Art teachers' opinions of assessment criteria
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
547
On Slideshare
532
From Embeds
15
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 15

http://thebrightsideedu702.blogspot.com 15

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriterface, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9" black and vtfiite photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 2. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 3. ART TEACHERS’ OPINIONS OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA A dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School University of Missouri-Columbia In Partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by CHERYL VENET Dr. Larry Kantner, Dissertation Supervisor MAY 2000 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 4. UMI Number 9974694 Copyright 2000 by Venet, Cheryl Lynn All rights reserved. UMI UMI Microform9974694 Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 5. ©copyright by Cheryl Venet 2000 All Rights Reserved Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 6. The undersigned, appointed by the Dean of the Graduate School, have examined the dissertation entitled ART TEACHERS’ OPINIONS OF ART ASSESSMENT CRITERIA presented by Cheryl Venet a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and hereby certify that in their opinion it is worthy of acceptance ----------- 6- / / -iS * Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Missouri art educators for sharing their time and experiences with art assessment which made this research study possible. To Dr. Larry Kantner, my advisor and dissertation supervisor, for encouraging me to complete this degree before and after a IS year hiatus. Through his professional reputation and friendships, I was able to meet and work with national experts in art assessment. He coached me toward success with skill, kindness, and support. To Dr. Adrienne Walker Hoard, for her friendship, encouragement, knowledge of aesthetics, and for broadening my perspectives by looking through multicultural lenses. To Dr. Lloyd Barrow, for sharing his knowledge of survey methodology, leading me toward my goals though succinct and probing questions, and for responding thoughtfully to all drafts of work-in-progress. To Frank Stack, for being my mentor and artistic role model for the past twenty years during which he used his time and expertise to help me improve my paintings. To Dr. Wendy Sims, for her attention to detail, insightful questions, and for guiding me toward receiving a dissertation grant which helped fund this study. To my fellow doctoral students who, along with Dr. Kantner, provided a forum for discussing issues and stimulating my thoughts about art education. To my mother and deceased father, Dianne and Harry Venet, for raising me to ask questions and find answers, and for their unwavering belief in my abilities. To my siblings, Barbara Horler (who showed me that you can get a Ph.D. while working more than full-time), Judi Phelps, and Allen Venet for the their love and support. To my children, Samantha Heisler Myers and Kimberly Heisler, for their constant love, understanding, encouragement, and faith in me and to whom I dedicate this work. ii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 8. ART TEACHER’S OPINIONS OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA Cheryl Venet Dr. Larry Kantner, Dissertation Supervisor ABSTRACT The arts are a basic part of contemporary education (U.S. Department of Education, 1998; National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1996). Like teachers in the core subjects of language arts, mathematics, science, and social sciences, arts practitioners established expectations for student knowledge and production/performance through national and state standards (Higgins, 1989; U.S. Department of Education, 1991; National Standards for Arts Education, 1994; Missouri State Board of Education, 1996). To determine whether standards increase student achievement - as intended - student knowledge and performance must be assessed. As a consequence of arts’ inclusion in basic education, its practitioners must develop, implement, and publicly report the results of art achievement. States can assess their standards through multiple choice/essay tests, performance tasks, and/or portfolios. In Missouri, without a mandatory textbook or state curriculum, there exists great diversity among schools regarding what students are taught in art classes. Therefore, standards can be assessed by creating a generic rubric which can be adapted to a wide variety of art products/assignments. Teachers, trained as judges, would use the rubric’s criteria and levels of achievement to score student portfolios. Scores obtained through this assessment could be used to: monitor student growth, provide teachers with feedback for iii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 9. improving instruction, and inform stakeholders (parents, administrators, the public) about student achievement (Armstrong, 1994; Beattie, 1997; Eisner, 1996). The purpose o f this study was to provide a model for school districts or states to use when designing large-scale, authentic assessments. The research problem was to determine which criteria should be included on a Missouri art assessment rubric. One question investigated whether there should be different rubrics for elementary, middle, and high school grade levels. Another, proposed four sets of aesthetic criteria representing the aesthetic theories of Formalism, Expressionism, Instrumentalism, and Imitationalism. Significant differences in opinions among teachers of different grade levels suggested the use of multiple rubrics. Significant differences among aesthetic theory criteria indicated that each could be used interchangeably depending upon the project or artist’s intent. To determine which component criteria and descriptors should be included in the questionnaire, a search was made of the related literature, experts in the field provided feedback, and teachers offered input through focus groups held at a Missouri Art Education Association Conference. Using survey methodology, 382 (19% of population) Missouri art teachers were asked to respond to a list of criteria. For each criterion statement, teachers indicated (on a 5-point Likert scale) the degree to which they felt it was important for assessment. The methodology consisted of the development and mailing of a questionnaire to a random sample of Missouri art teachers. As a follow-up, a second cover letter and survey were mailed to non-respondents, then a letter was faxed to building principals, and finally, phone calls were made to a sample of non-respondents. A total of 78% of teachers iv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 10. in the sample responded. Descriptive statistics, ANOVA, Tukey’s Post Hoc Comparisons, and Contrasts were computed for each criterion. Written teacher comments were tallied and used to provide a deeper understanding of survey responses. This study found that Missouri art teachers agreed upon a list of criteria for inclusion in a state art assessment rubric. The conclusions follow, presented by survey category. Greater than 70% o f art teachers (the cut off for recommending inclusion on a state rubric) indicated that it was important to include the following Responding to Art criteria on a state rubric: 1) explains perceptions of artwork; 2) identifies connections among arts and with other subjects; 3) relates art from historical periods, movements and/or cultures to own work; 4) uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate artworks; and 5) student self-evaluates. The Creating or Process criteria recommended for the rubric were: I) correctly uses assigned processes, media, and techniques; 2) demonstrates problem-solving process; and 3) demonstrates originality, creativity, or inventiveness. All Attitude or Habits-of-Mind criteria were included: 1) is persistently on task; 2) respects materials, equipment, other students, and their art; 3) shows commitment; and 4) is responsive to teacher’s feedback. The Art Product criteria recommended for the state rubric were: 1) demonstrates skill or craftspersonship, 2) demonstrates planned, effective composition; 3) work shows improvement from past products; 4) demonstrates assigned concepts, processes, elements v Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 11. and/or principles; and S) intent of artist is communicated. The four aesthetic theory scales were significantly different at the p< 0001 level. Under Aesthetic criteria, none of the Instrumentalism criteria were thought to be important by 70% of responding teachers. All Formalism criteria were deemed to be important: 1) use of elements of art; 2) use of principles o f design; 3) distorts, exaggerates for purpose of design; and 4) composition. Three Expressionist criteria were included: 1) expresses ideas, attitudes, or feelings; 2) evokes emotions or feelings in viewer; and 3) communicates a point of view. All Imitationalist criteria were believed to be important for inclusion on a state rubric: 1) real or idealized representation of life; 2) shows realistic form (3-D) or illusion of form (2-D); 3) shows realistic texture (3-D) or the illusion o f texture (2-D); and 4) shows space (3-D), or the illusion of depth (2-D). The results were used by the Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task Force to develop a draft of an interdisciplinaiy arts rubric for teachers to use when conducting local assessment of the state education standards. vi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 12. LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Frequency of Grade Levels Currently Taught by Art Teachers in Sample..........117 2. Years of Teaching Experience for Art Teachers in the Sample............................. 118 3. Number of Art Students Taught in a Year by Grade Level.................................. 119 4. Products Considered Important for Teachers to Assess....................................... 122 5. Additional Products Teachers Assess Comments.................................................. 123 6. What is included in Student Portfolios Comments.................................................125 7. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for “Responding” Criteria........................................127 8. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Student Response Criteria.......................................................................................129 9. Responding to Art Criteria Comments....................................................................128 30 10. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Process Criteria........................................................................................................132 11. Table Creating or Process Criteria Comments....................................................... 133 12. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Attitude or Habits of Mind Criteria........................................................................135 13. Attitude or Habits of Mind Comments....................................................................136 14. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Art Product Criteria.................................................................................................138 15. Art Product Criteria Comments...............................................................................139 16. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for all “Aesthetic” Criteria.......................................141 17. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Aesthetic M eans......................142 vii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 13. 18. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for Aesthetics Subcategories: Formalist, Expressionist, Instrumental, and Imitationalist Criteria........................144 19. Contrasts for Aesthetics Subcategories: Formalist, Expressionist, Instrumental, and Imitationalist Criteria....................................................................145 20. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Formalist Aesthetic Criteria..................................146 21. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Formalist Aesthetic Criteria....................................................................................... 147 22. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Expressionist Aesthetic Criteria.................................................................................149 23. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Instrumental/Pragmatic Aesthetic Criteria...........150 24. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Instrumental or Pragmatic Aesthetic Criteria............................................................151 25. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Imitationalist or Mimetic Aesthetic Criteria.........152 26. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Imitationalist or Mimetic Aesthetic Criteria..............................................................154 27. Aesthetic Criteria Comments.......................................................................................156 28. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Teach Specific Content...........................................................................................................159 29. “What do you Teach?” Comments............................................................................. 161 30. Assessment Criteria not Included in this Survey Comments...................................162 31. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the Mean o f Formalist Criteria, Uses Elements/Principles, and Abstracts/Non-Objective................................................164 32. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Expressionist Criteria and Teaching Students to Express Feelings/Attitudes....................................................................165 33. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Instrumentalism, “Create Functional Art” and “Communicate Social, Political, or Personal Messages...................................166 34. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Imitationalism and Draw/Paint/Sculpt/Print Realistically from Observation......................................... 167 viii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 14. 35. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: II, RoughDrafts................................................................................................................204 36. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: II, Rough Drafts................ 205 37. Contrast for Dependent Variable: II, Rough...........................................................206 39. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 12, Final Product......................................................................................................................... 207 39. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: 12, Final Product..............208 40. Contrast for Dependent Variable: 12, Final Product................................................ 209 41. General Linear Models Procedure for Dependent Variable: 14, Art Criticism ... 210 42. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: 14, Art Criticism.................211 43. Contrast for Dependent Variable: 14, Art Criticism................................................ 212 44. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 15, Art Historical Writing....................................................................................................... 213 45. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: 15, Art Historical Writing........................................................................................................................214 46. Contrast for Dependent Variable: 15, Art Historical Writing.................................215 47. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 17, Portfolio......................................................................................................................216 48. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for Variable: 17,Portfolio........................217 49. Contrast for Dependent Variable: 17, Portfolio........................................................218 50. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 114, Uses Vocabulary....................................................................................................... 219 51. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: 114, Uses Vocabulary........220 52. Contrast for Dependent Variable: 114, Uses Vocabulary........................................ 221 53. General Linear Models Procedure for Dependent Variable: 115, Self-Evaluate...222 ix Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 15. 54. Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: 115, Self-Evaluate...............223 55. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: 115, Self-Evaluate.............................................224 56. General Linear Models Procedure for Dependent Variable: III4, Sketchbook/Journal................................................................................................... 225 57. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: III4 , Sketchbook/Journal................................................................................................... 226 58. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: III4, Sketchbook/Journal................................ 227 59. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: IV3, Shows Commitment................................................................................................... 228 60. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: IV3, Shows Commitment............................................................................................................... 229 61. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: IV3, Shows Commitment.,.............................230 62. General Linear Models Procedure Dependent Variable: VI, Craftspersonship.........................................................................................................231 63. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VI,Craftspersonship.........232 64. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VI,Craftspersonship........................................233 65. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: V2, Plans Composition..................................................................................................... 234 66. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: V2, Plans Composition............................................................................................................... 235 67. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: V2, Plans Composition................................... 236 68. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VII2, Realism from Observation......................................................................................... 237 69. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VTI2, Realism from Observation................................................................................................................ 238 70. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VII2, Realism from Observation....................239 x Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 16. 71. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VII7, Historical Style................................................................. 240 72. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VIT7, Historical Style........ 241 73. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VIT7, Historical Style.......................................242 74. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: V, Category of Art Product Criteria...............................................................................243 75. Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: V, Category of Art Product Criteria.......................................................................................................... 244 75. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: V, Category of Art Product Criteria..............245 77. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VI, Category of Aesthetic Criteria...................................................................................246 78. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VI, Category of Aesthetic Criteria........................................................................................................247 79. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VI, Category of Aesthetic Criteria................. 248 80. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: Aesthetic Subcategory of Formalism.........................................................................................249 81. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: Aesthetic Subcategory of Formalism.........................................................................................250 82. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: Aesthetic Subcategory of Formalism..............251 83. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: Aesthetic Subcategory of Imitationalism...................................................................................252 84. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: Aesthetic Subcategory of Imitationalism...................................................................................253 85. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: Aesthetic Subcategory of Imitationalism............................................................................................................. 254 86. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VTF3, Abstracts..................................................................................................................... 255 87. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VIF3, Abstracts.................256 xi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 17. 88. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VIF3, Abstracts.................................................257 89. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VTF4, Composition.................................................................................................................258 90. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VIF4, Composition........... 259 91. Dependent Variable: VTF4, Composition...................................................................260 92. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VIM1, Realism..........................................................................................................................261 93. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VIM1, Realism..................262 94. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VIM1, Realism..................................................263 95. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VIM2, Shows Realistic Form..................................................................................... 264 96. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VTM2, Shows Realistic Form................................................................................................... 265 97. Table for Dependent Variable: VIM2, Shows Realistic Form................................266 98. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VTM3, Shows Realistic Texture.............................................................................................267 99. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VIM3, Shows Realistic Texture..........................................................................................................................268 100. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VTM3, Shows Realistic Texture..................... 269 101. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable. VTM4, Shows Realistic Space....................................................................................270 102. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VIM4, Shows Realistic Space............................................................................................................. 271 103. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VTM4, Shows Realistic Space....................... 272 104. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha Correlation Analysis.................................................... 273 xii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 18. LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Recommended Criteria for Grade Level, State Art Rubrics.............................191 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 19. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..........................................................................................................ii ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................xiii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of Study...............................................................................................5 Importance of the Study....................................................................................6 Statement of the Problem..................................................................................7 Study Design..................................................................................................... 7 Definition of Terms........................................................................................... 8 Assumptions of the Study................................................................................10 Delimitations of the Study...............................................................................11 Summary........................................................................................................... 12 2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE........................................................... 13 Introduction......................................................................................................13 Functions of Assessment.................................................................................13 History of Arts Testing.................................................................................... 15 Standardized Achievement Tests...................................................................21 Criterion-Referenced Multiple Choice Tests................................................25 xiv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 20. Alternative Forms of Assessment................................................................... 27 Performance-Based Assessment.....................................................................29 Authentic Assessment..................................................................................... 30 Portfolio Assessment........................................................................................33 Performance Assessment Criteria.................................................................. 36 Aesthetics......................................................................................................... 47 Definition of Aesthetics...................................................................................47 Philosophy of Aesthetics.................................................................................48 Aesthetic Theories of Art................................................................................50 Imitational or Mimetic Theory...........................................................52 Expressionist Theory.......................................................................... 54 Formalist Theory.................................................................................56 Pragmatic or Instrumental Theory..................................................... 58 Open Theory........................................................................................60 Institutional Theory............................................................................62 Postmodern Theory............................................................................ 64 Aesthetic Education in Art Education............................................................66 Aesthetic Theories and Student Art Production...........................................77 Rationale for this Study Based upon Literature Review............................. 81 Summary............................................................................................................85 3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES.......................................................................87 Introduction...................................................................................................... 87 xv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 21. Research Questions..........................................................................................89 Relationship to the Literature..........................................................................92 How will this Study Answer Research Questions?...................................... 95 Subjects............................................................................................................. 97 The Instrument..................................................................................................99 Themes of Questionnaire Categories..........................................................101 Reliability and Validity................................................................................. 105 Administration of the Survey.......................................................................107 Coding of Surveys...........................................................................................108 Optimizing Return Rate..................................................................................108 Data Analysis.................................................................................................110 4. RESULTS.............................................................................................................113 Introduction...................................................................................................113 Demographic Variables................................................................................115 What do Art Teachers Assess?....................................................................120 Portfolio Assessment....................................................................................123 Responding Criteria........................................................................................ 126 Creating or Process Criteria.........................................................................131 Attitude or Habits-of-Mind Criteria............................................................134 Art Product Criteria......................................................................................136 Aesthetics Criteria.........................................................................................139 Formalist Criteria............................................................................. 145 xvi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 22. Expressionist Criteria........................................................................ 148 Instrumental Criteria......................................................................... 149 Imitationalist Criteria........................................................................ 151 What do You Teach?.....................................................................................157 Relationship Between Aesthetics and Instruction.......................................163 Sample of Non-Respondents........................................................................ 167 Summary..........................................................................................................169 5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................... 173 Introduction.................................................................................................... 173 Summary..........................................................................................................176 Discussion of Results.....................................................................................187 Conclusions..................................................................................................... 190 Recommendations.......................................................................................... 195 Implications....................................................................................................198 APPENDIX............................................................................................................................. 203 Tables...........................................................................................................................204 REFERENCE LIST....................................................................................................274 Questionnaire, Art Assessment Survey..................................................................... 295 Initial and Follow-up Cover Letters.........................................................................299 Results Sent to Participants........................................................................................302 Draft Missouri Art Assessment Rubric.................................................................... 306 VITA.........................................................................................................................................................................................3 0 8 xvii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 23. CHAPTER ONE Assessment should look directly at skills and principles essential to thinking in the arts, such as craftsmanship, originality, willingness to pursue a problem in depth, development of work over time, ability to work independently and in a group, ability to perceive qualities in a work, and ability to think critically about one’s work. The assessment should reflect the rigorous standards routinely applied to the professions in the arts as valid fields of intellectual endeavor. (Rayala, 1995, p. 176) Introduction The arts are a basic part of contemporary education (U.S. Department of Education, 1998; National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1996). Like teachers in the core subjects of language arts, mathematics, science, and social sciences, arts practitioners established expectations for student knowledge and production/performance through national and state standards (Higgins, 1989; U.S. Department of Education, 1991; National Standards for Arts Education, 1994; Missouri State Board of Education, 1996). To determine whether standards increase student achievement - as intended - student knowledge and performance must be assessed. As a consequence of arts’ inclusion in basic education, its practitioners must develop, implement, and publicly report the results of art achievement. In the absence of a national or state curriculum in the visual arts, the broadly- stated standards are translated into practice by art teachers and/or school districts. Given the diverse interpretations of standards which are taught in art classrooms, how can the 1 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 24. standards be assessed? One answer is that ifthere are criteria that describe quality in art processes and products, then it would be possible to use them to create a rubric that transcends individual teachers’s assignments. In addition to a set of core criteria that could be applied to all student artwork, are there some criteria that could selectively be applied to works based upon the subject matter and intent of the artist? If so, then aesthetic theories of art may provide the lenses or windows for framing different sets of content-related criteria. Criteria and descriptors of quality production/performance, assembled into a scoring rubric, could be used by students when creating art, and by teachers and/or external moderators when assessing student artwork. Scores obtained through this assessment could be used to: monitor student growth, provide teachers feedback for improving instruction, and inform stakeholders (parents, administrators, the public) about student achievement. The subject of this study is the search for such criteria and for teachers’ subsequent validation of the criteria as important enough to be considered for large-scale assessment. In response to the request of the United States Congress for a study on the state of the arts, the National Endowment for the Arts published Toward Civilization (1987) which advocated full inclusion of the arts in American education. The report recommends that state education agencies and local school districts make arts education part o f the basic school curriculum, K-12, and determine an essential body of content that all students should know. Toward Civilization specified that each district should implement a comprehensive testing program to measure student achievement in the arts, using both qualitative and quantitative measures, and addressing creation, performance, history, 2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 25. critical analysis, and the place of the arts in society. State education agencies were asked to develop comparative evaluation procedures based upon state arts education goals for each district and school arts program. This landmark document set the stage for high- stakes assessment in the arts (Finlayson, 1988; Rudner & Boston, 1994). When America 2000: An Education Strategy (U.S. Department of Education, 1991) was amended to include the arts, school districts and state agencies began to search for ways to document student achievement in the arts (Sabol, 1994). This task continues. From survey results, Peeno (1997) reported diversity among states in arts evaluation methods, including essay, multiple-choice, short answer, embedded, performance, and portfolio assessment. Six states were already assessing the arts; another eight were planning to do so; 18 had not decided; and 18 had no plans to test in the arts. Vermont, Utah, California, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, while not administering state-wide tests, have produced guidelines for teachers to assess achievement of state standards in their classrooms (Vermont Arts Council, 1995; Stubbs, 1985; Taylor 1991; Mitchell, 1993; Rayala, 1995; Higgins, 1989). Zimmerman (1999) comments that authentic assessments in which students are asked to use knowledge and skills to solve out-of-school realistic problems is becoming common. She states that “in the near future, most art teachers as well as art education researchers probably will be involved in some aspect of large-scale arts assessment” (p. 45). Traditionally, large scale assessments have been multiple-choice tests because they are familiar, report scores which are easily ranked, and cost less than alternative types of assessment. The trend across content areas is currently away from standardized tests and 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 26. toward performance-based, authentic instruments (Wiggins, 1989; Maeroff, 1991). Kohn, in an interview with O’Neil and Tell (1999), explains the rationale for a trend to conduct assessment embedded in classroom instruction: Learning doesn’t take place at a district or a state level; it takes place in a classroom... a teacher-designed - and perhaps externally validated - assessment doesn’t meet only the teacher’s needs. If it’s done right, it also meets the needs of parents and citizens to make sure that the teachers and schools are doing a decent job. (p.21) External validation involves assessment by a panel of trained judges using common criteria. (Gaston, 1977; Weate, 1999). These criteria, when organized with descriptors that indicate the differences among various levels of success or quality, are called rubrics (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). With such an instrument, raters are able to score a variety of teacher-developed assessments. An advantage of this approach is its flexibility in assessing artwork created in the diverse cultural contexts found in contemporary life (Broughton, 1999). A disadvantage is that assessments which require judges are labor intensive, costing more than machine-scored tests (Wiggins, 1998). The state of Missouri is in the process of developing arts assessment with a limited budget. Therefore, one component will be a multiple-choice exam in which students respond in writing to images presented in videotape format (Peeno, 1999). Because the selected-response format limits students’ critical and/or creative responses, this test will focus on students’ knowledge of art vocabulary. Art production, aesthetics, and in-depth responses regarding historical/cultural contexts of art will not be assessed through this state-wide test. Instead, the state will support teachers’ local scoring of these art 4 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 27. disciplines using a common rubric. Matrix sampling of scored work will be used to communicate degrees of achievement statewide. The rubric should represent, not only the state standards which are being addressed, but also the teachers’ practice and understanding of what is important in assessing students’ art products. The Purpose of the Study Assessments in education influence curriculum and instruction. Therefore, state­ wide assessment has far-reaching power to change education. One way to improve the quality of instruction and student achievement is to design an assessment which allows students to perform or produce tasks that simulate professional practice. In the arts, this practice is best demonstrated through portfolio assessment. A generic rubric, aligned with state standards, provides the framework from which to score diverse student artworks and writings included in portfolios. The purpose of this study is to provide a rubric development model for states or school districts to use when designing large-scale portfolio assessments. To determine which component criteria and descriptors should be included in the instrument, a search was made of the related literature, experts in the field were asked to provide feedback, and teachers were asked to provide input during a state art association meeting. 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 28. The Importance of the Study The study will serve as a model which can be adapted by states or school districts as they begin to discuss achievement and plan ways to document it. Component parts of the survey might be changed to include items of regional or cultural significance. Discussions of the model could generate local standards of quality. The study is intended to stimulate a process in which art teachers, the experts in analyzing quality in student artworks, determine which criteria should be valued highly enough to become expectations for all students. In the state of Missouri, the study results will help determine which criteria should be included in a state rubric. The rubric will be given to art teachers to help them evaluate their students’ achievement of state art standards. The specific knowledge standards for the arts are: In Fine Arts, students in M issouripublic schools willacquire a solid foundation which includes knowledge o f 1) process and techniques for the production, exhibition or performance of one or more of the visual or performed arts; 2) the principles and elements of different art forms; 3) the vocabulary to explain perceptions about and evaluations of works in dance, music, theater, and visual arts; 4) interrelationships of visual and performing arts and the relationships of the arts to other disciplines; 5) visual and performing arts in historical and cultural contexts. (Show-Me Standards, 1996, p. 1) These standards require high levels of thinking and creating which can be judged through portfolio assessment. The rubric will function as an operational definition of the 6 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 29. standards, making the general more specific, and therefore of greater practical use. It is assumed that opinions reflected by the random sample of art teachers should generalize to others in the population. The Statement of the Problem The problem of this study is to identify criteria for a portfolio assessment rubric that would assess critical and creative thinking, problem-solving, and production in the visual arts. The study was designed to gather art teachers’ opinions of criteria that could be used when assessing students’ art achievement of Missouri’s art standards. Study Design The study is quantitative. A survey will be mailed to 382, randomly-selected Missouri art teachers. A questionnaire was developed using a Likert, five-point scale. It was used to obtain art teachers opinions about the relative importance of various criteria when assessing student art products. Categories on the questionnaire relate to demographic information and various aspects of assessment. They are: Demographics, What do you Teach?, Responding to Art, What do you assess?, Creating or Process Criteria, Attitude or Habits-of-Mind Criteria, Art Product Criteria, and Aesthetic Approach Criteria. 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 30. Definition of Terms In the discussion of related literature many terms will be used that have specific meanings in the fields of assessment and aesthetics. These terms are defined below: Evaluation and Assessment are synonymous (Eisner, 1996, New W ebster’s dictionary o f the English Language, 1992, Charles, 1998). Both are processes that obtain information through measuring, testing, or judging for the purpose of determining value. Both use quantitative and qualitative sources of data. Formative Evaluation and Summative Evaluation have become accepted descriptions for mid-progress versus final evaluation (Scriven, 1981). Authentic Assessment implies the evaluation of complex tasks in an out-of-school context, during which students face challenging, “il-structured” (no single known solution) problems (Wiggins, 1989). Test refers to a quantitative evaluation/assessment for purposes of reporting or comparison. Standardized Tests, typically multiple- or cued- choice, are accompanied by norms that permit comparison of individuals (Charles, 1998). 8 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 31. Selected-Choice. Cued-Choice. or Multiple-Choice test items ask students to choose the one correct answer from a list of four or five possible answers. Criterion-Referenced tests compare a student’s performance “to a whole repertoire of behaviors, which are, in turn, referenced to the content and skills o f a discipline” rather than to the performance of other students (Beattie, 1997, p. 4). Standards are “quantifying thresholds of what is adequate for some purpose established by authority, custom, or consensus“ (Sadler, 1987, p. 192). Content Standards specify exit learning criteria. Achievement Standards “specify achievement levels pertaining to exit learning criteria” (Beattie, 1997, p.4). External Assessment describes a situation where the observer is not a normal part of the situation, and/or the assessment instrument (usually a test) was constructed by persons outside o f the school district. Internal Assessments use locally developed instruments and are usually administered by the teacher as part of instruction or subsequent to it (Armstrong, 1994). 9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 32. Portfolio assessment is a “purposeful collection of student work that tells the story o f the student’s efforts, progress, or achievement in (a) given area(s)” (Beattie, 1997, p. 15). Aesthetics is a group of concepts for understanding the nature of art (Lankford, 1992). Within the field of aesthetics, theories explain phenomena in different ways. Major aesthetic theories relevant to this research project are Imitationalism/Mimeticism, Expressionism, Formalism, and Pragmatism/Instrumentalism. Imitationalism or Mimeticism proposes that an artifact is art if it copies the real or imagined world. Expressionism considers works that either evoke or represent emotions to be art. Formalism looks for meaning solely from the analysis of the object’s formal qualities such as line, shape, or color. Pragmaticism or Instrumentalism views art in terms of it’s social function in a culture. Assumptions o f the Study This study is based upon the following assumptions: 10 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 33. 1) The respondents in the sample are representative of Missouri art teachers. 2) The respondents of the sample provided, to the best of their ability, accurate information to the questions posed. 3) The art teachers represented in the sample assess their student’s work. 4) The art teachers represented in the sample understand the terminology used in the instrument. 5) The Art Assessment Survey, developed for this study, measures opinions about the importance of using specific assessment criteria to evaluate student art production. 6) The questionnaires were completed by Missouri art teachers. Delimitations of the Study The results of this study were interpreted in relationship to the following delimitations: 1) The findings are subject to sampling errors. 2) The findings of this study generalize only to Missouri art teachers. 3) Art teachers’ names provided by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, listed teachers from the previous year, therefore the sample contained names of teachers who have moved or retired. 4) Missouri has no statewide art textbook or curriculum, therefore teachers may have different understandings o f terms used in the survey. 11 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 34. 5) The sample of 382 is 19% of the population o f2030 art teachers in the state. Most dissertations reviewed used a sample of 15%-20% of similar-sized populations. Postage and printing costs made it necessary to limit the sample size. 6) Some data are not reported in this study. Since the problem was to identify criteria for a state rubric, the decision was made to report only the percentage of teachers who favored inclusion of each item. Information on the percentage of teachers who answered “no opinion”, “little importance”, or “no importance” for each item is available from the researcher. Summary Chapter One included the importance of the study, the statement of the problem, definition of terms, assumptions and delimitations of the study. Chapter Two presents a review of literature related to the study. Chapter Three contains a description of the procedures and methods used in the study. Chapter Four provides an analysis of the data gathered in the study. Chapter Five reviews and discusses conclusions, recommendations for further study, and implications of the results. 12 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 35. CHAPTER TWO Review of Related Literature Introduction The scaffold of theory that supports this study is presented in this chapter. The topics covered in the literature review are: 1) functions of assessment, 2) history of arts testing, 3) standardized achievement tests, 4) criterion-referenced multiple-choice tests, 5) alternative assessment, 6) performance-based assessment, 7) authentic assessment, 8) portfolio assessment, 9) performance assessment criteria, 10) aesthetics, 11) aesthetics as a philosophy o f art, 12) aesthetic education, 13) aesthetic theories of art, 14) aesthetic theories as criteria for assessment. Functions of Assessment Thirteen assessment roles and the function of each are presented by Boston and Rudner (1994) in the VisualArts Education Reform Handbook. Those directed toward student learning are listed as numbers 1-6. Those directed toward the evaluation, maintenance, and improvement of art programs are numbered 7-13. 1) Criticism (informing students about the quality of a performance) 13 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 36. 2) Grading (informing students, parents, and others about achievement levels) 3) Qualification (to decide which students may enter or leave a course or program) 4) Placement (to identify the type or ability level most suitable for students) 5) Prediction (to help predict success or failure based upon past or current achievement) 6) Diagnosis (to identify students... particular learning attributes) 7) Didactic Feedback ( to provide... feedback concerning ...teaching process) 8) Communication (to convey information about the goals of educational programs) 9) Accountability (to provide information regarding the extent to which goals for educational programs have been achieved) 10) Representation (to operationalize...the general or abstract goals of art education) 11) Implementation (to provide information about the extent to which the arts program is being implemented) 12) Curriculum Maintenance (to ensure that certain elements of the arts program continue to be included) 13) Innovation (to encourage the introduction of new...elements into the arts curriculum), (p.7) Armstrong (1994) discusses three basic reasons for assessment of student learning: 1) it is educationally sound; 2) required by some states or school districts; and 3) it is an opportunity to inform others about art education (p.5). Eisner (1994) lists five functions of assessment: 1) educational temperature-taking (measuring the educational health of the nation); 2) “gatekeeping” (selecting the most accomplished to receive further schooling); 3) determining if course objectives have been attained; 4) providing feedback to teachers on the quality of their work; and 5) providing feedback on the quality of programs (pp. 201- 202). Depending upon their functions and contexts, various assessments gather different kinds of data. Generally, the types fall into quantitative and qualitative categories. The 14 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 37. typical quantitative test is a standardized achievement test, while qualitative assessments occur informally during instruction, through observation, interviews, portfolio, and production analyzes. History of Arts Testing Beattie (1998) reviewed the history of arts testing noting its origins in the pre-Qin Dynasty of China. Socrates tested thinking through his method of orally examining students (Beattie, 1998; Eaton, 1994). The first arts tests probably occurred in the middle ages when artists and musicians had to pass exams to gain admittance to guilds (Zerull, 1990). Evaluation and assessment were embedded in the scientific tradition dating to the Enlightenment in Europe and the work of Descartes and Newton. After 1850, scientific study of human behavior and the child study movement emerged in Germany, while in England, Galton developed statistics for describing mental performance (Eisner, 1994). The first “draw a man” test dates to Schuyten (1901-1907). Correlations were found between drawing ability and intelligence by Ivanof in 1909 (Clark, Zimmerman, & Zurmuehlen, 1987). Scientific inquiry was based upon the search for variables that could be measured, predicted, and control outcomes. The testing movement in America adopted a scientific approach. Before 1910, the use of surveys, descriptive studies, and psychometric tests predominated in testing theory. 