Upload
izzajalil
View
618
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9" black and vtfiite photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ART TEACHERS’ OPINIONS OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
A dissertation presented to
the Faculty o f the Graduate School University of Missouri-Columbia
In Partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor o f Philosophy
byCHERYL VENET
Dr. Larry Kantner, Dissertation Supervisor
MAY 2000
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number 9974694
Copyright 2000 by Venet, Cheryl Lynn
All rights reserved.
UMIUMI Microform9974694
Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
©copyright by Cheryl Venet 2000
All Rights Reserved
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The undersigned, appointed by the Dean o f the Graduate School, have examined the dissertation entitled
ART TEACHERS’ OPINIONS OF ART ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
presented by Cheryl Venet
a candidate for the degree o f Doctor o f Philosophy
and hereby certify that in their opinion it is worthy of acceptance
-----------
6 - /
/ -iS *
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To Missouri art educators for sharing their time and experiences with art
assessment which made this research study possible.
To Dr. Larry Kantner, my advisor and dissertation supervisor, for encouraging me
to complete this degree before and after a IS year hiatus. Through his professional
reputation and friendships, I was able to meet and work with national experts in art
assessment. He coached me toward success with skill, kindness, and support.
To Dr. Adrienne Walker Hoard, for her friendship, encouragement, knowledge o f
aesthetics, and for broadening my perspectives by looking through multicultural lenses.
To Dr. Lloyd Barrow, for sharing his knowledge of survey methodology, leading
me toward my goals though succinct and probing questions, and for responding
thoughtfully to all drafts o f work-in-progress.
To Frank Stack, for being my mentor and artistic role model for the past twenty
years during which he used his time and expertise to help me improve my paintings.
To Dr. Wendy Sims, for her attention to detail, insightful questions, and for
guiding me toward receiving a dissertation grant which helped fund this study.
To my fellow doctoral students who, along with Dr. Kantner, provided a forum for
discussing issues and stimulating my thoughts about art education.
To my mother and deceased father, Dianne and Harry Venet, for raising me to ask
questions and find answers, and for their unwavering belief in my abilities.
To my siblings, Barbara Horler (who showed me that you can get a Ph.D. while
working more than full-time), Judi Phelps, and Allen Venet for the their love and support.
To my children, Samantha Heisler Myers and Kimberly Heisler, for their constant
love, understanding, encouragement, and faith in me and to whom I dedicate this work.
ii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ART TEACHER’S OPINIONS OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Cheryl Venet
Dr. Larry Kantner, Dissertation Supervisor
ABSTRACT
The arts are a basic part o f contemporary education (U.S. Department of
Education, 1998; National Assessment o f Educational Progress, 1996). Like teachers in
the core subjects o f language arts, mathematics, science, and social sciences, arts
practitioners established expectations for student knowledge and production/performance
through national and state standards (Higgins, 1989; U.S. Department of Education, 1991;
National Standards for Arts Education, 1994; Missouri State Board of Education, 1996).
To determine whether standards increase student achievement - as intended - student
knowledge and performance must be assessed. As a consequence of arts’ inclusion in
basic education, its practitioners must develop, implement, and publicly report the results
of art achievement. States can assess their standards through multiple choice/essay tests,
performance tasks, and/or portfolios.
In Missouri, without a mandatory textbook or state curriculum, there exists great
diversity among schools regarding what students are taught in art classes. Therefore,
standards can be assessed by creating a generic rubric which can be adapted to a wide
variety o f art products/assignments. Teachers, trained as judges, would use the rubric’s
criteria and levels o f achievement to score student portfolios. Scores obtained through this
assessment could be used to: monitor student growth, provide teachers with feedback for
iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
improving instruction, and inform stakeholders (parents, administrators, the public) about
student achievement (Armstrong, 1994; Beattie, 1997; Eisner, 1996).
The purpose o f this study was to provide a model for school districts or states to
use when designing large-scale, authentic assessments. The research problem was to
determine which criteria should be included on a Missouri art assessment rubric. One
question investigated whether there should be different rubrics for elementary, middle, and
high school grade levels. Another, proposed four sets o f aesthetic criteria representing the
aesthetic theories of Formalism, Expressionism, Instrumentalism, and Imitationalism.
Significant differences in opinions among teachers of different grade levels suggested the
use of multiple rubrics. Significant differences among aesthetic theory criteria indicated
that each could be used interchangeably depending upon the project or artist’s intent.
To determine which component criteria and descriptors should be included in the
questionnaire, a search was made o f the related literature, experts in the field provided
feedback, and teachers offered input through focus groups held at a Missouri Art
Education Association Conference.
Using survey methodology, 382 (19% o f population) Missouri art teachers were
asked to respond to a list o f criteria. For each criterion statement, teachers indicated (on a
5-point Likert scale) the degree to which they felt it was important for assessment.
The methodology consisted of the development and mailing o f a questionnaire to
a random sample o f Missouri art teachers. As a follow-up, a second cover letter and
survey were mailed to non-respondents, then a letter was faxed to building principals, and
finally, phone calls were made to a sample o f non-respondents. A total o f 78% of teachers
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
in the sample responded.
Descriptive statistics, ANOVA, Tukey’s Post Hoc Comparisons, and Contrasts
were computed for each criterion. Written teacher comments were tallied and used to
provide a deeper understanding o f survey responses.
This study found that Missouri art teachers agreed upon a list o f criteria for
inclusion in a state art assessment rubric. The conclusions follow, presented by survey
category.
Greater than 70% o f art teachers (the cut off for recommending inclusion on a
state rubric) indicated that it was important to include the following Responding to Art
criteria on a state rubric: 1) explains perceptions o f artwork; 2) identifies connections
among arts and with other subjects; 3) relates art from historical periods, movements
and/or cultures to own work; 4) uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and
evaluate artworks; and 5) student self-evaluates.
The Creating or Process criteria recommended for the rubric were: I) correctly
uses assigned processes, media, and techniques; 2) demonstrates problem-solving process;
and 3) demonstrates originality, creativity, or inventiveness.
All Attitude or Habits-of-Mind criteria were included: 1) is persistently on task; 2)
respects materials, equipment, other students, and their art; 3) shows commitment; and 4)
is responsive to teacher’s feedback.
The Art Product criteria recommended for the state rubric were: 1) demonstrates
skill or craftspersonship, 2) demonstrates planned, effective composition; 3) work shows
improvement from past products; 4) demonstrates assigned concepts, processes, elements
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and/or principles; and S) intent of artist is communicated.
The four aesthetic theory scales were significantly different at the p< 0001 level.
Under Aesthetic criteria, none of the Instrumentalism criteria were thought to be
important by 70% o f responding teachers.
All Formalism criteria were deemed to be important: 1) use o f elements o f art; 2)
use o f principles o f design; 3) distorts, exaggerates for purpose o f design; and 4)
composition.
Three Expressionist criteria were included: 1) expresses ideas, attitudes, or
feelings; 2) evokes emotions or feelings in viewer; and 3) communicates a point o f view.
All Imitationalist criteria were believed to be important for inclusion on a state
rubric: 1) real or idealized representation o f life; 2) shows realistic form (3-D)
or illusion o f form (2-D); 3) shows realistic texture (3-D) or the illusion o f texture (2-D);
and 4) shows space (3-D), or the illusion of depth (2-D).
The results were used by the Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task Force to
develop a draft o f an interdisciplinaiy arts rubric for teachers to use when conducting local
assessment o f the state education standards.
