pre-K through PhD programs and in radically different settings, from urban to rural and from diverse to virtually homogenous populations, I have coached many types of students in taking appropriate risks for artistic growth. Based on these experiences and research focused on risk-taking and creativity, I developed the following rubric (see Appendix, Table 19A.1) for assessing the development of risk-taking in students.

127

COMMENTARY SECTION IV

Rubrics are helpful when assessing in the art classroom, but there are pitfalls. There are problems of validity and reliability when using rubrics: How can we be sure that a rubric represents what we are really trying to teach and what students are really learning? How do we know we are using it fairly and consistently for every student we assess? Sometimes we can be reductive with rubrics, breaking complex abilities into component parts that might not really add up to the skill we’re trying to assess. But, with this caution in mind, the rubric shown in Table 19A.1 might help clarify skills we want the students to learn through risk-taking. It is important to note that the Risk-Taking Rubric in Table 19A.1 is used for assessment and not grading. We use assessment to inform our students of their progress and development, and as ways of giving ourselves feedback to help our students succeed. Embedded in the National Visual Art Standards is the idea that we, as art educators, are helping students develop creative, independent minds. In alignment with this idea, the RiskTaking Rubric is built around the idea that we start by guiding students and then help them become independent by reducing the amount of guidance as their skills grow to the point where they only need prompting to use them. Accordingly, the Risk-Taking Rubric ranges from not seeing a behavior to when we see it happening independently and spontaneously. Ultimately, the purpose of this rubric is to give teachers another tool for nurturing student creativity and for carrying the skills developed in the art classroom into other areas of life.

NOTE

1 “Performance standards isolate and identify the skills needed to use the knowledge and skills to problem-solve, reason, communicate, and make connections with other information” (Georgia Performance Standards, 2009, pp. 3–4). Naming risk-taking is a core skill on which problem-solving, reasoning, and making connections within and across disciplines depend. The Georgia Standards were organized around five domains: Meaning and Creative Thinking, Contextual Understanding, Production and Response, Assessment and Reflection, and Connections. These domains reflected the process of how an art lesson is actually taught. They provide professional guidance to the teacher in “knowing what to do next” (Eisner, 2002, p. 170). This is in contrast to the iterations of our national standards that have privileged Creating first, as it is seen as core to what we do. However, this is a political, not a pedagogical performance response.

REFERENCES Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. Yale University. Georgia Department of Education (2009). Georgia performance standards: Visual arts. Georgia Department of Education. Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. (2013). Studio thinking 2: The real benefits of visual arts education. Teachers College. Starr, G. (2015). Feeling beauty: The neuroscience of aesthetic experience. MIT Press.

128

APPENDIX TABLE 19A.1

Risk-taking rubric. Level 4 Independent

Level 3 Emerging Independence

Level 2 Beginning/Cautious

Level 1 Minimal OR Not Attempted, Assessable, or Observed

Goal Setting

The student can set a goal on a course of action and thoroughly justify it based on: 1. An analysis of the problem; or 2. Other criteria the student identifies as relevant; 3. Sets goals just beyond their level of competence but within reach. The student responds to obstacles by trying alternate approaches regardless of whether they resemble the assigned procedures and regardless of whether they approximate the outcome/task – yet nevertheless they demonstrates skill and learning as a result.

The student can make a decision and set a goal on a course of action with a general justification.

The student can make a decision between two or more alternatives, but cannot justify the course of action.

With assistance, the student can choose between two alternatives but cannot set a goal independently.

The student responds to obstacles by trying alternate approaches regardless of whether they resemble the assigned procedures but nevertheless attempts to complete the outcome/task as assigned. With prompting, the student tries a new approach to solve the problem.

The student improvises only to overcome obstacles in order to complete the assigned outcome/task as accurately as possible.

With prompting, the student tries something “weird,” “different,” or “strange” and sees it as fun, but seeks occasional approval and support from teacher or peers in order to continue such attempts.

With guidance, the student is willing to try something “weird,” “different,” or “strange” but seeks approval from teacher or peers for doing so.

The student seeks guidance, help or direction when obstacles are encountered; only follows directions and does not independently explore, play, or question assumptions. The student does not see alternative approaches; OR, with help, the student can identify a new approach, but does not try it. The student does not or will not entertain departing from classroom or cultural norms.

Improvisation: Responding to obstacles

Improvisation: Departing from established plan of action Departing from classroom or cultural norms

The student actively seeks out and follows through on untested and potentially risky directions or approaches to solving a problem; or reframes and questions the problem itself; or discovers and follows a new goal while working. The student independently (without prompting) tries something related to class that is “weird,” “different,” or “strange,” seeing it as fun and rewarding for its own sake; or attempts to use learning and personal experiences unrelated to the assignment to enhance their work; and might seek permission but tends not to seek approval from teacher or peers when trying something different.

With guidance, the student can try a new approach to solving a problem.

(Continued)

Raymond E. Veon

CRITERIA Students Risk By:

Risk-taking rubric.

CRITERIA Students Risk By:

Level 4 Independent

Level 3 Emerging Independence

Level 2 Beginning/Cautious

Level 1 Minimal OR Not Attempted, Assessable, or Observed

Reflecting & The student can review the results of their riskMonitoring Work taking, determine their significance for future courses of action, and revise plans for the future accordingly.

With prompting, the student can review the results of their risktaking and identify areas of benefit.

The student does not or only superficially reviews the results of their risk-taking.

Learning from mistakes

With prompting, the student reflects on past experiences and can specify what they learned from a particular situation.

With guidance, the student can review the results of risk-taking but with little consideration of how they might be used in the future. Student can identify a related past experience to a present situation, but cannot identify what they have learned from it.

The student independently considers personal change by reflecting on past experiences in depth, specifying what they have learned from it, and identifying how their perspective has changed from the experience.

Student can make a personal connection to an experience.

COMMENTARY SECTION IV

TABLE 19A.1  (Continued)

129

20 Assessing the Student Over the Work Grading with Studio Habits of Mind JoE Douillette

This essay presents a lesson that uses the Studio Habits of Mind (Hetland et al., 2013) for assessment within a Digital Film Production class in a suburban public high school of about 700 students. The student population is 78% White, with 17% listed as economically disadvantaged (School and District Profiles, 2018). Previously, I taught film production to teens in a contemporary art museum where students received no grades and their experiences were essentially experimentation and dialogue as continuous formative assessment. I have struggled to translate that experience into a school’s required progress reports, quarter grades, midterms, and final grades. Assigning grades for acquired skills and knowledge and for delivery of a final product allowed some measure of development, but my conversations with students focused on end product rather than their approach to work. Wanting to assess the process more than products, I recently re-structured my entire approach using the Studio Habits of Mind (Hetland et al., 2013). Now, the final work becomes a clue to students’ development, and I discuss and assess this development of artistic habits with the students throughout the course. Students perceive enrollment in the Digital Film Production elective as a fun way to make movies with their friends. The class mixes students of all grades and abilities: Some have made films for years, and some have only shot videos with their cell phones. Since the class has no prerequisites, it is often the only class in which some students can be placed by the guidance office without the student’s request. The unit, “In the High School Day”, guides students through the narrative filmmaking process of a two-minute film from concept to distribution. We begin the semester by watching several student-made and professional films. After a casual and directed conversation, we ultimately arrive at the following questions: • • • •

What story do I want to tell? Who is my audience? What impact do I want my work to have on them? How can I deliberately use the tools of my medium to achieve my desired effect?

DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-27

Assessing the Student Over the Work

131

These questions allow me to introduce the students to the world of an artist, using the Studio Habits as a guide. With the habits projected on a screen, we briefly discuss what each habit suggests about the cognitive and concrete practices artists bring to their work. I allow students to choose the order of discussion based on their initial interest in particular habits (Hetland et al., 2013). They are engage and persist; understand art world-community; understand art world- domain; reflect-evaluate; reflect-question and explain; stretch and explore; express; develop craft: studio practice; develop craft-technique; envision; observe. Having considered film as our medium and identified questions about how filmmakers might approach their work, we begin the narrative film project. The class engages in screenplay writing, screenings, conversations, and training on cameras and lenses before arriving at the lesson addressed below. The lesson, It’s Not What You See; It’s How You See It, occurs midway through the unit and focuses on the role of the cinematographer and the expressive use of a DSLR camera. The assignment, which plays out over several class sessions, is to take five shots for their film that capture a specific emotion. At their own pace, students assemble equipment, go on location in the school, film various shots, present shots to the class, re-shoot, and ultimately save the work in project folders on the school server. Assessment is noted on a spreadsheet that lists components of the assignment along with its related Studio Habit(s). For this assignment, the components are as follows: Engage and Persist Begins and completes assigned work. Develop Craft: Studio Practice Handles/operates equipment safely and professionally. Follows protocol for files and footage on server. Attends to all clean-up procedures, including equipment, computers, and space. Understand Art World: Community Handles/operates equipment safely and professionally in the crew. Supports team/partner’s ideas. Stretch and Explore Explores various creative approaches. Explores various technical approaches. Observe Observes setting extensively while considering possible shots. Envision Imagines new shots based on extended observation of setting. Express Creates shots that express an emotion. Develop Craft: Technique Uses some of the tools/techniques for expression that were discussed in class. Experiments with various technical approaches. Reflect: Question and Explain Re-shoots based on screening and discussion with class and teacher. Although each component in the assignment is rated, using a 3-point scale illustrated below, there is not a discrete grade for any assignment. A student’s report card lists each Studio Habit with a corresponding grade. Each component’s points are applied directly to the Studio Habit that the component illustrates, immediately updating the student’s global score for the term. When all assignments are complete and assessed, the total of the

132

JoE Douillette

formative ratings in each Studio Habit becomes the summative grade (see Table 20A.1 in the Appendix). Students can always access their spreadsheets to reflect on progress; I meet with each student at multiple points throughout the semester to consider which habits are coming more easily and which are proving more difficult. The student and I identify a focus habit, often the one that is most difficult, and discuss strategies to allow the student to develop this habit. This approach to assessment is designed to help students recognize the many layers of artistic process and encourage them to analyze their own habitual practices, strengths, and weaknesses. For example, if coming up with ideas (Envisioning) is not a student’s strength, the student and teacher can reflect on the other habits that come more easily and consider strategies to enhance the envisioning habit. In this way, students can appreciate artistic qualities that they possess and use them as supports for weaker attributes, rather than seeing themselves as not artistic because of gaps in their artistic profiles. At this stage of their artistry, understanding and developing good, creative, and playful habits is most important. This approach has allowed me to engage with students on their process and arrive at a summative assessment which is a reflection of their formative work (see summative examples – Figures 20.1–20.3). Students and parents all accept this new approach without question, and I am more satisfied that I have assessed what is most valuable at this stage of my students’ development, their ability to carry out a rich and authentic artistic process.

EXAMPLES OF STUDENT WORK Emerging The example of assessment indicates that the student worked well as a crew member and used the tools properly, but did not employ any elements of composition that would elicit a heightened emotional experience (Figure 20.1).

FIGURE 20.1  Student example: Emerging

Assignment This assessment indicates that the student has followed the assignment, but has not yet gotten to a point of creative invention (Figure 20.2).

Assessing the Student Over the Work

133

FIGURE 20.2  Student example: Assignment

Exceeding This example indicates that a student is quite inventive but is less inclined to re-shoot or take suggestions from others (Figure 20.3).

FIGURE 20.3  Student example: Exceeding

REFERENCES Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. (2013). Studio thinking 2: The real benefits of visual arts education (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press. School and District Profiles (2018). Swampscott High. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved February 27, 2019, from http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/general/general.aspx?topNavID=1&left NavId=100&orgcode=02910505&orgtypecode=6

134

JoE Douillette

APPENDIX TABLE 20A.1

Studio Habits of Mind summative rubric. Pts

Description

Grade

Exceeding

3

Shows evidence of applying instruction and extends it by showing playful exploration or engaged struggle, using error as diagnosis or sources of new ideas.

A

Assignment

2

Shows evidence of applying instruction.

B

Emerging

1

Shows minimal evidence of applying instruction or evidence of low/ distracted effort; stopping when faced with errors/obstacles.

C

No evidence

0

Pre-engagement, no Studio Habits of Mind (ShoM) evident.

D/F

21 Holistic Assessment Through the Photographic Lens Morgan Bozarth

THE CONTEXT OF TEACHING Dartmouth High School serves more than 1,000 students. Minority enrollment is 15%. The student:teacher ratio is 14.1:1. Student Language Arts and Mathematics achievement meets or exceeds established State expectations (School and District Profiles, 2019). Mean family income and residential property values in the school district reflect the mean for the entire State. How can an art teacher effectively bridge the gap between leading students toward taking photos of ideas and concepts, rather than simply focusing on composition techniques and craft? This chapter outlines a lesson developed as part of a graduate thesis for the Master of Art Education program at UMass Dartmouth (Bozarth, 2018). The research question framing this lesson aimed at empowering darkroom photo students to become researchers of their own art practices. I considered assessment beyond students’ achievement of outlined assignment objectives, assessing how their knowledge of content, self, and community expanded as a result of the artistic inquiry experience? This Darkroom I lesson is designed for students in grades 10–12. Students are required to take a studio art class or digital photography prior to enrolling in this course. Every student has access to a 35-mm Single-lens Reflex (SLR) camera through my own purchases and community donations. Students are expected to take photographs outside of school. All other darkroom supplies (film, paper, chemicals, etc.) are provided by the school. The Darkroom I curriculum scaffolding resembles a three-layer cake where each layer builds upon the content and skills learned in the previous layer. The first layer addresses the mechanics of photography (the exposure triangle, film chemistry, how to operate a manual SLR camera, developing and printing technique, etc.). The second layer addresses composition and formal elements and principles of design and explores how a subject can be framed differently through the lens of a camera while taking advantage of shutter speed and aperture options. The third and final layer addresses concept and communication using the lens of the camera through art-based research (ABR) inquiry. For the purpose of this lesson, ABR DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-28

136

Morgan Bozarth TABLE 21.1

Lesson objectives for “Improving the content and quality of photographs through inquiry”. Students will… • Communicate a concept through photography led by an inquiry question (or questions) of their choosing. • Engage in art-based research as a means of idea generation, planning, creating, revising, and selecting works for exhibition. • Reflect, analyze, and evaluate their own artwork and artistic process led by ABR inquiry through self-assessment and critique. • Demonstrate knowledge of the exposure triangle through intentional use of ISO, shutter speed, and aperture (f-stop) settings. • Demonstrate proper technique for loading and developing film. • Create a contact sheet that is black on all edges, with clear negatives that are not backward, with sprockets being barely visible, clean (no dust, fingerprints), and labeled with name, date, and assignment. • Achieve proper exposure (image density) and contrast in printed photographs. • Craft their photographs with intention, by printing images that are in focus and devoid of dust, smudges, fingerprints, or any other unwanted marks. • Compose photos using design elements + principles and photo-related composition techniques.

is defined as a method of documenting or making visible the construction of knowledge, through the process of making art (Finley, 2008; Smilan, 2014; Sullivan, 2005). The lesson described in this chapter focuses on this third layer. Students are asked to build on their prior knowledge of camera mechanics and composition and design, as they adopt the mindset of a researcher and pursued a chosen inquiry question through the camera lens. Approaching art as research at the classroom level empowers students to bring an investigative frame of mind to their art-making, and to utilize tools that will allow them to chart their own course of learning (Marshall, 2015; Marshall & D’Adamo, 2011; Smilan, 2015). The title of the lesson is Improving the Content and Quality of Photographs through Inquiry. Utilizing the backward design method (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), an overarching transfer goal is that students will increase their self-awareness through documented, reflective, artistic practice. Table 21.1 outlines the targeted lesson objectives that focus on both concept development and photography skills. Although Dartmouth High School uses the Massachusetts Arts Curriculum Frameworks, this lesson aligns well with the following national standards: • •

VA: Cr2.1.IIIa “Experiment, plan and make multiple works of art and design that explore a personally meaningful them, idea, or concept”. (National Coalition for Core Standards, 2014, p. 2) VA: Cn10.1.IIa “Utilize inquiry methods of observation, research, and experimentation to explore unfamiliar subjects through artmaking”. (National Coalition for Core Standards, 2014, p. 8)

Students are asked to generate an inquiry question to pursue through the lens of a 35-mm film camera. They are highly encouraged to challenge themselves and propose a question with no immediate answer; this encourages risk-taking. Students are instructed that if their question is easily answered, then it is not research. According to Dweck (2016), individuals who embrace a growth mindset are able to successfully navigate challenges. Prior to introducing the lesson, students complete a pre-questionnaire survey to assess their dispositions regarding their artistic process, the definition of research, how research is initiated, whether artists can be researchers, the definition of a process-folio or process journal, the definition of a critique, and whether teachers should model/share their own artistic processes with students.

HOLISTIC ASSESSMENT THROUGH THE PHOTOGRAPHIC LENS

137

TABLE 21.2

Post-questionnaire survey. 1. If you were given roll of film, what would your inquiry question be and how would it evolve compared to what you have already shot in this assignment? Would you keep, slightly, alter, or completely change your inquiry question? Explain. 2. Now that this photography course is ending, has your definition of the critique process changed? Please explain. 3. Did feedback from your peers and/or the teacher influence changes to your (a) final prints, (b) initial inquiry questions, and changes to your questions or how you might pursue those questions differently through the photographic lens? 4. Now that Darkroom I is reaching its end, how has your art-making process developed/changed? 5. Now that Darkroom I is ending, has your definition of “what is research” changed? Please explain. 6. Now that Darkroom I is ending, has your definition of “how is research initiated” changed? Please explain. 7. Now that Ms. Bozarth has shared her past ABR inquiry from her own studio practice with the class, have your perceptions changed on whether teachers should share/model their own artistic processes with their students? Please explain why and/or why not. 8. Now that you have begun engaging in inquiry (art-based research), do you believe artists are or can be researchers in their practices? Please explain your answer. 9. Are you likely to use inquiry-based questioning to guide your art-making on your own or in future art courses? Please explain your answer. 10. Would you recommend for future Darkroom I students enrolled in Darkroom I engage in inquiry (aka art-based research)? Why and/or why not?

To prepare and inspire students, I show a variety of exemplars through documentary films and YouTube videos and ask them to determine the inquiry questions of the photographers modeled. I also share my own ABR practice with students. I conference with students either one-on-one or in small groups to ensure their question is setting them up for success. I help students avoid inquiry questions that solely focus on materials and techniques. They need to know more about something in their lives, or out in the “real world”. According to Anderson and Milbrandt (2005), inquiries that are personally relevant and pertinent to life outside the classroom will engage and motivate students; additionally, they have the highest probability of leading to self-discovery. Students plan for their photoshoots in writing regarding the who, what, where, when, why, and how of their chosen inquiry question. After shooting a roll of film, they reflect in writing to the prompt: “How did shooting a roll of film with one or more inquiry questions in mind change or affect your process, or did it?” One-on-one and peer critiques are ongoing as students evaluate which photos best represent what they have learned about their inquiry topic. Lastly, students complete a post-questionnaire upon submitting their final prints. The post-questionnaire assesses the same student dispositions as the pre-questionnaire described above, with additional reflective prompts, as seen in Table 21.2.

ASSESSMENT According to retired educator Nicole Gnezda (2011), successful art teachers develop a holistic lens of awareness regarding their students as thinkers, empathetic beings, and learners with respect to the artwork they produce. I believe this holistic lens needs to extend to how teachers assess student learning. The approach to assessing student performance in this lesson is holistic because a wide range of measures are used in determining the level of students’ growth. The pre- and post-questionnaires were originally included in the lesson to collect data to inform the value and effectiveness of integrating ABR methods into the curriculum. In other

138

Morgan Bozarth

words, they were added for the purpose of conducting action research, the goal being to see what improvements can be made to the lesson (Klein, 2012; May, 1993). The questionnaires ultimately became essential measures of and for student learning along with other collected data. Pre- to post-questionnaire responses, reflective journal prompts, summative analytic rubrics (see Appendix, Table 21A.1) used to assess student photographs, and daily informal observations collectively paint a broad picture of a range of student performance. Comparing students’ pre- to post-questionnaire responses allowed me to see students’ growth of knowledge. Reflective journaling prompts assisted to further illustrate what and how students learned throughout the experience. Their photographs allowed me to assess their darkroom skills, conceptual growth, and to see the results of their research visualized. Exceeds lesson goals Nate’s inquiry question was “How can I understand, and then convey, the struggles and pain of ‘the homeless’1 through photography?” He interviewed and photographed several homeless individuals at a soup kitchen where he regularly volunteers. After printing individual portraits of his subjects in the darkroom, he ultimately decided to represent his research through a cyanotype collage in order to show others what he had learned. Nate not only gained knowledge of the struggles the homeless face; he also learned of their resilience. Their answers challenged Nate’s preconceptions on homelessness. He stated in one of his reflective journal entries, “They are not all junkies, or people who want to steal your money, or lowlifes. They are simply lost souls just trying to touch the ground”. Figure 21.1 shows Nate’s final cyanotype collage that challenges common misconceptions on the lives of unhoused individuals. Nate developed a clear and challenging inquiry question. His shooting plan envisioned many ideas. His answers to the who, what, where, when, why, and how questions—as well as his rationale for aperture and shutter speed settings, and composition techniques—justified a 24-shot roll of film. He thoroughly reflected on the shooting experience in writing and identified successes and challenges and provided evidence to support his claims. He sought and utilized feedback from teachers and peers. His submitted work was well-composed, wellcrafted, and contained clear evidence relating to the chosen inquiry question. Nate’s overall artistic process demonstrated substantial growth in mindfulness and intentionality. An additional outcome of his investigation was his social-emotional awareness through identifying his own biases toward unhoused individuals.

FIGURE 21.1  Student example: Exceeds lesson goals

HOLISTIC ASSESSMENT THROUGH THE PHOTOGRAPHIC LENS

139

FIGURE 21.2  Student example: Meets lesson goals

Meets lesson goals Lia’s inquiry question was “How can I capture resilience through the lens of a camera?” She interviewed her father regarding his health struggles and experiences with brain surgeries and recovering from a coma. She observed and photographed her father as she asked questions. Lia discovered through the photographic evidence that family was the source of her father’s resilience. She also gained new perspectives on how others around her experienced this past family trauma. Lia’s series of photographs (Figure 21.2) show where resilience comes from. The triptych contains visual clues, namely Lia’s mother, providing physical and emotional support to her husband. While Lia was, on the whole, successful in composing her images through the camera viewfinder, she struggled with the technique a craftsmanship of her photographs. Some photos lacked clear focus and most were underexposed and low in contrast. Some prints also contained dust and scratches. Her shooting plans were clear, as were her journaled reflections. Beginning to meet lesson goals Kaitlin’s inquiry questions were “How can I represent people’s unique characteristics? How can I learn more about the people I know/interact with?” The first inquiry question related to technical artistic concerns, while the second inquiry question represented the actual research that could lead to new knowledge and insights. Unfortunately, Kaitlin only addressed the first inquiry question, and she answered this question in her photoshoot plans where she detailed how she would use sandwiched negatives to show the unique characteristics of people she knew. As detailed in her plan, Figure 21.3 shows a sandwiched negative of Kaitlyn’s sister demonstrating her flexibility, layered with an image of tree branches to show she is flexible like a tree. Kaitlin’s artistic process did not demonstrate a willingness to explore or take risks beyond her initial plans. She admitted as much in her post-photoshoot reflective journal when she wrote, “Shooting the role of film did not change or affect my process of how I was going to print my pictures”. Her written reflections were simply reiterations of her shooting plans; there was no knowledge gained outside of the process of printing a sandwiched negative in the darkroom. The craft and composition of her photographs were overall effective, but she did not push the research component.

KEY FINDINGS FROM THE ASSESSMENT Compared to previous assignments that focused on camera and darkroom skills and composition, the resulting student work was overall more authentic and diverse. Students were more engaged in what they were doing and focused on conveying a concept rather than simply snapping a picture of a subject. They also became more reflective and mindful of their

140

Morgan Bozarth

FIGURE 21.3  Student example: beginning to meet lesson goals

artistic processes. Through the assignment, students gained a deeper understanding of the communicative purpose of visual art and expanded their awareness of their role as makers of art. The assessment data also provided a reflection on my teaching practice. For example, in Kaitlin’s performance, I see a misstep in my instruction. Upon reviewing her plans for her photoshoot, I should have noticed that they did not address how she would attempt to pursue her second (and more important) inquiry question. I could have intervened and offered a course correction to lead her back to the path of genuine inquiry.

CONCLUSION As an educator, I now recognize the need to continually expand my awareness of students’ experiences and growth in my classroom through action research by administering pre- and post-questionnaire surveys and designing reflective journal prompts. While the products of artistic learning, in this case photographs, are rich in what they convey regarding students’ growth of technical skills, they are somewhat limited in how they show what students know as a result of a learning experience. We will not know what students’ take away from a particular learning experience unless we ask them. Research tools are assessment tools. Art teachers can assess with broader parameters by integrating research methods for data collection into their assessments in order to (a) see their students’ clearer and more nuanced lens and (b) continually evaluate the effectiveness of a lesson.

NOTES



1 The language used by the high school student was quoted directly. It is significant to note that this ABR lesson was completed prior to the pandemic, at the beginning of societies’ burgeoning social justice awareness. The author acknowledges her preference for the term “unhoused” but chooses not to alter student voice in the reporting of the data. Further, information about the focus on terminology and the ensuing distraction from the situation impacting people can be accessed at https://invisiblepeople.tv/homeless-houseless-unhoused-or-unshelteredwhich-term-is-right/ 2 As a result of this study, I recommend adding an assessment of empathy, or social-emotional growth which can be evidenced through the artist statement or group critique.

HOLISTIC ASSESSMENT THROUGH THE PHOTOGRAPHIC LENS

141

REFERENCES Anderson, T., & Milbrandt, M. K. (2005). Art for life: Authentic instruction in art. McGraw Hill. Bozarth, M. (2018). Finding fusion: Integrating roles of artist/teacher/researcher/human being [Master’s thesis]. The University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Dweck, C. (2016). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Penguin Random House LLC. Finley, S. (2008). Arts-based research. In J. G. Knowles, & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research (pp. 71–91). SAGE. Gnezda, N. M. (2011). Cognition and emotions in the creative process. Art Education, 64(1), 47–52. Klein, S. R. (2012). Action research: Before you dive in, read this! In S. R. Klein (Ed.), Action research methods: Plain and simple. Palgrave Macmillan. Marshall, J. (2015). Creativity for understanding: Art-based research in the classroom. In F. Bastos, & E. Zimmerman (Eds.), Connecting creativity research and practice in art education: Foundations, pedagogies, and contemporary issues (pp. 64–72). NAEA. Marshall, J., & D’Adamo, K. (2011). Art practice as research in the classroom: A new paradigm in art education. Art Education, 64(5), 12–18. May, W. T. (1993). “Teachers-as-researchers” or action research: What is it, and what good is it for art education? Studies in Art Education, 34(2), 114–126. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1320448 National Coalition for Core Standards. (2014). National core arts standards. State Education Agency Directors of Arts Education. https://www.nationalartsstandards.org/ School and District Profiles. (2019). Swampscott High. Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Malden, MA. Retrieved June 23, 2020, from http://http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/general/general.aspx?top NavID=1&leftNavId=100&orgcode=00720505&orgtypecode=6 Smilan, C. (2014). Transforming practice through art-based inquiry. Unpublished manuscript. Smilan, C. (2015). I wish my assignments were more creative! In F. Bastos, & E. Zimmerman (Eds.), Connecting creativity research and practice in art education: Foundations, pedagogies, and contemporary issues (pp. 159–167). NAEA. Sullivan, G. (2005). Art practice as research. SAGE. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design, expanded (expanded 2nd ed.). ASCD.

142

APPENDIX TABLE 21A.1

Summative analytic rubric for inquiry film and photographs. 4 Exceeds

3 Meets

2 Beginning to Meet

1 Does Not Meet

Technique: Film Developing

All negatives have good density due to implementation of proper developing procedures and proper ISO settings when shot. No evidence of light leaks or unwanted marks or scratches.

The majority of negatives have good density due to implementation of proper developing procedures and proper ISO settings when shot. Minor issues such as light leaks or unwanted marks or scratches.

Some negatives have good density due to implementation of proper developing procedures and proper ISO settings when shot. However, major issues such as light leaks or unwanted marks or scratches are evident.

Major issues in developing all film development such as light leaks, uneven density (thick/thin density) due to over or under processed film or incorrect ISO, or physically damaged film.

Technique: Contact Sheet

Contact sheet(s) is clear and in focus, Contact sheet(s) is clear and in focus, contains rich black background and contains rich black background and sprockets that are barely visible, and is sprockets that are barely visible, and is free of spots and fingerprints. Negatives mostly free of spots and fingerprints. are ordered and labeled t with your Some labeling info may be missing. name, date and assignment.

Major issues with contact sheet exposure and focus. Dust and/or fingerprints are apparent.

No contact sheet printed.

Concept: Visual Representation of Inquiry Questions

Submitted prints contain strong visual clues or symbols that directly correspond to the inquiry questions.

Submitted prints contain strong visual clues or symbols that directly correspond to the inquiry questions.

Some if not all submitted prints contain No visual clues or evidence somewhat identifiable visual clues or symbols that ties photos to the inquiry that correspond to the inquiry questions. question can be discerned.

Conceptual Growth2 For future teaching

In the artist statement Student articulates social-emotional, empathetic awareness in

Composition: (List all element/principle parings and composition techniques) Photo #1:                              Photo #2:                              Photo #3:                             

Photography composition techniques learned throughout the semester and nuanced application of multiple pairing of elements and principles of design are evident in all photographs.

Photography composition techniques learned throughout the semester and nuanced application of elements and principles of design are evident in most photographs.

Photography composition techniques learned throughout the semester and nuanced application of elements and principles of design are evident in approximately half of the photographs.

Very little consideration of photography composition techniques and elements arranged by the principles of design.

(Continued)

Morgan Bozarth

Objectives

Objectives

4 Exceeds

3 Meets

2 Beginning to Meet

1 Does Not Meet

Technique: Intentional Use of Shutter Speed and Aperture (f-stop) Settings

Shutter speed or aperture settings in all photos enhance the overall composition of the photos through blur/freeze or shallow depth/medium depth/large depth.

Shutter speed or aperture settings in most photos enhance the overall composition of the photos through blur/freeze or shallow depth/medium depth/large depth.

Shutter speed or aperture settings in approximately half of the photos enhance the overall composition of the photos through blur/freeze or shallow depth/ medium depth/large depth.

Shutter speed or aperture settings do not enhance the overall composition of any photos through blur/freeze or shallow depth/medium depth/large depth.

Technique: Exposure

All prints have good density and perfect contrast (detail in highlights, mid-tones, and shadows). No areas require dodging and/ or burning. Contrast is perfect.

The majority of prints have good density and perfect contrast (detail in highlights, mid-tones, and shadows). Minor dodging and/or burning is needed, or +1 or −1 seconds on overall exposure time. A minor filter adjustment may be needed.

Approximately half of prints have good density and perfect contrast (detail in highlights, mid-tones, and shadows). Dodging and/or burning is needed, or more than +2 or −2 seconds on overall exposure time. A substantial filter adjustment is needed.

Most if not all prints lack good density and perfect contrast (detail in highlights, mid-tones, and shadows). Major dodging and/or burning is needed, or re-test stripping to determine appropriate aperture. Very poor contrast, five filter may not be enough.

Technique: Craftsmanship

All prints are free marks, smudges, scratches or dust.

Prints are free marks, smudges, scratches Approximately half of the prints contain or dust with the exception of a few evident marks, smudges, scratches, or dust. minor imperfections.

Technique: Presentation

All mats cutouts have neat 90 degree corners. All prints are neatly matted with no white edges of the print showing. Bottom Rt. Corners are signed in pencil.

Most mat cutouts have neat 90 degree corners. The majority of prints are neatly matted with little to no white edges of the print showing. Bottom Rt. Corners are signed in pencil.

Most or all of the prints contain evident marks, smudges, scratches, or dust.

Approximately half of the mats need to be Most if not all mats need to be redone due to a poor cut out or the white redone due to a poor cut out edges of prints are showing. Prints are or the white edges of prints either unsigned or signed in pen not pencil. are showing. Prints are either unsigned or signed in pen not pencil. 0—for no attempt made.

HOLISTIC ASSESSMENT THROUGH THE PHOTOGRAPHIC LENS

TABLE 21A.1  (Continued)

Summative analytic rubric for inquiry film and photographs.

143

22 Risk and Chance Portrait Lessons for Advanced Students from Rural and Suburban Communities Stan Dodson and Drew Brown

INTRODUCTION Regardless of locale and school demographic, assessment and grading are ultimately about communication. Taking on the challenge to reflect upon our grading and assessment procedures, we had many rich conversations about what it means to assess and grade our students and their art. In this chapter, we seek to relate how Stan Dodson (Burke County High School), my co-author, and I, Drew Brown (Milton High School), approached curriculum design and assessment in an advanced art class. Together, we share our stories of assessing an advanced lesson in portraiture in our respective art classrooms. Founded in 1987, Burke County High School, a Title I school located in Waynesboro, Georgia, serves just fewer than 1,200 students broken into 68% African-American students and 29% white students. With one art teacher providing instructions on a block schedule, the school offers Visual Arts Comprehensive I, II, III, IV and AP 2D Design, Drawing and 3D. Waynesboro is known as the “Birddog Capital of the World” and Burke County is one of the eight original counties of Georgia. The rural county comprises wide farmlands, nurseries, dairies and flanked by Plant Vogtle’s nuclear power plant. Milton High School is situated in Fulton County near the suburban town of Alpharetta, about 27 miles north of Atlanta. Founded in 1921, Milton serves approximately 2,340 students—13% Asian, 11% African-American, 12% Hispanic, 2% Multiracial, and 62% white/non-Hispanic students. Three art teachers at Milton offer Visual Arts Comprehensive I, Drawing and Painting II and II, Graphics I-III, Digital Design I-III, Ceramics I-IV, Sculpture I and AP 2D Design, Drawing and 3D. We questioned how our approaches differ and what we might have in common, especially regarding advanced art classes. We reflected upon two important questions: 1. How does assessment serve our purpose and how is grading and/or assessment essential to the instructional process in art? 2. What common ground could we find in our different school communities and how did we adjust our curriculum and/or assessment practices for our respective demographics? DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-29

RISK AND CHANCE

145

We encourage our readers to note that our advanced students are not graded with a typical standards-based rubric in either of our classrooms (see rubric examples in Appendix). Instead, we share a goal of promoting student risk-taking in process, pushing beyond comfort zones to promote growth, inciting communication and conversation among students, prodding student reflection, urging student choice, and prompting evidence of artistic voice. Evaluating the success of an advanced art student is a holistic endeavor. We seek to convey how we model an exceptional environment in which assessment in the form of dialogue and critique, not grading per se, takes a prime role for student growth and risk-taking. Ultimately, the common goals and most important endeavor with these advanced students are to aid them in finding their own artistic voice. The following passages record a snapshot of our work to integrate meaningful assessments into both our respective rural and suburban school communities, while nurturing our students’ desire to self-reflect, analyze, and grow through collaborative studio environments.