15 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 38. From 1913-1929, the efficiency movement, based upon Taylor’s time and motions studies (a model for improving the productivity of factory workers) led a drive for standardized testing (Eisner; 1994; Clark, Zimmerman, & Zurmuehlen, 1987) and the era of quantitative testing began. Thorndike, developed the first standardized test in 1913, and invented “connectionism”, learning through reinforcement of stimulus response (Castiglione, 1966). In 1926, Thorndike used inter-rater judging for the first time; Whipple used tests to differentiate gifted from other students; and Terman published the first Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test. The Manuel Test, developed in, 1919, was used to discover special ability in drawing using psychological traits. Between 1919 and 1942, fifteen art tests were developed including the Meier-Seashore Art Judgment Test (Clark, Zimmerman, & Zurmuehlen, 1987). During the early twentieth century drawing assessment was not popular due to the influence of Dewey. In 1916, he was influenced by Darwin’s theory of the nature of human organisms. In Dewey’s child-centered approach, as the human sought equilibrium through problem-solving, the mind grew. For him, the child could grow best when he had the ability to frame and pursue his own purposes. This philosophy, underlying the Progressive Education movement in the 1920's-50's, viewed art as a means for children’s self-expression. In 1926, Goodenough published the Draw a M an Test. Tests o fFundamental Abilities o f VisualArt, by Lewemz, in 1927, included production, aesthetic perception and art history, for grades three through 12 (Hoepfner, 1983). From 1942 to 1966, while art education emphasized creative production, 16 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 39. exploration of media, and personal expression, art test development was depressed. An anti-test bias was promoted in the literature by Cizek, Dewey, Cole, D’Amico, Read , Lowenfeld, Shaefer-Simmem, Kellogg, and Clark, Zimmerman, & Zurmuehlen. During the same period, educational psychology was developing technological, systematic theories led by Harap, and Tyler, and followed by Anderson, Bloom, Cronbach, Goodlad, and Taba. They ushered in the Behavioral Objective Movement which gained strength after Russia’s ascent of Spudnik in 1957 (Eisner, 1985). The national drive to reform education focused on the “basics” and changed prevailing educational philosophy from child-centered growth to the presentation and assessment of clearly-articulated, measurable objectives. Eisner developed two tests in 1966, the Eisner Art Information Inventory and the Eisner Art Aptitude Inventory to measure students’ knowledge and attitudes about the visual arts. Analysis of his research with secondary school students demonstrated that neither attitude towards the arts, nor knowledge of art increased over four years of high school (Clark, Zimmerman, & Zurmuehlen, 1987). The 1974 and 1978 versions of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) arts assessments, led by Wilson, collected data to describe students’ abilities to: 1) perceive and respond to aspects of art; 2) value art, 3) produce art, 4) know about art, and 5) make and justify judgments about the aesthetic merit o f art. Included were multiple-choice questions which required complex thinking, open-ended essay questions based upon art reproductions and sculpture, and production activities (Clark, Zimmerman, & Zurmuehlen, 1987; Gaitskill, Hurwitz, & Day, 1982). In analyzing the results of the 17 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 40. first NAEP studies, Clark, Zimmerman, and Zurmuehlen (1987) noted that students’ taste in art became more conventional and realistic during the late seventies. At the same time, the importance they place upon art decreased. The items used to assess knowledge about art and art history included identification of artworks, their dates, and places of creation. Results of the assessment indicated that American students had limited knowledge about art. An explanation was that American art curricula generally emphasized production of art works rather than art history or art criticism. However, in spite of this focus, student performance on design and drawing skills was lower than expected. ARTS PROPEL, a program developed by Gardner o f Harvard’s Project Zero, the Educational Testing Service, and the Pittsburgh schools presented a portfolio assessment model centered upon studio production, perception, and reflection which has influenced the field (Gardner & Grunbaum, 1986; Clark, Zimmerman, & Zurmuehlen, 1987; Gardner, 1989; Gardner, 1990; Yau, 1990; Wolf& Pistone, 1991; Winner & Simmons, 1992; Gitomer, 1992; Arter, 1995). Never intended as large-scale assessment, there were no provisions for aggregation of data from the PROPEL studies. In the 1980-1990's, public criticism of education focused on graduates’ deficient entry level skills for work in the information age (SCANS Report, 1992) and the United State’s poor standing in international tests. Standards were viewed as a panacea. The standards model of assessment included training judges to identify multiple right answers (Castiglione, 1996). Arts educators from the visual arts, music, theatre, and dance formed a consortium and responded to the standards movement by writing the National Standards fo r Arts Education (1994). The states were charged with responsibility for assessment 18 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 41. (national testing, defeated by Congress in 1997, is likely to be revived in the future). The first large-scale arts assessment based upon national standards, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) planned to conduct a field test of fourth, eighth, and twelfth grade students in 1996-97 (NAEP Arts Education Assessment and Exercise Specifications, 1996). However, funding limitations necessitated cutting the proposed administration of the NAEP art test to a national sample of only eighth grade students. The test was innovative in its scope and performance components. The sample of the general population, rather than those in art classes, was drawn from public and private schools. Both paper-and-pencil tasks (used to assess responding) and performance tasks (used to assess creating) were prepared by the Educational Testing Service. They wrote: The visual arts assessment covers both content and processes. Content includes (1) knowledge and understanding of the visual arts and (2) perceptual, technical, expressive, and intellectual/reflective skills. Processes include (1) creating, and (2) responding. (National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department of Education, NCES-526, p. 2) Results indicate that students who did well on the responding, paper-and-pencil, activities, also did well on the creating tasks. In both categories, students were challenged. In the responding category, average scores ranged from a high of 55 percent of students who could identify an example of contemporary Western art, to a low of 25 percent of students who could select a work that contributed to Cubism from four choices. On essay responses, only four percent of students could write a complete, in-depth analysis, compared with 24 percent who could give a limited, or partial score, answer. The average creating score in the visual arts was 43 percent of the possible points. Between one 19 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 42. percent and three percent of students scored at the optimal level on tasks that asked them to create expressive artworks which showed consistent awareness of qualities such as contrast, texture, and color. Demographically, 52 percent of students attended schools where visual arts were taught to the typical eighth-grader at least three or four times a week, though no significant relationships were found between frequency of instruction and student scores (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). Another large-scale assessment project, measuring art creation and reflection, is being developed by the Arts Education Consortium of the Council of Chief State School Officers. Art education textbooks, expressing prevailing philosophies, disseminated anti­ testing attitudes. Lowenfeld and Brittain in Creative and Mental Growth (1957,1987), viewed testing as an impediment to growth. Kellogg (1969) wrote that tests interfered with children’s natural development. Chapman, in Approaches to Art in Education (1978), discussed program evaluation, of which one component was evaluation of learning, represented by a list of qualitative ways to assess student progress. Eisner, in Educating Artistic Vision, noted that “in Tests in Print, the most comprehensive catalogue of published tests available in the world, only 10 o f the 2,100 tests listed are for the visual arts” (1972, p.206). He identified production and criticism as appropriate subjects for testing. In Children and Their Art, Gaitskell, Hurwitz, and Day, (1982) espoused evaluation through questioning students on personal expression, pupils’ reactions to work of others, and students’ behaviors during participation in art activities. They reviewed the work of Bloom, behavioral objectives, the NAEP studies, Eisner’s theories of art connoisseurship and criticism, and suggested that standardized tests were neither reliable 20 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 43. nor applicable to the classroom. In these texts, evaluation was relegated to the end of the book rather than integrated with curriculum development and instruction. Teaching strategies for art activities ended with production. With systematic evaluation absent from major resources, generations of teachers modeled their classroom assessment on their personal recollection of college instruction in studio courses. Eisner (1996) expressed the predominant attitude. Testing typically is predicated on the assumption that the desired outcomes of educational activities are known in advance; artistic creation seeks surprise. Testing aspires for all a set of common correct responses; in the arts, idiosyncratic responses are prized. Testing typically focuses on pieces or segments of information; artistic work emphasizes wholes and configurations, (p. 1-2) Clark (1987) wrote that throughout history, art tests were most frequently developed for descriptive purposes in research studies with minimal transference to the classroom. Available art tests were idiosyncratic and specific to individual research projects. There is no history of national, normally distributed art achievement tests. Textbooks were inadequate in suggesting means for national accountability of achievement in the arts. Therefore, it is necessary to look for test models outside of the arts. Standardized Achievement Tests The most broadly-based test instruments are standardized achievement tests which 21 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 44. use multiple-choice test formats and cover general knowledge. Results are designed to match a statistical normal curve. Comparative tests are important where competition for limited resources exists (admissions to degree programs, jobs) and for large scale research (Castiglione, 1996). They contain multiple-choice items, are based on recall of factual knowledge and isolated skills, memorization of procedures, do not require judgment, and are reliable and valid (Frederiksen & Collins, 1989). Standardized tests’ long history make them acceptable to a wide audience and they are easy to administer (Archbald & Newman, 1988). Hamblen (1988) noted a trend toward standardized testing in the arts. Traditional standardized testing was viewed by some educators as a political necessity and could be used to report how students achieved in terms of general aspects of education (Newman, 1990). Educational accountability requires reliable assessment to support innovations in curriculum design, instructional methods, program funding, and student evaluation (Gruber, 1994). These standardized tests are most frequently found in mathematics, language arts, science and social studies subject areas. “The relative lack of systematic content and sequence in art instruction at the elementary grades accounts for the paucity of useful devices to assess achievement in art” (Hoepfiier, 1984, p. 251). Hoepfner (1984) believed his difficulty in finding art tests was due to: uneven requirements for art in schools which generated only a small commercial market for test developers, art educators’ lack of agreement on uniform art curriculum content, and the high cost of printing and scoring good tests. In an analysis of available art tests, Hoepfiier characterized them as unstructured, verbally structured, or object structured. Since empirical evidence did not exist on the reliability and validity of these 22 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 45. tests, he logically predicted that unstructured would have the highest validity and lowest reliability. He found no evidence for claims that art either changed attitudes or had an effect upon creativity. The Discipline-Based Art Education (DBAE) movement aspired to give all learners a lay understanding of the arts by engaging them in the four disciplines of artistic production, criticism, aesthetics, and art history. Day (1985) explained that the process and products of all these learning activities were meaningful candidates for evaluation for the improvement of student learning. He saw congruence between DBAE goals and testing “because evaluation is an essential component for validation of student achievement” (Day, 1985, p.232). Another advocate of DBAE, Gentile, suggested a balanced approach to assessment in which criterion-referenced grading using a mastery learning process for production would be combined with standardized paper and pencil tests of art criticism, aesthetics, and art history (Gentile, 1989). Standardized art tests engender widespread interest in the United States and abroad (Allison, 1977; Lai & Shishido, 1987). The Indiana Department of Education (1988) developed a multiple choice test for eighth grade students. It attempted to evaluate art historical, art critical, and aesthetic responses in a multiple choice format. Students wrote on the 28 page booklet, filled with reproductions (many in full color). Though promising, the cost became prohibitive and it was discontinued. At the post­ college level, the Educational Testing Service (1998) developed a high-stakes art knowledge test that is required by many states for teacher certification. The exam is composed of multiple choice items, constructed response hems, and an essay. The 23 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 46. multiple choice questions are typical of standardized tests while the other sections are criterion-referenced and are scored by trained raters using a rubric for scoring. Concerns were expressed about the exclusive use of standardized tests. Popham (1999) explained that standardized tests are poor indicators of educational quality because their primary purpose is to separate and sort people. From a test writer’s perspective, the goal of each item is to produce the maximum variance meaning that items are discarded unless close to 50 percent o f test takers get the wrong answer. Teachers emphasize the most significant content in any subject area which results in too many test takers answering those questions correctly. Therefore, the essential content is dropped from the test while trivial pieces of knowledge, better at discriminating, remain. Worthen and Spandel (1991) suggested that standardized tests represent only a small part o f assessing student learning, while teacher-centered assessment plays the greater role. Gordon (1977) researched effects of achievement testing on disadvantaged and minority populations and found that measures of diversity (such as differences in student interests, learning styles, learning rates, motivation, work habits, personalities, ethnicity, sex, and social class) were usually ignored in standardized assessments. Zimmerman (1992, 1994) noted that standardized tests tend to reward districts with high socio-economic and entry level scores; they are biased against women and minorities; there is a lack of correlation between test scores and improved learning; and minorities are under represented in test development. She stated that, “students from diverse ethnic, racial, and social groups possess unique characteristics that should be taken into consideration when art curricula and assessment measures are being developed” (Zimmerman, 1994, p. 31). Instead of 24 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 47. standardized tests, she advocates a socio-cultural approach in which teacher and community establish art content. The criteria need to be sensitive to, and include non- western values of collectivism, traditionalism, non-permanence, and culturally meaningful symbolism. Hamblen (1988) expressed concerns of many: Using testing as a legitimating rationale can be a dangerous game even if closely monitored and there is an explicit awareness ....Within the tautology of a self-fulfilling prophecy, what fits systematization becomes legitimate content. Art concepts can be easily limited to that which is technical, formalistic, and, hence testable, (p. 60) Standardized tests could be used in the arts and would be appropriate instruments for the assessment functions of accountability, temperature-taking, reporting to the community, and gatekeeping. If standardized tests were developed for the visual arts, the writers should select meaningful rather than trivial content, build higher-order thinking into complex questions, and address equity for multicultural, diverse populations. Criterion-Referenced Multiple-Choice Tests Criterion-referenced tests are linked directly to the learning objective established for the curriculum. No a priori attention is paid to the distribution of resulting scores. Successful completion of criterion- referenced tests is one indicator of mastery of content. (Hoepfiier, 1984, p.252) National consensus on art curriculum content will be needed in order to develop national, criterion-referenced tests. Some arts educators believe a national curriculum 25 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 48. already exists because of 1) state agency frameworks, 2) textbooks, 3) National Teacher’s Exam, 4) NAEP and the National Art Education Association research agenda, and 5) Getty’s promotion of DBAE (Zimmerman, 1994). These are insufficient to provide specific and agreed-upon art content, concepts, processes, or art historical emphases necessary for a national, criterion-referenced test. While not appropriate for national testing in the United States, Gentile (1989) proposed that criterion-referenced tests be used for classroom assessment because they 1) ensure that students do complete work, 2) establish criteria and standards for adequate work, and 3) provide incentive to master and excel (Gentile, 1989). Grove (1996) suggested that “Criterion-referenced tests can be appropriately used in small-scale testing where common curriculum objectives exist” (p.358). Gaitskell, Hurwitz, and Day, (1992) provided formats for teachers to use when developing multiple-choice, short answer, and essay tests. Limitations of both standardized and criterion-referenced multiple-choice tests are summarized by Parsons (1990): Understanding, or higher order thinking, is not all of one kind, and can’t be represented or assessed by a single overall quantitative score. It requires facts, concepts of different levels of generality, ways of organizing facts and concepts, procedures and strategies for answering questions and approaching tasks, and knowledge structures that allow one to organize all of these, (p.31) Wiggins (1989) criticized criterion-referenced tests as are inadequate because the problems were contrived, and the cues artificial. Criterion-referenced tests can be appropriately used for school, district, or state-level testing where common curriculum objectives exist. They could serve the functions of accountability, gatekeeping, 26 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 49. improvement of instruction, communication of achievement to all stakeholders, and modifications of instruction based upon measurement of student learning. Alternative Forms of Assessment We can not be said to understand something unless we can employ our knowledge wisely, fluently, flexibly, and aptly in particular and diverse contexts. (Wiggins, 1993, p.200) The umbrella category o f alternative assessment refers to a group of assessment practices which do not employ standardized or criterion-referenced, multiple-choice format tests. Performance-based assessments require students to create a product or to perform a task. Scoring allows partial credit as a means of evaluating process as well as the final product. Authentic assessments are performances set in a real-world context, and therefore may be i/-structured, without a single known solution, and frequently may be evaluated by an audience of experts. A portfolio is typically a collection of student works demonstrating process, reflection, and final product(s). The portfolio is a methodology which can be employed as a means of organizing and presenting documents for performance-based or authentic assessments. Wiggins (1989) explained that the movement to alternative forms of assessment was driven by a reaction to: the key assumptions of conventional test design - the decomposability of knowledge into elements and the decontextualiztion o f knowing whereby it 27 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 50. is assumed that if we know something, we know it in any context....A true test of intellectual ability requires the performance of exemplary tasks ...reform begins by recognizing that the test is central to instruction....The catch is that the test must offer students a genuine intellectual challenge, and teachers must be involved in designing the test. (p.704) Assessments were performance-based from the time of Socrates until the development of the Army Alpha multiple-choice exam during World War I (Popham, 1993). In response to deficits in American education publicized by the SCANS Report (1992), they were resurrected. The business community reported that workers needed to demonstrate complex skills such as problem-solving, working collaboratively, self- direction, and effective communication instead of knowing discrete facts being measured in standardized achievement tests. Business and educational reform demands (America 2000: An Education Strategy, 1991) coincided and led to standards development. Broad process skills, or “outcomes”, were included in national and state level standards in the content areas (National Standardsfo r Arts Education, 1994; Show-Me Standardsfo r Missouri Schools, 1996). Criteria are essential in alternative forms of assessment. The determination of whether criteria are met usually depends upon a scorer’s judgment or qualitative analysis (Grove, 1996). 28 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 51. Performance-based Assessment Performance-based assessment requires students to be active participants. Students are responsible for creating or constructing their responses (Rudner & Boston, 1994). Tasks that can be used to judge performance are: samples of work in process, final product, journals, research papers, group presentations or performances, peer critiques, interviews, self-evaluations, portfolios, essays, discussions, audio tapes, video tapes, sketches, notes, media experiments, exhibitions, behavior profiles, peer teaching, and retrospective verbal responses (Siegler, 1989; Wiggins. 1989, 1993; Maeroff, 1991; MacGregor, 1992; Beattie, 1992, 1994; Madaus, 1993; Worthen, 1993; Zimmerman, 1992, 1994; Gruber, 1994; Rudner & Boston, 1994; Grove, 1996; Boughton, 1997). The limitation of performance-based assessment as a large scale assessment is the cost. While standardized or criterion-referenced tests are machine-scored, product/performance-based scoring requires intense training and time-consuming analysis. Student products are initially scored by at least two independent raters. Often a third or fourth is necessary to resolve differences of opinion. Though most classroom instruction is performance-based, it differs from large scale assessment in that there is no feedback on, or moderation of the teachers’ scoring of student works. Performance-based assessment is appropriate for large-scale, high-stakes testing and is currently being used in state tests in Rhode Island and Kentucky (Maeroff, 1991; Kentucky, 1996). It would be appropriate for large-scale temperature-taking, gatekeeping, determining if course objectives had been attained, providing feedback on 29 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 52. both individual students and on the quality of art programs, and informing stakeholders about student achievement. Within the general category o f performance-based assessment there are two variants common to the classroom and literature. They are authentic assessment, and portfolio assessment. Authentic Assessment Authentic Assessment has students demonstrate what they might do outside of class in the course of normal life (Kentucky, 1996). These assessments are typically embedded (taught by the teacher as part of the regular instructional program). A scenario, or real-life context, is presented in which students are expected to solve problems that adults deal with in contemporary society. (Popham ,1993; Wiggins, 1989, 1993, 1998, 1999; MacGregor, 1992; Beattie, 1992, 1994; Madaus, 1993; Worthen, 1993; Milbrandt, 1998). Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus (1981) suggested that students should have open access to a variety of reference materials when being tested for synthesis level thinking. Ideally, synthesis problems should be as close as possible to the situation in which a scholar (or artist, or engineer, etc.) attacks a problem he or she is interested in. The time allowed, conditions of work, and other stipulations should be as far from the typical, controlled examination situation as possible, (pp. 52-53) Teachers are the best evaluators of their students’ authentic tasks (Zimmerman, 1992; Beattie, 1998; Huffman, 1998). Authentic tests involve the following factors: 30 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 53. 1) engaging and worthy problems or questions of importance in which students must use knowledge to fashion creative and effective performances...similar to real world problem. 2) faithful representation of contexts in real life 3) non routine and multistage tasks - real problems 4) tasks require a quality product/performance 5) transparent or demystified criteria and standards 6) interactions between assessor and assessee 7) response-contingent challenges where process and product are important with concurrent feedback and possibility o f self-adjustment during the test 8) trained assessor judgment in reference to clear and appropriate criteria 9) search for patterns of response in diverse settings (Wiggins 1993, p. 206-207). In authentic assessments, rubrics or scoring guides are used to list criteria and describe levels of achievement. Rubrics, the frameworks around which students build their work are best when collaboratively created by students and teacher and include self- assessments (Grove, 1996; Huffman, 1998). In order to discriminate levels of performance, some researchers contrast novice and sophisticated, rather than age-related, responses. (Efland, 1990; Parsons, 1990). Exemplars or benchmark samples of student work provide models for students at the beginning of an assignment, and help teachers calibrate scores during scoring (Frederiksen & Collins, 1989). Critical issues facing alternative assessment are: 1) conceptual clarity 2) mechanisms for self-criticism 3) support from well-informed educators 4) technical quality and truthfulness 5) standardization of assessment judgments 6) ability to assess complex thinking 7) acceptability to stakeholders 8) appropriateness for high-stakes assessment 9) feasibility 10) continuity and integration across educational systems 31 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 54. 11) use of technology 12) avoidance of monopolies (Worthen, 1993, pp. 447-453). Based upon authentic assessment in Great Britain, Madaus and Kellagham, (1993) proposed that large-scale, high-stakes authentic assessments may be prematurely discontinued due to constraints of time, money, and training of scorers. In a presentation to the Missouri Art Education Association, head of state art assessment Peeno (1999) stated that “authentic assessment costs the same amount as teachers’ salaries and supplies - the district cost per student”. Popham’s (1993) solution was to use genuine matrix sampling in which a low proportion of both students and assessment tasks are formally assessed. Students are prepared for many techniques, only a few of which were assessed. Teachers are influenced by what is eligible to be tested as well as what is actually tested. The quality of assessment stays high and the costs decrease. For those not participating in the sample, Popham advised that the government provide “difficulty-equated, but non- secure, authentic assessment to districts to allow teachers (on a voluntary basis) to show how well their students are doing” (p.473). These locally-scored assessments keep the focus o f assessment consistent among the districts selected for formal assessment and those that are not part of the matrix sample. Authentic assessments would be appropriate for large-scale temperature-taking, gatekeeping, determining if course objectives have been attained, providing feedback on both individual students and on the quality of art programs, and informing stakeholders about student achievement. The advantage of authentic assessment, over other types of performance-based assessment, is that a connection is made between what the students are 32 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 55. producing and why anyone would ever produce it. Therefore, natural connections are made to art careers and lifelong avocations. As such, what students learn in the process of performing authentic assessment should be more meaningful, likely to be retained over time, and tend to be transferred to other learning situations. Portfolio Assessment Portfolios have historically been used in visual arts, however, until recently little was written about requirements, contents, and the interaction between student and teacher regarding the portfolio. Portfolio Assessment is a type of performance-based assessment which appeared during the standards movement, beginning in 198S, in reaction to standardized testing. Many of the tests students encounter, by virtue of the tests’ design as a series of unrelated questions, draw teaching and learning toward the mastery of facts and away from large ideas and processes. Students’ repeated encounters with multiple-choice, timed tests teach them that the bases for success in school are first draft answers rather than sustained explorations, correctness rather than risk, and information rather than conceptualization. (Wolf, 1991, p. 65) Though traditionally used in the visual arts for admissions to art schools and to acquire jobs, portfolios became a popular addition to traditional testing in language arts, science, math, and social studies in the 1980-90's (Arter, 1990, 1995). Hamblen (1988) noted the irony that as other subjects’ testing was becoming more open, the arts were becoming more standardized. Arter (1995) explained that portfolios were not an end in themselves, 33 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 56. but a means to an end. She reviewed literature on portfolio assessment and concluded that little hard evidence existed to show that portfolio assessment necessarily led to critical thinking, self-reflection, responsibility for learning, skills or knowledge (p.l). When exhibiting clarity of purpose and criteria, the advantages of portfolio use were: 1) broader, in-depth picture of the student; 2) authenticity; 3) supplements or alternatives to grade card and/or achievement tests; 4) communication to parents. In addition, portfolios could be used for certification of competence, to track growth over time, and to demonstrate accountability. Arter (1990) raised issues: To what extent must process/content/performance criteria be standardized to be comparable? Were they feasible, cost-effective? Would teachers buy in? Will conclusions be valid? (p.5-6). The most influential model of portfolio assessment in the arts has been ARTS PROPEL, in which the theory of multiple intelligences, developed by Gardner, led to studio-centered production, perception, and reflection, and offered expanded opportunities for students to learn beyond traditional logical-linguistic means. Performance tasks were more likely to elicit a student’s f iili repertoire of skills (Gardner, 1989). Portfolio assessment was reclaimed by many in the arts (Gardner & Grunbaum, 1986; Clark, Zimmerman, & Zurmeuhlen, 1987; Gardner, 1986, 1989, 1990; Yau, 1990; Taylor, 1991, 1993; Wolf& Pistone, 1991; Anderson, D., 1992; Winner & Simmons, 1992; Gitomer, Grosh, & Price 1992; Hausman, 1993; Coates, Gaither & Shauck, 1993; Carroll, 1993; Swann & Bickley- Green, 1993; Reynolds, 1993; Thomas, 1993; Warner, 1993; Anderson, T., 1994; Beattie, 1994; NAEA Advisory, 1993, 1994; Vermont Assessment Project, 1995). Common characteristics of art portfolio assessment are: it is student-centered; assessment is both 34 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 57. formative and summative; learning is viewed as an active, constructive process; student self-reflection is evident; criteria are specified for selection of works and for merit; and process (documented by sketches, photographs, video-tapes, journals, self-reflective writings, etc.) receives attention along with final products. Dialogues, between student and teacher or student and peers, are credited with increased self-motivation, self- direction, and increase in critical analysis abilities (Wolf, 1991). Though Vermont (1995) and California (Taylor 1991, 1993) experimented with large-scale portfolio assessment, problems occurred when attempting to aggregate data (Arter, 1995). Most portfolio use was classroom-based and internally moderated. Notable exceptions are the large-scale, high-stakes, externally moderated portfolio assessments used by the Educational Testing Service on their Advanced Placement art exam, the British national assessment, the New South Wales, Australia exam, and the International Baccalaureate Program (Anderson, 1994; Blaikie, 1994; Beattie, 1997; Boughton, 1997; Gaston, 1997; Weate, 1999). Portfolio assessment is appropriate for functions related to individual student achievement, monitoring growth, providing feedback to improve art curricula, and demonstrating student progress to parents. It has potential for use in large-scale assessment if means are developed for aggregation of portfolio information, criteria are standardized, and rater training issues are resolved. 35 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 58. Performance Assessment Criteria A wide variety of criteria have been employed in the evaluation of student art. Judgments are made about art products in diverse venues including an individual teacher’s classroom and national assessments. These assessments serve different functions and value different aspects of art. Blaikie (1992, 1994) found that the Advanced Placement exams concentrate almost exclusively on finished art products; while the International Baccalaureate evaluates workbook process records and welcomes the art teacher’s comments in addition to analysis of final art products. In contrast, ARTS PROPEL places greater emphasis on process and reflective thinking than on the final art product. Furthermore, many rubrics include behaviors that reflect habits of mind such as perseverence, fluency, flexibility, and skills in research, analysis, synthesis, and making judgments. The type of products assessed also varies. In some cases, only studio art production is assessed, while in others, historical, critical, and/or aesthetic products are also evaluated. Clark and Zimmerman (1984) reviewed the literature in art education looking for observable criteria or indicators of student success in art. In Educating Artistically Talented Students, they created a composite list of characteristics. Though their purpose was to use criteria for the purpose of separating the talented from the typical art student, the descriptors can be viewed as the exemplary column of a performance rubric for all students. First, they considered criteria evident in artworks. Later, they looked at behaviors of the student that could be indicative of success in art. 36 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 59. To assess the art product, Clark and Zimmerman (1984) identified five components of product assessment. The first, “compositional arrangement” encompassed: skillful composition; complete and coherent designs; purposeful, asymmetrical arrangement with stability in irregular placement; three or more objects integrated by a balanced arrangements; complex composition; and elaboration and depiction of details. The second subset of criteria was “elements and principles” which included well-organized colors; deliberate brilliancy and contrast; subtle blending of colors; decisive use of line; clarity of outline; subtle use of line; accurate depiction of light and shadow; intentional use of indefinite shapes, hazy outlines, shapes blended into the background; and excellence in use of color, form, grouping, and movement (p.53). The third characteristic of products was “subject matter” which included: specializes in one subject matter; draws a wide variety of things; sometimes copies to acquire technique; adept at depiction of movement; and uses personal experiences and feelings as subject matter. The fourth component was “art-making skills” (p.56). Included attributes were: true-to-appearance representation; accurate depiction of depth by perspective; use of good proportion; schematic and expressive representation; effective use of media; and products show obvious talent and artistic expression. The fifth category under the art product was “art-making techniques. Specifics listed were: areas treated to display boldness, blending, gradation, and textures; visual narratives used for self-expression and as a basis for mature art expression; and uses smaller paper (p.56). Clark and Zimmerman (1984) found that, in the literature, researchers looked beyond the product to consider observational behavior as criteria for success in art. Under 37 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 60. the category of behaviors, they divided identified two types: predispositional behaviors and process behaviors. The predispositional behaviors were further subdivided into those that were general and those that were art-specific. The general predispositional behaviors included: superior manual skill and muscular control; independence of ideas and ability to experience events from multiple points of view; adherence to rules, regulations, and routine study; relative freedom from ordinary frustration; highly individualized differences in psychological characteristics; superior energy level and rapid turnover of thoughts; desire to work alone; compulsion to organize to satisfy desire for precision and clarity; highly adaptable in thought and activity; high potential for leadership due to fluency of ideas offered in a group; good concentration; and flexibility in adaptation of knowledge (p. 56-57). The art-specific predispositional behaviors (Clark & Zimmerman, 1984) were: dynamic and intuitive quality of imagination; unusual penchant for visual imagery and fantasy; intense desire to make art by filling extra time with art activities; high desire for visual awareness experiences; high interest in drawing representationally or to emulate the style of adult artists; self-initiative to make art work; finds satisfaction in engagement in art activities with a high degree of sustained success; desire to improve own art work; persistence, perseverence, enthusiasm, self-motivation to do art work; willingness to explore and use new media, tools, and techniques; ambitious for an art career; acute power of visualization and a fascination with visual things; requires a high degree of arousal and motivation; may manifest talents at either an early or later age, but talent may not persist into maturity; may have motor skills specific to talent, not necessarily motor 38 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 61. superiority; early visual recall from an encyclopedic visual memory - “photographic” mind; extraordinary skills of visual perception and a highly developed visual sensibility; and planning of art production activities prior to production (p.58). In addition to the predispositional behaviors, Clark and Zimmerman’s (1984) survey noted two kinds of observable process behaviors, those related to art production and those related to art criticism. The art process behaviors were: originality - use of own ideas and idiosyncratic depictions of content; demonstration of completion of specific ideas throughout the process of production; use o f subtle and more varied graphic vocabulary than average and will build upon previous visual vocabulary to create new images; fluent and experimental in use of a greater picture vocabulary; demonstrates fluency with ideas when creating art products; displays confidence and comfort with art media and tasks; demonstrates purposefulness and directness of expression with clarity; and demonstrates a clear understanding of structure and sense of the interrelationships of parts in an art work (p.60). Clark and Zimmerman’s (1984) final category was a list of observable art criticism behaviors. They were: gives less personal, more objective, reasons for critical judgment of art work of others; shows greater, genuine interest in the art work of others and can appreciate, criticize, and learn from the art work o f others; and applies critical insights to own art work (p.60). ARTS PROPEL (Gardner, 1989; Winner, 1992) approaches assessment through student self-reflection and student-teacher dialogue. Characteristics observed in student portfolios are divided into the areas of production, perception, and reflection. Under 39 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 62. production, criteria are: craftsmanship, inventiveness, integration of skills and ideas, effort, and expression. Perceptual skills involve awareness which is subdivided into: looking closely at works by oneselfand one’s peers; close study of the physical properties and qualities of art materials; cultural awareness; ability to discern qualities in the work of other artists; and visual awareness of the natural and human environment. Characteristics of reflection are: message/purpose/intention (includes student’s values and intentions as well as lesson objectives and concepts); awareness of own process; strategies for revision; sense of one’s own goals and artistic growth and development; and use of resources and suggestions to develop artistic process (p.78). Brigham (1989) suggested that portfolio work samples and performances be evaluated on the following criteria: perception (gestalt, expressive dynamics, synthesis, metaphoric/figurative language), assimilation (personal associations, metaphoric and figurative imagery), accommodation (openness, connecting, transforming, creates, integrates), association (expressive, synesthetic, evaluates), and application (transforms experiences into original art, integrates elements into unified compositions) (p.70). The International Baccalaureate’s (IB) Art and Design (1996) is a curriculum currently used in halfthe countries of the world. Different aspects of student work are weighted as work is scored. The weights being used in the assessment of student portfolios are: 35 percent imaginative and creative thinking and expression, 20 percent persistence in research, 15 percent technical skill, 10 percent understanding the characteristics and function of the chosen media, 10 percent understanding the fundamentals of design, and 10 percent ability to evaluate own growth and development. 40 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 63. According to a communication with Boughton (April 7, 1999) the IB has recognized that this system is biased in favor of modernism. The rubrics are in the process of being changed to become more sensitive to various cultural contexts and aesthetics appropriate to a postmodern period. He anticipates that the current system will be in place until September 2001. In reviewing English assessment, Gaston (1997) presented rubrics used to score the GCSE exams which are mandatory for all students at age 16. The criteria on which students’ work is marked are: 1) personal response, 2) recording/observation, 3) sustaining idea from concept to realization, 4) independence in realizing intentions, 5) evidence of research and communication, 6) skills in controlling materials, 7) application of materials techniques and processes, and 8) composition of visual elements (line, tone, form, shape, color, texture, pattern, space). In the cross-Canada study (MacGregor, Lemerise, Potts & Roberts, 1993), learning priorities were developing individuality and independence (71%), and developing originality of response (71%). Other criteria were: technical skills, techniques of presentation, familiarity with tools/instruments, knowledge about subject, skills in problem-solving, developing participation and involvement, and considering the subject in a broader context. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (1997) divided the subject matter of art into two categories: creating and responding. Created works were scored on the basis of: 1) demonstration of the theme; 2) materials used in deliberate ways to represent ideas, forms, and objects; 3) effective organization and composition; 4) sense of 41 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 64. pattern, texture, color, transparency, and contrast; S) variation in line quality; and 6) unexpected, original interpretation of the theme (p. 102). Written responses were rated on the basis of: 1) supporting plausible interpretation with observation about specifics in the work; 2) labeling and describing features; 3) identifying similarities in techniques between different artworks; 4) supporting ideas with specific observations about style, elements, or principles of art; 5) explaining own work using appropriate vocabulary; 6) identifying genre, styles, and periods of art history; 7) describing characteristics of media; and 8) explaining how works fit concepts such as perspective (p. 105). Armstrong (1994) lists media, tools, equipment, processes, techniques, and concepts as examples of knowledge that can be assessed in the art product. She categorizes art into basic art behaviors: 1) know, 2) perceive, 3) organize, 4) inquire, 5) value, 6) manipulate, and 7) interact/cooperate (p.27). Within each behavior, there is a hierarchy of levels of success. Students at the top of this scale should: 1) have bodies of knowledge, 2) visually analyze, 3) evaluate, 4) innovate, 5) maintain consistent attitude, 6) demonstrate complex skills, and 7) show interpersonal skill (p.34). Armstrong’s assessment approach includes art production, art history, aesthetics, and art criticism while placing emphasis on the processes involved in each discipline. She encourages the use of a wide variety o f data sources from observation to discussion, essay, traditional tests, sketch books, journals, unit criteria for art production, and student self-evaluation. Beattie (1997), like Armstrong, encompasses art production, criticism, aesthetics, and history in her criteria for student products. In addition, she includes integration of the arts. Beattie lists a wide range of sample products that can be used for assessment. For 42 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 65. the discipline of art history products include: art-historical report, timeline, exhibition catalog, field notes, or art museum room. Products useful for assessing art criticism are: critical review, or criticism model. For aesthetics, students can develop theory or keep a diary. Correspondence letters/postcards, dialogues, and dramatizations are suggested as products for each of the three “responding” disciplines of art history, criticism, and aesthetics. Art production can be demonstrated through the creation of an art object, an art prospectus, demonstrations, or experimentations (p. 132). Beattie suggests the following categories for inclusion on an analytic scoring rubric: researching, creating, responding, resolving, and communicating. The Advanced Placement (AP) exam sponsored by the College Board reviews high school students’ portfolios, then determines a score which can be used by colleges or universities to award credit. The portfolio must show breadth and depth of artistic skills, and a thematic “concentration” or development through several pieces. The only writing submitted is a brief artist’s statement and there is no indication that it is scored during the evaluation. Criteria used by AP are: 1) art methods and materials, 2) meeting portfolio requirements, 3) formal elements, 4) conceptual clarity, and S) visual unity. The Vermont Portfolio Project (1995) issued a generic rubric for local assessment of students’ artwork. The two major categories are use of elements and principles, and use of medium. The “dimensions for quality of product” include expression. The “quality of process standards” encompass exploration, pursuit of work, making connections, responding, and reflecting. Venet (1999a) facilitated focus group discussions at a Missouri Art Education 43 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 66. Association Spring Conference to identify criteria for inclusion on a Missouri art assessment rubric. The state rubric will be used for local assessment of state standards. Only ten percent of participating art teachers reported that they conduct portfolio evaluation, and most of those were teaching at the secondary level. Teachers explained that number of minutes per week spent with each class, and total number of students taught were factors in their use of portfolios for assessment. Although teachers initially worked in primary, middle level, and high school groups, all groups reached consensus on important criteria. Categories that emerged from discussion were: 1) crafts-personship; 2) individual creativity or originality; 3) composition (use of elements and principles); 4) growth (student builds upon previous knowledge); 5) attitude (citizenship, cooperation, respect for people and materials, effort, completion of work, etiquette); 6) process (use of materials, equipment, vocabulary); and 7) knowledge of art history, art criticism, and aesthetics. Teachers suggested that there might be separate scoring guides for the art product, the process, and writing/speaking about art (history, aesthetics, criticism). Scoring rubrics are frequently used by school districts and individual teachers to conduct local assessment. Huffman (1998) includes a generic student conduct rubric along with production rubrics at George Washington High School in Danville, Virginia. Her criteria are: 1) preparation, 2) research, 3) assignment goals, 4) craftsmanship, S) originality, 6) aesthetics, and 7) critique. Huffman empowers her students by having them participate in writing descriptors for levels of achievement on each criteria. New York City Public Schools (Lonergan, 1998) conduct a district-wide eighth grade art exam. It consists of multiple choice, short answer, essay, and production 44 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 67. activities and covers history, criticism, and production. Criteria for a black and white drawing are: 1) skill in drawing from direct observation; 2) quality of composition; 3) understanding of how the illusion o f depth is created; 4) use of a wide range of dark, medium, and light values to show form; and 5) use of lines, shapes, patterns, and textures to show variety and surface quality. A color poster that fosters pride in community activity is included in the New York test. The criteria for scoring it are: 1) quality of composition and design; 2) appropriateness of color to theme; 3) effective use of images, symbols, and letters; 4) originality of concept and slogan; and S) skillful use of media. In Columbia, Missouri, Public Schools (1998) rubrics contain the following criteria: l)experiment with a variety of methods, media, techniques, themes, and styles from art history; 2) use of elements and principles; 3) personal expression; 4) problem­ solving; 5) creativity; 6) work habits; 7) production; 8) craftsmanship; 9) aesthetic response; 10) relates work to art history; 11) art criticism; and 12) makes connections to careers in art. Columbia Schools (Venet, 1999) also conducts embedded, district-wide assessment for all third grade (public sculpture) and fourth grade (portraiture) students. Students use a test booklet and other materials over the course o f the unit (four to six, one-hour lessons). Teachers are trained to score the assessments using a holistic rubric. At least two raters score each student’s work independently (double-blind technique). Rubrics for scoring sculpture models and drawings include criteria: 1) student’s ideas, 2) expression of the idea, 3) use of elements and principles, 4) originality, 5) composition, 6) craftsmanship, 7) representation o f space on a two-dimensional surface (drawing), and 8) 45 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 68. use of art vocabulary in discussing own artwork (reflection). In the fourth grade assessment on portraiture, students draw from a projected image of another student’s face, then draw a self-portrait while looking in a mirror. Score points are given for accurately drawn facial features and correct proportions. Monett, Missouri, schools (1998) list four criteria on a generic art rubric: 1) creativity, 2) composition, 3) craftsmanship, and 4) work habits. For individual projects, teachers add specific criteria to this framework. The Fairfax County, Virginia (1999) school system uses a generic rubric based upon degrees of accomplishment of the given task. For each unit this is supplemented with specific self-evaluation forms that list art lesson objectives, concepts, and techniques. Sargent and Fitzsimmons (1999) discussed the Mundelein, Illinois, school district rubrics on writing, oral presentations, portfolios, and individual units. Criteria are grouped in general categories: 1) technical skills, 2) use of media, 3) craftsmanship, 4) composition, 5) creativity, 6) presentation, and 7) self-evaluation. Specific concepts are added to the framework depending upon the individual lesson. There are some common criteria among the various assessments discussed in this section. They became the criteria used in the questionnaire developed for this study, the Art Assessment Survey, which is located in the Appendix. 