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Frequency o f Grade Levels Currently Taught by Art Teachers in Sample.......... 117
2. Years o f Teaching Experience for Art Teachers in the Sample............................. 118
3. Number o f Art Students Taught in a Year by Grade Level.................................. 119
4. Products Considered Important for Teachers to Assess....................................... 122
5. Additional Products Teachers Assess Comments.................................................. 123
6. What is included in Student Portfolios Comments.................................................125
7. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for “Responding” Criteria........................................ 127
8. Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to AssessStudent Response Criteria....................................................................................... 129
9. Responding to Art Criteria Comments....................................................................1283010. Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess
Process Criteria........................................................................................................ 132
11. Table Creating or Process Criteria Comments....................................................... 133
12. Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to AssessAttitude or Habits of Mind Criteria........................................................................135
13. Attitude or Habits of Mind Comments....................................................................136
14. Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to AssessArt Product Criteria................................................................................................. 138
15. Art Product Criteria Comments...............................................................................139
16. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for all “Aesthetic” Criteria....................................... 141
17. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Aesthetic M eans...................... 142
vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for Aesthetics Subcategories:Formalist, Expressionist, Instrumental, and Imitationalist Criteria........................144
19. Contrasts for Aesthetics Subcategories: Formalist, Expressionist,Instrumental, and Imitationalist Criteria....................................................................145
20. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Formalist Aesthetic Criteria.................................. 146
21. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to AssessFormalist Aesthetic Criteria....................................................................................... 147
22. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to AssessExpressionist Aesthetic Criteria.................................................................................149
23. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Instrumental/Pragmatic Aesthetic Criteria...........150
24. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to AssessInstrumental or Pragmatic Aesthetic Criteria............................................................151
25. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Imitationalist o r Mimetic Aesthetic Criteria.........152
26. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to AssessImitationalist or Mimetic Aesthetic Criteria..............................................................154
27. Aesthetic Criteria Comments.......................................................................................156
28. Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to TeachSpecific Content...........................................................................................................159
29. “What do you Teach?” Comments............................................................................. 161
30. Assessment Criteria not Included in this Survey Comments...................................162
31. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the Mean o f Formalist Criteria, UsesElements/Principles, and Abstracts/Non-Objective................................................ 164
32. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Expressionist Criteria and TeachingStudents to Express Feelings/Attitudes....................................................................165
33. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Instrumentalism, “Create Functional Art”and “Communicate Social, Political, or Personal Messages...................................166
34. Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Imitationalism andDraw/Paint/Sculpt/Print Realistically from Observation......................................... 167
viii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: II,RoughDrafts................................................................................................................ 204
36. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: II, Rough Drafts................ 205
37. Contrast for Dependent Variable: II , R ough...........................................................206
39. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 12, FinalProduct......................................................................................................................... 207
39. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: 12, Final Product..............208
40. Contrast for Dependent Variable: 12, Final Product................................................ 209
41. General Linear Models Procedure for Dependent Variable: 14, Art Criticism ... 210
42. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: 14, Art Criticism................. 211
43. Contrast for Dependent Variable: 14, Art Criticism................................................ 212
44. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 15, ArtHistorical Writing....................................................................................................... 213
45. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: 15, Art HistoricalW riting........................................................................................................................ 214
46. Contrast for Dependent Variable: 15, Art Historical W riting.................................215
47. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 17,Portfolio......................................................................................................................216
48. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for Variable: 17,Portfolio........................217
49. Contrast for Dependent Variable: 17, Portfolio........................................................218
50. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 114,Uses Vocabulary....................................................................................................... 219
51. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: 114, Uses Vocabulary........220
52. Contrast for Dependent Variable: 114, Uses Vocabulary........................................ 221
53. General Linear Models Procedure for Dependent Variable: 115, Self-Evaluate...222
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54. Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: 115, Self-Evaluate...............223
55. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: 115, Self-Evaluate.............................................224
56. General Linear Models Procedure for Dependent Variable: III4,Sketchbook/Journal................................................................................................... 225
57. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: III4 ,Sketchbook/Journal................................................................................................... 226
58. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: III4, Sketchbook/Journal................................ 227
59. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: IV3,Shows Commitment................................................................................................... 228
60. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: IV3, ShowsCommitment............................................................................................................... 229
61. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: IV3, Shows Commitment.,.............................230
62. General Linear Models Procedure Dependent Variable: VI,Craftspersonship.........................................................................................................231
63. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VI,Craftspersonship.........232
64. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VI,Craftspersonship........................................233
65. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: V2,Plans Composition..................................................................................................... 234
66. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: V2, PlansComposition............................................................................................................... 235
67. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: V2, Plans Composition................................... 236
68. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VII2,Realism from Observation......................................................................................... 237
69. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VTI2, Realism fromObservation................................................................................................................ 238
70. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VII2, Realism from Observation....................239
x
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VII7,Historical Style................................................................. 240
72. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VIT7, Historical Style........ 241
73. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VIT7, Historical Style.......................................242
74. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: V,Category o f Art Product Criteria...............................................................................243
75. Tukey’s Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: V, Category o f ArtProduct Criteria.......................................................................................................... 244
75. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: V, Category o f Art Product Criteria.............. 245
77. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VI,Category o f Aesthetic Criteria................................................................................... 246
78. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VI, Category o fAesthetic Criteria........................................................................................................247
79. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VI, Category o f Aesthetic Criteria................. 248
80. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: AestheticSubcategory of Formalism.........................................................................................249
81. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: AestheticSubcategory o f Formalism.........................................................................................250
82. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: Aesthetic Subcategory of Formalism..............251
83. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: AestheticSubcategory o f Imitationalism................................................................................... 252
84. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: AestheticSubcategory o f Imitationalism................................................................................... 253
85. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: Aesthetic Subcategory ofImitationalism............................................................................................................. 254
86. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VTF3,Abstracts..................................................................................................................... 255
87. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VIF3, Abstracts.................256xi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VIF3, Abstracts.................................................257
89. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VTF4,Composition.................................................................................................................258
90. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VIF4, Composition........... 259
91. Dependent Variable: VTF4, Composition...................................................................260
92. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VIM1,Realism..........................................................................................................................261
93. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VIM1, Realism..................262
94. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VIM1, Realism..................................................263
95. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable:VIM2, Shows Realistic Form..................................................................................... 264
96. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VTM2, Shows RealisticForm................................................................................................... 265
97. Table for Dependent Variable: VIM2, Shows Realistic Form................................266
98. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VTM3,Shows Realistic Texture.............................................................................................267
99. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VIM3, Shows RealisticTexture..........................................................................................................................268
100. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VTM3, Shows Realistic Texture..................... 269
101. General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable.VTM4, Shows Realistic Space.................................................................................... 270
102. Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VIM4, ShowsRealistic Space............................................................................................................. 271
103. Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VTM4, Shows Realistic Space....................... 272
104. Cronbach Coefficient Alpha Correlation Analysis.................................................... 273
xii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
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.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..........................................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................xiii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1
Purpose o f Study...............................................................................................5
Importance of the Study....................................................................................6
Statement of the Problem..................................................................................7
Study Design..................................................................................................... 7
Definition of Terms........................................................................................... 8
Assumptions of the Study................................................................................10
Delimitations of the Study...............................................................................11
Summary........................................................................................................... 12
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE........................................................... 13
Introduction......................................................................................................13
Functions o f Assessment.................................................................................13
History o f Arts Testing.................................................................................... 15
Standardized Achievement Tests...................................................................21
Criterion-Referenced Multiple Choice Tests................................................25
xiv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Alternative Forms o f Assessment................................................................... 27
Performance-Based Assessment.....................................................................29
Authentic Assessment..................................................................................... 30
Portfolio Assessment........................................................................................33
Performance Assessment Criteria.................................................................. 36
Aesthetics......................................................................................................... 47
Definition of Aesthetics...................................................................................47
Philosophy o f Aesthetics.................................................................................48
Aesthetic Theories o f Art................................................................................50
Imitational or Mimetic Theory...........................................................52
Expressionist Theory.......................................................................... 54
Formalist Theory.................................................................................56
Pragmatic or Instrumental Theory..................................................... 58
Open Theory........................................................................................60
Institutional Theory............................................................................ 62
Postmodern Theory............................................................................ 64
Aesthetic Education in Art Education............................................................66
Aesthetic Theories and Student Art Production........................................... 77
Rationale for this Study Based upon Literature Review............................. 81
Summary............................................................................................................85
3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES.......................................................................87
Introduction...................................................................................................... 87
xv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Questions.......................................................................................... 89
Relationship to the Literature..........................................................................92
How will this Study Answer Research Questions?...................................... 95
Subjects............................................................................................................. 97
The Instrument.................................................................................................. 99
Themes o f Questionnaire Categories.......................................................... 101
Reliability and Validity................................................................................. 105
Administration o f the Survey.......................................................................107
Coding o f Surveys...........................................................................................108
Optimizing Return Rate..................................................................................108
Data Analysis.................................................................................................110
4. RESULTS.............................................................................................................113
Introduction................................................................................................... 113
Demographic Variables................................................................................ 115
What do Art Teachers Assess?.................................................................... 120
Portfolio Assessment.................................................................................... 123
Responding Criteria........................................................................................ 126
Creating or Process Criteria.........................................................................131
Attitude or Habits-of-Mind Criteria............................................................134
Art Product Criteria......................................................................................136
Aesthetics Criteria.........................................................................................139
Formalist Criteria............................................................................. 145
xvi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Expressionist Criteria........................................................................ 148
Instrumental Criteria......................................................................... 149
Imitationalist Criteria........................................................................ 151
What do You Teach?.....................................................................................157
Relationship Between Aesthetics and Instruction.......................................163
Sample o f Non-Respondents........................................................................ 167
Summary..........................................................................................................169
5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................... 173
Introduction.................................................................................................... 173
Summary..........................................................................................................176
Discussion of Results.....................................................................................187
Conclusions..................................................................................................... 190
Recommendations.......................................................................................... 195
Implications.................................................................................................... 198
APPENDIX............................................................................................................................. 203
Tables........................................................................................................................... 204
REFERENCE LIST....................................................................................................274
Questionnaire, A rt Assessment Survey..................................................................... 295
Initial and Follow-up Cover Letters.........................................................................299
Results Sent to Participants........................................................................................302
Draft Missouri Art Assessment Rubric.................................................................... 306VITA .........................................................................................................................................................................................3 0 8
xvii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER ONE
Assessment should look directly at skills and principles essential to thinking in the arts, such as craftsmanship, originality, willingness to pursue a problem in depth, development o f work over time, ability to work independently and in a group, ability to perceive qualities in a work, and ability to think critically about one’s work. The assessment should reflect the rigorous standards routinely applied to the professions in the arts as valid fields o f intellectual endeavor.(Rayala, 1995, p. 176)
Introduction
The arts are a basic part of contemporary education (U.S. Department of
Education, 1998; National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1996). Like teachers in
the core subjects o f language arts, mathematics, science, and social sciences, arts
practitioners established expectations for student knowledge and production/performance
through national and state standards (Higgins, 1989; U.S. Department of Education, 1991;
National Standards for Arts Education, 1994; Missouri State Board of Education, 1996).
To determine whether standards increase student achievement - as intended - student
knowledge and performance must be assessed. As a consequence o f arts’ inclusion in
basic education, its practitioners must develop, implement, and publicly report the results
of art achievement.
In the absence o f a national or state curriculum in the visual arts, the broadly-
stated standards are translated into practice by art teachers and/or school districts. Given
the diverse interpretations o f standards which are taught in art classrooms, how can the
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
standards be assessed? One answer is that if there are criteria that describe quality in art
processes and products, then it would be possible to use them to create a rubric that
transcends individual teachers’s assignments. In addition to a set o f core criteria that
could be applied to all student artwork, are there some criteria that could selectively be
applied to works based upon the subject matter and intent o f the artist? If so, then
aesthetic theories o f art may provide the lenses or windows for framing different sets o f
content-related criteria. Criteria and descriptors o f quality production/performance,
assembled into a scoring rubric, could be used by students when creating art, and by
teachers and/or external moderators when assessing student artwork. Scores obtained
through this assessment could be used to: monitor student growth, provide teachers
feedback for improving instruction, and inform stakeholders (parents, administrators, the
public) about student achievement. The subject o f this study is the search for such criteria
and for teachers’ subsequent validation o f the criteria as important enough to be
considered for large-scale assessment.