PROCESS OVER PRODUCT: A LESSON IN CONTROLLING THE CHAOS FOR ADVANCED CLASSES

Stan

While suburban schools have greater opportunities to build on enrichment, I have found our students’ conceptual springboards and universal theme applications to be the common ground to build a toolbox filled with both technique and meaning making, in particular, utilizing assessments as a means for developing the student artist and opening dialogue for peer to peer. As a student develops a lens through which they begin to see themselves, they become vividly aware of the lenses through which they are being viewed. The optics of this period is a difficult one to mine. Finding authenticity can be challenging, and applying constructive feedback even more difficult, especially for teenagers who are so susceptible to peer validation. Utilizing authentic assessment applications can be a bridge for both teachers and students. It can open dialogue among peer to peer which can provide for greater student growth and awareness. In my classroom, I place a high value on process over product. The questions can be more important than the answers as risk and chance are embraced. I designed a series of experiential self-portrait lessons aimed to break students away from desired outcomes and begin a dialog. In this lesson, “Experiential Evocative Portraits” for the purpose of and opening students up to more exploration through controlled chaos, students draw on paper that is hung above eye level so that the artist must reach above their heads to create (see Figure 22.1). This breaks up the ritual and routine of working on paper on a tabletop with traditional mark-making tools. They must also use non-traditional extensions to make marks. A variety of dry and wet media is available in addition to traditional and non-traditional mark-making tools (i.e., pool noodles, pipe cleaners, cotton balls, gauze, metal chains, shoes, paint rollers, rubber bands, feathers, sticks, in addition to standard paint brushes). As students begin to make marks, I encourage them to align marks with emotional qualities having them think about marks that elicit visual responses (like angry, calm, peaceful, and anxious). As they work, I guide by asking questions like, “How does the application of the media affect the visual tone? Does the same medium applied with a different level of pressure give alternate visual qualities?” After the novelty of the moment sets in, they soon look for ways to make unique marks and keep a record like a visual scientist on outcomes to reproduce the visual effects. Students record line weights, patterns, rhythm, and texture and pair those with emotional states. They play with visual temperament as they create evocative visual marks and

146

Stan Dodson and Drew Brown

FIGURE 22.1  Experimental mark-making exercise

begin sharing their documented creations with peers like a “recipe” swap as shouts of “How’d you do that, it’s awesome!” are heard. Each student makes an estimated seven 24" × 36" sheets during a session; the large sheets are saved and used for a variety of future assignments, one being an evocative self-portrait. In the studio, students draw portraits from life using a mirror as a resource. They recall the emotional marks and attempt to pair a self-portrait drawing to the background mark-making sheet. For example, if a student wanted to portray a sad emotional response, they may draw from life with compressed charcoal a high contrast-lit face, focusing on the dimly lit eyes surrounding the face in shadow. This facial drawing in juxtaposition to the experimental marks on the background gives the works an essence of the desired visual response they were seeking. Students make a minimum series of three portraits. They have access to any drawing mediums and independent light sources available. Upon completion, the class utilizes informal assessment tactics during our group critiques. During the pin-up discussion, each student has a slip of paper with their name written on it twice. The names are divided by a perforated line; students select a student so that they can give authentic feedback during the critique. Figure 22.2 shows students involved in this process. As we sit in the hallway and give feedback, the student with the name of that artist acts as the scribe and writes some of the “glows” and “grows” down on the slip from the group in addition to any particular feedback they wish to share. Back in the classroom, I have an old card catalog box which I converted into student mailboxes. These boxes are used during the year to give each other notes of encouragement and, for this and other lessons, they act as a way to deliver the pin-up critique feedback slips. Since it is not required for the student to sign their critique slips, they are able to speak more freely. Over time, students develop rapport with each other and the anonymous slips become more infrequent as trust is established. These slips combined with the formal teacher/student rubric forms, classroom gallery walk arounds, and peer-to-peer feedback discussions have become invaluable tools for encouraging and documenting student growth. Figures 22.2 to 22.5 are student examples of various levels of growth.

147

RISK AND CHANCE

FIGURE 22.2  Sophie and Rose placing assessment slips in student boxes

FIGURE 22.3  Student work example: Good

FIGURE 22.4  Student work example: Strong

148

Stan Dodson and Drew Brown

FIGURE 22.5  Student work example: Excellent

PORTRAIT LESSON WITH FLIPGRID ASSESSMENT FOR ADVANCED STUDENTS

Drew

One recent memorable lesson was my charcoal and/or conceptual portrait lesson for advanced art students. I challenged the students to be inspired first by artists such as Chuck Close and Robert Longo. They were encouraged to either create a charcoal portrait using the grid method or to take their artistic inquiry into the world of conceptual art. Giving a tiered prompt allowed me to stay away from direct instructions where every student was expected to work with the same sequential steps resulting in similar outcomes. Instead, the tiered prompt allowed students to choose their own path in the realm of the design challenge. As part of the tiered prompt, my students could choose the straightforward charcoal portrait based on an original photograph or they might pursue a conceptual portrait. For the conceptual portrait, we discussed character development, mood, and setting. How do your choices affect the audience’s interpretation of the depiction of the person? How do we read portraits? Clothing and props can come into different play. The Elements and Principles play a strong role as color, texture, and figure/ground relationship help define the character and set the mood of a portrait. How does a conceptual portrait differ from a straightforward, more traditional portrait? Students consider these questions as they make their choices and choose their path for completion. For this lesson, I had students such as Wendy profess her love for the grid and students such as Addison and Joselyn pursue conceptual portraits using digital painting techniques in Illustrator and Adobe Photoshop. I encouraged each student to make intentional choices, and I hoped that they would be excited to move on. In general, I promote understanding that a tiered approach is about choosing what is best for you and your own personal growth in your artwork. Finding a method and a medium for artistic exploration and personal expression, while still working within the parameter and context of the portrait lesson, was our main goal. For assessment, I asked each student to scan a QR code connected to our FlipGrid classroom site. Each student worked to create a 1 minute 30 second video presentation about their individual artwork based on the following prompts:

149

RISK AND CHANCE

1. Include a view of the art. 2. Describe the media and process in your work. 3. Give a short description of your inspiration. 4. What you hope your work will convey? 5. If time remains, tell us what you believe is successful and what you might improve. In turn, students were required to comment on at least five of their peers’ works. Prior to the online critique, we spent class time doing face-to-face critiques building trust with peer feedback and practicing vocabulary and language of an advanced art student. Creating a video gave students a platform to speak about the artwork, explain their vision, and reflect upon the challenges or successes of the project. Students enjoyed seeing their peers’ videos and the FlipGrid format gave students a way to examine their own work and the work of their peers by utilizing technology in an innovative critique. Using FlipGrid was a successful way to push the idea of using art as a platform for student voice and responding to others who seek to do the same. The following images are summative examples of student growth for the assignment (see Figures 22.6, 22.7, and 22.8).

FIGURE 22.6  Student work example: Good

FIGURE 22.7  Student work example: Strong

150

Stan Dodson and Drew Brown

FIGURE 22.8  Student work example: Excellent

CONCLUSION As educators from seemingly paradoxical demographics, we both found commonalities in subject, rigor, and assessments. Collectively, we both set high levels of expectations for our students with measurable levels of success noted in various assessment resources. However, our marked successes are intangible; they are leveled in the gains reflected back through esteem, rapport, and community building. The student and teacher relationships forged help balance a climate that garners peer validations, constructive feedback, and open-ended chance and risk choices. We both placed a high value on various formats of class critiques. Whether the critique is online, face-to-face, pin-up style, table critique, walk-around style, or hallway critique, students gain immeasurable benefit from hearing comments from their peers. We encourage educators to take the time to not only hold group critiques, but to teach students how to give peer feedback in a constructive and respectful manner. As teachers we acknowledge that we are thrust into grading for the purpose of communicating student progress, but our mission as teachers reaches beyond grading. Grading is not the pinnacle of the instructional process. To truly incentivize our students to learn and progress, we must encourage students through dialogue, evaluate through written and verbal feedback, inspire through demonstration, and uplift through creating a positive classroom environment. Assessments should not be viewed as the enemy but as the intermediary alliance to balance, work ethic, meaning making, and process. When utilizing authentic student dialogue and peer-to-peer feedback, a community of collaborative art learners have the potential to grow and develop, all while learning that the process is just as important as the product.

151

RISK AND CHANCE

APPENDIX TABLE 22A.1

Rubric: Evocative self-portrait (STAN). Self-Evaluation Evocative Self Portrait This portrait was based on emotional connections you made to yourself. Through choice writing prompts, concept webs, brainstorming lists, or a collection of words, hopefully you created a springboard to assist you in understanding your identity, both the physical and emotional characteristics. Through a visual you were to create a self-portrait using a mirror as resource. Color, pattern, design elements should play an important role in revealing “self ” to the viewer. Utilizing the experimental mark-making paper as your drawing surface, you are tasked to drawing a series of portraits in which techniques evident are intentional and reflect both physical and emotional qualities. Minimum three portrait drawings and seven experimental backgrounds. What emotional quality were you attempting to convey on your experimental mark-making paper? Paper 1

Paper 2

Paper 3

Paper 4

Paper 5

Tool/material used? Paper 1

Paper 2

Paper 3

Paper 4

Paper 5

Self-evaluation: Please reflect and score yourself. Poor Level of Risk: Embraced chance/ risk through multiple images/ marks. Explored figure with marks contrast/value Infused background. with intent. High level of chance and risk. Evocative connections: Clear emotional applications through background context and figure imagery (see above for description) Open-ended solutions: Embraced the process solution through trialand-error product. Created several versions with varied degrees of success. Found meaningful applications to incorporate figure. Competed project minimums. Life drawing/2D: Utilized the mirror as a reference for figure drawing. Figure based on proportions or if stylized intentionally, used the figure for preliminary structure using mirror as reference. Thoughtful 2D/ drawing element applications.

Moderate

Good

Strong

Excellent

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Something to think about...

(Continued)

152

Stan Dodson and Drew Brown TABLE 22A.1  (Continued)

Rubric: Evocative self-portrait (STAN). Poor Material application: Open to solution-based inquiry through multiple media applications in both background and drawing. High level of care and craftsmanship present. Evocative connection/ideation: Used multiple springboards for ideation generations including but not limited to: word webs, lists, visual tangents, and color context.

Moderate

Good

Strong

Excellent

1

2

3

4

5

Glow: What was something that was a success, surprise, or both?

1

2

3

4

5

Grow: What was something you learned/ happened that challenged you?

2D elements: Elements and Principles of art and mark-making 100- 30 89- 24 80- 19 73- 14 50- 9 98- 29 87- 23 79- 18 72- 13 45- 8 95- 27 85- 22 77- 17 70- 12 40- 7 93- 26 84- 21 75- 16 60- 11 35- 6 90- 25 82- 20 74- 15 55- 10 30- 5

Student Grade:

Instructor Grade:

If a student received a 5 for each row, it would total 30. That correlates to the rubric grade scores at the bottom. 30 = 100; 29 = 98, etc. TABLE 22A.2

Rubric: Charcoal and/or conceptual portrait (DREW). Name                                         3rd Period AP ART Evaluation

Name of Project: Charcoal Portrait or Conceptual Portrait

Media, surface and size:                                  Criteria:

Points awarded by student

1. Composition-Strong composition (original, imaginative, inventive) (20 pts) 2. Concept-Strong investigation of visual concept. Artistic voice is evident. Work is intentional and purposeful. (What are you trying to “say” and does that come through?) (15 pts) 3. Mark-making (drawings) and/or Use of design principles (2D Design) Name the Principles used: (20 pts) 4. Experimentation—Evidence of artistic risk-taking, ambition and effort. Did you challenge yourself to create an evocative work with verve? (10 pts) 5. Technique and Mastery—Work demonstrates technical expertise, appears competent and of high level skill and sophistication. (20 pts) 6. Self-Reflection—Work was successfully uploaded to FlipGrid and a thorough reflection was recorded based on prompts (10 pts) 7. Critique—You successfully added “glows” and/or “grows” using AP language (refer to AP brochure/rubrics) in at least 5 comments to your peers. Add your name after your comment for full credit (5 pts) 8. TOTAL SCORE      Check here if your work is late.      ✓ if you took a good quality photo of the work Comments:

Points awarded by teacher

23 Risk-taking and Empowering Students with Interdependent Artmaking Michael Jon Skura

As the Fine Arts Department Chair at Oswego High School (Community School District #308, Oswego, Illinois), I oversee the visual arts, music, and theater programs. I instruct Drawing, Painting, and Advanced Placement (AP) Drawing. I have been teaching for 23 years, 18 at my current school. I have earned two bachelor’s degrees, one in Studio Painting and the other in Secondary Art Education, through the University of Illinois at Chicago. Subsequently, I received two master’s degrees: one in Curriculum Instruction and the other in Advanced Leadership through the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. Through the Illinois Art Education Association, I earned the Illinois Art Educator of the Year in 2017 and the district’s Teacher of the Year that same school year.

LESSON The lesson presented below can be used to encourage students to find their visual voice, experiment, and create potential work to be used for AP Studio Art Breadth and/or Concentration section, as the lesson guides students to create, perform, show an understanding of research, demonstrate an understanding of issues of copyright or plagiarism, composition, use of materials, and pacing with their artmaking.

THE CONTEXT OF TEACHING The lesson presented here is for 9th through 12th grade students. Several pertinent socioeconomic factors in my school include 19% of students below income level, 12% IEPs, and 10% chronic truancy. The school’s racial makeup is 64% White, 7% Black, 20% Hispanic, 3% Asian, and 6% two races or more.

LESSON CONTENT In this lesson, students’ goals are to learn about how paint works; specifically, they learn how to move oil, acrylic, and watercolor paint: VA:Cr2.2.III (Illinois State Board of Education, 2016). DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-30

154

Michael Jon Skura

Students also learn how to research images, gather inspiration, and understand copyrights in order to avoid plagiarism: VA:Cr1.2.III. Students learn to use their smartphones and/or digital cameras to generate images and show evidence of strong compositions through the lesson: VA:Cr3.1.III. Lastly, students prepare to be independent workers during both classroom and outside classroom studio time; this fosters increased interest and readiness for AP Studio Art: VA:Cr1.1.III. The students are to work on their final projects 17 weeks ahead of the due date. They are expected to work on their finals inside and outside of class starting the first week given to them. The medium can be any material instructed to them during the semester. The subject matter can be either one or more of the following: Figure, Portrait/Self-Portrait, Landscape/ Nature, Urban Environment, and/or Still Life. Students are to answer the following questions so that they are aware of the images and medium selected: 1. What is the choice of medium? Why was that/those material(s) selected? (VA:Cr2.2.III) 2. What is the choice of subject matter: Figure, Portrait, Self-Portrait, Landscape/Nature, Urban Environment, and/or Still Life? Why was this subject matter selected? (VA:Cr1.2.III) Next, I discuss issues of plagiarism, copyright, and using previous projects; the instructor must emphasize the skill of understanding research. Also, the instructor should be aware of the community and partner with the deans and school administration to agree on what subjects are school-appropriate.

ASSESSMENT Assessing a secondary student artist, no matter the student’s ability level or type of media is daunting! However, after 23 years of teaching in a myriad of school settings, I have some insights into accurately and helpfully assessing art. Two ideas drive assessment in the arts: One focuses on student skill acquisition, and the other on current conceptual artmaking practices that foster creativity and risk-taking. Questions arise when developing a rubric to document these two goals: • •

How does one instruct the traditional paradigm of the academy to one’s students? How does one craft a student-centered assessment that encourages students to find their visual voice, engage in experimenting/risk-taking, consider social justice, and learn to fail?

Using the Illinois Art Standards (Illinois State Board of Education, 2016), I developed the criteria to be assessed in the rubric (see Appendix, Table 23A.1). Additionally, when assessing secondary student artists, instructors must keep in mind the importance of student choice. When instructors begin crafting an assessment, they should consider questions that help students deconstruct assumptions about artmaking and ask: • • • • •

Why work with still lives, portraits, figures, and landscapes/urban environments? Is one working with a particular media? Why? Does this have meaning; is it sentimental, historical, or both? Does the student want to learn a new skill? How have past and current artists tackled these subjects?

Lastly, instructors should consider how students find their visual voice and experimentation by seeing examples of artwork by students and artists who addressed similar challenges.

RISK-TAKING AND EMPOWERING STUDENTS

155

FIGURE 23.1  Student example: Independent

I put all these themes together and apply Standard-Based Grading (Townsley & Buckmiller, 2016). In assessing the point value of these criteria, I used three as Independent, two as Approaching, and one/zero as Needs Support. I used three checkpoints of progress for the final assessment. The first check for the student is to establish an idea, and this is given with questions asked of them about why they chose their medium and subject matter. The newly adopted Illinois Anchor Standards, influenced by the National Art Standards, help drive the assignment. The second check is for students to have their idea drawn out on their ground (i.e., watercolor paper, canvas, cardboard, wood, and/or plexiglass). The third check is for the student to be “halfway done.” This “check” can be determined through conferencing between the student and the instructor. The artwork appraised as Independent (Figure 23.1) earned this rating because of the student’s choice and success of warm-colored graduation background, a strong proportion of the figure; also this is a photo they had taken of themselves with a particular outfit on, excellent use of warm highlights, shadows and layering on the face, and lastly, the angel of the female character (worm’s eye view) was extremely sophisticated. The story being told is wonderfully ambiguous and compelling. I found myself wondering is the figure sad, reflective, and/or hopeful? The artwork evaluated as Approaching (Figure 23.2) garnered this because the student choice of a cool-colored background was appropriate, but the technique did not reach independence; it could have been smoother to recede more in the background. The subject matter was interesting and the choice of warm colors again appropriate, but it is placed in the center, and there is more negative space than positive space. I feel the story being told is straightforward but too literal, embracing “peace,” and/or some kind of sentimental feeling of love or hope. Lastly, the artwork assessed as Needs Support (Figure 23.3) garnered this because of the placement of the subject matter in the direct center; it looks like it is floating in the background. There was minimal modeling with the pepper. There is no real story being told here. The lesson design does create shortcomings, for example, allowing students to pick their subject matter and how much effort they put into it. Also, some students continue to use cliche subjects like eyes, flowers, babies, and prom photos. A couple more shortcomings include when the medium is taught. For example, if acrylic is taught last, toward the end of the semester, and the student then realizes acrylic paint is their “wheelhouse,” they have lost a significant quality time to work on their project. Lastly, some students, despite the various check-ins, will not have these steps completed and wait until literally the last day to turn something in which is very much reflective of the amount of time they put in. The lesson does lend itself to be successful if the students are intrinsically motivated. I continue to strive to

156

Michael Jon Skura

FIGURE 23.2  Student example: Needs support

FIGURE 23.3  Student example: Approaching

create and foster the “desire” in students, so art becomes much more about “art for art’s sake” than art for any didactic or utilitarian function. When students become self-motivated, this lesson has produced significant projects of high success and self-knowing. The lesson has propelled students to know and find their visual voice and/or their concentration investigation for AP Studio Art. The invitation to find their own images, modify techniques taught to them, and not be confined to a particular size but be given the right amount of limitations, fosters the creative process well. I have been intrinsically and at times extrinsically awarded, as an instructor, by student’s success in art competitions and AP Studio Art grades, that continually using and modifying this lesson is and will continue to be a “go to” unit of instruction.

REFERENCES Illinois State Board of Education (2016). Illinois arts learning standards: Visual arts standards. Illinois State Board of Education. Townsley, M., & Buckmiller, T. (2016). What does the research say about standards-based grading? Matt Townsley Blog. Retrieved June 24, 2020, from http://mctownsley.net/standards-based-grading-research/

157

RISK-TAKING AND EMPOWERING STUDENTS

APPENDIX TABLE 23A.1

Rubric: Final painting I. Experimenting and finding your visual voice Directions: Please answer the Student Response after your project is completed but before you turn it in for critique. Criteria

Independent 3

Approaching 2

Needs Support 1/0

CREATE & PERFORM: VA: Cr1.1.II Student creates and performs a complex work of art using a variety of techniques, technologies and resources and independent decision making

Extremely strong and independent work.

Work is growing and approaching independence.

Work needs support.

DEMONSTRATE: VA:Cr1.2.III Student demonstrates the knowledge and skills that communicate clear and focused ideas based on planning, research and problem-solving. The student either often showed or discussed their project with the instructor

Planning, research and problemsolving occurs independently.

Planning, research and problem-solving occurs mostly independently.

Planning, research and problem-solving needed much guidance and support.

CREATE/CREATIVITY: VA:Cr2.2.III Student was creative in the use of their choice of medium (oil, acrylic, and/ or watercolor) to help them create the full effect of their subject (portrait/ self-portrait, figure, landscape, urban environment, and/or still life). Also, the subject matter seemed well thought out and beyond the norm

Extremely strong and independence (as shown through instruction).

Growing and Needs support in creativity approaching (as shown through independence (as instruction). shown through instruction).

COMPOSE/COMPOSITION: VA:Cr3.1.III Student explains how and why this is accomplished in the created artwork

Extremely strong and independent.

Growing and approaching independence.

Needs support in composition.

STUDENT RESPONSE: Circle one-

Dominance of the Edge Continuous-Field Composition Arrangement of Images Division of the Picture Plane Picture Plane

Below, explain how and why this is accomplished in your created artwork.

24 Summary Section IV Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan

Every teacher must reflect on their personal aspirations for what students will retain from time in the classroom. What skills will they carry with them after formal instruction ends? Is there something that has been learned that they might nurture for the rest of their lives? Those are big questions to revisit and reflect upon. They touch at the heart of teaching. Fundamentally, there are two ways to frame this question. Like the figure of the Roman god Janus who simultaneously looks in two opposing directions, one pathway looks back and the other path looks forward. One direction values the transfer of established and codified knowledge from the past. The other direction projects into an uncertain and still to be defined future. There is much to be said for understanding what we teach as a treasuring of what has come before (Kamhi & Torres, 2008). We stand on the shoulders of giants, and it would seem reasonable that a role of education—particularly secondary education—would be providing some sense of the history on which the discipline builds. This approach is basic to the study of music. Music schools are called conservatories: institutions that cultivate aesthetic cherishing and preservation. Some visual art educators have argued that we should follow that cue from music (Broudy, 1972). We want our students to not just appreciate, but to cherish past creative achievements. But there is also much to be said for an art education that pushes into a hoped-for but not yet realized future. Arts educator and aesthetic philosopher Maxine Greene frames education as an imaginative task: of envisioning ways of being in and responding to the world. She calls that educating for that-which-is-not-yet (Greene, 2001). Such a view conforms to American Pragmatist philosopher John Dewey’s (1916) view of the core mission of public education in the United States. Dewey saw the project of American education as preparing young people for participation in a better, more inclusive society. In Dewey’s view, America’s founders were imperfect and knew that they were imperfect. Nevertheless, the genius of America was the founders-established institutions that would not duplicate the past, but strive to make a tomorrow that would be better than today. For Dewey, public education was the most influential institution whose primary purpose was perpetual societal improvement and moves past the errors of yesterday. Through education, one grasps at a better future: that-which-is-not-yet. DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-31

159

SUMMARY SECTION IV

Dewey’s American Pragmatism has resonated with educators for over 100 years. For art educators, the philosophical tenets of American Pragmatism map neatly onto two other theoretical curricular frameworks. First, the philosophical tenets of artistic Modernism and Post-Modernism, the dominant theories for contemporary art, tear down (deconstruct) the past in order to allow new imaginative possibilities to emerge. Dewey himself recognized the parallel construction of his educational theory with Modernist aesthetics and devoted his book Art as Experience (Dewey, 1934/1989) to exploring this connection. Second, from the standpoint of developmental psychology, high school is a time when young people question the world around them. These questions often begin by thinking about who they are and develop into questioning the rules of the world that appear to govern their choices. They experiment with new possibilities and new possible personas. They ask what-if and why-not questions (Stanford Children’s Health, n.d.). These triadic influences, American Pragmatism, artistic Modernism/Post-Modernism, and cognitive development meld to form a tradition of high school art educators defining the teachings as promotions of skills in risk-taking and boundary breaking. These skills promote human growth, which Dewey called the purpose of education (Dewey, 1938). Assessment can become illusive in this terrain. No longer are students expected to hit a benchmark. Traditional forms of art assessment can be highly rule-based. For example, a teacher knows what a value scale looks like. An assessment in this case is whether the student is capable of matching the teacher’s expectations. A variation on this would be for a teacher to presume that a student will employ, in an observational drawing, a range of values to convincingly transform shape into form. A rubric can chart how closely the student meets the teacher’s expectations. It is more difficult to establish a criterion and benchmark for risktaking. Doctoral students would ask professor Elliot Eisner what was required to secure an A in his class. He said that they had to surprise him. When asked how one was to do that, he said he didn’t know; if he knew, it wouldn’t be a surprise. This sense of being surprised is not necessarily in a final amazing product the likes of which no one has seen before, but often a judgment by the teacher of a student’s individual growth. The surprise can be in the teacher observing the willingness of the student to move outside of their comfort zone and to take a risk. This is process over product orientation. It is not based on an absolute external value but the teacher’s own evaluation of the significance of growth in a student’s journey. The rubrics in this chapter offer insight into how teachers handle what appears to be a highly subjective judgment. Tackling this problem is at the heart of the American Pragmatist vision of education, and—as Dewey observed—it is a place where the visual arts can provide an educational beacon within schools.

PROCESS OVER PRODUCT The teachers in this section share an interest with the teachers of the previous section with a concern for visual narrative. As artist educator JoE Douillette states, his goal is to engage his students in digital storytelling. However, the final product is not the cornerstone of assessment. As he states, the final video offers a clue to the process —the journey traveled—by the student. Here, an assessment strategy based on a conceptual frame of Studio Habits of Mind is checking for student stops along the way. Visual arts assessment frequently looks at the form of a final object. The inscription of form is the ultimate evidence for a student’s performance. However, looking for habits of mind is something different. Habits of mind can reveal how a student is thinking. To look for habits of mind shifts the focus of assessment away from a finished final product and toward a process of thinking. In

160

Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan

this case, Douillette is looking for evidence of how work changes. What habits of mind has the student brought to bear that alters the form of the work. Can the student push beyond their initial ideas? Morgan Bozarth asks her students to break conceptual boundaries in their work through a process of inquiry. As with the other teachers in this section, thinking in and through art requires a basic mastery of tools and techniques. However, formal mastery is not an end in itself. The close, fine-grained distinctions in visual qualities that formal skills allow to emerge are in the service of researching an idea in fine-grained detail. The probing of the idea is ultimately the basis of assessment. Bozarth employs pre- and postevaluation to help mark student growth. In this way, she can report on the individual journey of each student rather than make a summative judgment as to whether the student hit a pre-established benchmark. Unexpected outcomes of Bozarth’s study were student self-assessment of their own biases related to the issues they choose for their sustained investigations. One student who photographed unsheltered individuals gained the realization that people are more than their circumstances. Reflection on the study leads Morgan to reflect on her own lesson assessment goals for the future. This focus on growth is also critical to the advanced assessments employed by Stan Dodson and Drew Brown. They acknowledge the dual roles of an art teacher. There is a responsibility to teach technique: the solid practical knowledge of practical tools and cultural context. Nevertheless, advanced work requires a pivot to tracking a student’s continuing evolution. As Dodson points out, the visual arts are positive in that they provide mechanisms for students to articulate their point of view, but at the same time, this means that a student’s point of view is visible to others and potentially can be subject to peer criticism. This is a delicate balance between self-actualization and terror. The ability of a student to persevere in forms of authentic expression becomes central to assessment. Both Dodson and Brown value student risk-taking in revealing authentic elements of themselves as essential to their overall educational objective of building constructive communities of listeners and learners. The importance of allowing for student choice—and not steering students to a similar outcome pre-ordained by the teacher—is also central to the teaching of Michael Skura. Here again, Skura wrestles with the Janus task of the art teacher: How much formal knowledge of past skills is necessary for a student to risk finding their own path? In his rubric, he thematizes high performance as Independent: the point where the student can take the knowledge of the past as a launching pad into a demonstration of their own voice.

ASSESSING RISK-TAKING AND GROWTH As the teachers in this section attest, the high school art classroom is challenging because students arrive with vastly different sets of skills and knowledge, and with different biases based on their lived experiences. There may be a senior, taking their first art class. There may be a freshman with years of experience in developing art skills and art historical knowledge. There are always students who have special needs. And there are, of course, different proclivities that are impacted by social-emotional growth and cultural norms. Every student starts from a different place. Although every child can grow, each student has a different capacity for growth. Therefore, assessments that track an individual student’s journey hold the promise of being more authentic than assessments based on fixed criteria for success. As Raymond Veon points out in his opening essay, tracking risk-taking, boundary breaking, and growth is a process of inferential assessment. You cannot see risk-taking in one final artwork that is turned in at the end of the project. The teacher, better yet the student, needs to create a portfolio of clues that reveal the process unfolding.

161

SUMMARY SECTION IV

Ultimately, what a student retains from such teaching might be more than an artwork that they will proudly display for years to come. Further, human beings hold on to what they value; as an art student, they will have gained insight into processes of thinking that can help guide their future endeavors in whatever discipline they choose to pursue.

REFERENCES Broudy, H. S. (1972). Enlightened cherishing: An essay on aesthetic education. University of Illinois Press. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. The Free Press. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1989). Art as experience. Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1934) Greene, M. (2001). Variations on a blue guitar: The Lincoln Center Institute lectures on aesthetic education. Teachers College Press. Kamhi, M. M., & Torres, L. (2008). What about the other face of contemporary art? Art Education, 61(2), 53–58. Stanford Children’s Health (n.d.). Cognitive development. Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford. https://www. stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=cognitive-development-90-P01594

Section IV: Questions and discussion points

Education is strongly influenced by psychological behaviorism. Behaviorism held that the assessments of student learning had to be based on actions that you could see a student perform. It was inappropriate to attribute these to some kind of abstract mental process like “risk-taking”. However, Veon argues that science is based on inferential constructions. We cannot see vast amounts of scientific processes. We know that it is there by tracking multiple sources of inferential evidence and triangulating this data to make a claim of an abstract concept. The key is to have multiple sources of evidence to support the claim you wish to make. 1. In your own lesson planning, how would you seek to identify multiple sources of evidence to support a claim that your students have engaged in risk-taking? 2. What kind of technical skills are necessary to engage in authentic risk-taking? The teachers in this section try to find a space where students are confident enough in their abilities so that they can be pushed to challenge themselves. What is the balance between demonstrating control of specific techniques and personal exploration? 3. What role does a medium play in promoting risk-taking? Do different media provide different affordances for risk-taking? 4. For the students who still need support, what kind of pedagogical interventions could you suggest? What adjustments could you suggest to engage these students? 5. Douillette mentions that his experience of teaching in non-school setting allowed for more continuous formative assessment that more readily nurtured risk-taking. However, his experience has been that schools emphasize summative assessment. Veon mentions that summative assessment, prized by our educational systems, can inhibit risk-taking. How do different forms of assessment foster or impede different desired educational outcomes? 6. Consider the NCAS (if your state has adapted standards based on the national standards, use your state standards). How do you see risk-taking as supporting excellent achievement in the standards? Cite specific standards and how you would build your lesson so that risk-taking is a part of exceptional achievement? DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-32

SECTION V Capturing Empathic Understandings and Social Engagement

Viktor Lowenfeld (1947) famously maintained that art education was both artistic and therapeutic. For many years, social and emotional learning were concerned to be soft skills that were of little concern in schools that had to focus on the hard reality of improving test scores. In recent years, cognitive science has increasingly emphasized the emotional context of thinking. The art classroom is uniquely situated to build on learning within an emotional context. Furthermore, a founding principle of public education was to prepare citizens who would responsibly participate in democratic institutions. How do we listen to each other to the world around us? How do we grow—personally and collectively—from incorporating perspectives that differ from our own?

GUIDED READING POINTS • • • •

What imaginative skills are necessary to foster empathy and social awareness? How is learning to listen a form of creative engagement? How can the art classroom foster learning environments in which one has confidence that when one speaks, others will compassionately hear and listen? Elliot Eisner claimed that the arts teach that “there can be more than one answer to a question and more than one solution to a problem” (2002, p. 196). How can this attribute of art education be leveraged for prompting students to engage with social contexts that impact their lives?

REFERENCES Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. Yale University Press. Lowenfeld, V. (1947). Creative and mental growth. Macmillan.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-33

25 Commentary Section V Empathy and Socially Engaged Art Samantha Goss and Richard Siegesmund

Elliot Eisner (2001) observed that “the teaching of art is more than the teaching of art” (p. 10). Contributing author Debi West, in describing her educational practice, says, “I don’t teach art; I teach children.” When some art teachers talk about the successful learning that has occurred in their classroom, they do not talk about the technical skills acquired. They do not start with beauty or form. They do not mention growth in a student’s critical thinking. Instead, they start with stories of care. As recognized in the 2009 Georgia Visual Art Performance Standards (Georgia Department of Education, 2009), there are five forms of care that students could exhibit in the classroom: (1) the care of materials, (2) the care of self, (3) the care of others, (4) the care of the school, and (5) the care of community. These five forms of care manifest themselves in different ways. These are sometimes stories of personal transformation such as how alienated and angry students discovered the ability to take pride in their own work and positively support peers in the classroom. The qualities of care develop an observable, assessable skill in empathy. Frequently, they are not just stories of an individual student’s learning. In tandem, these stories include assessments of the teacher’s own personal growth. For example, the Danielson Framework (Danielson, 2014) evaluates the teacher’s ability to demonstrate rapport with students. These two seem to go hand-in-hand: student and teacher participating in a journey of empathetic growth together.