46 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 69. Aesthetics A subquestion in this study looks at the use of aesthetic theories as criteria for student production of art. It is necessary to define both aesthetics in general and specific aesthetic theories before they can be considered as indicators of quality in student art products. It is also useful to look at the role of aesthetics in art education. Definition of Aesthetics The term “aesthetics” was coined by philosopher, Alexander Baumgarten, to refer to a special area of philosophy, a science of beauty based upon sense perception (Eaton, 1988, p. 4). The word was derived from the ancient Greek work aisthetikos which meant “sensory perception’. Aesthetics was first understood as the philosophy of the beautiful, an idea that lasted until the beginning of the twentieth century. “Aesthetics emerged as a distinct area of philosophy as a consequence of the growing centrality of subjectivity in modem societies. [Aesthetics is] the task of understanding our relationship to the world without the assistance of dogmatic theology” (Bowie, 1990, p. 254). The definition of aesthetics depends upon the writer’s definition of art and therefore varies among philosophers. To Tolstoy, art was communication of emotion while to Santayana, it was beauty. Crawford (1989) wrote that: Aesthetics is the attempt to understand our experiences of and the concepts 47 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 70. we use to talk about objects that we find perceptually interesting and attractive - objects that can be valued not simply as mean to other ends but in themselves or for their own sake, (p.227) At the end of the twentieth century, aesthetics is seen in the context of a global, multicultural world. Various theories of art that represent different philosophies are accepted. These theories are concerned with the nature of art as the product of artistic creativity. Lankford (1992) defined aesthetics as a group of concepts for understanding the nature of art. They address process, product, and response from individual and societal points of view. The importance of art to civilization and culture lies in its nature, value, and function in society. Several writers agree that concepts of aesthetics are dependent upon concepts of art prevalent within a given culture at a given time, therefore a definition of aesthetics should be seen within the context of its time and place (Anderson, 1990; Eaton, 1998; Lankford, 1992). Considering the challenge of finding a universal definition of aesthetics in a global society, Richard Anderson (1990) suggests: ...the best way to proceed seems to be by recognizing that when we use the word “art,” we usually have something in mind that is valued beyond its practical contribution to such instrumentalities as subsistence, that is made so as to have some sort of sensuous appeal, and the production of which reflects skills that are more highly developed in the maker than among other members of the society, (p. 8) Philosophy of Aesthetics Aesthetics literature covers two strands: philosophy and experience. This study is concerned with the former strand, the field of philosophy dealing with the nature of art. 48 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 71. Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy that involves critical reflection on our experience and evaluation of art. Crawford (1989) wrote, “The basic presupposition of aesthetics as a branch of philosophy is that our experiences of art - creating, appreciating, criticizing - involve basic human values and, as such, are worthy of serious inquiry” (p. 228). Barrett (1997) listed key issues in art philosophy as artists' intentions and their importance to understanding works of art. Lankford (1992) noted that key topics in aesthetics are: the nature, value, and function of art in society. There are a variety of issues within the field of aesthetics. One deals with the values and standards for the interpretation and criticism of works of art. “Aestheticians ask two common but very thought-provoking and basic questions. They are: “What is the nature of art? and What is the value of art?” (Armstrong, 1999, p. 115). Another issue deals with the ways artworks have come to have significance or meaning. They might represent the world, express feelings about it, serve a political or societal function, or exist for the sake of their form. According to Rader (1952) and Eaton (1988) art can be categorized four ways: 1) the creative, 2) the work of art, 3) the audience's response, and 4) the relation of art to the social order. Stewart (1990) divides the discipline of aesthetics into three parts: the philosophy, the products, and the processes. Aesthetics denotes concepts and methods in the philosophy of art. Students benefit from its study as it allows explorations of fundamental ideas about art from ancient cultures as well as dialogues about contemporary issues (Lankford, 1992). Many writers have described strategies for engaging students in discussions about the philosophy of art. 49 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 72. Examples have been given for role-playing, puzzles, debates, and games which can be appropriately modified for use with students of various ages (Erikson, 1986; Eaton, 1988; Battin Fisher, Moore, & Silvers, 1989; Lankford, 1992; Stewart, 1995, 1997). Aesthetic Theories of Art A theory is an attempt to explain phenomena. Aesthetic theories explain human experiences related to art and art objects (Stewart, 1997). They address all aspects of art, including process, product, response, individual context, and social phenomena (Eaton, 1988; Lankford, 1992). Questions about definitions of key terms like “‘beauty’, ‘art’, and ‘aesthetic’ led philosophers to formulate theories to explain these difficult concepts...though in contemporary aesthetics, ‘art’ is more often discussed than ‘beauty’” (Eaton, 1988, p. 5). Theories often present the necessary and sufficient conditions for asserting that something is an aesthetic object, activity, experience, or situation (Eaton, 1988). According to Rader (1952), there was a dispute between isolationist (art that is separate and distinct from life) and contextual (art and life are integral) theories of art. However, he indicated that both can be viewed as harmoniously interconnected. Smith (1989) reflected on the similarity between Weitz and Lanier’s viewpoints. Weitz suggests that it is worthwhile to consider traditional theories of art because they lead us to attend in certain ways to certain features of art. This is similar to Lanier’s 50 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 73. suggestion that “imitationalist, emotionalist, intuitionist, and evaluative theories of art have the potential, when appropriately translated, to clarify....the nature, meaning, and value of aesthetic objects” (Smith, 1989, p. 11). Anderson (1990) explains that a distinctive feature of Western aesthetics is its pluralism, allowing exceptionally diverse ways of thinking about art. He describes: Four schools of thought have developed in the West regarding the fundamental nature and purpose of the fine arts - and, by extension the popular arts. One tradition has emphasized art’s ability to portray its subject matter, either in superficial appearance or as an idealized essence. A second school has used art to promote the spiritual or social betterment of the individual or the community. Emotions have been the chief interest of a third group of theorists - one that values art for its ability to purge the feelings and stir the passions o f artist and audience members alike. A fourth tradition has argued that art’s significance lies in its formal qualities, with the artist’s skilled use of sensuous media provoking a distinctive response in audience members. ( p. 292) In agreement with Anderson, Stewart (1997) notes that “consistent with a pluralistic society is the view that art can be different things, have different purposes, and be governed by a range of aesthetic standards” (p. 28). She suggests that an artwork can be judged from different standards which reflect different theories of art, depending upon the circumstances under which it was made and viewed. Throughout history, certain theories of arts match particular world views. In today’s world, Stewart believes that it is important for teachers to provide students with knowledge of multiple theories of art. It is appropriate to teach theories of art to students through a contextual approach to art history. Students can understand how an artwork was aesthetically related to its era and also evaluate the same artwork from multiple theoretical perspectives relevant to contemporary culture. Thus informed, they can analyze their own and peers’ artworks for 51 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 74. intentions related to one or more aesthetic theories. Ultimately, they should be able to include aesthetics in the decision-making process they use to produce artwork. Next, it is necessary to consider which theories of art students should know and be able to use. Imitational or Mimetic Theories of Art Advocates of imitationalist or mimetic theories believe that an artifact is art if it copies the physical or imagined ideal world. Ancient Greeks, Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle, considered art a species of imitation (Rader, 1952; Eaton, 1988). Plato chastised art for being mere imitation. Aristotle disagreed, believing that art could convey the essence of the subject and express the universal (Anderson, 1990). Medieval artists assumed that art was primarily mimetic, but they stressed the religious functions of realism. Renaissance art showed renewed interest in Mimeticism for its own sake, apparent in the development of geometric perspective, portraiture, and figurative painting techniques. During the neoclassical period, Realism communicated not only classic beauty, but ideal principles of ethical and moral perfection. Art was expected to have an uplifting effect upon viewers (Anderson, 1990). From the onset of the Romantic movement, Mimeticism as an aesthetic attitude waned. Read combined the classical theory of imitation with the romantic theory of 52 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 75. imagination. Nature became the "touchstone" on which imagination was hinged (Rader, 1952, p. 5). The artist's imagination reinterpreted imitation, based upon unconscious wish fulfillment, and played an instrumental social role. To Santayana art was "beauty, the expression of the ideal, the symbol of divine perfection" (Rader 1952, p. 193). E. H. Gombich (1960, 1970) discussed the traditional view of Imitationalism in which an artist imitates the external form of an object, and a viewer recognizes the subject of the work by its form. It can be challenging to explain what takes place when an artwork represents the real world since it conveys levels of meaning regarding subject matter, representations, symbolism, and metaphor (Eaton, 1988). Imitationalism though always present to some degree, was superceded by Romanticism, then Formalism for much of the late nineteenth and the twentieth centuries. In the 1970-1990's, Mimeticism regained stature through the Super- and Photo-Realism movements. Imitationalism is easily understood by school-age students who often share its goal of representing life as they see it (Gardner & Winner, 1981). Application of Imitationalism to studio assignments can be limited by a student’s developmental level and/or degree of skill. Many drawing lessons at the upper elementary through high school grades are based upon imitationalist theory. 53 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 76. Expressionist Theory of Art Art is expressive rather than merely descriptive (Rader, 1952). Expressionist theory which became popular during the nineteenth century Romantic art movement. It considers an object to be art when the artist expresses feelings, a personal viewpoint, or emotions which are communicated to viewers. The focus is on the psychological, inner world of the artist. Instead of one, universal theory, there are a variety of theories of expression in art. Eaton (1988) and Crawford (1989) discuss the distinction Tolstoy made between science and art. Science was the transmission of thought while art was the transmission of feeling. He claimed that successful artists transmitted their feelings to their audience, and that the viewers became more sensitive to the feelings and needs of others as a result of viewing the work ( Eaton, 1988; Crawford, 1989). Tolstoy criticized European artists at the end of the nineteenth century for focusing on pleasure rather than on an emotional expression of the religious attitudes of the age. To Tolstoy, the role of art was not to make people smarter, but more humane. From this point of view, art is the communication of emotion and that communication is indispensable to art. The question this theory asks is: Are the emotions of the art effectively communicated and are they worthwhile? (Rader, 1952). Rader explained that from this perspective, art expresses values. However essential the communication of feeling, it is compatible with technical skill. “Emotion is not the same as being overcome with emotion...Van Gogh’s distress did not keep him from exercising 54 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 77. the care and control required for the production of a skillfully crafted work.” (Eaton, 1988, p. 23). Eaton (1988) explained Bouwsma’s philosophy that expression does not depend upon a causal relationship between the object and the viewer’s emotions, but instead locates expression within the object. People learn to recognize attributes of people who feel certain emotions, then use them to express and interpret. Langer (1957) discussed the power of images to convey feeling: A work of art expresses a conception of life, emotion, inward reality. But it is neither a confessional not a frozen tantrum; it is a developed metaphor, a non-discursive symbol that articulates what is verbally ineffable - the logic of consciousness itself, (p.25) Langer found that associations between emotions and formal qualities are not sufficient to account for expression. Instead, she described the qualitites of artworks that serve as signs or a language based upon associations of “logical form”. While in language we have to first learn a vocabulary, in art, feelings emerge directly from the form and are apparent immediately. Another way to look at communication is through the expression of ideas rather than of emotions. What makes artists special is their ability to understand and therefore, emphasis is put on the artist’s conception. Eaton (1988) explained that Croce believed that art was an idea, in contrast to craft which was the physical act of creating. Sircello’s theory of expression is tied to artists’ treatments of their subject matter. The way in which they show feelings is relevant (Eaton, 1988). From this point of view, expression is mental rather than physical. 55 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 78. A related theory of expression accounts for artist’s feelings and conceptions as well as the crafted object. Dewey based his theory of art on experience which differed from simply being alive. To Dewey (1958) an “experience” involved organized perceptions such that the function of art was to organize experience meaningfully, more coherently, more vividly, than ordinary life permitted. Art was articulate and adequate experience. To achieve oneness of art and life, the means and ends were connected consciously. For Dewey, experiences began with impulses that became intentions, then surmounted obstacles to become reflections. Through this process, the emotion was transformed into an object. Therefore, the object was as important as the artist’s feelings and ideas. Eaton (1988) doubted that there could be one general theory of expression that would explain all the uses of “express”. Expressionist theories can be understood by school-age students if their personal experiences and feelings are related to examples from art history. Adolescents (Gardner & Winner, 1981; Jeffers, 1999) in particular, are sensitive to expressive purposes of artwork. Expressionism could be used as a criteria for studio production by asking students to select media, style, and subject matter to communicate a feeling or mood. Formalist Theory of Art Formalist theory emphasizes meaning that is intrinsic in the formal qualities of the 56 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 79. artwork. By analyzing the artwork’s color, texture, shape, line, space, form, and value, the viewer arrives at an aesthetic response. Extrinsic information about the artist’s life, intentions, subject matter content, and social context are considered irrelevant. Formalism was promoted at the beginning of the twentieth century to justify abstract and non­ objective works. These theorists believe that a special feeling is associated with aesthetic experience, but it can be evoked only by compositional qualities o f artworks. Formalists value intrinsic properties of the object or event itself, rather than what it represents or expresses. How a work of art presents is more important that what it represents (Eaton, 1988). Early in the twentieth century art critics, Bell and Fry, rejected criticism from imitationalist or Romantic traditions, instead they defended modern, abstract art. Eaton (1988) discusses them: Paintings, the formalists urged, should not be construed as telling us stories about the world, They are not meant to make us think, for example, about apples. Rather they should be construed as telling us, for example, about colors and space, (p. 79) Formalists promoted the idea that while creation was emotion and imagination, the work of art was form. (Rader, 1952). Bell agreed with Tolstoy that art is communication of emotions, but he "thinks there is a peculiarly esthetic emotion, quite different from the emotions of ordinary life, that is directed to ‘significant form’ by which he means certain combinations of lines, colors, and spacial elements which excite pure esthetic emotion" (Rader 1952, p. 312). To Bell, significant form was the one quality common to all works of visual art. Fry ignored a work’s history and context, insisting that aesthetic experience 57 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 80. was based only on the work’s form. A phrase that describes formalist intent is “art-for- art’s-sake”. Most teachers introduce formalism to students through activities based upon the elements and principles of art (Chapman, 1982). Studio assignments will best communicate formalist theory when they are integrated with the art historic study of abstract and non-objective art. If elements and principles exercises are presented as simple activities, in isolation from a theoretical framework, it is unlikely that students will understand Bell’s notion of an aesthetic experience based upon significant form. Pragmatic or Instrumental Theory of Art Pragmatic or instrumental theories require an artifact or event to serve a purpose beyond art-for-art’s-sake. The function may express ceremonial or spiritual beliefs, promote political propaganda, sell a product, or make a positive contribution to the well­ being of individual or society (Anderson, 1990). In many non-Western cultures, art is indistinguishable from its societal function. Hart (1991), reporting on cross-cultural research, identified and contrasted aesthetic standards form Western and non-Western cultures. When non-Western art did not meet Western standards of “high art”, it was often omitted from art education classrooms. Key differences centered around concepts of: individuality, originality, permanence, and form. Hart suggested that more than one universal aesthetic exists, and that the standards should come from within the culture, 58 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 81. making it necessary to consider the social, cultural, and historical milieu in which the artist acts. Western aesthetic, offering imitationalist, expressionist, and formalist philosophies should be expanded to include a pragmatic or functionalist approach that accounts for the social role of art in many cultures. Social critical theories of art have been grouped within this category, in this paper, since they also have a purpose beyond aesthetic experience. They differ from non- Westem traditional art in that promoting or changing attitudes and conditions is an overt part of their agenda. These theorists are interested in what has been called “aesthetic sociology - the way art functions socially, politically, economically, and historically” (Eaton, 1988, p. 86). The best-known social theory is Marxism. Marxists viewed art as a form of indoctrination in which the context is essential to understanding art (Lankford, 1992). Until recently, the academic study o f art history in United States classrooms was limited to Western civilization masterpieces, sometimes irreverently referred to as the work of dead, white, European males. By the year 2025 the current minority (people of color) will become the majority. The implications of this trend for education suggest the inclusion of artworks by African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and Asian-Americans. Minority students need to be included fully in the curriculum; their self-esteem and their ability to develop their talents are at stake (Stinespring & Kennedy, 1995). Transformative academic knowledge requires an expansion of the historical canon by relating knowledge to cultures (Banks 1998). Art historical inclusiveness requires a paradigm shift from ethnocentrism to cultural 59 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 82. relativity. Ethnographic data is essential for analyzing the art of any culture. To understand a culture’s art, it is necessary to understand it’s aesthetic, the philosophy that indicates salient features and functions of art within that culture. Furthermore, the art must be appreciated from the perspective of its creators. Definitions of art are culture- specific, however some commonalities can be found across groups. Usually art is valued beyond its ability to meet subsistence needs, it has sensuous appeal, and its creation requires special skills (Anderson 1990). With Pragmatism/Instrumentalism, the distinction between high and low art is blurred. Students can experience art through studies of cross-cultural or ceremonial artifacts, popular arts, advertising or applied design, protest or propaganda posters or films, or folk arts. Students can select options for studio production that mirror the functions of art studied. They can create ceremonial or functional objects, posters with messages (e.g. fire prevention or environmental conservation), or political commentaries on national or local issues. Open Theory of Art Open theory had it’s roots in Wittgenstein’s 19S3 publication in which he argued an anti-essentialist philosophy. Essentialist theories attempt to define art by listing necessary and sufficient conditions. Contrary to the essentialist approach, Wittgenstein argued that Plato was wrong, and that many words could not be defined. Instead of a 60 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 83. definition composed of a set of necessary and sufficient conditions, he described shared traits or sets of common features that overlap. He called these traits, “family resemblances” (Battin, Fisher, Moore, & Silvers, 1989). Weitz (1966) applied this concept to the term ‘art’ since there had been radical changes in style, medium, critical vision, and taste across time and cultures which precluded a single definition. He divided language into open or closed concepts. Closed concepts can be defined while open concepts can not. ‘Art’, an open concept, names things that have a “family resemblance” to each other. Therefore, Weitz’s theory was labeled, “open theory”. Eaton (1988), in commenting upon Weitz’s theory, stated: “the very expansive, adventurous character of art, its ever-present changes and novel creations, make it logically impossible to insure any set of defining properties” (p. 12). Mandelbaum suggested that there may be some manifest properties that are discemable, while others may be invisible - like a common history, special interests, or common purpose that cause them to be grouped in the same family. Open theorists believe the definition of art will always be amendable and corrigible, a necessary condition for creation of novel works. Students can engage in this debate by collecting and labeling objects that have a “family resemblance” in place of defining art by its attributes. They could then create an object that shared the family traits. This assignment would require a high level of analytic and synthesis skills and could prove daunting to the average student. In addition, using open theory as a criteria for studio production would make it difficult to evaluate. 61 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 84. Institutional Theory of Art Danto believed that the birth of Modernism in the 1880's was the beginning of the “Real Theory of Art”, a rebellion against imitationalist theory. “Real” theory was defined as the creation of forms that are not imitations (Dickie, 1984). According to this theory, it is no longer possible to distinguish art from non art on the basis of observation. Looking at Warhol’s Pop Art of the 1960's, Danto (1992) introduced the idea o f an artworld, composed of social institutions that operate from a shared theory of art in labeling objects or events as “art”. Later, Danto declared that a child could not make art, even if his/her creation looked like a Picasso because the child had not internalized the history of art and aesthetic theory. This point of view evolved into the institutional theory of art. In the debate over Weitz’s open theory, Dickie disagreed with the idea that art was indefinable. Dickie’s (1971) original theory defined art as an artifact and set of aspects which had been given the status of art by a social institution The definition was later revised to include: an artist who participates with understanding in the making of art; a work that has been created in order to be presented to the artworld; an informed public prepared to understand; a broader concept of the artworld; and an artworld system that allows the presentation of artwork to the public. In this theory, a social institution, rather than a formula, distinguishes artifacts that are called art from those that are not (Dickie, 1984). Institutional theory emphasizes the role of context in labeling and understanding art. Rather than asking What is art?, institutional theorists, like Goodman, asks, When is art? For an artifact or event to be considered art, the artworld (a loose association of 62 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 85. institutions including museums, galleries, critics, art teachers, and art historians) must confer this status. Any object can be presented as a candidate, but must be justified to the satisfaction of the artworld to achieve that status (Armstrong, 1999). The institutional theory of art places emphasis on “who says, when, and where” an object, experience, or process is considered to be art. Eaton (1988) explained that the “art-is-what-anybody-says-is-art” attitude is often applied to only certain authorities or experts. She observed that art has become so esoteric that it requires viewers to use “explanatory aides in museums, lengthy written texts on the walls next to paintings, and cassette players that can be rented at an exhibit” which indicate what to lookfo r and often at as well (p. 9). Students can relate to institutional theory by role-playing debates that occur among those in the artworld over the acceptance or rejection of particular objects. In the case o f student art production, the art teacher represents the classroom equivalent of an artworld. Each time students create something to meet their teacher’s standards, they are dealing with a narrow example of Institutionalism. A closer approximation, for advanced students, would be to have them create works with the intention o f having them displayed at a local gallery or museum. The completed artworks would be subject to the typical selection process used by the institution. Works that were accepted would be considered “art” . Though this is a possible scenario, it is contrary to prevailing pedagogical beliefs and would not be recommended. 63 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 86. Postmodern Theory o f Art Postmodernism began in architecture in the 1970's, then spread to other arts and humanities. It’s popularity is due to its deliberate ambivalence and communicative elasticity. Characterized by it’s transitory, transcendent, and transitional nature, postmodernism’s ambivalence is a result of movement away from objectivity, rationality, and universality. Clark (1996) explained: The sense of meaning within art has moved away from the modernist emphasis on form toward issues of content, issues which frequently involve the concept o f power - its source, exercise, and consequence. Artistic meaning is seen as a socially constructed entity, requiring the viewer to look beyond the formalist compositional qualities of a work, decode its symbolic imagery, and expose its embedded cultural assumptions. Meaning is also seen as fluid and contextual; a disparate array of interpretations can be derived from any given work since meaning is subject to the varied perspectives of artists and viewers. ( p.2) According to Danto (1999), postmodern artists try to reduce the distance between art and real things, and they create objects that are ambiguously both art and real things. He calls this period “Post Historical” because an artist can follow any theoretical position, style, and intention in creating art. Art and the philosophy o f art have become the same thing. Goodman, like Langer, differentiates between languages and nonlinguistic systems. To understand an artwork, he believes it is necessary to understand which symbol systems are relevant and how they work. Gablik (1995) explains that connective aesthetics is postmodern, looking at art in terms of social purpose in place of style. Rather than a focus on individual self-expression, postmodernism values art that is "found within a 64 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 87. dialogic collaborative, interactive, and interdependent processes" (Irwin, 1999, p. 36). Under the broad umbrella of Postmodernism are a variety of social critical theory constructs. Poststructuralism emphasizes that forms of knowledge do not exist as universal absolutes, instead they are socially constructed. Deconstruction/Reconstruction adds that artifacts and social interactions are passed on and modified through successive generations. Since knowledge is socially constructed, therefore it can be deconstructed, or taken apart, to reveal social forces embedded within (Clark, 1996). Feminist pedagogy introduces the values of collaboration and nurture in addition to female perspectives. Multiculturalism raises issues of ethnocentrism, racism, prejudice, sexual preference, and geographical determinism. Groups that have been historically disenfranchised in the artworld have called for reevaluation of, and inclusion in, the canon. One example is the African-American or Black aesthetic which can: reflect prevailing European or Euro- American ideas; honor their heritage as part of the African diaspora; record United States history from a black perspective; express religious, spiritual, social, or political messages; or synthesize their personal world views with any of these traditions (Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1970; Klotman 1977; Dallas Museum of Art, 1989; Driskell 1995). Hoard, 1990, explained: Black American ethnic culture has its roots in the African aesthetic which presents the felt reality or expressive quality from any work of art with such intensity that it seeks to evoke movement or utterance (activity, visual and verbal) in the context of aesthetic response. ( p. 155) Hoard discussed depth of feeling and physical responsiveness as part o f the Black aesthetic. Franklin and Stuhr (1990) identified formal structure which includes the use of 65 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 88. color intensity, form, and pattern, as a characteristic of Black aesthetics. Students can relate to postmodern theory from a multicultural or social issues approach by selecting ideas of personal interest. Due to its broad acceptance of multiple perspectives, postmodernism could be used alone, or in conjunction with imitationalist, expressionist, formalist, or pragmatic theories as criteria for students’ studio production. This study will focus on aesthetic theories that tend to be an underlying purpose of student artworks - either due to the teacher’s lesson expectations or to the student’s artistic intent. The four considered relevant to K-12 art education are: Formalism, Expressionism, Instrumentalism/Pragmatism, and Imitationalism/Mimeticism. Post­ modern attributes are considered to be subsumed within some Expressionist and all Instrumentalism/Pragmatism Criteria. Although open theory and Institutionalism should be discussed with students, neither is applicable to most student artwork. Aesthetic Education in Art Education Art education can introduce aesthetics experiences that help explain, expand upon and/or change children’s naive value judgments by taking the time to discuss ways that people regard art...The aesthetics experience invites students to sort through specifics and to think critically about the comprehensive or general ideas about art. (Armstrong, 1999, p. 15) According to Crawford (1989) aesthetic education benefits students by bringing them to: 1) understand the nature of art and through their experiences with it to better understand themselves and their values; 2) increase perceptual sensitivity; and 3) introduce 66 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 89. them to the study o f philosophy. Smith (1989) cited five clusters of concepts that define the discipline: 1) the art object, 2) appreciation and interpretation, 3) critical evaluation, 4) artistic creation, and S) the cultural context. Children as young as elementary school can discuss aesthetics issues if they are translated into age-appropriate games or puzzles (Battin, Fisher, Moore, & Silvers, 1988). “Even young children ask such questions as, ‘Why is this object art and that object is not art’” (Hurtwitz & Day, 1995, p. 578). Parsons (1994) explained that children think in characteristic ways about the arts, have implicit philosophies of art which are shaped in the development of underlying cognitive abilities and which determine their level o f aesthetic response. Issues, often taken from local newspapers, become debate or essay items designed to heighten aesthetic awareness (Stewart, 1987; Battin, Fisher, Moore, & Silvers, 1988; Eaton 1988; Hurwitz & Day, 1995; Erickson & Katter, 1996; Stewart, 1997; Armstrong, 1999). Aesthetic education was ushered in as the Progressive Education Movement declined in popularity. The underlying assumption was that concepts drawn from aesthetic philosophy would provide the art curriculum with “discipline-centered” subject matter (Pittard, 1985, p. 166). For more than the first half of the twentieth century, art (primarily production) in the schools served an instrumental purpose, supporting general education, and promoting social harmony and mental health. During the post World War II era, under the influence of Lowenfeld, a philosophy of art as “self-expression” infused schools in the rapidly growing, affluent suburbs of America. For Lowenfeld, aesthetic growth was basic to art experience. It was evident in the creative products of children as 67 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 90. “a sensitive ability to integrate experiences into a cohesive whole” (Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1975, p.40). In 1958, Ecker and Kaelin expressed the view that principles of modern aesthetics would contribute to general education (Smith, 1989). Barkan (1962) predicted the aesthetic education movement when he wrote that an aesthetic life was an educational frontier and would become a reality for students in the in 1960s. Lanier, in 1963, discussed the role of the visual arts in providing an aesthetic experience which could only be achieved through interaction between a student and an object. Marantz, in 1964, stated that appreciation of art should be the principal concern of art education rather than art production. Smith, in 1965, wrote that an integration of child-centered and discipline- centered curriculum was needed (Smith, 1989). In the mid-1960's, Ecker and Barkan marked the change to an essentialist perspective by proposing that “artistic activity was a form of qualitative problem-solving” and “the discipline of art consisted of three modes of scientific inquiry: studio, art history, and art criticism” (Clark, 1996, p. 19). Elliot Eisner, in 1965, predicted that humane education would occur through the arts (Smith, 1989). In 1967, as a reaction to the post-Sputnik emphasis on math and science in education, The Central Midwest Regional Education Laboratory (CEMREL) was charged with the development of an aesthetic education curriculum for elementary students. The Central Midwest Regional Laboratory (CEMREL) project (Madeja & Onuska, 1977) conceptualized in 1965 at a national aesthetic education conference, was a program of curriculum modules for grades K-6 designed to supplement general education, not replace, traditional arts education. Led by Barkan and Chapman, national experts in 68 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 91. the arts were brought together to develop guidelines. Madeja oversaw the creation of instructional units of aesthetics activities for the visual arts, music, literature, theater, dance, film, the natural world, and popular culture which were designed to increase students’ perception and exploration. Each grade level was based upon a theme: level one - aesthetics in the physical world; level two - aesthetics and art elements; level three - aesthetics and the creative process; level four - aesthetics and the artist; level five - aesthetics and the culture; and level six - aesthetics and the environment. Only 12 of 44 planned units made it through the process of development, implementation, and evaluation. Funding cuts stopped the development of the remaining units. The program’s evaluation, published in 1976, concluded that the Aesthetics Education Program had been successful in addressing general problems in aesthetics, development, and learning; that aesthetic development was better conceptualized as a profile than as a trait; and that aesthetic criticism and appreciation contain important and intriguing subproblems of preference, judgment, and justification (Madeja, 1976). Clark (1984) commented that the units were complex and difficult to use and repackage, with many parts being difficult or impossible to replace (Efland, 1989). For several years, the materials were available for purchase from CEMREL. At the same time as CEMREL, the Southwest Regional Laboratory (SWRL) developed its own art program for classroom teachers, organized into blocks of four units, each with four media, four types of subject matter, and four styles. Every studio production unit involved the study and practice of beginning concepts and techniques from the fields of aesthetics, criticism, and history (Efland, 1989). Activity, analysis, media, and 69 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 92. student evaluation guides were included. The program included a series o f filmstrips that were keyed to production and criticism activities. The Kettering curriculum for elementary art was developed in 1967 by Eisner at Stanford University so that classroom teachers without artistic training would be able to teach significant art content. It was based upon six premises: 1) art offers unique and essential content; 2) artistic learning is complex and benefits from sensitive instruction; 3) in addition to studio, students should learn art criticism and history; 4) both an art curriculum and support materials were necessary; 5) at least some art learning could be evaluated; and 6) classroom teachers could improve art instruction by using a sequentially ordered curriculum with support materials (Efland, 1989). Student activities involved three “domains”: productive, critical, and historical. It stressed a sequential, written curriculum, appropriate support materials, the product of student’s work as well as the process, and evaluation. Activities and support materials were placed in “Kettering Boxes” that could be moved from room to room. Each unit was field tested and evaluated using short and long-term, formal and informal techniques. The curriculum was never made available for commercial use, however it was adopted by the state of Hawaii (Eisner, 1968). Langer, (1957) wrote that words could not adequately convey human feelings. Art, however, is the objectification of feeling. In addition, developing a discriminating eye through art experiences transfers to an ability to extract meaning in other areas. Artistic expression projects thoughts and feelings. Art freezes tensions of life so that they can be examined. Langer saw two purposes of artistic images: they articulate our own life of 70 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 93. feeling so that we become conscious of its elements, and they show that the basic forms of feelings are common to most people. In 1969, Chapman presented a curriculum planning paper which refined and clarified structures from the CEMREL project. Encouragement of personal fulfillment was one of the functions she listed for general education. The parallel goal for art education was personal response and expression in art. Subgoals were for students to perceive visual qualities as sources of feeling, interpret the meanings of visual qualitites, and judge and explain the significance of the encounter (Efland, 1989). In 1971, the Aesthetic Eye project, funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, was a collaboration of universities and schools in Los Angeles, California. A series of teacher workshops were presented over a period of 18 months. During that time, teachers were introduced to aesthetic content, developed a curriculum, implemented it in their classrooms, and provided feedback. The program was influenced by Broudy’s approach which identified four levels of aesthetic perception and three levels of aesthetic criticism. According to Broudy (1987), since imagery affects life and learning, the skills of aesthetic perceiving should be a major focus of instruction in conjunction with performance skills. He recommends “aesthetic scanning” whereby students point to sensory properties, formal qualities, expressive properties, and technical merits of an object. Students also engage in aesthetic criticism (historic, recreative, and judicial). Aesthetic education was viewed as the development and refinement of aesthetic perception, that is, the process of helping the pupil respond to the appearance of objects in a given medium in terms of its sensory, formal, technical, and expressive properties. (Efland, 1989, p. 83) 71 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 94. The emphasis of the program was to be true to the way artists work. All participants developed an individualized aesthetic education curriculum to implement in their own classrooms. In 1972, after guidelines had been published by the National Center for School and College Television, Schwartz and Cataldo, advised by Feldman, prepared a 30-program television series, “Images and Things”, that provided analyzes of artworks and history. Tollifson developed a supplementary learning resource kit that consisted of 180 slides of artworks shown in the series (Efland, 1989). Feldman (1970) and Eisner (1972) promoted school curricula in which critical thinking skills are applied to interpret aesthetic meaning. “Aesthetic organizing”, a type of creativity, involved students’ ability to organize components with a high degree of coherence and harmony. During the same time period, Ecker and Kaelin suggested that the aesthetic experience become the basis for research in art education. Feldman (1973) presented his model of art criticism for student analysis of works of art. The process consisted of four steps: description, analysis, interpretation, and judgment. He warned that adults or children who were functioning as critics had to “resist the tendency to reach a premature closure to our aesthetic experience” and rush to making a judgment (p. 60). Amheim, in 1974, explained that perception intertwines feeling and thinking, that people “think with their senses”, and that artistic representation in children’s work progresses from a preference for simple structures to more complex ones. (Smith, 1989, p. 13). 72 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 95. Goodman, in 1976, promoted symbol systems as an approach to understanding the nature and meaning of art. Chapman (1977) wrote that aesthetic perception is not limited to decoding symbols with fixed meanings. It is particularized rather that generalized; it is connotative, not denotative. Multisensory associations can be developed by having students translate from one sense or art form to another. Madeja and Onuska’s definition of aesthetic education was “learning how to perceive, judge, and value aesthetically what we have come to know through our senses” (Madeja & Onuska, 1977, p.3). They included the aesthetic experience, the artistic process, the object or event, and the cultural or historical tradition in which the art was produced. In 1987, Parsons described developmental stages in the growth of aesthetic awareness (Smith, 1989). Madeja, in 1981, suggested that the content of teaching art derives from all four disciplines of art: aesthetics, artistic creation, the history of art, and art criticism (Smith, 1989). These became the cornerstones of Discipline-Based Art Education (DBAE), an antecedent of the aesthetic education movement. Beardsley’s rationale for the study of art was adopted by Smith in early writings on DBAE. Benefits to students would be: perception, response, and understanding of artworks; development of a store of images; and increased understanding of visual metaphor (Clark, Day, & Greer, 1989). The term Discipline-BasedArt Education was selected to suggest a comprehensive approach to the study of art. Influenced by Bruner’s suggestion that math and science be taught using the disciplines as models, the proponents of DBAE chose to use practices of the four arts disciplines as the basis for their proposed curriculum. From these fields, they drew upon a 73 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 96. community of scholars and artists, methods of inquiry, and conceptual structure. The discipline of aesthetics under DBAE consisted of five main clusters of concepts: the art object, appreciation and interpretation, critical evaluation, artistic creation, and the cultural context (Clark, Day, & Greer, 1989). Students explored questions: What is art? and How is quality determined? Aesthetics was not included to train future aestheticians, rather its goal was to be a part of liberal arts education designed to broaden perspectives and to develop critical skills (Crawford, 1989). Curricula were written sequentially and articulated for all grade levels, making modifications for the developmental level of the child. Funded by the Getty Center for Education in the Arts, DBAE was promoted nationally through the 1980's and 1990's. Grants to regional development sites provided free teacher inservice workshops and dissemination of materials. In California, where art specialists had been eliminated from the elementary schools, classroom teachers were trained to use DBAE with their students. National workshops, such as the one in Cincinatti in the summer of 1990, brought together aestheticians, aesthetics educators, and teachers. Strategies, including games and puzzles, were shared as ways of engaging students in aesthetic inquiry (Stewart, Russell, & Eaton, 1990). Aesthetics was taught as an essential component of general education and as a foundation for specialized art study. Works of art were central to all units of instruction. Artworks included folk, applied, and fine arts from Western and non-Western cultures which ranged in time from ancient to contemporary times. Student achievement and program effectiveness were to be confirmed through evaluation. Though written, sequential curricula were requirements of 74 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 97. DBAE, the Getty Center did not produce a curriculum guide, believing teachers should write individualized documents for their communities (Clark, Day, & Greer, 1989). Gardner (1973) proposed that in the aesthetic domain, human feelings and messages are communicated through images. In 1983, he published his theory of multiple intelligences as well as a cognitive view of the arts. To Gardner, artistry was an activity of the mind. “By manipulating symbol systems, the artist shapes form and gives voice to his perceptions, ideas, and feelings” (Gardner, 1983, p. 102). Harvard’s Project Zero started in 1967 as a research group under the leadership of philosopher, Goodman. Its goal was to study cognition and its relationship to human development, the arts, and education. Project Zero attempted to enhance individuals’ capacity for encoding and decoding artistic symbols (Gardner, 1989; Lankford, 1992). The Rockefeller Foundation made a commitment to fund development of non-traditional models of assessment, based upon Gardner’s theory, which would be appropriate for students engaged in artistic processes. From a collaboration among Harvard’s Project Zero, the Educational Testing Service, and the Pittsburgh Public Schools, the Arts PROPEL model was developed and field tested between 1986 and 1991. This model offered an alternative to the DBAE approach. The three components were: perception, production, and reflection. The central aspect was studio production, with teacher-student dialogue guiding the student into investigation of art history as it fit the student’s work. Tenets of the approach were: students are active learners, making art is not only for the gifted few, making art is the central activity, and assessment is an integral part of learning. Aesthetics, through the segment labeled perception, was described by Winner (1992) as: 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 98. the processes by which students come to see and understand the world around them and to look closely at works of art - their own and their peers’ as well as the work of artists from diverse cultures and eras. (p. 9) Erickson, Katter, and Stewart published the Basic Curriculumfo r Art (1988). Their section on aesthetics minimized the aesthetic experience, placing greater emphasis upon the philosophy of art. Their goals were for students to: understand the philosophy of art, engage in aesthetic inquiry, and appreciate the value of aesthetic inquiry. Students were involved with considering, presenting and evaluating use of words, statements, and definitions; making and sharing supported judgments; listening to, recognizing, and evaluating divergent views; using philosopher’s statements and theories; and respecting alternative answers as long as they are backed by reasons. Eaton (1994) proposed that aesthetics be included in the art curriculum in two ways: asking philosophical questions in the context of artworks to engage students in addressing the nature and value of art, and asking philosophical questions as a way of directing attention to specific artworks. The standards movement of the 1990's included aesthetics in general education requirements. The National Standards for Arts Education, 1994, stated that students should “reflect upon and assess the characteristics and merits of their work and the work of others” as well as “understanding the visual arts in relation to history and cultures” (Consortium of National Arts Educators, 1994, p. 34). Missouri’s Show-Me State Standards asked students to “have a knowledge of the vocabulary to explain perceptions about and evaluations of works in dance, music, theater, and visual arts” (Missouri Board of Education, 1996, p.2). 76 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 99. Aesthetics has been valued in art education since the 1960s. Though some programs described included studio production, and one, ARTS PROPEL, made production the centerpiece of their program, the predominant emphasis within aesthetics education has been on students acquiring and using vocabulary to describe artworks, and engaging in the philosophical debates about the nature and value of art. Aesthetic Theories of Art and Student Art Production The major impetus of aesthetic education has been focused upon students’ responses to art. However, a few writers have suggested that a consideration of aesthetic theories should be a part of students’ art production. Barrett (1997) promotes the idea that the teacher should include aesthetics as part of the student’s creative decision making and intent. "Students benefit from considering intent, the worthiness of the art, and whether they effectively fulfilled it in shaped media that others can see" ( p. 50). In addition, he suggests that students should be taught to select media for the expressive properties that may be independent of their intent. Chapman (1982) in discussing the inadequacy of current art curricular content notes that most teachers base lessons on the elements and principles of art. “These concepts are part o f‘formalist aesthetic theories’ - those which place great value on the form or design within a work of art” (p. 137). She is concerned that art history and aesthetics play small roles in practice, and that the other aesthetic theories are ignored. 