In response to the request of the United States Congress for a study on the state o f
the arts, the National Endowment for the Arts published Toward Civilization (1987)
which advocated full inclusion of the arts in American education. The report recommends
that state education agencies and local school districts make arts education part o f the
basic school curriculum, K-12, and determine an essential body of content that all students
should know. Toward C ivilization specified that each district should implement a
comprehensive testing program to measure student achievement in the arts, using both
qualitative and quantitative measures, and addressing creation, performance, history,
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
critical analysis, and the place of the arts in society. State education agencies were asked
to develop comparative evaluation procedures based upon state arts education goals for
each district and school arts program. This landmark document set the stage for high-
stakes assessment in the arts (Finlayson, 1988; Rudner & Boston, 1994).
When Am erica 2000: An Education Strategy (U.S. Department of Education,
1991) was amended to include the arts, school districts and state agencies began to search
for ways to document student achievement in the arts (Sabol, 1994). This task continues.
From survey results, Peeno (1997) reported diversity among states in arts evaluation
methods, including essay, multiple-choice, short answer, embedded, performance, and
portfolio assessment. Six states were already assessing the arts; another eight were
planning to do so; 18 had not decided; and 18 had no plans to test in the arts. Vermont,
Utah, California, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, while not administering state-wide tests, have
produced guidelines for teachers to assess achievement o f state standards in their
classrooms (Vermont Arts Council, 1995; Stubbs, 1985; Taylor 1991; Mitchell, 1993;
Rayala, 1995; Higgins, 1989).
Zimmerman (1999) comments that authentic assessments in which students are
asked to use knowledge and skills to solve out-of-school realistic problems is becoming
common. She states that “in the near future, most art teachers as well as art education
researchers probably will be involved in some aspect o f large-scale arts assessment” (p.
45). Traditionally, large scale assessments have been multiple-choice tests because they
are familiar, report scores which are easily ranked, and cost less than alternative types o f
assessment. The trend across content areas is currently away from standardized tests and
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
toward performance-based, authentic instruments (Wiggins, 1989; Maeroff, 1991). Kohn,
in an interview with O’Neil and Tell (1999), explains the rationale for a trend to conduct
assessment embedded in classroom instruction:
Learning doesn’t take place at a district or a state level; it takes place in a classroom... a teacher-designed - and perhaps externally validated - assessment doesn’t meet only the teacher’s needs. If it’s done right, it also meets the needs o f parents and citizens to make sure that the teachers and schools are doing a decent job. (p.21)
External validation involves assessment by a panel o f trained judges using common
criteria. (Gaston, 1977; Weate, 1999). These criteria, when organized with descriptors
that indicate the differences among various levels o f success or quality, are called rubrics
(Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). With such an instrument, raters are able to score a variety of
teacher-developed assessments. An advantage o f this approach is its flexibility in
assessing artwork created in the diverse cultural contexts found in contemporary life
(Broughton, 1999). A disadvantage is that assessments which require judges are labor
intensive, costing more than machine-scored tests (Wiggins, 1998).
The state o f Missouri is in the process o f developing arts assessment with a limited
budget. Therefore, one component will be a multiple-choice exam in which students
respond in writing to images presented in videotape format (Peeno, 1999). Because the
selected-response format limits students’ critical and/or creative responses, this test will
focus on students’ knowledge o f art vocabulary. Art production, aesthetics, and in-depth
responses regarding historical/cultural contexts o f art will not be assessed through this
state-wide test. Instead, the state will support teachers’ local scoring o f these art
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
disciplines using a common rubric. Matrix sampling o f scored work will be used to
communicate degrees o f achievement statewide. The rubric should represent, not only the
state standards which are being addressed, but also the teachers’ practice and
understanding o f what is important in assessing students’ art products.
The Purpose o f the Study
Assessments in education influence curriculum and instruction. Therefore, state
wide assessment has far-reaching power to change education. One way to improve the
quality of instruction and student achievement is to design an assessment which allows
students to perform or produce tasks that simulate professional practice. In the arts, this
practice is best demonstrated through portfolio assessment. A generic rubric, aligned with
state standards, provides the framework from which to score diverse student artworks and
writings included in portfolios.
The purpose o f this study is to provide a rubric development model for states or
school districts to use when designing large-scale portfolio assessments. To determine
which component criteria and descriptors should be included in the instrument, a search
was made of the related literature, experts in the field were asked to provide feedback, and
teachers were asked to provide input during a state art association meeting.
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Importance o f the Study
The study will serve as a model which can be adapted by states or school districts
as they begin to discuss achievement and plan ways to document it. Component parts of
the survey might be changed to include items o f regional or cultural significance.
Discussions o f the model could generate local standards of quality. The study is intended
to stimulate a process in which art teachers, the experts in analyzing quality in student
artworks, determine which criteria should be valued highly enough to become
expectations for all students.
In the state o f Missouri, the study results will help determine which criteria should
be included in a state rubric. The rubric will be given to art teachers to help them evaluate
their students’ achievement o f state art standards. The specific knowledge standards for
the arts are:
In Fine Arts, students in M issouri public schools w ill acquire a so lidfoundation which includes knowledge o f1) process and techniques for the production, exhibition or performance of
one or more o f the visual or performed arts;2) the principles and elements o f different art forms;3) the vocabulary to explain perceptions about and evaluations o f works in
dance, music, theater, and visual arts;4) interrelationships o f visual and performing arts and the relationships o f
the arts to other disciplines;5) visual and performing arts in historical and cultural contexts. (Show-MeStandards, 1996, p. 1)
These standards require high levels of thinking and creating which can be judged through
portfolio assessment. The rubric will function as an operational definition o f the
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
standards, making the general more specific, and therefore o f greater practical use. It is
assumed that opinions reflected by the random sample of art teachers should generalize to
others in the population.
The Statement o f the Problem
The problem of this study is to identify criteria for a portfolio assessment rubric
that would assess critical and creative thinking, problem-solving, and production in the
visual arts. The study was designed to gather art teachers’ opinions o f criteria that could
be used when assessing students’ art achievement o f Missouri’s art standards.
Study Design
The study is quantitative. A survey will be mailed to 382, randomly-selected
Missouri art teachers. A questionnaire was developed using a Likert, five-point scale. It
was used to obtain art teachers opinions about the relative importance o f various criteria
when assessing student art products. Categories on the questionnaire relate to
demographic information and various aspects o f assessment. They are: Demographics,
What do you Teach?, Responding to Art, What do you assess?, Creating or Process
Criteria, Attitude or Habits-of-Mind Criteria, Art Product Criteria, and Aesthetic
Approach Criteria.
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Definition o f Terms
In the discussion o f related literature many terms will be used that have specific
meanings in the fields of assessment and aesthetics. These terms are defined below:
Evaluation and Assessment are synonymous (Eisner, 1996, New W ebster’s dictionary o f
the English Language, 1992, Charles, 1998). Both are processes that obtain
information through measuring, testing, or judging for the purpose of determining
value. Both use quantitative and qualitative sources o f data.
Formative Evaluation and Summative Evaluation have become accepted descriptions for
mid-progress versus final evaluation (Scriven, 1981).
Authentic Assessment implies the evaluation of complex tasks in an out-of-school context,
during which students face challenging, “il-structured” (no single known solution)
problems (Wiggins, 1989).
Test refers to a quantitative evaluation/assessment for purposes o f reporting or
comparison.
Standardized Tests, typically multiple- or cued- choice, are accompanied by norms that
permit comparison of individuals (Charles, 1998).
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Selected-Choice. Cued-Choice. or Multiple-Choice test items ask students to choose the
one correct answer from a list of four or five possible answers.
Criterion-Referenced tests compare a student’s performance “to a whole repertoire of
behaviors, which are, in turn, referenced to the content and skills o f a discipline”
rather than to the performance of other students (Beattie, 1997, p. 4).
Standards are “quantifying thresholds of what is adequate for some purpose established by
authority, custom, or consensus“ (Sadler, 1987, p. 192).
Content Standards specify exit learning criteria.
Achievement Standards “specify achievement levels pertaining to exit learning criteria”
(Beattie, 1997, p.4).
External Assessment describes a situation where the observer is not a normal part o f the
situation, and/or the assessment instrument (usually a test) was constructed by
persons outside o f the school district.
Internal Assessments use locally developed instruments and are usually administered by
the teacher as part o f instruction or subsequent to it (Armstrong, 1994).
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Portfolio assessment is a “purposeful collection o f student work that tells the story o f the
student’s efforts, progress, or achievement in (a) given area(s)” (Beattie, 1997, p.
15).
Aesthetics is a group o f concepts for understanding the nature of art (Lankford, 1992).
Within the field o f aesthetics, theories explain phenomena in different ways. Major
aesthetic theories relevant to this research project are Imitationalism/Mimeticism,
Expressionism, Formalism, and Pragmatism/Instrumentalism.
Imitationalism or Mimeticism proposes that an artifact is art if it copies the real or
imagined world.
Expressionism considers works that either evoke or represent emotions to be art.
Formalism looks for meaning solely from the analysis o f the object’s formal qualities such
as line, shape, or color.
Pragmaticism or Instrumentalism views art in terms o f it’s social function in a culture.
Assumptions o f the Study
This study is based upon the following assumptions:
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1) The respondents in the sample are representative o f Missouri art teachers.
2) The respondents of the sample provided, to the best o f their ability, accurate
information to the questions posed.
3) The art teachers represented in the sample assess their student’s work.
4) The art teachers represented in the sample understand the terminology used in the
instrument.
5) The Art Assessment Survey, developed for this study, measures opinions about the
importance of using specific assessment criteria to evaluate student art production.