EMPATHY Empathy is an imaginative skill (Greene, 2000). Not to be confused with its mundane relative sympathy, educationally significant empathic imaginative thinking restructures perception, as students experience new ways of being-in-relationship in the world. French philosopher Jacques Rancière (2004) refers to this phenomenon as an expansion of the distribution of the sensible. By this, Rancière means that expanding perception reorders how we feel about things. Becoming more aware of what we sense changes our value system. Such a reordering means that we consider new ways of being in the world. It isn’t that we just see more; we see differently. As a result, we make new choices. Somethings never previously noticed are now prized; we DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-34

166

Samantha Goss and Richard Siegesmund

leave other things behind. Most importantly to Rancière, new dimensions of seeing can carry with them self-realization for responsible conduct. This is not just following the rules; it is an authentic desire to communicate with another and forge a community. This inner growth of responsible practice in dialogue with ourselves and with others, he claims, is aesthetics. Broadening our awareness of how we are in relationship in the world can be as simple a learning to care for a round paint brush by recognizing it as prosthetic extension of oneself: Neglecting the brush does damage to oneself. Another contributing author to this book, Lauren Phillips, would introduce painting to her elementary students by first having them stroke their paint brushes as if they were petting a cat. They had to demonstrate care for their materials. We are entangled with the materiality of the world (Barad, 2007). We are in relation, with the objects we touch, hear, smell, taste, as well as what we see. Our bodies are sentient gathering devices that interact with a constantly changing mutating and adaptative world which is not sitting passively waiting to be discovered and manipulated by humans. The nonhuman elements of the world—the fibers that form paper, the pigments that create hues, the earthen clay that may even have been extracted from the ground of the student’s own community—have their own agency (Bennett, 2010). We don’t control this world; we negotiate with it. Empathy is more than just a smug self-centeredness believing one is “in-tune” and feeling the pain of others (Sontag, 2003). Authentic empathy leads to what Braidotti calls posthuman knowledge (Braidotti, 2019), knowledge of the world that does not place the self, or the human, at the center of it. Profoundly, this teaches that the student does not shape the world; the student is a responsible partner cooperating in the maintenance of the world. As psychologist Michael Polanyi (1967) observes, we make sense, before we have words to explain. He refers to tacit knowledge as the way we know the world before we have words to say. In this view, empathy is a critical, teachable skill that increases the capacity to tacitly gather, analyze, and act on sensory information so that our actions are responsible to the human and non-human relationships that nurture our existence. Aesthetics is not a means of producing self-expressive objects. Aesthetics is the empathetic process that decenters us from the world and allows us to see the self ’s own ligatures that bind it to a web of human and material relationships. With this realization comes the responsibility for protecting these fragile and tenuous bonds. In a classroom, these might be made manifest by a student who independently cleans a worktable out of concern for the students in the next period to have a workspace that inspires them to create. The educational outcome is an authentic care of others. The philosopher Michel Foucault (1988) suggested that imaginative engagement is more than a way to know the world. It also asks us to engage in the aesthetic task of rebuilding ourselves—an auto-deconstructive process through which we strive to new possibility. The educational objective of an art class is not in the production of beautiful objects; it is in construction of minds (Eisner, 2002; Lowenfeld, 1947). Thus, besides a care of others, aesthetics produces an authentic care of self. This care of self is rooted in the responsibility of one own psychic and somatic presence to human and non-human entanglements. Foucault (1988) claimed that engagement with these two acts of care produced arts of living, a perfection of the self that led to an ethical perfection of society. These views resonate with the ideas of Richard Rorty (1989), who contended that a principal aim of education is to create individuals who are strong poets: individuals who are capable of rewriting themselves repeatedly and reflexively in ever-changing, hopefully improving, iterations. Two core purposes of education are, first, to enable individuals to visualize new possible futures they can aspire to, and second, to set forth a pathway through which the individual can remake himself or herself for that future (Eisner, 2002). The American Post-Pragmatist philosopher Richard Shusterman (2006) also points out that developing a sense of perception that orients us to relationship is indeed the original

COMMENTARY SECTION V

167

meaning of the word aesthetics when it was first coined in the 18th century. Like Rancière, Shusterman points out that the concept of aesthetics changed over time. That aesthetics had to do with identifying beautiful objects, expressing one personal preference, establishing taxonomies of excellence (Smith, 1987), or referring to forms of cultural activity (Bourdieu, 1984) were all latter philosophical devolutions of the term. While these latter permutations of the concept of aesthetics have come to dominate practical art education curriculum and echo in our national standards, many art educators—intuitively or intentionally—situate themselves in an aesthetics of being-in-relationship: in relation to one’s self and in relation to the human and non-human. John Dewey framed the problem of aesthetics as developing skills in perception that open new ways of seeing the world. He called this the reorganization of space and time (Dewey, 1934). For Dewey, the purpose of the reorganization is the development of empathy. The recognition of being-in-relationship to another, an object, or groups and systems allowed new forms of social connection to emerge. Furthermore, to linger in the moment of perception, a purposelessness of simply be present with another object, another thing, another person, generated deeper commitments of care. This extended philosophical context may seem extraneous to classroom practitioners, but the point of this discussion is to demonstrate a history of conceptualizing aesthetics as empathy. Therefore, teaching for empathic learning objective is the charge of the high school art teacher. Feminist philosopher Nel Noddings (1995) expressed concern that most educators do not think seriously about what it means to care beyond superficial assertions that we care for our students and foster a caring community of learners. Noddings feared that many times these gestures of care are glib. In the visual arts, our standards exhort educators to teach students to care for materials they use. This is certainly a first step. However, many art teachers teach for deeper, more robust forms of being-in-relationship to others and the non-human world. Art educators, who have tacitly recognized the connection of empathy to aesthetics even if they do not know the philosophy behind this, have pushed for deeper personal levels of engagement with their students. In these classrooms, the teachers hope that by modeling deep empathy, the students themselves will master multiple dimensions of care. Empathy becomes an educational learning objective. These teachers take on Noddings’ fundamental challenge to educators: to see care as an explicit learning outcome of one’s own discipline.

PERCEPTION AND AN AESTHETICS OF EMPATHY The lack of mandatory, nationally standardized testing is both a blessing and a curse for the visual arts. While there are voluntary national standards for the visual arts as well as in many states officially ratified local standards, without mandatory testing, there is no urgency to see that art teaching dutifully adheres to these standards. Consequently, even in schools that profess a rigorous commitment to the arts, visual art teachers often have a broad latitude in not only what they teach, but in how they teach. Most importantly, this latitude extends to the assessments they choose to develop to report student progress in their classroom. Assessments that score growing proficiency in an artistic technique are fairly straightforward. Unfortunately, these assessments are frequently as banal as asking students in an English classroom to explain the significance of the green light at the end of the dock in The Great Gatsby, for such assessments are built on presupposed “correct” answers. English students can download the answer from the Internet. Artificial intelligence can compose a perfectly acceptable answer to this question. Benchmarks for technical skills in the art classroom can be met by successfully mimicking an on-line YouTube® video.

168

Samantha Goss and Richard Siegesmund

For teachers who prioritize empathy as a learning objective for students, education is not the proficiency in a set of discreet skills that only have relevance with the classroom. Instead, they are concerned with more holistic learning that students will take outside of school and potentially carry with them for life. Thus, social/emotional learning is not just an effect of instruction; it becomes the focus of instruction. Having set a curricular challenge of teaching deep caring to students, the teacher may face a pedagogical challenge of adapting one’s own teaching.

FROM EMPATHY TO ENGROSSMENT Nel Noddings (2013)—besides advocating attention to care as a component of successful teaching—contends that the exemplary teaching of care requires that the teacher demonstrates engrossment. She claims that engrossment—a dedicated and authentic commitment to knowing another person—is a critical component for engaging in reciprocal caring, which is the educational point of establishing respect and rapport in a classroom—required elements of the Danielson Framework of teacher evaluation (Danielson Group, 2017). Noddings sees this quality of pedagogical practice as essential to developing valid empathy. Furthermore, for art educators, developing authentic empathetic engagement by students is critical to building curricula authentically centered on socially engaged art.

EXPANDING ENGROSSMENT The Danielson Framework for teacher evaluation emphasizes that a distinguished teacher develops rapport with students. Within the context of Danielson, rapport can mean asking about student’s out-of-school activities. Noddings’ concept of engrossment is not prohibited in the Danielson Framework; it is simply a higher level of performance than is captured in the Framework’s rubric for distinguished teaching. As a result, this aspect of high achievement (widely practiced in art education) remains an invisible rung above the Framework’s explicit rubric. Therefore, art educators, who work in school districts that use the Danielson model or a Danielson-inspired model, for teacher performance assessment, may need to critically deconstruct the Danielson Framework to not only describe their own practice, but to define for external evaluators the exceptional level of their performance.

ADAPTING THE DANIELSON FRAMEWORK FOR AESTHETIC TEACHING Domain 2 of the Danielson Framework addresses the classroom environment; Component 2a specifically looks at how a teacher creates respect and rapport in their classroom (Danielson Group, 2017). Respect is important, but it can remain disconnected. The examples provided of a proficient teacher include greeting students by name and using polite phrases like please and thank you, while a distinguished teacher asks about the extracurriculars a student is involved with (Danielson, 2014). Aesthetic engagement with students that models empathy demands more basic regard for other people that encourage courtesy classroom conversation. Art teachers build significant caring relationships that support student success. Danielson provides a framework for the deep engagement of teachers and students that can be recognized. A distinguished art teacher would be engrossed in their students showing that their deep knowledge improves the classroom environment through choices informed by what is best for the students (Goss, 2018). For example, a teacher whom we will call Nancy is an example

169

COMMENTARY SECTION V

of a teacher who truly provides an example of distinguished respect and rapport in the classroom. Nancy is an exemplar of engrossment’s push for deep commitment to the process of getting to know a student in order to support their success in learning. Nancy began her photography course by meeting with students individually. She worked with them to define individual learning goals in addition to the goals she had planned for the course. She did this through conversation and sitting with the students in their classroom space. This kind of deep interaction, providing continual formative assessment to students, focused on responding to individual needs and goals and is a hallmark of art teaching and skilled art assessment. A proficient example of this process would allow students to define and submit their own additional learning goals for a course. Nancy is distinguished because of her engrossment. She is working with the students to define and understand their goals. She is aware that many students may not have any idea what goal they should have to really benefit their individualized learning. By being their engrossed partner, she is enhancing the learning experience. She also used her engrossment to make a difference for a challenging student. One student was resistant to the process of creating learning goals and tested her by refusing to engage. Nancy waited next to this student’s seat at the beginning of class until she realized she was not giving up. This was not just a superficial (or proficient) effort to connect with her students. She was engaged in a deep level of engrossment. How does this distinguished level of teacher engrossment impact student learning and the assessment of students? Nancy’s effort in gaining individual learning goals allows her to not only create and encourage intrinsic motivation, but support and assess a student’s progress toward those goals. I would expect this personal investment in the course to show positive trends in the assessment of other course goals such as mastering technical knowledge needed to operate cameras and photo-editing software. Nancy believed that this individual spin on the existing course was important for her curriculum and student success. Lucas is another art educator who exemplifies distinguished levels of respect and rapport, though his engrossment is in establishing caring relationships with his Advanced Placement (AP) students. Lucas is keenly aware that students need to be engrossed in their work for success in their AP portfolios. To be successful in producing a high-scoring AP portfolio, students need to exhibit care of materials and a care of self in their own commitment to achievement. A care of others demonstrated in peer critique doesn’t hurt. He has high expectations about the amount of time and effort they will put into their work. His students produce thoroughly researched and skillfully executed work. Through his close continuous formative assessments, students evidence proficiency in their use of materials, as well as careful consideration of their composition in relationship to their conceptual and artistic goals. Lucas assessed their work within the expectations of AP: understanding of technical knowledge and skills, an engrossed exploration of concept, and evidence of the ability to explore the topic through a variety of skillful avenues (The College Board, 2019). Lucas’ students demonstrated the same level of engrossment in their work as he engaged in as their teacher. His students show their acknowledgment of his engrossment and distinguished performance as a teacher through their own learning and performance in the course.

CONCLUSION Art educators can provide a clearer picture for evaluators of the role of empathy in their classroom both as a student learning objective and as the teacher’s own pedagogical practice by creating a connection between student assessments and teacher evaluations. Both Nancy and Lucas demonstrated a level of engrossment that when replicated by students would lead to a high level of success in their course. They did this in different ways, but ultimately

170

Samantha Goss and Richard Siegesmund

their engrossment elicited deeper engagement in the course from students. Students could articulate this engagement to an evaluator by explaining their progress toward their individual learning goal or through a discussion of their conceptual and technical works in their AP portfolios. In these cases, the demonstration of empathy across multiple levels of care becomes the central learning outcome of teaching and the enduring lessons of art that students carry with them for life.

REFERENCES Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Duke University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Harvard University Press. Braidotti, R. (2019). Posthuman knowledge. Polity Press. Danielson, C. (2014). The framework for teaching: evaluation instrument 2013 edition. https://www.danielsongroup.org/ download/?download=448 Danielson Group. (2017). The framework. https://www.danielsongroup.org/framework/ Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. Minton Balch. Eisner, E. W. (2001). Should we create new aims for art education? Art Education, 54(5), 6–10. Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. Yale University Press. Foucault, M. (1988). The history of sexuality: Volume 3, the care of the self (R. Hurley, Trans.). Vintage. Georgia Department of Education. (2009). Georgia performance standards: Visual arts. http://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/ do:dlg_ggpd_s-ga-be300-pc8-bm1-b2009-bv5-belec-p-btext Goss, S. (2018). The role and impact of engrossment for the caring art teacher (Publication No. 6234) [Doctoral Dissertation, Northern Illinois University]. Graduate Research Theses & Dissertations. https://huskiecommons.lib. niu.edu/allgraduate-thesesdissertations/6234   Greene, M. (2000). Releasing the Imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass. Lowenfeld, V. (1947). Creative and mental growth. Macmillan. Noddings, N. (1995). Teaching themes of care. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 675–679. Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education (2nd ed.). University of California Press. Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. Anchor Books. Rancière, J. (2004). The politics of aesthetics: The distribution of the sensible. (G. Rockhill, Trans.). Continuum. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge University Press. Shusterman, R. (2006). The aesthetic. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2–3), 237–252. Smith, R. A. (1987). Excellence in art education: Ideas and initiatives. National Art Education Association. Sontag, S. (2003). Regarding the pain of others. Farrar Straus and Giroux. The College Board. (2019). The portfolio. https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses/ap-studio-art-2-d-design/portfolio

26 Starting a Conversation Student-directed Projects Designed to Engage the Community Nicholas Hostert

THE CONTEXT OF TEACHING Palatine High School, in Township District 211 in Palatine, Illinois, is a Title I high school, with a diverse 2,600-student population that consists of 8% Asian, 5% Black, 49% Hispanic, 36% White, 52% low-income, 6% homeless, and 19% English Language Learners, with over 40 different languages spoken. The community demographics have shifted over the past 20 years. Nicholas Hostert has taught visual and media arts for 19 years at Palatine High School. His pedagogical expertise centers contemporary art practices at the core of highquality arts curriculum and instruction. This lesson is for a second-level media arts course, with students ranging from sophomore through senior years who have completed at least one semester of art.

LESSON CONTENT The lesson title Starting a Conversation emerged from students’ interpretation of one common goal among socially engaged artists whose works they studied. Students concluded that Amanda Williams (2017), Michael Rakowitz (2017), Paul Chan (2017; Bishop, 2012), and Tania Bruegera (Bishop, 2012) all used artworks to facilitate dialogue about issues of personal, local, and national significance. Students also reviewed the qualities and range of socially engaged art practices which are well-articulated by New York/California-based artists Alexis Frasz and Holly Sidford of the Helicon Collaborative (Frasz & Sidford, 2017, pp. 14–18). The authors identify nine attributes of socially engaged art practices around which artists’ works varied as a guide for better understanding artists’ intentions and outcomes in addressing place-specific issues with affected communities. In defining socially engaged art, artist and museum educator Pablo Helguera (2015) states, “Socially engaged art functions by attaching itself to subjects and problems that normally DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-35

172

Nicholas Hostert

belong to other disciplines, moving them temporarily into a space of ambiguity” and “brings new insights to a particular problem or condition” (p. 5). These frameworks are helpful for students to consider how they might engage their communities in conversations around issues of importance through artistic practice. Socially engaged practices connect conceptual artmaking to pedagogical practices of inquiry-based learning that are fundamental to supporting what art educator Olivia Gude (2007) describes as the “transformative power of art and critical inquiry” (p. 6). Implications for the lesson include the following: Teacher serves as a facilitator with students at the center of the process in development, implementation, and documentation; artistic strategies are used to respond to issues of importance within the community; the work engages the community beyond the classroom; and students participate in critical and reflective dialogues. Our study of socially engaged artists caused us to consider how we might tackle relevant student community issues as the subject for an artistic investigation, with the deliberate intention of inviting participation from students outside of our class. Students conducted surveys with their peers to determine important issues, and a theme of the lack of physical communication and interaction among the student body emerged. Students collectively determined to address this finding by creating artworks involving personal, interactive participation from the school community, with the intent to build empathy and understanding among the diverse student population. Additionally, students had to grapple with the district expectations of specific media skill/technique advancement. From these conditions, the following student-defined learning objectives emerged. Students will: 1. Design an artwork that requires active participation from other students to complete. 2. Learn a new media skill or technique. 3. Use artwork to engage in conversation with a diverse student body beyond the classroom, with the intent to explore common values and begin to break down social barriers. 4. Document student audience response and interaction. 5. Develop understanding of how others’ response to an artwork changes or enhances meaning. Students aligned these learning objectives to a district rubric for the course. For each of our courses, district teachers produced a general rubric for one standard in each of the four categories of the Illinois Visual/Media Arts Standards, which are a near-verbatim adoption of the National Standards. To make the Standards more meaningful, I ask students to provide their own interpretation of the district rubrics for each project. For this project, students collectively modified the vague district rubric description of “Uses knowledge of tools and techniques to conceptualize and investigate new creative problems” for Standard MA Cr2.1.II.a to become “Design an artwork that requires active participation from other students to be complete” (Table 26.1). Likewise, the description for Standard MA:Re7.1.I.b, “Analyze how a variety of media artworks shape audience experience and create meaning through multimodal presentations” became the more tangible “Students outside of class are able to interpret the meaning of the work” (Table 26.2). Students completed this interpretive practice for each rubric category.

173

STARTING A CONVERSATION TABLE 26.1

Students collectively adapted a district rubric based on State/National Standards to define criteria. A295/A296: Starting a conversation Creating

a. Apply a personal aesthetic in designing, testing, and refining original artistic ideas, prototypes, and production strategies for media arts productions, considering artistic intentions, constraints of resources, and presentation context. Develop: Anchor Standard 2: Organize and develop artistic ideas and work Emerging Approaching 3. Meeting 4. Exceeding Unable to follow instructions on the use of tools and techniques in the generation of an artwork.

MACR2.1.II

Demonstrate Uses knowledge understanding of of tools and basic tools and techniques to techniques in creation conceptualize and of an artwork, investigate new following teacher/ creative problems. lesson instruction

District Rubric STUDENTS SAY… Design an artwork Design an artwork that Design an artwork that does not involve might involve active that requires active active participation participation from participation from from other students other students other students to be complete

Utilizes divergent thinking to move the work beyond the established project requirements through personal, thematic, or outside influences. Design an artwork that requires active participation from other students to be complete AND the artwork’s concept is altered by participation

In this process of collective assessment building, students stretch the Standards and district guidelines to suit their needs, embedding their collective articulation of the Standards in their contemporary art practice. This empowers students in guiding their learning as they formatively track performance from project to project, determining both individual and collective areas of focus for subsequent improvement.

ASSESSMENT Students and teacher assessed performance using these collectively articulated criteria, with a range of outcomes. Students were highly successful in learning new art tools and techniques for the project (Producing/Presenting), with 39% performing at level four, 50% at level three, and 11% at level two. Student achievement was closely distributed in designing works requiring outside participation in the completion of the projects (Creating), with 31% performing at level four, 38% at level three, and 31% at level two. Students were not wholly successful in having participants contribute their own meaning to the work (Responding), with only 12% excelling at level four. However, 76% met the level three criteria of other students successfully interpreting the work and only 12% performed below expectations at level two. All students successfully engaged in dialogue with others because of the work (Connecting), with 88% performing at level three and 12% excelling at level four, extending these conversations to gain others’ meaningful insights on the work. Notably, no students

A295/A296: Starting a conversation Creating MACR2.1.II

174

TABLE 26.2

Collaborative, student-generated rubric. a. Apply a personal aesthetic in designing, testing, and refining original artistic ideas, prototypes, and production strategies for media arts productions, considering artistic intentions, constraints of resources, and presentation context.

Develop: Anchor Standard 2: Organize and develop artistic ideas and work 1. Emerging 2. Approaching STUDENTS SAY… Design an artwork that does Design an artwork that might involve not involve active participation active participation from other from other students students

3. Meeting Design an artwork that requires active participation from other students to be complete

Nicholas Hostert

4. Exceeding Design an artwork that requires active participation from other students to be complete AND the artwork’s concept is altered by participation Producing I Presenting MA:Pr5.1.ll a. Demonstrate effective command of artistic, design, technical and soft skills in managing and producing media artworks. Practice: Anchor Standard 5: Develop and refine artistic techniques and work for presentation. 1. Emerging 2. Approaching 3. Meeting 4. Exceeding STUDENTS SAY… You used the same technique as Try a new technique with a familiar Use a new media tool you have Use a new media tool you have never used always tool never used before AND a new technique with a familiar tool Responding MA:Re7.1.l b. Analyze how a variety of media artworks manage audience experience and create intention through multimodal perception. Perceive: Anchor Standard 7: Perceive and analyze artistic work. 1. Emerging 2. Approaching 3. Meeting 4. Exceeding STUDENTS SAY… Students outside of class can’t Students outside of class connect parts Students outside of class are able to Students outside of class are able to interpret figure out the meaning of the of the artwork to a possible idea or interpret the meaning of the work the meaning of the work AND contribute work meaning their own meaning to the work Connecting MA:Cn11.1.ll a. Examine in depth and demonstrate the relationships of media arts ideas and works to various contexts, purposes, and values, such as markets, systems, propaganda, and truth. Relate: Anchor Standard 11: Relate artistic ideas and works with societal, cultural, and historical context to deepen understanding. 1. Emerging 2. Approaching 3. Meeting 4. Exceeding STUDENTS SAY… Students don’t talk about the Students outside of class show they Students outside of class talk with Students outside of class talk with the artists work and aren’t interested are curious about the work (look at the artists or others because of or others because of the work AND offer it), but don’t talk about it the work input on how the work might progress

STARTING A CONVERSATION

175

FIGURE 26.1  High achievement example. Anne Marie’s recording of footprints

unexpectedly emerges into a model for a proposed school walkway

performed at a level one in any of the four rubric categories. The following figures represent various levels of student accomplishment as defined by the assessment tools. Figure 26.1 is a high achievement exemplar. Figure 26.2 represents medium achievement. Figure 26.3 is determined to be low achieving. Anne Marie placed a 12-foot piece of white paper in the middle of a well-traveled hallway, with a moist towel at one end, and asked students to step on the towel and walk across the paper toward her, recording their footsteps in the process. Anne Marie invited students to walk on the paper and noticed that the majority of people avoided her entirely, which was difficult based on the size and location of the paper. This interaction altered the meaning of the work as Anne Marie reflected on students’ willful avoidance of a participatory action

FIGURE 26.2  Medium achievement example. Nova’s participatory game invites

conversation about transgender experiences

176

Nicholas Hostert

FIGURE 26.3  Low achievement example. Jessica’s collaborative installation invites

participation from the student community

(Responding level four). Anne Marie initially intended to create a large photograph of the paper to permanently record the interactions. However, participants expressed an interest in having the footsteps become truly permanent, altering the concept and progression of the work via dialogue (Creating level four and Connecting level four). Anne Marie learned how to create a relief 3D print of a photograph of the footsteps to construct a model for a concrete stamp that became part of a proposal for a non-slip strip at the school entrance (Producing/ Presenting level four). This strip encourages people to consider the footsteps, and metaphorical life journeys, of others upon entering and exiting the building. Nova learned to develop a first-person video game (Producing/Presenting level three) to create a public interactive experience about being transgender, in which the player is asked to choose a path of coming out or remaining silent in order to complete the experience (Creating level three). If the player chooses to come out, they walk down a long dark tunnel but eventually emerge into a brightly lit area, symbolizing a feeling of relief and happiness of having made a decision that was initially more difficult but ultimately rewarding. If the player instead chooses to remain silent, they walk down a brightly lit tunnel that gradually dims until they emerge into an area of total darkness, symbolizing the internal emotional trauma that may be inflicted by remaining silent. Students easily grasped the meaning of the experience (Responding level three). Nova asked each participant about their choice, engaging in dialogue about the difficulties in expressing gender identity (Connecting level three). Jessica extended her typical illustration work via scale and format (Producing/Presenting level two) to create an installation with a diminutive figure, large blank space, and a basket of illustrated birds. Jessica asked students to write their fears on the birds and then place the objects in the empty space surrounding the figure. As the day progressed, the installation served as a record of students’ feelings, requiring active participation from other students (Creating level three). Some students correctly interpreted the meaning of the work (Responding level two), but the installation did not generate documentable conversations (Connecting level two). The examples above demonstrate a range of performance in the different rubric categories. Students’ openness to trying something new was helpful in lowering the expectation threshold for what the project might look like, thereby encouraging their willingness to involve other students in their process. Most projects (57%) were in the medium achievement

177

STARTING A CONVERSATION

range, as they invited outside participants but did not include those voices in the creation of the work. Low projects (12%) typically did not advance beyond others contributing content to the work and suffered from inconsistencies across the rubric categories. High projects (31%) involved direct participation of others to create the work while contributing their own unique meaning, and the dialogue around this creation shaped the final iterations of the work. These projects were truly collaborative and participatory. In examining concept-based inquiry in secondary education, University of Maryland professor Margaret Walker (2014) states, “The art room should be a place for building upon artistic skills and also a place of inquiry, experimentation, expression, and engagement” (p. 296). I would expand the notion of “the art room” to include communities beyond the classroom, starting with students collectively generating learning objectives using their experimental, expanded interpretation of National/State Standards. This shifts the focus from attempting to learn an art skill to building confidence to investigate new processes that inform a continuous chain of conceptual inquiries. This practice of using art as a tool for conceptual expression and civic engagement is intrinsically connected to the pedagogical theories of Paulo Freire (1970) and John Dewey (1934). Students are exploring how art functions to challenge social norms, unify communities through shared experiences, and engender meaningful conversations. In reflecting on this project, students agreed that inviting transformative outside participation was the most challenging, yet also most rewarding, aspect—students were not used to seeking outside participation from others, and the participants were not sure how to contribute. However, most students were able to have conversations with a diverse audience that would not have occurred otherwise. This key result of the lesson indicates how democratically co-constructed, student-driven learning provides an authentic space for student voice and creates a supportive environment for meaningful dialogue through artistic practice.

REFERENCES Bishop, C. (2012). Artificial hells: Participatory art and the politics of spectatorship. Verso. Chan, P. (2017). Little lower layer. Exhibited at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, June 3, 2017–October 1, 2017. Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience. Putnam. Frasz, A., & Sidford, H. (2017, September). Mapping the landscape of socially engaged artistic practice. Art Making Change. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a8dfd48d74cffac3017261c/t/5d3ef580eddc910001c256c3/1564407180003/ Mapping_the_Landscape_of_Socially_Engaged_Artistic_Practice_Sept2017.pdf Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Herder and Herder. Gude, O. (2007). Principles of possibility: Considerations for a 21st-century art & culture curriculum. Art Education, 60(1), 6–17. Helguera, P. (2015). Education for socially engaged art. Jorge Pinto Books. Rakowitz, A. (2017). Michael Rakowitz: Backstroke of the west. Exhibited at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, September 16, 2017–March 4, 2018. Walker, M. A. (2014). From theory to practice: Concept-based inquiry in a high school art classroom. Studies in Art Education, 55(4), 287–299. Williams, A. (2017). Chicago works: Amanda Williams. Exhibited at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, July 18, 2017–December 31, 2017.

27 An Evolution of Assessment in the Wake of a Cultural Revolution Roxanne Brown

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT Hampton High School has about 1,500 students, 77% of whom are African-American. The school’s on-time graduation rate is better than 93% which exceeds the Virginia state average (Virginia Department of Education, 2020, https://schoolquality.virginia.gov/schools/ hampton-high). I teach on a block schedule of three 90-minute classes with one 90-minute planning block each day. My student population varies in degrees of art experience, social, economic, emotional and cognitive abilities as well as, in some cases, command of the English language. I teach this lesson during the first three weeks of the school year to my Art Foundation, Art I classes. The student population traditionally consists of mostly rising firstyear (9th grade) students and a few upper-level students (10–12th grades). The data I glean from daily, formative assessments provide me with immediate and useful information on my students’ social, emotional, and cognitive abilities, as well as technical skills, which I then use to inform my daily lessons and assessments. I have been teaching a form of this lesson for many years as part of my annual International Peace One Day, Pinwheels for Peace celebration/installation. Florida art teachers Ann Ayers and Ellen McMillan started Pinwheels for Peace as an art installation project in 2005. They hoped that their students could express their feelings about what’s going on in the world and in their lives. Since then, the project has spread around the world. To date, there have been four million documented participants (Ayers & McMillan, 2017). For this event, my students create posters. I decided to collaborate with the Band and Choral teachers and expanded this classroom lesson to a school-wide Peace Rally after the 2017 clash of demonstrators who gathered to protest and support the removal of a Confederate statue in Charlottesville, Virginia (ABC 6 Action News, 2018). The news coverage of the unsettling events weeks prior to the first day of school raised my concern for my students’ social-emotional condition when they returned to school. I wanted to do something to address the students’ social-emotional needs and learning culture, so I schedule this Peace Rally on September 21, the International Day of Peace (https://www.peaceoneday.org/Main/About). DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-36

EVOLUTION OF ASSESSMENT IN A CULTURAL REVOLUTION

179

ASSESSMENT My key approaches for measuring advanced, accomplished, proficient or limited performance are a combination of equally weighted daily progress assessments with the final art product. The final product, when assessed solely on its artistic merit, leaves out all of the important learning that occurred leading up to the creation of the final product. These assessments help students grow beyond the art room in the following educationally significant ways (see Appendix). Daily assessments help inform and involve students as active participants in their learning. Discussions with students about self-perceived “failures” are opportunities for students to analyze their learning. Teaching and assessing stages of the artistic process empower learners with understandings on how their social skills, cognitive functions and brain development contribute to how they learn. Referencing Bloom’s Taxonomy of Higher Learning (Anderson et al., 2001) helps students understand how their art class is asking them to function on the highest levels of learning, and also teachers them to know how to challenge themselves beyond the art class. Figures 27.1, 27.2 and 27.3, below are examples of various levels of accomplishment as measured using the rubric provided in Appendix.

FIGURE 27.1  Student work example: Accomplished

FIGURE 27.2  Student work example: Proficient

180

Roxanne Brown

FIGURE 27.3  Student work example: Limited

REFERENCES ABC 6 Action News (2018). A timeline of the deadly weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia. https://6abc.com/a-timelineof-events-in-charlottesville-virginia/2305769/ Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman. Ayers, A., & McMillan, E. (2017). The pinwheels for peace project. http://www.pinwheelsforpeace.com/Pinwheels_for_ Peace/the_project.html National Coalition for Core Standards (2014). National core arts standards: A conceptual framework for arts learning. State Education Agency Directors of Arts Education (SEADAE). http://www.nationalartsstandards.org/ Virginia Department of Education (2020). School quality profiles: Hampton High. https://schoolquality.virginia.gov/ schools/hampton-high

APPENDIX TABLE 27A.1

Lesson plan peace posters: Goals and objectives. This unit is about eight 90-minute classes in length. Daily objectives and assessments prepare students to the creation of a poster to carry during a school-wide Peace Rally. Culminating Project Goals for this lesson are: 1. Collaborate with tablemates on a final Peace Poster to carry during our school Peace Rally. 2. Create a poster using words, image/s, or a combination of both for a Peace Poster. 3. Practice the steps of the creative process as you plan your final Peace Poster. 4. Use poster board, colored pencils and markers to create a Peace Poster. 5. Follow the art room rules and procedures. Objectives for this lesson are adapted from the Virginia Standards of Learning Objectives for High School, Art Foundations / Art I (Board of Education Commonwealth of Virginia, 2013) Use Visual Communication and Production Students will: • Maintain and use a sketchbook for planning and as a resource in the art-making process. • Work as a group to brainstorm with tablemates on a message for a Peace Poster. • Make a preliminary sketch(s)of and plan(s) for a Peace Poster • Reflect, refine, elaborate, and research a message for a Peace Poster. (Continued)

EVOLUTION OF ASSESSMENT IN A CULTURAL REVOLUTION

181

TABLE 27A.1  (Continued)

Lesson plan peace posters: Goals and objectives. • • • • • •

Select colored pencils, and/or markers to create their Peace Poster Incorporate their knowledge of the elements of art and principles of design. Demonstrate craftsmanship (artisanship) in the creation of their Peace Poster. Employ cultural and social concepts of “Peace” to express ideas in their Peace Poster Design. Cite sources if they use a quote or image already created. Use their knowledge of the elements of art and principles of design to communicate the meaning behind their Peace Poster.

Cultural Context and Art History • Analyze the Pop Art, Street Art & Guerilla Girls art movements. Analyze Influential poster artists of the 20th–21st century (Keith Haring, Shephard Fairey (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcSBr4ZKmrQ), Gorilla Girls (https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=FxBQB2fUl_g), Micha Bazant (https://www.newsweek.com/refugees-are-welcome-hereposter-history-travel-ban-protests-552010;. https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/refugees-welcome/). • Analyze the places, cultures, and historical periods that influenced Keith Haring, Shepard Fairey, Micha Bazant and the Guerilla Girls’ to make their art. • Evaluate how social, cultural, and historical contexts contribute to meaning in works of art and design. • Analyze how media and visual organization in works of art affect the communication of ideas. Relation of learning objectives to National Standards National Coalition for Core Standards (2014): Creating: • #VA:Cr1 Generate and conceptualize artistic ideas and work. • #VA:Cr2 Organize and develop artistic ideas and work. • #VA:Cr3 Refine and complete artistic work. Presenting: • #VA:Pr4 Select, analyze and interpret artistic work for presentation. • #VA:Pr5 Develop and refine artistic techniques and work for presentation. • #VA:Pr6 Convey meaning through the presentation of artistic work. Responding: • #VA:Re7 Perceive and analyze artistic work. • #VA:Re8 Interpret intent and meaning in artistic work. Connecting: • #VA:Cn10 Synthesize and relate knowledge and personal experiences to make art. • #VA:Cn11 Relate artistic ideas and works with societal, cultural, and historical contexts to deepen understanding.

182

Roxanne Brown TABLE 27A.2

Daily rubric. Daily Grade Rubric Your Daily Grade is based on the Studio Habits criteria listed below. Your Daily Grade is calculated and recorded at the end of each class and is weighed as 50% of your final grade. Your Studio Habits directly impact the learning success of every member of the art class, including the teacher. Remember, you are not compared to the “most talented” student in the class. Your assignment grades and daily grades are based on your personal growth, commitment to the assigned tasks and your respect for the learning environment. 90–100 A • Advanced studio habits and art room citizenship, followed all classroom rules • Used studio time responsibly • Stayed focused on task • Refrained from engaging in unrelated interruptions • Respected peers learning and studio time 80–89 B • Accomplished studio habits and art room citizenship, followed most classroom rules most of the time • Used studio time most of the time • Focused on task most of the time • Refrained from engaging in unrelated interruptions with peers most of the time • Respected most of peers’ learning and studio time, most of the time 70–79 C • Proficient studio habits and art room citizenship, satisfactorily followed classroom rules • Proficient use of studio time • Proficient focus on task • Proficient refrain from engaging in unrelated interruptions with peers • Proficient respect for the studio time of peers 64–69 D • Limited demonstrations of studio habits and art room citizenship, did not follow art room rules • Limited demonstrations of use of studio time • Limited demonstrations of focus on task

Meets assignment goals

5 of 5 5

4 of 5 4

3 of 5 3

2 of 5 2

Technique Problem Solving, Collaborating, Pencil and Marker Techniques

Advanced demonstration of the problem solving, collaborative teamwork, marker and colored pencil techniques taught in class. Consistently followed all of the rules and responsibilities of the art room.

Accomplished demonstration of the problem solving, collaborative teamwork, marker and colored pencil techniques taught in class. Followed the rules and responsibilities of the art room.

Proficient demonstration of the problem solving, collaborative teamwork, marker and colored pencil techniques taught in class. Sometimes followed the rules and responsibilities of the art room.

Limited demonstration of the Incomplete problem solving, collaborative teamwork, marker and colored pencil techniques taught in class. Didn’t followed the rules and responsibilities of the art room.

Originality Creative and Personal solutions to assignment goals.

Unique solutions to assignment goals. Personally relevant ideas are expressed. No copied images/ideas. 100% original work.

Unique solutions to assignment goals. Personally relevant ideas are expressed. Images/ideas are familiar but not exact replicas of the work of others.

Personally relevant ideas are expressed. Some images/ideas are familiar and copied.

Limited attempt to express personally relevant ideas in a unique way.

Incomplete

Aesthetics How did you arrange/ compose the Elements of Art and Principles of Design?

Elements and Principles are thoughtfully arranged/ composed resulting in an advanced composition.

Elements and Principles are arranged/composed resulting in an accomplished composition.

Elements and Principles are arranged in a proficient composition.

Limited attempt to arrange Elements and Principles resulting in an unresolved composition.

Incomplete

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Peace Poster Goals Collaborate with tablemates to create a Peace Poster to carry during our school’s annual Peace Rally. Create a poster that expresses a message of peace using words, image/s, and/or a combination of both. Practice the steps of the creative process as you plan your final Peace Poster. Use poster board, colored pencils and/or markers to create your Peace Rally Poster. Follow the rules and procedures of the art room.

