Assessment has always been a major factor at the Community College of Philadelphia, but recently it has received more attention. Most educators probably focus on conventional pen-and-pencil activities, such as multiple-choice tests or written essays when trying to assess student work, but there are some applied courses which use pens and pencils in different ways to assess student work.
The studio courses in the Art Department have for years integrated assessment procedures in their courses. It might seem that art is all about subjective assessment: the judgmental pronouncements of amateur and professional critics, but there exists a strong and long-lived tradition of educational assessment in the department. In order to expand the scope of the assessment discussion campus-wide and to increase the College’s awareness of how assessment principles may be actualized in practice, four faculty members in the Art Department, Jeffrey Reed, William Woods, Terry Peterson, and Karen Aumann, were interviewed. Each of them is a full-time faculty, but they differ in the courses which each they teach, from drawing and painting to graphic arts to design to ceramics, and in their length of tenure at the College. Despite these differences, their comments on assessment, gleaned in separate interviews, show a good deal of congruence. In order to give some form to these interviews, which were conducted on four separate occasions in November 2003, their comments on assessment are put in the context of some principles for assessing student learning published by the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE).
One principle is that assessment works best when programs have clear, explicitly stated purposes, and the purposes of the studio courses in the Art Department were mentioned by each teacher. Jeff Reed said, “Objectives for all the studio courses are pretty clear. [They] are established in several ways. One, and probably the primary objective, is to meet standards so the student can transfer with as much credit and as good a standing as possible.” Terry Peterson phrased this goal as an agreement “that we will deliver to four-year art colleges students who are well prepared to continue their academic career.” Karen Aumann put this goal into an informal sort of mission for the institution. “Community college is not the end point for our students—they must generate work that will get them into their next school so we cannot relax our standards. The final product is important.” Bill Woods mentioned that “We are always sensitive to the idea of what will make for a strong portfolio … for a successful transfer student.” Each instructor recognizes that one key purpose of the program is transfer.
However, this is not to say that preparation for transfer takes the place of educational goals intrinsic to art, and in their articulation of goals, the art instructors called attention to another AAHE principle of assessment, which is that learning be seen “as multidimensional, integrated, and revealed in performance over time.” Jeff Reed focused on this when he continued his explanation of the Art Department’s goals. “The other part of it would be our philosophy of supporting a strong foundation and in support of a strong foundation there is a tradition.” Terry Peterson elaborated on this when he mentioned that “Our program is a foundation program…Depending on where you go, you will inevitably begin with the understanding of structure, the relationship of one object to another, space, angles, perspective, and composition. These are the fundamental ‘mother’ art skills.” Even though the curriculum has clear criteria, some courses are open to students who are not art majors. Karen Aumann mentioned that she has to teach other students besides just art majors, and so these students with different majors probably will not have the background or skills that the art students have. “I’ve tried to meld both these groups together, but it asks a lot of the gen ed student.” She calls to mind the idea that performance is measured over time by highlighting the final project.
For years, the Art Department has conducted an individualized, end-of-semester evaluation for each art student, in which the student is asked to showcase about five works from each art course taken. The faculty member who had the student in class introduces him or her, and the faculty as a group comment on the student’s work. Each art student has about ten to fifteen minutes in this spotlight. While this group critique is important for the student, it also helps the faculty form and sharpen their own assessment standards.
Jeff Reed noted that the end-of-semester group crit “allows us as a faculty to see what the other teachers are doing and to establish a kind of standard. It’s very common to talk to other teachers about the kind of assignments they are doing.” Karen Aumann mentioned that “It allows us to see that students are getting the same information” and to see that “the quality and level of work even in different classes is similar…If we didn’t have that then people would be working in a lot of different directions.” Speaking from her own background in ceramics and three-dimensional art, she added “I learned a lot about myself watching these reviews.” In any group situation, there are bound to be differences, and Terry Peterson commented on this. “If there are any conflicts, we resolve them quickly, and more often than not find that we agree.” Bill Woods summarized the benefits of the process when he said, “You get to see how they [students] are growing. Are they evolving? Are they maturing as young talent? You get a whole picture of the student. I have always been very proud of this department, the art department, for having these end-of-the-semester evaluations even though at times they turn into kind of marathons and a little bit tiring. But it is a good thing, beneficial in a lot of ways both for the students and the faculty.”
The major crit is important for establishing assessment standards, but the process is continuous. Jeff Reed remarked that at meetings the faculty question the program. “Is this a path we want to continue or are there changes we want to make?” Bill Woods included that: “We have discussions about how we feel the programs are going or what we should be doing.” More than one art instructor mentioned visiting each other’s classes. This comfort showed in Terry Peterson’s comments. “Throughout the department, we are very close and we have a fairly strong sense of what each other is teaching.”
While assessment is a conscious and immediate concern of the art instructors, it is also an important part of the students’ education. As artists, the art majors need to shape their own aesthetic, and as students they need to incorporate values and standards which will enable them to succeed in the College’s program. The art instructors were asked how, and to what extent, the students integrated the department’s standards into their own forming aesthetic. Karen Aumann paraphrased some questions which students ask. “They always want to know ‘Is this what you want?’ I can present them with different options, but in the end, it must be their own work.” When discussing how students mature in their assessment of their work, Terry Peterson said, “In the beginning … they see things very subjectively … [but] the more classes they take in the program, the more they start to see the common thread that exists throughout, and this clarifies the types of decisions they really need to put into the project.” The weekly critiques, when homework is put on the wall for evaluation and discussion, are very important, and while not as intensive as the end-of-semester crit, they are held regularly and frequently. Jeff Reed commented, “I think it is very important for students to be part of that [regular critique] not only to be seen and critiqued by others but also for them to be able to critique other people’s work. It is not just a matter of learning etiquette, but of being thoughtful and understanding how something is put together.” Bill Woods summarized the importance of this process when he said, “Art students have to be accepting of criticism and they have to be able to articulate and explain when asked about something …referencing in particular an assignment or problem.”
The AAHE assessment principles recommend that “Assessment works best when it is ongoing, not episodic” and as the art students assimilate, or come to grips with assimilating, assessment standards, the continuous nature of the Art Department’s approach is evident. The teachers have a clear and unified concept of the purpose of and educational values in their program, and as the students create their art work, these standards are incorporated and demonstrated.
Reference
Principles of Good Practice for Assessing Student Learning. (1992) Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Available online: http://www.aahe.org/principl.htm 23 Jan 04
©Copyright 2004. Contact author for permission
Maintained by Jay Howard,Apr 2004