6) The questionnaires were completed by Missouri art teachers.
Delimitations o f the Study
The results o f this study were interpreted in relationship to the following
delimitations:
1) The findings are subject to sampling errors.
2) The findings o f this study generalize only to Missouri art teachers.
3) Art teachers’ names provided by the Missouri Department o f Elementary and
Secondary Education, listed teachers from the previous year, therefore the sample
contained names o f teachers who have moved or retired.
4) Missouri has no statewide art textbook or curriculum, therefore teachers may have
different understandings o f terms used in the survey.
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5) The sample of 382 is 19% of the population o f 2030 art teachers in the state. Most
dissertations reviewed used a sample o f 15%-20% o f similar-sized populations. Postage
and printing costs made it necessary to limit the sample size.
6) Some data are not reported in this study. Since the problem was to identify criteria for
a state rubric, the decision was made to report only the percentage o f teachers who
favored inclusion o f each item. Information on the percentage o f teachers who answered
“no opinion”, “little importance”, or “no importance” for each item is available from the
researcher.
Summary
Chapter One included the importance o f the study, the statement o f the problem,
definition o f terms, assumptions and delimitations o f the study. Chapter Two presents a
review of literature related to the study. Chapter Three contains a description of the
procedures and methods used in the study. Chapter Four provides an analysis of the data
gathered in the study. Chapter Five reviews and discusses conclusions, recommendations
for further study, and implications o f the results.
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER TWO
Review o f Related Literature
Introduction
The scaffold o f theory that supports this study is presented in this chapter. The
topics covered in the literature review are: 1) functions o f assessment, 2) history o f arts
testing, 3) standardized achievement tests, 4) criterion-referenced multiple-choice tests, 5)
alternative assessment, 6) performance-based assessment, 7) authentic assessment, 8)
portfolio assessment, 9) performance assessment criteria, 10) aesthetics, 11) aesthetics as
a philosophy o f art, 12) aesthetic education, 13) aesthetic theories o f art, 14) aesthetic
theories as criteria for assessment.
Functions o f Assessment
Thirteen assessment roles and the function o f each are presented by Boston and
Rudner (1994) in the Visual Arts Education Reform Handbook. Those directed toward
student learning are listed as numbers 1-6. Those directed toward the evaluation,
maintenance, and improvement o f art programs are numbered 7-13.
1) Criticism (informing students about the quality o f a performance)
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2) Grading (informing students, parents, and others about achievement levels)3) Qualification (to decide which students may enter or leave a course or
program)4) Placement (to identify the type or ability level most suitable for
students)5) Prediction (to help predict success or failure based upon past or current
achievement)6) Diagnosis (to identify students... particular learning attributes)7) Didactic Feedback ( to provide... feedback concerning ...teaching process)8) Communication (to convey information about the goals of educational
programs)9) Accountability (to provide information regarding the extent to which
goals for educational programs have been achieved)10) Representation (to operationalize...the general or abstract goals o f art
education)11) Implementation (to provide information about the extent to which the arts
program is being implemented)12) Curriculum Maintenance (to ensure that certain elements of the arts
program continue to be included)13) Innovation (to encourage the introduction o f new...elements into the
arts curriculum), (p. 7)
Armstrong (1994) discusses three basic reasons for assessment o f student learning: 1) it is
educationally sound; 2) required by some states or school districts; and 3) it is an
opportunity to inform others about art education (p.5). Eisner (1994) lists five functions
o f assessment: 1) educational temperature-taking (measuring the educational health o f the
nation); 2) “gatekeeping” (selecting the most accomplished to receive further schooling);
3) determining if course objectives have been attained; 4) providing feedback to teachers
on the quality o f their work; and 5) providing feedback on the quality of programs (pp.
201- 202) .
Depending upon their functions and contexts, various assessments gather different
kinds o f data. Generally, the types fall into quantitative and qualitative categories. The
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
typical quantitative test is a standardized achievement test, while qualitative assessments
occur informally during instruction, through observation, interviews, portfolio, and
production analyzes.
History o f Arts Testing
Beattie (1998) reviewed the history o f arts testing noting its origins in the pre-Qin
Dynasty o f China. Socrates tested thinking through his method o f orally examining
students (Beattie, 1998; Eaton, 1994). The first arts tests probably occurred in the middle
ages when artists and musicians had to pass exams to gain admittance to guilds (Zerull,
1990).
Evaluation and assessment were embedded in the scientific tradition dating to the
Enlightenment in Europe and the work o f Descartes and Newton. After 1850, scientific
study of human behavior and the child study movement emerged in Germany, while in
England, Galton developed statistics for describing mental performance (Eisner, 1994).
The first “draw a man” test dates to Schuyten (1901-1907). Correlations were
found between drawing ability and intelligence by Ivanof in 1909 (Clark, Zimmerman, &
Zurmuehlen, 1987).
Scientific inquiry was based upon the search for variables that could be measured,
predicted, and control outcomes. The testing movement in America adopted a scientific
approach. Before 1910, the use of surveys, descriptive studies, and psychometric tests
predominated in testing theory.
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
From 1913-1929, the efficiency movement, based upon Taylor’s time and motions
studies (a model for improving the productivity o f factory workers) led a drive for
standardized testing (Eisner; 1994; Clark, Zimmerman, & Zurmuehlen, 1987) and the era
of quantitative testing began. Thorndike, developed the first standardized test in 1913,
and invented “connectionism”, learning through reinforcement o f stimulus response
(Castiglione, 1966). In 1926, Thorndike used inter-rater judging for the first time;
Whipple used tests to differentiate gifted from other students; and Terman published the
first Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test. The M anuel Test, developed in, 1919, was used to
discover special ability in drawing using psychological traits. Between 1919 and 1942,
fifteen art tests were developed including the M eier-Seashore Art Judgment Test (Clark,
Zimmerman, & Zurmuehlen, 1987).
During the early twentieth century drawing assessment was not popular due to the
influence o f Dewey. In 1916, he was influenced by Darwin’s theory of the nature o f
human organisms. In Dewey’s child-centered approach, as the human sought equilibrium
through problem-solving, the mind grew. For him, the child could grow best when he had
the ability to frame and pursue his own purposes. This philosophy, underlying the
Progressive Education movement in the 1920's-50's, viewed art as a means for children’s
self-expression.
In 1926, Goodenough published the Draw a M an Test. Tests o f Fundamental
Abilities o f Visual Art, by Lewemz, in 1927, included production, aesthetic perception and
art history, for grades three through 12 (Hoepfner, 1983).
From 1942 to 1966, while art education emphasized creative production,
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
exploration o f media, and personal expression, art test development was depressed. An
anti-test bias was promoted in the literature by Cizek, Dewey, Cole, D’Amico, Read ,
Lowenfeld, Shaefer-Simmem, Kellogg, and Clark, Zimmerman, & Zurmuehlen.
During the same period, educational psychology was developing technological,
systematic theories led by Harap, and Tyler, and followed by Anderson, Bloom, Cronbach,
Goodlad, and Taba. They ushered in the Behavioral Objective Movement which gained
strength after Russia’s ascent of Spudnik in 1957 (Eisner, 1985). The national drive to
reform education focused on the “basics” and changed prevailing educational philosophy
from child-centered growth to the presentation and assessment o f clearly-articulated,
measurable objectives.
Eisner developed two tests in 1966, the Eisner Art Information Inventory and the
Eisner Art Aptitude Inventory to measure students’ knowledge and attitudes about the
visual arts. Analysis o f his research with secondary school students demonstrated that
neither attitude towards the arts, nor knowledge o f art increased over four years of high
school (Clark, Zimmerman, & Zurmuehlen, 1987).
The 1974 and 1978 versions o f the National Assessment o f Educational Progress
(NAEP) arts assessments, led by Wilson, collected data to describe students’ abilities to:
1) perceive and respond to aspects o f art; 2) value art, 3) produce art, 4) know about art,
and 5) make and justify judgments about the aesthetic merit o f art. Included were
multiple-choice questions which required complex thinking, open-ended essay questions
based upon art reproductions and sculpture, and production activities (Clark, Zimmerman,
& Zurmuehlen, 1987; Gaitskill, Hurwitz, & Day, 1982). In analyzing the results o f the
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
first NAEP studies, Clark, Zimmerman, and Zurmuehlen (1987) noted that students’ taste
in art became more conventional and realistic during the late seventies. At the same time,
the importance they place upon art decreased. The items used to assess knowledge about
art and art history included identification of artworks, their dates, and places of creation.
Results o f the assessment indicated that American students had limited knowledge about
art. An explanation was that American art curricula generally emphasized production of
art works rather than art history or art criticism. However, in spite o f this focus, student
performance on design and drawing skills was lower than expected.
ARTS PROPEL, a program developed by Gardner o f Harvard’s Project Zero, the
Educational Testing Service, and the Pittsburgh schools presented a portfolio assessment
model centered upon studio production, perception, and reflection which has influenced
the field (Gardner & Grunbaum, 1986; Clark, Zimmerman, & Zurmuehlen, 1987; Gardner,
1989; Gardner, 1990; Yau, 1990; W olf& Pistone, 1991; Winner & Simmons, 1992;
Gitomer, 1992; Arter, 1995). Never intended as large-scale assessment, there were no
provisions for aggregation o f data from the PROPEL studies.
In the 1980-1990's, public criticism of education focused on graduates’ deficient
entry level skills for work in the information age (SCANS Report, 1992) and the United
State’s poor standing in international tests. Standards were viewed as a panacea. The
standards model o f assessment included training judges to identify multiple right answers
(Castiglione, 1996). Arts educators from the visual arts, music, theatre, and dance formed
a consortium and responded to the standards movement by writing the National Standards
fo r Arts Education (1994). The states were charged with responsibility for assessment
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(national testing, defeated by Congress in 1997, is likely to be revived in the future).