GRADING SCALE 100-93 A+ 90–92 A87–89 B+ 83–86 B 80–82 B77–79 C+ 73–76 C 70–72 C64–69 D Below 64-F

183

RUBRIC SCALE 20=100 10=50 19=95 9=45 18=90 8=40 17=85 7=35 16=80 6=30 15=75 5=25 14=70 4=20 13=65 3=15 12=60 2=10 11=55 1=5

1 of 5 1

EVOLUTION OF ASSESSMENT IN A CULTURAL REVOLUTION

TABLE 27A.3

Final peace posters rubric.

28 Building School Community with Artist Trading Cards Lauren Phillips

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT The Gwinnett School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology (GSMST) in Lawrenceville, GA is a public STEM-focused school designed to meet employment needs in the rapidly expanding industrial base along the northeast suburban corridor outside of Atlanta. The school has approximately 1,200 students: 81% are minority and 35% are economically disadvantaged. US News and World Report rank it the top-performing high school in Georgia, and the 12th-ranked high school nationwide. After teaching elementary art for 18 years in the same district, I moved to teaching high school art. The leap from elementary to high school was larger than just teaching different curricula, or figuring out more technical skills, or even navigating the shear amount of grading. Fortunately, I have a vast network of friends and colleagues from graduate school, my school district, and my professional organization who continue to support me with lesson ideas, advice, and encouragement. I had to figure out how to nurture a visual arts program at an STEM school. My school is the best high school in Georgia, according to the test scores. My students are great in other ways too. They choose to come to my school because they are really good with numbers and things that are easy to quantify. They choose two-block physics classes. They choose robotics as an elective. They choose multivariable calculus taught by professors at Georgia Tech. They also choose to take the classes I teach. We cannot offer the range of art and photo classes they could take at their home high schools because their home high schools are three times larger than our school and must serve hundreds more students. I am the only art teacher, so I often teach two or three classes at the same time. For instance, my third period class has 18 Photo I students, one Draw Paint II student, one Graphics I student, and one Advanced Digital Media student, who acts as my teaching assistant. Anytime I focus on one group, the others are neglected. But my classes are small compared to other high schools in my area and my students are intelligent and motivated, so this is manageable. My students come from all over the school district. Many take a bus to their home high school in the morning, then get on another bus to get to us. In the afternoon, they ride the DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-37

BUILDING SCHOOL COMMUNITY WITH ARTIST TRADING CARDS

185

bus to their home middle school, then ride another bus home from there. Thirty-five percent of students qualify for free and reduced lunch. Most of our students are of Asian descent, but we have sizable African-American and Caucasian populations. In order to enter the school, students must apply to a lottery, along with meeting certain math requirements. I joke with my students that they’ve won the lottery to be here. They often smirk and tell me that their parents won the lottery. They didn’t win anything but massive amounts of homework and tests. Yet, when I ask them why they haven’t returned to their home high schools, they acknowledge that they want to be at GSMST. Most of the time. I try to create my lessons with a balance of choice and structure. Many of my students are not highly creative in the visual arts, but they are highly motivated to succeed. Many try to figure out the quickest way to get a 100% or at the very least, a high A. They are often frustrated with me because I reply to their questions on the rubric (see Appendix, Table 28A.1) with possibilities instead of “right” answers. I find that I give more credit for creativity and effort than works that just check off every box on the rubric. After my students complete a couple of projects, they start to realize that their first idea or their first sketch might need adjustments. They might make a mistake and have to adjust their plan. They often start by asking their peers for feedback and seeing how others solve creative problems. Most, but certainly not all, adjust their ideas about what a successful artwork looks like. They learn that waiting until the project is almost due is almost always the path to mediocre grades. This doesn’t stop some of my students: Over one-third of my photo class asked to check out cameras the day before final critique on a project that was assigned two weeks previously. My students are really good at cramming for tests and finishing projects at the last minute. For most of them, they were able to coast through middle school with ease. It does not work once they get to our school, especially in art class. Sometimes, I feel I am more like a parent cajoling her children to eat their vegetables. Just finish your project on time, I beg, just turn in something that shows you did work for the past two weeks. I have had to adjust my conception of a successful art lesson because most of my students struggle with deadlines. I am still in the process of building a classroom culture that has a balance between freedom to create and the need for accountability. My lessons reflect these realities: What do I want my students to learn and how can I get them to genuinely care about what they are learning without taking months to finish a project? Why is caring important and why should I care if they do not care? My previous research examines how art classes help students to become more caring (Phillips, 2004, 2014). I want my lessons to be more than building techniques and beautiful products. I want my students to see their progress from semester to semester as more valuable than the letter on their report card. As suggested by aesthetic philosopher Maxine Greene, I want to plan my art lessons to help my students “to see more in our experience, to hear more on normally unheard frequencies, to become conscious of what daily routines have obscured, what habit and convention have oppressed” (Greene, 1995, p. 123). I hope the journey becomes the destination and my students are better human beings as a result. It is hard to find just one lesson that can do these things, let alone achieve a measurable outcome, but I feel the following lesson comes close. The only lesson I teach all of my classes is Artist Trading Cards (ATCs). It has many great qualities. I often teach it at the end of the semester because I only require my students to complete three artworks the size of playing cards. This lesson allows me to customize the skills to the class I teach. My photo students digitally manipulate their designs in Photoshop. My drawing and painting students can practice their favorite media. Since they can glue their paper onto the playing card, they can watercolor, paint with acrylics, and use drawing media or collage. There are few guidelines. I do not stipulate subject matter or media. I ask that they make one card based on a work from art history, one card based on the style of a

186

Lauren Phillips

contemporary artist or photographer, and one card based on the student’s personal style. The final request is that students have to give me one card to give away during the school year. This is the hardest thing for my students because they usually end up creating three great works. I’m always afraid that they will give me their “worst” card, but because the overall quality is high, this doesn’t happen often. This lesson starts with an introduction to the concept Artist Trading Cards (ATCs). ATCs were started by M. Vanci Stirnemann in 1997 as a way for artists to exchange small works of art with each other (Stirnemann, 2018). ATCs are the size of sports trading cards, about 2.5 inches by 3.5 inches. They can be any media. When researching artists or historical styles for the cards, my students have to figure out how they can create the subject matter in the media they want to use on a piece of small paper. Sometimes, a really intricate design does not work, or a photo does not translate in a smaller version. These are the some of the problems that need to be solved by the time the project is due. The task of working small does not make the project easier but it does require students to get creative about how to translate their artists’ styles, along with their personal style, on a smaller scale. I have been pleasantly surprised with how my students have solved these problems. In these examples, you can see how different students have approached this project. I haven’t had many students who scored low on this assignment, unless they didn’t finish, which is the biggest reason why a student struggles in my class. Honestly, I am not a hard grader. I do not care about grades. Which is funny since caring is part of how I assess their effort and completion. So, if they complete an assignment, show whatever skill I am asking them to show, and put a little effort into their work, they usually get an A or high B. I watch how they work in class and how much time they put into their work after class. My relationship with my students determines how I grade their work. On the rubric (see Appendix, Table 28A.1), there are points deducted for not completing all three cards. A student can also lose points for poor composition, poor craft, and lack of effort. This is where I see caring in a project. If a student does not try, does not ask for help, or shows low effort, this shows me a lack of caring. I base my feelings on their prior work, my classroom observations (Are they spending more time talking to their friends? Are they on their electronic devices? Are they working on their art most of the class time?), are they rushing to finish because they did not use their class time wisely or are they doing something that is hard for them and need more time because they are learning a new skill or tackling difficult subject matter? Of course, there could be outside factors, such as family situations, other classes, or additional stress on my students that might impact their artwork. My relationships with my students are how I can better determine in situations where I think a student might need some additional consideration. There is not a firm metric. This is holistic assessment—that translates onto a numeric grading scale—based on conversations with the students, my classroom observations, and work submitted. I always allow my student to resubmit work for a better grade if they are not satisfied with their grade or if they didn’t turn in an assignment. Most of my students do not need to worry about this, but for my students who really need extra time, it helps. At the end of this assignment, all students must give me a card that I hide in school for other students to find during our Free Art Fridays. I hide three cards every week and give clues to the location on an advertisement that plays on the many television monitors we have around school. Many students and teachers outside of the art program enjoy finding the cards. My art students enjoy seeing their work promoted. I include information about the artist inspiration or my student’s social media handles (if a student has a public account) with the card. It has been a fun way to promote the visual arts program at my school. I need to recruit new students to build my numbers to justify hiring another art teacher, so I do not have to teach 12 different classes in six periods.

BUILDING SCHOOL COMMUNITY WITH ARTIST TRADING CARDS

187

FIGURE 28.1  Student work example: C, low performance

Figure 28.1 shows the work of student A who is a great photo student, but he tried to complete a few projects with stock photos, instead of his own images. This is an example of a card where an image found on the Internet, was overlaid with an image of the ace of spades (also from the Internet). It looks cool, but it probably took him less than five minutes to composite two images from these photos. Another clue to his lack of effort was that he did not want to keep any of his cards, nor did he want to put any out in the school. He got a C the first time around. I accepted it because I don’t have time to investigate metadata of photos unless it is blatant stealing. He also admitted to using stock photos because his previous photo teacher allowed him to use stock photos for certain assignments, so he thought it was ok. He is the kind of kid who would rather ask forgiveness than permission. The second card (Figure 28.2) is also from student A, but it is with his images. The composition is stronger and there was more effort put in his work. Student A is now in an AP

FIGURE 28.2  Student work example: Improved, medium performance

188

Lauren Phillips

FIGURE 28.3  Student work example: A, high performance

Studio class and he knows that stock photos are not acceptable in AP portfolios. Fortunately, he learned from doing this project last year (and undergoing the assessment process) that even though digital photography can be created quickly, that doesn’t mean the result will be successful. As with last year, he did not care which ones I give away, but that is because he can print a new copy anytime. The last card (Figure 28.3) is from a student I was fortunate enough to teach in elementary school for two years, in kindergarten and first grade. She was a great artist then and is one of my most gifted students now. Her card shows her technical skill with painting in acrylics. Very few students attempted to do portraits on the cards, especially in acrylics. She painted this picture with a tiny paintbrush, adding thin layers of paint to build form and detail. She talked about how her subject connected to her culture through the clothing she depicted. Most of my students do not have the skill or patience to create a woman in an intricate costume on a playing card. But this student did it with ease. She finished her cards before everyone else. The attention to detail and care she put in her paintings is apparent. My rubrics are my attempts to give my students meaningful feedback and make the grading process easier. I’m not sure if I am successful, but I do know that my students enjoy making their cards. Parents may closely monitor their child’s academic performance. I have had parents demand a meeting with me to discuss why their child got an 89. Frankly, I need more time to decide what success looks like. Am I successful if more students want to take art, and I can justify hiring another person, so I don’t have to teach 12 different classes? Am I successful if all my AP students pass? It happened last year; I’m not sure if it will happen this year. Am I successful if we win awards and scholarships? Teaching at the secondary level has all of these outside markers of achievement that elementary programs do not have. I do not like it. I feel that my students are very similar to the students in Denise Clark Pope’s (2001) “Doing school”: How we are creating a generation of stressed out, materialistic, and miseducated students. And that makes me sad because you do not see that as much in elementary. At least, not in Title I elementary schools. From the research and sketching, to the decision on which one they want me to give away, my students are invested in every part of the process. This is the best project I have done with them so far that has the right balance of student choice and structure. I am still figuring out how to achieve this balance with more of my projects.

189

BUILDING SCHOOL COMMUNITY WITH ARTIST TRADING CARDS

REFERENCES Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination. Jossey-Bass. Phillips, L. C. (2004). Nurturing empathy in the elementary art class [Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Georgia]. Phillips, L. C. (2014). Narratives of caring in the elementary art room [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University]. Pope, D. C. (2001). “Doing school”: How we are creating a generation of stressed out, materialistic, and miseducated students. Yale University Press. Stirnemann, M. V. (2018). Artist trading cards: A collaborative cultural performance. Retrieved November 4, 2018, from https://www.artist-trading-cards.ch

APPENDIX TABLE 28A.1

Scoring rubric: Artist trading cards (ATC) Name                        Period          ATC Met requirements and used time wisely Good composition/design Represented art history era/artist/style Craft/care Creativity/originality 100–90 = A 89–80 = B Overall Student Grade:          Student Comments: Overall FINAL Grade:          Teacher Comments:

20 18 15 13 10 5 20 18 15 13 10 5 20 18 15 13 10 5 20 18 15 13 10 5 20 18 15 13 10 5 79–74 = C 73–70 = D

69–0 = F

29 What breaks your heart? Socially Engaged Artwork in the High School Art Classroom Abby Newland

When I began my own journey in developing a personal plan to give back to the community, I encountered a wave of options – serving at church, serving at the homeless shelter, volunteering at a women’s center. Someone suggested that I wrestle with the question “What breaks your heart?” and use that answer as a jumping off point for my own social engagement. Inspired by the question, I decided to ask my high school students to wrestle with the same question as inspiration for a socially engaged art project.

THE CONTEXT OF TEACHING The socially engaged lesson titled “What Breaks your Heart?” was intended for 9th–12th grade introductory level art students. My rural Georgia school of 1,500 students had a minority student population of about 25%. More than half of the entire school qualified for free and reduced lunch. Students enter the introductory level art classroom with various levels of experience – some having no art instruction since elementary school, some having art experience in middle school, and some with no art experience at all. Within this course, students are expected to develop foundational knowledge of artistic concepts, art materials, and artistic thinking skills. This lesson took place during the third quarter of the year when students were more comfortable with the development of ideas and the use of materials. Since students were exposed to a variety of art materials in previous projects, all art media previously used were available for art creation.

LESSON CONTENT In the lesson, students were challenged to consider what issue in their world touched them emotionally. Within this project, I wanted my students to understand the various roles that art can play in the world. Many introductory art students expect all art to be representational, so this lesson exposed students to art that was both persuasive and narrative. As a class, we viewed and discussed the artwork of Ai Weiwei, Barbara Kruger, and Tatyana Fazlalizadeh in order to explore artists working in both persuasive and narrative styles. DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-38

191

WHAT BREAKS YOUR HEART?

After producing a list, students were asked to research their chosen topic. A research guide was provided, prompting students to research the group of individuals the issue was impacting, the people working to create change in that area, and anyone their age who was working to create change. Finally, students developed a plan to engage visually with the topic, using any art material they saw fit for their personal project. Learning objectives The new Georgia Standards of Excellence for Visual Arts, that at the time were just beginning to be implemented by 2019–2020, were used to guide my objectives for this lesson. The Georgia Department of Education developed the Georgia Standards of Excellence in 2017 to mirror the National Core Art Standards developed in 2014. Both sets of standards follow four broad categories: creating, presenting, responding, and connecting. This lesson focused specifically on the standards related to creating, presenting, and responding. Within the rubric, students were assessed using five categories: research, planning, visual storytelling, presentation, and reflection (see Appendix). During this lesson, students were first expected to describe a social issue of personal importance. Students were then asked to investigate and explain who the issue was impacting and who was working to create change related to their chosen issue (Research-VAHSVA.CR.6; Planning-VAHSVA.CR.1). Finally, students were expected to construct a visual response to their social issue and prepare their visual response and verbal reflection for display (Visual Storytelling-VAHSVA.CR.3; Presentation-VAHSVA.PR.1; Reflection-VAHSVA.RE.1).

ASSESSMENT Recently, the documentation of student growth has become a hallmark of state teacher evaluation systems across the country. Since Race to the Top was introduced in 2009, many states, including Georgia, require teachers of all subject areas to validate student growth within their classrooms in order to achieve satisfactory annual evaluations (United States Department of Education, 2009). While the arts felt exempt from some evaluative practices in the past, the current “audit culture” of public education has made its way into the art classroom (Hanawalt, 2018; Shore & Wright, 2000). Within my classroom, I found a way to appease the demands of both data collection and demonstrations of student growth, while using a system that authentically supports my art students. My students create digital portfolios during the school year to document growth and progress using Google Classroom. Digital portfolios are not new in the field of art education (Dorn et al., 2004; Fahey & Cronen, 2016), but recent advances in technology have streamlined the process.

DIGITAL DOCUMENTATION Within our “What breaks your heart?” lesson, students were expected to document their research, planning, creation, and reflection on Google Classroom. The inclusion of a digital platform allowed me the opportunity to see students’ thinking unfold. Additionally, the digital platform allowed for documentation of teacher feedback, acting as a recorded method of formative assessment. Finally, the inclusion of in-process photographs allowed for the simple projection of images onto the white board for anonymous in-process classroom critiques. In addition to creating a more engaged process throughout the lesson, digital documentation allowed me to demonstrate a summative evaluation of student growth to my administration at the conclusion of the course. Within each lesson completed throughout the year, students were evaluated on the same five components: research, planning, visual storytelling, presentation, and reflection. While student growth in art does not lend itself naturally to

192

Abby Newland

numerical data, the inclusion of digital portfolios provided me with a visual way to demonstrate how my students’ technical skills and thinking skills progressed throughout the year. Student work While in-process critiques and one-on-one conversations provided opportunities for formative assessments throughout the lesson, a rubric (Table 29A.2) was created for a summative assessment at the conclusion of this project. The rubric provided an opportunity for both the student and I to evaluate the five objectives for the project: research, planning, visual storytelling, presentation, and reflection. Students had the opportunity to justify their selfevaluations by writing an explanation for their self-generated grade. The included images provide samples of advanced student performance, emergent student performance, and limited student performance for this lesson. One student chose to investigate the topic of school gun violence (Figure 29.1). His thorough investigation and planning led to the production of a collage depicting grave markers in the place of student bodies, earning him full rubric points for research and planning. The topic of school shootings was already on the minds of students within the classroom, and the compelling imagery created aided in the student earning high marks for visual storytelling. Finally, this student reflected on the connections to both his personal life and current events in his writing and presented his work in a creative way – he chose to have his artwork sitting on a pile of newspapers, indicating that events like this were now just a part of the daily news. This students’ thoughtfulness in all areas of the lesson earned him high ratings in all sections of the rubric. A second student, an example of emergent student performance, investigated the topic of gender inequality inspired by the recent Women’s March in Washington (Figure 29.2). While this student’s ideas were rich and socially relevant, she chose to reappropriate J. Howard Miller’s “We Can Do It!” (1943) poster, making minimal alterations of her own. This student earned points for the research of the social issue that she selected, and the research of other artists related to that movement but did not achieve high marks for planning and exploring alternative possibilities for her visual piece. Finally, a third student explored his own personal experience to provide visual commentary on fathers abandoning families (Figure 29.3). Though this student’s ideas were personally relevant,

FIGURE 29.1  Example of student work: Excellent performance

WHAT BREAKS YOUR HEART?

193

FIGURE 29.2  Example of student work: Good performance

minimal effort was put into researching beyond his personal experience or into fully developing his visual response; therefore, this student earned few rubric points for research and planning. Additionally, adequate use of materials was not achieved in the creation of this work. Ultimately, this work began with a personally meaningful concept, but fell short in the areas assessed on the rubric. Assessment design The development of this lesson and assessment strategy allowed me to evaluate my students beyond their artistic skill development. Within the rubric, the creation of artwork counted for only a fifth of their grade, while researching, planning, presenting, and reflecting made up the remaining portion. This intentional design allowed me to shift the learning objectives from solely skill development, to a concentration on idea development and sustained thinking.

FIGURE 29.3  Example of student work: Still working on it

194

Abby Newland

REFERENCES Dorn, C. M., Madeja, S. S., & Sabol, F. R. (2004). Assessing expressive learning: A practical guide for teacher-directed authentic assessment in K-12 visual arts education. Erlbaum. Fahey, P., & Cronen, L. (2016). Digital portfolios in action: Acknowledging student voice and metacognitive understanding in art. The Clearing House, 89(4–5), 135–143. Hanawalt, C. (2018). School art in an era of accountability and compliance: New art teachers and the complex relations of public schools. Studies in Art Education, 59(2), 90–105. Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2000). Coercive accountability: The rise of audit culture in higher education. In M. Stathern (Ed.), Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics, and the academy (pp. 57–89). Routledge. United States Department of Education. (2009, November). Race to the top executive summary. https://www2.ed.gov/ programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf

APPENDIX TABLE 29A.1

Brainstorming and planning: What breaks your heart? What Breaks Your Heart? Brainstorming and Planning What are 3 issues in the world that break your heart? 1. Why?  2. Why?  3. Why?  Choose one topic that you wrote above and research it: Who is this issue impacting

Who is trying to change it? What are they doing?

Is there anyone your age trying to change it?

How will you visually respond to the issue you’ve chosen? Write ideas below and use your sketchbooks to develop a visual plan

195

WHAT BREAKS YOUR HEART? TABLE 29A.2

Student rubric: What breaks your heart? Student Name: 4 Excellent Research Description of social issue; investigation into topic verbally and visually documented. (VAHSVA.CR.6) Planning You created a detailed plan before you began working on your final piece. (VAHSVA.CR.1) Visual Storytelling Your artwork provides commentary on the topic you chose. You demonstrated care and appropriate use of materials to create a completed piece. (VAHSVA.CR.3) Presentation You took care to prepare your artwork for presentation both within the classroom and in the school building. (VAHSVA. PR.1) Reflection You provided a written statement detailing the focus of your artwork and the narrative that you wished to convey to the audience. (VAHSVA.RE.1)

Self-assessment score:      /20 Teacher generated score:      /20

3 Good

2 Still working on it

1 Not quite

30 Summary Section V Assessing Socially Engaged Art Education Ross H. Schlemmer

Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. Learning about others, while at the same time reflecting upon one’s own identity, enhances the opportunity for both the teacher and the student to understand social issues from the perspective of others. A more socially oriented framework seeks to connect art and pedagogy through practices that create a critical consciousness that provides ideas, solutions, and structures for change that establish political, social, as well as artistic validity The pedagogical implications of socially engaged artistic practices center around the notion of intentionally leveraging the artistic encounter as an educational experience. If educators are intentional in the mission and design of course content, students will grow in each of these areas (Alexander & Schlemmer, 2016). At the same time, art educators must also maintain their own critical awareness as facilitators of students’ understanding. Yet, in a subject often considered subjective as art, how can we thus adequately assess a student’s perceptions and understandings of others? As with many forms of assessment, the answer lies in aligning the assessment with the learning objectives and the standards they are tied to. In art, objectives and standards frequently emanate from state standards and associated district curriculum that are bound by a more limited perspective of the value and potential of an arts education. Socially engaged art practices require different spaces that push the boundaries of media even further, constituting new forms of performance, interaction, exchange, or even confrontation that lie beyond conventional materiality and visuality. Consequently, as art educators, we need to consider objectives and standards that extend beyond conventional criteria for assessment in the visual arts, ones that allow us to contextualize art within social interactions. Once one has examined the underlying motivation of such socially engaged encounters, one can begin to understand the social function of the work and formulate criteria for evaluation.

STANDARDS AND EXPECTATIONS When assessing Socially Engaged Art Education, there is often an inconsistency in what we as teachers deem important, and the structured demands of the curriculum. Traditionally, curriculum has been concerned not with what students will do in the learning situation, but DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-39

197

SUMMARY SECTION V

with what they can show they have learned. Driven by a demand for accountability, the 1990s saw the rise of politically influenced standards at both the state and federal levels. Curriculum became a common set of experiences set to a uniform set of standards that defined the essential skills everyone must learn (Wiles & Bondi, 2011). As a result, the content that is being taught at all levels is often tied to these standards, which, in turn, restricts what can be taught. For example, Roxanne Brown was confronted with her desire to address social issues and concerns that lie beyond the classroom against the more traditional concerns of fine arts standards and district curricular expectations. As Brown discovered, “The final product, when assessed solely on its artistic merit leaves out all of the important learning that occurred leading up to the creation of the final project”. Yet, we still need to consider the ways in which students will be able to demonstrate the understanding, knowledge, and skills they have learned. In her case, she was able to incorporate relevant standards from within the arts that included integrating cultural and social concepts, as well as evaluating how social and cultural contexts contributed to the meaning in works of art. Even broader national standards include the consideration of societal, cultural, and historical contexts to deepen understanding in the creation and consideration of works of art. While this shaped the content and the learning objectives of the lesson, it still needs to align with the assessments. Brown’s own sense of empathy led her to be concerned over her students’ social and emotional needs as a result of disturbing recent events. Especially for something seemingly so personal and subjective—such as empathy—the challenge is still to design activities that will allow students to demonstrate growth and development in those areas. In response, her “Peace One Day” project presented her students with the opportunity to address their own feelings as well as the feelings of others. When Brown successfully aligned her socially engaged project with her students’ experiences and interests, the intent of the lesson clearly shifted to address social and emotional concerns. She successfully integrated formative assessments to assess students’ social, emotional, and cognitive abilities—which, in turn, informed her daily instruction. Despite the fact that she was to shift the lesson’s focus to more social and emotional concerns, her assessments largely remained bound by more technical, creative, and aesthetic criteria. Similarly, Abby Newland’s art class was “expected to develop foundational knowledge of artistic concepts, art materials, and artistic thinking skills”. Yet, her lesson also challenged her students to consider not only how emotionally charged issues affected them, but to consider the feelings of another—thus developing a sense of empathy. Both teachers sought to satisfy the demands of the school and the curriculum, while at the same time integrating content related to vital issues of contemporary culture and community.

STANDARDS PLUS A “Standards Plus” approach to curriculum development seeks to find a balance that maintains conventional visual arts standards, while also considering critical thinking, reasoning, relationship recognition, problem-solving, multiple points-of-view, and self-reflection. This broader context for assessment allows students to demonstrate their understanding of enduring ideas and key concepts, along with traditional skills and aesthetic inquiry. Working from this contemporary perspective, Arts Educator Olivia Gude (2000) advocates that every art project should deal with an issue of developmental importance to the students, be based on a contemporary theme, include examples of past and recent artworks that have explored these themes, and teach a conceptual and/or technical method for constructing works of art. For example, Nick Hostert’s lesson included an emphasis on learning new media and techniques, but goes further to include learning objectives that focus on interaction and

198

Ross H. Schlemmer

exchange that required his students to engage in critical and reflective dialogs. As a result, his lesson emphasized his students’ ability “to build empathy and understanding among the diverse student population”. Art Educators Marilyn Stewart and Sydney Walker offer an excellent list of identifiable skills for understanding that lie beyond the more traditional conventions (Stewart & Walker, 2005). Applied to a socially engaged context, teachers can develop assessments that recognize a student’s ability to organize knowledge, analyze processes, make comparisons, summarize knowledge, and, as an artist, translate knowledge into symbolic form. Such evidence of learning may include assessing a student’s personal experience and their artwork’s ability to clearly convey their experience within the context of what issues or concerns are being addressed within a particular social context. Indicators of such critical consciousness development (Alexander & Schlemmer, 2016) include a student’s ability to: • • • • • •

Engage in relationships with people who have different life experiences. Better understand ethnic/racial backgrounds. Better understand people living in poverty. Better understand people living with physical or mental disabilities. Overcome fear of the unknown. Show empathy and compassion for others.

A student’s sense of empathy, for example, may be assessed by their ability to formulate judgments, consider implications, and raise questions. Hostert challenged his students to explore artistic strategies in response to issues of such importance within their community; he emphasized the need for his students to engage in critical and reflective dialogs with the community through art. Thus, the primary objectives of this lesson were to “facilitate dialog” and to consider how they might engage with the community through art. Additionally, Hostert and his students also had to adhere to district expectations of specific media more traditionally associated with the fine arts, but at the same time he recognized, as evident in his reference to artist and art museum educator Pablo Helguera, that “Socially engaged art functions by attaching itself to subjects and problems that normally belong to other disciplines” (Helguera, 2015, p. 5). Significantly, this offers a strategy as to how to frame the objectives/standards/assessments for such socially engaged lessons.

STANDARDS FROM OTHER SUBJECTS If, as Helguera (2015) suggested, we are seeking to examine issues more often addressed in other subject areas, we can start by referencing standards that more adequately align with and address the objectives of a socially engaged lesson—by including standards from music, language arts, and social studies, as well as the visual arts. Additionally, looking to disciplines such as Social Studies, Geography, Science, or Anthropology that might more typically address such social issues provides a relevant framework—and at a time when arts integration and interdisciplinary studies are being emphasized, this provides a pathway for the arts to enter into the conversation. Stretching beyond the confines of the arts also allows us to consider alternative forms of assessment.

ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF ASSESSMENT As Newland recognized, if you’re going to assess the impact of any socially engaged art project, the assessment strategy must allow you to “evaluate [your] students beyond their artistic skill development”. As part of her socially engaged lesson, students were expected to

199

SUMMARY SECTION V

construct a visual response to their social issue and prepare that visual response and verbal reflection for display. While the students were tasked with creating a visual response, the creation of a verbal reflection (narrative reflections can take on many forms) took the lesson beyond one merely aligning with the district’s limited expectations. As part of my own teaching practices, I have been working to integrate narrative and arts-based assignments to gain a deeper understanding of the impact of socially engaged practices upon the attitudes and perceptions of my pre-service teachers. These include individual and group reflections, research and readings, and visual storytelling. Significantly, such reflections can reveal more deeply what a student is thinking and feeling—which is an essential component for assessing socially engaged work. Enviably, Lauren Phillips sought to develop a sense of empathy within her students; she wanted them to care about what they were learning instead of focusing solely on a good grade. Yet, in this environment, she too was faced with the challenge of promoting more than just measurable outcomes. She genuinely wanted her students to see their own progression from semester to semester, again suggesting an effective strategy for assessing students. During the course of a single activity, students tend to perform to a teacher’s expectations within that particular context and at that moment in time. An art teacher often has the advantage of seeing the same students over an extended period of time; from semester to semester, or even year to year. This provides a unique opportunity for a more complex assessment of a student’s development over time. Instead of aligning assessments to the distinct and discreet standards associated with a single lesson, this allows a teacher to observe, for example, how a student might apply learned knowledge in a different situation. Or, as in the case of developing a sense of empathy, assessing how a student’s attitude and perceptions may have developed over a period of time.

CONCLUSION Education in the United States is often characterized by testing and standardized outcomes, and bears little relevance to the culture and the community that surrounds both students and teachers. Socially Engaged Art Education emphasizes the significance, including the community as part of the learning experience, as well as envisions alternative possibilities for teaching and learning that extend beyond the classroom. Through different strategies, each of these teachers sought to appease the demands of their districts in terms of standards-driven curriculum, while challenging their students to become actively engaged citizens. They recognized the need to develop their students’ critical consciousness to consider the feelings of another—toward developing a sense of empathy. This is not to suggest that we ignore the rich history and traditions of an arts education, but rather that we embrace practices that empower students to analyze how art making practices shape their own sensibilities and those of the communities in which they live. Ultimately, if these are the skills we determine are important, these are the skills we should be assessing.

REFERENCES Alexander, A., & Schlemmer, R. H. (2016). The convergence of critical perspectives with civic engagement. In R. Shin (Ed.), Convergence of contemporary art, visual culture, and global civic engagement (pp. 1–23). IGI Global. Gude, O. (2000). Investigating the culture of curriculum. In E. Fehr, K. Fehr, & K. Kiefer-Boyd (Eds.), Real-world readings in art education: Things your professor never told you (pp. 75–81). Falner Press. Helguera, P. (2015). Education for socially engaged art: A materials and techniques handbook. Jorge Pinto Books. Stewart, M. G., & Walker, S. R. (2005). Rethinking curriculum in art. Davis. Wiles, J. W. & Bondi, J. C. (2011). Curriculum development: A guide to practice (8th ed.). Pearson.

Section V: Questions and discussion points

1. What does it mean for a teacher to understand the environment in which they teach? 2. How can teachers assess growth of relationships in their curriculum and instruction? 3. Three of the four teachers in this section explicitly apply their state standards (based on the national standards) as a cornerstone of their assessments. In his section summary, Ross Schlemmer discusses a Standards Plus approach to assessment. a. How do the teachers in this section, who do use standards, use them as springboards to reach higher educational objectives? b. Do you feel that the current standards invite a Standards Plus approach to assessment? 4. Reflect on your own use of the standards. Are you letting the standards substitute for articulating your own educational goals and objectives? Or, are you using the standards to strengthen your curricular foundation for building your educational aims? What criteria guide how you will assess student engagement in your classroom? 5. How do teachers/authors in this section integrate a visual culture approach to art education as a means to invite student participation and sustained engagement in their lessons? How are “high art” examples brought into learning in a way that they become personally relevant to students? 6. In Section IV, Measuring Risk-Taking, we saw teachers pivot to process over product. How does this valuing of both formative and summative assessments continue with these teachers who value social relationships? 7. Lauren Phillips, who does not explicitly cite standards in her lesson, expresses concern that the culture of high school runs a high risk of becoming mis-educational by doing damage to social/emotional relationships. Do you think this concern is justified? If so, how might assessment in the art classroom contribute to this maladministration? If so, what corrective assessment strategies would you employ? 8. Do rubrics, per se, encourage students to achieve a desired grade rather than to grow intellectually and artistically? a. What is the idea of “success” within an art lesson—for the student? For the teacher? b. Is everyone a high achiever? What are the implications for assessment design? DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-40

SECTION VI Assessing Collaborative and Integrated Learning Outcomes

Art education has always been diverse. The field embraces studio practice and design. Both branches have a rich variety of practices that integrate with humanities and sciences. Art education both informs and can learn from these other disciplines. In this manner, students are exposed to different conceptual frameworks. They learn to look at problems through a variety of lens—sometimes challenging expectations as to what the outcomes of an art classroom should be.

GUIDED READING POINTS • • •

Within art education, how can studio practice be enriched through design thinking? How can other arts and non-arts disciplines broaden our understanding of creativity? How is individual creativity enhanced through collaborative interaction with others?

DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-41

31 Commentary Section VI Integrated and Collaborative Assessments Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund

The myriad reasons for reconsidering art integration include the notion that the visual and performing arts are integral to all learning, and to appreciation of a full life. Beyond intradisciplinary or multi-disciplinary arts—and incorporating audience point of view in considerations for art-making—the broader field of education cyclically revisits the incorporation of the arts into the wider curriculum. Like fashion revival, it seems that every 20 years or so, the field of art education revisits the novel idea of integrating art across the curriculum. Eisner (2008) suggested that the arts can communicate knowledge in ways that other disciplines cannot. Art, then, when integrated into other curricula, provides multiple opportunities for inquiry and understanding in the arts and in other disciplines. The visual arts have long been utilized to visualize meaning constructs and advance scientific ideas by using visual arts media to represent otherwise physically and perceptually impossible constructs (Smilan, 2004). These challenging imaginings come from the fields of science, math and humanities and involve the translations of ideas throughout history, from the explanations of natural phenomena in mythology, to the mathematical and scientific schemata of DaVinci, and are articulated by the skill and technique of the visual artist.

POSITIONING THE VISUAL ARTS IN INTEGRATED LEARNING There are several theoretical frameworks defining art-integrated learning structures. Arts integration, at its best, is concept-based and standards-driven teaching and learning that incorporates art content with academic goals in another discipline. There are, however, various understandings or theories of art integration, and teachers are advised to consider the limitations, and advantages of each when determining if, what and how to integrate other discipline learning into their art curriculum. Four styles of art integration were discussed by Bresler (1995) as follows: co-equal partnership, subservient, affective and social motivator. The “partnership” model provides for experiences designed around standard-based and assessed parallel concepts in both academic (art and other) content areas. Lorinne Lee used the partnership approach in her sculpted landscape lesson. Experiences developed using the partnership model require discipline-specific knowledge and skills and are best taught DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-42

204

Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund

through extensive consultation or collaboration between the art educator and the other content teacher (Smilan, 2004). The subservient model uses the arts in the service of other discipline objectives (Bresler, 1995; Keifer-Boyd & Smith-Shank, 2006; Smilan, 2004). If designed, for example, by an ELA teacher, one might expect to see an art project as an illustrative afterthought to the ELA content, or a biology teacher might assign students to draw a protozoan—without regard to teaching rendering skills. This model is frequently employed by educators with little experience with art integration and limited expertise in the arts. Bresler (1995) suggested that while teachers use the subservient style to provide different teaching and learning opportunities, they oftentimes do not see the relevance of gains in both content areas. Subsequently, teachers—even art teachers—who subscribe to the subservient model do not make the decisions to design learning and assessment that document visual arts and aesthetic growth. The affective or additive approach to art integration advocates the use of the arts to change students’ mood or motivation. This approach can be combined with concept-based learning to enhance any art lesson and to encourage risk-taking, and empathetic understandings in art lessons as discussed in previous sections of this book. However, when utilized in non-art disciplines, affective or additive art integration more often than not employs art materials exploration as the carrot for other subject learning and is generally not focused on the teaching of art skill and technique. The Social Motivator Model similarly utilizes the arts as supplemental to other discipline learning. In this model, students are invited to find multiple entry points into learning other content through art methods and materials. Again, this model most often employs student choice and encourages exploration rather than instruction in the visual arts and aesthetics. Thus, art growth is frequently left unmeasured.