77 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 100. Hamblen (1984) addresses the social context that influences student attitudes and art activities. Stout (1999) indicates that students must make a significant connection between themselves and ideas. To achieve meaning, students must recognize the critical connection between personal experience and knowing. Jeffers (1999) notes that teachers are part of the context that defines for students their own beliefs about the nature of art. As such, teachers need to recognize their influence and make their embedded philosophy overt. In a study of high school students responding to fine and popular art images, researchers found that students interpret on the basis of a creator, not audience. Students thought of imagery “as a form of communication involving a sender, a message and a receiver” (Freedman & Wood, 1999, p.35). None of these students thought that an art career an be chosen to influence people and society. Instead, they see the purpose of art in terms of self-expression. Their interpretations of art are viewed as personal statements independent of sociocultural norms. Erikson (1994) similarly found that students from elementary through college age all focus on the artist more than the viewer in aesthetic responses to art. Parsons (1987) reports that high school students cite expressiveness as the most important characteristic of visual imagery. This attitude reflects two belief systems: the intention o f the artist, and the viewer projecting his/her emotions onto the image. Day (199S) suggests that aesthetic approaches be built into art production. Field (1982) studied criteria that were used to evaluate students in three settings: an art college, an art department in a large university, and an amateur art club. She organized the criteria 78 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 101. on a continuum. At one end were attitudes within the artist such as expression, confidence, and honesty. At the opposite end were object-centered qualities such as beauty, economy, and rhythm (Anderson, 1990). In art colleges, the most important criteria emphasize artist-centered qualities relating to the spirit in which the work was created (expressionism). Art club teachers are most interested in the objective features of the work itself (imitationalism, formalism). The university artworks fell between these two poles. Jeffers (1999) explored the relationship between diverse students’ and teachers’ preferences and definitions of art by asking them to answer the question, “ What is art?” She compared her own research with studies conducted by Johnson (1982) and Stokrocki (1986). Findings were similar across studies and diverse cultural groups. Fourth grade children defined art in terms of doing or making activities. Tenth grade students, preservice teachers, and elementary teachers conceived of art as a way to express themselves or communicate. Many definitions were subjective and relativistic. Frequent comments indicated that art was “everything or nothing”, or depended upon any individual’s opinion. Stokrocki and Johnson both found that elementary school students identified art with a place and time where and when they created art. This definition was more common for students who were taught art by a specialist than those who were taught art by their classroom teacher. Jeffers’s results support Hamblen’s theory (1984) that socially relative, learned expectations create a predisposition for the aesthetic. She calls for art teachers to become aware of their roles in the socialization process through which students learn answers to “What is art?” One way to do this would be for teachers 79 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 102. to make conscious connections about the art they have children create and the multiple theories of the nature of art. Two practitioners, Jones (1999) and Armstrong (1999) advocate incorporation of aesthetic theories in curriculum for art production as well as reflection. Both have experimented with this integration through assignments used in their college-level classes. Jones (1998) outlined his approach to teaching introductory art appreciation. Each of his studio assignments included the four primary aesthetic theories with other concepts (such as elements and principles). For example, an assignment might ask students to create a mimetic artwork with line using block printing media and the portrait as subject matter. He found that students have a better understanding of aesthetics after having theories integrated with production than they had when studying aesthetics from a solely responsive mode. Armstrong, (1999), made aesthetic integration the premise of her book on curriculum development. She suggests that teaching students to respond aesthetically and to be knowledgeable about different aesthetic theories is insufficient. Teachers, and ultimately, students should select aesthetic theories as part of their intent in the creation o f art. Lankford (1992) agrees: As educators strive to strike a balance of theoretical perspectives, they should bear in mind that indoctrination is possible whenever points of view are presented as fact, unexamined concepts prevail, and alternatives remain unexplored. ( p. 14) Many studio assignments given in art classrooms have implied or embedded criteria that, upon examination (or deconstruction), reflect a bias toward a particular 80 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 103. aesthetic theory. If, as Danto says, it takes an aesthetic theory to make something art, then students should be told which theory of art informs the evaluation of their work. Unfortunately, according to Hamblen (1990) teachers value classroom activities for their own sake rather than for adhering to goals or theory. She found that art teachers can be resistant to theory unless it fits their personal value system. For students to become empowered to create aesthetic works of art, it is necessary for them to do more than reflect upon their products using appropriate vocabulary. They need didactic information about aesthetics and self-reflection to determine the effect they want to have on the audience that will view their works. In particular, students need to understand aesthetic theories so that they will be able to select an aesthetic approach along with subject matter, materials, and techniques when creating artworks. To prepare students to create art, teachers should go beyond the presentation of aesthetics information and make explicit aesthetic theory a part of the criteria for studio production activities. Rationale for this Study Based upon the Literature Review Based upon studies reviewed in this paper, the possibility exists that large-scale, high-stakes art assessment that meets demands for accountability could be developed for the state of Missouri. Zerull (1990) stated that Where states have initiated testing requirements, the arts education 81 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 104. community is in a position to take a leadership role in the design and implementation of arts evaluation. This will ensure two important outcomes. First, arts educators, rather than legislative committees, will devise and pilot test evaluation instruments for use with students. Second, this exercise will lead to an examination of the content and quality of arts curricula, (p.20) Before Missouri criterion-referenced tests can be developed, its art educators need to reach consensus on a common core of curriculum content that is appropriate for testing. Drawing from the formalist tradition of twentieth century art education, the elements and principles of art would be key concepts (National Standardsfo r Arts Education, 1994). To assess art history, art educators first need to answer questions. Which art should all students be able to recognize, analyze, respond to, and discuss? Which cultures and time periods should be included, and in which contexts? In addition to the western canon, selections must be sensitive to post-modernist concerns for traditional and folk artforms, multiplicity of solutions, representation of diversity, multiple perspectives, and socio/cultural/political meanings. The role of aesthetic theories in the judgment of student artwork should be explored. This study focuses on the four aesthetic theories that are most relevant to K-12 art education: Formalism, Expressionism, Instrumentalism/Pragmatism, and Imitationalism/Mimeticism. Post-modern attributes are subsumed in Expressionism and Instrumentalism/Pragmatism subcategories. Although open theory and institutionalism should be discussed with students, neither is applicable to most student artwork. To begin the art accountability process in Missouri, the Missouri Art Education Association conducted a survey based upon the Frameworksfo r Missouri Schools (1996). 82 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 105. Its goal was to determine art teachers’ preferences for specific art historical and cultural content that could be assessed at grades 4, 8, and 12 by a state art test (Venet, 1998). Results from that survey were used to inform development of the Missouri Fine Arts Assessment by CTB McGraw Hill. The NAEP studies, never developed into standardized tests, serve as the best models for test developers. They included multiple-choice and cued-choice responses to art images that were written to require application and analytic levels of thought, short answer, open-ended essay, and production activities in which both process and final product were evaluated. The challenge will be to infuse standardized tests with items that require higher level thinking and to build performance into the exam. If the testing agency (state or school district) is willing to use performance assessment (despite increased time and costs required to develop scoring guides, gather exemplars, train and use judges to evaluate large numbers of artworks), then the recommended format would be an authentic assessment embedded in instruction. To guide students during creation of artwork, and raters in scoring, it will be necessary to develop a rubric that lists criteria and descriptors of various levels of quality. Rubric or scoring guide criteria, itemized with descriptive levels of quality, might include: • research and critical analysis; • creative thinking and synthesis; • problem-solving; • appropriate selection of media and techniques; ■ application of elements and principlesof art to create desired aesthetic effect; • reflection on the process and meaning of the work; • relation to an artistic tradition; and • indicators of quality products. Opportunities for students to select a context for the artistic problem would allow 83 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 106. adaptations that account for individual differences in gender, race, ethnic background, socio-economic status, and interests. To minimize costs, a system of internal grading with external moderation could be adapted from the British or Australian models. Using Popham’s suggestion, small, genuine matrix sampling could provide statistically useful comparative data while those students not participating in the test would be solving similar problems that teachers could score at the local level, using the same standards, and scoring guides as the state exam. The portfolio process could become the model for organizing and reflecting upon the component parts of the authentic task, the means for formative assessment, and presentation of the total assessment package. It would be important to standardize, to the degree possible, the results of these assessments. Without systematic comparability, authentic assessments would be unable to provide information needed to “take the temperature o f’ art achievement, inspire curriculum and program modifications, monitor progress, and inform stakeholders. If large-scale assessment is not supported by the state, then criterion-referenced portfolio assessment is recommended at the classroom, school, and/or district level for monitoring student growth, achievement of objectives, and communication to parents. Student work should reflect the common content and standards expected for all students which are specified in a rubric. Authentic tasks would be ideal assignments for use in portfolio evaluation. This is supported by Burton (1998) who conducted a national survey of assessment and evaluation among United States teachers o f art. Eighty-seven percent believed that assessment and evaluation were helpful to their students. Main components of the curricula being taught were studio art and art history, although art exhibition, 84 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 107. interdisciplary, and multicultural components were also valued. He found that current assessment practices “tended toward informal, subjective and interactive purposes. This suggests the assessment process may be used more for ongoing instructional purposes than to ascertain clearly the student’s achievement or ability” (p.2). Summary During the history of testing in the visual arts, a wide range of instruments and philosophies have been employed. Major categories for types of assessment are: standardized, criterion-referenced, performance-based, authentic, and portfolio. Aesthetic theories of art represent ways of defining art. The aesthetic focus of this study is limited to four aesthetic theories, Formalism, Expressionism, Instrumentalism/Pragmatism, and Imitationalism/Mimeticism that can be the purpose of student-created artworks. Large-scale, high-stakes, criterion-referenced assessment can co-exist with high quality art instruction. Standardized tests can be used in addition to qualitative and quantitative measures teachers employ to measure student achievement. Each serves particular functions. Common, basic, content in art must be agreed upon by art educators before criterion-referenced assessments can be developed. Without this core, any attempts at large-scale testing will remain measurements of interest or natural aptitude. Authentic assessment in art has been used elsewhere and could be adapted to large-scale assessment in the United States. Trained scorer/raters, using rubrics, can make highly reliable judgments of student artworks and written work. Embedded authentic assessments are 85 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 108. integrated with instruction, becoming learning activities as well as demonstrations of what has been learned. Therefore, teachers (who may have avoided systematic assessment due to anti-test bias) could be taught to design and evaluate complex, meaningful, life-related art tasks through presentation and scoring of the test. As participants in authentic assessment, students would be thinking, reflecting, researching, discussing, problem­ solving, and creating using real-life artistic issues. The best of all assessments could drive high quality, art instruction, improving programs and student achievement while informing the school administration, parents, community, and government that supporting the arts in education is an excellent investment of time, energy, and tax dollars. 86 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 109. CHAPTER THREE METHODS AND PROCEDURES Introduction Survey research methodology was used to gather data on local assessment of Missouri standards. The data consisted of Missouri art teachers’ opinions of criteria planned for an art production scoring rubric. The Art Assessment Survey, an instrument using a Likert five-point scale, was developed as a vehicle for obtaining teacher responses. The survey was sent to a random sample o f382 (19%) of the population consisting of all Missouri art teachers, kindergarten through twelfth grade. A questionnaire, cover letter, and self-addressed stamped envelope were mailed in to sample participants in early November, 1999. Non-respondents received a second mailing in late November with a deadline for return of surveys by December 15. No letters were returned by the postal service as undeliverable. A letter was faxed to the building principal of each non-respondent teacher. The letter asked for principals to check options and return the form by fax or mail. Options indicated that the teacher would return the survey, had retired, had moved, chose not to participate, or that another teacher would respond. The sample size was reduced to 344 as a result of teachers eliminated because they had retired or moved. The number of teachers responding to the mail survey was 259 (75%). Phone interviews were conducted with an additional sample (10%) of non- 87 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 110. respondents to indicate whether non-respondents were similar to respondents in their answers to survey questions. Descriptive statistics were used to determine which criteria art teachers prefer for inclusion on the state rubric. Percentages of teachers, at each grade level, who responded that a criterion was important for inclusion on a state rubric are presented in Tables 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 23, and 25 in Chapter Four. Additional statistical procedures were employed. One Way-Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to compare responses of elementary, middle, and high school teachers on each criterion (Myers & Weil, 1995). To control for Type 1 error, which can occur ifthe null hypothesis is not accepted, Tukey’s post hoc comparisons were computed (Myers & Weil, 1995). Where ANOVA differences were significant at alpha = 05, contrasts were used to identify the pair(s) which represented the significant difference(s). Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient was used to determine the internal reliability of scales in each survey category (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994). Pearson Product Moment correlations were used to determine relationships between aesthetic approaches and importance of teaching related content (Myers & Weil, 1995). The results of this study were shared with the Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task Force and are being used to support the creation of a state-wide rubric for local assessment of student art products. 88 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 111. Research Questions Main Research Question The main research question o f this study was driven by a practical consideration. The researcher, as a member of the Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task Force, had been assigned the task of developing a state rubric. Having examined a wide variety of rubrics used in the field, a list of criteria was compiled. To determine the applicability of each criteria in light of practice in Missouri, teachers’ expert opinions were being sought. The main research question being addressed by this study was: ■ Which criteria for assessing student art production do art teachers recommend for inclusion on a state rubric? Subquestions Subquestions ask whether multiple versions of a state rubric should be considered. Construction of multiple rubrics could be based upon differences in expectations for students among elementary, middle, and high school art teachers. Differences in expectations related to the aesthetic approach inherent in the instruction and assignment could also suggest a need for “mix and match” sets of criteria. Each set of criteria could be thought of as a “window” or lens (Armstrong, 1999, Broughton, 1999). If significant differences among aesthetic approaches exist, then a flexible rubric that provides aesthetic approach options would be most useful for teachers. More customized rubric options would allow the students’ work to express a variety of cultural contexts (Broughton 89 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 112. 1999). The subquestions of this study were: 1. What are differences among elementary (k-5), middle (6-8), and high school (9-12) teachers’ selections of criteria used to judge student art products? The null hypothesis is: There is no significant difference at the p< 05 level among mean scores of elementary, middle, and high school teachers on criteria recommended for inclusion on a state art production rubric. 2. What are differences among aesthetic approach criteria selected by teachers forjudging student art products? The null hypothesis is: There is no significant difference at the p<05 level among the mean scores of the four aesthetic approaches (imitationalist, expressionist, formalist, pragmatic) on criteria recommended for inclusion on the state rubric. 3. What are differences in teacher selection of aesthetic approach criteria related to the value they place on teaching different kinds of art content? Written as four null hypotheses: A. There is no significant relationship between the imitationalist aesthetic approach score and having students draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation (item VTI-2). 90 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 113. B. There is no significant relationship between the expressionist aesthetic approach score and having students express their feelings or attitudes (item VI1-6). C. There is no significant relationship of between the formalist aesthetic approach score and having students use elements and/or principles to create abstract or non­ objective art (items VII-1 and VII-3). D. There is no significant relationship between the instrumental aesthetic approach score and having students create functional art or communicate social, political, or personal messages (items VTI-5 and VTI-4). Three other questions will be examined that relate to the demographic data. 4. How many students are taught by elementary, middle, and high school teachers, respectively? 5. What are the percentages of teachers who attended staff development or college classes on assessment in the last two years? 6. What are the percentages of teachers who attended staff development or college classes on art assessment? 91 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 114. Relationship to the Literature Beliefs have been regarded as one’s evaluation of the truth or falsehood of something...The term ‘opinion’ is of a similar nature...an opinion is what a person believes to be factually true. (Severy, 1974, p. 2) Most educational surveys reviewed were not subject-specific, rather they sampled teachers of all subjects as a class. The Educational Research Service conducted major teacher opinion polls in 1984 and 1985 using national samples of K.-12 teachers. Though teachers were asked to identify the level at which they taught, they were not asked to identify the subjects they taught. Self-administered, anonymous, written questionnaires included demographics, status and experience questions, and opinions of current issues. A Likert scale was used to obtain a range of responses. With a population of over two million teachers, names were randomly selected in the ratio of one teacher in the sample for every thousand in the population (Educational Research Service, 1984, 1985). Pena and Henderson (1986) studied the sampling procedures used for national surveys of public school teachers. They found that representativeness and adequacy were basic criteria of good sampling procedures. In addition, results indicated that bias was the result of a lack of randomness due to incomplete returns or to oversampling one group of respondents. A major problem was the incompleteness of the sampling frame, or list o f the total population. “The inherent problems in sampling teachers are the availability of home telephone numbers, the difficulty of accessing teachers through the districts, and the absence of nationwide data sets” (Pena & Henderson, 1986, p.l). This problem exists in Missouri where the Department o f Elementary and Secondary Education records list 92 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 115. teachers’ names for the preceding year. Therefore, teachers who have retired or moved from one district or school to another may not be located. Studies were also reviewed to suggest ways of reporting survey data. In some of the studies reviewed, a 5 or 6 point Likert scale was be collapsed. For example, the Center for Education Statistics (1987) national survey of K-12 private school teachers’ opinions used a six point scale on the survey questionnaire. However, when analyzing the data, ratings of 1, 2, and 3 were grouped to indicate disagreement, while ratings of 4, 5, and 6 were grouped to indicate agreement. A similar reporting technique was used in this study. Teachers who rate a criterion as important (rating of 4) or very important (rating of 5) were grouped into a category labeled “important”. In another educational research study, Henderson (1991) surveyed Texas K-12 classroom teachers (undifferentiated by subject taught) to determine their common characteristics. A questionnaire was used with 78 discrete questions, three continuous data questions, and one open-ended question. Questions were answered on a Scantron Form 882. The return rate was 40% and no follow-up mailing was done. This study adopted the use of discrete and open-ended questions. However, in an effort to increase the response rate, teachers were asked to circle and write on the survey rather than using a Scantron form (which could be perceived as less personal) and follow-up mailings were conducted. National surveys of art teachers that included questions on assessment practices were done by Burton (1998) for the United States, and MacGregor, Lemerise, Potts, and Roberts (1993) for Canada. Likert scales were used to obtain teachers’ attitudes and 93 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 116. opinions and checklists were used to identify practices. In both cases, results were reported in percentages of teachers falling into each category. Sabol (1994), Finlayson (1988) and Peeno (1996) conducted surveys of state departments of education to give progress reports on state assessment of the arts. Both Sabol and Finlayson analyzed copies of state tests, then categorized and summarized the content covered. Peeno obtained information from telephone interviews about each state’s time line for art testing and the format of those tests. In this study, art teachers’ professional opinions will be elicited to identify criteria for assessment of K-12 students’ art production and reflection. Local school districts are responsible for assessing standards which are not included in the statewide Missouri Fine Arts Assessment (Missouri State Board of Education, 1996). The results of this study will be used by the Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task Force, Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, as it develops a rubric for local assessment of state standards. For this purpose, a survey instrument was developed, pilot tested in May, 1998, and revised. Douglas Broughton (1999), chiefexaminer for the International Baccalaureate, has written that assessment in the multi-faceted, postmodern era, may necessitate “windows” of grouped criteria that can be matched with the intent and cultural context of particular student products. Aesthetic theories of art provide a structure for recognizing the various intents and purposes for which artworks are created (Lankford, 1992). Therefore, the aesthetic theories of imitationalism, expressionism, formalism, and instrumentalism were used as categorical windows for sets of related criteria in the Art Criteria Survey. 94 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 117. How will the Study Answer the Research Questions? Which criteriafo r assessing student artproduction do art teachers recommendfor inclusion on a state rubric? A quantitative approach was selected as the best means for obtaining agreement. By using a survey format with a five point Likert rating scale, all teachers will be considering the same criteria with consistent measures of emphasis. An open-ended qualitative approach was not selected as teachers’ responses would have been limited to the criteria they have traditionally used, and their answers might not be aligned with the standards which are to be assessed. To provide teachers with a list of criteria that represent best practice in the field, examples of criteria were compiled from: art education text and professional books (Armstrong, 1994 & 1999; Beattie, 1997; Boughton, 1996 & 1999; Chapman, 1978; Clark, Zimmerman & Zurmuhlen, 1987; Eisner, 1972; Gaitskell, Hunvitz, & Day, 1982; Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987;); journal articles (Blaikie, 1994; Burton 1998; Clark & Zimmerman, 1984; Gardner, 1989 Zimmerman, 1992); assessment rubrics used by other states, provinces, and countries (Alberta Department of Education, 1993; Board of Education of the City of New York, 1997; Boughton, 1996; Finlayson, 1988; Gaston, 1997; Karpati, 1995; Kentucky, 1996; MacGregor, Lemerise, Potts, & Roberts, 1993; Manitoba Department of Education and Training, 1990; Maryland State Department of Education, 1990; Sabol, 1994); ARTS PROPEL (Gardner, 1989; Winner & Simmons, 1992; W olf& Pistone, 1991); the Advanced Placement Art Portfolio Review 95 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 118. (Educational Testing Service, 1992); the International Baccalaureate (International Baccalaureate, 1996); local school districts (Columbia Public Schools K-12 Art Curriculum, 1998; Fairfax, VA County Curriculum, 1999; Huffman, 1998; Indiana Department of Education, 1988; Monett School District, 1999; Mundelein, Illinois Assessment Rubrics, 1999; Vermont Arts Assessment Project, 1995; Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction, 1995); and focus groups at the Missouri Art Education Association Spring Conference, 1999 (Venet, 1999). Are there differences among aesthetic approach criteria selected by teachersfo rjudging student artproducts? Aesthetic approaches can influence the kind of criteria that teachers consider important for assessment (Jeffers, 1999; Armstrong, 1999). Four aesthetic approach sets of criteria were included in the survey: Imitationalism, Expressionism, Formalism, and Instrumentalism. Each aesthetic philosophy was described by four criteria. Summative scores in each category were compared to determine if a difference exists in the degree to which teachers consider the criteria important in assessing student work. Boughton (1999) suggests that there should be “windows” of criteria that can be matched to the cultural context of students being assessed. If his theory is demonstrated by teachers responses, then it would suggest that a single set of criteria is insufficient, instead, interchangeable sets might be matched to the intent of the student artist. 96 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 119. Are differences in teacher selection o faesthetic approach criteria related to the value theyplace on teaching different kinds o fart content? Since teacher assessment could be expected to mirror values evident in their selection of art content to teach, correlations among aesthetic approach sets and particular content taught were calculated. If aesthetic sets do exist, then internal validity would be demonstrated by high correlations between lesson content and assessment criteria. Subjects The population for this study was K-12 art teachers currently teaching in the state of Missouri. The frame used to identify the population was a list o f2065 art teachers obtained from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Thirty- five art teachers from Columbia Public Schools were deleted from the population because they had been subjects in the pilot test of the survey instrument, leaving a list of art teachers is 2030. The sample size in doctoral dissertations reviewed was generally 15% to 20 % of the population. A random sample of 382 teachers, 19% of the population, was selected by starting from a random point on the list and referring to a SAS generated list of random numbers. A limitation of the study is that the only available frame, Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education records, lists teachers employed for the previous 97 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 120. year by district and school. Pena and Henderson (1986) critiqued the sampling procedures used for surveys of teachers. They discuss the inadequacy of State Department lists of teachers as a frame, however, they agree that this is still the best list available. Transfers among school buildings and districts is common for art teachers since art is offered as an elective after grade six. As annual enrollments change, art teachers’jobs change. Surveys that could not be completed due to teachers’ retirements or transfers to other school were eliminated from the sample, lowering the total N of the sample. Two questions of sample stratification were considered before being dismissed. The first was grade level stratification. Multiple grade levels are taught concurrently by many art teachers, particularly those in small or rural districts. Since many art teachers also travel among school buildings, if stratified by grade level, it could be possible for the same teacher to be selected in all three grade-level sample groups raising the concern of oversampling. Therefore, no attempt was made to stratify the sample by grade level taught. Instead, teachers were asked to self-report the grade levels they teach as well as to indicate which of three grade level categories they are considering when completing the survey. If they teach at more than one level, teachers were offered the opportunity to copy the survey and respond to the statements from a second, or third grade-level perspective. The question of regional stratification was also considered. Larry Peeno, Missouri Supervisor for Fine Arts indicated (phone conversation, August 26, 1999) that since the Show Me Standards are a constant for all state teachers, regardless of region, community, or school size, he believes that a random sample were sufficient. In order to be certain that all regions are represented, and to look for skewness toward any region, 98 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 121. the surveys were identified by district code from which the location of respondents was tracked. The Instrument Questionnaires and interviews are used extensively in educational research to collect information that is not directly observable (p. 288) ...Questionnaires have two advantages over interviews for collecting research data: The cost of sampling respondents over a wide geographic area is lower, and the time required to collect the data typically is much less. (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996, p.289) According to Bourque and Fielder (1995) a checklist to determine when to use a self-administered mail questionnaire listed the following criteria. Respondents are literate and can answer all questions. Respondents are motivated. They want to know the information. They feel part of a group that has reason to want the information. The topic is amenable to study, (p.30) This study met those criteria. Art teachers are literate and able to answer the questions. As survey results were intended to be given to the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education as data for the construction o f a state-wide scoring rubric for local assessment, teachers should have been motivated to effect the content of that rubric. The study is focused, it deals with teachers’ present practice, and questions are written so they can be answered by everyone in the sample. Therefore, a survey questionnaire was determined to be the best format for reaching art teachers throughout the state of Missouri. While interview or open-ended questions would provide a deeper level of 99 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 122. understanding, it would also provide more shades of difference. Since the results were intended to become part of a scoring rubric, prepared statements, listed as criteria, will match edthose in a rubric format with the least change in meaning. Krathwohl (1993) suggests that phrasing and language be understood and appeal to all segments of the intended population. In addition to obtaining a clear picture of teacher opinions, it was desirable to provide the opportunity for a range of responses, so a five point Likert, scale was selected over checklists. Likert’s scale appears to be the most popular in present research (Severy, 1974; Bertie, 1979). “The goal of this approach is to generates a series of statements which reflect the subject’s opinion regarding...the [item] in question” (Severy, 1974, p.6). “A small pretest helps ‘debug’ operational procedures: provides a basis for early check and edit techniques, and aides in the elimination of ambiguously worded items and poor overall instrument design” (Bertie, 1979, p, 43). The A rt Assessment Survey (Appendix, p.295) instrument is a four page questionnaire consisting of 51 items requiring responses on a five-point Likert scale where categories are: very important, important, no opinion, little importance, and no importance. According to Bertie (1979), “it is helpful to provide the respondent with a safety valve as one of the options, such as ‘undecided’, ‘don’t know’ or ‘no opinion’” (p.39). The items were grouped into seven categories. Each addresses a different set of criteria related to a part of the art production process. In addition, there were six demographic questions and eight areas for open-ended comments at the end of each section. During the development of this instrument, feedback was obtained from university 100 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 123. professors, (including national art assessment experts who teach at other institutions), graduate students, and art teachers. Categories of criteria were discerned from the literature and a focus group during the Missouri Art Education Association Conference in February, 1999. In March of 1999, a six page version of the instrument was pilot tested with a group of 35 art teachers in Columbia, Missouri, who were eliminated from the population for the dissertation study. As a result of feedback from all sources, the scope of the instrument changed from portfolio to general production assessment. One factor was that only 10% of Missouri Art Education Association members who participated in focus groups indicated that they conducted portfolio assessment. In the pilot questionnaire, one section asked teachers to indicate the percentage of class time spent on different types of art content, and other questions asked for short essays. After analyzing the responses, it was determined that both sets of questions should be converted into the Likert scale format used in the rest of the instrument. Redundant and confusing items were deleted. Wording was changed in response to suggestions. Suggestions for the construction of the survey were taken from Bertie (1979), Gall, Borg & Gall (1996), Fink (1995), and Krathwohl (1993). Themes of Questionnaire Categories Criteria were grouped into categories most frequently mentioned in Chapter Two, the literature review. They came from a variety of sources including art education texts, 101 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 124. journals, professional books, the Advanced Placement exam, International Baccalaureate exam, Arts PROPEL, state and school district curriculum guides, and art assessment focus groups. Each is briefly explained. What do you assess? A wide variety of processes, behaviors and art products are considered as the subject of assessment. This category sought information about teachers’ art assessment practices. Responding Criteria This broad category includes oral and written products. Art history, aesthetics, and art criticism standards can be assessed under this heading (NAEP, 1996). It includes students’ responses to their own work, self-evaluation according to assignment criteria, and responses to both historical works and those of peers. Creating or Process Criteria This category includes creative thinking and problem-solving considered to be fundamental to art production (Beattie, 1997 & 1999; Armstrong 1994 & 1999; NAEP, 1996). Attitude or Habits-of-M ind On standardized tests, there is no way to assess these qualities of persistence, 102 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 125. respect, ongoing reflection and revision, commitment through difficulty, and responsiveness to feedback. However, these traits are valued both by researchers who study portfolio processes (Gardner, 1989; Wolf& Pistone, 1991; Beattie, 1999) and art teachers (Huffman, 1998; Kotler, 1999; Columbia Public Schools, 1998; Venet, 1999). Art Product Criteria This category of criteria are those that can be discerned through observation of the students’ artwork. Evaluation of the inherent quality of final artworks are considered o f primary importance in most approaches to art assessment (Armstrong, 1994; Blaikie, 1992; Gaston, 1997; Beattie, 1997; International Baccalaureate, 1996; Advanced Placement, 1992; Venet, 1999). Aesthetic Approach Criteria This category has not been a traditional part of art assessment. However, a few art educators have raised the question of a connection between aesthetics, art production, and assessment in the literature and at National Art Education Association conference presentations (Armstrong, 1999; Jeffers, 1999; Jones, 1999). After a century of formalist domination, postmodernist thinkers are questioning tradition. Aesthetics was included in this study to identify existing connections between aesthetics, instruction, and assessment. Historically, one aesthetic theory at a time prevailed, influencing both artists and viewers (Rader, 1952; Lankford, 1990). At the end of the twentieth century, travel, television, popular arts, and the internet have placed various world cultures and their arts 103 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 126. in close proximity (Anderson, 1990; Duncum, 1999). Within the United States, cultural diversity brings contrasting artistic approaches in contact with each other. No longer is there one aesthetic approach for art. A few art educators are calling for aesthetic approaches to become an overt part of the art production process (Armstrong, 1999; Jones, 1999). Even when covert (Jeffers, 1999), aesthetic philosophies are embedded in the type of assignments given to a student. One characteristic of the contemporary, postmodern era, is the juxtaposition of art from different cultural and aesthetic contexts (Clark, 1996). Though the artworld is in a postmodern period, the current practice of art education is primarily modernist or formalist (Lloyd, 1997). If this is true, then aesthetic approach criteria for the formalist category will be viewed as important more frequently that other aesthetic approach categories. What do you Teach? This category was included to describe current art education practice in Missouri. It is hypothesized that correlations will be found between what is taught and the aesthetic approach criteria judged as important for assessment. This would indicate that aesthetic theories are embedded in instruction. Demographics Demographic information includes the grade level considered when completing the questionnaire, the number of students taught, the grade levels taught, years o f teaching experience, and staffdevelopment or college background in assessment. Teachers were 104 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 127. also asked to list criteria they use for assessment that were not included in the survey. Reliability and Validity It is necessary to minimize error in data collected (Litwin, 1995). To minimize random error, a sample size was selected to provide in excess of 100 subjects for each group category. The survey was written to be precise to eliminate as much measurement error as possible. The instrument did not measure a construct, therefore a split-half coefficient of internal consistency (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996) is not being done. A limitation of the study is that there is no test-retest opportunity to establish that teachers would rate criteria in an identical manner on a different day. “The extent to which the answer given is a true measure and means what the researcher wants or expects it to mean is called va lid ity (Fowler, 1993, p.80). Content validity (Litwin, 1995) was established in three ways. After the questionnaire was initially written, the researcher held focus groups at the Missouri Art Education Association conference in February, 1999. Teachers were divided into groups o f elementary, middle level, and high school teachers. Approximately 80 teachers participated. They were roughly divided into the three grade level groups with slightly fewer in the middle level group than the other two. There are fewer middle level art educators teaching in Missouri since there is no state requirement for art at that level. Each teacher was asked to answer the question: What criteria should be included on state scoring guides for student art production? Answers were discussed in the small groups, then criteria that received 105 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 128. consensus were written on chart paper and reported to the assembled teachers. Categories that emerged from discussion were: Craftspersonship, Individual Creativity/Originality, Composition (use of elements and principles), Growth (student builds upon previous knowledge), Attitude (citizenship, cooperation, respect for people and materials, effort, completion o f work, etiquette...), Process (use of materials, equipment, vocabulary), Knowledge of Art History, Art Criticism, and Aesthetics. It was suggested that there might be separate scoring guides for the art product, the process, and writing/speaking about art (history, aesthetics, criticism). The report from the focus group discussions echoed most statements on the questionnaire. Where they did not, the questionnaire was modified. The second validation came from mailing the revised questionnaire to nationally prominent art assessment experts, Carmen Armstrong, author of Designing Assessment in Art (1994) and Including Aesthetics in A rt Curriculum Planning (1999), Robert Burton, chair of the National Art Education Association Demographics Task Force and author of A Survey o fAssessment and Evaluation among U.S. K-12 Teachers o fArt (1998), and Donna Kay Beattie, chair of the National Art Education Association Assessment Task Force and author ofAssessment in A rt Education (1997). A cover letter asked for feedback on the questionnaire. I arranged to meet with each of these experts at the National Art Education Association Conference in April, 1999 to discuss the survey. In addition, I received detailed written feedback for both Dr. Armstrong and Dr. Burton. The questionnaire was revised again based upon their suggestions. The third opportunity for validation occurred in a pilot test when the survey was 106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 129. mailed to 32 art teachers in the Columbia Public Schools, in Columbia, Missouri. The format included an open-ended essay question asking “What criteria do you use to assess student work? Write your answer.” Those responses, along with comments made to other items on the questionnaire, indicated that survey items were similar to criteria listed on the survey. Again, based upon responses, the questionnaire was further refined. Administration of the Survey Application was made to and approved by the Review Board for Research Involving Human Subjects. The survey, a cover letter, and a stamped return addressed envelope was mailed to a random sample of 382 art teachers drawn from a list of approximately 2000 provided by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Columbia Public School District art teachers were eliminated from the population since they had participated in the pilot. The survey was mailed to the sample population through the school district to which teachers were assigned in the previous academic year. Since art is provided only one hour per week to elementary students and on an elective basis to secondary students, art teachers change buildings and districts more frequently than full-time classroom teachers. This resulted in a lower rate of return as some questionnaires never reached the selected participants. A code was used for each participant to track responses. A follow-up letter and survey were mailed to those who did not respond by November 29, 1999. A letter was faxed or mailed to building 107 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 130. principals of teachers who had not responded by December 15, 1999. To minimize bias that could result if non-respondents would have answered differently from respondents, a random sample of non-respondents was telephoned and asked to complete the survey orally. Frequency and percentage data from the phone surveys was compared to those of respondents. Participation was voluntary, as teachers chose whether to complete and return the survey. Six teachers responded that they did not choose to participate. They were included in the sample as non-respondents. Coding of Surveys Surveys were coded to provide identification of respondents by school district and to allow follow-up letters to be sent to non-respondents. Optimizing Return Rate “Generally speaking, almost anything that makes a mail questionnaire look more professional, more personalized, or more attractive will have some positive effect on response rates” (Fowler, 1993, p. 45). In order to increase the likelihood that respondents will complete and return the survey, the following factors were incorporated into the 108 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 131. methodology (Bertie, 1979; Fowler, 1993; Krathwohl, 1993; Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996; Fink, 1995). The instrument: • was copied on bright yellow paper • required the respondent to mark (circle, check, write) on the instrument to eliminate negative reaction toward machine scoring • uncrowded, clear, easy to read, and limited to four pages with 12 point type • included the response deadline The cover letter: • was personalized using a mail merge program • was signed with a blue ballpoint pen that leaves an imprint • appealed to teachers’ desire to have input in a state rubric • was included the response deadline The mailing included: • a stamped-selfaddressed return envelope • colorful, special edition stamps on both the packet and return envelopes Follow-up procedures were: • a second survey and modified cover letter were mailed to non-respondents • a third letter was faxed or mailed to each non-respondent’s building principal • fourth, phone surveys were conducted with a random sample of non-respondents Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 132. Data Analysis Criteria were grouped into categories to clarify the intention o f each statement and make the layout of the instrument easy to read and complete. Whether criteria within a category were correlated was a question of interest, but not essential for the purpose of the survey. Rather, it was important to determine which of the individual criteria were thought to be important enough to be used on a rubric for large-scale performance/production assessment. Data for Likert responses to items in categories: Responding Criteria, Creating Criteria, Attitude Criteria, Art Product Criteria, and Aesthetic Approach Criteria (A Formalist, B Expressionist, C Instrumental/Pragmatic, D Imitationalist/Mimetic treated separately) were analyzed for response frequencies and percentages o f total sample. Scores were obtained for each item from a rating scale: very important, important, no opinion, little importance, no importance. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient analyzes were computed to determine whether each category represented a scale with internal reliability (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1996). A one-way Analysis of Variance was used to compare mean scores among elementary, middle, and high school teachers on each criteria. For criteria found to exhibit differences significant at the p<05 level, Tukey’s Post Hoc Comparisons were calculated to determine the confidence level after accounting for Type I errors which can occur when a null hypothesis is rejected. Finally, follow-up Contrasts were run to determine where differences occurred. Since the purpose of this survey is to determine which criteria should be included on a state rubric, only two categories, very 110 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 133. important, and important were considered. The two were summed to represent the frequency and percentage of teachers who believe it is important for the item to be included on the rubric. Seventy-percent agreement was determined (with input from Larry Peeno, Missouri Fine Arts Supervisor) to be the cut off for recommending a criterion be included on the state rubric. The rationale for this choice was based upon a beliefthat if most teachers agreed that the criteria were important, they would be more likely to use the rubric for state assessment. Significant differences between teachers of different grade levels indicate varying priorities and therefore, suggest that separate elementary, middle, and high school rubrics should be considered. Descriptive statistics were computed for categories: Demographics, What do you Assess? and What do you Teach? The data is presented in Chapter Four in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8. Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients were calculated for scores on categories of aesthetic approaches and teaching content. A correlation of .7 or higher was interpreted to mean that teachers value assessment criteria that are consistent with the information they think it is important to teach. This indicated internal reliability for part of the survey instrument. Interview and written responses were recorded. The data were reviewed to look for patterns where either identical words were used or the same idea was described in slightly different ways. Those that were similar were grouped together and tallied. The data are reported in descending order by the frequency of similar comments that were 111 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 134. written independently by more than one teacher. Comments that typified a particular perspective have been quoted. Since written responses followed each section of the questionnaire, the results are discussed along with the statistical findings by section. 