The first large-scale arts assessment based upon national standards, the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) planned to conduct a field test o f fourth,
eighth, and twelfth grade students in 1996-97 (NAEP Arts Education Assessment and
Exercise Specifications, 1996). However, funding limitations necessitated cutting the
proposed administration o f the NAEP art test to a national sample of only eighth grade
students. The test was innovative in its scope and performance components. The sample
of the general population, rather than those in art classes, was drawn from public and
private schools. Both paper-and-pencil tasks (used to assess responding) and performance
tasks (used to assess creating) were prepared by the Educational Testing Service. They
wrote:
The visual arts assessment covers both content and processes. Content includes (1) knowledge and understanding o f the visual arts and (2) perceptual, technical, expressive, and intellectual/reflective skills.Processes include (1) creating, and (2) responding. (National Center for Education Statistics, U. S. Department o f Education, NCES-526, p. 2)
Results indicate that students who did well on the responding, paper-and-pencil, activities,
also did well on the creating tasks. In both categories, students were challenged. In the
responding category, average scores ranged from a high o f 55 percent of students who
could identify an example of contemporary Western art, to a low of 25 percent o f students
who could select a work that contributed to Cubism from four choices. On essay
responses, only four percent o f students could write a complete, in-depth analysis,
compared with 24 percent who could give a limited, or partial score, answer. The average
creating score in the visual arts was 43 percent of the possible points. Between one
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
percent and three percent o f students scored at the optimal level on tasks that asked them
to create expressive artworks which showed consistent awareness of qualities such as
contrast, texture, and color. Demographically, 52 percent o f students attended schools
where visual arts were taught to the typical eighth-grader at least three or four times a
week, though no significant relationships were found between frequency o f instruction and
student scores (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). Another large-scale assessment
project, measuring art creation and reflection, is being developed by the Arts Education
Consortium o f the Council o f Chief State School Officers.
Art education textbooks, expressing prevailing philosophies, disseminated anti
testing attitudes. Lowenfeld and Brittain in Creative and M ental Growth (1957,1987),
viewed testing as an impediment to growth. Kellogg (1969) wrote that tests interfered
with children’s natural development. Chapman, in Approaches to Art in Education
(1978), discussed program evaluation, o f which one component was evaluation of
learning, represented by a list of qualitative ways to assess student progress. Eisner, in
Educating Artistic Vision, noted that “in Tests in P rint, the most comprehensive catalogue
o f published tests available in the world, only 10 o f the 2,100 tests listed are for the visual
arts” (1972, p.206). He identified production and criticism as appropriate subjects for
testing. In Children and Their Art, Gaitskell, Hurwitz, and Day, (1982) espoused
evaluation through questioning students on personal expression, pupils’ reactions to work
o f others, and students’ behaviors during participation in art activities. They reviewed the
work o f Bloom, behavioral objectives, the NAEP studies, Eisner’s theories o f art
connoisseurship and criticism, and suggested that standardized tests were neither reliable
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
nor applicable to the classroom. In these texts, evaluation was relegated to the end o f the
book rather than integrated with curriculum development and instruction. Teaching
strategies for art activities ended with production. With systematic evaluation absent from
major resources, generations of teachers modeled their classroom assessment on their
personal recollection o f college instruction in studio courses. Eisner (1996) expressed the
predominant attitude.
Testing typically is predicated on the assumption that the desired outcomes o f educational activities are known in advance; artistic creation seeks surprise. Testing aspires for all a set o f common correct responses; in the arts, idiosyncratic responses are prized. Testing typically focuses on pieces or segments o f information; artistic work emphasizes wholes and configurations, (p. 1-2)
Clark (1987) wrote that throughout history, art tests were most frequently
developed for descriptive purposes in research studies with minimal transference to the
classroom. Available art tests were idiosyncratic and specific to individual research
projects.
There is no history of national, normally distributed art achievement tests.
Textbooks were inadequate in suggesting means for national accountability o f
achievement in the arts. Therefore, it is necessary to look for test models outside of the
arts.
Standardized Achievement Tests
The most broadly-based test instruments are standardized achievement tests which
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
use multiple-choice test formats and cover general knowledge. Results are designed to
match a statistical normal curve. Comparative tests are important where competition for
limited resources exists (admissions to degree programs, jobs) and for large scale research
(Castiglione, 1996). They contain multiple-choice items, are based on recall o f factual
knowledge and isolated skills, memorization o f procedures, do not require judgment, and
are reliable and valid (Frederiksen & Collins, 1989). Standardized tests’ long history
make them acceptable to a wide audience and they are easy to administer (Archbald &
Newman, 1988). Hamblen (1988) noted a trend toward standardized testing in the arts.
Traditional standardized testing was viewed by some educators as a political necessity and
could be used to report how students achieved in terms o f general aspects o f education
(Newman, 1990). Educational accountability requires reliable assessment to support
innovations in curriculum design, instructional methods, program funding, and student
evaluation (Gruber, 1994). These standardized tests are most frequently found in
mathematics, language arts, science and social studies subject areas.
“The relative lack o f systematic content and sequence in art instruction at the
elementary grades accounts for the paucity of useful devices to assess achievement in art”
(Hoepfiier, 1984, p. 251). Hoepfner (1984) believed his difficulty in finding art tests was
due to: uneven requirements for art in schools which generated only a small commercial
market for test developers, art educators’ lack o f agreement on uniform art curriculum
content, and the high cost o f printing and scoring good tests. In an analysis o f available
art tests, Hoepfiier characterized them as unstructured, verbally structured, or object
structured. Since empirical evidence did not exist on the reliability and validity o f these
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
tests, he logically predicted that unstructured would have the highest validity and lowest
reliability. He found no evidence for claims that art either changed attitudes or had an
effect upon creativity.
The Discipline-Based Art Education (DBAE) movement aspired to give all
learners a lay understanding of the arts by engaging them in the four disciplines o f artistic
production, criticism, aesthetics, and art history. Day (1985) explained that the process
and products o f all these learning activities were meaningful candidates for evaluation for
the improvement o f student learning. He saw congruence between DBAE goals and
testing “because evaluation is an essential component for validation o f student
achievement” (Day, 1985, p.232). Another advocate o f DBAE, Gentile, suggested a
balanced approach to assessment in which criterion-referenced grading using a mastery
learning process for production would be combined with standardized paper and pencil
tests of art criticism, aesthetics, and art history (Gentile, 1989).
Standardized art tests engender widespread interest in the United States and
abroad (Allison, 1977; Lai & Shishido, 1987). The Indiana Department of Education
(1988) developed a multiple choice test for eighth grade students. It attempted to
evaluate art historical, art critical, and aesthetic responses in a multiple choice format.
Students wrote on the 28 page booklet, filled with reproductions (many in full color).
Though promising, the cost became prohibitive and it was discontinued. At the post
college level, the Educational Testing Service (1998) developed a high-stakes art
knowledge test that is required by many states for teacher certification. The exam is
composed o f multiple choice items, constructed response hems, and an essay. The
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
multiple choice questions are typical of standardized tests while the other sections are
criterion-referenced and are scored by trained raters using a rubric for scoring.
Concerns were expressed about the exclusive use o f standardized tests. Popham
(1999) explained that standardized tests are poor indicators o f educational quality because
their primary purpose is to separate and sort people. From a test writer’s perspective, the
goal of each item is to produce the maximum variance meaning that items are discarded
unless close to 50 percent o f test takers get the wrong answer. Teachers emphasize the
most significant content in any subject area which results in too many test takers
answering those questions correctly. Therefore, the essential content is dropped from the
test while trivial pieces o f knowledge, better at discriminating, remain. Worthen and
Spandel (1991) suggested that standardized tests represent only a small part o f assessing
student learning, while teacher-centered assessment plays the greater role. Gordon (1977)
researched effects o f achievement testing on disadvantaged and minority populations and
found that measures o f diversity (such as differences in student interests, learning styles,
learning rates, motivation, work habits, personalities, ethnicity, sex, and social class) were
usually ignored in standardized assessments. Zimmerman (1992, 1994) noted that
standardized tests tend to reward districts with high socio-economic and entry level
scores; they are biased against women and minorities; there is a lack o f correlation
between test scores and improved learning; and minorities are under represented in test
development. She stated that, “students from diverse ethnic, racial, and social groups
possess unique characteristics that should be taken into consideration when art curricula
and assessment measures are being developed” (Zimmerman, 1994, p. 31). Instead o f
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
standardized tests, she advocates a socio-cultural approach in which teacher and
community establish art content. The criteria need to be sensitive to, and include non-
western values o f collectivism, traditionalism, non-permanence, and culturally meaningful
symbolism. Hamblen (1988) expressed concerns o f many:
Using testing as a legitimating rationale can be a dangerous game even if closely monitored and there is an explicit awareness ....Within the tautology of a self-fulfilling prophecy, what fits systematization becomes legitimate content. Art concepts can be easily limited to that which is technical, formalistic, and, hence testable, (p. 60)
Standardized tests could be used in the arts and would be appropriate instruments
for the assessment functions o f accountability, temperature-taking, reporting to the
community, and gatekeeping. If standardized tests were developed for the visual arts, the
writers should select meaningful rather than trivial content, build higher-order thinking
into complex questions, and address equity for multicultural, diverse populations.
Criterion-Referenced Multiple-Choice Tests
Criterion-referenced tests are linked directly to the learning objective established for the curriculum. No a priori attention is paid to the distribution of resulting scores. Successful completion o f criterion- referenced tests is one indicator o f mastery o f content. (Hoepfiier, 1984, p.252)
National consensus on art curriculum content will be needed in order to develop
national, criterion-referenced tests. Some arts educators believe a national curriculum
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
already exists because o f 1) state agency frameworks, 2) textbooks, 3) National Teacher’s
Exam, 4) NAEP and the National Art Education Association research agenda, and 5)
Getty’s promotion o f DBAE (Zimmerman, 1994). These are insufficient to provide
specific and agreed-upon art content, concepts, processes, or art historical emphases
necessary for a national, criterion-referenced test.