WORKING ACROSS DISCIPLINES Art teachers have valid concerns about practice, as administrators ask them to teach literacy skills and scientific methods without training or acknowledgment that the content and approaches fall outside of their discipline expertise (Smilan, 2016a). In many districts, art integration with literacy is mandated as art and other teachers are tasked with increasing reading and communication literacy for English Language Learners and struggling readers; this is largely for the purpose of school and district grades on standardized tests, and tied to district funding. As math, ELA and, in some state, science are tested subjects, art teachers are increasingly asked to assist in teaching these testable skills. Curriculum and assessments for integrating art with STEM subjects as well as ELA have become readily available; however, reflection on including these disciplines within your curriculum is warranted. Smilan (2016b) noted: Art integration theory and process is an important concept in the field of art education. Dating back to John Dewey’s Art as Experience (1934), art-based constructivist learning has been simultaneously embraced and viewed with contempt in the field. Often lauded as superheroes of public education reform, many art educators fear that utilizing art as a subservient handmaiden will compromise the validity of art in schools and jeopardize the position of the certified art teacher. (p. 1)

Here, we again ask, what is worthy of assessment in an art-integrated, collaborative lesson? And what are the roles and responsibilities of the art teacher and art student in this learning opportunity? When you make this determination, you can better position the arts within the teaching and learning experience.

COMMENTARY SECTION VI

205

STEAM AND ASSESSMENT OF THE ARTS AT THE HEART LEARNING Piro (2010) advocates for integrating the arts following Pink’s (2005) guidance that the creative thinking and collaboration developed through arts curriculum will prepare 21st-century students for the work force. He argued for the role of the arts in curriculum from a capitalist objective. Physics professors, Liliawati et al. (2018), suggested that using a STEAM approach engaged learners more fully and led to fuller understanding and application of science concepts, by allowing time to make connections between technology, art materials and science concepts. Smilan (2004) found similar results with 6th grade students integrating art and science. While both studies indicated improved test scores, neither fully realized the visual arts objectives in the study lessons. As we as a field consider further integrated curriculum, and the assessment of art content, we would be wise to consider Marshall and Donahue’s (2014) call to place the visual arts at the center of curriculum development— including assessment of what is conceptually and creatively valued and, thus, documented. This focal shift is exemplified by constructing opportunities for art-based inquiry, which naturally avail students of multi-disciplinary understandings (Hetland et al., 2013; Marshall & Donahue, 2014; Smilan, 2016a). Guyotte et al. (2014) expand the central placement of art learning to explore STEM to develop concepts of holistic education as a social practice; the authors provide a STEAM framework for social engagement that focuses on authentic practice in the visual arts (Smilan, 2016b).

ELA: STRUCTURAL PARALLELS AND EXPRESSIVE APPLICATIONS Meaningful integration of visual arts experiences into oral and written ELA curriculum requires transactional negotiations of visual literacy skills for the artist and the audience. These interactions are not limited to the visual arts; becoming a literate consumer and possibly a maker in any of the humanities requires a complex, albeit unspoken synthesis and application of information. Visual arts educator Greg Sampl wrote his master’s thesis on the sister arts of visual art and English, documenting the parallel structures and communicative importance of image and word. Sampl, as the authors have reviewed, suggests that each discipline content is improved by mastery of the other. When visual arts curriculum works collaboratively with reading literacy strategies, learning must evolve beyond simple recognition of letters, words and sounds; reading literacy must involve the ability to make connections between text and self, text and other texts, and text to world (Keene & Zimmerman, 1997).1 Parallels between ELA include the reading of literature paralleling the view of artworks and literary writing paralleling the making of visual and performative arts. This connection of symbolic representation between materials, self and world is the essence of intersecting conceptual learning in the two disciplines.

ASSESSING COLLABORATIVE ENGAGEMENT The chapters in this section illustrate a broad interpretation of integrative and collaborative arts. Each can be seen to utilize the best of the models discussed, but incorporating visual arts content and assessment. Lorinne Lee found parallel concepts in art and math and worked collaboratively with her math teacher colleague to provide students with an in-depth learning experience in which the content of each discipline was reinforced by the other. The collaboration extended beyond an exercise in professional development as her students engaged in cooperative exchange of ideas. Bjana Lunde provided a lesson that integrates visual arts, music and science (both physics and chemistry). In her Ceramic Whistles Sculpture lesson,

206

Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund

she invites her students to sculpt functional objects that emit sound, cautioning them about the physical attributes required and the changes that occur in the clay forming, drying and firing process. In this lesson, she seems to take on the work of teaching all three disciplines— in a somewhat taxing hybrid of several of the models of integration; this is often what art teachers do. The final two teacher contributions take a different approach to integration and collaboration. Jamie Lynch and Christine Neville integrate their district-mandated primary assessment tools into a collaborative critique experience for their students. Here, we see two creative art teachers incorporate what might otherwise be an add-on model into a partnership model of integration. Finally, John Brandhorst applies a motivational approach to integrating mandated assessments into standards-based art challenges for his students and their community. As we move forward in the third decade of the 21st century, considerations of visual art curriculum that develops the unique talents of the isolated creative versus collaborative creative thinking abilities of a community of learners have particular merit.

CONCEPTUALIZING THE RENAISSANCE ARTIST Art education curriculum, pedagogy and assessment have struggled with the popular romanticized myth of the artist as a wild, solitary individual who cuts their singular iconoclastic pathway. Gustave Courbet’s self-portrait of 1845—in which he portrays himself in full Johnny Depp bad-boy style—is a classic example of not simply how modern society wanted to conceptualize artists, but how artists deliberately decided to market themselves within society. This conceptualization has significant entertainment value (e.g. Paul Newman’s sendup of the work of Niki de Saint Phalle in the movie What a Way to Go (Thompson, 1964); Alan Bates lone wolf portrayal of a Paul Jenkins-style abstract expressionist in An Unmarried Woman (Mazursky, 1978)). What is potentially educationally corrosive about the acceptance of the stereotype of professional artistic behavior is that the guiding principle of curriculum and assessment for the last half a century, as set forth in Jerome Bruner’s (1960) landmark book The Process of Education, was that classroom curriculum should be modeled on the behaviors of the highest performing individuals within the discipline. In the art classroom, students should do what professional artists do. Bruner’s contended that one could authentically emulate expert behavior down to the kindergarten level. Bruner’s argument served as the conceptual foundation for the late 20th-century standards movement. The unintended consequence of this entire paradigm is when expert behavior in the arts gets defined as being able to establish an identity as a crazy outsider, this begins to have a ripple effect on what we expect to see from student artwork. With such iconoclastic individualism, there also comes an exaltation of individual creativity as unique and a primary educational objective of the art classroom. Therefore, working in teams or to iterate solutions to a given problem can be framed as diluting the primary educational purpose of the art classroom. A second problem with a curriculum model based on deep knowledge that lies within a discipline is that artists are frequently bricoleurs who reach across disciplines to combine new knowledge. Certainly, we recognize examples of artists like Leonardo DaVinci and Peter Paul Rubens whose skills extended far beyond the visual arts, but these models of artistic genius have tended not to be as compelling for building actual school curricula as say the solitary vision of Georgia O’Keeffe stalking the barren New Mexican landscape. In general, this Modernist vision of individualism has a much more compelling attraction in the art curricular imagination than the collective aesthetic efforts of Arts and Crafts Movement collectives such as in Rose Valley, Pennsylvania where artisans worked cooperatively together to achieve a shared creative purpose.

COMMENTARY SECTION VI

207

Ironically, the sense of actual isolation brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, instead of romantic adolescent fantasies of solitude, may accelerate new opportunities for collaborative, integrative learning. The rapidly expanding use of digital resources, which include logarithmic search engines, can be a transformative partner in helping students find the specific cross-disciplinary content they need to address an integrative learning problem at the precise moment that they need the information in order to move forward with their own creative work. A third problem with an overly individualized view of visual arts learning is that it puts the visual arts at odds with other arts disciplines: music, theater and dance. This has significance as all arts education disciplines committed to forming a shared conceptual framework for all arts curriculum: Creating, Presenting, Responding and Connecting. These four strands of arts performance are conceived as common to all. For the visual arts, Responding maps onto visual geographer Gillian Rose’s (2016) concept of audiencing. According to Rose’s framework for visuality, how the audience responds to an image is a critical component to what the image means. This is separate from the meaning that the artist or a critic ascribes to a work. How the collective shapes meaning is just as important—if not more important—than what the artist felt they were expressing. Audiencing visual art has two important ramifications for how we teach and assess. The first implication is in how we conceive the role and conduct the process of critique in the visual arts classroom. Our contemporary art concept of critique comes from the German philosophical tradition that considers critique to be a form of comprehensive public analysis and discussion. In the German sense, critique is a process that brings everything into the light for civic examination. As the German filmmaker Rainer Werner Fassbinder said, “everything must stand before the critique” (Böll et al., 1978, n.p.). For Fassbinder, it is not important what I think, or what you think; it is important what we—the collective—think. When it is clear what we think, then the question becomes, what will we do? The contemporary artist and art educator Tim Rollins (a student of Paulo Freire) founded the after-school Art and Knowledge Workshop in the South Bronx of New York City during the 1980s through a process of shared critique within the Workshop that was then followed by action (Berry, 2009). The student work was celebrated collectively as Kids of Survival; individual recognition by the teenage collaborators was eschewed (although Rollins in public presentations on the Workshop would credit the specific contributions of individual members to the development of a visual idea). The importance of providing formative and summative critiques to every student is engrained in visual art practice. The edTPA visual arts licensure exam formalizes critique as an essential baseline professional practice. This is the explicit curriculum of art. We conceive critique as a process for improving and evaluating individual performance. What is less apparent, and remains in the implicit curriculum, is critique as a public performance that allows a shared space designed to build a community of practice. This begins to shift critique from a formative or summative process to help the individual student improve their artwork, to a process in which the focus is in how the audience makes meaning. The second significant implication for integrated and collaborative teaching and assessment is in a heightened recognition of the responsibility of the artist to their audience. The discipline of design has long accepted that what the audience does with an artistic intervention is more important than the artist’s intent. A classic distinction between art and design is that art focuses on individual expression and design solves a client’s problem: If the audience cannot use the design, then the design fails. Over the last 25 years in the National Art Education Association, there has been a long, tortuous rise, to formally recognize the importance of design education and its symbiotic relationship to art education. The expressive powers of art and the critical problem-solving problems of design are not separate conceptual areas to

208

Cathy Smilan and Richard Siegesmund

be confined in their own delimited sections of the curriculum. They are integrated, creative functions that students need to explore in tandem.

NOTE

1 See “The Major Point Assessment” and consider applications to meaning making in Visual Arts Assessment.

REFERENCES Berry, I. (Ed.). (2009). Tim Rollins and K.O.S.: A history. Skidmore College, MIT Press. Böll, H., Fassbinder, R. W., Schlöndorff, V., Reitz, E., & Kluge, A. (1978). Germany in autumn [film]. Facets Video. Bresler, L. (1995). The subservient, co-equal, affective, and social integration styles and their implications for the arts. Arts Education Policy Review, 96, 31–37. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press. Eisner, E. W. (2008). Art and knowledge. In J. G. Knowles, & A. L. Cole (Eds.), Handbook of the arts in qualitative research (pp. 3–12). SAGE. Guyotte, K. W., Sochacka, N. W., Constantino, T., Walther, J. & Kellam, N. N. (2014). STEAM as social practice: Cultivating creativity in transdisciplinary spaces. Art education, 67(6), 12–19. Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. M. (2013). Studio thinking 2: The real benefits of visual arts education. Teachers College Press. Keene, E., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought. Heinemann. Keifer-Boyd, K., & Smith-Shank, D. (2006). Speculative fiction’s contribution to contemporary understanding: The handmaid art tale. Studies in Art Education, 47(2), 139–154. Liliawati, W., Rusnayati, H., Purwanto, G., & Aristantia. (2018). IOP Conference Series: Material Science and Engineering (288)012148. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/288/1/012148 Marshall, J., & Donahue, D. M. (2014). Art-centered learning across the curriculum: Integrating contemporary art in the secondary school classroom. Teacher’s College Press. Mazursky, P. (1978). An unmarried woman [film]. 20th Century Fox. Pink, D. (2005). A whole new mind: Moving from the information age to the conceptual age. Riverhead Books. Piro, J. (2010). Going from STEM to STEAM: The arts have a role in America’s future too. Education Week, 2(24), 28–29. Rose, G. (2016). Visual methodologies: An introduction to the interpretation of visual materials (4th ed.). SAGE. Smilan, C. (2004). The impact of art integration as an intervention to assist learners’ visual perception and concept understanding in elementary science [Doctoral dissertation]. Florida Atlantic University (Proquest AAT 3136133). Smilan, C. (2016a). Developing visual creative literacies through integrative art-based inquiry. The Clearing House, 89(4–5), 167–178. Smilan, C. (2016b). Integrating art across the curriculum. Oxford Bibliographies. https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/ 9780199756810-0137 Thompson, J. L. (1964). What a way to go [film]. 20th Century Fox.

32 Sculptured Landscapes Art Lesson and Assessments Lorinne Lee

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT Olympic High, Central Kitsap School District, Silverdale, WA is in the heart of the western Puget Sound region with a population mostly from military families, who consequently move every two to three years. Olympic High is in a rural/city community located in the NW between Bangor Naval Shipyard and the Bremerton Naval Shipyard. The population of Olympic High’s student body is 23% Asian and Pacific Islander, 2% Native-American and 7% African-American, 10% other and 48% Caucasian. Teaching staff was 1% Asian, 1% African-American, and 98% Caucasian. The State of Washington did not have an art graduation requirement for years, and art programs were constantly at risk throughout our state. This propelled me to work on our Washington State Art Assessment team to include art as a requirement for graduation. Currently, two art credits are now required statewide for graduation.

SCULPTING LANDSCAPES: ART AND MATH INTEGRATED LEARNING Seattle architecture critic Clair Enlow observed that, “Architect Frank Gehry has [made] a career out of bending vertical and horizontal lines of building construction into something defiant and sometimes poetic” (Enlow, 2000, p. D1.1). A field trip to the Seattle’s Experience Music Project Museum designed by Frank Gehry with its floating organic metal exterior that looks as though it is in constant motion inspired my students to study and design beautiful, graceful organic sculptures. “Sculptured Landscapes” integrated art lessons are appropriate for all 8–12 grade students and for Advance Placement (AP) 3D design students. For the lesson, an essential lesson question was, “How do you create a three-dimensional design with geometric rotating curvilinear planes from a flat surface?” To develop the criteria for the lesson, I met with my math teacher colleague once a week for 45 minutes to 1 hour, during our staff-development release time. We both concluded that our students learn better when we use a variety of problem-solving strategies. We focused on key, intersecting concepts that met art and math discipline standards by having our students explore positive and negative DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-43

210

Lorinne Lee

spaces, curved forms, levels of relief, balance, open and closed spaces, rotating planes from fixed points, and placement of forms which are the main concepts taught in sculpture and geometry. As a team, we decided to use found materials that I already had in my classroom. As we invited students from art and math classes, the process evolved over time into beautiful complex fluid designs. We would reference the art and math geometry standards often to meet this goal (see visual art standards in Appendix, Table 32A.1). Students began to understand and visualize relationships between two-dimensional and three-dimensional objects, and ultimately, relationships between art and mathematics discipline knowledge. Students were challenged to create a series of dramatically fluid, three-dimensional organic forms using only flat-flexible materials. Students explored and discovered that screen-door wire and paper were materials that can hold their shape, and at the same time appear fluid when these materials were bent, scored, folded, pleated, and/or stretched. Both inexpensive materials were easily found at local hardware and art stores. The study, design, and construction of threedimensional forms from two-dimensional materials helped my art students see and understand how elements of space, form, light, weight, surface-texture, and balance work together seamlessly. These ideas continued further into a study of translucent human-figures and organicfree forms constructed with wire, paper, and found materials. Using a variety of construction techniques and materials, students deconstructed and rearranged shapes and forms into their sculptures to add tension and balance. Students defined and used these elements and altered materials in unconventional, creative ways to produce shapes and forms expressively as they worked through the sculpture process. Applying combinations of visual elements and organizational principles of design, students were able to achieve their purpose. To extend knowledge of geometric forms, art students in drawing and advanced placement art classes teamed with me, the math teacher, and advanced placement math students for 2 hours each week for a month to study volume and surface planes, which provided them a greater understanding of volume, weight, and dimension within three-dimensional forms. Advance placement students continued their collaboration with their art/math teachers throughout the year. Guiding students to think about how surface planes appear on two-dimensional surfaces, they drew organic and geometric shapes using contour-line drawings to illustrate open and closed spaces depicting various angular and curvilinear forms. Students worked in small groups to analyze if the drawn shapes created a sense of balance or tension. Continuing their art/math collaborations, they studied geometric shapes rotating from fixed points, symmetry of surface planes, and how these concepts might be applied to their artistic vision. Students illustrated these patterns and concepts first as organic- and inorganic-free forms which helped them construct three-dimensional forms that suggest movement, balance, and tension. To apply these ideas and principles, students continued experimenting with a variety of construction techniques by curling, twisting, and flattening areas of wire and paper. Through this team process, my art students discovered unexpected connections, creative solutions, and new perspectives that help shape their vision for their advance placement three-dimensional artwork. I found that students were more successful when they were provided with clear guidelines and specific concepts to analyze. The following were questions that my students addressed as they viewed the architecture of the Seattle Experience Music project, and these questions were used again as the students worked through their sculpture process. • • • •

How do the positive and negative forms work together? How do the materials work with light? Is the form fluid, and does it draw the viewer into and through the work? Is the form well-constructed?

211

SCULPTURED LANDSCAPES

• •

Would the form take on a different feeling with wood, metal, or clay? Does light respond differently with a different medium?

Students were required to explain to the class and in small groups the expressive character of how materials used were related to their work. It is through their critiques and discussions of these concepts that students were able to re-examine and justify the use of shapes and forms in their work. I encouraged my students to reflect and revise their work on a regular basis which provided them a process to expand and investigate their ideas. Listed are a few examples of the formative self-assessment questions students discussed to guide them through the process as they developed their final portfolios. • • • • • •

Explain how reflected, direct and indirect light, tone, value enhanced each sculpture. Explain how perspective, weight, textures, line quality, and repetition support the construction and design of your pieces. Do the concave and convex shapes change the areas of emphasis; explain how and why? Does occupied space and unoccupied space define your entire series? Explain how curved or angled forms create interlocking planes in the series? Discuss how the surface planes create major or minor contours in your design?

My students developed a deeper understanding and commitment for the creative process when they discussed these open-ended questions, and most importantly this process helped them confirm their creative vision and final solutions. In order to accomplish their goals and the assignment learning outcomes, clear lesson objectives that included self-assessment and cyclical revision were presented to the class (see Table 32.1). Examples of application of lesson objectives at various levels of proficiency are provided below with feedback for students. This work (Figure 32.1) was extremely successful and earned 5 points. • • • •

Three-dimensional curvilinear free-standing forms are imaginative and inventive with strong dominant forms extending into space. Technical competence is excellent. Open and closed forms are overlapped and repeated with naturally curved and clean fluid lines with scored sharp edges. The design is well balanced creating a strong focal point. There is excellent attention to construction. TABLE 32.1

Sculptured landscapes: Lesson objectives. Reflection and assessment should be on-going throughout the entire process. Students should be able to analyze, evaluate, and show where they used repetition, pattern, contrast, and proportion throughout their work, justify and discuss reasons for including these concepts: • Investigate meaning relevant to a current theme or idea, and document their art making process. • Demonstrate in their documented planning and final art piece, a comprehensive understanding of the materials used in the construction of each piece. • Apply innovative materials to create fluid three-dimensional designs are explored. • Analyze scale line, light, texture, and form as evident in their work. • Evaluate principles and elements of design during the revision process. • Explain evidence throughout their portfolios of how intent and ideas are well supported. • Justify the use of the principles of design in a series of work. • Create shapes and forms to depict balance and/or tension within each sculpture.

212

Lorinne Lee

FIGURE 32.1  Student example: Proficient

• • •

Forms are cut with clean precise edges creating strong define shapes. Placement and arrangement of forms create strong cast shadows that define each form to stand out. Eye moves easily around the entire form. Quality work (Good) 4 to 3 points (Figure 32.2).

• • • • • • •

Good use of scale, line, texture, and form. Placement of forms enhances balance and focal point. Care is given to the construction of most forms. Open and closed forms create cast shadows. Alternating rhythm and/or repeated rhythm is evident. A focal point is apparent; interest could be enhanced by adding stronger angles and/or by adding more open and closed forms. Scored lines are precise creating crisp repeated lines in some forms.

FIGURE 32.2  Student example: Quality

213

SCULPTURED LANDSCAPES

FIGURE 32.3  Student example: Work needs improvement

Work Needs Improvement 2 to 1 point (Figure 32.3). • • • • • • •

Sculpture is not visually balanced. Lacks a focal point. Forms and size randomly arranged with little consideration of placement and light source. Forms are not well constructed and are loosely attached in noticeable areas. Limited planes and curved forms with few open and closed spaces. Surfaces do not display reflected light; forms appear flat due to even light source. Student uses few construction techniques to score, bend, fold, and twist to add or subtract materials to revise work. Materials are not used to its fullest potential.

REFERENCE Enlow, C. (2000, 12 July). Frank Gehry Rock Temple. Architecture Week, 9, D1.1. Retrieved May 14, 2021, from http:// www.architectureweek.com/2000/0712/index.html

APPENDIX TABLE 32A.1

Assessment criteria related to national standards for visual arts education. 1. Students understand and apply media, techniques, and processes (VA:Cr1.2.Ia, IIa, & IIIa). 2. Students use knowledge of structures and functions (VA:Cr1.2.Ia, IIa, & IIIa). 3. Students plan a strategy to generate questions and to seek information that lead to conclusions about artwork (VA:Cr2.1.Ia, IIa & IIIa). 4. Students make connections between visual arts and other disciplines (VA:Cn10.1.Ia, IIa, & IIIa). 5. Students demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of materials and technologies (VA:Cr1.2.Ia, IIa, & IIIa). 6. Students develop innovative ways to explore the potential of materials (VA:Cr2.1.Ia, IIa, IIIa). 7. Students select and evaluate a range of subject matter, symbols, and ideas (VA:Cr1.2.Ia, IIa, & IIIa). 8. Students reflect upon and assess the characteristics and merits of their work and work of others (VA:Cr3.1.Ia, IIa, & IIIa). 9. Students draw upon observations, interpretations, and judgments of artworks to generate insightful questions about artworks (VA:Re8.1.Ia, IIa, & IIIa).

33 Ceramic Whistle Sculpture Bjana Lunde

Both of the schools where I taught this lesson are located within Community Unit School District 300, Jacobs High School, and Dundee Middle School. Jacobs serves 2,175 students from the communities of Algonquin, Carpentersville, Lake in the Hills, and West Dundee. The student population is 67.3% Caucasian, 3% African-American, 18.4% Hispanic, 7.9% Asian, 0.2% American Indian, 3% 2+ Races, and 0.1% Pacific Islander (District 300, 2018b). Dundee Middle School has a total of 879 students. The student population is 58% Caucasian, 24.6% Hispanic, 9.4% Asian, 3.6% African-American, 0.5% Pacific Islander, and 4% 2+ Races, with 28.5% Low Income, 11.7% Disabilities, 3.0% English Learners, and 0.6% Homeless. District 300, the 6th largest school district in Illinois, includes 15 elementary schools, five middle schools, three high schools, one kindergarten through 8th grade school, one early childhood center, and one alternative school (District 300, 2018a). I selected a lesson on building and designing ceramic whistle sculptures. I taught this lesson at the middle and high school levels. Even though there is a great range in developmental level, cognitive abilities, eye-hand coordination, and technical skill between the average 7th grade middle school student and a high school student (ranging from grades 10 to 12), this lesson can be adapted to challenge the needs of varying grade and ability levels. At our middle school, art courses are taught for nine-week terms. After which I will not see that group of students again until the following school year. I hope that my students retain the information from year to year, but also know that I need to allow time within the lesson for students to review, revisit, and practice using materials and techniques in order for them to be successful. At the high school level, this lesson is taught within the Ceramics I curriculum after a sequence of projects which allow students to practice using the three hand-building techniques of coil, pinch, and slab. Prior to taking Ceramics I in the high school program, students are required to take the course Art Fundamentals where they would be introduced to hand-building techniques. In an average Ceramics I course, I might have students ranging in grade level from 10 to 12 within the same course. This course may contain Ceramics I and II students. Data taken from one of my previous courses indicated that there were 20 seniors, 11 juniors, and one sophomore. Within this example roster, there were also ten students with DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-44

CERAMIC WHISTLE SCULPTURE

215

special needs. In 7th grade art courses, there may be anywhere between 22 and 30 students with varying levels of special needs.

LESSON CONTENT: CERAMIC WHISTLES Objectives: Students will design and build a ceramic whistle that makes sounds clearly and loudly with a minimum of two notes to change pitch. Students will work on making their whistle into an interesting design above and beyond the ordinary shape of the whistle. Essential Question: When given a predefined set of techniques and predetermined introductory form, how do students respond when faced with the task of altering/adjusting the design to make it their own? The correlation of learning objectives from this lesson to National Core Arts Standards is as follows: VA:Cr1.1, VA:Cr2.1, VA:Cr2.3, VA:Cr3.1. The Ceramic Whistle Lesson addresses the National Core Arts Standards in several different ways. Students begin the unit by viewing previous examples of student work and collaboratively converse about the designs they see. The discussion topics typically include some of the variables that help to create a successful sculptural composition, students then dissect each example whistle sculpture and try to conclude where the whistle portion may be attached to the sculptural design when looking at a photograph, and lastly a discussion about the degree in which example sculptures are successful or not in their personal opinions. Students next have the opportunity to practice the technique of building the foundational shape of the whistle. Students will research and develop preliminary sketches that will serve as their initial plan for their personal whistle sculpture design. As they are adapting the foundational design using different hand-building techniques, students will continue to revise and refine their sculptures to best communicate their personal ideas.

LESSON CONTENT: KEY APPROACHES FOR MEASUREMENT OF HIGH, MEDIUM, AND LOW PERFORMANCES Measurement of high, medium, and low performances is determined with the aid of a rubric (Appendix). Students will be assessed on their execution of ideas and personal expression, their overall design, and the technical skill they used to complete their sculpture. Projects that score in the high range contain ideas that are communicated well, exhibit sculpted design which engages the viewer on all sides, and display excellent craftsmanship. In addition, the whistle functionality creates a clearly formed sound that includes a minimum of two additional pitches.

STRATEGIES TO EMPOWER “INNOVATIVE APPLICATION” How can art teachers guide processes toward innovated products? Introductory methods to this lesson include looking at previous student sculpture examples and a demonstration and handout describing how to build the foundation of the whistle sculpture. Students will begin looking at the rudimentary structure and shape of the whistle and identifying where the whistle portion is located within the structure of the sculpture while viewing examples of previous student work. This is aimed to ignite their thinking as they are trying to generate their own unique ideas of how to adapt the basic whistle structure and to then modify and construct their own design. The complexity of this lesson not only lies in the constraints of having a predetermined preliminary shape, but on figuring out

216

Bjana Lunde

how to camouflage the functionality of the whistle into their sculptural design. The emphasis is placed on designing a sculptural piece that is also functional. The aesthetic quality of the sculpture should stand on its own artistically. Only when the viewer investigates the sculpture fully, the functionality will be revealed. Showing examples of how the whistle can be incorporated in sculptural design leads to a more diverse array of end products. We follow up the activity with a classroom discussion about which designs have the best execution and review the rubric (Appendix). When I omit this activity, students’ sculptural designs tend to be more straightforward with minimal risk taking. I like to encourage students who are up for the challenge to try to reinvent the assignment in their own way instead of simply following step-by-step the process for getting their sculpture to sound. I place the emphasis on the sculptural aspect of the assignment because I have found that some students initially struggle with getting their whistle to create sound. In addition, once students successfully get their whistle to function, they need to continue to be aware that due to the clay’s plasticity, complications such as stray pieces of clay sticking to the bottom of their sculpture (blocking the air stream), the physical weight of their sculpture may distort the pitch of the mouthpiece or alter the shape of the hollow chamber (in turn, disrupting the sound), and the moisture content of the sculpture (if too moist can distort/collapse and stop the whistle from functioning) during the construction of their piece. Students will need to understand the physical properties of the way the sound travels through the mouthpiece and is split by the angle of the hole on the bottom of the whistle in order to more effectively fix issues that arise. These and other variables make this assignment challenging and force students to constantly reevaluate and contemplate how to see their individual design to fruition. Time during the lesson is taken to describe the physics of the way the air travels and how it produces the noise, and also the musical qualities of the sound and how to create different pitches. Providing guidance through advice, support of visual examples, and problem-solving suggestions can help students who are struggling with this aspect of the assignment. Concurrently, I want to encourage my students to continue taking risks with their designs without feeling like they will be penalized for choosing something that is too complicated. I hope to invoke student curiosity through exploration and investigation; to provide the support, students need to feel that they are able to explore and experiment freely, and the opportunity to learn from the experience of fluidly problem solving as issues may arise with their individual designs. Past practice has illuminated the benefits of encouraging risk taking. When I have allowed students the freedom to explore, students have created more diverse adaptations to the assignment, such as a double-chambered whistle that produces two notes at once, whistles that students tune by the pitch of each note, variation in size of whistles (including the smallest which was the size of a fingernail, and many other examples of innovative designs). The demonstration begins with three pieces of clay, two of which are golf-ball-sized and one that is gum-ball-sized. The two golf-ball-sized pieces of clay will be transformed into two equally sized pinch pots whose wall thickness does not exceed ¼ inch. The two pinch pots will be attached together using the score and slip method creating a hollow ball. After they are connected and attached without the hint of a seam, the sphere will be tapped gently on the one side to create a flattened bottom. The gumball-sized piece of clay should be shaped into a cube (this will be the whistle mouthpiece) and attached flush with the flattened bottom creating an igloo shape. A pencil-eraser-sized hole should be carved on the flattened bottom close to the edge but not through the attachment of the cube-shaped mouthpiece. A popsicle stick will be slid through the cube-shaped mouthpiece and out through the pencil-eraser-sized hole approximately at a 45° angle. Then, students should adjust to make a clear sound. Once students have worked perfecting the sound of the whistle, they will add holes to create different pitches. Next, students will use their creative problem-solving skills to adapt the basic structure of their whistle and transform it within the context of their own original design.

CERAMIC WHISTLE SCULPTURE

217

FIGURE 33.1  Student example: High

The example of student work in Figure 33.1 exemplifies high results displays top marks in each of the following categories: ideas and expression, use of elements and principles of design/composition, craftsmanship/technical skill, and use of resources. The student has taken risks in the construction and design of her whistle sculpture through the structural integrity of the piece (balance) and by adapting the mouthpiece which is camouflaged by the feathers of the peacock. She has created an aesthetically pleasing sculpture through the alternation, repetition, and unification of different elements such as form, texture, color, value, and space. Her technical skill can be observed through her fine attention to detail in the variety of textures displayed, glaze color usage, and the physical balance of the piece. This student experimented with the sound of whistle and adapted the sculpture to fit her design, creating a hollow tube which extends the length of the mouthpiece and is attached to the middlemost feather on the peacock train. The student who created this sculpture was of high school level. The example exhibiting medium results provided in Figure 33.2 meets the requirements of the categories: ideas and expression, use of elements and principles of design/composition, craftsmanship/technical skill, and use of resources.

FIGURE 33.2  Student example: Medium

218

Bjana Lunde

FIGURE 33.3  Student example: Low

FIGURE 33.4  Demonstration sample-foundational whistle form

The student followed the demonstration model of the foundational whistle shape and made adaptations through the addition of the water spout on the whale, the fins, and the addition of the tail to the mouthpiece. She used texture and color to add interest to her overall composition. This is a middle school level example of the assignment. Given less time for the assignment and minimal prior experience with the medium as a middle school example, this is a successful sculptural piece. In the example presenting low results (see Figure 33.3), the student has attempted the requirements of the categories: ideas and expression, use of elements and principles of design/composition, craftsmanship/technical skill, and use of resources. The student has not experimented with her design and it looks similar to the foundational whistle shape as displayed in the demonstration (Figure 33.4). This is an example of middle school level work.

REFERENCES District 300 (2018a). About Dundee Middle School. https://www.d300.org/domain/633 District 300 (2018b). Jacobs High School:2018-19. https://www.d300.org/cms/lib/IL01904509/Centricity/Domain/21// School%20Profile/JHS_School%20Profiles_05.pdf

TABLE 33A.1

Ceramic whistle rubric.a Studio production

4-Exceeds

3-Meets

2-Developing

1-Attempted

Criteria or Purpose of Project:

-Make a ceramic whistle, which sounds clearly and contains at least two additional pitches -Utilize the methods of slab, coil, and pinch to create a sculptural whistle

Ideas and ExpressionExecution/ Technique Student has demonstrated a full understanding of the concepts, tools, media being used within the lesson.

Student has taken risks by finding a unique solution to the assignment. The student’s personal voice Challenges the viewer.

Score

List project specifics here

Student has expanded Student has copied beyond the Source directly from source material. Student’s material. There is personal voice is apparent limited development in visual form And of a skillful and intrigues the viewer thoughtful approach.

Student has used clichéd/ /30 stereotyped images. Needs to attempt a more skillful and thoughtful approach.

Fits together Unique approach/Creativity Original/no cliché ideas Constructed well Meaning and concept

Student creates a Unified composition through the application of the Elements And Principles of Design.

Project attempted with minimal regard to Elements and Principles, of Design.

/30

Looks seamless (shape and form), purposeful choices Hand-building techniques/structure and fit Glaze quality Detailed

Student exhibits insufficient skill in the use of tools, media, and techniques being studied.

/30

Not rushed, Handbuilding techniques Slipped and scored/held together, coats of glaze, Complexity of project, Texture and Design

CERAMIC WHISTLE SCULPTURE

APPENDIX

Comments: Art Elements and Principles Student experiments of Design/Compositionwith the Elements and Demonstrating unity in Principles of art and composition, Meeting criteria applies them to the objectives, purposeful choice and composition in a way that placement of specific elements engages and intrigues the and principles. viewer.

Student creates a composition that sporadically demonstrates the Elements and Principles of Design.

Comments: Technical Skill/CraftsmanshipStudent exhibits exemplary Neatly done/creates an skill in the use of tools, interesting composition, project media, and art techniques is neatly and well-constructed. being studied Creativity and divergent thinking

Student exhibits proficient Student exhibits basic skill in the use of tools, skill in the use of media, and Art technique tools, media, and Being studied art techniques being studied.