112 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 135. CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS Introduction The purpose o f this study was to provide a rubric development model for states or school districts to use when designing large-scale authentic assessments. The key to performance-based assessment is the development of rubrics which can be used to score diverse artworks and writings. Specifically, this study was intended to determine which criteria were important for inclusion on a state rubric for the local assessment of Show-Me Standardsfo r M issouri Schools (1996). The results o f this study are discussed in nine parts, corresponding to the questionnaire categories and research questions: (1) Demographics, (2) What do you Assess? (3) Responding Criteria, (4) Creating or Process Criteria, (5) Attitude or Habits- of-Mind Criteria, (6) Art Product Criteria, (7) Aesthetic Approach Criteria, (8) What do you Teach? (9) Relationship Between Aesthetics and Instruction. Parts one through eight address the main research question: Which criteria for assessing student art production do art teachers recommend for inclusion on a state rubric? and subquestions: What are differences among elementary (k-5), middle (6-8), and high school (9-12) teachers’ selections of criteria used to judge student art products? and What are differences among aesthetic approach criteria selected by teachers forjudging student art products? The 113 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 136. ninth section of this chapter addresses the research subquestion: What are differences in teacher selection of aesthetic approach criteria related to the value they place on teaching different kinds of art content? Criteria had been grouped for the survey but had not been previously tested to determine if each category would function as a reliable scale. To answer the main research question, the presentation of results focuses on individual criteria and their relevance for teachers at different grade levels rather than on categories of criteria, therefore an ANOVA was conducted for each individual hem. In the tables, each criterion is followed by the percentage (rounded to the nearest whole number) of elementary, middle, and high school level teachers who indicated it was important for inclusion on a Missouri art rubric. The hypotheses stated that the level of significance being sought was alpha=.05. In cases where the actual alpha level indicated a stronger probability, the actual level of significance is reported. For the stated purpose of determining which criteria should be included on a generic rubric, only those deemed “important” are reported. The survey utilized a five- point Likert scale. However, in the analysis, categories labeled “important” and “very important” were collapsed and treated as one unit called “important” to simplify the decision about which should be used on a state art assessment rubric. Percentages of teachers who rated the item “undecided”, “little importance”, or “no importance” are not reported in this document but are available to interested researchers. A criteria will be recommended for inclusion on the state rubric if at least 70% of teachers in a grade level category rated it “important”. 114 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 137. The population was Missouri art teachers. A list was provided by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education that included each art teacher’s name, the district and school code, school address, school phone number, and school fax number, if available. The sample was selected by generating a list of random numbers using the SAS statistical program. This random sample consisted of 382 individuals, 19% of a reported population o f2030. Thirty-five Columbia Public Schools art teachers were excluded from the population as they had participated in the pilot study. Thirty-eight subjects who had retired or moved were removed from the sample resulting in a sample of 344 individuals. The number of surveys returned was 259, a return rate of 75% of the sample, and 13% o f the total population. An additional 8 teachers, randomly selected from the group of non-respondents, completed the survey as part of a phone interview, increasing the percentage of participating teachers to 78%. The interviewed non- respondents’ ratings, generally similar to those of mail respondents, are listed later in this chapter. Part One: Demographic Variables Many configurations exist in the grades levels taught by Missouri art teachers. They range from K-12 teachers to those who teach a single grade level. Teachers were asked to select one grade level category (elementary K-5, middle 6-8, or high school 9-12) when responding to the survey. However, participants who taught more than one grade level were allowed to photocopy the survey and complete it from the perspective of a 115 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 138. second and/or third grade level category. Of the 259 teachers who returned surveys, 110 selected elementary for their first response, 11 copied the survey after first responding to either middle or high school thus the total number of elementary surveys was 121. Fifty-one teachers selected middle level for their first response, 13 copied the survey after first responding to either elementary or high school thus the total number of middle level surveys was 64. Ninety-six teachers selected high school for their first response, 9 copied the survey after first responding to either elementary or middle levels thus the total number of high school surveys was 105. Teachers were also asked to circle each grade level they were currently teaching. The frequencies for each grade level are shown in Table 1. The reduction in numbers of teachers at the middle level is a reflection of Missouri education requirements. Missouri requires art to be taught for 50 minutes per week at the elementary level. Departmentalized middle or junior high schools are required only to offer art as an elective. In some middle schools art is taught as part of a “wheel” in which all students are enrolled in art for one block (ranging from 5-8 weeks). In those programs, all students in a grade level will rotate through art in the course of a year. At the high school level students must obtain one unit of fine arts credit to graduate. This credit can be earned in any fine arts area including visual art, theater, music, dance or humanities. 116 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 139. Table 1. Frequency of Grade Levels Currently Taught bv Art Teachers in Sample Grade Level Frequency n=292* K 136 1 140 2 147 •*> j 147 4 146 5 136 6 116 7 109 8 109 9 119 10 124 11 126 12 126 * n=292 some inflation is due to teachers who completed multiple surveys Table 2 indicates the number of years of teaching experience for art teachers in the sample. The majority of teachers have more than five years of experience. This either represents typical experience for Missouri art teachers, or experience may have been a factor in causing teachers to complete and return the survey. One teacher interviewed by phone as part of the follow-up sample of non-respondents volunteered that she had not completed the previously mailed surveys because, as a second-year teacher, she felt she 117 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 140. had little to contribute. Of non-respondents interviewed, 38% had taught 1-5 years, 25% for 6-10 years, and 38% for 21=years. Table 2. Years of Teaching Experience for Art Teachers in the Sample Range of Years % of K-12 Teachers 1-5 20 6-10 14 11-20 32 21+ 33 n=259 Teachers indicated the number of students they taught each year in Table 3. There is a large discrepancy among the number of art students taught by elementary, middle level, and high school art teachers. Elementary art teachers have the largest caseloads but meet less frequently with each student. Since 50 minutes of art per week is required for elementary students, most elementary art teachers must teach 20-30 classrooms of students each week. Middle level schools vary greatly in the programs they offer to their students. Many buildings rotate art with other “exploration” subjects so that the art teacher is responsible for art instruction with all students during the year. High school courses meet one class period (approximately 50 minutes on a traditional schedule) per 118 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 141. day for a year in order to fulfill requirements for a graduation unit of credit. Elementary teachers’ comments indicated that although they value portfolios, rough drafts, and written reflections, they did not use them due to limited teaching time and large numbers of students they taught each week. Table 3. Number of Art Students Taught in a Year bv Grade Level Number of Art Students * % Elementary Teachers n=l21 % Middle Teachers n=64 % High Teachers n=105 1-99 3 15 23 101-199 5 25 61 200-399 25 25 13 400-599 52 20 2 600+ 15 14 1 *Percentages have been rounded to nearest whole number Geographic location of respondents was tracked with a county code written on the surveys. Responses were received from 85 of the 115 counties in Missouri. More schools from highly populated counties in Kansas City, St. Louis, and Springfield metropolitan areas were in the frame and, therefore, the sample included more teachers from those regions than less populated areas of the state. No statistical analysis was done on this data. It’s purpose was to confirm that the sample was geographically dispersed across the 119 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 142. state. Teachers were asked if they had attended staffdevelopment or college classes on assessment in the last two years. Seventy-seven percent of all teachers answered “yes”. Fifty-four percent of all teachers indicated they had attended staff development or college classes on art assessment in the last two years. Teachers were interested in continuing education in assessment. Since only 20% of respondents had been teaching 5 or less years, the majority of art teachers in the sample would have taken graduate classes or attended staff development in order to be informed about assessment. Part Two: What do Art Teachers Assess? Table 4 illustrates the percentage of elementary, middle level, and high school art teachers who believe it is important to assess a variety of art products. Frequencies and percentages were calculated by teachers’ selection of a grade level category. The “final product” was considered important by 93% of elementary, 95% of middle level, and 98% of high school teachers. The other product considered important by greater than 70% of all teachers was the “student’s self-evaluation”. Results were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA between-groups design, followed by Tukey’s Post Hoc Comparisons and Contrasts (Tables 36-48 in Appendix) were calculated for each criteria to isolate the significant differences among teachers by level taught. There were significant contrasts between elementary and high school teachers’ mean scores on the importance of assessing: 120 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 143. “rough drafts”, p< 0007; and the “final product”, p< 029. Significant differences were found between elementary and middle level teachers, p< 0019, and between elementary and high school teachers, p< 0002 on the importance of assessing “art criticism”. Significant differences were found between elementary and middle level teachers, p<.0001, and between elementary and high school teachers, p<.0001 on the importance of assessing “art historical writing”. Significant differences were found between elementary and middle level teachers, p< 01, and between elementary and high school teachers, p<.0001 on the importance of assessing “portfolio of student work”. 121 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 144. Table 4. Products Considered Important for Teachers to Assess Type of Product Percentages rounded to nearest whole number Elementary K -5 % Middle 6-8 % High 9-12 % Rough drafts or process sketches, *p<0007 between elementary-high school 54 65 74 Final product, *p<.029 between elementary-high school 93 95 98 Aesthetic reflections about own or other artists’ work 65 69 76 Art criticism analysis of own/other artists’ work, *p< 0002 between elementary-middle and *p<0019 between elementary-high school 60 78 80 Art historical writing, *p< 0001 between elementary-middle and *p< 0001 between elementary-high school 15 37 39 Student’s self-evaluation 71 79 85 Portfolio of student work, *p< 01 between elementary-middle and *p<0001 between elementary-high school 44 61 75 *In Appendix: ANOVA Tables 35,38,41, 45; Tukey’s Tables 36, 39, 42, 46; Contrasts Tables 37, 40, 43, 47. Alpha level of significant contrasts is shown below criteria. The number of respondents is: Elementary teachers. K-S, n=l 10 who completed the survey on the yellow paper Elementary teachers, K-5. n=l 1who copied the survey, responding first to middle or high school Total elementary teachers, K-S, n=121 Middle level teachers, 6-8, n=51who completed the survey on the yellow paper Middle level teachers, 6-8, n=I3 who copied the survey, responding first to elementary or high school Total middle level teachers, 6-8, n=64 High school teachers, 9-12, n=96 who completed the survey on the yellow paper High school teachers, 9-12, n=9 who copied the survey, responding first to elementary or middle Total High School Teachers, 9-12, n=105 Total teachers who returned the survey. K-12, n=259 122 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 145. Portfolio Assessment Table 5. Additional Products Teachers Assess Comments Statement listed under comments Number of Teachers Sketches, journals, rough drafts, process 9 Attitude, behavior 8 Work ethic, effort 7 Tests 6 In process work 5 Follow directions 4 Art history 4 Craftsmanship, media skill 4 Elements and principles of art 4 Use of rubrics 4 Reports or term papers 4 Research on styles, cultures tied to assignment 4 Knowledge of art vocabulary terms 4 Daily participation 3 Masterworks identification 3 Writing 3 Neatness 3 Working in a group when applicable 3 Effort 3 Finish on time 3 There were two open-ended comment sections related to student 123 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 146. portfolios. The first asked what else teachers assessed, results of which are in Table 5. Some teachers commented about what they do not assess. Three mentioned that portfolios were not used due to a lack of storage space, one mentioned that time constraints didn’t allow for aesthetics, criticism, or history to be taught. A typical statement was made by an elementary art teacher: We do not use a formalized assessment in our school district. I know this will be forthcoming. My concerns are how can you fairly evaluate 600 pieces of artwork? What will this do to the discovery and experiential process for the elementary student? Teachers who indicated that they assessed portfolios were asked to itemize the contents of their students’ portfolios. Most teachers indicated that their portfolios contained final art products (n=38), and that the portfolio also contained all works over a period of time such as a grading period or semester (n=35). Many (n=24) also included the student’s selfevaluation. Table 6 shows the comments mentioned by 3 or more teachers. 124 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 147. Table 6. What is included in Student Portfolios Comments Art Product Number of Teachers Finished product 38 All student work for a grading period/semester 35 Self-evaluation/reflections 24 Rough drafts or sketches 19 Depth and breadth (range of 2-D and 3-D) 16 Daily exercises/process 13 Evaluation sheets/rubrics from teacher/peers 12 Journal writings 11 Aesthetic reflections/journals 10 Vocabulary/handouts/notes 10 Art criticism about masterworks/cultures 8 Do not use portfolios in elementary 8 Technical or process skills 6 Improvement 6 Sketchbook 5 Portraits 5 Perspective 5 Peer critique 4 Still life 4 Assess only advanced high school students 4 Homework 4 Graphite drawings 3 Elements and principles assignments 3 Vocabulary 3 125 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 148. Part Three: Responding Criteria The survey category of “Responding” criteria focused on art products which do not involve studio production. They include the disciplines of art history, art criticism, and aesthetics which are required by the Show-Me Standardsfo r M issouri Schools (1996), and Frameworksfo r M issouri Schools (1996). Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient test was used determine if scores on “Responding” individual criteria were correlated and therefore could be considered a reliable scale. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates exceeded .70 (considered a rule of thumb for determining significance) and are reported on the diagonal of Table 7 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994). 126 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 149. Table 7. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for “Responding” Criteria for RAW variables: 0.74 for STANDARDIZED variables: 0.74 Raw Variables Std. Variables Deleted Variable Correlation with Total Alpha Correlation with Total Alpha n i 0.50 0.69 0.50 0.70 112 0.51 0.69 0.51 0.69 113 0.44 0.71 0.45 0.72 114 0.54 0.68 0.54 0.68 115 0.51 0.69 0.52 0.69 K-12 n=273 Frequencies and percentages of individual Responding category criteria were analyzed for each group of teachers. Each criterion was viewed as being increasingly important as students moved through the K-12 school system except for criteria two, “identifies connections among arts and with other subjects”. Based upon elementary and middle level teachers’ comments, thematic integration is most important at the elementary level, is used in middle schools, and is not considered very important at the high school 127 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 150. level. All criteria were considered important by more than 70% of teachers and would be recommended for inclusion on a state rubric. ANOVA indicated that a significant contrast, p< 006, was found between elementary and high school teacher’s mean scores for the criteria “uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate artworks”. “Student self-evaluation” was significantly different, p<007, between elementary and middle level teachers, and, p<02, between elementary and high school teachers. These results are shown in Table 8. Teachers responded with open-ended comments about Responding to Art criteria. The most frequently mentioned comment involved self- evaluation. A K-12 art teacher wrote, “Self-evaluation permits a student to make aesthetic reflections and technical observations about work. It also promotes and reinforces problem-solving”. Another K- 12 art teacher explained, “My main objective in this area is to make sure that students value their own work and appreciate the time and effort of other students. I also want them to have an appreciation for various artists, styles, periods, methods, and time periods”. A high school teacher commented, “I believe in DBAE [discipline-based art education] but find my students rebel against writing in art. At this point I am holding off...Next year and an 8 block schedule will give me time I need to change”. Another high school teacher expressed similar sentiments, “I feel these are all very important but it is very difficult to get most of my students to take them seriously”. 128 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 151. Table 8. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Student Response Criteria Type of Response Percentages rounded to whole numbers Explains perceptions of artwork Identifies connections among arts and with other subjects Uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate artworks, *p< 006 between elementary-high school Student self-evaluates, *p< 007 between elementary- middle and *p< 02 between elementary-high school Elementary Middle High K- 5 6-8 9-12 n=110 n=51 n=96 % % % 76 82 79 79 77 73 72 82 80 86 92 94 79 87 87 Relates art from historical periods, movements, and/or cultures to own work * in Appendix: ANOVA Tables 50, 53; Tukey’s Tables 51, 54; Contrasts Tables 52, 55; were computed with mean scores of elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. The p value for Alpha level of significant contrasts are indicated below the statement. Teachers’written comments regarding the Responding category are displayed in Table 9. 129 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 152. Table 9 . Responding to Art Comments Self-evaluation is very important 13 At elementary, integrating art with other subjects has a dramatic effect 5 Writing and speaking about artworks in proper art vocabulary is very important 4 Ideally I find these important. Realistically my schedule does not allow me to 4 do most when I evaluate work. Art history-based projects 3 At middle school, we do big projects on history integrated with social studies 3 At elementary level we just start introducing these ideas, don’t assess them 3 Basic writing (terms, poem) as intro to artwork with grades 3, 4, 5 2 This is all important 2 Depends upon the level taught 2 Explains perceptions is very important 2 Explaining perceptions is very important but not assessed 2 Know the value of differences in individual expression 2 Critique 2 I am not sure what this means 2 130 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 153. Part Four: Creating or Process Criteria Process criteria were correlated using Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient. The raw score was less than .7, therefore this category can not be treated as a reliable scale. Frequencies, shown in Table 10, indicated support for “correctly uses assigned processes, media, and techniques”; “demonstrates problem-solving process”; and “demonstrates originality, creativity, or inventiveness”, and suggest these be included on a state rubric. On the other hand, “documents process in sketchbook or journal entries” should not be part of the rubric based upon the percentages and comments. ANOVA, Tukey’s Post Hoc Comparison, and Contrasts were calculated for each criteria, comparing mean scores of the three grade level groups of art teachers. The only criteria that showed a significant difference, alpha=.05, was “documents process in sketchbook or journal entries”, where the contrast for elementary - middle was p<.005 and between elementary - high school teachers, p<0002. 131 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 154. Table 10. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Process Criteria Type of Process Percentages rounded to whole numbers Elementary K-5 n=l 10 % Middle 6-8 n=51 % High 9-12 n=96 % Correctly uses assigned processes, media, and techniques 98 100 96 Demonstrates problem-solving process: brainstorms, develops and revises idea, produces final product, self-evaluates 96 95 100 Demonstrates originality, creativity or inventiveness 98 98 100 Documents process in sketchbook or journal entries, *p<005 between elementary and middle level and, *p<0002between elementary and high school level 32 47 52 *In Appendix: ANOVA Table 56, Tukey’s Table 57, Contrasts Table 58 compared mean scores of elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. Alpha level of significant contrasts are indicated below the statement. Teachers had the opportunity to write open-ended comments about Creating or Process criteria. Comments mentioned by three or more writers are displayed on Table 11. Typical of many comments, an elementary art teacher said, “There is very little time in art class for this kind of reflection. Ideally it would be great but kids expect to ‘work’ in my room, not write reflectively1’. A middle school teacher expressed, “Of my coworkers 132 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 155. (five teachers at middle level), three assign sketchbooks. I have found that my extra credit drawing projects work well for me. Students who struggle are overwhelmed by sketchbooks”. A high school teacher focused on a common dilemma, “The first criteria [correctly uses assigned processes, media and techniques] seems vague. How can I assess Tania who breaks all the rules of process, but turns out exciting pieces to Carl who does everything by the rules and there is no ‘life’ in his work?” Another high school teacher offered another perspective, “It is a delight to see a student though all of the criteria. They are learning to learn if they meet these objectives.” Table 11. Creating or Process Criteria Comments Statement listed under comments Number of Teachers Don’t find time to do sketchbook or journals in elementary/middle levels 7 Journal documents process/production 4 Developing and revising/problem-solving are most important 4 Unique approach to media beyond demonstrated technique is important 3 Creativity/originality are important 3 Do not use sketchbooks or journals in elementary 3 In middle school, the “good students” have sketchbooks of their own. The 3 others don’t care and don’t do them. I don’t assign them anymore. 133 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 156. Part Five: Attitude or Habits of Mind Criteria Correlation among criteria was calculated using Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient. The raw score was less than .7, therefore, this category can not be treated as a reliable scale. In this category more than 90% of art teachers at all grade levels answered that each criteria was important, therefore, all would be recommended for inclusion on a state rubric. ANOVA, Tukey’s Post Hoc comparisons, and Contrasts were calculated for each criteria, comparing mean scores of the three grade level groups of art teachers. Only one criteria “shows commitment, pursues problem through revisions” demonstrated a significant contrast, p<01, between elementary and high school. The high percentages might represent a philosophical viewpoint mentioned in teacher comments. Many art teachers believe that all students can be successful in art if they follow directions and put forth effort. On a large scale assessment, it would be difficult to factor in habits-of-mind criteria. At the classroom level, which is were local assessment will most likely take place, these criteria are considered appropriate. Results are shown in Table 12. 134 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 157. Table 12. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Attitude or Habits of Mind Criteria Type of Attitude Percentages rounded to whole numbers Elementary K-5 n=l 10 % Middle 6-8 n=51 % High 9-12 n=96 % Is persistently on task 95 98 99 Respects materials, equipment, other students and their art 99 97 100 Shows commitment, pursues problems through revisions, *p<01 between elementary and high school 92 97 99 Is responsive to teacher’s feedback 94 90 97 *In Appendix: ANOVA Table 59; Tukey’s Table 60; Contrasts Table 61 compared mean scores of elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. Alpha level of significant contrasts are indicated below the statement. Teacher comments included a debate over whether students should take a teacher’s feedback. One teacher wrote, “students are not expected to take my suggestions unless it fits their vision”. Another art teacher presented a different point of view, “The student may choose to follow his/her own notion of design, but I feel they need to be receptive to the instruction input”. A third commented, “I expect students to listen to my advice but make their own decisions”. The comment section responses are listed in Table 13. 135 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 158. Table 13. Attitude/Habits of Mind Comments Statement listed under comments Number of Teachers Determination, hard work, persistently on task 10 Students should follow their own vision rather than the teachers 7 Responsibility 5 Discipline 3 Respect for people’s work 3 Part Six: Art Product Criteria Correlation among Art Product criteria was calculated using Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient. The raw score was less than .7, therefore this category can not be treated as a reliable scale. Frequencies and percentages were computed for each teaching level on each Art Product criteria, and are shown on Table 14. All criteria were important to more than 70% of art teachers and should be included on a state art assessment rubric with the exception of “artwork includes relevant art historical influences” which should not be included. ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, and contrasts were calculated for each criteria, 136 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 159. comparing mean scores of the three grade level groups o f art teachers. Two criteria were significantly different. One criteria that showed a significant difference among teachers of three grade levels, alpha=.05, was “demonstrates technical skill or craftspersonship”, p< 05 between elementary-middle, and p<0001 between elementary-high school. The other criteria that showed a significant difference among teachers of three grade levels, alpha=.05, was “demonstrates planned, effective composition”, p<01 between elementary-middle, and p< 0002 between elementary-high school. 137 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 160. Table 14. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Art Product Criteria Type of Product Percentages rounded to whole numbers Elementary K-5 n=l 10 % Middle 6-8 n=51 % High 9-12 n=96 % Demonstrates technical skill or craftspersonship. *p<05 between elementary and middle level *p>.0001 between elementary and high school 83 90 95 Demonstrates planned, effective composition *p<01 between elementary and middle *p<0002 between elementary and high school 87 97 97 Work shows improvement from past products 92 94 93 Artwork includes relevant art historical influences 45 48 56 Demonstrates assigned concepts, processes, elements, and/or principles 95 97 98 Intent of artist is communicated 77 79 85 *In Appendix: ANOVA Tables 62, 65; Tukey’s Tables 63, 67; Contrasts Tables 64, 67; compared mean scores of elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. The alpha level of significant contrasts are shown below the statement. Under the teacher comment section for art product criteria, the highest frequency of responses related to art historical influences on student work. Several teachers indicated that these criteria depended upon the assignment and type of work. Table 15 shows comments made by three or more independent respondents. 138 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 161. Table 15. Art Product Criteria Comments Statement listed under comments Number of Teachers Historical influences if it is a focus of the assignment 9 Depends upon the assignment 6 Spelled out in rubric 3 Part Seven: Aesthetics Criteria This study focused on the four aesthetic theories that were most relevant to K-12 art education: Formalism, Expressionism, Instrumentalism/Pragmatism, and Imitationalism/Mimeticism. Some post-modern criteria were used in Expressionism and Instrumentalism/Pragmatism. A variety of analyzes were computed on data in the Aesthetics section. First, aesthetics was treated as a single category in order to determine if all the aesthetics criteria could be considered as a single scale (Table 16). Then, the four subcategories of Formalism, Expressionism, Instrumentalism, and Imitationalism were compared to see if each was significantly different from the others (Tables 17, 18, 19). Next, the four subcategories were examined to determine if each represented a reliable 139 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 162. scale (Tables 20, 23, 25). If four different aesthetics scales exist, then teachers would be able to select the most appropriate subcategory of aesthetic criteria for assessing a particular assignment. Finally, percentages of teachers who deemed each criteria important for inclusion on a state rubric were reported (Tables 21, 22, 24, 26). ANOVA was run on each criterion and, where significant, was followed by Tukey’s Post Hoc Comparison and Contrasts. First, the category of Aesthetics was viewed as a whole. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient test was used determine if scores on all aesthetic categories combined would be a reliable scale for measuring an aesthetic component of art production. Individual criteria were correlated and therefore, could be considered a reliable scale. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates exceeded .70 (considered a rule of thumb for determining significance) and are reported on the diagonal of Table 16 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994). The variables represent the mean score of Formalist criteria, Expressionist criteria, Instrumental or Pragmatic criteria, and Imitationalist or Mimetic criteria. Since the raw score exceeded .7, it can be anticipated that aesthetics functions as a distinct scale. 140 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 163. Table 16. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for all “Aesthetic” Criteria for RAW variables : 0.71 for STANDARDIZED variables: Raw Variables 0.71 Std. Variables Deleted Correlation Variable with Total Alpha Correlation with Total Alpha Formalism 0.37 0.71 0.38 0.71 Expressionism 0.57 0.60 0.55 0.61 Instrumentalism 0.59 0.59 0.57 0.60 Imitationalism 0.49 0.66 0.49 0.65 K-12 n=279 One facet of this study was to see if the four subcategories of aesthetic criteria could be used as interchangeable “windows” (Boughton, 1999). A three-way ANOVA was used to determine if there were significant differences among the means of Formalist Criteria, Expressionist Criteria, Instrumental Criteria, and Imitationaiist Criteria. The result, shown in Table 17, was a difference significant at the p<0001 level. Tukey’s Post Hoc Comparisons, Table 18, showed that differences at alpha=.05 level were significant for all pairings of the four variables except the mean of Expressionist criteria versus the mean of Imitationaiist criteria. Follow-up Contrasts were calculated are displayed in Table 141 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 164. 19. This would suggest that for aesthetics survey categories do describe distinctly separate sets of criteria. The analysis of variance is shown in Tables 17. Table 17. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Aesthetic Means Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 3 145.08 48.36 91.04 0.0001 Error 1141 606.06 0.53 Corrected Total 1144 751.14 R-Square C.V. Root MSE III4 Mean 0.19 18.40 0.73 3.96 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 3 145.08 48.36 91.04 0.0001 Source DF Type HI SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 3 145.08 43.36 91.84 0.0001 142 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 165. Tukey’s Post Hoc Comparisons were computed to determine the significance of contrasts when controlling for Type I errors Results are presented in Table 18. Contrasts comparing the mean scores of Formalist, Expressionist, Instrumental, and Imitationaiist criteria demonstrated significant contrasts for all combinations except the means of Formalist versus instrumental criteria. These contrasts are reported in Table 19. 143 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 166. Table 18. Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for Aesthetics Subcategories: Formalist. Expressionist. Instrumental, and Imitationaiist Criteria NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence^ 0.95 df=280 MSE= 1.50 Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.33 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit Formalism- Imitationalism 0.21996 0.37651 0.53305 *** Formalism-Expressionism 0.24372 0.39999 0.55625 *** Formalism-Pragmatism 0.83715 0.99355 1.14996 *** Imitationalism -Formalism -0.53305 -0.37651 -0.21996 *** Imitationalism -Expressionism -0.13360 0.02348 0.18056 Imitationalism - Pragmatism 0.45982 0.61704 0.77427 *** Expressionism -Formalism -0.55625 -0.39999 -0.24372 *** Expressionism-Imitationalism -0.18056 -0.02348 0.13360 Expressionism-Pragmatism 0.43662 0.59356 0.75051 *** Pragmatism-Formalism -1.14996 -0.99355 -0.83715 *** Pragmatism -Imitationalism -0.77427 -0.61704 -0.45982 *** Pragmatism -Expressionism -0.75051 -0.59356 -0.43662 *** 144 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 167. Table 19. Contrasts for Aesthetic Subcategories of Formalism. Expressionism. Instrumentalism, and Imitationalism Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Formalism vs. Expressionism 1 23.04 23.04 43.37 0.0001 Formalism vs. Instrumentalism 1 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.70 Formalism vs. Imitationalism 1 50.29 50.29 94.68 0.0001 Expressionism vs. Instrumentalism 1 20.34 20.34 38.29 0.0001 Expressionism vs. Imitationalism 1 141.89 141.89 267.13 0.0001 Instrumentalism vs. Imitationalism 1 54.16 54.16 101.97 0.0001 Formalist Criteria Formalism is the aesthetic theory that considers good design to be sufficient content for an object to be labeled ‘art’. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient test was used determine if Formalist Aesthetic Criteria would be a reliable scale for measuring an aesthetic component of art production. Individual criteria were correlated and therefore could be considered a reliable scale. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates exceeded .70 (considered a rule of thumb for determining significance) and are reported on the diagonal of Table 20 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994). 145 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 168. Table 20. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Formalist Aesthetic Criteria for RAW variables: 0.75 for STANDARDIZED variables: 0.77 Raw Variables Std. Variables Deleted Variable Correlation with Total Alpha Correlation with Total Alpha Criteria 1 0.57 0.69 0.59 0.70 Criteria 2 0.66 0.63 0.68 0.65 Criteria 3 0.49 0.75 0.49 0.75 Criteria 4 0.52 0.70 0.51 0.74 K-12 n=286 Frequencies and percentages were computed for each teaching level on each criteria within Formalist Criteria sub category and are shown on Table 21. On three of the four criteria, “use of elements”, “use of principles”, and “composition”, teachers of all grade levels were in greater than 70% agreement that they were important. One the criteria, “distorts, exaggerates for purpose of design”, only more than 70% of high school teachers agreed that it is important. It would be recommended that separate rubrics be used, with this item included only on the high school rubric. ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, and contrasts were calculated for each criteria, comparing mean scores of the three grade level 146 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 169. groups of art teachers. Three sets of contrasts showed a significant difference, alpha=.05. One was the mean of all formalist criteria, p<.04 between middle-high school, and p< 009 between elementary-high school. The second was “distorts, exaggerates for purpose of design”, p< 02 between middle-high school, and p<0007 between elementary-high school. The third was “composition”: p<05 between elementary-middle, and p<0008 between elementary-high school. Table 21. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Formalist Aesthetic Criteria Criteria Percentages rounded to whole numbers Elementary K-5 n=l 10 % Middle 6-8 n=51 % High 9-12 n=96 % Use of elements of art 97 95 98 Use of principles of design 96 99 97 Distorts, exaggerates for purpose of design *p<02 between middle-high school *p<0007 between elementary-high school 66 67 80 Composition 90 98 96 *p<.05 between elementary-middle *p<0008 between elementary-high school * In Appendix: ANOVA Table 86, 89; Tukey’s Tables 87, 90; Contrasts Tables 88, 91; compared mean scores of elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. Significant contrasts are indicated below the statement. 147 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 170. Expressionist Criteria Expressionism is the aesthetic theory that considers an object to be ‘art’ if it either expresses the artist’s feelings or emotions or evokes emotional responses in the viewer. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient test was used determine if scores Expressionist Aesthetic Criteria would be a reliable scale for measuring an aesthetic component of art production. Individual Expressionist criteria were not highly correlated and therefore could not be considered a reliable scale. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates did not exceed .70 (considered a rule of thumb for determining significance). Frequencies and percentages were computed for each teaching level on each criteria within Expressionist Criteria sub category and are shown on Table 22. Teachers of all grade levels were in greater than 70% agreement that the following criteria should be included on a state art assessment rubric: “Expresses ideas, attitudes, or feelings”, and “evokes emotions or feelings in viewer”. It would be recommended that “communicates a point of view” be included only on middle level and high school rubrics. ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, and contrasts were calculated for each criteria, comparing mean scores of the three grade level groups of art teachers. No set of contrasts showed a significant difference, alpha=.05. 148 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 171. Table 22. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Expressionist Aesthetic Criteria Criteria Elementary Middle High K- 5 6-8 9-12 n=llO n=51 n=96 Percentages rounded to whole numbers % % % Expresses ideas, attitudes, or feelings 91 84 92 Evokes emotions or feelings in viewer 74 69 79 Communicates a point o f view 68 71 78 Responds to personal, social, or spiritual contexts 62 60 66 Instrumental or Pragmatic Criteria Instrumentalism is the aesthetic theory that considers an object to be ‘art’ if it serves a function in it’s society. For the purpose of this study, post-modern as well as multicultural artworks that serve political, moral, or spiritual purposes were included in this category. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient test was used determine if scores on Instrumental or Pragmatic Aesthetic Criteria would be a reliable scale for measuring an aesthetic component of art production. Individual Instrumental/Pragmatic criteria were correlated and therefore could be considered a reliable scale. Coefficient alpha reliability 149 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 172. estimates, presented in Table 23, exceeded .70 (considered a rule o f thumb for determining significance) and are reported on the diagonal of Table 23 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994). Table 23. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Instrumental/Pragmatic Aesthetic Criteria for RAW variables : 0.851289 for STANDARDIZED variables: 0.853169 Raw Variables Std. Variables Deleted Variable Correlation with Total Alpha Correlation with Total Alpha Criteria 1 0.71 0.80 0.71 0.81 Criteria 2 0.74 0.79 0.75 0.79 Criteria 3 0.73 0.79 0.73 0.80 Criteria 4 0.60 0.85 0.60 0.85 K-12 n=280 Frequencies and percentages were computed for each teaching level on each criteria within Instrumental/Pragmatic Criteria sub category and are shown on Table 24. No criteria in this category were considered important by 70% of teachers, therefore it would not be recommended for inclusion on a state rubric. ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, 150 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 173. and contrasts were calculated for each criteria, comparing mean scores of the three grade level groups of art teachers. There were no significant differences on any criteria. Instrumental/pragmatic criteria described Post-Modern or multicultural ideas about the function of art in a society. Teachers may have been unfamiliar with these non-traditional ideas about art and therefore have not incorporated them into the curriculum. Table 24. Pragmatic Aesthetic Criteria Criteria Elementary Middle High K-5 6-8 9-12 n=l 10 n=51 n=96 Percentages rounded to whole numbers % % % Reflects a society, culture or group of people 62 61 49 Shows personal interpretation of art history or culture 63 61 59 Responds to environmental or political contexts 40 44 52 Serves a functional purpose 36 47 45 Imitationaiist or Mimetic Criteria Imitationalism is the aesthetic theory that considers an object to be ‘art’ if it copies 151 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 174. the real or idealized world. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient test was used determine if scores on Imitationaiist or Mimetic Aesthetic Criteria would be a reliable scale for measuring an aesthetic component of art production. Individual criteria were correlated and therefore could be considered a reliable scale. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates exceeded .70 (considered a rule of thumb for determining significance) and are reported on the diagonal of Table 25 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994). Table 25. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Imitationaiist or Mimetic Aesthetic Criteria for RAW variables: 0.88 for STANDARDIZED variables: 0.88 Raw Variables Std. Variables Deleted Variable Correlation with Total Alpha Correlation with Total Alpha Criteria 1 0.59 0.90 0.59 0.90 Criteria 2 0.82 0.81 0.82 0.81 Criteria 3 0.78 0.82 0.79 0.83 Criteria 4 0.76 0.83 0.77 0.84 K-12 n=281 Frequencies and percentages were computed for each teaching level on each 152 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 175. criteria within Imitationalist/MimeticCriteria sub category and are shown on Table 26. More than 70% of art teachers at all grade levels agreed that three criteria were important, therefore “shows form”, “shows texture”, and “show space” would be recommended for use on a state art assessment rubric. “Real or idealized representation o f life” should be included only on a high school rubric. ANOVA, Tukey’s Post Hoc, and Contrasts were calculated for each criteria, comparing mean scores o f the three grade level groups of art teachers. There was a significant contrast, p<004, between the mean scores of all Imitationalist/Mimetic Criteria between elementary and high school teachers. Significant contrasts, alpha=.05, were found for each criteria in this category. “Real or idealized representation of life”, had a contrast, p<05, between elementary and high school groups. “Shows realistic form” scored contrasts between elementary and middle level, p<02, and between elementary and high school groups, p<01. “Shows realistic texture” had a significant contrast, p<02 between elementary and high school groups. “Shows space” demonstrated contrasts between elementary and middle levels, p<05, and between elementary and high school, p<001. The significant contrasts on all criteria in this category suggest that teachers view representational drawing/painting skills to be, at least partially, developmental, supporting Lowenfeld’s theory of the stages o f artistic growth (Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987). 153 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 176. Table 26. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Imitationalist or Mimetic Aesthetic Criteria Type of Product Percentages rounded to whole numbers Elementary Middle High K- 5 6-8 9-12 n=110 n=51 n=96 % % % Real or idealized representation of life 66 *p< 05 between elementary- high Shows realistic form (3-D), or illusion of 78 form (2-D) *p< 02, between elementary-middle level, and *p<.01 between elementary- high school Shows realistic texture (2-D), or illusion of 78 texture (3-D) *p< 02 between elementary-high school Shows space (3-D), or illusion of depth (2-D) 83 *p< 05, between elementary-middle levels, and *p< 001 between elementary-high 64 89 85 92 79 88 86 92 *In Appendix: ANOVA Tables 92, 95, 98, 101; Tukey’s Tables 93, 96, 99, 102; Contrasts Tables 94, 97, 100, 103; compared mean scores o f elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. Significant contrasts are indicated below the statement. The means of the four aesthetic subcategories were compared to determine if they were significantly different using a four-way ANOVA (Table 17). The difference was significant at p<0001, therefore the separate treatment of the four sets of aesthetic criteria (formalist, expressionist, instrumental, imitationalist) was appropriate. There was a comment section in which teachers could write their responses to the 154 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 177. category of Aesthetics. Many art teachers noted that these four sets of aesthetic criteria were important at different times. One middle school teacher wrote, All of these areas are probably of equal importance depending upon the unit of study in each grade. For example, Imitationalism is stressed during still life, Expressionism is stressed more in 8* grade who have some foundation in the elements and principles (Formalism). Depends on objective for particular project. A high school teacher expressed a similar point of view, I teach both Formalist and Imitational. In some classes we start with realism and then switch to Formalism (Cubism) with the same subject. I also teach other approaches in various classes. In painting class, while doing “realism” some students work impressionist, expressionist, while others are more imitational though all must achieve form through value. Usually the more expressive students were those with more experience and confidence. Elementary teachers were concerned about the appropriateness of aesthetics for younger students. One wrote that aesthetics was “relevant for older elementary students, but were not developmentally appropriate before fifth grade”. Another said, “not applicable at elementary level, they don’t have thinking skills”. The idea that realism must precede abstraction was frequently mentioned. A high school teacher wrote, “First need to be a draftsperson, then work on expressing ideals, etc. through breaking rules or emphasizing and exaggerating”. Some teachers commented that formalism, the elements and principles of art, were the basis for their curriculum and instruction. A high school teacher explained, “I deal very little with imitationalism. Formalism is an approach most welcomed and manageable by past and present students...emotionalism evolves miraculously through this approach”. 155 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 178. On the other hand, an elementary teacher warned, “if elements are stressed too early, it limits creativity'’. Table 27 lists comments independently mentioned by three or more art teachers. Table 27. Aesthetic Criteria Comments Statement listed under comments Number of Teachers Depends upon the assignment 17 Realism before abstraction is important 11 Not developmentally relevant for elementary 6 Expression is more advanced than grades 1-3, aesthetic concepts too advanced S Criteria depend more on grade level than on philosophical stance S Giving students a vocabulary for the visual 4 My curriculum stresses Formalist, Imitationalist, Expressionist 4 Formalist criteria are the basis for what we teach 4 All have importance at elementary 3 Results demonstrate that aesthetic criteria can be considered a reliable scale. In addition, the four subcategories of Formalist, Expressionist, Instrumental, and 156 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 179. Imitationalist Criteria were significantly different from each other, indicating that these are alternate ways of assessing student artwork. Teachers communicated through comments that they were confused whether the all aesthetic theory criteria were expected to be used to assess all student work. This pointed out a deficit in the survey instrument which should be remedied before it is used again. In the directions, teachers should be instructed that these may be interchangeable depending upon the intent of the project. Formalist criteria received the strongest teacher support. The Expressionist Criteria that referred to the expression of emotion were strongly supported. In contrast, both Expressionist and Instrumental Criteria that described attributes of post-modernism were viewed as less important: “communicates a point of view”; “responds to personal, social, or spiritual contexts”; “reflects a society, culture, or group of people”; “shows personal interpretation of art history/culture”; “responds to environmental or political contexts”; and “serves a functional purpose”. Imitationalist criteria were more important at upper grade levels, perhaps because they are more developmentally appropriate there. Part Eight: What is Important to Teach? This category was included in the Art Assessment Survey so that it would be possible to find out if a correlation existed between what teachers believe is important for them to teach and their scores on aesthetic criteria. The data provides a picture of art practice at the current time in the representative sample. Frequencies and percentages 157 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 180. were calculated by teachers’ selection of a grade level category. Table 28 illustrates the percentage of elementary, middle level, and high school art teachers who believe it is important to assess a variety of art products. Over 90% of respondents teach the elements of art and/or principles of design. More than 80% of participating art teachers reported that they teach students to work from observation; to abstract or create non-objective art; and to express their feelings and attitudes. Based upon the data, teaching students to “create art based upon a particular historic period, style, or culture” decreases in importance as grades advance. This phenomena could mean that at higher grade levels teachers expect students to begin developing their own styles. ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s Post Hoc Comparisons and Contrasts were calculated for each criteria to compare the difference among teachers by level taught. Significant contrasts were found on two criteria: “draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation” showed p<.04 between elementary and middle levels, and p<0004 between elementary and high schools; “create art based upon a particular historical period, style, or culture” was p<005 between elementary and high school. 158 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 181. Table 28. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Teach Specific Content Type of Art Content Percentages rounded to whole numbers Elementary K -5 n=l 10 % Middle 6-8 n=51 % High 9-12 n=96 % Use elements of art and/or principles of design 95 97 97 Draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation *p<04 between elementary-middle levels, and *p<0004 between elementary-high schools 80 97 93 Abstract or create non-objective art 83 82 87 Communicate social, political, or personal message 60 71 56 Create functional art 56 62 54 Express their feelings or attitudes 87 85 82 Create art based upon a particular period, style, or culture p<005 between elementary-high 81 71 68 *In Appendix: ANOVA Tables 68, 71; Tukey’s Tables 69, 72; Contrasts 70, 73; compared mean scores of elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. Significant contrasts are indicated below the statement. Teachers’ open-ended comments regarding the category, “What do you Teach?” are presented in Table 29. The most prevalent comment was that the “elements and principles” were important was illustrated by a high school teacher who wrote: 159 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 182. What I teach or emphasize varies from work to work and level of the class. I teach specialized classes. The only thing above that is constant on every project is elements and principles. A middle school teacher supporting this point of view explained, “If they can understand the elements and principles, they will be successful in lifelong creative problem-solving”. An elementary teacher expressed, I feel that small children need to become familiar with the basic aspects of art such as line, color, texture, shape, etc. before they can begin to fully make a social statement or purposely “evoke emotions or feelings” from their viewers. A high school teacher described a different reason for a similar perspective, “Expressing feelings or attitudes is getting hard to accomplish with restrictions on what is or is not ‘school appropriate’”. A middle school teacher explained her philosophy of teaching art: I always try to keep the perspective with 7* and 8* that I am not sending them to a life of a professional artist. (If they are so inclined I will give them all I can.) I want them to see the importance of art in cultures and in their lives and to have an understanding of why things in their life look the way they do, to be able to interact with a painting, a sculpture, a building, and to be able to express , using intelligent vocabulary, their views, to have an awareness. 160 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 183. Table 29. “What do vou Teach?” Comments Statement listed under comments Number of Teachers Elements and principles of art 10 Multicultural and global art studies 4 Expose students to many different kinds and styles of art 4 Depends upon the project 4 Theme-based integration 4 All are covered during year 3 Teachers were given a final opportunity to answer this question: What other criteria do you use in assessing student work that were not included in this survey? Most of the comments repeated criteria already included. The most frequently mentioned statements are included in Table 30. 161 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 184. Table 30. Assessment Criteria not Included in this Survey Comments Statement listed under comments Number of Teachers Student effort, work habits and/or participation 29 K-4 students do not receive grades, should enjoy art 12 Rubrics created by teacher, or teacher-students 12 Tests 7 Some teachers used this section as an opportunity to express their concerns and frustrations. An elementary teacher wrote, “I have taught art ed assessment at the college level (K-4 teachers) . Situations are so varied that a blanket assessment is extremely dubious and, I doubt, can be justified”. Another elementary teacher echoed this concern by writing, “I believe that grading a child’s artwork is counterproductive”. An urban elementary art educator shared: The urban elementary school cannot be put in the same category as suburban elementary. I have made great strides if by the end of first grade I have most children able to: identify colors, cut on ‘the line’, paint the paper rather than themselves, use glue appropriately, not eat, steal or destroy supplies. By the upper elementary I am able to get some children to understand Art/Design principles, make sense of historical periods or even find worth in their own art. Basically students have done well if they have followed directions, created a pleasing product, and are themselves pleased with their work. Several teachers indicated that the survey “covered everything”. A K-12 teacher 162 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 185. shared a positive experience, “Art integrated with communication allows my students to "voice’ in an appropriate manner, their views and opinions about themselves, their community, and their beliefs”. Relationship Between Aesthetics and Instruction To identify a relationship between aesthetic approach criteria and what a teacher believes it is important to teach, Pearson Product Moment Correlations were calculated for each aesthetic criteria subcategory. To test the null hypothesis, there is no significant relationship of between the formalist aesthetic approach score and having students use elements and/or principles to create abstract or non-objective art (items VII-1 and VII-3), the mean K-12 score for the sub category Formalist Criteria was compared to criteria, it is important to teach students how to “use elements of art and/or principles of design” and “abstract or create non­ objective art”. The Pearson Correlation Coefficients .38 and .32, shown in Table 31, did not exceed .8 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994), therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected. 163 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 186. Table 31. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the Mean of Formalist Criteria. Uses Elements/Principles, and Abstracts/Non-Objective / Prob > |R| under Ho: Rho=0 / N = 286 Formalism VIII VII3 Formalism 1.00 0.38 0.32 0.0 0.00 0.00 VIII 0.38 1.00 0.18 0.00 0.0 0.00 VII3 0.32 0.18 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 To test the null hypothesis, there is no significant relationship between the expressionist aesthetic approach score and having students express their feelings or attitudes (item VO-6), the mean K-12 score for Expressionist Criteria was compared to teaching students to “express their feelings or attitudes”. The correlation coefficient or .5 is lower than .8 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994) needed to reject the null hypothesis, therefore, it is not rejected. Results are shown in Table 32. 164 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 187. Table 32 Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Expressionist Criteria and Teaching Students to Express Feelings/Attitudes / Prob > |R| under Ho: Rho=0 / N = 282 Expressionism VII6 Expressionism 1.00 0.50 0.0 0.00 VII6 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.0 To test the null hypothesis, there is no significant relationship between the instrumental aesthetic approach score and having students create functional art or communicate social, political, or personal messages (items VI1-5 and VTI-4)., the K-12 mean scores for Instrumental Criteria were compared to teaching students to “create functional art”, and “to communicate social, political, or personal messages”. The coefficient scores, .02 and .46, are lower than .8 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994) needed to reject the null hypothesis and therefore it is not rejected. Results are shown in Table 33. 165 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 188. Table 33. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Instrumentalism. “Create Function Art” and “Communicate Social. Political, or Personal Messages / Prob > |R| under Ho: Rho=0 / N = 279 Instrumentalism VH4 VII5 Instrumentalism 1.00 0.52 0.46 0.0 0.00 0.00 VU4 0.52 1.00 0.47 0.00 0.0 0.00 VII5 0.46 0.47 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 To test the null hypothesis, there is no significant relationship between the imitationalist aesthetic approach score and having students draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation (item VII-2) the mean K-12 score of the criteria in the imitationalist category was correlated with the criteria It is important to teach students how to “draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation”. The correlation coefficient of .51 is lower than the .8 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994) needed to reject the null hypothesis, therefore, it is not rejected. Results are in Table 34. 166 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 189. Table 34. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Imitationalism and Draw/Paint/Sculpt/Print Realistically from Observation / Prob > |R| under Ho: Rho=0 / N = 281 Imitationalism VIL2 Imitationalism 1.00000 0.50853 0.0 0.0001 VTI2 0.50853 1.00000 0.0001 0.0 Sample of Non-Respondents In order to generalize from the returned questionnaires (75%) to the entire sample, twelve (14%) of the non-respondents were randomly selected for a phone interview. More than forty phone calls were made in an attempt to contact these teachers. Messages were left with requests for home numbers and times when the art teacher might be available. In the end, eight participants were interviewed. The interviewees answers were generally parallel to those who returned surveys by mail. Three of the teachers were elementary, two middle level, and three high school. Frequencies and percentages were calculated and compared with K-12 answers obtained 167 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 190. previously. Non-respondents’ rated criteria as important more frequently than the sample of respondents on: assessing the “final product” (100% versus 96%); “art criticism” (88% versus 72%); “explaining perceptions” (88% versus 78%); “self-evaluates” (88% versus 84%); “documents process in sketchbook/journal” (63% versus 43%); “work shows improvement” (100% versus 93%); “artwork includes relevant art historical influences” (75% versus 50%); “intent of artist is communicated” (88% versus 80%); “expresses ideas, attitudes, or feelings” (100% verus 90%); “communicates a point of view” (88% versus 73%); “uses elements/principles” (100% versus 96%), and “draw realistically from observation” (100% versus 89%). Non-respondents’ rated criteria more important less frequently than the sample of respondents on: “rough drafts” (50% versus 64%); “portfolio” (43% versus 59%); “problem-solving” (75% versus 97%); “persistently on task” (88% versus 98%); “shows commitment (88% versus 96%); “responsive to teacher’s feedback (88% versus 94%); “craftspersonship” (63% versus 89%); “evokes emotions or feelings in viewer” (50% versus 75%); “responds to personal, social, or spiritual contexts” (38% versus 63%), “reflects a society, culture, or group of people” (29% versus 57%); shows personal interpretation of art history or culture (38% versus 62%); “responds to environmental or political contexts” (38% versus 45%); “shows realistic texture” (75% versus 82%); “shows space” (75% versus 88%); “communicate social, political, or personal messages” ( 38% versus 60%); “create functional art” (50% versus 57%); express feelings or attitudes” (75% versus 84%), and “create art based upon a particular historical period, 168 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 191. style, or culture” (50% versus 73%). The non-respondents sample is incomplete since some participants could not be reached. It is also too small for generalization. Though percentages vary, responses between the sample and the sample of non-respondents are generally similar. Summary In this chapter, the findings of this study were presented. Qualitative analyzes were used to describe art assessment practices and the values placed upon including specific criteria on a state level rubric. Over 90% of teachers assessed their students’ final art products. Other products such as rough drafts, aesthetic reflections, art criticism, student’s self-evaluation, and portfolios were considered important more frequently at upper grade levels. In portfolios, the final product and all work for a grading period were the most frequently mentioned comments. All criteria in the Responding category were considered important at all grade levels. Included in this category were non-production activities such as talking or writing about aesthetics, criticism, or art history. In the Creating or Process category, the use of assigned processes, media, and techniques; demonstrating problem-solving; and creativity were considered important at all grade levels. In contrast, documenting process in sketchbooks or journals of lesser 169 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 192. importance. All criteria in the Attitude or Habits-of-Mind category were considered to be important by over 90% of teachers at all grade levels. This encompassed students being on task, respecting students and materials, showing commitment, and being responsive to teacher’s feedback. All criteria in the Art Product category were highly regarded by teachers of all grade levels except the criteria “artwork includes relevant art historical influences”. Criteria considered important referred to the demonstration of: skill, craftspersonship, planning, composition, assigned concepts/processes/elements/principles, growth over time, and communication of intent. Teachers appeared to value students’ knowledge of art history, but not their ability to create art based upon it. This may be due to teachers’ emphasis on creativity which would be diminished if students were limited to expressing themselves as others had. Aesthetics was viewed as a construct with separate, component subcategories of Formalism, Expressionism, Instrumentalism, and Imitationalism. The Formalist criteria were considered important by the highest number of art teachers at all grade levels. Two Expressionist criteria, students’ ability to “express ideas, attitudes, or feelings”, and to “evoke emotions or feelings in viewer” were well supported. Other Expressionist and Instrumental criteria which described post-modem and multicultural ideas were not considered important as frequently. The descriptors related to: expressing a point of view, responding to a variety o f contexts (personal, social, spiritual, environmental, political), and reflecting a society or group of people. While all criteria in the subcategory, 170 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 193. Imitationalist criteria, were considered important, high school teachers valued them more frequently. In all, teachers valued aesthetics of traditional art criteria: those tied to representing life, expressing emotion, and demonstrating design qualities. Although post­ modernist art, which responds to the contemporary, multicultural world can be found in galleries in art centers across the United States, Missouri art teachers have not yet adapted it to art classroom activities. Missouri art teachers reported that it was important to teach: the elements and principles; how to represent reality; how to abstract and create non-objective art; and how to express feelings. They considered it less important to teach students how to: communicate messages, create functional art, or create art based upon art history. Most elementary art teachers have weekly contact with many more students than middle or high school teachers. Missouri requires: all K-S students to receive art instruction for 50 minutes per week, middle school students to be able to choose art as an elective, and high school students to complete one unit of a fine arts to graduate from high school. The number of students taught is directly connected to the Missouri requirements. Sixty-five percent o f respondents indicated they had been teaching for more than 11 years. Over 3/4 of participants had participated in staff development or college courses on assessment within the last two years. Since the Missouri Assessment Project (statewide tests in core content areas, fine arts, health and physical education) have been phased in over the last few years, assessment has been a popular staffdevelopment topic across the state. Information on assessment from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has been disseminated through regional professional development 171 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 194. sites. Fifty-four percent of survey respondents had attended staffdevelopment or college classes on art assessment. The results will be further discussed in the next chapter. 172 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 195. CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction This project demonstrated that a representative sample of Missouri art teachers agreed that designated criteria were important for inclusion on a state art assessment rubric. Criteria were presented for their review in an instrument designed for the purpose of the study, Art Assessment Survey. This questionnaire was developed from: the literature in the field; a state-level focus group of K-12 Missouri art teachers; a compilation of rubrics currently used by art teachers, Advanced Placement exam, International Baccalaureate, Arts PROPEL assessment rubrics; a pilot study; and feedback from national experts in assessment, (Carmen Armstrong, Donna Kay Beattie, and Robert Burton). Teachers were randomly selected from year-old data provided by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Surveys were mailed to 382 teachers. The sample size was reduced to 344 when teachers who had retired or moved were eliminated. There were 259 responses returned by mail, a 75% return rate. A random sample of 8 non-respondents were interviewed by phone. Their responses were scripted during the conversation, raising the total response rate to 78%. Data was analyzed comparing the Likert five-point ratings for each criteria among 173 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 196. teachers in broad grade level categories: Elementary, K-5; Middle, 6-8; and High School, 9-12. Percentages indicated differences by grade level on most items. For the purpose of defining criteria for a state rubric, the Likert scale scores for “important” and “very important” were combined to form a single category, “important”. Three statistical procedures were used: ANOVA to identify differences among groups, Tukey’s Post Hoc Comparisons to correct for Type I errors and establish the level of confidence; and Contrasts to pinpoint the groups with significant differences. Written teacher responses for each section of the questionnaire were grouped into like statements which were then tallied to provide frequencies. Their comments supported the numeric data, adding understanding of teachers’ meanings. The results were used by the Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task Force to develop a draft of an interdisciplinary arts rubric for teachers to use when conducting local assessment of the state education standards. A copy of this rubric is in the appendix. The main research question for this study was: Which criteria for assessing student art production do art teachers recommend for inclusion on a state rubric? Subquestions that expanded upon the main question were: 1. What are differences among elementary (k-5), middle (6-8), and high school (9-12) teachers’ selections of criteria used to judge student art products? The null hypothesis is: There is no significant difference at the p>.05 level among mean scores o f elementary, middle, and high school teachers on criteria recommended for inclusion on a state art production rubric. 174 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 197. 2. What are differences among aesthetic approach criteria selected by teachers forjudging student art products? The null hypothesis is: There is no significant difference at the p>.05 level among the mean scores o f the four aesthetic approaches (imitationalist, expressionist, formalist, pragmatic) on criteria recommended for inclusion on the state rubric. 3. What are differences in teacher selection of aesthetic approach criteria related to the value they place on teaching different kinds of art content? Written as four null hypotheses: A. There is no significant relationship between the imitationalist aesthetic approach score and having students draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation (item VTI-2). B. There is no significant relationship between the expressionist aesthetic approach score and having students express their feelings or attitudes (item VII-6). C. There is no significant relationship o f between the formalist aesthetic approach score and having students use elements and/or principles to create abstract or non­ objective art (items VII-1 and VII-3). D. There is no significant relationship between the instrumental aesthetic approach 175 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 198. score and having students create functional art or communicate social, political, or personal messages (items VU-5 and VII-4). Three other questions will be examined that relate to the demographic data. 4. How many students are taught by elementary, middle, and high school teachers, respectively? 5. What are the percentages of teachers who attended staff development or college classes on assessment in the last two years? 6. What are the percentages of teachers who attended staffdevelopment or college classes on art assessment? Summary The purpose of Chapter Five is to answer the research questions introduced in Chapter Three and restated above. The research findings were presented in Chapter Four. The results are examined in this section. Criteria were categorized into eight sections, and discussion follows each category. Teachers indicated the degree to which they believed each criterion was important for assessment. It was assumed that if 70% of teachers were in agreement, that the likelihood of the rubric being used would increase. Therefore, 176 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 199. criteria deemed important by at least 70% of art teachers would be recommended for inclusion on a state rubric. What do Teachers Assess? Art products that were considered important by K-12 Missouri art teachers are followed by the percentage of support each received: “final product”, 96%; “aesthetic reflections about own or other artist’s work”, 70%; “art criticism analysis of own or other artists’ work”, 72%; and “student’s self-evaluation”, 78%. Art products considered important by fewer than 70% of K-12 Missouri art teachers are followed by the percentage of support each received: “rough drafts or process sketches”, 64%; “art historical writing”, 28%; and ‘portfolio of student work”, 59%. Comments supported the percentages. The final product was mentioned by 38 teachers who responded to the question, “If you assess portfolios, what is included in the portfolio?” Teachers, especially at the elementary and middle levels, commented that they frequently lacked time for students to develop an idea through a series of drafts, or to have students engage in the disciplines of aesthetics, art criticism, and art history, and that they lacked storage space to save portfolios of student work. Some elementary teachers commented that as soon as work was completed, they would put it on display, then send it home. Student’s self-evaluation was important to all teachers while art criticism was 177 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 200. considered important to middle and high school teachers. Aesthetic reflections and use of portfolios were important to only high school teachers. An explanation for this phenomenon is that most art teachers were trained with a studio focus, and the majority of classroom instructional time is allocated to art production, therefore it is logical that teachers most frequently assess student artwork. Responding Criteria Teachers’ responses indicated that all criteria that involve students responding to artworks were considered important. The percentages of support follow each criteria: “explains perceptions of artwork”, 78%; “identifies connections among arts and with other subjects”, 77%; “relates art from historical periods, movements, and/or cultures to own work”, 77%; “uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate artworks”, 91%; and “student self-evaluates, 84%. Theses criteria were sufficiently correlated to be considered a scale. Teachers’ comments placed high value on student self-evaluation, and highlighted the importance of integration with other subjects at the elementary and middle levels. Teachers’ strong support of criteria in the Responding category appear to have been influenced by Discipline-Based Art Education which is embedded in the, Show-Me Standardsfo r Missouri Schools (1996). 178 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 201. Creating or Process Criteria Three of the criteria in this category had extremely high support from K-12 art teachers: “correctly uses assigned processes, media, and techniques”, 99%; “demonstrates problem-solving process”, 97%; and “demonstrates originality, creativity, or inventiveness”, 99%. The lower approval rating of the fourth, “documents process in sketchbook or journal entries”, 42%, was explained in teacher comments. Constraints mentioned were time, cost, and that students were unwilling to complete assignments outside of class. A non-respondent to the mail survey who was interviewed by phone, said that sketchbooks had been eliminated from the introductory level high school courses in his district because they had a negative impact on grades. In the advanced courses sketchbooks had symbolic associations for students with career aspirations in art. The strength of responses in the Creating Category demonstrate a common philosophical belief , that the artistic process is as important as the final art product. Attitude or Habits-of-Mind Criteria All four criteria in this category were strongly supported by K-12 art teachers: “is persistently on task”, 98%; “respects materials, equipment, other students and their art”, 99%; “shows commitment”, 96%; and “is responsive to teacher’s feedback”, 94%. In comments, teachers placed emphasis on students working hard, being on task, following directions, and showing responsibility. A few teachers expressed that they didn’t want 179 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 202. students to do as the teacher requested, but rather to be independent creators. The philosophical beliefheld by many art teachers and suggested by these findings is that the creation of artwork is not limited to those labeled as ‘talented’, but that all students are capable of finding success in art if they follow directions, show commitment by staying on task, and put forth their best effort. Art Product Criteria Five of the six criteria in this category were considered important by K-12 art teachers: “demonstrates technical skill or craftspersonship”, 89%; “demonstrates planned, effective composition”, 89%; “work shows improvement from past products or performances”, 93%; “demonstrates assigned concepts, processes, elements and/or principles”, 97%; and “intent of artist is communicated”, 80%. The criteria that was not highly valued for the purposes of state art assessment was “artwork includes relevant art historical influences”, 50%. Comments explained that teachers were ambivalent about the importance of having student art look like historic exemplars. Nine teachers wrote that historical influences only applied if they were a focus of the assignment, while another six replied that it depended upon the assignment. Teachers appear to value students’ knowledge of art history, but not their ability to create art based upon it. This may be due to teachers’ emphasis on creativity which would be diminished if students were limited to expressing themselves as others had. 180 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 203. Aesthetics Formalist Criteria All criteria in this category were valued as important for a state rubric by greater than 70% of K-12 art teachers. The criteria and associated percentages were: “use of elements of art”, 97%; use of principles of design”, 97%; “distorts, exaggerates for purpose of design”, 72%, and “composition”, 94%. A few teachers commented that formalist criteria were the basis for what they teach. The strength of this aesthetic category reflects the pervasive influence of modernist art in the last century. Aesthetics Expressionist Criteria Three of the four criteria were rated important by more than 70% of art teachers: “expresses ideas, attitudes, or feelings”, 90%; “evokes emotions of feelings in viewer”, 75%; and “communicates a point of view”, 73%. Though “responds to personal, social or spiritual contexts” was important to only 63% of the survey participants, teachers who were interviewed indicated that they believed personal contexts to be very important, but not social or spiritual ones. Even though “or” rather than “and”, was used to connect the three contexts, teachers may have discounted the entire question if they disagreed with one part of it. If the survey is used again, or serves as a model for another study, the three contexts should be listed as separate criteria. These findings support the research of Freedman and Wood, 1999, who found that most students saw self-expression as the 181 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 204. purpose of art. Aesthetics Instrumental Criteria None of the criteria in the Instrumental subcategory was considered to be important by 70% of art teachers. Percentages of K-12 art teachers who considered each criteria important follow: “reflects a society, culture, or group of people”, 57%; shows personal interpretation of art history or culture”, 62%; responds to environmental or political contexts”, 45%; and “serves a functional purpose”, 42%. One possible explanation for the low percentages is that instrumental criteria are most relevant to post­ modern or multi-cultural art. Although postmodernism is prevalent in contemporary museums and galleries in art centers of the United States, most Missouri art teachers have relied upon traditions of the past and have not integrated current attitudes toward art into their curricula. As shared previously, teachers strongly favored the modernist criteria, elements and principles of art. Aesthetics Imitationalist Criteria All criteria in the imitationalist aesthetic subcategory were viewed as important by 70% or more art teachers. The criteria and the percent of teachers who valued each 182 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 205. follows: “real or idealized representation of life”, 70%; “shows realistic form”, 84%; “shows realistic texture”, 82%; and “shows space”, 88%. In their comments, elementary teachers expressed the opinion that realism was not developmentally appropriate for young children. Some suggested that these criteria depended more on grade level than on philosophical stance which supports Lowenfeld’s developmental theories of artistic growth (Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987). There is a strong belief in the value of assessing students on their ability to represent life as they observe it, especially at the upper grade levels. What do Teachers Consider Important to Teach? More than 70% of teachers reported that it was important to teach students how to: “use elements and principles”, 96%; “draw...realistically from observation”, 89%; “abstract or create non-objective art”, 84%; “express their feelings or attitudes”, 84%; and “create art based upon a particular historical period, style, or culture:, 73%. Less than 70% believed it was important to teach students how to: “communicate social, political, or personal messages”, 60%; and “create functional art”. This indicates that most art teachers focus both instruction and assessment on the elements and principles of art; observational drawing, painting, sculpting, or printing; abstracting or creating non-objective art; having students express their feelings; and creating art based upon an historical period or culture. Teachers’ comments, reported in Chapter Four, supported this conclusion. The traditional models set forth by Formalism, 183 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 206. Imitationalism, and Expressionism appear relevant to teachers while the political, social, environmental, spiritual, multicultural concerns found in post-modern art (presented as criteria 3 and 4 in Expressionist Criteria, and criteria 1-4 of Instrumental Criteria) are considered to be less important. Aesthetics All criteria in the four subcategories of Formalist, Expressionist, Instrumental, and Imitationalist Criteria were correlated and functioned as a scale. Each of the criteria in subcategories of Formalist Criteria, Instrumental Criteria, and Imitationalist Criteria, were highly correlated and could be considered to be individual scales. Research question two asked: What are differences among aesthetic approach criteria selected by teachers forjudging student art products? The significant differences among aesthetics criteria suggest that the instrument measures four constructs which could be used as “windows” for scoring different types of artwork. To answer the third research question Pearson Product Moment Correlations were calculated between the aesthetic criteria subcategories and specific items in the survey section, What do you Teach? In spite of the superficial similarity between aesthetic criteria and what teachers believe is important to teach their students, correlations between mean scores on each aesthetic category and teaching were limited. There was a moderate relationship between the Imitationalist aesthetic approach and having students draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation. The Pearson correlation between 184 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 207. Expressionist aesthetic approach score and having students express their feelings or attitudes was moderate. There was no correlation between the formalist aesthetic approach score and having students use elements and/or principles to create abstract or non-objective art. A moderate relationship existed between the instrumental aesthetic approach score and having students create functional art or communicate social, political, or personal messages. It was anticipated that there would be a high correlation among the aesthetic means and the teaching contents, sufficient to show internal reliability o f the questionnaire. Though some relationship exists, teachers seem to consider production activities and aesthetics as discrete entities. This is not surprising since aesthetics has traditionally been relegated to perception and reflection activities. The groundbreaking notion that aesthetics should be a conscious component of art production activities has only been recently discussed (Armstrong, 1999; Jones, 1999; Jeffers, 1999). One purpose for including aesthetic categories with production assessment criteria on the Art Assessment Survey was investigate this issue from a research perspective. How many students are taught by elementary, middle, and high school teachers, respectively? There are differences in numbers of students taught in a year depending upon the grade level of art instruction. Most elementary art teachers (77%) are responsible for teaching between 200-600 students a year; with only 8% teaching fewer than 200 185 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 208. students. At the middle level, percentages are more evenly spaced with 25% teaching 100-199, 25% teaching 200-399, and 20% teaching 400-599. The shift to smaller numbers continues into the high school level where 23% teach 1-99, and 61% teach 100- 199 students per year. The discrepancy is due, in part, to the differential number of minutes of art instruction per week. While most elementary teachers see each classroom group of students for 50-60 minutes per week, most high school credit art courses teach each class group for 250 minutes per week. What are the percentages o f teachers who attended staffdevelopment or college classes on assessment in the last two years? Results show that 77% of respondents received instruction in assessment during the last two years. This is a surprisingly large number since 80% had been teaching for more than five years so that it was not part of their undergraduate education. A possible explanation is the change from the multiple-choice, fact-based Missouri achievement tests to the Missouri Assessment Project (MAP), which is a more performance-based state­ wide assessment in math, science, communication arts, social studies, health and physical education, and the fine arts. To inform teachers about the new assessments, regional professional development centers have disseminated information, and grass-roots, school- based teachers’ assessment teams have been formed. What are the percentages o f teachers who attended staffdevelopment or college classes 186 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 209. on art assessment? The percentage of art teachers who participated in art assessment instruction was 54%. Since the Fine Arts MAP test is the last to be implemented, with field testing occurring in March, 2000; voluntary school participation in 2001; and mandated participation in 2002; additional opportunities to learn about art assessment should be available soon. Another possible reason that more teachers had not attended college classes on art assessment could be that assessment is usually subsumed under an umbrella of curriculum and/or instruction rather than being offered as a single course. Discussion In many ways, this research project reported results similar to those considered in the review of related literature, Chapter Two. Portfolio contents mentioned in teacher comments were typical of the field (Wolf & Pistone, 1991; Vermont Portfolio Project, 1995; Arter, 1995). Respondents to this study agreed with the emphasis on reflective thinking found in the ARTS PROPEL model (Gardner, 1989) and the International Baccalaureate (1996). However, they were less supportive o f the workbook and process emphasis of the International Baccalaureate than Blaikie reported (1992, 1994). One reason for this discrepancy is that the IB involves students at the upper high school levels while participants in this study taught K-12, and 187 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 210. the strongest support for sketchbooks/process documentation occurred at the high school level. Performance assessment criteria also supported writers in the field. Clark and Zimmerman, 1984, looked at criteria evident in artworks and student behaviors that indicate success. The strong responses to Art Product as well as the Attitude or Habits- of-Mind criteria indicate that Missouri art teachers valued the same aspects o f assessment. In addition, high percentages of this study’s respondents valued the specific criteria considered important to Clark and Zimmerman: creativity; composition/design; elements and principles; skill at representation; use of media; and techniques. A difference between the two studies was that subject matter, highly important to Clark and Zimmerman, was infrequently mentioned by study participants. Criteria used in the ARTS PROPEL project which were similarly important in this study were craftsmanship in production, inventiveness, expression, and effort (Gardner, 1989; Winner, 1992). Some International Baccalaureate (1996)criteria were similar: creative thinking and expression, technical skill, and persistence; while there was a difference in the value placed upon design and composition. A large percentage of Missouri teachers considered the elements and principles as important while is was worth only 10% on the IB examination. Chapman’s 1982 research found that teachers based lessons on elements and principles which represented formalist principles. Armstrong’s (1994) recommended rubric criteria included items Missouri teachers also mentioned: media, tools, equipment, process, techniques and concepts of discipline-based art education. Beattie, 1997, also included DBAE along with creating, responding, using 188 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 211. formal elements, and resolving as criteria for art assessment. While agreeing with the former characteristics, Missouri teachers did not support Beattie’s emphasis on research, the intent of the artist being communicated, nor that students should respond to personal, social, political, environmental, or spiritual contexts. Fewer Missouri teachers rated the latter ideas as important. The concept of socially relevant art, typical of multicultural and post-modern art, was not held to be important among survey respondents. It is possible that the rural nature of much of the state has kept teachers from being aware of less traditional and more contemporary artforms. In a similar way, Missouri teachers who downplayed historical research, may have been responding to the lack of research resources in their schools and communities. Survey participants validated the criteria found by Venet (1999a) in Missouri art teacher focus groups: Craftspersonship; respect; growth; composition; elements and principles of art; growth; attitude; and knowledge of art history, art criticism and aesthetics. Missouri teachers frequently did not support the literature which recommended a connection between aesthetics and production of art. Danto’s (1992, 1999) beliefthat it takes an aesthetic theory to make something art was not supported since there were no significant correlations between aesthetic criteria and what was taught. Other writers who promoted the union o f aesthetic approaches and studio projects were Day, 199S; Barett, 1997; Jones, 1999; and Armstrong, 1999. In the area of aesthetics, Missouri teachers did support Hamblen, 1990, who found that art teachers valued classroom activities for their own sake. Like respondents to this 189 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 212. study, there were several writers who valued expression (Erikson, 1994; Parsons, 1997; Freedman & Wood, 1999). Conclusions The findings describe what a sample of Missouri art teachers teach and assess, and what they consider important in that process. This data can become part of the framework of future art educational research in Missouri. Many of the criteria listed on the survey instrument are appropriate for inclusion within the context of a state rubric. The specific criteria are reported in Figure 1. The figure is divided into sections by the category headings used on the questionnaire. Under each category is a list of criteria recommended for inclusion on a state rubric. Criteria have been included if 70% or more teachers at a grade level agreed that they were important. Columns represent the three grade levels: elementary, middle, and high school. A check mark recommends that the individual criterion should be included on a grade level rubric. In Figure 1, the category names and numbers refer to their placement on the questionnaire. The following symbols are used in figure one: ✓ means that the criterion is included on the specific grade level rubric, and 0 means that the criterion is not included on the specific grade level rubric. 190 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 213. Figure 1. Recommended Criteria for Grade Level. State Art Rubrics bv Category Category n. Responding Criteria Include on Rubric for Grade Level: Criteria Elementary Middle High Explains perceptions of artwork ✓ ✓ ✓ Identifies connections among arts and with other subjects ✓ ✓ ✓ Relates art from historical periods, movements, and/or cultures to own work / ✓ ✓ Uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluated artworks / ✓ ✓ Student self-evaluates ✓ ✓ ✓ Category in. Creating or Process Criteria Include on Rubric for Grade Level: Criteria Elementary Middle High Correctly uses assigned processes, media, and techniques ✓ ✓ ✓ Demonstrates problem-solving process: brainstorms, develops and revises, produces final work, self-evaluates / ✓ ✓ Demonstrates originality, creativity, or inventiveness / ✓ ✓ 191 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 214. Figure 1, continued Category IV. Attitude or Habits-of-Mind Criteria Include on Rubric for Grade Level: Criteria Elementary Middle High Is persistently on task ✓ ✓ ✓ Respects materials, equipment, other students and their art ✓ ✓ ✓ Shows commitment, pursues problems through revisions ✓ ✓ ✓ Is responsive to teacher’s feedback ✓ ✓ ✓ Category V. Art Product Criteria Include on Rubric for Grade Level for: Criteria Elementary Middle High Demonstrates technical skill or craftspersonship ✓ ✓ ✓ Demonstrates planned, effective composition ✓ ✓ ✓ Work shows improvement from past product/performances ✓ ✓ ✓ Demonstrates assigned concepts, processes elements, and/or principles ✓ ✓ ✓ Intent o f artist is communicated ✓ ✓ ✓ 192 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 215. Figure 1, continued Category VI. Aesthetics, Formalist Include on Rubric for Grade Level for: Criteria Elementary Middle High Use of elements of art ✓ ✓ ✓ Use of principles o f design ✓ ✓ ✓ Distorts, exaggerates for purpose of design 0 0 ✓ Composition ✓ ✓ ✓ Category VI. Aesthetics, Expressionist Include on Rubric for Grade Level for Criteria Elementary Middle High Expresses ideas, attitudes, or feelings ✓ ✓ ✓ Evokes emotions or feelings in viewer ✓ 0 ✓ Communicates a point of view 0 ✓ ✓ Category VI. Aesthetics, Imitationalist Include on Rubric for Grade Level. Criteria Elementary Middle High Real or idealized representation of life 0 0 ✓ Shows realistic form (3-D), or illusion of form (2-D) ✓ ✓ ✓ Shows realistic texture (3-D), or illusion of texture (2-D) ✓ ✓ ✓ Shows space (3-D), or illusion of depth (2-D) / ✓ ✓ 193 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 216. An analysis of the data in this study suggests the following conclusions: 1. There should be three separate Missouri art assessment rubrics, one each for elementary, middle, and high school levels. The percentages of teachers who believe each criterion to be important varied by grade level, in some cases showing significant differences. Criteria that garnered greater than 70% support from teachers at each grade level are included in the rubric recommendations for that grade level. Twenty-three criteria are included on all three rubrics. When less than 70% of teachers at a grade level agreed that a criterion was important, it was not recommended for inclusion on a Missouri rubric. Each of the criteria were manifest at all grade levels with four exceptions. Two criteria, “distorts, exaggerates for purpose of design”, and “real or idealized representation of life”, are recommended for only the high school rubric. The criteria, “evokes emotions or feelings in viewer”, is not suggested for the middle-level rubric. “Communicates a point of view” was deemed important at both middle and high school levels, but not at the elementary level. 2. Aesthetic subcategories of Formalist, Expressionist, Instrumental, and Imitationalist criteria are significantly different from each other. Teachers would select one or more sets of aesthetic criteria to use when judging a particular artwork. The decision would be based upon the intent or style of the work. Teachers who responded with written comments stated that the use of aesthetic criteria depended upon the assignment. 194 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 217. 3. This research indicates that teachers make few connections between given aesthetic theories (Formalist, Expressionist, Instrumental, Pragmatic) and what they teach their students. Aesthetics, when taught at all, is limited to students’ responses to art. Even though the elements and principles of art are highly valued and frequently taught, the data show that in teachers’ practice they are not related to a formalist philosophy of art. 4. Teachers in Missouri are interested in assessment. This is supported in two ways by study results: the return of 75% of mailed questionnaires; and the 77% of teachers who participated in staff development or college classes on assessment in the previous two years. Recommendations As a result of the findings and conclusions of this study, the following recommendations related to the study of art assessment are made: 1. The results of this study suggest the need for three state rubrics, one each for elementary, middle, and high school levels, as displayed in Figure 1. The questionnaire criteria manifest at all grade levels with four exceptions. The criteria teachers did not support were: 1) under the Creating category, “documents process in sketchbook or journal entries”; 2) under the Art Product category, “artwork includes relevant art historical influences”; 3) under the Expressionist subcategory of Aesthetic Criteria, “responds to personal, 195 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 218. social, or spiritual contexts”; and 4) all descriptors listed under the Instrumental subcategory o f Aesthetic Criteria a) “reflects a society, culture, or group of people”; b) “shows personal interpretation of art history or culture”; c) “responds to environmental or political contexts”; and d) “serves a functional purpose”. 2. In order to create a rubric based upon the results of this study, descriptors must be added that depict various achievement levels. The Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task Force (2000) reviewed the A rt Assessment Survey developed for this study, and decided that the criteria, overall, could be used on a single rubric for all the arts: visual, music, theatre, and dance. They developed a rubric with descriptors gleaned from the significant criteria selected by teachers in this study. The Missouri rubric rearranged all presented criteria into categories previously used in Frameworksfo r M issouri Schools (1996). These categories are: Art Production, Art History, Art Criticism, and Aesthetics. All aesthetic theories and references to expression were deleted to forestall criticism from political factions opposed to having aesthetics in the state goals. The Missouri Art Assessment Rubric, draft version, is located in the Appendix on page 306. 3. In the process of rubric development, once a rubric has been constructed, it should be field tested for validation by art teachers working with students’ artworks and writings. Benchmark, or anchor, examples should be selected from student works which illustrate 196 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 219. each described level of quality. If the rubric doesn’t function to help teachers differentiate among works of various levels of quality, then the state will have the responsibility for making revisions. After the field test results have been used to improve the rubric, teachers can be trained in its use. 4. Further study is needed to determine whether or not the specific criteria considered important to a sample of Missouri art teachers would also be important to art teachers outside of this state. Missouri teachers tend to value criteria similar to those used in Advanced Placement (1992), Arts PROPEL (1992), and International Baccalaureate (1996) assessments. This alignment could suggest that the Missouri rubric can be generalized. Future research should be sensitive to regional, cultural, and language differences to determine if modifications would be necessary. 5. Research should be conducted on definable connections between aesthetic approaches to art and practice in K-12 classrooms. The scales used to describe the four subcategories of aesthetic criteria were significantly different from one another, making them applicable to future research that examines the relationship of aesthetic theories to curriculum and instruction. If the Art Assessment Survey, presented in this study, is used again, directions should be clarified to explain that each aesthetic theory would be used only when relevant to a specific image or project goal. 6. The problem considered in this study was limited to identifying criteria that teachers 197 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 220. agreed were most important for assessing student artwork and related writing. Additional manuscripts that highlight a single survey category should report the range of teachers’ opinions regarding that specific category of art assessment criteria. Results should include percentages of teachers’ responses for each criteria, and would report them by points on the Likert scale: “very important”, “important”, “no opinion”, “little importance”, and “ no importance”. Implications As a result of the findings of this study, the following list presents broad implications for research and practice: 1. Assessment has the power to drive curriculum development and instructional practices. If the assessment requires students to use higher order thinking and creating skills, then the quality of teaching and learning will increase. A generic rubric for student portfolios (composed of diverse, teacher-designed assignments) is a tool for reaching higher standards. The rubric suggested in this study can be flexibly adapted at the regional, state, local, and classroom levels. However, the rubric must be paired with teacher training in assessment of student work. Portfolio scoring should be a group activity during which critical attributes of quality artwork are the focus of teacher discussions. Teachers who participate in this group scoring experience will bring improved focus and new ideas back to the classroom. 198 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 221. 2. The process, used in this study, which asks teachers to reflect upon the importance of various aspects of assessment, could be used as a model by school districts and/or other states. At the state level, the process can lead to achievement of state standards. At the district or building level, a survey of this type could become part of the self-study component of a school improvement plan. 3. The data suggest a major discrepancy between what is being taught in Missouri art classrooms and what is being presented as important by significant art education journals. Formalism, represented by an emphasis on teaching the elements and principles of art, is most important to teachers in this state. Outside the classroom, postmodernist art communicates social, personal, political, environmental, spiritual, technological, or cultural messages. In order for students to understand art in society, they must be exposed to aesthetic points of view beyond the formal, or modernist perspective. It is essential for them to be able to analyze artworks in light of aesthetic theories of Imitationalism, Instrumentalism/Pragmatism, and Expressionism as well as formalism. 4. Students should be able to produce art from a variety of aesthetic viewpoints. It is important for them to understand that, as artists, they can create for various intents and purposes. To improve visual communication, students should be able to select among a variety of aesthetic theories as tools, just as they would select from diverse media and technical skills 199 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 222. 5. Teachers consider the artistic process and problem-solving to be important but do not embrace assessment o f these processes. Even though growth, improvement, and experimentation were listed as important by teachers, they frequently do not assess sketchbooks, journals, rough drafts, sketches, or developmental drawings. Teachers spend the majority of their time assessing the final product. In contrast, energy spent assessing the process may be more effective since it gives students the opportunity to reflect upon and improve their work. Teachers should be trained to assess critical and creative thinking so that their feedback can help students improve their process skills. 