While not appropriate for national testing in the United States, Gentile (1989)
proposed that criterion-referenced tests be used for classroom assessment because they 1)
ensure that students do complete work, 2) establish criteria and standards for adequate
work, and 3) provide incentive to master and excel (Gentile, 1989). Grove (1996)
suggested that “Criterion-referenced tests can be appropriately used in small-scale testing
where common curriculum objectives exist” (p.358). Gaitskell, Hurwitz, and Day, (1992)
provided formats for teachers to use when developing multiple-choice, short answer, and
essay tests. Limitations o f both standardized and criterion-referenced multiple-choice tests
are summarized by Parsons (1990):
Understanding, or higher order thinking, is not all o f one kind, and can’t be represented or assessed by a single overall quantitative score. It requires facts, concepts o f different levels of generality, ways of organizing facts and concepts, procedures and strategies for answering questions and approaching tasks, and knowledge structures that allow one to organize all o f these, (p.31)
Wiggins (1989) criticized criterion-referenced tests as are inadequate because the
problems were contrived, and the cues artificial. Criterion-referenced tests can be
appropriately used for school, district, or state-level testing where common curriculum
objectives exist. They could serve the functions o f accountability, gatekeeping,
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
improvement of instruction, communication of achievement to all stakeholders, and
modifications of instruction based upon measurement o f student learning.
Alternative Forms o f Assessment
We can not be said to understand something unless we can employ our knowledge wisely, fluently, flexibly, and aptly in particular and diverse contexts. (Wiggins, 1993, p.200)
The umbrella category o f alternative assessment refers to a group of assessment
practices which do not employ standardized or criterion-referenced, multiple-choice
format tests. Performance-based assessments require students to create a product or to
perform a task. Scoring allows partial credit as a means o f evaluating process as well as
the final product. Authentic assessments are performances set in a real-world context, and
therefore may be i/-structured, without a single known solution, and frequently may be
evaluated by an audience o f experts. A portfolio is typically a collection of student works
demonstrating process, reflection, and final product(s). The portfolio is a methodology
which can be employed as a means of organizing and presenting documents for
performance-based or authentic assessments.
Wiggins (1989) explained that the movement to alternative forms of assessment
was driven by a reaction to:
the key assumptions o f conventional test design - the decomposability of knowledge into elements and the decontextualiztion o f knowing whereby it
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
is assumed that if we know something, we know it in any context....A true test o f intellectual ability requires the performance of exemplary tasks ...reform begins by recognizing that the test is central to instruction....The catch is that the test must offer students a genuine intellectual challenge, and teachers must be involved in designing the test.(p.704)
Assessments were performance-based from the time o f Socrates until the
development o f the Army Alpha multiple-choice exam during World War I (Popham,
1993). In response to deficits in American education publicized by the SCANS Report
(1992), they were resurrected. The business community reported that workers needed to
demonstrate complex skills such as problem-solving, working collaboratively, self-
direction, and effective communication instead o f knowing discrete facts being measured
in standardized achievement tests. Business and educational reform demands (America
2000: An Education Strategy, 1991) coincided and led to standards development. Broad
process skills, or “outcomes”, were included in national and state level standards in the
content areas (National Standards fo r Arts Education, 1994; Show-Me Standards fo r
Missouri Schools, 1996). Criteria are essential in alternative forms of assessment. The
determination of whether criteria are met usually depends upon a scorer’s judgment or
qualitative analysis (Grove, 1996).
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Performance-based Assessment
Performance-based assessment requires students to be active participants.
Students are responsible for creating or constructing their responses (Rudner & Boston,
1994). Tasks that can be used to judge performance are: samples o f work in process,
final product, journals, research papers, group presentations or performances, peer
critiques, interviews, self-evaluations, portfolios, essays, discussions, audio tapes, video
tapes, sketches, notes, media experiments, exhibitions, behavior profiles, peer teaching,
and retrospective verbal responses (Siegler, 1989; Wiggins. 1989, 1993; Maeroff, 1991;
MacGregor, 1992; Beattie, 1992, 1994; Madaus, 1993; Worthen, 1993; Zimmerman,
1992, 1994; Gruber, 1994; Rudner & Boston, 1994; Grove, 1996; Boughton, 1997).
The limitation of performance-based assessment as a large scale assessment is the
cost. While standardized or criterion-referenced tests are machine-scored,
product/performance-based scoring requires intense training and time-consuming analysis.
Student products are initially scored by at least two independent raters. Often a third or
fourth is necessary to resolve differences of opinion. Though most classroom instruction
is performance-based, it differs from large scale assessment in that there is no feedback on,
or moderation of the teachers’ scoring of student works.
Performance-based assessment is appropriate for large-scale, high-stakes testing
and is currently being used in state tests in Rhode Island and Kentucky (Maeroff, 1991;
Kentucky, 1996). It would be appropriate for large-scale temperature-taking,
gatekeeping, determining if course objectives had been attained, providing feedback on
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
both individual students and on the quality o f art programs, and informing stakeholders
about student achievement.
Within the general category o f performance-based assessment there are two
variants common to the classroom and literature. They are authentic assessment, and
portfolio assessment.
Authentic Assessment
Authentic Assessment has students demonstrate what they might do outside o f
class in the course o f normal life (Kentucky, 1996). These assessments are typically
embedded (taught by the teacher as part o f the regular instructional program). A scenario,
or real-life context, is presented in which students are expected to solve problems that
adults deal with in contemporary society. (Popham ,1993; Wiggins, 1989, 1993, 1998,
1999; MacGregor, 1992; Beattie, 1992, 1994; Madaus, 1993; Worthen, 1993; Milbrandt,
1998). Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus (1981) suggested that students should have open
access to a variety o f reference materials when being tested for synthesis level thinking.
Ideally, synthesis problems should be as close as possible to the situation in which a scholar (or artist, or engineer, etc.) attacks a problem he or she is interested in. The time allowed, conditions o f work, and other stipulations should be as far from the typical, controlled examination situation as possible, (pp. 52-53)
Teachers are the best evaluators of their students’ authentic tasks (Zimmerman, 1992;
Beattie, 1998; Huffman, 1998). Authentic tests involve the following factors:
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1) engaging and worthy problems or questions o f importance in whichstudents must use knowledge to fashion creative and effectiveperformances...similar to real world problem.2) faithful representation of contexts in real life3) non routine and multistage tasks - real problems4) tasks require a quality product/performance5) transparent or demystified criteria and standards6) interactions between assessor and assessee7) response-contingent challenges where process and product areimportant with
concurrent feedback and possibility o f self-adjustment during the test8) trained assessor judgment in reference to clear and appropriate criteria9) search for patterns of response in diverse settings (Wiggins 1993, p.206-207).
In authentic assessments, rubrics or scoring guides are used to list criteria and
describe levels o f achievement. Rubrics, the frameworks around which students build
their work are best when collaboratively created by students and teacher and include self-
assessments (Grove, 1996; Huffman, 1998). In order to discriminate levels o f
performance, some researchers contrast novice and sophisticated, rather than age-related,
responses. (Efland, 1990; Parsons, 1990). Exemplars or benchmark samples o f student
work provide models for students at the beginning o f an assignment, and help teachers
calibrate scores during scoring (Frederiksen & Collins, 1989). Critical issues facing
alternative assessment are:
1) conceptual clarity2) mechanisms for self-criticism3) support from well-informed educators4) technical quality and truthfulness5) standardization o f assessment judgments6) ability to assess complex thinking7) acceptability to stakeholders8) appropriateness for high-stakes assessment9) feasibility10) continuity and integration across educational systems
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11) use o f technology12) avoidance of monopolies (Worthen, 1993, pp. 447-453).
Based upon authentic assessment in Great Britain, Madaus and Kellagham, (1993)
proposed that large-scale, high-stakes authentic assessments may be prematurely
discontinued due to constraints o f time, money, and training o f scorers. In a presentation
to the Missouri Art Education Association, head of state art assessment Peeno (1999)
stated that “authentic assessment costs the same amount as teachers’ salaries and supplies
- the district cost per student”. Popham’s (1993) solution was to use genuine matrix
sampling in which a low proportion o f both students and assessment tasks are formally
assessed. Students are prepared for many techniques, only a few o f which were assessed.
Teachers are influenced by what is eligible to be tested as well as what is actually tested.
The quality o f assessment stays high and the costs decrease. For those not participating in
the sample, Popham advised that the government provide “difficulty-equated, but non-
secure, authentic assessment to districts to allow teachers (on a voluntary basis) to show
how well their students are doing” (p.473). These locally-scored assessments keep the
focus o f assessment consistent among the districts selected for formal assessment and
those that are not part of the matrix sample.
Authentic assessments would be appropriate for large-scale temperature-taking,
gatekeeping, determining if course objectives have been attained, providing feedback on
both individual students and on the quality o f art programs, and informing stakeholders
about student achievement. The advantage o f authentic assessment, over other types o f
performance-based assessment, is that a connection is made between what the students are
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
producing and why anyone would ever produce it. Therefore, natural connections are
made to art careers and lifelong avocations. As such, what students learn in the process of
performing authentic assessment should be more meaningful, likely to be retained over
time, and tend to be transferred to other learning situations.
Portfolio Assessment
Portfolios have historically been used in visual arts, however, until recently little
was written about requirements, contents, and the interaction between student and teacher
regarding the portfolio. Portfolio Assessment is a type o f performance-based assessment
which appeared during the standards movement, beginning in 198S, in reaction to
standardized testing.