(Continued)

219

220

TABLE 33A.1  (Continued)

Ceramic whistle rubric.a Studio production

4-Exceeds

3-Meets

2-Developing

Student utilizes and seeks additional resources to produce artwork.

Student Utilizes 85–100% Student utilizes 70–84% of The available resources of the available to produce artwork. resources to produce artwork.

1-Attempted

Score

List project specifics here

Student utilizes less than 70% of the available resources.

/10

Individual growth Use of class time management Staying on Task Risk taking

Comments: Use of Resources- Growth/ Management Good use of class time, exploration of media. Developed and expanded ideas to create the project. Skills improved from Skill worksheet/ previous project. Comments: Total:             Grade:          a

The rubric above originates from a common project assessment template developed by the art teachers in our district and has been adapted with the specific criteria from my ceramic whistle sculpture lesson.

Bjana Lunde

34 Critique as Assessment Jamie Lynch and Christine Neville

Jamie Lynch and Christine Neville are art teacher colleagues at Fairhaven High School in Fairhaven, Massachusetts. Both are in their 11th year of teaching, eight of those together. Their school is in a suburb of New Bedford, noted for its traditional maritime communities, with about 700 students, 85% of whom are white and 33% classified as low-income. Academically driven, Jamie and Christine are avid NAEA members, presenting at regional and national conferences annually. But before they were teaching together, they were students together in the MAE program at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. As part of their required coursework, they enrolled in an Art-based Research (ABR) class. This was the beginning of their journey to developing art-based assessments and critiques for their classrooms…. As tenured full-time secondary art teachers, and reflective practitioners of the visual arts and teaching, we [Jamie Lynch and Christine Neville] enthusiastically approached art curriculum and pedagogy with curiosity and the desire to help our students see their world from different perspectives. We would talk on the phone on the way home from Dr. Smilan’s Graduate Studio: Artbased Research class, even though we had just spent three hours discussing our art. We still had so many details to go over, ideas to contemplate, comments from our class to consider further; we had never left a class feeling so motivated, so inspired. In this excitement, however, we became keenly aware that this was the first time in our art education careers that we were really asked to self-assess through visual critique and wondered: How can we provide this experience for our students?

HOW IT STARTED Jamie Super motivated to give my students an exhilarating critique experience, I announced to my Art II class we would be having a peer critique in a few days. I pulled out my pro panel and secured a piece of student artwork, my small yet skilled group of students gathered around the artwork and … crickets. This experience resulted in my prompting individual students for feedback. As I was painfully pulling short responses from each student, it was clear no DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-45

222

Jamie Lynch and Christine Neville

one was leaving this session inspired. This is when Christine and I compared notes and experiences finding similar responses from our students. Christine So, we started from scratch creating an entirely new approach to prepare our students for a critique. This resulted in running several different critique methods in search for an inspiring session with our students. Our end goal was not only for students to have an inspiring experience discussing art but also to develop 21st-century skills and to use these critiques as assessments.

DEVELOPING 21ST-CENTURY SKILLS Peer critique is designed for students to learn a variety of key, 21st-century skills; these include digital and media literacy, inventive thinking, critical thinking, problem solving, communication, collaboration, creative expression, reflection, and cross-cultural expertise (Choi & Piro, 2009). When students look at artwork, think about what the artwork communicates, and write about their thoughts, impressions, and technical skills, they develop their ability to respond with insights evolved through personal experiences. Creative problem solving is developed through peer conversation, and further insight is gained through giving and receiving advice (Bryant, 2010). To encourage communication in our classroom, we have students writing about their artwork, as well as that of professional artists and peers, gaining authentic interpretations and feedback about art-making progression. Our district utilizes “priority assessments”. Similar to benchmarks, this assessment is used for grading purposes, but more importantly, as a survey to check students’ understanding and provide feedback to instructors regarding prioritizing student needs in the lesson. Using our formative priority assessment (Appendix, Table 34A1.1), students look at six artworks (former students or professional examples). Students are asked to specifically identify strengths and weaknesses for each artwork. They need to use appropriate vocabulary and evidence to support their statements. In Figure 34.1b we see a student viewing a peer student artwork (Figure 34.1a) and completing the priority assessment worksheet. To prevent biased feedback, we recommend not using work created by classmates, for the benchmark (Lynch & Neville, 2016, 2017). This allows students to focus on the use of vocabulary,

FIGURE 34.1A  Student artwork

223

CRITIQUE AS ASSESSMENT

FIGURE 34.1B  Student filling out priority assessment

concept, and techniques used by the artist. During the critique process, students utilize higher order thinking (Bloom, 1956) to analyze and evaluate artwork and provide feedback. Analyzing artwork requires students to visually deconstruct work, chunking parts and determining their correlation and interrelation to a purposeful whole, and develops critical 21st-century skills (Anderson et al., 2001; Bloom, 1956). Evaluating artwork by considering standards and criteria allows students to make judgments about success, offering supporting evidence to validate their claims (Anderson et al., 2001; Bloom, 1956; Eisner, 1994; Smilan, 2015). When students complete six critiques, they analyze responses for common strengths and weaknesses (see Appendix, Table 34A1.2). Students then suggest revisions, focusing on one or two elements throughout this process, to demonstrate understanding. Our element tracker (Appendix, Table 34A1.3) provides an overall sense of students’ responses.

ELEMENT TRACKER • •

Replace standardized quizzes and tests with artwork and critique. Use Element tracker to track when students: • Identify Elements or Principles of Art during a written format. • Discuss Elements or Principles of Art appropriately. • Assign value to the required number of responses.

To replace standardized quizzes and tests with artwork and critique, we developed an element-tracking chart (Appendix, Tables 34A1.1 and 34A1.2) to compile our students’ responses. Coupled with the element tracker, we also utilize a common rubric we developed for our district to grade each project and track student growth. Tracking the rate of students’ growth provides measurable data. Data collection can be used for teacher reflection, evaluation, and explanation of assessment for evaluators, parents, and administrators. We used Google sheets to create a chart to compare our results from the end of term 1 to the end of term 2 in a semester long class (Appendix, Table 34A1.4). For assessing on a smaller scale for quiz or tests grades, the point system is assigned for appropriately used vocabulary, according to the requirements provided to students beforehand. For example, if students critique work by five other students, once for strength and

224

Jamie Lynch and Christine Neville

once for suggestion, that equals ten responses; each response addresses an element at least once. Let’s break it down: In our first lesson, we critique the elements line and shape. If the student writes five successful and five suggestive comments, they get six points each for a total of 60 points. In this example, each time they discuss an element successfully, they gain ten points (for a maximum of 40 points). To gain the ten points for discussing an element, they need to provide concrete evidence from the artwork for their statement. For example, “I like the red and yellow” would not receive any points. “The use of red and yellow to show warmth in the volcanic landscape…” would receive full credit.

CRITIQUE IN THE CLASSROOM To use critique as assessment, teachers must first engage learners in a successfully structured critique, one which increases students’ knowledge about art and vocabulary, critical thinking and problem solving (Anderson, 1993; Andrade et al., 2014). We choose our commonly taught Creative Imaging course, an entry level Adobe Photoshop-based course with about 25 students per class. Providing proper vocabulary and criteria gives students confidence (Smilan, 2015); such structure addressed these student concerns: “What if I don’t know what to say about the artwork?” “I don’t want to offend anyone by insulting their art”. “What if someone doesn’t like my work?” Initial critique vocabulary focused on selected elements of art. Easing students into the critique methods, starting with written format, tabletop discussion (Figure 34.2), and finally full class critique. Introducing strategies from our ABR class (assigned scribes for essential written components of assessment data collection), along with vocabulary, appropriate critique discussion, and replacing opinion with evidence-based feedback, we help our high school students move the work forward.

ASSESSING THROUGH CRITIQUE DISCUSSION Applying strategies from our ABR graduate class, an electronic portfolio system and online open forum critique were used to collect and reflect upon data. Exploration of multiple forums led to the Seesaw website1 tool. Students log in with individual school Google accounts, allowing instructors to assess individual remarks. This forum is a safe space where

FIGURE 34.2  Small group tabletop discussion

CRITIQUE AS ASSESSMENT

225

FIGURE 34.3  Student artwork discussed using Seesaw

teachers moderate, approve, or reject any post before making them available to the rest of the class. Students also enjoy the ease of Seesaw, “It’s easy, and fun to watch comments appear while you’re working… more people comment on my work”. Student comments were recorded using the Seesaw platform. Students were instructed to “Praise” something about their peers’ work and to ask a question, and offer a suggestion. Feedback related to Figure 34.3 included: “I love the colors and the silhouette of the building in the background” (Praise). “Do the building represent something in particular?” (Question). I think you did really well with the shading in the artwork, but I would add a shadow on the moon to show depth (Advice). Another student offered, “I like the contrast between the buildings and the night sky” (Praise). “What is the meaning for the two people on the edge of the building?” (Question) and “What I would do is add some light to the building like there are streetlights and more life in the city below” (Advice). Jamie I sit facing my class reading the comments as they pour in via Seesaw, giving immediate responses verbally to my students. With the ability to moderate students’ entries, I approve each comment or return it for revision. I know I will go back later to make sure they have appropriately addressed all of the requirements of the critique prompt. But for now, I am enjoying the flowing comments. Christine The first time I used Seesaw with a class I was blown away by student engagement. For the first time everyone in my classroom was actively engaged and enjoying the critiquing process.

226

Jamie Lynch and Christine Neville

FIGURE 34.4  Students engaged with Seesaw critique

The technology aspect and comfort level of digital natives, and knowledge that I will not approve anything unacceptable, contributes to this engagement. Students went above and beyond the minimum assignment, continuing to provide peer feedback throughout the period (Figure 34.4). Assessment data on critique participation includes the use of appropriate vocabulary to identify elements, describe, analyze, and discuss content and use of subject matter. Written critique allows students to edit thinking before providing feedback, “I can be more honest when I have a chance to write it down”. This assessment provides frequent, real-time feedback for each student artist. Timing is important for maximum benefits; critiques that occur during the process of creating, rather than after an artwork is completed, can be most successful and most useful for the artist (Smilan, personal communication, 2014), allowing artists to hear feedback and respond through their ongoing process (Buster & Crawford, 2010). One student commented, “Hearing what other people are saying helps me to give advice, it gives me more ideas”. Personal growth is also assessed based on guiding requirements and documented through progress in artwork and individual process journals. Online blogs or forums are another way to track students’ journals, critiques, and art process/progress. Peer assessments using discussion and rubric are also options. Inquiry as an assessment, much like rubric assessments, reviews lesson requirement completion; however, project goals are dictated by individual student artist inquiry. These goals and leading questions are established for other students to peer critique throughout the process. Throughout the multiple formats of critique, students improve their technical skills as well as their conceptual understandings for others’ artwork, developing a content base and increased awareness (Anderson, 1993).

ANALYZING THE DATA Once classes have ended, critiques are completed, and data is compiled, it then needs to be analyzed for student understanding and growth. Examples of actual students’ independent responses from initial critique informed us that we had much work to do (see Appendix, Table 34A2.2). The first individual written format involved students moving around the room analyzing peer artwork by identifying how, if, and where assignment requirements

227

CRITIQUE AS ASSESSMENT

were fulfilled. The evidence collected from this initial critique wasn’t entirely shocking; student vocabulary was still limited and they were uncomfortable with the concept of “judging” other students’ work. Subsequent Student Feedback (Appendix, Table 34A2.2) was collected in the same manner; however, students had progressed into the scaffolded curriculum. Although the student growth may seem obvious, data were collected, charted, and analyzed for evidence and for reflection in what areas students are improving and which still need focus. Students’ abilities to identify requirements, tools, and methods, as well as communicate them in oral or written format are also measurable. This assessment also provides a peer assessment upon which each student artist reflects to inform revisions that better fulfill requirements (Gruber, 2008). Students can discuss what was accomplished and suggestions for what still needs to be addressed (Lands, 2013). As students discuss artwork, not only does their ability to identify and communicate the elements and principles of design improve, but students also strengthen their ability to analyze artwork for further meaning (Gruber, 2008; House, 2008). Moving beyond the opinions and simple responses of “I like” and “it’s good”, students begin to build the understanding of why they like or perceive an element as successful both technically and conceptually. As students respond to each other’s artwork, they build vocabulary necessary to articulate interpretations of what they see (House, 2008).

CONCLUSION Providing students with tools and the confidence to use them through scaffolded experiences sets them up for success. Using appropriate, required vocabulary naturally through written or verbal context allows replacement of traditional tests, making assessment engaging, and even fun. When students enjoy the process of providing and receiving feedback, everyone gains more insight. As developing artists, mid-process peer feedback is extremely beneficial, increasing student higher order thinking and increased skill levels. When utilizing critique assessment, it is important to reduce the stress and stigma of judgment while building students’ confidence and trust in the process.

AFTERWORD Since writing this chapter, our assessment strategies and the district teacher evaluations have changed; however, we still believe that using an element tracker has its merit in certain situations. Originally, this method was used to provide quantified information in communicating with our supervisors who were evaluating us without any art education background or knowledge—one of them was specifically a math teacher. Our goals had to be numerical data that provided evidence of growth, and this is why we developed the element tracker. The tracker offered a way to analyze numbers and create graphs, while still allowing us to move away from standard tests and quizzes and was used in foundation classes to measure beginning art content knowledge. If you are in a situation where data in this format is necessary to provide for administration or evaluators, or if you are teaching a foundation or entry level course and you want a formative assessment that you can measure for growth, we recommend an approach like this. However, this is no longer our situation; assessing happens more organically these days. As Massachusetts has adopted the new National Standards, so have we—with open arms. We still use process-based assessments where students talk or write about their own artwork as well as the work of their peers. However, we no longer tally and graph our data. We still

228

Jamie Lynch and Christine Neville

believe that communicating their understanding is as important as applying this knowledge. Connecting through synthesizing and relating knowledge of concepts, materials, and technique is what we focus on now. We also support choice while guiding students to create meaningful work. For example, we are not asking students to list their materials, but explain their material choice, and how it supports their subject matter. When speaking or writing about the work of their peers, we guide students to focus on using vocabulary appropriately, while analyzing and interpreting work, the meaning of the work, the use of material, and the criteria of the assignment. We continue to use Seesaw in our classes during critiques; this tool proves to be even more integral for connecting purposes this year. The 2020–2021 school year looked different for most schools, with many classes meeting virtually. In our virtual class meetings, we had students concurrently using Seesaw to post their process pictures and then respond to the work of their peers. We most often use a PQP format including a praise, question, polish response. Students identify and communicate what elements of the artwork are working well, what one question about the piece is, what they would revise and how, or what they would do next if the piece was their own. We still moderate the feedback before allowing the class to see it and the virtual meeting allows us to provide instant verbal feedback to the students’ statements. Because this is all documented in Seesaw, it is still a great method for formative assessment—checking for students’ ability to communicate their understanding as well as attendance and engagement.

NOTE

1 Seesaw is a closed community for students to view, comment, and critique each other’s work.

REFERENCES Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives (abridged edition). Longman. Anderson, T. (1993). Defining and structuring art criticism for education. Studies in Art Education, 34(4), 199–208. Andrade, H., Hefferen, J., & Palma, M. (2014). Formative assessment in the visual arts. Studies in Art Education, 67(1), 34–40. Bloom, B. H. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook 1: Cognitive domain. David Mackay Co. Bryant, C. (2010). A 21st-century art room: The remix of creativity and technology. Studies in Art Education, 63(2), 43–48. Buster, K., & Crawford, P. (2010). The critique handbook: A sourcebook and survival guide. Pearson Education Inc. Choi, H., & Piro, J. (2009). Expanding arts education in a digital age. Arts Education Policy Review, 110(3), 27–34. Eisner, E. W. (1994). Cognition and curriculum reconsidered (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press. Gruber, D. D. (2008). Measuring student learning in art education source. Studies in Art Education, 61(5), 40–45. House, N. (2008). Using critiques in the K-12 classroom. Studies in Art Education, 61(3), 48–54. Lands, A. (2013). Informal peer conversations in the studio art classroom and the influence on students’ creative processes. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing. Lynch, J., & Neville, C. (2016). Peer critique strategies: A change from the traditional classroom discussion. Presented at the Massachusetts Art Education Association Annual Conference, Cambridge, MA. Lynch, J., & Neville, C. (2017). Peer critique strategies: A change from the traditional classroom discussion. Presented at the National Art Education Association Annual Conference, New York, NY. Smilan, C. (2015). I wish my assignments were more creative! In E. Bastos & E. Zimmerman (Eds.), Connecting creativity research and practice in art education (pp. 159–167). NAEA.

229

CRITIQUE AS ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 1 TABLE 34A1.1

In-process priority assessment. Name(s) 

 Class 

 Period 

 Content/Concept 

Example 1 Strengths:

Example 2 Strengths:

Example 3 Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Weaknesses:

Weaknesses:

Example 4 Strengths:

Example 5 Strengths:

Example 6 Strengths:

Weaknesses:

Weaknesses:

Weaknesses:

TABLE 34A1.2

In-process priority assessment. Categories of Strengths Underline common strengths and prioritize them and list below. 1. 2. 3. Categories of Weaknesses Underline common Weaknesses and prioritize them in list below. 1. 2. 3. Address each weakness with a suggested revision for improvement. Be sure to use appropriate vocabulary concerning elements, techniques and tools. 1. 2. 3.

230

Jamie Lynch and Christine Neville TABLE 34A1.3

Element tracker. Student Lori Jimmy Johnny Dan Paige

Line

Value

II

Texture

Color

III

II

Space

Shape

Form

Principles

TABLE 34A1.4 Overall student growth.

Initial Project Applying Identifying Procedural Craftsmanship Problem solving

Exemplary

Proficient

Needs Development

5 13 11 13 10 52

21 11 16 18 13 79

9 8 9 4 11 41

Does Not Meet Expectations 2 1 1 4

Final Project Applying Identifying Procedural Craftsmanship Problem Solving

Exemplary

Proficient

Needs Development

22 18 16 19 14 89

11 13 16 14 17 71

4 3 4 3 6 20

Does Not Meet Expectations 3

3

231

CRITIQUE AS ASSESSMENT

APPENDIX 2 TABLE 34A2.1

Example of Initial Student Feedback Student Feedback Form Artist’s: Johnny

Strength

Suggestion

1. NF 2. CB 3. RS 4. TA 5. NRB

Nice colors Nice lions I like the red and yellow I like it, looks nice High quality, creative use of details Lacrosse sticks

Not enough stuff Delete the text Add more details If you delete some images it will look better Could have added more texture

TABLE 34A2.2

Example of Subsequent Student Feedback Artist: Jimmy

Strength

Suggestion

1. LN 2. AB

The black wings add a mystic feel to the shield. The center of the shield looks very real due to the texture. The lines are very clean and straight. The color gradation on the shield is a great addition, showing form. Colors of gray and white are consistent.

Something red for color consistency for the flames. The colors should have more depth—maybe a deeper blue and deeper yellow? The cup in the middle looks like it should be taller. Add more texture to the vines.

3. MP 4. TA 5. CV

Something consistent with the color green for the leaves or change it to black to keep color consistency.

35 The Art Throwdown Process and Production in an Interscholastic Competition John Brandhorst

The model of the Art Throwdown proposes a shift in art competition paradigms that presents art process and production in a head-to-head platform much like a track meet or debate tournament. Art programs that participate in the Throwdown are expected to create teams of artists to collaborate and compete at their highest levels and be judged by art professionals to earn points for the team. In this competitive assessment model, there is no standard rubric. Assessment criteria are established through dialogue between the judges, coaches, and the competitors prior to the competitions. The competition, like a track meet, is divided into separate individual events that demand a wide variety of media and approaches to be mastered. Each event is judged by an outside art professional who specializes in the processes of that event. The judge will meet with the contestants just prior to the competition to discuss the terms and expectations. As the competition begins, the judges, spectators, and teacher coaches are allowed to participate in the process of creation, not just the product as in the exhibition model. The judge declares winners immediately after the heat by declaring fifth through first place rankings based solely on their professional experience. The judge may choose to elaborate on their reasoning or not. No arguing is allowed. This process is agreed upon by all teams prior to the event. It is understood that the judge is a legitimate representative of the discipline being assessed. We have had no problems with this assessment model. Points are allotted for each event and tallied to create a team total. At the end of the event, the team with the most points wins. Teams may enter as many or as few events as they are able to. Stronger, more diverse programs have a clear advantage here as more events avail them to more points. Events are collaboratively planned by participating teachers. This is one of the most challenging and exciting aspects of the event as art teachers must reach out of their general isolation across their district and region and distill agreeable terms and expectations for each event. From this process, a network of highly activated programs automatically forms that validates the energy of teachers to themselves, to their colleagues, and to their administrators as indicators of high-level teaching performance. The events happen at venues that require art teachers to directly collaborate with the art professionals, museum educational representatives, and potential judges in their communities. This far exceeds the DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-46

233

THE ART THROWDOWN

standard logistics of a simple field trip or “studio experience”. The national art standards call for an awareness of the artist’s place in the larger world (National Coalition for Core Standards, 2014), and the Art Throwdown makes that real for the students and maybe more importantly, for the teacher (see Appendix for a complete list of specific standards that the Art Throwdown addresses). The following excerpt of events from the 2019 Atlanta Dogwood Festival Throwdown provides an example of typical cross-media competitive events (Table 35.1). I was presented with the idea of Art Throwdown by Jeff Mather. He is a career artist/ educator and community coach who has worked nationally to instill collaboration and community participation into the creative process. Jeff asked some very simple questions about art as compared to sports in the school environment. Why isn’t there an “art season” like “football season”? Why can’t art be created by multi-disciplinary teams in competition like thespians do with state one act plays? How come there are math competitions but not art competitions? At the high school level, competition is an essential component of validity. It steps ahead of mere “assessment” just as the “best in show” moniker carries cache beyond the TABLE 35.1

Atlanta Dogwood festival Throwdown event profile 12:30–2:30 PM

Tik Tok Video Competition 2 pairs of 2 collaborating artists per team. (4 artists total). The teams are to use the Tik Tok app to create a 15 second video that uses and expands on the energy, art, people, and environment of the Dogwood festival. This video competition is intended to exercise the creative potential of the app over and above its use to create “CRINGE”. The Dogwood Festival is a dynamic and giant expression of the culture and people of the City of Atlanta. Artists are free to use Tik Tok and any other app at their discretion to create a highly manipulated, highly engrossing, and highly entertaining video. There are numerous titles on YouTube that describe the use of this app and countless examples of good (and cringy) creative results.

1–1:30 PM

Formal Portraiture: Superintendent Meria Carstarphen Judge: Bill Goodman, Director of Multimedia and Brand Design for APS 2 individually competing artists per team. In this challenge the contestants will be making a live portrait of the Superintendent of the Atlanta Public Schools, Dr. Meria Carstarphen. She has agreed to sit for 30 minutes for artists to create an exacting, expressive and freshly rendered likeness. Knowing the subject, artists are encouraged to practice the portrait using online resources prior to the event itself. During the event contestants ARE NOT allowed to use digital or printed media to support their work. Drawings must be made from scratch using observation only. 12 x 18 white drawing paper will be supplied. Artists may choose and bring their own dry linear and/or aqueous media, drawing board, and any necessary tools to create this likeness. The judge will choose the winners for the purposes of the competition; however, Dr. C will select one portrait that will be handed over as a gift to her.

12:30-2:30

Botanical Sculpture 1 pair of collaborating artist per team. Teams will have 2 hours to create a sculpture based on orchid forms presented by members of the Atlanta Botanical Garden staff. Artists are to use provided clay plus other armature building materials to render an interpretation of the complex forms that comprise these stunning organisms. Artist teams are encouraged to manipulate the clay in a variety of ways to expand on the observed forms. This is not a challenge to make a duplication of a single existing species. It is intended to flex the sculptors’ ability to use a given vocabulary of forms in compelling ways. The sculptures will not be fired and will not likely endure past the judging and documentation of the results. Clay will be reclaimed and given to the winning school if they so choose.

234

John Brandhorst

“A” it may have received as a grade from the teacher. The Art Throwdown presents a series of individual and collaborative events that test not just the students’ skills, but also the depth and breadth of the school art departments themselves. Art teachers are asked to think about their programs and their students as other coaches are required to, as a whole and in the context of the larger population of art programs. This is a very exciting proposal to highly active, creative programs and a potential threat to less productive programs. This immediately calls for art teachers to foster talents and creative diversity of skills, media, and collaboration as they are suggested, defined, and required in the competition event profiles. It is fascinating to read the standards for high school art education in light of the Throwdown model. If one reads them in terms of “the Student Shall…” then the student may well create a personal, enlightened, and competitive portfolio. If the standards are read in terms that “the Teacher Shall…” or “the Program Shall…” it creates a platform for regenerating the life blood of the profession. The Throwdown asks for programs to act at the advanced levels of the standards rubric at minimum. It is fascinating that nowhere in the standards is the word “compete” to be found. Nowhere in the advanced rubric is the concept of collaboration addressed. If we are attempting to create a culture of lone talent as is iconized in the art history canon, then the national standards might suffice (although the percentages of professional success do not bear out). If we are attempting to open student awareness to the potential of collaboration to foster creativity in the 21st-century global capitalism, the standards fall short. I have not found another competition like this in my research. The nearest thing to Throwdown that I could find is seen in plein-air “quick draw” competitions. Certain communities are having graffiti mural throwdowns but these are not school-related. In 2010, the BRAVO channel created a reality show called “Work of Art: The Next Great Artist”. All other competitions did not call for face-to-face events as this one does. Since initiating the Art Throwdown more than ten years ago, we have seen it capture the imaginations of an increasing number of programs. What started as a friendly rivalry between Midtown High (my program) and North Atlanta High (my wife’s program at the time) has expanded to impact more than 50 schools and become an adopted component of the Atlanta Regional and Georgia State NAHS conferences. I have received inquiries and reports of new competition sites from various other districts and locations around the country. No two Throwdowns have been the same as the events are tailored to the specific locations, national trends, and suggestions of the participants. We hope that any two programs that wish to can simply call each other and say “Hey, Let’s Throwdown!” If it happens in ALL other areas in the curricular and extra-curricular disciplines in school, why not art?

REFERENCE National Coalition for Core Standards (2014). National core arts standards: A conceptual framework for arts learning. State Education Agency Directors of Arts Education (SEADAE). Retrieved January, 2015, from http://www. nationalartsstandards.org/

APPENDIX NATIONAL STANDARDS MET BY THE ART THROWDOWN VA:Cr1.1.IIIa: Visualize and hypothesize to generate plans for ideas and directions for creating art and design that can affect social change. VA:Cr1.2.IIIa: Choose from a range of materials and methods of traditional and contemporary artistic practices, following or breaking established conventions, to plan the making of multiple works of art and design based on a theme, idea, or concept.

THE ART THROWDOWN

235

VA:Cr3.1.IIIa: Reflect on, reengage, revise, and refine works of art or design considering relevant traditional and contemporary criteria as well as personal artistic vision. VA:Pr4.1.IIIa: Critique, justify, and present choices in the process of analyzing, selecting, curating, and presenting artwork for a specific exhibit or event. VA:Re8.1.IIIa: Analyze differing interpretations of an artwork or collection of works in order to select and defend a plausible critical analysis. VA:Re9.1.IIIa: Construct evaluations of a work of art or collection of works based on differing sets of criteria. VA:Re7.2.IIIa: Determine the commonalities within a group of artists or visual images attributed to a particular type of art, timeframe, or culture. VA:Cn10.1.IIIa: Synthesize knowledge of social, cultural, historical, and personal life with art-making approaches to create meaningful works of art or design (National Core Art Standards, Page 8).

36 Summary Section V An Assessment: Art-integrated Instruction and Collaborative Learning Michelle Tillander

This commentary has several intentions: (1) to observe the paths, obstacles, and shifting terrain of visual arts assessment, which the next few chapters will map and also provide a look into classroom assessment practices around arts integration and collaboration; and (2) to offer several provocations, as an invitation, to explore assessment thoughts, discussions, questions, interests, innovations, and ideas in relation to art-integrated instruction and collaborative learning. The invitation is to develop “provocations” with students, peers, and community in order to develop a topographical depiction of assessment as a way to better inform these practices in the 21st century. Assessment, as a tool, has been used across many paths and boundaries, as both historic and disciplined means. The points on the map of assessment in art education have evolved from turbulent tides and conflicting currents. The art educator must engage in assessment and fully reconsider assessment’s role and influences in order to map the paths, pivots, and turns that assessment has asserted in teaching practices, learning experiences derived from teaching practices, and students’ arts learning. Lorinne Lee, Bjana Lunde, Jamie Lynch and Christine Neville, and John Brandhorst argued for discreet types of assessment. They all presented a variety of approaches to consider collaborative and collective practices in arts integration, school cultures, and the complex dynamic of assessment of students learning in and through the arts. They struggled with how to show the complex terrain that assessment in art education commands, that is, how to identify students’ emerging skills and how to provide the right kind of support at the right time and at the right level. We are now into the third decade of the 21st century; however, the vestiges of the 20th-century education and assessment continue to affect us. The authors in the following chapters explore a variety of assessment approaches for many reasons that are contextually situated in each of their respective school cultures. In considering this commentary in these chapters, the following question is raised: •

How is arts learning assessed within the context of collaboration and integrated lessons?

DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-47

SUMMARY SECTION V

237

Herpin et al. (2012), in a study commissioned by the National Endowment for the Arts, concluded that additional work on arts assessment is needed to specifically understand how to collect data for multiple purposes and how to engage in professional development. Herpin et al. (2012) wanted to provide a clear framework to align standards, curriculum, and instruction and to also have access to exemplar tools. The authors offered models of assessment practice to make resources available and to offer professional learning to communities in order to share knowledge and ask questions to move the arts assessment forward with a continual search agenda in regard to assessment. Beattie (1998) and Boughton (1996) agreed that a standardized performance assessment is futile because of the missing interpretation in a cultural setting. While there can be a national model, assessment standards, therefore, are best left to local school districts, schools, and art teachers and students. Measuring the results of arts-integrated instruction remains a challenge, and the literature indicates that more research is required to address how to measure the effects of arts-integration efforts (Herpin et al., 2012). Herpin et al. concluded that exploring the measurement of teacher practice and student learning in arts-integrated settings should be considered in the broad spectrum of constructs (e.g., institutional, professional development, teacher, and student). These constructs can be measured (1) when making decisions about designing, evaluating, or studying an arts-integration initiative; (2) when considering empirical as well as theoretical language; (3) when using assessment tools and instruments that are not specific to a particular integration approach; and (4) when reviewing scientific literature on the evaluation of art integration. For example, Marshall and D’Adamo (2011) stated that art practice as research employs skills that are transferable to other academic fields. Horowitz and Webb-Dempsey (2002) specifically called for changes in students’ attitudes and behaviors. Social emotional changes for students are important outcomes to a study in the context of art integration; these include decision-making skills and an openness to integration and collaboration. In Chapter 32, Lorinne Lee posited that students develop a greater understanding for the creative process when they discuss open-ended questions and confirm their creative vision and final solutions of the integrative arts sculpture lesson. Through a series of questions, such as how do positive and negative forms work together and how do materials work with light, students are guided through self-reflection. Lee used group discussions and critiquing as methods for students to re-examine and justify their use of shapes and forms in the sculptural works. Reflection and revisions are encouraged as ways to provide students a process to expand and investigate their ideas across the visual art and math disciplines in which geometry standards were referenced to meet the goal of visualizing relationships between two-dimensional and three-dimensional objects. Lunde used inquiry thinking and rubrics as assessement tools for an integrated ceramic whistle project. Specifically, Lunde employed these tools to assess (1) the communication of the execution of artwork ideas; (2) personal expression as uniquely created by the student; (3) overall design, in this case the use of all sides; (4) the technical skills or craftsmanship; and (5) the degree of risk-taking and failure. Griffin and Care (2014) valued assessment information to make decisions about targeted teaching intervention, and they avoided the concept of failure. They took a developmental approach involving targeted intervention under the concept of readiness to learn. Lunde’s iterative approach to assessment is, in part, a creative solution to mixed classes, such as Ceramics I and II, as well as mixed abilities, including special needs, as well as an approach to integration. Assessment for Lunde is therefore situated as a growth model to use intervention as both a teaching strategy and an assessemnt tool. The growth model assumes that art teachers’ choice of practices is linked to student performance and development, and, to a degree, counts on formative assessment practices. Combining performance and the developmental assessment approach surpasses the result of any one measure, allowing the art student to be observed through a general developmental construct.

238

Michelle Tillander

Beattie (1998) stated, “As instruction increasingly emphasizes [a] thinking and reasoning process, metacognitive processes, and other types of knowledge, assessment experts are responding with strategies for assessing knowledge related to content, processes, conditions, self, motor skills, attitudes, preconceptions, misconceptions, and expanded notions of creativity and intelligence” (p. 4). In Chapter 34, Lynch and Neville collectively focused on scaffolding art learning to build confidence, trust, and community for students without experience and background and who often rely on judgment. Lynch and Neville, through professional dialogue, agreed that their students should have a critiquing experience, and therefore they developed an approach to use critiquing as an assessment tool that linked to their school districts’ focus on the use of priority assessments.1 Their assessment, grounded in their art education practice and schools, explored (1) peer critiques, (2) the school districts’ use of priority assessments for visual art vocabualry, concepts, and techniques, (3) the collaborative development of an element tracker chart to assess student identification, and (4) the discussion of the Elements and Principles of Art within written responses, critiques, and artwork to replace standard format quizzes and tests. For most art educators beginning their career, integrating the assessment process into the teaching and learning process is not feasible, and, as such, assessment often takes on a peripheral location in the everyday practices of the art classroom. Beattie (1998) outlined a set of principles for assessment and several principles that are evidenced in the practices of chapter authors Lorinne Lee, Bjana Lunde, Jamie Lynch and Christine Neville, and John Brandhorst. Beattie stated that assessment should consider the following criteria: • • • • • • • • • • • •

contextual and authentic focusing on both products and process providing opportunities for students to revise and make changes in products and processes responding to different types of knowledge responding to expanded and current notions of intelligence and creativity having a concern for students’ preconceptions and misconceptions being equal for all having standards based on children’s developmental levels comparing students’ performances to past performances with referenced criteria responding to collaborative and cooperative learning being explicit and ordered exemplifying the latest and best assessment techniques or formats

For Seidel et al., (2009), assessment and the arts can be seen as two factors that do not mix. The tension between assessment and the arts is that assessing the arts is primarily from advocates of the arts and policymakers of the arts. These policymakers desire the arts—in their level of importance—to be placed alongside core academic subjects. According to Brandhorst, art educators often think more about students holistically and the quality of their programs than about the need to assess levels of student learning in a more formal and accountable way. Brandhorst shifted the art competition paradigm to a showcase process and production, and he saw collective competition as valid beyond assessment or “best in show.” Brandhorst was dismayed with the notion of the art exhibition, that is, the lone artist competition. Brandhorst used an approach, developed by community-based public artist and environmental sculptor, Jeff Mather, who called the approach an Art Throwdown.2 The Art Throwdown is a collaborative team art competition that engages both the individual and the team from other district high schools, considering traditional as well as contemporary art and a variety of art materials. The process situates the schools as cultural collaborators with museums, galleries, the press, and civic perception. The shift is a result of the challenges of

SUMMARY SECTION V

239

many years of art district exhibitions, art as decoration of other events, and salon-style democratically selected artwork from a variety of lessons. What remains resilient and dynamic in the section chapters is that these art educators continue to instigate innovations in the assessment of student art learning, program evaluation, and professional development. Visual arts assessments of particular places and at particular moments suggest that appropriate ways of prioritizing assessment purposes include the following criteria: student arts learning, a balance of art activities, reflection, and dialogue. What dynamically impacts art educators’ response to assessment and use of assessment are a consideration of skill sets (physical, cognitive, and social), the curriculum, the oftentimes spontaneous responses in the art room, and school culture. Assessment in a bigger cultural context also evaluates the success and failures of educational reforms, and therefore assessment is a provocateur of change. For example, teaching, learning, and assessment have become constructed by a testing and accountability culture. With the widespread implementation of high-stakes testing initiatives and systems, students have become resolved to consider assessment as something done to them, not including the sense of developing dispositions and skills for lifelong learning. Greater attention to assessment in the visual arts not only supports art education as a stand-alone discipline, but assessment also offers an opportunity to model innovative and effective assessment practice for all educational endeavors. Gates (2017) prompted us to consider that art educators should confront subjectivity in assessment practices and that art education needs to “engage in the difficult task of creating assessment instruments to assess some of the subjective aspects of art that are central to learning in our discipline” (p. 28). If we do not activate some of this thinking, then we risk compromising rich aspects of art education to the regimes of standardization and accountability. Similarly, to not be seduced by the technology, we must still start with the learning but not negate the role of technology in assessment. Tools for analytics and assessment are therefore advancing rapidly along with artificial intelligence. Contributing authors Lorinne Lee, Bjana Lunde, Jamie Lynch and Christine Neville, and John Brandhorst provided insight into the creativity and innovation in arts assessment in regard to assessment criteria, arts integration, collaboration, risk-taking and engagement, and collective competition. How much of these negotiations with assessment are driven by the cultural interface of technology—knowledge that includes the ways in which art students today naturally learn in and through the ubiquitous nature of today’s platforms and tools? Technological changes, along with the culture of schools, spurred by the following trends relative to the ubiquity of technology in and outside of the visual arts influence the idiosyncratic methods and approaches for assessing student growth in and through the arts. These trends include: • • • • • • •

Flow, ubiquity, and the permeable nature of information and images. Professional learning communities and collaboration. Makerspace,3 hackerspaces,4 and DIY5 culture. Workforce patterns with shifting skills situate the ability to retool as a lifelong skill. Globalization and the ability to consider many perspectives/worldviews along with cultural differences and similarities. Role of visual art inquiry, experimentation, refinement, problem-solving, and problemfinding. Temporary nature of product and process to control and imagine one’s path and pivot as changes occur.