6. Missouri art teachers indicate little support for art historical writing even though it is required by the Show-Me Standardsfo r M issouri Schools (1996) and Frameworksfo r Missouri Schools (1996) with which all local curricula must be aligned. Teachers’ low opinions of art history could stem from a lack o f art historic knowledge, writing skills, and traditional methods of college instruction. Results from the Art History Assessment Survey o fMissouri Art Teachers (Venet, 1998) indicate that when asked which art historical figures, periods, and works should be included on a state test, teachers had limited preferences. Missouri art teachers chose white, male, Euro-American artists with a few exceptions such as Faith Ringgold, and Mary Cassatt. Missouri standards state that students should know the work of artists from various cultures, but teachers lack the knowledge base to implement this plan. Though all Missouri art teachers had college courses in art history, most courses were isolated from educational theory and involved memorization of images, artists, and dates from the Western canon. Art education majors 200 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 223. were not given models for teaching K-12 students to conduct art historical research. Public school art history is generally taught as shorter versions of college lectures. Art educators and art historians on college campuses should jointly develop non-traditional art history courses which integrate history, multiculturalism, and art education while teaching writing skills. Further educational practices that could impart this vital information include in-service workshops and/or staff development opportunities. 7. The strong support for including Attitudes or Habits-of-Mind criteria on a state rubric indicates that in many cases (especially at the elementary and middle levels) art grades reflect students' behavior more than it does achievement of artistic skills in reflection, problem-solving, or art production. Especially in early childhood art education, teachers’ goals for their students have little to do with art knowledge or skill, but more with wanting the child to enjoy art. Though all teachers want students to find personal pleasure in artistic endeavors, it becomes evident that little actual assessment occurs in art classrooms, in spite of grades assigned during each marking period. When students are not held accountable for learning, teachers can relieve themselves of the responsibility for teaching art content. To counteract this tendency, art teachers at all three grade levels need to discuss grading practices and find a comfortable middle-ground where students are both encouraged to enjoy art as well as to demonstrate art knowledge and skills. 201 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 224. Summary This study encompassed many aspects of teacher’s opinions about assessment and led to the development of a Missouri Art Assessment Rubric. Beyond the state of Missouri, this study provides a model for determining which criteria are appropriate for assessment of student art products at the elementary, middle, and high school grade levels. Unlike a teacher’s typical classroom rubric, the criteria in this study are generic, so that they translate to a variety of media and projects. Large-scale assessment in the United States has been hindered by the pluralistic art content, curricula, and contexts in which it is taught. Following the example of the Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Exams, which test high level thinking and creating, national rubrics could be constructed to provide a means for reporting achievement while encouraging the creativity and production skills inherent in quality art. The use of assessment rubrics could guide and increase student achievement as teachers and students use them to discuss portfolios. When both teachers and students are held accountable to high standards, the quality of instruction and student achievement tend to increase. It is the goal of this research that the implications of teacher preferences for assessment criteria will help the states review their standards and practices. Portfolio assessment, guided by the rubric recommended in this study could inform teacher practice and thereby, help to elevate student achievement. 202 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 225. APPENDIX 203 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 226. Table 35. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: II. Rough Drafts Source DF Sum of Mean Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 19.33726043 9.66863022 7.42 0.0007 Error 282 367.44870448 1.30300959 Corrected Total 284 386.78596491 R-Square C.V. Root MSE 11 Mean 0.049995 32.99452 1.141494 3.459649 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 19.33726043 9.66863022 7.42 0.0007 Source DF Type HI SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 19.33726043 9.66863022 7.42 0.0007 elementary teachers n=l 19 middle level teachers n=64 high school teachers n=102 204 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 227. Table 36. Tukev’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: II. Rough Drafts NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 df= 282 MSE= 1.30301 Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 3 -2 -0.2052 0.2237 0.6526 3 - 1 0.2239 0.5868 0.9498 *** 2 -3 -0.6526 -0.2237 0.2052 2 - 1 -0.0537 0.3632 0.7801 I -3 -0.9498 -0.5868 -0.2239 *** 1 -2 -0.7801 -0.3632 0.0537 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 228. Table 37. Contrast for Dependent Variable: II. Rough Drafts Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 5.48941831 5.48941831 4.21 0.0410 elem vs. high 1 18.91413488 18.91413488 14.52 0.0002 middle vs. high 1 1.96705941 1.96705941 1.51 0.2202 206 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 229. Table 38. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 12. Final Product Source Sum of Mean DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 2.44997329 1.22498665 3.60 0.0285 Error 285 96.87988782 0.33992943 Corrected Total 287 99.32986111 R-Square C.V Root MSE 12 Mean 0.024665 12.33754 0.583035 4.725694 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value P r> F LEVEL 2 2.44997329 1.22498665 3.60 0.0285 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value P r > F LEVEL 2 2.44997329 1.22498665 3.60 0.0285 elementary n=T20 middle n= 64 high n=104 207 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 230. Table 39. Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: 12. Final Product NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 df=285 MSE= 0.339929 Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 3 -2 -0.20742 0.01082 0.22906 3 - 1 0.00699 0.19103 0.37506 *** 2 -3 -0.22906 -0.01082 0.20742 2 - 1 -0.03242 0.18021 0.39283 1 -3 -0.37506 -0.19103 -0.00699 *** 1 -2 -0.39283 -0.18021 0.03242 208 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 231. Table 40. Contrast for Dependent Variable: 12. Final Product Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 1.35548007 1.35548007 3.99 0.0468 elem vs. high 1 2.03305861 2.03305861 5.98 0.0151 middle vs. high 1 0.00463599 0.00463599 0.01 0.9071 209 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 232. Table 41. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 14. Art Criticism Source DF Sum of Mean Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 16.45961376 8.22980688 8.48 0.0003 Error 284 275.47766847 0.96999179 Corrected Total 286 291.93728223 R-Square C.V. Root MSE 14 Mean 0.056381 25.76673 0.984882 3.822300 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 16.45961376 8.22980688 8.48 0.0003 Source DF Type HI SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 16.45961376 8.22980688 8.48 0.0003 elementary n=l 19 middle n=64 high n=104 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 233. Table 42. Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: 14. Art Criticism NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 dfi= 284 MSE= 0.969992 Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 3 -2 -0.3554 0.0132 0.3819 3 - 1 0.1795 0.4910 0.8025 *** 2 -3 -0.3819 -0.0132 0.3554 2 - 1 0.1181 0.4778 0.8375 *** 1 -3 -0.8025 -0.4910 -0.1795 *** 1 -2 -0.8375 -0.4778 -0.1181 *** 211 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 234. Table 43. Contrast for Dependent Variable: 14. Art Criticism Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 9.50136684 9.50136684 9.80 0.0019 elem vs. high 1 13.38114599 13.38114599 13.80 0.0002 middle vs. high 1 0.00692537 0.00692537 0.01 0.9327 212 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 235. Table 44. General Linear Models Procedure ANQVA for Dependent Variable: 15. Art Historical Writing Source DF Sum o f Mean Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 32.30107210 16.15053605 14.00 0.0001 Error 278 320.80213075 1.15396450 Corrected Total 280 353.10320285 R-Square C V Root MSE 15 Mean 0.091478 38.06531 1.074227 2.822064 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 32.30107210 16.15053605 14.00 0.0001 Source DF Type HI SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 32.30107210 16.15053605 14.00 0.0001 elementary n=l 18 middle n=63 high n=100 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 236. Table 45. Tukev's Studentized Range fHSDI Test for variable: 15. Art Historical Writing NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 df=278 MSE= 1.153964 Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit -2 -0.3824 0.0248 0.4319 3 - 1 0.3522 0.6963 1.0403 *** 2 -3 -0.4319 -0.0248 0.3824 2 - 1 0.2765 0.6715 1.0665 *** 1 -3 -1.0403 -0.6963 -0.3522 *** 1 -2 -1.0665 -0.6715 -0.2765 *** Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 237. Table 46. Contrast for Dependent Variable: IS. Art Historical Writing Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 18.52030019 18.52030019 16.05 0.0001 elem vs. high 1 26.24111958 26.24111958 22.74 0.0001 middle vs. high 1 0.02369851 0.02369851 0.02 0.8862 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 238. Table 47. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 17. Portfolio Source DF Sum of Mean Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 41.05331938 20.52665969 13.17 0.0001 Error 258 402.25702545 1.55913576 Corrected Total 260 443.31034483 R-Square C.V. Root MSE 17 Mean 0.092606 34.81822 1.248654 3.586207 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 41.05331938 20.52665969 13.17 0.0001 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 41.05331938 20.52665969 13.17 0.0001 elementary n=109 middle n=58 high n=94 216 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 239. Table 48. Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD1 Test for Variable: 17. Portfolio NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 df=258 MSE= 1.559136 Critical Value o f Studentized Range= 3.334 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 3 -2 -0.1214 0.3701 0.8616 3 - 1 0.4814 0.8958 1.3101 *** 2 -3 -0.8616 -0.3701 0.1214 2 - 1 0.0472 0.5256 1.0040 *** 1 -3 -1.3101 -0.8958 -0.4814 *** I -2 -1.0040 -0.5256 -0.0472 *** Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 240. Table 49. Contrast for Dependent Variable: 17. Portfolio Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 10.45898933 10.45898933 6.71 0.0101 elem vs. high 1 40.49913219 40.49913219 25.98 0.0001 middle vs. high 1 4.91408754 4.91408754 3.15 0.0770 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 241. Table 50. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 114. Uses Vocabulary Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 4.85272723 2.42636362 3.99 0.0196 Error 279 169.78557064 0.60855043 Corrected Total 281 174.63829787 R-Square C V Root MSE 114 Mean 0.027787 17.79832 0.780096 4.382979 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 4.85272723 2.42636362 3.99 0.0196 Source DF Type HI SS Mean Square F Value P r> F LEVEL 2 4.85272723 2.42636362 3.99 0.0196 elementary n=l 17 middle n=63 high n=102 219 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 242. Table 51. Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD1 Test for variable: 114. Uses Vocabulary NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 dfi=279 MSE= 0.60855 Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 3 -2 -0.2194 0.0752 0.3697 3 - 1 0.0398 0.2888 0.5378 *** 2 - 3 -0.3697 -0.0752 0.2194 2 - 1 -0.0736 0.2137 0.5009 1 - 3 -0.5378 -0.2888 -0.0398 ♦** 1 -2 -0.5009 -0.2137 0.0736 220 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 243. Table 52. Contrast for Dependent Variable: 114. Uses Vocabulary Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr> F elem vs. middle 1 1.86965812 1.86965812 3.07 0.0807 elem vs. high 1 4.54624062 4.54624062 7.47 0.0067 middle vs. high 1 0.22002377 0.22002377 0.36 0.5481 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 244. Table 53. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 115. Self-Evaluate Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 7.16778596 3.58389298 4.73 0.0096 Error 279 211.48824241 0.75802237 Corrected Total 281 218.65602837 R-Square C.V. Root MSE 115 Mean 0.032781 20.68423 0.870645 4.209220 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 7.16778596 3.58389298 4.73 0.0096 Source DF Type HI SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 7.16778596 3.58389298 4.73 0.0096 elementary n=l 18 middle n=63 high n=101 222 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 245. Table 54. Tukev's Studentized Range fHSDi Test for variable: 115. Self-Evaluate NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 279 MSE= 0.758022 Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 2 -3 -0.2395 0.0899 0.4193 2 - 1 0.0513 0.3714 0.6915 *** 3 -2 -0.4193 -0.0899 0.2395 3 - 1 0.0034 0.2815 0.5596 *** 1 -2 -0.6915 -0.3714 -0.0513 *** 1 -3 -0.5596 -0.2815 -0.0034 *** 223 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 246. Table 55. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: 115. Self-Evaluate Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 5.66541439 5.66541439 7.47 0.0067 elem vs. high 1 4.31258386 4.31258386 5.69 0.0177 middle vs. high 1 0.31353519 0.31353519 0.41 0.5207 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 247. Table 56. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: III4. Sketchbook/Journal Source DF Sum of Mean Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 24.02059663 12.01029832 7.98 0.0004 Error 280 421.17374966 1.50419196 Corrected Total 282 445.19434629 R-Square C.V. Root MSE IH4 Mean 0.053955 38.73736 1.226455 3.166078 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 24.02059663 12.01029832 7.98 0.0004 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 24.02059663 12.01029832 7.98 0.0004 elementary n=l 17 middle n=63 high n=103 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 248. Table 57. Tukev's Studentized Range (HSDl Test for variable: 1114 . Sketchbook/Journal NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 df=280 MSE= 1.504192 Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 3 -2 -0.3904 0.0718 0.5340 3 - 1 0.2259 0.6164 1.0068 *** 2 -3 -0.5340 -0.0718 0.3904 2 - 1 0.0930 0.5446 0.9962 *** 1 -3 -1.0068 -0.6164 -0.2259 *** 1 -2 -0.9962 -0.5446 -0.0930 *** 226 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 249. Table 58. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: 1114. Sketchbook/Journal Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 12.14383394 12.14383394 8.07 0.0048 elem vs. high 1 20.81124313 20.81124313 13.84 0.0002 middle vs. high 1 0.20159788 0.20159788 0.13 0.7146 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 250. Table 59. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: IV3. Shows Commitment Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 2.46407635 1.23203818 3.34 0.0369 Error 285 105.18870143 0.36908316 Corrected Total 287 107.65277778 R-Square C V. Root MSE IV3 Mean 0.022889 13.23498 0.607522 4.590278 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 2.46407635 1.23203818 3.34 0.0369 Source DF Type in SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 2.46407635 1.23203818 3.34 0.0369 elementary n=121 middle n=62 high n=105 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 251. Table 60. Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: IV3. Shows Commitment NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 d£= 285 MSE= 0.369083 Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 3 -2 -0.14692 0.08233 0.31159 3 - 1 0.01673 0.20763 0.39854 *** 2 -3 -0.31159 -0.08233 0.14692 2 - 1 -0.09826 0.12530 0.34886 1 -3 -0.39854 -0.20763 -0.01673 *** 1 -2 -0.34886 -0.12530 0.09826 229 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 252. Table 61. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: IV3. Shows Commitment Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 0.64361708 0.64361708 1.74 0.1877 elem vs. high 1 2.42363086 2.42363086 6.57 0.0109 middle vs. high 1 0.26426042 0.26426042 0.72 0.3982 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 253. Table 62. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: Vl.Craftspersonship Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 8.93556999 4.46778499 7.85 0.0005 Error 283 161.12387057 0.56934230 Corrected Total 285 170.05944056 R-Square C.V Root MSE VI Mean 0.052544 17.61638 0.754548 4.283217 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 8.93556999 4.46778499 7.85 0.0005 Source DF Type HI SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 8.93556999 4.46778499 7.85 0.0005 elementary n=l 17 middle n=64 high n=105 231 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 254. Table 63. Tukev's Studentized Ranee (HSD) Test for variable: Vl.Craftspersonship NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 df= 283 MSE= 0.569342 Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 3 -2 -0.10872 0.17321 0.45515 3 - 1 0.16125 0.40024 0.63924 *** 2 -3 -0.45515 -0.17321 0.10872 2 - 1 -0.04938 0.22703 0.50344 I -3 -0.63924 -0.40024 -0.16125 *** 1 -2 -0.50344 -0.22703 0.04938 232 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 255. Table 64. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: Vl.Craftspersonship Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr> F elem vs. middle 1 2.13232516 2.13232516 3.75 0.0540 elem vs. high 1 8.86486816 8.86486816 15.57 0.0001 middle vs. high 1 1.19302620 1.19302620 2.10 0.1488 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 256. Table 65. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: V2. Plans Composition Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 5.89220355 2.94610177 7.73 0.0005 Error 285 108.55224090 0.38088506 Corrected Total 287 114.44444444 R-Square C V Root MSE V2 Mean 0.051485 14.15141 0.617159 4.361 111 Source DF Type 1 SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 5.89220355 2.94610177 7.73 0.0005 Source DF Type in SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 5.89220355 2.94610177 7.73 0.0005 elementary n=l 19 middle n=64 high n=105 234 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 257. Table 66. Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: V2. Plans Composition NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 dfi=285 MSE= 0.380885 Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 3 -2 -0.16333 0.06726 0.29786 3 - 1 0.11679 0.31148 0.50618 *** 2 -3 -0.29786 -0.06726 0.16333 2 - 1 0.01882 0.24422 0.46962 *** 1 -3 -0.50618 -0.31148 -0.11679 *** 1 -2 -0.46962 -0.24422 -0.01882 *** 235 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 258. Table 67. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: V2. Plans Composition Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 2.48226340 2.48226340 6.52 0.0112 elem vs. high 1 5.41204482 5.41204482 14.21 0.0002 middle vs. high 1 0.17989575 0.17989575 0.47 0.4925 236 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 259. Table 68. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VTT?., Realism from Observation Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 8.91200405 4.45600202 6.63 0.0015 Error 284 190.97649770 0.67245246 Corrected Total 286 199.88850174 R-Square C V Root MSE VH2 Mean 0.044585 18.91874 0.820032 4.334495 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 8.91200405 4.45600202 6.63 0.0015 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 8.91200405 4.45600202 6.63 0.0015 elementary n=l20 middle n=62 high n=105 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 260. Table 69. Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VII2. Realism from Observation NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 df=284 MSE= 0.672452 Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 3 -2 -0.1889 0.1206 0.4300 3 - 1 0.1323 0.3905 0.6487 *** 2 -3 -0.4300 -0.1206 0.1889 2 - 1 -0.0323 0.2699 0.5721 1 -3 -0.6487 -0.3905 -0.1323 *** 1 -2 -0.5721 -0.2699 0.0323 238 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 261. Table 70. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VH2. Realism from Observation Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 2.97771476 2.97771476 4.43 0.0362 elem vs. high 1 8.53841270 8.53841270 12.70 0.0004 middle vs. high 1 0.56681568 0.56681568 0.84 0.3593 239 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 262. Table 71. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VII7. Historical Stvle Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 6.97745408 3.48872704 3.97 0.0199 Error 282 247.82956346 0.87882824 Corrected Total 284 254.80701754 R-Square C V Root MSE VII7 Mean 0.027383 23.96194 0.937458 3.912281 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 6.97745408 3.48872704 3.97 0.0199 Source DF Type HI SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 6.97745408 3.48872704 3.97 0.0199 elementary n=l 19 middle n=62 high n=104 240 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 263. Table 72. Tukev's Studentized Range (USD) Test for variable: VII7. Historical Style NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 df= 282 MSE= 0.878828 Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 1 -2 -0.1897 0.1563 0.5022 1 - j 0.0580 0.3545 0.6510 *** 2 - 1 -0.5022 -0.1563 0.1897 2 -3 -0.1562 0.1982 0.5526 3 - 1 -0.6510 -0.3545 -0.0580 *** 3 -2 -0.5526 -0.1982 0.1562 241 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 264. Table 73. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VT17. Historical Style Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 0.99550029 0.99550029 1.13 0.2881 elem vs. high 1 6.97348876 6.97348876 7.93 0.0052 middle vs. high 1 1.52590885 1.52590885 1.74 0.1887 242 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 265. Table 74. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: V. Category of Art Product Criteria Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 2.73760945 1.36880472 6.20 0.0023 Error 286 63.09417063 0.22060899 Corrected Total 288 65.83178008 R-Square C.V. Root MSE V Mean 0.041585 11.16991 0.469690 4.204960 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 2.73760945 1.36880472 6.20 0.0023 Source DF Type HI SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 2.73760945 1.36880472 6.20 0.0023 elementary n=120 middle n=64 high n=105 243 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 266. Table 75. Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: V. Category of Art Product Criteria NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 df=286 MSE= 0.220609 Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 3 -2 -0.06736 0.10813 0.28363 3 - 1 0.07304 0.22091 0.36879 *** 2 -3 -0.28363 -0.10813 0.06736 2 - 1 -0.05851 0.11278 0.28406 1 -3 -0.36879 -0.22091 -0.07304 *** 1 -2 -0.28406 -0.11278 0.05851 244 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 267. Table 76. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: V. Category of Art Product Criteria Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 0.53087279 0.53087279 2.41 0.1219 elem vs. high 1 2.73293554 2.73293554 12.39 0.0005 middle vs. high 1 0.46495883 0.46495883 2.11 0.1477 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 268. Table 77. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VI. Category of Aesthetic Criteria Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 1.84539831 0.92269916 3.27 0.0394 Error 286 80.66449572 0.28204369 Corrected Total 288 82.50989403 R-Square C V Root MSE VI Mean 0.022366 13.39995 0.531078 3.963283 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 1.84539831 0.92269916 3.27 0.0394 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 1.84539831 0.92269916 3.27 0.0394 elementary n=120 middle n=64 high n=105 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 269. Table 78. Tukev's Studentized Range fHSD) Test for variable: VI. Category of Aesthetic Criteria NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 df=286 MSE= 0.282044 Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 3 -2 -0.10152 0.09690 0.29533 3 - 1 0.01433 0.18153 0.34874 *** 2 -3 -0.29533 -0.09690 0.10152 2 - 1 -0.10905 0.08463 0.27830 1 -3 -0.34874 -0.18153 -0.01433 *** 1 -2 -0.27830 -0.08463 0.10905 247 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 270. Table 79. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VI. Category of Aesthetic Criteria Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 0.29893270 0.29893270 1.06 0.3041 elem vs. high 1 1.84539794 1.84539794 6.54 0.0110 middle vs. high 1 0.37338437 0.37338437 1.32 0.2509 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 271. Table 80. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: MEANFORM. Aesthetic Subcategorv of Formalism Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 2.97979601 1.48989800 5.87 0.0032 Error 285 72.28062066 0.25361621 Corrected Total 287 75.26041667 R-Square C V Root MSE MEANFORM Mean 0.039593 11.44733 0.503603 4.399306 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 2.97979601 1.48989800 5.87 0.0032 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 2.97979601 1.48989800 5.87 0.0032 elementary n=120 middle n=64 high n=104 249 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 272. Table 81. Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD1 Test for variable: MEANFORM. Aesthetic Subcategorv of Formalism NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha=0.05 Confidence= 0.95 df= 285 MSE= 0.253616 Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 3 -2 -0.02054 0.16797 0.35648 3 - 1 0.06812 0.22708 0.38605 *** 2 -3 -0.35648 -0.16797 0.02054 2 - 1 -0.12454 0.05911 0.24277 1 -3 -0.38605 -0.22708 -0.06812 *** 1 -2 -0.24277 -0.05911 0.12454 250 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 273. Table 82. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: MEANFORM. Aesthetic Subcategorv of Formalism Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 0.14585881 0.14585881 0.58 0.4489 elem vs. high 1 2.87300967 2.87300967 11.33 0.0009 middle vs. high 1 1.11779204 1.11779204 4.41 0.0367 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 274. Table 83. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: MEANMIM1. Aesthetic Subcateeorv of Imitationalism Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 4.75166541 2.37583270 4.54 0.0114 Error 279 145.85927332 0.52279309 Corrected Total 281 150.61093873 R-Square C V Root MSE MEANMIMI Mean 0.031549 17.97386 0.723044 4.022754 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 4.75166541 2.37583270 4.54 0.0114 Source DF Type in SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 4.75166541 2.37583270 4.54 0.0114 elementary n=l 18 middle n=62 high n=102 252 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 275. Table 84. Tukev's Studentized Range fHSDl Test for variable: MEANMIMI. Aesthetic Subcategorv of Imitationalism NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 dfi=279 MSE= 0.522793 Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 3 -2 -0.18922 0.08515 0.35952 3 - 1 0.05713 0.28747 0.51781 *** 2 -3 -0.35952 -0.08515 0.18922 2 - 1 -0.06492 0.20232 0.46956 1 - j -0.51781 -0.28747 -0.05713 *** 1 -2 -0.46956 -0.20232 0.06492 253 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 276. Table 85. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: MEANMIML Aesthetic Subcategory of Imitationalism Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 1.66370008 1.66370008 3.18 0.0755 elem vs. high 1 4.52113357 4.52113357 8.65 0.0035 middle vs. high 1 0.27959906 0.27959906 0.53 0.4652 254 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 277. Table 86. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VTF3. Abstracts Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 6.38752467 3.19376233 4.47 0.0123 Error 284 203.07588997 0.71505595 Corrected Total 286 209.46341463 R-Square C V Root MSE VTF3 Mean 0.030495 21.53416 0.845610 3.926829 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 6.38752467 3.19376233 4.47 0.0123 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 6.38752467 3.19376233 4.47 0.0123 elementary n=120 middle n=64 high n=103 255 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 278. Table 87. Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD1 Test for variable: VTF3. Abstracts NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 df=284 MSE= 0.715056 Critical Value o f Studentized Range= 3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 3 - 1 0.0419 0.3095 0.5772 *** 3 -2 -0.0034 0.3137 0.6308 1 -3 -0.5772 -0.3095 -0.0419 *** 1 -2 -0.3042 0.0042 0.3126 2 -3 -0.6308 -0.3137 0.0034 2 - 1 -0.3126 -0.0042 0.3042 256 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 279. Table 88. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VTF3. Abstracts Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 0.00072464 0.00072464 0.00 0.9746 elem vs. high 1 5.31088133 5.31088133 7.43 0.0068 middle vs. high I 3.88478868 3.88478868 5.43 0.0205 257 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 280. Table 89. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VTF4. Composition Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 4.63173509 2.31586755 6.02 0.0027 Error 283 108.85427889 0.38464410 Corrected Total 285 113.48601399 R-Square C V Root MSE VIF4 Mean 0.040813 13.76077 0.620197 4.506993 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 4.63173509 2.31586755 6.02 0.0027 Source DF Type m S S Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 4.63173509 2.31586755 6.02 0.0027 elementary n=l 19 middle n=63 high n=104 258 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 281. Table 90. Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VTF4. Composition NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence^ 0.95 df= 283 MSE= 0.384644 Critical Value o f Studentized Range= 3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 3 -2 -0.14462 0.08868 0.32197 3 - 1 0.08673 0.28289 0.47904 *** 2 -3 -0.32197 -0.08868 0.14462 2 - 1 -0.03347 0.19421 0.42189 1 - 3 -0.47904 -0.28289 -0.08673 *** 1 -2 -0.42189 -0.19421 0.03347 259 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 282. Table 91. Dependent Variable: VTF4. Composition Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 1.55368814 1.55368814 4.04 0.0454 elem vs. high 1 4.44118698 4.44118698 11.55 0.0008 middle vs. high I 0.30850479 0.30850479 0.80 0.3712 260 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 283. Table 92. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VIM1. Realism Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 5.07622389 2.53811195 2.95 0.0542 Error 277 238.63449039 0.86149636 Corrected Total 279 243.71071429 R-Square C.V Root MSE VIM1 Mean 0.020829 24.54080 0.928168 3.782143 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value P r > F LEVEL 2 5.07622389 2.53811195 2.95 0 0542 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 5.07622389 2.53811195 2.95 0.0542 elementary n=l 16 middle n=62 high n=102 261 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 284. Table 93. Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VTM1. Realism NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 df=277 MSE= 0.861496 Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.333 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 3 -2 -0.1593 0.1929 0.5451 3 - 1 0.0075 0.3044 0.6013 *** 2 -3 -0.5451 -0.1929 0.1593 2 - 1 -0.2326 0.1115 0.4556 1 - 3 -0.6013 -0.3044 -0.0075 *** 1 -2 -0.4556 -0.1115 0.2326 262 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 285. Table 94. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VTM1. Realism Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 0.50243404 0.50243404 0.58 0.4457 elem vs. high 1 5.03005533 5.03005533 5.84 0.0163 middle vs. high 1 1.43510591 1.43510591 1.67 0.1979 263 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 286. Table 95. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VTM2. Shows Realistic Form Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 6.30388427 3.15194214 4.33 0.0141 Error 279 203.13228594 0.72807271 Corrected Total 281 209.43617021 R-Square C.V Root MSE VTM2 Mean 0.030099 20.94192 0.853272 4.074468 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 6.30388427 3.15194214 4.33 0.0141 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 6.30388427 3.15194214 4.33 0.0141 elementary n=l 18 middle n=62 high n=102 264 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 287. Table 96. Tukev's Studentized Range fHSD) Test for variable: VIM2. Shows Realistic Form NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 d£= 279 MSE= 0.728073 Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 2 -3 -0.3102 0.0136 0.3374 2 - 1 -0.0040 0.3114 0.6267 3 -2 -0.3374 -0.0136 0.3102 3 - 1 0.0259 0.2978 0.5696 *** 1 -2 -0.6267 -0.3114 0.0040 1 -3 -0.5696 -0.2978 -0.0259 *** 265 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 288. Table 97. Contrast for Dependent Variable: VTM2. Shows Realistic Form Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 3.94058988 3.94058988 5.41 0.0207 elem vs. high 1 4.85099852 4.85099852 6.66 0.0104 middle vs. high 1 0.00713118 0.00713118 0.01 0.9212 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 289. Table 98. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VTM3. Shows Realistic Texture Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 3.78900250 1.89450125 2.86 0.0587 Error 278 183.85512562 0.66134937 Corrected Total 280 187.64412811 R-Square C.V. Root MSE VTM3 Mean 0.020192 20.15156 0.813234 4.035587 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 3.78900250 1.89450125 2.86 0.0587 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 3.78900250 1.89450125 2.86 0.0587 267 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 290. Table 99. Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VTM3. Shows Realistic Texture NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 df=278 MSE= 0.661349 Critical Value of Studentized Range= 3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by ’***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 3 -2 -0.2054 0.1038 0.4130 3 - I 0.0018 0.2615 0.5213 *** 2 - 3 -0.4130 -0.1038 0.2054 2 - 1 -0.1428 0.1577 0.4583 1 - 3 -0.5213 -0.2615 -0.0018 *** 1 -2 -0.4583 -0.1577 0.1428 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 291. Table 100. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VINO. Shows Realistic Texture Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 1.01126602 1.01126602 1.53 0.2173 elem vs. high 1 3.72242631 3.72242631 5.63 0.0184 middle vs. high 1 0.41392918 0.41392918 0.63 0.4295 269 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 292. Table 101. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VTM4. Shows Realistic Space Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 6.70601289 3.35300645 5.69 0.0038 Error 278 163.90608675 0.58959024 Corrected Total 280 170.61209964 R-Square C V. Root MSE VTM4 Mean 0.039306 18.23882 0.767848 4.209964 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 6.70601289 3.35300645 5.69 0.0038 Source DF Type in SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F LEVEL 2 6.70601289 3.35300645 5.69 0.0038 elementary n=l 18 middle n=62 high n=101 270 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 293. Table 102. Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VTM4. Shows Realistic Space NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate. Alpha= 0.05 Confidence- 0.95 dfi= 278 MSE= 0.58959 Critical Value of Studentized Range—3.332 Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'. Simultaneous Simultaneous Lower Difference Upper LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence Comparison Limit Means Limit 3 -2 -0.18988 0.10204 0.39396 3 - 1 0.09707 0.34234 0.58761 *** 2 -3 -0.39396 -0.10204 0.18988 2 - 1 -0.04351 0.24030 0.52410 1 - 3 -0.58761 -0.34234 -0.09707 *** 1 -2 -0.52410 -0.24030 0.04351 271 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 294. Table 103. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VIM4. Shows Realistic Space Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F elem vs. middle 1 2.34688354 2.34688354 3.98 0.0470 elem vs. high 1 6.37782840 6.37782840 10.82 0.0011 middle vs. high 1 0.40003782 0.40003782 0.68 0.4108 272 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 295. Table 104. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha Correlation Analysis for RAW variables : 0.728608 for STANDARDIZED variables: 0.736474 Raw Variables Std. Variables Deleted Variable Correlation with Total Correlation Alpha with Total Alpha MEANPRAG 0.564840 0.640424 0 566960 0.642732 VIM 0.575504 0.610966 0.580847 0.626137 VTI5 0.533684 0.676011 0.533417 0.682093 k-12 n=279 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 296. REFERENCES Alberta Department of Education. (1993). Educational quality indicators in art and mathematics. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Amburgy, P. (1985). Loved illusions and real beliefs: The concept of aesthetic experience. In The history o fart education: Proceedingsfrom the Penn State conference. College Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. Abruscato, J. (1993) Early results and tentative implications from the Vermont portfolio project. Phi Delta Kappan, 74 (6), 474-477. Anderson, D. (1992). Portfolio assessment as a record of artistic learning. In M. Stokrocki (Ed.) New Waves o fResearch in Art Education, 126-137. Anderson, R.L. (1990). Calliope’s sisters: A comparative study ofphilosophies o fart. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Anderson, T. (1998). Aesthetics as critical inquiry. Art Education, 51(5) 49-55. Anderson, T. (1994). The international baccalaureate model of content-based art education. Art Education, 47(2), 19-24. Archbaud, D.A., & Newman, F.M. (1988). Beyond standardized testing: Assessing achievement in the secondary school. Reston: VA. National Association of Secondary School Principals. Armstrong, C. (1994). Designing assessment in art. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Armstrong, C. (1999). Including aesthetics in art curriculum planning. Sycamore, IL: ABAFA Systems. Arter, J. (1990) Curriculum-referenced test development workshop series. Addendum to workshops two and three: Usingportfolios in instruction and assessment. Northwest Regional Education Lab. Portland, OR. Paper. ERIC Digest ED335365. Greensboro, NC. Arter, J. (1995). Portfoliosfo r assessment and instruction. ERIC Digest ED38889095. Greensboro, NC. Arter, J. (1990). Usingportfolios in instruction and assessment. Portland, Or: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. ERIC Digest ED335364. Greensboro, NC. 274 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 297. Banks, J. A. (1998) Multicultural education and curriculum transformation. In F. Schultz (Ed.), M ulticultural Education 98/99. Sluice Dock, Guilford, Connecticut: Dushkin/McGraw H ill. Barkan, M., Chapman, L., and Kem, E. (1970). Guidelines: Curriculum developmentfor aesthetic education. St. Louis, MO: CEMREL.(Central Midwest Regional Education Laboratory). Barrett, M. (1990). Guidelines for evaluation and assessment in art and design education 5-18 years. Journal o fArt and Design Education, 9(3), 229-313. Barrett, T. (1997). Talking about student art. Worcester, Massachusetts: Davis Publications. Battin M.P., Fisher, J., Moore, R., and Silvers, A. (1989). Puzzles about art: An aesthetics casebook. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Beardsley, M. (1958). Aesthetics: Problems in the philosophy o fcriticism. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Beattie, D. K. (1997). Assessment in art education. Davis publications, Worchester, Mass. Beattie, D. K. (1992). The feasibility of standardized performance assessment in the visual arts lessons from the Dutch model. Studies in Art Education, J-/(l), 6-17. Beattie, D. K. (1994). The mini-portfolio: Locus of a successful performance examination. Art Education, 47(2), 14-18. Beattie, D. (1997). Visual arts criteria, objectives, and standards: A revisit. Studies in Art Education, 38(4), 217-231. Beattie, D. (1999). Assessing current conceptions o f creativity. Presentation at National Art Education Association Conference in Washington, D C. Berty, E. (1979). Ye olde maile surveye. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 177710: Charleston, WV. Bezruczko, N. (1992). Development and evaluation o fa visual arts achievement test. Vernon Hills, IL: Illinois State Board of Education. Bingham, D. (1989). Focus onfine arts: Visual arts. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association and National Art Education Association. 275 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 298. Blaikie, F. (1992). Structures and values inherent in senior secondary student assessment in studio art in Britain and North America. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia. Blaikie, F. (1994). What’s being measured in qualitative secondary studio assessment. Studies in Art Education, 35(4), 237-251. Bloom, B., Hastings, J.T., Madaus, G. (Eds.) 1981. Evaluation to improve learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Boughton, D. (1996). Introduction to the evaluation and assessment of the visual arts. In D. Broughton, E. Eisner &J. Ligtvoet (Eds.) Evaluating and Assessing the VisualArts in Education, 17-26. New York: Teacher’s College Press. Boughton, D. (1997). Reconsidering issues of assessment and achievement standards in art education. Studies in Art Education, 38(4), 199-213. Boughton, D. (1999). Unpublished draft of book chapter to be published in Wul£ C. (Ed.) European studies in education. New York: Waxman . Bourque, L.B. and Fielder, E.P. (1995). How to conduct self-administered and mail surveys. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bowie, A. (1990). Aesthetics and subjectivity:from Kant to Nietzsche. New York: Manchester University Press. Bradley, W. (1984). National examinations in art. In R.W. Ott, and A. Hurwitz, (Eds.), Art in education: An internationalperspective, 251-162. State College, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Broudy, H.S. (1981). Arts education as artistic perception. In Foundationsfo r curriculum development and evaluation in art education. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company. Broudy, H.S. (1981). How basic is aesthetic education? Or is ‘rt the fourth R? In Foundationsfo r curriculum development and evaluation in art education. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company. Broudy, H.S. (1987). The role o f imagery in learning. Los Angeles: The Getty Center for Education in the Arts. Burton, D. (1998). A survey of assessment and evaluation among U.S. K-12 teachers of art. Grant Report to National Art Education Fund. 276 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 299. Carroll, D. (1993). The portfolio review process in practice at Ridgewood high school. Chicago: Paper presented at National Art Education Association. Castiglione, L., (1996). Portfolio assessment in art and education. Arts Education Policy Review, 97(4), 2-9. Cayne, B., (1992). New Webster’s dictionary and thesaurus o f the English language. Danbury, Ct: Lexicon Publications, Inc. Center for Educational Statistics. (1987). Private school teachers’ opinions, 1985-86. Washington, D.C. Chamberlin, J. (1988). Aesthetic scanning. [Workshop materials and additional lecture by Connie Newton during a workshop for Columbia Public Schools, Columbia, MO January 27, 1989], Chang, L. (1991). Higher education criticism: Do university faculty members and community professionals have different viewpoints? Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 339287: Charleston, WV. Chapman, L.H. (1978). Approaches to art in education. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich. Chapman, L. (1985). Curriculum development as process and product. Studies in Art Education, 26(4) 206-11. Chapman, L.H. (1982). Instant art, instant culture'. The unspoken policyfo r American schools. New York: Teachers College Columbia University. Chapman, L. (1987). Lecture on aesthetics presented to audience at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Charles, C.M., (1998, 3rded.). Introduction to educational research. New York: Longman. Clark, G.A., Day, M.D., and Greer, W.D. (1989). Discipline-based art education: Becoming students of art. In Smith, R.A. (Ed.). Discipline-based art education: Origins, meaning, and development. Urbana, II: University of Illinois Press. Clark, G., Zimmerman, E. (1984). Educating artistically talented students. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Clark, G., Zimmerman, E., Zurmuehlen, M. (1987). Understanding art testing. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. 277 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 300. Clark, R. (1996). Art education: Issues in postmodernistpedagogy. Reston, VA: NAEA. Clark, R. (1998). Doors and mirrors in art education: Constructing the postmodernist classroom. Art Education, 5J(6) 6-11. Coates, M., Gaither, J., Shauk, B. (1993). Dimensions o fportfolio assessment: Pushing practice beyond reflection. Chicago: Paper presented at National Art Education Association Conference. Columbia Public Schools. (1998). Art Curriculum K -l2. Columbia, MO: Columbia Public Schools. Council of Chief State School Officers. (1998). Arts Education Consortium Field Test of Arts Assessment Materials. Unpublished materials available from 1 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20001-1431. Costa, A.L. (1989). Guest editorial: Re-assessing assessment. Educational Leadership. 46(7), 2-3. Crawford, D.W. (1989). Aesthetics in discipline-based art education. In Smith, R.A. (Ed ). Discipline-based art education: Origins, meaning, and development. Urbana, II: University of Illinois Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: Thepsychology o foptimal experience. New York: Harper Collins Publishers Curriculum Update. (1998). Arts Education: A Cornerstone of Basic Education. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Spring, 1998. Dallas Museum of Art, and Driskell, D. (1989). Black Art Ancestral Legacy. Dallas: Abrams, Inc. Danto, A. (1999). A conversation with Arthur Danto. Conference radio script. New York: Columbia University. Http://www.columbia.edu/cu/conference/conf7ldanto.html Danto, A (1992). Beyond the Brillo box. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux. Day, M.D. (1995). Art education in action: Aesthetics. Santa Monica, CA: Getty Center for Education in the Arts. Day, M.D. (1985). Evaluating student achievement in discipline-based art programs. Studies in Art Education, 26(4), 232-40. 278 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 301. Day, M.D. (1998). Focus on NAEP and the visual arts: Framework, field test, and assessment. Art Education, 57(5)37-43. Dewey, J. (1958). Art as experience. New York: Dover Publications. Dewey, J. (1944). Experience and thinking. Reprinted in (1970) Pappas, G. (Ed.). Concepts in art and education: An anthology o f current issues. London: Macmillan Company. Dickie, G. (1971). Aesthetics: An introduction. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc. Dickie, G. (1984). The art circle: A theory o fart. New York: New Haven Publications. Dobbs, M. (Ed.). (1988). Research readingsfo r discipline-based art education: A journey beyond creating. Reston, VA: NAEA. Dorn, C. (1994). Thinking in art: A philosophical approach to art education. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Dorn, C. and Azcuy, R. (1992). Teaching aesthetics, a discipline-based art education approach. Presentation to the National Art Education Association Atlanta, GA. Driskell, D. C. (1995). African American visual aesthetics: A postmodernist view. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Duncum, P. (1999). A case for an art education of everyday aesthetic experiences. Studies in Art Education. 40(4) pp. 295-311. Eaton, M.M. (1994). Philosophical aesthetics: A way of knowing and its limits. In Moore, R., (fid.) Aestheticsfo r young people. Reston, VA National Art Education Association. Education Update. (1994). Making assessment meaningful. Associationfo r Supervision and Curriculum Development, 36(6). Education Update. (1995). Designing performance tasks. Associationfa r Supervision and Curriculum Development, 37(6). Education Update. (1997). Assessment that serves instruction. Associationfo r Supervision and Curriculum Development, 39(4). Education Update. (1997). Using assessment to motivate students. Associationfo r Supervision and Curriculum Development, 39(8). 279 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 302. Educational Testing Service. (1992). Advanced placement studio art scoring rubric. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Educational Testing Service. (1998). The praxis series: Art, music, and theater. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Efland, A., (1990). An approach to the assessment of art learnings, In P. Stuhr (Ed.) Arts and Learning Research, 50-65. Efland, A.D. (1989). Curriculum antecedents of discipline-based art education. In Smith, R.A. (Ed ). Discipline-based art education: Origins, meaning, and development. Urbana, II: University of Illinois Press. Efland, A., Freedman, K., Stuhr, P. (1996). Postmodern art education: An approach to curriculum. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Eisner, E. (1972). Educating artistic vision. New York: Macmillan. Eisner, E. (1996). Evaluating the teaching of art. In D. Broughton, E. Eisner & J. Ligtvoet (Eds ). Evaluating and Assessing the Visual Arts in Education, 15-95. New York: Teacher’s College Press. Eisner, E. (1996). Overview of evaluation and assessment: Conceptions in search of practice. In D. Broughton, E. Eisner & J. Ligtvoet (Eds.) Evaluating amiAssessing the VisualArts in Education, 1-16. New York: Teacher’s College Press. Eisner, E. (1993). Supersession: Why standards will not work in art education. San Francisco: Presentation at National Art Education Association Conference. Eisner, E. (1985). The art o feducational evaluation a personal view. New York: The Falmer Press. Eisner, E. (1994). The educational imagination: On the description and evaluation o f schoolprograms. New York: Macmillan. Eisner, E. (1968). The Kettering curriculum for elementary art. In (1988) Dobbs, M., Feinstein, H., and MacGregor, R.N. (Eds). Research readingsfo r discipline-based art education: A journey beyond creating. Reston, VA. National Art Education Association. Elliot, S. (1995). Creating meaningful performance assessments. ERIC Digest, E531.Ed381985. 280 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 303. ERIC Clearinghouse. (1997). Praxis H: Subject assessments, arts. The ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. Washington, DC: Educational Testing Service. Erikson, M. (1986). Teaching aesthetics K -12. In (1988) Dobbs, M., Feinstein, H., and MacGregor, R.N. (Eds). Research readingsfo r discipline-based art education: A journey beyond creating. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Erickson, M. (1994). Evidence for art historical interpretation referred to by young people and adults. Studies in Art Education, 35(2), 71-78. Erickson, M. and Katter, E. (1986). Teaching aesthetics K-12: Activities and resources. Erikson, M, Stewart, M. and Katter, E. (1988). Basic curriculumfo r art: Balanced, articidated, sequential, instructional core curriculumfo r art. Kutztown, PA: Published by authors. Ernst, Karen. (1996). Art in your curriculum: Assessment in the workshop. Teaching pre K-8, 26(1), 34-35. Evans, J.W. (1977). Introductory remarks. In M.J. Wargo and D.R. Green (Eds.), Achievement testing o f disadvantaged and minority studentsfo r educationalprogram evaluation, 1-18. New York: McGraw-Hill. Feldman, E.B. (1967). Varieties o f visual experience: Art as image and idea. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Feldman, E.B. (1970). Becoming human through art: Aesthetic experience in the school. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Feldman, E.B. (1973). The teacher as critic. In (1988) Dobbs, M., Feinstein, H., and MacGregor, R.N. (Eds). Research readingsfo r discipline-based art education: A journey beyottd creating. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Feur, M., and Fulton, K. (1993). The many faces of performance assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6), 478. Fink, A. (1995). The survey handbook. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA. Finlayson, S. (1988). A critical description o fselected state level arts assessment instruments. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Oregon. Frameworksfo r Missouri Schools. (1996). Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. 281 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 304. Franklin, P. G., and Stuhr, P. (1990). Black adults’ aesthetic responses to selected African American and African art. In B. Young (Ed.), Art, Culture, and Ethnicity. Reston. VA: National Art Education Association. Frederiksen, J. and Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 27-32. Freedman, K. and Wood, J. (1999) Reconsidering critical response: Student judgments of purpose, interpretation, and relationships in visual culture. Studies in Art Education, 40(2), 128-142. Fuch, L. (1995). Connecting performance assessment to instruction: A comparison of behavioral assessment, mastery learning, curriculum-based measurement, and performance. ERIC Digest, ES70.Ed381984. Gaitskell, C., Hurwitz, A., and Day, M. (1982). Children and their art (4thedition). New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich, Inc. Gall, M.D., Borg, W.R., and Gall, J.P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. Longman Publishers USA: New York. Gardner, H. (1990). Art education and human development. Los Angeles: The Getty Center for Education in the Arts. Gardner, H. (1983). Artistic intelligences. Art Education, 36(2) 47-49. Gardner, H. (1983). A cognitive view of the arts. In (1988) Dobbs, M., Feinstein, H., and MacGregor, R.N. (Eds). Research readingsfo r discipline-based art education: A journey beyond creating. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Gardner, H. (1990). Multiple intelligences: Implications for art and creativity. InW.J. Moody (Ed.), Artistic intelligences: Implicationsfo r education, 57-59. New York: Teachers College Press. Gardner, H. (1989). Zero-based arts education. An introduction to ARTS PROPEL. Studies in Art Education, 30(2), 71-83. Gardner, H., and Grunbaum, J. (1986). The assessment of artistic thinking: Comments on the national assessment of educational progress in the arts. Paper commissioned by the study group on NAEP. U.S. Department of Education. Gardner, H. and Winner, E. (1981). How children learn...Three stages of understanding art. In Hardiman, G.W. and Zemich, T. (Eds.). Foundationsfo r curriculum development and evaluation in art education. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company. 282 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 305. Gaston, D. (1997). The Brits got it right. New Orleans: Unpublished manuscript presented at the National Art Education Association Conference. Gentile, J.R. (1989). How shall students be graded in discipline-based art education? Art Education, 42(6), 33-41. Getty Center for Education in the Arts. (1990). Inheriting the theory: New voices and multiple perspectives on DBAE. Seminar proceedings, Austin, TX. 1989. New York: Keens Company. Gilchrist, D. (1993). Evaluation and assessment handbookfo r secondary visual arts (draft document September 1992). Chicago: Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association Conference. Gitomer, D., Grosh, S. and Price, K. (1992). Portfolio culture in arts education. Art [education, 45(1), 7-15. Gombrich, E. H. (1970). Meditations on a hobby horse or the roots of artistic form. In Pappas G., Concepts in art and education: An anthology o fcurrent issues. London: The Macmillan Company. Gordon, E.W. (1977). Diverse human populations and problems in educational program evaluation via achievement testing. In M.J. Wargo and D.R. Green (Eds.), Achievement testing o fdisadvantaged and minority studentsfo r educationalprogram evaluation, 29- 40. New York: McGraw-Hill. Greer, W.D. (1984). Discipline-based art education: Approaching art as a subject of study. Studies in Art Education. 25 (4) 212-218. Grove, B. (1996). Assessing student achievement in the visual arts: Collaborative inquiry as a modelfo r professional development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University. Gruber, D. (1994). Evaluation of student achievement in k-12 art education programs: A balanced approach. Art Education, 47(2), 40-45. Hamblen, K. (1984). Artistic perception as a function of learned expectations. Art Education, 37(3), 20-30. Hamblen, K. (1988). If is to be tested, it will be taught: A rationale worthy of examination. Art Education, 41(5), 59-62. 283 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 306. Hamblen, K. (1990). Theory-practice schisms of the 1990s. In Little, B.E. (Ed.). Secondary art education: An anthology o f issues. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Hardiman, G.W. and Zemich, T. (1981). Foundationsfo r curriculum development and evaluation in art education. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company. Hart, L. M. (1991). Aesthetic pluralism and multicultural art. Studies in Art Education, 32(3) 145-159. Hatcher, L. and Stepanski, E. (1994). A step by step approach to using the SAS system for univariate and multivariate statistics. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc. Hausman, J. (1992). On the use of portfolios in evaluation - an editorial. Art Education. 46(1) 4-5. Hausman, J. (1993). Portfolio evaluation. NAEA Advisory. Henderson, D.L. (1991). Profile of Texas teachers: A study of the characteristics of Texas teachers in 1990. Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 329523: Charleston, WV. Higgins, R. (1989). Approaches to evaluation in art education at the state level. Paper for the Minnesota State Department of Education. Hoard, A. W. (1990). The Black aesthetic: An empirical feeling. In B. Young (Ed.), Art. Culture, and Ethnicity. Reston. VA National Art Education Association. Hoepfher, R. (1984). Measuring student achievement in art. Studies in Art Education, 25(4), 251-258. Huffman, E.S. (1998). Authentic rubrics. Art Education, 51(1)64-68. Hurwitz, A., Carroll, K., and Sandell, R. (1993). Assessment k-12 art education. National Endowment for the Arts grant report 88-5170-0086. Hurwitz, A. and Day, M. (1995). Children and their art: Methodsfo r the elementary school. New York: Harcourt Brace. International Baccalaureate. (1996). Art and design assessment criteria. Cardiff, Wales. Irwin, R. L. (1999). Listening to the shapes of collaborative artmaking. Art Education 52(2), 35-39. 284 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 307. Isaac, S., and Michael, W.B. (1990). Handbook in research and evaluationfo r education and the behavioral sciences. EdITS Publishers: San Diego, CA. Jeffers, C. (1999). What happens when we ask, “what is art?” Art Education, 52(1) 40- 45. Johnson, M., and Cooper, S. (1974). Developing a system for assessing written art criticism. Art Education, 47(5), 21-26. Johnson, N.R. (1982). Children’s meanings about art. Studies in Art Education, 25(3), 61-67. Jones, L. (1999). Aesthetic basis for assessment. Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association Conference in Washington, D.C. Karpati, A. (1995). Assessment of art education in Hungary: Historical problems in contemporary perspective. NCAD. United Kingdom: National Society for Education in Art and Design. Kellogg, R. (1969). Analyzing children’s art. Palo Alto, California: National Press Books. Kentucky. (1996). Arts education in the states: An information clearinghouse of state legislation and policies. Klotman, P. R. (Ed.). (1977). Humanities through the Black experience. Dubuque, LA Hunt Publishing, Co. Kotler, W. (1999). Art curriculum rubrics. Unpublished manuscript, Fairfax County, Virginia: Fairfax County Schools. Krathwohl., D.R. (1993). Methods o f educational and social science research. Longman Publishers USA: New York. Lai, M., and Shishido, J. (1987). A modelfo r evaluating art education programs. Washington, DC: Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Langer, S. (1957). Philosophy in a new key; A study in the symbolism o f reason, rite, and art. Cambridge, M A Harvard University Press. Lankford, L. (1992). Aesthetics: Issues and Inquiry. Reston, Virginia: National Art Education Association. 285 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 308. Lankford, L. (1990). Preparation and risk in teaching aesthetics, Art Education, 43(5) 50-56. Litwin, M.S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lloyd, B., (1997). Souvenirs of formalism: From modernism to postmodernism and deconstruction. Art Education, 50(23), 15-22. Lonergan, N. (1997). Eighth grade acceleration in art examination. New York: Board o f Education of the City of New York. Lowenfeld, V. and Brittain, W.L. (1987). Creative and mental growth (8thed.). New York: Macmillan. Luehrman, M. (1999). The relationship between the art experiences of public school principals and their attitude toward art education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia. MacGregor, R. (1992). A short guide to alternative assessment practices. Art Education, 45(6), 315-327. Macgregor, R., Lemerise, S., Potts, M., and Roberts, B. (1993). Assessment in the arts: A cross-Canada study. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. MacGregor, R. (1990). Reflections on art assessment practices. Journal o fArt and Design Education, 9(3), 315-327. Madaus, G., and Kellagham, T. (1993). The British experience with “authentic” testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6), 458-469. Madeja, S. (1976). The aesthetic education program: A report on the accomplishments 1969-1975. St. Louis, MO: CEMREL, Inc. Madeja, S. and Onuska, S. (1977). Through the arts to the aesthetic. St. Louis, MO: CEMREL, Inc. Maeroff, G. (1991). Assessing alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4), 272- 281. Mandelbaum, M. (1965). Family resemblances and generalization concerning the arts. American Philosophical Quarterly (2) 219-28 . 286 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 309. Manitoba Department of Education and Training. (1990). Art education guidelines, K- 12. Winnipeg, Canada: Curriculum Support Series. Manitoba Department of Education and Training. (1983). Manitoba art assessment program. Winnipeg, Canada: Curriculum Support Series. Maryland State Department of Education. (1990). Outcomes for criterion-referenced tests in the fine arts. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., McTighe. (1993). Assessing student outcomes: Performance assessment using the dimensions o f learning model. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Milbrandt, M. (1998). Postmodernism in art education: Content for life. Art Education, 51(6) 47-52. Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task Force. (2000). Draft Rubricfo r Local Art Assessment o f the Show-Me Standards, Jefferson City, Missouri: Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Mitchell, Ruth. (1993). A prelude to performance assessment in the arts: Towards art assessmentproject (TAAP). Sacramento, CA: Bureau of Publications, California Department of education. Monett.Middle School. (1999). Unpublished scoring guide for Monett middle school art. Monett, MO: Monett Public Schools. Moore, R. (Ed.) 1995. Aestheticsfo r young people. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. (1970). Afro-American artists: New York and Boston. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Myers, J.L., and Well, A.D. (1995). Research design and statistical analysis. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. NAEA Advisory. (1994). Student portfolios: Classroom uses, November, 1993 Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. NAEA Advisory. (1994). Studentportfolios: Administrative uses, Spring 1994. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. 287 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 310. NAEP. (1981). Art andyoung Americans, 1974-79: Resultsfrom the second art assessment. Report #10-A-01. National Assessment of Educational Progress. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the State. NAEP (1996). NAEP arts education assessment and exercise specifications. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. National Art Education Association. (1994). The national visual arts standards. Reston,VA. The association. Newman, W B. (1990). The effect of standardized testing on education in the arts. In W.J. Moody (Ed.), Artistic intelligences: Implicationsfo r education, 52-56. New York: Teachers College Press. O’Neil, J. and Tell, C. (1999). Why students lose when “tougher standards” win: A conversation with Alfie Kohn. Educational Leadership, 57(1)18-23. Panofsky, E. (1955). Meaning in the visual arts. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday. Parsons, M.J. (1990). A comparison of novice-expert and developmental paradigms in terms of their use in work on the assessment of student learning in art education. In P. Stuhr (Ed ), Arts and Learning Research, 30-49. Parsons, M.J. (1994). Can children do aesthetics? A developmental account. In Moore, R., (Ed.) Aestheticsfo r youngpeople. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Parsons, M.J. (1987). How we understand art: A cognitive development account o f aesthetic experience. New York: Cambridge University Press. Patchen, J. and Borgmann, C.B. (1988). Indiana eighth grade diagnostic visual art achievement test. Indianapolis, Indiana: Indiana Department of Education. Peeno, L. (!997). Update on status o farts assessment. Presentation to Missouri Art Education Association Fall conference, Knob Noster, MO. Peeno, L. (1996). Status o farts assessment in the states. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Peeno, L. (1999). Presentation to Missouri art education association. Lake of the Ozarks, MO. February 25. 288 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 311. Pena, D M and Henderson, R.D. (1986). Sampling procedures used for national surveys of public school teachers - problems and possible solutions. Unpublished manuscript presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, CA. Perrone, V. (Ed.). (1991). Expanding student assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Perry, J. (1993). Art portfolios: Reflection and knowledge. Chicago: Paper presented at National Art Education Association Conference. Pittard, N.K. (198S). Preliminary considerations concerning aesthetic education. In The history o fart education: Proceedingfrom the Penn State conference. College Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University. Popham, W.J. (1993). Circumventing the high costs of authentic assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 7-1(6), 470-473. Popham, W.J. (1999). Why standardized tests don’t measure educational quality. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 8-16. Rader, M. (1952). A modem book o f esthetics. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Rayala, M. (1995). Art education: A guide to curriculum planning. Bulletin #95185. Madison, WI: Wisconsin State Department of Public Instruction. Reynolds, J. (1993). A portfoliofo r portfolio assessment. Chicago: Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association Conference. Rudner, L. (1993). Test Evaluation. Internet: seltips.txt@ericae2.educ.cua.edu Rudner, L. and Boston, C. (1994). Visual arts education reform handbook. Maintaining a substantivefocus: A look at performance assessmentfo r art education. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Sabol, R. (1994). A critical examination of visual arts achievement tests from state departments of education in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Bloomington, Indiana. Indiana University. Sadler, R. D. (1987). Specifying and promulgating achievement standards. Oxford Review o fEducation, 13(2), 191-209. Sandell, R. and Spiers, P. (1999). Feminist concerns and gender issues in art education. Translationsfrom theory to practice, 8(1). Reston, VA: NAEA. 289 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 312. Sargent, B. and Fitzsimmons, D. (1999). Statements of authentic assessment and rubric use. Mundelein, Illinois, High School. Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association Conference in Washington, D.C. Schonau, Diederik. (1999). Integrated arts as a nationwide exam. Presentation at National Art Education Association Conference in Washington, D.C. Scriven, M. (1981). The methodology of evaluation. In G. Hardiman & T. Zemich (Eds.), Foundationsfo r Curriculum Development and Evaluation in Art Education, 242- 279. Champaign, II: Stipes Publishing Company. Seidel, K. (1994). Developing successful arts program evaluation. NationalAssociation o fSecondary School Principals Bulletin, 78(561), 7-19. Severy, L.J. (1974). Procedures and issues in the measurement o fattitudes. ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurement, and Evaluation: Princeton, NJ. Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1992). Skills and tasksfo rjobs: A SCANS reportfo r America 2000. U.S. Department of Labor. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Show-Me Standardsfo r Missouri Schools. (1996). Jefferson City, MO: Missouri State Board of Education. Siegler, R.S. (1989). Strategy, diversity and cognitive assessment. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 15-20. Smith, R.A. (1970). Aesthetic criticism: The method of aesthetic education. In Pappas, G. (Ed.), Concepts in art and education. London: Macmillan Company. Smith, R.A. (1989). Discipline-based art education: Origins, meaning, and development. Urbana, II: University of Illinois Press. Smith, R.A. (1981). Justifying aesthetic education. In Foundationsfo r curriculum development and evaluation in art education. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company. Smith-Shank, D., and Hausman, J., (Eds.), Evaluation in art education. Vernon Hills, IL: Illinois Art Education Association. Stake, R. (1981). To evaluate an arts program. In G. Hardiman & T. Zemich (Eds.), Foundationsfo r Curriculum Development and Evaluation in Art Education, 242-279. Champaign, II: Stipes Publishing Company. 290 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 313. Stankiewicz, M. (1998). Reflecting on postmodemisms. Art Education, 57(6) 4-5. Stavropoulos, C. (1995). Assessing student learning in the arts: Building a bridge between theory andpractice. San Francisco: Unpublished manuscript presented to annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Stewart, M. (1995). Aesthetics and the art curriculum. In R. Moore, (Ed ). Aesthetics fo r youngpeople. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association. Stewart, M. (1997). Thinking through aesthetics. Worcester, Massachusetts: Davis Publications. Stewart, M, Russell, R, and Eaton, M. (1990) Unpublished notes from Getty Institute for Teachers Workshop on Aesthetics. Cincinnati: Getty Foundation. Stinespring, J. A., and Kennedy, L. C. Meeting the need for Multiculturalism in the Art Classroom. The Clearing House, January 11, 1995. Stokrocki, M. (1986). Expanding the artworld of young, elementary students. Art Education, 39(4), 13-16. Stolnitz, J. (1960). Aesthetics and the philosophy o fart criticism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Stout, C. J. (1999). The art of empathy: teaching students to care. Art Education 52(2),21-24, 33-34. Stout, C. J. (1990). Critical thinking and writing in the visual arts classroom. A workshop for Columbia Fine Arts Faculty, Columbia, MO. Stubbs, C. (1985). Evaluating a conceptually based course of study. Art Education, 38(2), 23-27. Stuhr, P. (1990). Arts and learning research, 1990. The Journal o f the Arts and Learning Social Interest Group, 8(1). Swann, A. and Bickley-Green, C. (1993). Basic uses o fportfolio in art education assessment. NAEA Advisory, Summer 1993. Taylor, P. (1991) In the process. Carmichael, CA: California Art Education Association. Thomas, Jackie. (1993). Curriculum assessment usingportfolio. Chicago: Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association Conference. 291 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 314. U.S. Department of Education. (1991). America 2000: An education strategy. Washington D.C. ED 332380 U.S. Department of Education. (1998). National assessment o feducationalprogress and the visual arts: Framework, field test, and assessment. Washington D.C. NCES 98-526. U.S. Department of Education. (1998). The National assessment o feducationalprogress 1997 Arts Report Card. Washington D.C. NCES 1999-486. U.S. Department of Education. (1999). CD ROM addendum for The National assessment o feducationalprogress 1997 Arts Report Card. Washington D.C. NCES 1999-486. U.S. Department of Education and the Arts Education partnership. (1998). Arts literacy fo r a changing America. National Teleconference December 1, 1998. Washington D.C. Venet, C. (1998). Art History Assessment Survey of Missouri Art Educators. Unpublished manuscript presented at the Missouri Art Education Association conference in Lake Ozark, MO. Venet, C. (1998a). Creating a model for state art assessment. Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association conference in Chicago, II. Venet, C. (1999). Third grade art assessment. Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association conference in Washington, D.C. Venet, C. (1999a). Focus group: What criteria should be on a state-supported rubric for local assessment of Missouri standards? Unpublished manuscript presented at Missouri Art Education Association spring conference. Lake of the Ozarks, MO. Vermont Arts Assessment Project. (1995). Montpelier, VT: Vermont Council on the Arts. Warner, F. (1993). Performance assessment - in progress at an elementary school. Chicago: Paper presented at National Art Education Association Conference. Weate, A. (1999). Phone conversation May 10, 1999. Weitz, M. (1956). The role of theory in aesthetics. Journal o fAesthetics and Art Criticism (15)32. Cited in Eaton, M. Basic Issues in Aesthetics. Weitz, M. (1988). Theories o fconcepts: The history o f the majorphilosophical tradition. New York: Routledge. 292 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 315. Weitz, M. (1966). Twentieth-centuryphilosophy: The analytic tradition. New York: Free Press. White, J.H.. (1998). Inspecting magic words. Art Education, 5/(6) 12-21. Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, May 1989, 703-713. Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessment: Authenticity, context, and validity. Phi Delta Kappcot, 75(3), 200-214. Wiggins, G. (1999). Assessment Reform Overview. Presentation to Columbia Public Schools on June 11, 1999. Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve studentperformance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Wiggins, G. (1996-97). Practicing what we preach in designing authentic assessments. Educational Leadership 54(4), 18-25. Wilson, B. (1971). Evaluation of learning in art education. In B. Bloom, J. Hastings, and G. Madaus, (Eds.), Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Winner, E. and Simmons, S. (Eds.) (1992). Arts PROPEL: A handbookfo r visual arts. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service and the President and Fellows of Harvard College. Wolcott, A. (1992). Is what you see what you get? A postmodern approach to understanding works of art. Studies in Art Education, 37(2), 69-79. Wolcott, A. (1994). Whose shoes are they anyway? Art Education, 47(5), 14-20. Wolf, D. and Pistone, N. (1991). Takingjull measure: Rethinking assessment through the arts. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Worthen, B.R. (1993). Critical issues that will determine the future of alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6), 444-454. Worthen, B.R., and Spandel, V. (1991). Putting the standardized test debate in perspective. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 65-69. Yau, M. (1990). A holistic approach to evaluation: An examplefrom the visual arts. Ontario, Canada: Paper presented to the Toronto Board of Education. 293 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 316. Zerull, D. (1990). Evaluation in arts education: Building and using an effective assessment strategy. Designfo r Arts in Education, 92(1), 19-24. Zimmerman, E. (1999). A cautionary tale for those involved in large-scale arts assessments. Art Education, 52(5) 44-50. Zimmerman, E. (1992). Assessing students’ progress and achievements in art. Art Education, 45(6), 14-24. Zimmerman, E. (1994). How should students’ progress and achievements in art be assessed? A case for assessment that is responsive to diverse students’ needs. VisualArts Research, 20(1), 29-35. Zimmerman, E. (1997). Standardized testing and authentic assessment research. In LaPierre, S.D., and Zimmerman, E. (Eds.). Research Methods and Methodologies for Art Education. National Art Education Association: Reston, VA. 294 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 317. 1 Art Assessment Survey This survey asks your expert opinion in identifying the most important criteria to use when grading two* and three-dimensional artworks at the completion of a: project, unit, term, semester, or a “portfolio” of work over time. Spaces have been provided for your comments. Your participation is completely voluntary and you do not have to answer any specific question that is asked. Your responses will be kept confidential. Check one grade-level category for your responses. If you teach more than one level and would like to respond to additional grade-level categories, please copy the survey. elementary K-5 middle6-8 highschool Circle the number hat indicates the importance of assessing each kind of student art product. 5 4 3 2 1 very important important undecided little importance no importance I. W hat Do You Assess? 1. rough drafts or process sketches............................................................................. ..........5 4 3 2 1 2. final product........................................................................................................................5 4 3 2 I 3. aesthetic reflections about own or other artists’ work.......................................... ..........5 4 3 2 1 4. art criticism analysis of own or other artists’ work..........................................................5 4 3 2 1 5. art historical writing................................................................................................. ..........5 4 3 2 1 6. student’s self-evaluation.......................................................................................... ......... 5 4 3 2 1 7. portfolio of student work (please comment if the portfolio is electronic)......... .........5 4 3 2 1 If you assess other products, please list them: If you assess portfolios, what is included in the student’s portfolio? II. Responding Criteria 1. explains perceptions of artwork 5 4 3 2 1 2. identifies connections among arts and with other subjects...............................................5 4 3 2 1 3. relates art from historical periods, movements, and/or cultures to own work................5 4 3 2 1 4. uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate artworks.....................5 4 3 2 1 5. self-evaluates.........................................................................................................................5 4 3 2 1 Comments: 295 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 318. Circle the number that Indicates the importance of each criteria in assessing student art work. 5 4 3 2 1 very important important undecided little importance no importance IU. Creating or Process Criteria 1. correctly uses assigned processes, media, and techniques............................................5 4 2. demonstrates problem-solving process: brainstorms, develops and revises idea, produces finalwork, self-evaluates..................5 4 3. demonstrates originality, creativity, or inventiveness......................................................5 4 4. documents process in sketchbook orjournal entries........................................................5 4 Comments: 3 3 3 2 2 2 IV. Attitude or Habits-of-Mind Criteria 1. is persistently on task 5 4 3 2 2. respects materials, equipment, other students and their art............................................5 4 3 2 3. shows commitment, pursues problem through revisions................................................ 5 4 3 2 4. is responsive to teacher’s feedback................................................................................... 5 4 3 2 Comments: V. Art Product Criteria 1. demonstrates technical skill or craftspersonship 5 4 3 2 2. demonstrates planned, effective composition...................................................................5 4 3 2 3. work shows improvement from past products/performances.........................................5 4 3 2 4. artwork includes relevant art historical influences..........................................................5 4 3 2 5. demonstrates assigned concepts, processes, elements,and/or principles.......................5 4 3 2 6. intent of artist is communicated.........................................................................................5 4 3 2 Comments: 296 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 319. 3 Circle the number hat indicates the importance of each criteria in assessing student art work. 5 4 3 2 1 very important important undecided little importance no importance VI. Aesthetic Approach Criteria -Sets of criteria are based upon different philosophies of art A. Formalist Criteria consider formal design qualities as art content. 1. use of elements of art (line, shape, color, value, form, texture, space) 5 4 3 2 1 2. use of principles of design (balance, emphasis, contrast rhythm,proportion, unity)...5 4 3 2 1 3. distorts, exaggerates for purpose of design......................................................................... 5 4 3 2 1 4. composition............................................................................................................................5 4 3 2 1 B. Expressionist Criteria express and/or evoke moods or feelings. 1. expresses ideas, attitudes, or feelings 5 4 3 2 1 2. evokes emotions or feelings in viewer.................................................................................5 4 3 2 1 3. communicates a point of view...............................................................................................5 4 3 2 1 4. responds to personal, social, or spiritual contexts.............................................................. 5 4 3 2 1 C. Instrumental or Pragmatic Criteria emphasize moral, social, or political functions of art. 1. reflects a society, culture, or group o f people....................................................... ............ 5 4 3 2 1 2. shows personal interpretation of art history or culture.......................................... ........... 5 4 3 2 1 3. responds to environmental or political contexts...............................................................5 4 3 2 1 4. serves a functional purpose...................................................................................... ...........5 4 3 2 1 D. Imitationalist or Mimetic Criteria represent the real or ideal. 1. real or idealized representation of life.................................................................... ..........5 4 3 2 1 2. shows realistic form (3-D), or illusion of form (2-D).......................................................5 4 3 2 1 3. shows realistic texture (3-D), or illusion of texture (2-D).................................... ..........5 4 3 2 1 4. shows space (3-D), or illusion of depth (2-D)....................................................... ........... 5 4 3 2 1 Aesthetic Approach Comments: 297 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 320. 4 5 4 3 2 1 very important important undecided little importance no importance VII. W hat Do You Teach? Circle the number that indicates the importance of teaching your students how to: 1. use elements of art and/or principles of design 5 4 3 2 1 2. draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation..............................................5 4 3 2 1 3. abstract or create non-objective art....................................................................................5 4 3 2 1 4. communicate social, political, or personal messages...................................................... 5 4 3 2 1 5. create functional art............................................................................................................ 5 4 3 2 1 6. express their feelings or attitudes...................................................................................... 5 4 3 2 1 7. create art based upon a particular historical period, style, or culture............................ 5 4 3 2 1 Comments: VIII. Demographics 1. Check your yearly number of art students: 1-99, 101-199, 200-399, 400-599, 600+ 2. Circle each grade you currently teach: K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3. Check your years of experience including this y e ar 1-5, ___6- 10,____11-20, ___ 21+ 4. Did you attend staff development or college classes on assessment in the last two years? Yes No 5. Have you attended staff development or college classes focusing on art assessment? Yes No 6. What other criteria do you use in assessing student work that were not included in this survey? The following section is optional. Do you want a copy of the results of this survey? Yes No Are you willing to be interviewed by phone to follow-up on your comments? Yes No Home phone ( j_____________ School phone ( )______________ Best time to call______ Name__________________________________________ School___________________________ Address______________________________________________________________________________ Please return by December 15, 1999 to Cheryl Venet, 28J3 Rain Tree Court, Columbia, MO 65201. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 321. COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 555 Vandiver Dr., Suite A Columbia, MO 65202-1508 (573) 886-2227 Fax #(573) 886-2078 e mail: cvenet@columbia.k12.mo.us Cheryl Venet. Coordinator Elementary and Secondary Art November 4, 1999 Dear We need your help in deciding w hat will be on a rubric for Missouri Art Assessment. You have been selected as one of a small group of Missouri art educators to contribute to the development of a rubric for scoring two- and three-dimensional art. We are required to conduct K-12 assessment of the Show-Me Standards. Even in fifth grade, where art history and criticism are part of the state arts test, art production and aesthetics will be evaluated in your school districL The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is supporting the development want input from Missouri art teachers, so I decided to focus my Ph.D. dissertation on teachers' opinions on the content of the state-supported rubric. Your responses will benefit both my study and the task force. Rubric criteria on the enclosed survey were obtained from: art education literature, other states and countries, ARTS PROPEL, the Advanced Placement Exam, the International Baccalaureate, school districts, and teachers at the Missouri Art Education Association Spring Conference, 1999. To ensure the rubric matches your classroom expectations, we need your expert opinion on which of the criteria on the survey are most important for inclusion on a state rubric. Consider those that could be useful whether a teacher assesses work daily, at the end o f a unit, or in a year-long portfolio. After each section of the questionnaire, space is provided for your comments. It has typically taken art teachers fifteen minutes to complete. A code on your surveys tracks responses state region. The code will be destroyed after I receive your survey and vour responses will be kept confidential. Your participation is completely voluntary and you do not have to answer any specific question that is asked. If you should have any questions about this research project, please feel free to contact me at (573) 441-4017 or my adviser, Dr. Kantner, at (573) 882-6462. For additional information regarding human participation in research, please feel free to contact the UMC Campus IRB Office at (573) 882-9585. Please return the completed questionnaire by November 24, 1999. You will find a self-addressed stamped envelope included in this packet. At the conclusion of the study, I’ll be happy to send you a summary of results. Thank you for sharing your time and knowledge. of a rubric that teachers may use to score student work. I serve on the Fine Arts Assessment Task Force and Sincerely, Cheij^Venet Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 322. C O LU M B IA C o l u m b i a P u b l i c S c h o o l s Cheryl Venet, Coordinator Elementaryand Secondary Art 555 VandiverDrive, Suite A Columbia, MO 65202-1508 (573) 886-2227 Fax (573)886-2078 «First_Name» «Last_Name» «Schoob> «Address» «City», «State» «Zip» November 29, 1999 Dear «First_Name» or Current Art Teacher (ifthis teacher has left your school), I recently wrote requesting your help in deciding which criteria should be included on a rubric for Missouri Art Assessment. I teach art in addition to coordinating a K-12 art program, so I know how busy you are meeting the needs of your students, their parents, your administrators, and communities. I hope the Missouri Art Assessment Survey is in your “to do” pile and that this reminder will encourage you to give it your attention. In case you did not receive it, or it has been lost, I've enclosed another copy with a self-addressed, stamped envelope. You were one of a select group of art teachers asked to provide input. As a member of the Missouri Art Assessment Task Force and a Ph.D. student conducting research, I'm asking for you to please take a few minutes to complete and return the enclosed survey. In order to predict that the responses we receive represent Missouri art teachers, we need to receive surveys from every teacher who receives this letter. A code on your survey tracks responses by state region. This identification will be destroyed after I receive your survey and vour responses will be kept confidential. Your participation is completely voluntary and you do not have to answer any specific question that is asked. If you have any questions about this research project, please feel free to contact me at (573) 442-4017, or my advisor, Dr. Kantner, at (573) 882-6462. Your expert opinions are important! Please return the survey by December 15,1999. Thank you for sharing your time and knowledge. Sincerely, Cheryl Venet 300 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 323. CO LU M BIA COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARTOFFICE 555 Vandiver Dr., Suite A Columbia, MO 65202-1508 (573) 886-2227 Fax #(573) 886-2078 Cheryl Venet, Coordinator Elementary and Secondary Art Fax to: Principal From: Cheryl Venet, Fax (573) 886-2078 December 19, 1999 I am conducting research on Criteria for Missouri Art Assessment for my Ph.D. dissertation and for the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Fine Arts Assessment Task Force of which I am a member. The task force is developing a rubric/scoring guide to help art teachers conduct local assessment of the Show-Me Standards. A survey provides your building art teacher with an opportunity to help shape that document A code on the survey tracks responses by state region. This identification will be destroyed after I receive the survey and all responses will be kept confidential. Participation is completely voluntary and the teacher does not have to answer any specific question that is asked. If you should have any questions about this research project please feel free to contact me at (573) 442-4017 or my advisor, Dr. Kantner, at (573) 882-6462. For additional information regarding human participation in research, please feel free to contact the UMC Campus IRB Office at (573) 882-9585. Two copies of the Art Assessment Survey with stamped, return envelopes were mailed to your art teacher who was included in a random sample o f Missouri art teachers. The list of teachers provided by DESE was based upon last year’s faculty, so it is possible that this teacher is no longer working in your building. Please help us update our records by completing and returning this page by fax or mail. Below is a copy ofthe mailing label used to reach your building’s art teacher. Please Check: This art teacher will complete and mail the survey. This art teacher will not mail the survey but is willing to answer survey items by phone in which case his/her evening phone number is:___________________________ This art teacher is no longer working in this building and no survey will be returned. Another art teacher in this building will complete and return the survey. An art teacher is employed in this building, but chooses not to participate in the survey. Thank you so much for your help. Cheryl Venet Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 324. 1 Cheryl Venet, 555 Vandiver, Columbia, MO, 65202, (573) 886-2227, cvenet@columbia.kl2.mo.us Results of Missouri Art Teachers Art Assessment Survey Each survey criterion is listed with a percentage ofteachers at elementary, middle, and high school levels who scored it as important for inclusion on an art assessment rubric/scoring guide. A one-way analysis of variance was computed for each criterion to determine whether there was a significant difference among mean scores ofelementary, middle, and high school teacher groups. Follow-up contrasts were calculated when a significant difference of p<.05 occurred. The number of respondents is: Elementary teachers, K-5, n=l 10who completed the survey on the yellow paper Elementary teachers, K-5, n=l 1who copied the survey, responding first to either middle or high school levels Total elementary teachers, K-S, n=121 Middle level teachers, 6-8, n=51 who completed the survey on the yellow paper Middle level teachers, 6-8, n=13 who copied the survey, responding first to either elementary or high school levels Total middle level teachers, 6-8, n=64 High School teachers, 9-12, n=95 who completed the survey on the yellow paper High School teachers, 9-12, n=9 who copied the survey, responding first to either elementary or middle levels. Total high School Teachers, 9-12, n=105 Total teachers who responded to survey, K-12, n=259 Table 1. Percentage of teachers who Think it b Important to Assess Various Types of Art Products I. What Do You Assess? •/. K-12 •/. K-5 % 6-8 9-12 1. rough drafts or process sketches, *p<0007 between elementary-high school 64 54 65 74 2. final product, *p<029 between elementary-high school 96 93 95 98 3. aesthetic reflections about own or other artists’ work 70 65 69 76 4. art criticism analysis of own or other artists’ work, *p<.0002 between elementary-middle and p<0019 between elementary-high school 72 60 78 80 5. art historical writing, *p<0001 between elementary-middle and elementary-high school 28 15 37 39 6. student’s self-evaluation 78 71 79 85 7. portfolio of student work, *p<OI between elementary-middle and p<..0001 between elementary-high school 59 44 61 75 Table 2. Percentage of Art Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Responding Criteria. II. ResDonding Criteria K-12 % K-5 % 6-8 % 9-12 I. explains perceptions of artwork 78 76 82 79 2. identifies connections among arts and with other subjects 77 79 77 73 3. relates art from historical periods, movements, and/or cultures to own work 77 72 82 80 4. uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate artworks, *p<..006 between elementary-high school 91 86 92 94 5. student self-evaluates, * p<007 between elementary-middle and p<02 between elementary-high school 84 79 87 87 302 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 325. 2 Table 3. Percentage of Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Creating or Process Criteria III. Creatine or Process Criteria •/. K-12 •/. K-5 •/. 6-8 % 9-12 1 correctly uses assigned processes, media, and techniques 99 98 100 96 2 demonstrates problem-solving process: brainstorms, develops and revises idea, produces final work, self-cvaluates 97 96 95 100 3 demonstrates originality, creativity, or inventiveness 99 98 98 100 4 documents process in sketchbook or journal entries, *p< 0048 between elementary-middle and p<0002 between elementary-high school 43 32 47 52 Table 4. Percentage of Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Attitude or Habits-of-Mind Criteria IV. Attitude or Habits-of-Mind Criteria % K-12 % K-5 % 6-8 9-12 1 is persistently on task 98 97 98 9? 2 respects materials, equipment, other students and their art 99 99 97 10C 3 shows commitment, pursues problem through revisions, p< 01 between elementary-high school 96 92 97 95 4 is responsive to teacher’s feedback 94 94 90 97 Table S. Percentage of Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Art Product Criteria. V. Art Product Criteria % K-12 •/. K-5 % 6-8 % 9-12 I demonstrates technical skill or craftspersonship, *p< 05 between elementary- middle and p< 0001 between elementary-high school 89 83 90 95 2. demonstrates planned, effective composition, *p< 01 between elementary-middle and p< 0002 between elementary-high school 89 87 97 97 3 work shows improvement from past products/performances 93 92 94 93 4 artwork includes relevant art historical influences 50 45 48 56 5. demonstrates assigned concepts, processes, elements, and/or principles 97 95 97 98 6. intent of artist is communicated 80 77 79 85 Table 6. Percentage of Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Formalist Aesthetic Criteria. VI.A. Formalist Criteria consider formal desien qualities as art content. % K-12 K-5 •/. 6-8 % 9-12 1. use of elements of art (line, shape, color, value, form, texture, space) 97 97 95 98 2. use of principles of design (balance, emphasis, contrast, rhythm, proportion, unity) 97 96 99 97 3 distorts, exaggerates for purpose of design, *p<007 between elementary-high and p< 02 between middle-high school 72 66 67 80 4 composition, *p< 05 between clcm cntary-m iddlc and p< 0008 bcuwx-n clcm cntary-high school 94 90 98 96 303 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 326. 3 Table 7. Percentage of Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Expressionist Aesthetic Criteria. VLB. Exnressionist Criteria express and/or evoke moods or feelings % K-12 % K-5 % 6-8 •/« 9-12 1. expresses ideas, attitudes, or feelings 90 91 84 92 2. evokes emotions or feelings in viewer 75 74 69 7? 3. communicates a point of view 73 68 71 7* 4 responds to personal, social, or spiritual contexts 63 62 60 6< Table 8. Percentage of Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Instrumental Aesthetic Criteria. VI.C. Instrumental or Pragmatic Criteria emphasize moral, social, or political functions ofart. % K-12 % K-5 % 6-8 % 9-12 1. reflects a society, culture, or group of people 57 62 61 49 2. shows personal interpretation of art history or culture 62 63 61 59 3. responds to environmental or political contexts 45 40 44 52 4. serves a functional purpose 42 36 47 45 Table 9. Percentage of Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Imitationalist Aesthetic Criteria. VI.D. Imitationalist or Mimetic Criteria represent the real or ideal. % K-12 % K-5 % 6-8 % 9-12 1. real or idealized representation of life, *p<02 between elementary-high school 70 66 64 79 2. shows realistic form (3-D), or illusion of form (2-D), *p<02 between elementary-middle and p<01 between elementary-high school 89 78 89 88 3. shows realistic texture (3-D), or illusion of texture (2-D), *p>.02 between elementary-high school 82 78 85 86 4 shows space (3-D), or illusion of depth (2-D), *p>.001 between elementary-high school and p<05 between elementary-middle 88 83 92 92 304 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 327. 4 Table 10. Percentage or Teachers who Think it is Important to Teach Specified Content. VII. What Do You Teach? % K-12 % K-5 % 6-8 % 9-12 1. use elements of art and/or principles of design 96 95 97 97 2. draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation, *p< 04 between elementary-middle and p< 0004 between elementary-high school 89 80 97 93 3. abstract or create non-objective art 84 83 82 87 4. communicate social, political, or personal messages 60 60 71 56 5. create functional art 57 56 62 54 6. express their feelings or attitudes 84 87 85 82 7. create art based upon a particular historical period, style, or culture, *p<005 between elementary-high school 73 81 71 68 Table 11. Percentage of Teachers who Indicated they Fit each Demographics Category. VIII. DemoeraDhics 1. number of art students taught 1-99 101-199 200-399 400-599 600+ % elementary K-5 3 5 25 52 15 % middle level 6-8 IS 25 25 20 14 % high school 9-12 23 61 13 2 1 2. Frequency of K-12 Teachers, n=254, Teaching each Grade Level Grade K I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 # 136 140 147 147 146 136 116 109 109 119 124 126 126 3. Years ofTeaching Experience K-12, n=254 number of years 1-5 6-10 11-20 21+ % of teachers 19 14 34 33 4. Percentage of K-12 Teachers, n=254, who attended staff development or college classes on assessment in the last two years. 77% 5. Percentage of K-12 Teachers, n=254, who attended staff development or college classes on art assessment in the last two years. 54% 305 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
  • 328. March 6,2000 DRAFT Rubric for Local Arts Assessment of Show-Me Standards Criteria Advanced Level 4 Proficient Level 3 Nearing Proficient Level 2 Novice Level 1 Fine Arts Product/Performance Parti Process The process through which an artwork evolves. Show-Me Standards: FA 1,0 1.1,0 1.3, G 1.5, G 2.1, G 2.2, G 2.5, G 3.1, G 3.2, G 3.3, G 3.4, G 3.6 4 independently expands upon assigned processes, media, and techniques 4 independently formulates problems and demonstrates problem-solving process: 1investigates, 2) develops and revises, 3) produces/performs, 4) reflects (with others if required) 4 demonstrates originality on a consistent basis 4 composes original works that reflect careful planning and are effective for desired purposes 4 improves, in a continuous, self-directed manner from past performances ✓ correctly applies assigned processes, media, and techniques ✓ identifies problems and demonstrates problem-solving process: 1) investigates, 2) develops and revises, 3) produces/performs, 4) reflects (with others if required) / demonstrates originality with prompting / composes original works that are well organized ✓ improves from past performances / - uses some assigned processes, media, and techniques / - demonstrates most steps of problem-solving process: 1)investigates, 2) develops and revises, 3) produces/performs, 4) reflects (with others if required) / • modifies ideas of others / - composes original works that reflect some planning / - improves minimally from past performances • as attempts to use signed processes, media, and techniques - demonstrates few steps of the problem-solving process: 1)investigates, 2) develops and revises, 3) produces/performs, 4) reflects (with others if required - copies ideas of others - composes works without planning -remains the same as past performances Fine Arts Product /Performance Part II Completed Work Terminal exhibition or performance that demonstrates knowledge and skills in the fine arts: dance, music, theater, and/or the visual arts. Show-Me Standards: FA I, FA 2, G 4.1, G 4.8 4 demonstrates high degree of technical skill, craftspersonship, and/or artistry 4 synthesizes relevant historical influence with student's personal interpretation in artwork 4 creates/recreates complex works that demonstrate assigned concepts, processes, elements, and/or principles 4 articulates clear, well thought- out intent of artist ✓ demonstrates technical skill, craftspersonship, and/or artistry ✓ demonstrates relevant historical influences, modified by student / creates/recreates works that demonstrate many assigned concepts, processes, elements, and/or principles / communicates intent of artist / • demonstrates developing technical skill, craftspersonship, and/or artistry / • restates relevant historical characteristics, copied instead of personalized / - creates/recreates work that demonstrate some assigned concepts, processes, elements and/or principles / - attempts to communicate the intent of artist •attempts to demonstrate technical skill, craftspersonship, and/or artistry - lacks relevant historical characteristics - creates/recreates work that attempt to demonstrate some assigned concepts, processes, elements and/or principles - does not communicate the intent of artist 8 Reproducedwithpermissionofthecopyrightowner.Furtherreproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.
  • 329. March 6.2000 DRAFT Rubric for Local Arts Assessment ofShow-MeStandards Criteria Advanced Level 4 Proficient Level 3 Nearing Proficient Level 2 Novice Level 1 Fine Arts History Records and analysis of the past as seen through works of art. Show-Mc Standards: FA S, G 1.6, G 1.7, G 1.9, G 2.4, G 4.1 4 identifies and categorizes art 4 compares, contrasts, and evaluates characteristics in historic artworks 4 Analyzes cultural context of historic artworks their influences on own artwork / identifies many artworks / compares and contrasts characteristics in historic artworks / explains cultural context of historic artworks and their relationship to own artwork ✓- identifies few artworks / - explains characteristics in historic artworks / - relates art from some historical periods, movements and/or cultures to own artwork - attempts to identify artworks -lists characteristics in historic artworks •attempts to relate historic artworks to own artwork Fine Arts Criticism Critical analysis ofartistic work based upon the elements and principles of the art form. Show-Me Standards: FA 2, FA 3, FA 4, G 1.5, G 1.6, G 1.9, G 2.4, G 4.1 4 uses precise art vocabulary to fluently describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate artworks created by: 1) self, 2) peers, and 3) artists of historical/cultural significance 4 analyzes connections among arts and other disciplines J uses relevant art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate artworks created by: 1) self, 2) peers, and 3) artists of historical/cultural significance / identifies connections among arts and other disciplines / - sometimes uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, or evaluate artworks created by: 1) self, 2) peers, and 3) artists of historical/cultural significance / - makes some connections among arts and other disciplines - rarely uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, or interpret artworks -attempts to make connections among arts and other disciplines Fine Arts Aesthetics The nature of art and it’s impact on an audience. Show-Me Standards: FA 3, G 1.6, G 2.3, G 2.4, G 4.1 4 formulates and defends complex perceptions of artwork 4 supports and defends others' responses to artwork / formulates detailed perceptions of artwork / compares and contrasts others' responses to artwork / - explains perceptions of artwork / - describes others’ responses to artwork -attempts to explain perceptions of the artwork -attempts to describe others' responses to artwork The following category refers to attitudes and behaviors conducive to success. They are to be encouraged but not assigned score points. Responsibility 4 isconsistentlyon-task / is usuallyon-task /- is frequentlyon-task -israrely on-task Show-Mc Standards 4 independently usesand / usesmaterialsandequipment ✓- frequently uses materials -rarelyusesmaterialsand G4.5, G4.6, G4.7 assists withmaterialsand appropriately andequipment appropriately equipmentappropriately equipment appropriately ✓- frequentlyrespectsstudents -rarelyrespectsstudentsand 4 consistentlyrespects students / usuallyrespectsstudentsand andtheirartistic theirartisticproducts/equipment andtheirartistic theirartistic products/equipment products/equipment products/equipment ✓collaborates, withassistance, /- works ingroups, with -workspoorlyingroups 4 collaborates as required as required assistance, as required Reproducedwithpermissionofthecopyrightowner.Furtherreproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.
  • 330. VITA Cheryl Venet was bom December 11, 1947, in Chicago, Illinois. After graduating from New Trier Township High School in Winnetka, Illinois (1965), she received the following degrees: B.F.A. in Art and Education from the University of Illinois at Urbana, Illinois (1969); M.S. in Education from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Illinois (1972); Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction, Art Education, from the University of Missouri-Columbia (2000). She has taught art in the Columbia, Missouri, Public Schools from 1975 to the present, and has also served as Coordinator of Art, K-12, since 1988. 308 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.