Many o f the tests students encounter, by virtue o f the tests’ design as a series o f unrelated questions, draw teaching and learning toward the mastery of facts and away from large ideas and processes. Students’ repeated encounters with multiple-choice, timed tests teach them that the bases for success in school are first draft answers rather than sustained explorations, correctness rather than risk, and information rather than conceptualization. (Wolf, 1991, p. 65)
Though traditionally used in the visual arts for admissions to art schools and to acquire
jobs, portfolios became a popular addition to traditional testing in language arts, science,
math, and social studies in the 1980-90's (Arter, 1990, 1995). Hamblen (1988) noted the
irony that as other subjects’ testing was becoming more open, the arts were becoming
more standardized. Arter (1995) explained that portfolios were not an end in themselves,
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
but a means to an end. She reviewed literature on portfolio assessment and concluded
that little hard evidence existed to show that portfolio assessment necessarily led to critical
thinking, self-reflection, responsibility for learning, skills or knowledge (p.l). When
exhibiting clarity o f purpose and criteria, the advantages o f portfolio use were: 1)
broader, in-depth picture of the student; 2) authenticity; 3) supplements or alternatives to
grade card and/or achievement tests; 4) communication to parents. In addition, portfolios
could be used for certification of competence, to track growth over time, and to
demonstrate accountability. Arter (1990) raised issues: To what extent must
process/content/performance criteria be standardized to be comparable? Were they
feasible, cost-effective? Would teachers buy in? Will conclusions be valid? (p.5-6). The
most influential model o f portfolio assessment in the arts has been ARTS PROPEL, in
which the theory o f multiple intelligences, developed by Gardner, led to studio-centered
production, perception, and reflection, and offered expanded opportunities for students to
learn beyond traditional logical-linguistic means. Performance tasks were more likely to
elicit a student’s f i i l i repertoire o f skills (Gardner, 1989). Portfolio assessment was
reclaimed by many in the arts (Gardner & Grunbaum, 1986; Clark, Zimmerman, &
Zurmeuhlen, 1987; Gardner, 1986, 1989, 1990; Yau, 1990; Taylor, 1991, 1993; W olf&
Pistone, 1991; Anderson, D., 1992; Winner & Simmons, 1992; Gitomer, Grosh, & Price
1992; Hausman, 1993; Coates, Gaither & Shauck, 1993; Carroll, 1993; Swann & Bickley-
Green, 1993; Reynolds, 1993; Thomas, 1993; Warner, 1993; Anderson, T., 1994; Beattie,
1994; NAEA Advisory, 1993, 1994; Vermont Assessment Project, 1995). Common
characteristics o f art portfolio assessment are: it is student-centered; assessment is both
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
formative and summative; learning is viewed as an active, constructive process; student
self-reflection is evident; criteria are specified for selection of works and for merit; and
process (documented by sketches, photographs, video-tapes, journals, self-reflective
writings, etc.) receives attention along with final products. Dialogues, between student
and teacher or student and peers, are credited with increased self-motivation, self-
direction, and increase in critical analysis abilities (Wolf, 1991). Though Vermont (1995)
and California (Taylor 1991, 1993) experimented with large-scale portfolio assessment,
problems occurred when attempting to aggregate data (Arter, 1995). Most portfolio use
was classroom-based and internally moderated. Notable exceptions are the large-scale,
high-stakes, externally moderated portfolio assessments used by the Educational Testing
Service on their Advanced Placement art exam, the British national assessment, the New
South Wales, Australia exam, and the International Baccalaureate Program (Anderson,
1994; Blaikie, 1994; Beattie, 1997; Boughton, 1997; Gaston, 1997; Weate, 1999).
Portfolio assessment is appropriate for functions related to individual student
achievement, monitoring growth, providing feedback to improve art curricula, and
demonstrating student progress to parents. It has potential for use in large-scale
assessment if means are developed for aggregation o f portfolio information, criteria are
standardized, and rater training issues are resolved.
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Performance Assessment Criteria
A wide variety o f criteria have been employed in the evaluation o f student art.
Judgments are made about art products in diverse venues including an individual teacher’s
classroom and national assessments. These assessments serve different functions and
value different aspects o f art. Blaikie (1992, 1994) found that the Advanced Placement
exams concentrate almost exclusively on finished art products; while the International
Baccalaureate evaluates workbook process records and welcomes the art teacher’s
comments in addition to analysis o f final art products. In contrast, ARTS PROPEL places
greater emphasis on process and reflective thinking than on the final art product.
Furthermore, many rubrics include behaviors that reflect habits of mind such as
perseverence, fluency, flexibility, and skills in research, analysis, synthesis, and making
judgments. The type of products assessed also varies. In some cases, only studio art
production is assessed, while in others, historical, critical, and/or aesthetic products are
also evaluated.
Clark and Zimmerman (1984) reviewed the literature in art education looking for
observable criteria or indicators o f student success in art. In Educating Artistically
Talented Students, they created a composite list o f characteristics. Though their purpose
was to use criteria for the purpose o f separating the talented from the typical art student,
the descriptors can be viewed as the exemplary column o f a performance rubric for all
students. First, they considered criteria evident in artworks. Later, they looked at
behaviors o f the student that could be indicative o f success in art.
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
To assess the art product, Clark and Zimmerman (1984) identified five
components of product assessment. The first, “compositional arrangement” encompassed:
skillful composition; complete and coherent designs; purposeful, asymmetrical
arrangement with stability in irregular placement; three or more objects integrated by a
balanced arrangements; complex composition; and elaboration and depiction o f details.
The second subset o f criteria was “elements and principles” which included well-organized
colors; deliberate brilliancy and contrast; subtle blending o f colors; decisive use of line;
clarity of outline; subtle use of line; accurate depiction of light and shadow; intentional use
of indefinite shapes, hazy outlines, shapes blended into the background; and excellence in
use of color, form, grouping, and movement (p.53). The third characteristic o f products
was “subject matter” which included: specializes in one subject matter; draws a wide
variety of things; sometimes copies to acquire technique; adept at depiction of movement;
and uses personal experiences and feelings as subject matter. The fourth component was
“art-making skills” (p.56). Included attributes were: true-to-appearance representation;
accurate depiction of depth by perspective; use of good proportion; schematic and
expressive representation; effective use o f media; and products show obvious talent and
artistic expression. The fifth category under the art product was “art-making techniques.
Specifics listed were: areas treated to display boldness, blending, gradation, and textures;
visual narratives used for self-expression and as a basis for mature art expression; and uses
smaller paper (p. 56).
Clark and Zimmerman (1984) found that, in the literature, researchers looked
beyond the product to consider observational behavior as criteria for success in art. Under
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the category o f behaviors, they divided identified two types: predispositional behaviors
and process behaviors. The predispositional behaviors were further subdivided into those
that were general and those that were art-specific.
The general predispositional behaviors included: superior manual skill and
muscular control; independence o f ideas and ability to experience events from multiple
points o f view; adherence to rules, regulations, and routine study; relative freedom from
ordinary frustration; highly individualized differences in psychological characteristics;
superior energy level and rapid turnover o f thoughts; desire to work alone; compulsion to
organize to satisfy desire for precision and clarity; highly adaptable in thought and activity;
high potential for leadership due to fluency o f ideas offered in a group; good
concentration; and flexibility in adaptation o f knowledge (p. 56-57).
The art-specific predispositional behaviors (Clark & Zimmerman, 1984) were:
dynamic and intuitive quality o f imagination; unusual penchant for visual imagery and
fantasy; intense desire to make art by filling extra time with art activities; high desire for
visual awareness experiences; high interest in drawing representationally or to emulate the
style of adult artists; self-initiative to make art work; finds satisfaction in engagement in
art activities with a high degree of sustained success; desire to improve own art work;
persistence, perseverence, enthusiasm, self-motivation to do art work; willingness to
explore and use new media, tools, and techniques; ambitious for an art career; acute
power of visualization and a fascination with visual things; requires a high degree o f
arousal and motivation; may manifest talents at either an early or later age, but talent may
not persist into maturity; may have motor skills specific to talent, not necessarily motor
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
superiority; early visual recall from an encyclopedic visual memory - “photographic” mind;
extraordinary skills o f visual perception and a highly developed visual sensibility; and
planning of art production activities prior to production (p.58).
In addition to the predispositional behaviors, Clark and Zimmerman’s (1984)
survey noted two kinds o f observable process behaviors, those related to art production
and those related to art criticism. The art process behaviors were: originality - use o f own
ideas and idiosyncratic depictions of content; demonstration o f completion o f specific
ideas throughout the process o f production; use o f subtle and more varied graphic
vocabulary than average and will build upon previous visual vocabulary to create new
images; fluent and experimental in use o f a greater picture vocabulary; demonstrates
fluency with ideas when creating art products; displays confidence and comfort with art
media and tasks; demonstrates purposefulness and directness o f expression with clarity;
and demonstrates a clear understanding of structure and sense of the interrelationships of
parts in an art work (p.60).
Clark and Zimmerman’s (1984) final category was a list of observable art criticism
behaviors. They were: gives less personal, more objective, reasons for critical judgment
o f art work o f others; shows greater, genuine interest in the art work of others and can
appreciate, criticize, and learn from the art work o f others; and applies critical insights to
own art work (p.60).
ARTS PROPEL (Gardner, 1989; Winner, 1992) approaches assessment through
student self-reflection and student-teacher dialogue. Characteristics observed in student
portfolios are divided into the areas o f production, perception, and reflection. Under
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
production, criteria are: craftsmanship, inventiveness, integration of skills and ideas,
effort, and expression. Perceptual skills involve awareness which is subdivided into:
looking closely at works by oneself and one’s peers; close study of the physical properties
and qualities o f art materials; cultural awareness; ability to discern qualities in the work of
other artists; and visual awareness o f the natural and human environment. Characteristics
of reflection are: message/purpose/intention (includes student’s values and intentions as
well as lesson objectives and concepts); awareness o f own process; strategies for revision;
sense of one’s own goals and artistic growth and development; and use of resources and
suggestions to develop artistic process (p. 78).