As with technology, the makerspace, hackerspace, and DIY movements are expanding opportunities, in practice and theory, to consider learning and school as related but

240

Michelle Tillander

independent spaces. In today’s network, world assessment and learning can be kept private or shared with peers in a co-learning or collaborative structure and finally engage experts globally. In addition, these movements also provide insight into collaboration and integrating other knowledge domains. The role of technology and assessment will therefore need to be addressed beyond exploration of tools limited to high-stakes testing and the traditional classroom environment. Halverson and Sheridan (2014) noted, “Learning through making reaches across the divide between formal and informal learning, pushing us to think more expansively about where and how learning happens” (p. 498). According to Hatch (2014), makerspace activities and mindsets are organized around nine key ideas: make, share, give, learn, tool up, play, participate, support, and change. In a making and thinking environment, the art educator can identify students’ emerging skills in order to provide the right kind of support at the right time and at the right level, provoking both the comfort of assessing capability and the often ambiguity of meaningful assessment. Innovative visual arts assessment is needed to develop the nexus between theory and practice. As Taylor (2014) noted, “Assessments in teacher education are often separated from learning experience in real teacher practice” (p. 136), resulting in an expression of understanding based on assumptions and conjecture. However, assessment in the visual arts, when done well, is grounded, as with academic disciplines, as subjects in which serious learning takes place and can be measured. The struggle for many art educators is that the visual arts are personalized, process-oriented, complex, and holistic, and they contrast assessment as uniform, product-oriented, reductive, and analytic. As exemplified by the chapters in this section, achieving multiple purposes of assessment across art education is not only a promise of good assessment practices, but also one of assessment’s most difficult challenges. Art teachers must continue to clarify their positions, that is, we cannot be all things all the time. As the authors who follow show us, it is important to challenge pedagogical models of assessment that push students to disengage from thought and action. It is also important not to push students to uncritically submit to the positions of others’ aesthetic judgments as mere expressions of opinion, rather than invitations to critical discussions and solid assessment practices. It should not be suggested that either traditional or innovative assessment approaches are unimportant or irrelevant to students’ art experiences and learning. However, what is required is a critical engagement with how the developed assessments impact real-life situations, as well as at the cultural interface of teaching and learning in and through the arts.

NOTES

1 Priority assessments are similar to benchmarks, that is, they are used for grading purposes, for checking students’ understanding, and for providing feedback to instructors regarding students’ needs in the lesson. 2 The “seed” for what became the “Art Throwdown” by Jeff Mather was planted approximately in 2004 at a gathering of artist activists and art educators in Philadelphia. It was convened by the Pew Trust called Power in Practice. https://artthrowdown.com/pics/JeffStory.pdf 3 Makerspace—a place in which people with shared interests, especially in art, computing, or technology, can gather to work on projects while sharing ideas, equipment, and knowledge. 4 Hackerspaces are community-operated, often “not for profit” (501(c)(3) in the United States), workspace where people with common interests, such as computers, machining, technology, science, digital art, or electronic art, can meet, socialize, and collaborate. 5 DIY culture—see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_it_yourself

REFERENCES Beattie, D. K. (1998). Assessment in Art Education. Davis. Boughton, D. (1996). Evaluation and assessing art education: Issues and prospects. In D. Boughton, E. Eisner, & J. Ligtvoet (Eds.), Evaluating and assessing the visual arts in education: International perspectives (pp. 293–309). Teachers College Press.

SUMMARY SECTION V

241

Gates, L. (2017). ASSESSMENT: Embracing subjective assessment practices: Recommendations for art educators. Art Education, 70(1), 23–28. Griffin, P., & Care, E. (2014). Assessment is for teaching. In P. Griffin (Ed.), Assessment for teaching (pp. 1–12). Cambridge University Press. Hatch, M. (2014). The maker movement manifesto. McGraw-Hill. Halverson, E., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504. Herpin, S., Quinn, A., & Li, J. (2012). Improving the assessment of student learning in the arts. National Endowment for the Arts. https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/WestEd-final-report.pdf Horowitz, R., & Webb-Dempsey, J. (2002). Promising signs of positive effects: Lessons from the multi-arts studies. In R. Deasy (Ed.), Critical links: Learning in the arts and student academic and social development (pp. 98–100). Arts Education Partnership. Marshall, J., & D’Adamo, K. (2011). Arts practice as research in the classroom. Art Education, 64(5), 12–18. Seidel, S., Tishman, S., Winner, E., Hetland, L., & Palmer, P. (2009). The qualities of quality: Understanding excellence in arts education. Commissioned by the Wallace Foundation with support from the Arts Education Partnership. Harvard Graduate School of Education, Project Zero. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/artseducation/arts-classroom-instruction/Documents/Understanding-Excellence-in-Arts-Education.pdf Taylor, R. (2014). ‘It’s all in the context’: Indigenous education for pre-service teachers. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 43(2), 134–143.

Section VI: Questions and discussion points

1. Reflect upon the notion that the visual arts and performing arts are integral to all learning, and to appreciation of a full life. Consider ways that the arts can be authentically incorporated into learning assessment throughout the educational experience. 2. Much of 21st-century assessment remains tethered to 20th-century thinking and educational values. Think about a lesson that you recently developed or taught. a. What educational objectives seem out-of-date and why? b. What learning really matters in this lesson? c. How can you restyle this lesson so that you are assessing what really matters to students? 3. In Chapter 32, Lorinne Lee described an art and math integrated lesson. a. What form of integration did she practice with her math teacher colleague and how might this lesson have been impacted by a different approach to art integration? b. How does assessing using open-ended questions impact integrated learning in each content area? c. What do teachers need to know before embarking on this integration journey? 4. Bjana Lunde describes an integrated lesson with ceramics art and the physics of sound. Expand upon the integrated practice outlined in this chapter by considering ways to include other discipline colleagues and the community in this learning experience. What might the assessment look like if Ms. Lunde involved partners outside of the school? 5. Jamie Lynch and Christine Neville described a collaboration among students through interactive, formative, and summative assessments. a. How can teachers involve students in peer critiques? b. How can art teachers negotiate what matters in student learning through collaborative dialogue? c. How do art teachers negotiate control over assessments? 6. John Brandhorst describes a competitive assessment model in which rubrics are not utilized. a. What is the role of competition in art learning? DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-48

Section VI: Questions and discussion points

243

b. In situational learning where students challenge each other in collaborative exercises, what is the role of the teacher in assessment? c. How is the learning impacted by this shift in this model? 7. In the chapter summary, what provocations were you invited to consider about your own assessment planning and practice? 8. How, if at all, has collaborative assessment been integrated into your practice due to the 2020–2021 COVID-19 pandemic? Did this worldwide event permanently alter forms of collaborative learning?

SECTION VII

Closing Thoughts

Education is a complex endeavor. The educators and theorists in this book attempt to address the accountability that the institution of school demands without sacrificing creative outcomes. For many of the teachers in this book, the National Standards for Visual Arts provides an imaginative platform for framing their practice and explaining their assessment priorities. For these teachers, the Standards are an open concept for expansive approaches to rethinking the learning that is possible in the art classroom. Expanding our conceptions of what learning is possible and what it might look like has been critically important in the recent transition to on-line learning due to the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic.

GUIDED READING POINTS • • • • •

How do the educators in this book strive to form a synthesis of instructional objectives and expressive outcomes in their practice? How do they approach the National Standards for Visual Arts as an open concept for achieving these educational ends? How can authentic assessment in the art classroom challenge reductive conceptions of the mind and delimited boundaries of knowledge? How does thinking of art education as focusing on the lived experience of the student rather than as blocks of knowledge to master reorient us to new forms of assessment? Beyond art-specific content assessment, how do art teachers use their assignments and assessment protocols to determine empathetic understandings, social-emotional growth, and determine student well-being?

DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-49

37 Conclusion Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan

The compilation of approaches and strategies to art education assessment presented in this book provides a snapshot by which to take the pulse of various mandates to documenting student learning outcome and teacher impact in visual arts education. As previously mentioned, it was never the editors’ goal to provide a “how to” text, nor to dictate assessment measures. Rather, we hope that within these chapters, art teachers will find information to reflect on their classroom practice and revisit conversations about what growth is worthy of being measured and why. Within this framework, we encourage art teachers to not only think about assessment, but upon their curricular choices as well, and thereby, beyond meeting district mandates, their assessments reflect their concerns as caring secondary educators. In these chapters, we invite readers to consider important themes related to an education in the arts: visual literacy and personal narrative, risk-taking, empathy, and integrative and collaborative learning. As individual art teachers/authors submitted contributions that they self-identified among the themes, we found significant overlap of foci; many of the contributions fit multiple sections, indicating that art teachers are, in fact, concerned with teaching and learning in multiple domains. We did not require that they had to base these lessons on state or national standards; we simply wanted examples of good teaching. Nevertheless, these lessons are replete with examples of how good teachers leverage standards to engage students in deeply personal learning. In these chapters, we find collective evidence that art teachers do so much more than teach media skills and techniques; they use their expertise in visual language to guide students to explore essential ideas that extend beyond quantifiable measures. The critical thinking and humanist quality of an education in the arts forces art educators to continue the fight against the pigeonholing of public education: a regression to the mean of convergent responses to prompts and equations.

CONVERGENT AND DIVERGENT RESPONSES As much as the field of art education cultivates dreaming and aspiration, there are some hard realities of the field as well. In design, a product must be delivered to a client on deadline. It must meet established criteria. Educational objectives can address a serious instructional DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-50

248

Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan

need in these situations. However, as Najuana Lee notes in her chapter, in the visual arts, there are ample examples of students completing assessment tasks not because they address a core educational need, but because they are easily tested and assessed skill. For example, all licensed art educators know what a color wheel is supposed to look like. All the student needs to do is create a mimetic representation of the teacher’s knowledge. In many other arts disciplines, the transfer of mimetic knowledge is the core of instruction. For example, ballet students endlessly repeat and perfect the execution of a plié. Music conservatories make no apologies for memetic repetition. Conservatories conserve tradition. They are places where knowledge is preserved and passed to the next generation. However, even in highly mimetic instructional settings, repetition extends beyond just getting the notes and beat right. It includes criteria like musical tone and creates an aesthetic form. For example, in the assessment of a secondary school violin performance of Jules Massenet’s Meditation, there is a preexisting model of quantitative and qualitative factors, known to external judges, to which the student must adhere. When the educational aspiration is to attempt to bring all students to a preconceived common point, the teacher explicitly desires convergent responses. We see elements of this conservatory/design tradition in Bjana Lunde’s classroom assessments. In a multicultural project, she maintains the criterion that the students’ flutes need to work. They need to be functional. No amount of aesthetic delight is relevant if the object does not perform its basic function. Lunde wants the students to problem solve a utilitarian problem through the constraints of the materials provided. The students need to figure out how to get the materials to work. In this book, art educators blend both educational objectives and expressive outcomes to guiding students to convergent and divergent responses, to support students’ engagement with art. Together, these objectives and outcomes that are interwoven into the relevant standards instill problem solving skills that will sustain a student in engaging the world outside of the art classroom. To help explain how art educators engage in this process of teaching to both convergent and divergent responses, Eisner (2002) turned to John Dewey’s distinction between standards and criteria. Standards are benchmarks that students are expected to meet; criteria are guideposts to help provide students with a vision of what to do next. For both Dewey and Eisner, the distinguishing trait of the visual arts is that they trafficked in criteria. Students do more than follow instructions; they learn to form their own pathways. This aligns with NeoPragmatist philosopher Richard Rorty’s (1989) proposal that the purpose of education was to produce “strong poets”: people who had the aesthetic desire to think for themselves. In this book, we see examples of teachers employing standards as a launching point to reach criteria, in pursuit of assessing their student’s inner strength at becoming strong poets.

SAILING TO NEW SHORES As discussed previously, a favorite expressive outcome of Eisner’s (2002), which he borrowed from Dewey, is flexible purposing. He used this term to illustrate the limitations of educational objectives. Educational objectives establish an expected product. They presuppose that the teacher can fully anticipate student responses, and therefore, the teacher will have a rubric at the ready to assess how well the student’s work fits a predefined canon. In contrast, expressive outcomes rely on the exercise of judgment by the student to sail to new and unexpected shores. Flexible purposing values wide-awake attentiveness to realize that, in a moment of inquiry, fresh, unanticipated, and potentially more valuable outcomes may present themselves. Flexible purposing is the ability to change course. It can be seen, for example, in how the student deliberately reinvents the problem. Here, the issues of assessment

CONCLUSION

249

ask how a student challenged a paradigm rather than how the student problem solved within constraints. It focuses on detailing how a child improvised; it places less emphasis on a reductive homogenized response. It is difficult to write expressive outcomes in advance of a lesson for they are opportunities that are seized in the moment. It is, however, possible to write lesson criteria that reward personal perspectives and less-than-obvious journeys and conclusions. A teacher can be clear that divergent responses are not simply encouraged but expected. Expressive outcomes celebrate breaking the rules. Thus, they confront educators with reconsidering their own values. They force educators to come to terms with the degree of importance they give to following directions, focus on craftsmanship and a product over the possibility of new solutions. How do we value compliance and control? Both compliance and control may help us to neatly achieve our designed objectives through our carefully constructed means, but what does this do to our aims for education? Do we believe that producing compliant, docile workers best serves our current aims of helping our students gain employment? Do we believe that pre-designed learning outcomes move us closer to the founding aims of public education to create a responsible citizenry that can think for itself? How fearless can we be in leaving the rehearsed and safe curriculum? To try to meet this challenge, the National Core Arts Standards (National Coalition for Core Standards, 2014) strive for open criteria that provide space to allow skilled art teachers to move to expressive outcomes. But teachers need to be aware of how to seize this opportunity in their own practice. Otherwise, it is simple to rely on the trusted outcomes of educational objectives. Two examples from the new Core Visual Arts Standards may help to illustrate this point of the difference between instructional objectives and expressive outcomes and how these might change the expectations of learning in a classroom and thereby move toward different aims. First, in the Visual Arts Artistic Process 4; Connecting: Anchor Standard 11, Relate, the Proficient high school student can “Describe how knowledge of culture, traditions, and history may influence personal responses to art.” There is a wide range of interpretation on how a teacher prepares students to describe. The teacher may force-feed students with a constrained set of facts that the students are to parrot back to demonstrate an adequate description. In contrast, the teacher may focus on visual inquiry skills that the students are to apply to shape their own individualized, personal, divergent responses. Similarly, a teacher may choose to teach from a limited number of images that the teacher deems iconic. Here, the instructions could be delivered as educational objectives, facts that the teacher knows and wants the students to acquire. Alternatively, in a more culturally sensitive classroom, a teacher might feel compelled to teach from the culture, traditions, and history relevant to the students’ experiences. In these situations, teachers might authentically discover cultural perspectives that they previously had been unaware of. The diversity of teachers’ own students prompts teachers’ growth in envisioning diverse responses. Continuing with this same standard, the rubric for Advanced performance points to the student achieving an expressive outcome: “Appraise the impact of an artist or a group of artists on the beliefs, values, and behaviors of a society.” Appraise is a word that suggests the student is forming their own judgment—not merely remembering the information provided by the teacher. This introduction of student judgment opens the lesson to interpretation and student directing the educational experience to their own interests—which may have been unanticipated by the teacher. As a second example of how the Core Standards support both instructional objectives and expressive outcomes, consider Visual Arts Artistic Process 1; Creating: Anchor Standard 2, Investigate. Here, the essential question that guides the standard invites the exploration of trial and error. Although unstated, the arts often seize on error as an opportunity, a window into new possibilities previously unexplored. This would lead to expressive outcomes.

250

Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan

However, the teacher could also interpret error as making mistakes, and the teacher might want to instill practices that minimize mistakes. A fixation on helping students fix mistakes would lead to a greater reliance on instructional objectives. The Proficient rubric for this standard calls for students to “Engage in making a work of art or design without having a preconceived plan.” This could be interpreted in multiple ways. For example, the teacher could impose a series of constraints that narrowly constrict the open exploration a student can do. This would be more in-line with instructional objectives. Alternatively, the teacher might challenge the students to engage in more open and expansive forms of inquiry to maximize the possibility for expressive outcomes. The same dichotomy within the Standards to support both expressive outcomes and instructional objectives holds true at the Advanced level as well where students will “experiment, plan, and make multiple works of art and design that explore a personally meaningful theme, idea, or concept.” The word experiment suggests the taking of risks and exposing oneself to failure, but it is left to the classroom teacher if a student is taught to fail-forward by building on unanticipated opportunities. For the teacher focused on instructional objectives, experiment might be interpreted as allowing the student the space to make a series of predictable errors, and then stepping in at the appropriate moment to show the student how to correctly fix these mistakes.

ART AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Another often forgotten important educational aim in objectives-driven classrooms is educating for socially responsible citizens. We often neglect that the reason that art was first introduced into public school curricula in the early 19th century was for its power to lure students to learning, and through learning they would transform into responsible citizens who could assume the duties of the revolutionary idea of democratic self-governance. Although this initial purpose was swept away by the promise that the arts could contribute to design industries, nevertheless it is important to note that the power of the arts to prepare critical citizens for democratic societies was the first purpose for teaching art through government-sponsored education. This entails creating a citizenry that can discriminate in pursuit of its own best self-interest: citizens capable of distinguishing between an altruistic aesthetic pursuit of sharing one’s perspective and mere self-indulgence. This is a curriculum of critical responsibility—how our well-being is contextualized in the well-being of others. Our society is based on the concept of “we the people,” not “I, the individual.” How do we shape the common “we,” or create, as the artist Joseph Beuys called it, the social sculpture (Biesta, 2017)? This civic task is profoundly visual; it requires that we see not only the full scope of what is visible to us, but also those who, up until now, have been invisible. While this is a profound task of education, again, such concerns may seem tangential to administrators obsessed with the results on standardized education. Our fixation on educational objectives can easily cause us to lose sight of our educational aims. To resist these trends, art teachers have the power to challenge and change deeply engrained dysfunctional educational narratives. In this book, we see teachers taking on this challenge by demonstrating flexibility for assessing students on dynamic criteria such as risk-taking (Nick Hostert) or care-of-self, and care-of-others (Lauren Phillips), socially engaged learning (Roxanne Brown and Abby Newland), and empowering student voice through cyclical self-assessment and inquiry (Morgan Bozarth). In these and the other examples, our goals were to demonstrate what good teachers are doing now. This is not a hypothetical book of what teachers ought to be doing; this is a snapshot, at this moment, of teaching. In that sense, this book presents an evolving picture of what assessment both is and can become, as all of education begins to move out

251

CONCLUSION

of its deep slumber induced through decades of enchantment with standardized testing. In the wake of that illusionary hope for measurement, there is hope for new, more authentic, attempts to describe student engagement with and personal progression with deep forms of student learning that goes beyond the facile reporting of ranked scores and percentiles.

EXPRESSION: BEYOND EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION WITH MATERIALS A traditional form of curriculum has been based on student exploration of materials. On the elementary level, this has often been associated with a fixed rotation of materials and techniques—often tied to major holidays and predictable school events. Even as the projects may become more reflective and socially oriented, the traditional rhythms of the school year—along with parental and student expectations—hold a powerful sway. This underscores an important precept of any art curriculum and its assessment: School art programs are embedded in communities. The art teacher is not entirely a free agent. That is why in these chapters, we have included contextual information about where these lessons are taught. There are two fundamental approaches to exploration and production with materials. The first is an anthropocentric approach. In this view, materials are to be rigorously controlled through knowledge of skills and techniques. The materials will bend to human will. Production is a demonstration of control over materials. A failure to control is points off. The second approach has recently become associated with what is called in the social sciences the new materialisms. As the title of physicist Karan Barad’s (2007) landmark book Meeting the Universe Halfway indicates, the materials of the world are recognized as having their own agency. For the visual arts, this means the artist never has full control of materials. From this perspective, proficiency comes in the recognition of the materials own power and how the artist negotiates with this force. Proficiency is not a demonstration of control; it is more of a collaborative conciliation. The first approach to curriculum—the introduction of a range of materials and initial steps to proficiency—has long had its advocates. A beginning drawing exercise with complementary colored pencils, in which the task is a full value scale of neutral tones, is an example. The student learns the academic language of complementary color and value. The work benchmarks a core skill in learning to manipulate materials. There may be quite a bit more in this lesson to encourage student-led, inquiry-based problem solving, if the teacher has been alert in advance to mapping out assessment criteria. For example, it is likely that only the highest quality colored pencils will allow complementary colors to blend into a neutral value. Can this realization launch the student into an investigation of materials? Why do some materials work according to theory and why do others fail to uphold the theory? When is a color wheel a lie? And if it is sometimes a lie, why do we teach it? Another expressive outcome, that could extend from this lesson, is close attention to fine distinctions in visual values in the world. This is an exercise in the development of vision. How can the student transfer this newly acquired skill to other contexts? How are students developing an articulate awareness of the world around them? John Brandhorst’s Botanical Sculpture Art Throwdown challenge of orchid building from clay demonstrates a task that requires students to negotiate with materials and direct observation. Teams are invited to “expand” on the form of the orchid rather than duplicating it. The assignment is to seize on the properties of clay to find the orchidness of an orchid. This transcends mimetic reproduction and invites the possibility of surprising the assessor with something new and unanticipated.

252

Richard Siegesmund and Cathy Smilan

NEW NARRATIVES The legacy of psychological behaviorism still leaves an enduring narrative of how we assess students: We want to see what students do. This focus on assessing tangible student performance led to an emphasis on summative critique. In this model, student artworks, completed over a semester, were presented for one, final summative judgment. However, our contemporary focus is moving away from the final product. We are looking at the journey of how students move toward their expressive outcome. We are less interested in a final outcome but look for benchmarks that are met along the way. This is an intuitive pivot from Dewey and Eisner’s distinction between standards and criteria. This change of focus in art education opens the horizon for new aims that include teaching for social/emotional growth, social justice, resiliency, empathy, play, joy, and conceptual inquiry. We can see this change in national teacher performance assessments like edTPA that emphasize formative assessments—the small intercessions that occur throughout the semester that provide the guidance that allows the time for the student to reconsider, reflect, maybe even change course. A second new direction is the shift from philosophical epistemology to philosophical ontology. In this change, we move away from a preoccupation with what students might know (can they correctly sequence Manet, Van Gogh, and Cezanne on a timeline). We focus less on specific skills and tools, and instead seek to determine their relationship to their own work, and the work of others (including practicing artists past and present, as well as peers). We focus on being in relationship to their own artmaking. How are they in relationship to others in the classroom? Do they respect materials? Is there a concern that the classroom and materials are maintained so that others will find the classroom to be a constructive place to feel safe and be expressive? A third opportunity for new narratives in art assessment relates to what Eisner referred to as the null curriculum (Eisner, 1979). For Eisner, the null curriculum was what students never had a chance to experience because they were never exposed to the possibilities of thinking within the school. Eisner conceived this as a call to allow students to experience the somatic embodied ways of expression that the visual arts afford, but which schools all too often ignore. Contemporary art educators are now including assessments of new forms of students’ conceptual engagement in reflecting on their learning. Students do more than complete tasks; they consider why they are doing a project. In this book, we see the art educator Debi West asks her students to reenter their relationship with works of art they have created over the semester and reimagine the narrative they create together. Each new innovative approach to art teaching and learning brings with it a new consideration of measurement.

CHALLENGING REDUCTIVE CONCEPTIONS OF MIND While skills in disciplinary knowledge provide tools to facilitate the fine-grained pursuit of know-how, acquisition of the tools is all too often confused with the process of inquiry. Therefore, our systems of education focus on mechanics and fail to address forms of emotional engagement that drive authentic learning. Dewey (1934/1989) commented that we learn as are lured. The task of the art teacher is to light the inner spark in a student that will sustain the student through their own exploration into visuality. Education is imperiled if we reduce our conception of assessment to tests for rapid symbolic manipulation or timed efficiency tests to see who can complete the most complex series of steps in the least amount of time. Nevertheless, as Bloom’s Taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002) reminds us, the process of education is a journey. We do not simply parachute into Bloom’s

253

CONCLUSION

highest cognitive category of Creating. We move through the broad base of the taxonomy’s pyramid, which begins with the grunt work of Remembering and Understanding. There is a place for this in our art assessments. But regrettably, because this is easy to assess, too frequently this is where our journey ends. The journey of learning in an art classroom should be long and sustained. The maps of those individual exploratory paths should be diverse and divergent. We want all students to ascend upward through Bloom’s Taxonomy, but how each student finds their way to the summit will be individualistic. These pathways are not easy to find. They are not preplanned and waiting for the student’s arrival. These are difficult for the teacher to see. We need to challenge ourselves, and, in turn, challenge our students, to push further. By assessing for a combination of educational objectives, expressive outcomes, and student well-being, we strive to instill in our students the enduring lessons of the art classroom: intrinsic motivation that will allow them to live independent, personally enriching lives—and in so doing, becoming contributing members to civil society. In the light of recent socio-political events, not the least of which was the COVID-19 pandemic, skilled art education professionals now are asked to adapt their work to qualitatively measure the pulse of student emotional well-being, interpreting visualization of student concerns rather than solely producing rubricized, quantifiable measures. This shift in assessment goals was seen in classrooms across the country. In the final contribution to follow, high school art teacher Megan Mettman shares her student work based on artist response to the pandemic. The captures the profound shift to ontological approaches towards assessment that will perhaps grow in importance in our post-pandemic times.

REFERENCES Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press. Biesta, G. (2017). Letting art teach: Art education “after” Joseph Beuys. ArtEZ Press. Dewey, J. (1989). Art as experience. Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1934) Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school program. Macmillan. Eisner, E. W. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. Yale University Press. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–225. National Coalition for Core Standards (2014). National core arts standards: A conceptual framework for arts learning. State Education Agency Directors of Arts Education (SEADAE). http://www.nationalartsstandards.org/ Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge University Press.

38 Afterword Addressing Social Issues and Mental Health as Contemporary Culture Megan K. Mettmann

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT Currently, I am teaching Drawing & Painting, Printmaking, AP 2D Design and Studio Art at the largest Lutheran High School in the United States in Las Vegas, Nevada. Faith Lutheran High School has approximately 2,000 high school students with a 30% enrollment of minorities and a 1:15 ratio of teacher to students. I am one of four Visual Arts Department teachers. We additionally offer Sculpture, Ceramics, Digital/Darkroom Photography and Graphic Design. My largest classes have 18 students in each of them. Small class sizes are ideal for students to get the educational support they each need and for teachers to know their students. Tuition is about 14K a year and 30% of our students are on a financial aid scholarship. It is a 1:1 institution with each student given a MacBook pro and expected to be proficient in utilizing Blackboard to navigate and turn in assignments to each of their teachers. Art students also post their work to Artsonia (an online art portfolio) and AP students maintain a Wix site with the body of their artwork. We have an active NAHS club, run by the photography teacher, with about 40 members. We have a Visual Art Conservatory program where students have to be enrolled in two art classes each semester, maintain a B or better in those classes, draw a summer sketchbook each year and create quarterly projects after they compete for a spot in the program. Students, who successfully complete this all four years, graduate with Visual Art Honors. All students have to wear a school-issued uniform, attend chapel weekly for a prayer service and they have a high level of expectations regarding integrity as well as respect toward adults on- and off-campus. Students can and have been removed from enrollment for infractions.

TEACHING CONTEMPORARY VISUAL CULTURE One contemporary approach to guiding young adults though the complexities of understanding and expressing visual culture is through exploring social issues. As an early art educator 15 years ago, I designed most of my lesson plans and projects solely around the elements and principles DOI: 10.4324/9781003397946-51

AFTERWORD: ADDRESSING SOCIAL ISSUES AND MENTAL HEALTH

255

of art and sprinkled in some European and American arts. Formal elements and principles of composition as well as Western exemplars were the essential building blocks of a visual art curriculum. However, aesthetics alone failed to define the messages. Substance was missing from even the most technically skilled students’ work. Art is a visual language. Our student work therefore truly needs to say something. I began to realize a few years into teaching that the role of an exemplary art educator is to guide students to find their own voice and support their creative path to express unique views of real-world personal experiences. Experience allows us all to grow; growth is not a vicarious activity. We all need to take the wheel at some point even if the road is bumpy, knowing that learning something new takes patience, practice and persistence. This can be a frustrating time and we need to support and encourage our students through the process of digging deep with self-expression. There needs to be sincere interest in content and motivation on behalf of the student; young adults need to have a fire lit within. This begins with researching social issues, encouraging students to form an independent opinion based on the facts they found and then applying the principles of art and design to effectively communicate ideas. There should be an intended purpose to the created artwork. If form is to follow function as exemplified in the Bauhaus Movement, what our students are trying to convey must be discovered before working with art materials. Student work is hung for display in both the hallway near our classrooms and in the foyer of the CPAC Auditorium as well as off-campus showcases. The work that gets a lot of attention is the work that has a strong voice. There have been both clear support and disapproval, even among faculty members, of our student art displays. In Studio Art, we get to explore all the mediums as an introductory art course. In this class, during the first quarter, we begin to explore social issues. Students are to research a problem in society that needs to be addressed or, at a minimum, that we need to know more about even if we do not have a solution to the issue. Students begin researching reputable articles and journals that are no more than a year old on topics as vast as political issues, healthcare (including mental health), housing or homelessness, voting rights, reproductive rights, LGBTQ issues, religious freedom, book banning, gun rights, wage inequality, women’s issues, college student debt, racism, COVID and how it impacts us, disabilities, etc. I begin by expressing to the students that it is not our job as teachers to tell them how we feel about any of these issues. We are here to support student learning and to guide you while you discover each of your own opinions based on the facts found and personal experience. Clearly, the topics mentioned are not just something anyone feels completely indifferent about. Consequently, adults on campus, including our CEO, praised the social issue shape collage project in a school article in 2021, while a faculty member outside our department was so deeply offended that she took down the 30-piece display to “hold on to it for safe keeping” in 2022. Expect pushback at times when you encourage student voice, but do not let it stop you from supporting it.

LESSON SUMMARY Students will summarize one of their articles and cite source before even drawing plans and receiving materials to create a shape collage on their social issue of choice in reaction to what they have learned. They will develop an inquiry question. We next go over the rubric, which will be their final assessment, before beginning the art project. I express to them that they will first do a self-assessment initially and it is very much like being a food critic or a Yelper. When we go to a restaurant and later write a review online, we are usually looking at three basic factors to come up with a star rating or a score. We can simplify this as how the food will

256

Megan K. Mettmann

TASTE, the restaurant ENVIRONMENT and the overall SERVICE. In art, we are looking at instead COMMUNICATION, CRAFTSMANSHIP and CREATIVITY of the artwork. We have informal assessments mid-progress, as well before turning in a final piece. If art students learn first in an introductory course that their message is the most valuable purpose to creating visual pieces, they will progress through higher level courses knowing that content is key. They will be aware that they are expected to work on refining skills, but base their pieces on deeper meaning in an advanced art class. Art educators need to additionally encourage students to express visually that which may be challenging to communicate verbally. In AP 2D Design, I encourage students to make the pieces that make others a little uncomfortable. Art is a language that allows dialogue about troubling subject matter. Let the pieces communicate the inequities that need to be spoken about. Young adults have a lot on their minds and we would all benefit from listening to their concerns. Marla Villanueva wrote about her piece I am Not a Virus: For my social issue research topic I created a piece of art about the racism Asian people, specifically Chinese, have faced since the outbreak of Covid-19. In my article, I found that between February and April there was a 300% increase in racist and violent hashtags against China and Chinese people. This was due to the outbreak of Covid-19 originating in China. After reading this article, I feel sick that people would go to such an extreme to bully a race where each individual directly had no control over the situation. I made this piece of art (see Figure 38.1) to bring awareness to the bullying of Chinese and Asian people for this issue that has been buried underneath all the other hardships of 2020. (Resource: https://www.tuc.org.uk/blogs/i-am-not-virus-anti-chineseracism-and-coronavirus)

Kyla Wolfenbarger, a senior, in 2020 wrote regarding her 15 sustained investigation AP pieces: How do humans destroy themselves every day? What are some of the lesser spoken forms of self-harm and why don’t we acknowledge them? Mental health has become a more prevalent topic as time goes on. It seems people are becoming more and more aware of issues such as depression, anxiety, and self-harm. Regardless of this advancement it seems as if these issues are

FIGURE 38.1  I Am Not a Virus by Marla Villanueva (2021)

AFTERWORD: ADDRESSING SOCIAL ISSUES AND MENTAL HEALTH

257

FIGURE 38.2  Man’s Best Friend by Kyla Wolfenbarger (2020) AP score: 5

only considered “valid” if they are severe enough to garner attention. Because of this, many other signs of depression and forms of self-sabotage appear to go unnoticed, unspoken about, and unrecognized. Throughout my sustained investigation (see Figure 38.2) I explored this idea in attempt to understand what these self-sabotages are and why they’re normalized. Because this is a very people-based issue, the majority of these pieces are portraits. All of them strive to capture the subtle emotions and actions that people experience in day-to-day life. For that reason, there is heavy focus on faces and the use of color to express these feelings. While not hyper-realistic, these pieces focused on advancing the ability to capture life and movement, or rather, a moment. As I went through this process I had to constantly revise how I treated color and light sources and how they affected the hue and texture of skin.

It goes without saying that we teach so much more than technical skills in a visual art course. We are first and foremost life skills teachers. In 2017–2018 before we even had COVID take over our new way of living, I was working in a 5A public high school in the Salt Lake City area when I truly realized this. Herriman High was where three of my own children would graduate and my baby boy was a senior that year. I had new students each semester. I knew all of my 400+ students that year by name and something unique about each one. Seven of our students, many of whom I had in printmaking or Art Foundations class, died by suicide. Each month as we lost another young life, this cloud of anxiety hung over the school. Who would be next? When will it stop? How do we make sense of this? These teenagers were beautiful, some popular and athletic. Why was this happening?!? By the end of that school year, I really wasn’t sure that I would be able to stay in my career from the emotional devastation. You knew if you got a call from your administration over the weekend that it was nothing but horrible news. Ultimately, I chose to not only continue, but to research new approaches to a solution to this crisis and advocate for mental health awareness (see Figure 38.3). Additional examples from AP Sustained Inquiry (Figures 38.4 and 38.5) demonstrate this process that is applicable to other art classes. I found that student emotional wellness was, in fact, measurable in art assignments that invited them to voice private concerns about the pressures of adolescence and their own mental state. In this way, we can consider what is ultimately worthy of our assessment, of our attention: student survival. Below are some of the most helpful things I learned and began to share in small group settings as well as NAEA conference sessions. Report any signs of prolonged student depression or anxiety to your administration, school nurse, school psychologist and school counselors right away. Reach out to parents when you sense something is off with a student. Confidentiality does not supersede safety.

258

Megan K. Mettmann

FIGURE 38.3  Carina Kim “Perfectionism” oil pastel on mat board 11″ × 14″ 2021 AP

Inquiry Question: How does perfectionism influence my persona? How can I use perfectionism to instead focus on constant improvement?

FIGURE 38.4  Adrianna Martinez acrylic “My Faith Journey” 16″ × 20″ 2021 AP Inquiry: How has my religious journey shaped my childhood and future? What do I hope for in my future when examining the core of my relationship with God?

If you see something: say something! If the absolute worst-case scenario does happen and you lose a student: 1. Avoid saying “committed suicide” or “successful attempt” (these infer judgment). 2. Instead use “ended his/her life or died by suicide” (these are factual; non-critical). 3. Talk to your administration about not making an announcement over the loudspeaker or even a projected announcement the next school morning. 4. Instead be sure that students hear the news directly from someone they can make eye contact with and preferably that they already know and trust. 5. Do NOT share details of the student’s suicide with others if you know. 6. Instead be sure to dismiss rumors and only share funeral arrangements or celebration of life planned events.

AFTERWORD: ADDRESSING SOCIAL ISSUES AND MENTAL HEALTH

259

FIGURE 38.5  Jessi Irvine “Uncomfortability” oil on board with alpaca wool hand dyed

and spun yarn. 11″ × 44″ 2021 (with yarn hanging) AP Inquiry: In what ways can emotions be represented? How can the feeling of discomfort be tangible, so it is easier to understand?

7. Attending yourself will mean A LOT to your students who are grieving and show respect to the family that their loved one is cared for. 8. It’s okay to go to celebration of life events even if you have not met the family previously in person. You know their child, just in a different context. 9. If you have any of the student’s artwork: give it to the family! 10. If you have a special photo of the student from a field trip or just being with friends in school, give a copy of it to the family. I dare say that the pandemic only made this epidemic of young adult clinical depression and suicide even worse in middle school and high school. I believe what has improved is our ability to see signs of concern and act quickly to get the help our students must have to literally survive. Ultimately, we are ART teachers. Teach technique, but let students pick the subject matter. Nobody wants to draw a bowl of fruit. If you are old enough, you know how uninspiring that was in high school. I literally thought more about eating the apples than drawing them. If young adults don’t care about it, they won’t put all their effort into it. Do not get in the way of their freedom of expression. Teenagers hunger for voicing their view of the universe. If the skillset is shown by their art piece, they are demonstrating newly gained knowledge that you taught them! Bravo! You did your job!! The subject is really theirs to decide. Let them take the reins. You will be pleasantly surprised, especially if you have established a true relationship of respect and trust.

260

Megan K. Mettmann

APPENDIX TABLE 38A.1

Social issue shape collage grading rubric

Name:                  Period:          Title of Project:            Inquiry question about my topic:           Reference for my research:  This project is worth a total of 30 points. Fill out as a self-assessment with points. Objective

A (9–10 pts.)

B (8–8.5 pts.)

Communication

It is clear from the project I feel that most what the subject matter or people could topic of my social issue is. discern what my My project communicates topic is by looking well my idea visually. I feel at the project. I was that I was able to teach the able to get the class class something of value to hear what I had about this topic. I was to say about my able to get the class to talk topic research and about my topic openly. I at least 2 people have properly cited my responded to it source of information in verbally. my article summary.

Craftsmanship

My project has been My project uses I feel that the The design of my neatly arranged using design concepts that overall design of project is confusing good design principles. are evident, but I the shape collage and not very well I have used at least 5+ may not be able to could have been thought out. The different geometric and/ express why or what better, but there shape collage is or organic shapes as well the design principles are some positive “messy”. There is glue as intentionally chosen are. I have 3–4+ elements still. I residue showing and/ materials in my collage. different shapes. I would not describe or the shapes are not My article appears in my used my materials it as “sloppy work”, well defined. I put project and is aesthetically effectively with but perhaps not little thought into pleasing. I have utilized purpose. I applied my best piece. The how the materials quality craftsmanship. I new techniques to craftsmanship relate to my research included found objects building my project. is not consistent topic. that relate to my topic throughout the and/or created sculptural piece. paper elements.

Creativity

My project conceptually is highly original. Even if someone else chose a similar topic, mine does not look like anyone else’s in the class.

A few other students chose the same topic and/or the arrangement of shapes. It is not however considered copied

C (7–7.5 pts.)

D (6–6.5 pts.)

About half of the class knew what my topic was by looking at the art I made. I had to give multiple hints or directional cues before someone “got it”. At least 1 person offered verbal feedback during the class critique.

The majority of the class could not understand what my topic is without me directly telling the class. I am not sure why I chose the topic and was not able to back my opinion with facts from my research.

I noticed that My project looks several students nearly identical to picked the same another classmate's topic and layout work, or an image for the project. found via Google Mine still has some reverse image search variation from the by the teacher. It is others. “copy work”.

A = 27–30 B = 23–26 C = 19–22 D = 17–18 F = 16 or below Grade:         /30

AFTERWORD: ADDRESSING SOCIAL ISSUES AND MENTAL HEALTH

261

TABLE 38A.2

Critique protocol

Class Critique: We will have a full class critique and constructive feedback will be heard for each of the collages. Your teacher will be observing during the process to determine the participation level of each of the table group members and will be assigning the final score on each project. Self-Reflection: Write your response to the questions in the box below. Explain your inspiration for this project. What are some of the concepts you learned while creating this artwork? What was successful in your finished project? What could you have done better or differently?

Peer-Reflection 1: What do you admire most about this project?

Peer Reflection 2: What do you admire most about this project?

262

Megan K. Mettmann TABLE 38A.3

Preventative assessment checklist

Below is my list of 20 proven preventative measures to protect our students as so many of our young artists are vulnerable to emotional struggles as creative beings. 1. Be able to identify & report students who show signs of: depression, anxiety and presuicidal behaviors. Report it right away! 2. Encourage less social media and more authentic face to face socialization! 3. Share with students how to call hotlines and use safety apps available in your area. 4. Teach empathy, address social issues and get students involved with your community. 5. Engage in art projects that allow students to talk about mental health. 6. Allow students to create art based on what matters most and speaks to them. 7. Avoid sharing your opinion on social issues, rather, encourage students to research & make their own based on the facts they find, then have them make the art & present it. 8. Create service opportunities for your students with art. 9. Get to know your students inside and outside of the classroom. 10. Have them collaborate on some projects. Work with them and alongside them when appropriate. Let them see you make art! 11. Take them outdoors!!! Incorporate nature explorations as part of your art curriculum. 12. Showcase their work. 13. Take them on field trips. 14. Allow opportunities to enter contests. 15. Hug them (if & when they need it). Let them know they matter! 16. Be Fun! Have a sense of humor…Teach the art of laughter! 17. Make your classroom a place they want to be. 18. Let your students know you care about them individually. Know each of their names and something unique about each and every one. 19. Send your students surveys asking how you can improve your teaching in any way. 20. Reflect on the responses and make changes to improve relationships first and foremost.

Afterword Rethinking Assessment—Post-Pandemic Cathy Smilan

The premise for this book was to provide a snapshot of assessment in secondary schools in the United States. As originally conceived by then NAEA President-Elect George Szekely (who served as the chair of the Professional Materials Committee), the text was to consider what is and should be assessed in art classrooms. The goal was to validate teacher voice and individual perspectives of what was being assessed in art classrooms and present a snapshot of how these assessments were being conducted. Further, our objective was to reconsider what aspects of an art education, beyond the mandated standards, compositional attributes, and craftsmanship competencies, might more aptly be measured, and thus taught, by art teachers. As Eisner cyclically instructed the field, there seems to be no more urgent need than to reconsider assessment in education. He points to the Enlightenment as the first attempt to “create a science of the social” (Eisner, 1993, p. 219); we have been revisiting the task of whittling the authentic performances of artbased learning to conform to scientific measures ever since. We have, as Eisner suggested, a set of criteria searching for application to practice in an educational space that literally places the unmeasured in the far corridors and basements of school buildings, and figuratively, on the periphery of the curriculum. The collection of essays and commentaries consider the themes of Risk-taking, Empathy, Collaboration, Integration, Visual Literacy, and the communicative properties of art. Teachers provide examples of what they consider to be best practice in art education assessment by allowing us into their classrooms. As we write this concluding chapter, the world is experiencing a global pandemic and the United States is experiencing civil unrest. During the process of compiling this manuscript, the concept of assessment—of art-based processing—has taken on new significance. Suddenly, taking risks was more than thinking outside the box; empathetic understanding was more than acknowledging perspectives of others as we collectively lived a global trauma. In the years since the outbreak of COVID-19, the irrelevance of 21st-century education policy, which marked a striking swing toward quantitative, convergent response, has revealed many systemic fallibilities, in what is measured and how it is measured, why it is measured and how assessment disproportionally penalizes marginalized segments of society.

264

Cathy Smilan

The question of why art is a necessary part of the secondary curriculum must be asked. And perhaps, as with curriculum around the world, the answer comes more in the form of voice and expression, of perpetuation of the historical significance of the arts and culture of peoples, of empathic understandings, and of communication of shared, global concerns. As citizens become “woke” to the intrinsic imbalances of our political systems—including public education—teachers and leaders are positioned to redesign learning opportunities to empower student voice, to encourage deep analysis of context and causality and to develop assessments that activate students’ metacognitive skills. As this volume goes to press, the question of education as a political act is indeed threatened by what Freire (1992/2014) warned students are forbidden to know. Assessing action-oriented knowing and student concerns—from individual social-emotional to global issues—are shared throughout the in the text. Art actionism, historical context over formalistic concerns, process over product, and symbolic representation over reproduction are ways in which curriculum can be redesigned. Teachers and curriculum planners as risk-takers and collaborative, empathetic leaders can model thinking strategies for students who process through materials, gain insights through knowing artists who have come before them, understanding basic formal language and techniques is the alphabet for these creative investigations. Beyond formal concerns and the scaffolded increase of skills with materials and techniques, one considers measurement of motivation, joy, experimentation and play, design thinking for problem solving, ability to push beyond simple solutions to find unique approaches, and resolutions to self-identified issues. Perhaps most significantly—through art investigations—students and teachers can visualize what is okay about things not being okay (Drews, 2021). As an economic crisis once again places the arts firmly on the chopping block, art educators revisit the affective benefits of a visual arts education as we position advocacy efforts toward art as a form of communication, art as collaborative and integrative means for learning, art as a method to develop expressive outlets toward the development of resiliency, art as a way of knowing the perspectives of others and art as a creative endeavor to explore unique solutions to long-standing problems. If, as Eisner (1998) cautioned, we look to art in the curriculum as the superhero to educational challenges, how do we begin to consider what is worthy of assessing within that framework? The mandatory school closures which resulted from state response to the pandemic, however, indicated a very different approach to assessment, and to the very premise of what was intrinsically important in the art curriculum. According to results from an anonymous questionnaire conducted with art teacher contributors to this book after the March 2020 shutdown, interesting trends emerged. Overwhelmingly, art teacher respondents indicated that their curriculum was significantly impacted by the move to virtual teaching as the studio models previously used were highly teacher-driven. The exception to this rule was, of course, AP and IB courses in which the curriculum was originally designed to be student-driven. Additionally, many contributors indicated that there was a move away from introducing new materials and an emphasis on social emotional concepts and expressive art making. One respondent wrote, “I encouraged the students to use the situation and their emotions as inspiration for their work”. Another respondent stated, “As a department we have tried to design relevant art assignments that emphasize social emotional learning since this is a stressful time for many”. Yet another example states, “I have found myself spending less time on Developing Craft, and spending more time on Reflection and Expression”. AP and IB exams, which were designed as virtual submissions with rubrics distributed at the beginning of the year, were not cancelled. However, many school districts around the country largely adopted a “hold-harmless” policy in which there were no additional assessments of learning and no new material presented during the COVID-19 school closures

AFTERWORD: RETHINKING ASSESSMENT

265

and virtual teaching. Ironically, when faced with emergent issues of physical, emotional, and fiscal health, the very agencies that touted the importance of forcing the square peg of a visual arts education into the round hole of standardized conformity now suggest that assessment for responsible participation can be detrimental to the psychological—if not the educational—well-being of adolescents and youth. According to the questionnaire, teachers were concerned with working to support their students’ growth while providing some semblance of stability and expressive outlet for their pupils. Arts challenges, involving scavenging for materials on hand, repurposing supplies and thinking conceptually, became the focus of lessons around the county; these challenges were supported by national and international museum partners (i.e., The Getty and MOMA, to name but two), who opened their virtual doors to learners. The challenges were not conducted to earn points on a rubric, but they motivate students in this time of crisis, to apply the skills they learned—the language of the arts—to communicate with others who shared this global experience. Lesson during the pandemic incorporated elements and principles, technical skills, knowledge of other artists, and artistic inquiry, all collaboratively used to create personal narratives, take risks, develop empathy, and communicate ideas. Teachers, tasked with engaging students through virtual means, developed flexibility, forced to design conceptual learning opportunities that were open to readily available materials and adaptable to individual circumstances—the work by situational necessity—focused on individual narrative, growth, and creative problem solving than on prescriptive outcomes. And perhaps, the re-envisioning of growth assessment, the measure of ingenuity and adaptability, is a positive outcome of this very challenging time in our global history. In the wake of the pandemic crisis, art teachers became technology experts, converting studio lessons to digital demonstrations and availing themselves of the myriad platforms for sharing information. For many students, they also became the touchstone of normalcy for secondary students, offering safe spaces for community and processing of this new lived experience. According to teacher contributors to this book, assessment, in many districts, was jettisoned with the mandated school closures, unfortunately to the detriment of many students who are conditioned to think, as Eisner warned us, only that which is assessed is worthy of our attention. As I cautioned my own students, secondary learners need to know that this work still matters, they still matter and their art process and product have value. An unfortunate consequence of not holding students to account is that the structure of their heretofore known experiences crumbles creating a destabilizing vacuum. In a strange way, and to the extent we were allowed to do so by our partnering districts, assessing student work for the student teaching experience provided a sense of stability in a time of unprecedented uncertainty for students. As Josh Drews suggested, the NCAS framework was particularly relevant during the pandemic. In his webinar, he demonstrated how secondary educators could align an assessment framework to essential understandings that related to the mantra: “Everything is not okay, and that is okay” (Drews, 2021). The approach guided teachers to focus on the essence of what needs to be taught—what is important for the student takeaway—and how this information is most efficiently delivered in this unique form of learning. “Connecting becomes the heart of how we are going to engage students in creating and responding” (J. Drews, personal communication, May 21, 2021). The challenge during this time—and I would argue a lesson for the future of art education—was to reflect upon what is worthy of assessing and the ways that art assessments were administered. The formative guidance and engaging questioning of the circulating studio educator, we have come to learn, provides much more than skills development. In the absence of daily classroom contact, we found that educational gaps were not just quantifiable. The added value of the compassionate care administered through the student-teacher relationship was evident in the void created by school closures and cessation of assessment.

266

Cathy Smilan

We gained understandings of what learning really mattered during these uncertain times and how formative assessment of visual communication skills, materials use, and, most importantly, the growth that comes from contextualizing art in personal and global experiences could teach students and their art educators. In his commentary on AP assessment, Mark Graham suggests that we consider the complexities of making judgments in the visual arts. In viewing the product, we must capture the expectation of reflection of “original thought and the idiosyncratic character of their creators”. He further recommends that considering the qualities of a good judge may be more important than describing the qualities of measurement of a work of art; the “nuanced perception” art educators develop through years of intentional practice is part of the knowledge and skills needed by the developing art student. When considering assessment, we must aim to develop the attributes of nuanced judgment as teachers, and in our students. In this way, we assist students to develop their own sense of knowing. Thus, assessment is an important part of teacher reflection and adjustment to practice. Measuring student learning is as much a part of reviewing one’s teaching effectiveness as it is about assigning grades on a report card; in fact, the former might be the most important part of assessment. The ability to rethink our standards-based assessments are the very concepts that were developed in the text which provides a snapshot of authentic assessment in the secondary visual arts classroom. Contemporary art assessment practices take on an additional value— adding the concept of teacher assessment of student well-being. Knowledgeable professionals can commodify and rubricize the most prosaic standards. However, the poetry stems not from regression to some politically conceived mean, but from measuring the unique growth of each individual who engages from intrinsic motivation to know oneself as contextualized in the world community and to communicate this knowledge through visual means.

REFERENCES Drews, J. (2021, May 12). Creating, presenting, responding and connecting: Secondary curriculum and the NCCAS Standards [Webinar]. NAEA Professional Learning Webinar Series. https://virtual.arteducators.org/products/ creating-presenting-responding-and-connecting-the-secondary-curriculum-and-the-nccas-standards Eisner, E. W. (1993). Reshaping assessment in education: Some criteria in search of practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(3), 219–233. Eisner, E. W. (1998). What do the arts teach? Improving Schools, 1(3), 32–36. Freire, P. (2014). Pedagogy of hope. Bloomsbury Academic (original Portuguese publication 1992).

Index

Note: Page references in italics denote figures, in bold tables and with “n” endnotes. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People (Covey) 46 21st-century skills 222–223 Advanced Placement Studio Art Portfolio (AP) 50, 51–52, 54, 57–58, 73–74; affordances 52; limitations 52; observations 52–53 advocacy, and assessment 40, 50–53 aesthetics 166; American Pragmatistic 35; as empathetic process 166; of empathy 167–168; modernist 62, 159 Amabile, Teresa 25 American Pragmatism 35, 159 Anderson, Tom 137 Armstrong, Carmen 15–16 art/artmaking: context of teaching 153; empowering students 153–157; and HEART learning 205; -integrated instruction 236–240; lesson content 153–156; and math integrated learning 209–213; risktaking 153–157; and social responsibility 250–251 Art as Experience (Dewey) 14, 83, 159, 204 art-based research (ABR) 135–137, 221 art education 84; aims of 22; assessing for habits of mind in 91–95; convergent and divergent responses 247–248; criteria for 33–38; discipline-based 15, 47; equity gap 43; pedagogical reforms 14; see also education; learning; literacy art education assessment 1; contemporary dilemmas in 24–30; and industrial educational complex 13–19; normreferencing in 18; standards 15–18; see also assessment artistic Modernism 159 Artist Trading Cards (ATCs) 185–186, 189; building school community with 184–189; introduction and context 184–188 Arts and Crafts Movement 206 art teachers/educators 73; and administrators 41; competency 71–72; creative learning 18–19; and Danielson Framework 71–72; framework for 123–127; and innovated products 215–218; language of assessment 2; as leaders in models of student thinking 55–59; and norm-referencing 18; secondary 7; on

standards 16; and student assessment 39–40, 51; student performance and semiotic structures 85; and UbD 47; working across disciplines 204; see also teacher assessment/evaluation Art Throwdown 232–235, 240n2; national standards met by 233–235 assessment 137–139; and advocacy 50–53; alternative forms of 198–199; and art education (see art education assessment); and art teachers 39–40; audiences for 8–9; and backward design 46–49; critique as 221–228, 229–231; defined 1, 16; HEART learning 205; literacy 65–68; models of 31; outcomes of 93–95; overview 11; post-pandemic 263–266; risk-taking and growth 160–161; role of context in 117–119; student over the work 130–134; teacher 27–29; through critique discussion 224–226 Atlanta Dogwood festival Throwdown event 233, 233 audiencing 207 authentic assessment 20, 23, 67, 145, 171; defined 41; and resistance 39–44; through summative bookmaking unit 98–102 authentic empathy 166 Ayers, Ann 178 Backward Design 66–67, 74, 136; and assessment 46–49 Baldacchino, John 23 Bang, Molly 83 Barad, Karan 251 Barret, Terry 35 Beattie, Donna Kay 39, 41, 119, 237, 238 behaviorism 20, 60, 162 benchmarks 17, 33, 240n1 Beuys, Joseph 250 Birch Trees in Winter 81 Bloom, Benjamin 16 Bloom’s Taxonomy 252–253 Boughton, Doug 16, 237 Bozarth, Morgan 4, 160, 250 Braidotti, Rosi 166

268 Brandhorst, John 6, 206, 236, 238, 239, 242, 251 Bresler, Liora 88, 203, 204 Brown, Drew 4, 160 Brown, Roxanne 5, 197, 250 Bruegera, Tania 171 Bruner, Jerome 206 Care, Esther 237 ceramic whistle sculpture 214–218, 219–220; lesson content 215; measurement of high/medium/low performances 215; strategies for innovative application 215–218 Chan, Paul 171 charter school movement 2 Clemens, Sydney Gurewitz 48 Close, Chuck 148 collaboration: assessing 5–6; multi-disciplinary 86–89 collaborative art 205–206 collaborative learning 236–240 collage grading rubric 260 Commonwealth of Massachusetts 6 complex stories 81–82 conservatories 158, 248 contemporary visual culture 254–255 content standards 28 conversation 171–177; assessment 173–177; context of teaching 171; lesson content 171–173 Courbet, Gustave 206 Covey, Stephen 46 COVID-19 pandemic 9, 207, 245, 253, 255 creative behavior 25–26, 48, 126 creative learning 18–19, 47 creative thinking: in-depth investigation 26; problem finding 26; risk-taking 26 creativity: and administrators 27; and art 24; fostering 24–27 critique: 21st-century skills 222–223; assessing through discussion 224–226; as assessment 221–228, 229–231; in the classroom 37, 67, 100, 101, 106–107, 108–109, 113, 121, 136, 140n2, 146, 149–150, 152, 190–193, 207, 221–226, 261; data analysis 226–227; Element tracker 223–224, 230 critique protocol 261 Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly 25 cultural activity 167 Cultural Literacy movement 16 cultural revolution: assessment 179; introduction and context 178 curriculum: defined 46; exploration and production with materials 251; hidden, of rubrics 113–114, 114; ontological view of 33 Curriculum Reconsidered 46 D’Adamo, Kimberley 237 Danielson, Charlotte 69 Danielson Framework 15, 73, 75, 165; for aesthetic teaching 168–169; for student assessment 69–72; for teacher evaluation 69–72, 168; for teaching 70–71 da Vinci, Leonardo 85, 206 Depp, Johnny 206

Index Depth of Knowledge (DOK) 93–94, 95–97 developmental psychology 82 Dewey, John 13–14, 21, 35, 83–84, 88, 158–159, 167, 177, 204, 248, 252 Dezuanni, Michael 85 digital documentation 191–193 Disciplined-Based Art Education (DBAE) 14, 81 DIY culture 239, 240n5 Dodson, Stan 4, 160 Donahue, David M. 205 Douillette, JoE 4, 62, 159–160 drawing strategies 111 drawn personalities 110–114; layered personalities 110–111, 111; rubrics 113–114, 114, 115–116, 115–116 Drews, Josh 265 Dweck, Carol 136 edTPA 65–68, 74; and formative assessment 66, 252; and informal assessment 66; SCALE 75; teachers analyze, interpret, and present results 67; visual arts licensure exam 207 education: assessment 2; efficiency movement 21; expressive outcomes of visual arts 20; Federal control on 15; ontological 33; public 2, 6, 9, 13, 40, 84, 107, 158, 191, 249, 264; standardization of 13–14; see also art education; learning; literacy educational aims 20; defined 20; and goals 21–22; and objectives 21–22 Educational Testing Service (ETS) 51 Eisner, Elliot 16–18, 20–21, 88, 121, 159, 165, 203, 248, 252, 264; criteria for art classroom 33–38; definition of curriculum 46; risk-taking 26 embodied experience 82–83 empathy 4–5, 165–167; and engrossment 168; perception and aesthetics of 167–168; and socially engaged art 165–170; understandings 163 Empty Bowls 22 English language arts (ELA): content 204; curriculum 205; expressive applications 205; structural parallels 205; and visual arts 85 English Language Learners 110, 171, 204 engrossment 70; empathy and 168; expanding 168 Enlow, Clair 209 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) 91 evocative self-portrait 151–152 Experience Music Project Museum (Seattle) 209 expressive portrait 104–106, 105–106, 118; assessment 106–107 expressive visual qualities 82 Fassbinder, Rainer Werner 207 Fazlalizadeh, Tatyana 190 Federal educational funding 15 Filbin, Deb 4, 118 Fleckenstein, Kristie 86 flexible purposing 21, 35, 248–249 formative assessments 39, 43, 48, 66–67 Foucault, Michel 166 Frasz, Alexis 171 Freire, Paulo 177, 264

Index Gates, Leslie 239 Gehry, Frank 209 Georgia Department of Education 191 Georgia Standards of Excellence for Visual Arts 191 Georgia Visual Art Performance Standards (2009) 165 Giroux, Henry A. 42 Gnezda, Nicole 137 goals: defined 21; and educational aims 21–22 Goals 2000: Educate America Act 15, 28 Goffman, Erving 41 Google Classroom 191 Graham, Mark 74, 266 The Great Gatsby 167 Greene, Maxine 158, 185 Griffin, Patrick 237 Gude, Olivia 172, 197 Guyotte, Kelly W. 205 hackerspaces 239, 240n4 Halverson, Erica 240 Hanawalt, Christine 42 haptic perception 82 Harvard’s Project Zero 1, 61 Hatch, Mark 240 Hausman, Jerome 84 HEART learning 205 Helguera, Pablo 172, 198 Herpin, Sharon 237 Hetland, Lois 74, 75 holistic assessment: assessment 137–139; context of teaching 135–137; key findings from 139–140; through photographic lens 135–140 Horowitz, Robert 237 Hostert, Nicholas 5, 171, 197–198, 250 Illinois State Board of Education 69 Illinois Visual/Media Arts Standards 154, 155, 172 in-depth investigation 26 industrial educational complex: and art education assessment 13–19; public education 13; standards and their discontents 15–16; see also education informal assessment 66–67 innovated products and art teachers 215–218 in-process priority assessment 229 Instructional Objective Movement 14 instructional objectives 20 integrative learning 5–6; visual arts in 203–204 interdependent artmaking: empowering students with 153–157; and risk-taking 153–157 Internationale Baccalaureate (IB) Visual Art 2, 3, 43, 57–59, 73–74 interscholastic competition: process of 232–235; production in 232–235 Kaprow, Allan 14 Kasof, Joseph 25 Kimbell, Richard 17–18 Kosuth, Joseph 85 Kruger, Barbara 190

269 Ladson-Billings, Gloria 43 Laws, Barbara 55 layered personalities 110–111, 111; assessment 111–113; feedback 111–113 learning: creative 18–19, 47; integrative 5–6; multimodal visual 86–87; performance-based 43; student 27, 65–66 Lee, Lorinne 5, 203, 205, 236, 237, 238, 239, 242 Lee, NaJuana 4, 118–119 lesson goals: beginning to meet 139, 140; exceeds 138, 138; meets 139, 139 lessons: in controlling chaos for advanced classes 145–147; lesson plan peace posters 180–181 Leutze, Emanuel 85 Liliawati, Winny 205 literacy: as multi-disciplinary collaboration 86–89; semiotic 84–85; visual, assessing 84; and visual narrative 83–85; see also education Longo, Robert 148 Lowenfeld, Victor 2, 82, 163 Lunde, Bjana 6, 205, 236, 248 Lynch, Jamie 6, 206, 236, 238, 239, 242 makerspace 55, 239–240, 240n3 Mann, Horace 6 Marshall, Julia 205, 237 Massachusetts Arts Curriculum Frameworks 136 Massenet, Jules 248 Mather, Jeff 233, 238, 240n2 McMillan, Ellen 178 McTighe, Jay 46–48, 73 Meditation (Massenet) 248 Meeting the Universe Halfway (Barad) 251 Mettman, Megan 253 Milas, Laura 4, 118 Milbrandt, Melody K. 137 Miller, J. Howard 192 mind: habits of 91–95; reductive conceptions of 252–253 Modernism 83; artistic 159 Mona Lisa (da Vinci) 85 multi-disciplinary collaboration: literacy as 86–89; multimodal visual learning 86–87; transactional inquiry 87–89 multimodal visual learning 86–87 Murray, Donald 86 music conservatories see conservatories National Art Education Association 15, 207 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 35 National Core Art Standards (NCAS) 3, 6–7, 16, 18, 20, 84, 106, 191, 215, 249 National Endowment for the Arts 237 National Standards for Visual Arts 245 A Nation at Risk 14 Neville, Christine 6, 206, 236, 238, 239, 242 Newland, Abby 5, 197, 198, 250 new narratives 252 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 1, 15, 55, 91 Noddings, Nel 22, 70, 167, 168 non-discursive visual thinking 37 norm-referencing 17; technological advances for 18

270 Obama, Barack 91 objectives: defined 22; and educational aims 21–22 O’Keeffe, Georgia 206 Olson, Janet 86 One and Three Chairs 85 ontological education 33 ontological view of curriculum 33 Panofsky, Erwin 85 passive compliance 42 Pennsylvania State University 14 perception: of empathy 167–168; haptic 82; visual 82 performance-based learning 43 performance standard(s) 16, 28, 127n1 Phillips, Lauren 5, 19, 166, 199, 200, 250 Picture This: How Pictures Work (Bang) 83 Pink, Daniel 205 Pinwheels for Peace 178 Piro, Joseph 205 Polanyi, Michael 166 Pope, Denise Clark 188 Popham, James 29 portfolios 69; AP 51–52, 169–170, 188; digital 191–192; edTPA 67–68; multimedia 65; multi-media teaching 74 portrait lessons: for advanced students from rural/ suburban communities 144–150, 151–152; with FlipGrid assessment for advanced students 148–149 posthuman knowledge 166 post-Modernism 159 post-modern pedagogies 82–83 post-questionnaire survey 137 pre-service teachers 65 preventative assessment checklist 262 priority assessment 222, 240n1; in-process 229 problem finding, and creative thinking 26 The Process of Education (Bruner) 206 Professional Education Coordinating Council (PECC) 55 psychological behaviorism 162 public education 2, 6, 9, 13, 40, 84, 107, 158, 191, 249, 264 Race to the Top (RTT) 15, 41 Rakowitz, Michael 171 Rancière, Jacques 23, 165–166, 167 reductive conceptions of mind 252–253 Renaissance artist 206–208 resistance: covert 41; manifestations of 40–42; role in promoting authentic assessment 41 risk and chance 144–150, 151–152 risk-taking 4; in art classroom 124–125; assessing 123–127; creative thinking 26; and empowering students with artmaking 153–157; helping students take artistic risks 125–126; importance of 125; measuring 121; nurturing 123–127; rubrics 128–129 Rollins, Tim 207 Rorschach Test 88 Rorty, Richard 166, 248 Rose, Gillian 207 Rubens, Peter Paul 206

Index rubrics: drawn personalities 113–114, 114, 115–116; hidden curriculum of 113–114, 114; risk-taking 128–129 rural communities: portrait lessons for advanced students from 144–147, 151–152 Sampl, Greg 205 school community, and Artist Trading Cards (ATCs) 184–189 sculptured landscapes: art and math integrated learning 209–213; introduction and context 209; lesson objectives 211 Seidel, Steve 238 self-concept 124–125 semiotic literacy 84–85 Sheridan, Kimberly 240 Shusterman, Richard 166–167 Sidford, Holly 171 Siegesmund, Richard 19n1 Simonton, Dean Keith 25 Skura, Michael 4, 160 Smilan, Cathy 204, 205 Smith, Kiki 92, 93 social engagement 4–5, 163 socially engaged art, and empathy 165–170 socially engaged art education 196–199; alternative forms of assessment 198–199; standards and expectations 196–197; standards from other subjects 198; “Standards Plus” approach 197–198 socially engaged artwork: in high school art classroom 190–193, 194–195 socially engaged learning 250 Social Motivator Model 204 social responsibility and art 250–251 social sculpture 250 social status 124–125 Sousanis, Nick 83 Sputnik 14 standards: art education assessment 15–18; art educators on 16; and expectations 196–197; industrial educational complex 15–16; from other subjects 198; and teacher assessment 27–29; see also performance standard(s) “Standards Plus” approach 197–198 Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity (SCALE) 35 state of play 35 state standards 124 STEAM framework 205 Stewart, Marilyn 198 Stirnemann, M. Vanci 186 student assessment 1, 15; Danielson Framework for 3, 69–72; standards in 35 student learning: and teacher effectiveness 27; using assessments to plan and cultivate 65–66 students: -directed projects 171–177; portrait lesson with flipgrid assessment for 148, 149; results 7–8 student work: assessing 130–134; examples of 132–133; high school art classroom 192–193, 192–193 Studies in Art Education (Hausman) 84

271

Index Studio Art program 50–53, 110; Advanced Placement in 51–52 Studio Habits of Mind 61–62, 130–132; summative rubric 134 Studio Thinking 3: The Real Benefits of Visual Arts Education (Sheridan) 61 Studio Thinking Framework 61, 63 Studio Thinking from the Start: The K-8 Art Educator’s Handbook (Hogan) 61 suburban communities: portrait lessons for advanced students from 148–150, 152 summative analytic rubric: for inquiry film 142–143; for photographs 142–143 Summative Assessment Book 101 summative assessments 48, 118 symbols 34; visual 36 Szekely, George xix, xxi–xxii, 263 tacit knowledge 166 Taylor, Frederick 13–14 Taylor, Raegina 240 teacher assessment/evaluation: Danielson Framework for 69–72; primary purpose of 40; and standards 27–29; see also art teachers/educators teaching: contemporary visual culture 254–255; context of 92, 135–137; Danielson Framework for 70–71; fine and digital art 91; high school art classroom 190; holistic assessment 135–137; see also art teachers/educators Thorndike, Edward 13; educational mass production 13 Title I 14 Tomhave, Roger 74 transactional inquiry 87–89 Tyler, Ralph 13–14

Understanding by Design (UbD) model of assessment 46–47, 73 unlearning 23 US News 184 Veon, Raymond 4, 160, 162 Villanueva, Marla 256, 256 visual art teachers see art teachers/educators visual culture 36, 254–255 visual literacy 84, 90 visual narrative 3–4, 81–89; of affective and technical assessment 103–109; communicating complex stories 81–82; embodied experience 82–83; expressive visual qualities 82; and literacy 83–85 visual perception 82 visual symbols 36 visual thinking 37, 83 visual vocabulary 34 Walker, Margaret 177 Walker, Sydney 198 Washington Crossing the Delaware (Leutze) 85 Webb-Dempsey, J. 237 “We Can Do It!” (Miller) 192 Weiwei, Ai 190 West, Debi 4, 19, 118, 165, 252 Wiggins, Grant 46–48, 73 Williams, Amanda 171 Wolfenbarger, Kyla 256, 257 Women’s March in Washington 192, 193 World Report 184