Brigham (1989) suggested that portfolio work samples and performances be
evaluated on the following criteria: perception (gestalt, expressive dynamics, synthesis,
metaphoric/figurative language), assimilation (personal associations, metaphoric and
figurative imagery), accommodation (openness, connecting, transforming, creates,
integrates), association (expressive, synesthetic, evaluates), and application (transforms
experiences into original art, integrates elements into unified compositions) (p. 70).
The International Baccalaureate’s (IB) Art and Design (1996) is a curriculum
currently used in half the countries o f the world. Different aspects of student work are
weighted as work is scored. The weights being used in the assessment o f student
portfolios are: 35 percent imaginative and creative thinking and expression, 20 percent
persistence in research, 15 percent technical skill, 10 percent understanding the
characteristics and function of the chosen media, 10 percent understanding the
fundamentals o f design, and 10 percent ability to evaluate own growth and development.
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
According to a communication with Boughton (April 7, 1999) the IB has recognized that
this system is biased in favor o f modernism. The rubrics are in the process o f being
changed to become more sensitive to various cultural contexts and aesthetics appropriate
to a postmodern period. He anticipates that the current system will be in place until
September 2001.
In reviewing English assessment, Gaston (1997) presented rubrics used to score
the GCSE exams which are mandatory for all students at age 16. The criteria on which
students’ work is marked are: 1) personal response, 2) recording/observation, 3)
sustaining idea from concept to realization, 4) independence in realizing intentions, 5)
evidence o f research and communication, 6) skills in controlling materials, 7) application
of materials techniques and processes, and 8) composition o f visual elements (line, tone,
form, shape, color, texture, pattern, space).
In the cross-Canada study (MacGregor, Lemerise, Potts & Roberts, 1993),
learning priorities were developing individuality and independence (71%), and developing
originality of response (71%). Other criteria were: technical skills, techniques o f
presentation, familiarity with tools/instruments, knowledge about subject, skills in
problem-solving, developing participation and involvement, and considering the subject in
a broader context.
The National Assessment o f Educational Progress (1997) divided the subject
matter of art into two categories: creating and responding. Created works were scored
on the basis of: 1) demonstration o f the theme; 2) materials used in deliberate ways to
represent ideas, forms, and objects; 3) effective organization and composition; 4) sense o f
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
pattern, texture, color, transparency, and contrast; S) variation in line quality; and 6)
unexpected, original interpretation o f the theme (p. 102). Written responses were rated
on the basis of: 1) supporting plausible interpretation with observation about specifics in
the work; 2) labeling and describing features; 3) identifying similarities in techniques
between different artworks; 4) supporting ideas with specific observations about style,
elements, or principles o f art; 5) explaining own work using appropriate vocabulary; 6)
identifying genre, styles, and periods o f art history; 7) describing characteristics o f media;
and 8) explaining how works fit concepts such as perspective (p. 105).
Armstrong (1994) lists media, tools, equipment, processes, techniques, and
concepts as examples o f knowledge that can be assessed in the art product. She
categorizes art into basic art behaviors: 1) know, 2) perceive, 3) organize, 4) inquire, 5)
value, 6) manipulate, and 7) interact/cooperate (p.27). Within each behavior, there is a
hierarchy o f levels of success. Students at the top o f this scale should: 1) have bodies of
knowledge, 2) visually analyze, 3) evaluate, 4) innovate, 5) maintain consistent attitude, 6)
demonstrate complex skills, and 7) show interpersonal skill (p.34). Armstrong’s
assessment approach includes art production, art history, aesthetics, and art criticism while
placing emphasis on the processes involved in each discipline. She encourages the use o f a
wide variety o f data sources from observation to discussion, essay, traditional tests, sketch
books, journals, unit criteria for art production, and student self-evaluation.
Beattie (1997), like Armstrong, encompasses art production, criticism, aesthetics,
and history in her criteria for student products. In addition, she includes integration of the
arts. Beattie lists a wide range o f sample products that can be used for assessment. For
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the discipline o f art history products include: art-historical report, timeline, exhibition
catalog, field notes, or art museum room. Products useful for assessing art criticism are:
critical review, or criticism model. For aesthetics, students can develop theory or keep a
diary. Correspondence letters/postcards, dialogues, and dramatizations are suggested as
products for each of the three “responding” disciplines of art history, criticism, and
aesthetics. Art production can be demonstrated through the creation of an art object, an
art prospectus, demonstrations, or experimentations (p. 132). Beattie suggests the
following categories for inclusion on an analytic scoring rubric: researching, creating,
responding, resolving, and communicating.
The Advanced Placement (AP) exam sponsored by the College Board reviews high
school students’ portfolios, then determines a score which can be used by colleges or
universities to award credit. The portfolio must show breadth and depth o f artistic skills,
and a thematic “concentration” or development through several pieces. The only writing
submitted is a brief artist’s statement and there is no indication that it is scored during the
evaluation. Criteria used by AP are: 1) art methods and materials, 2) meeting portfolio
requirements, 3) formal elements, 4) conceptual clarity, and S) visual unity.
The Vermont Portfolio Project (1995) issued a generic rubric for local assessment
o f students’ artwork. The two major categories are use of elements and principles, and
use of medium. The “dimensions for quality o f product” include expression. The “quality
o f process standards” encompass exploration, pursuit o f work, making connections,
responding, and reflecting.
Venet (1999a) facilitated focus group discussions at a Missouri Art Education
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Association Spring Conference to identify criteria for inclusion on a Missouri art
assessment rubric. The state rubric will be used for local assessment o f state standards.
Only ten percent of participating art teachers reported that they conduct portfolio
evaluation, and most o f those were teaching at the secondary level. Teachers explained
that number of minutes per week spent with each class, and total number o f students
taught were factors in their use of portfolios for assessment. Although teachers initially
worked in primary, middle level, and high school groups, all groups reached consensus on
important criteria. Categories that emerged from discussion were: 1) crafts-personship; 2)
individual creativity or originality; 3) composition (use of elements and principles); 4)
growth (student builds upon previous knowledge); 5) attitude (citizenship, cooperation,
respect for people and materials, effort, completion of work, etiquette); 6) process (use of
materials, equipment, vocabulary); and 7) knowledge of art history, art criticism, and
aesthetics. Teachers suggested that there might be separate scoring guides for the art
product, the process, and writing/speaking about art (history, aesthetics, criticism).
Scoring rubrics are frequently used by school districts and individual teachers to
conduct local assessment. Huffman (1998) includes a generic student conduct rubric
along with production rubrics at George Washington High School in Danville, Virginia.
Her criteria are: 1) preparation, 2) research, 3) assignment goals, 4) craftsmanship, S)
originality, 6) aesthetics, and 7) critique. Huffman empowers her students by having them
participate in writing descriptors for levels o f achievement on each criteria.
New York City Public Schools (Lonergan, 1998) conduct a district-wide eighth
grade art exam. It consists o f multiple choice, short answer, essay, and production
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
activities and covers history, criticism, and production. Criteria for a black and white
drawing are: 1) skill in drawing from direct observation; 2) quality o f composition; 3)
understanding o f how the illusion o f depth is created; 4) use o f a wide range o f dark,
medium, and light values to show form; and 5) use o f lines, shapes, patterns, and textures
to show variety and surface quality. A color poster that fosters pride in community
activity is included in the New York test. The criteria for scoring it are: 1) quality of
composition and design; 2) appropriateness o f color to theme; 3) effective use o f images,
symbols, and letters; 4) originality o f concept and slogan; and S) skillful use of media.
In Columbia, Missouri, Public Schools (1998) rubrics contain the following
criteria: l)experiment with a variety o f methods, media, techniques, themes, and styles
from art history; 2) use of elements and principles; 3) personal expression; 4) problem
solving; 5) creativity; 6) work habits; 7) production; 8) craftsmanship; 9) aesthetic
response; 10) relates work to art history; 11) art criticism; and 12) makes connections to
careers in art.
Columbia Schools (Venet, 1999) also conducts embedded, district-wide
assessment for all third grade (public sculpture) and fourth grade (portraiture) students.
Students use a test booklet and other materials over the course o f the unit (four to six,
one-hour lessons). Teachers are trained to score the assessments using a holistic rubric.
At least two raters score each student’s work independently (double-blind technique).
Rubrics for scoring sculpture models and drawings include criteria: 1) student’s ideas, 2)
expression o f the idea, 3) use o f elements and principles, 4) originality, 5) composition, 6)
craftsmanship, 7) representation o f space on a two-dimensional surface (drawing), and 8)
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
use of art vocabulary in discussing own artwork (reflection). In the fourth grade
assessment on portraiture, students draw from a projected image of another student’s
face, then draw a self-portrait while looking in a mirror. Score points are given for
accurately drawn facial features and correct proportions.
Monett, Missouri, schools (1998) list four criteria on a generic art rubric: 1)
creativity, 2) composition, 3) craftsmanship, and 4) work habits. For individual projects,
teachers add specific criteria to this framework.
The Fairfax County, Virginia (1999) school system uses a generic rubric based
upon degrees o f accomplishment o f the given task. For each unit this is supplemented
with specific self-evaluation forms that list art lesson objectives, concepts, and techniques.
Sargent and Fitzsimmons (1999) discussed the Mundelein, Illinois, school district
rubrics on writing, oral presentations, portfolios, and individual units. Criteria are
grouped in general categories: 1) technical skills, 2) use o f media, 3) craftsmanship, 4)
composition, 5) creativity, 6) presentation, and 7) self-evaluation. Specific concepts are
added to the framework depending upon the individual lesson.
There are some common criteria among the various assessments discussed in this
section. They became the criteria used in the questionnaire developed for this study, the
Art Assessment Survey, which is located in the Appendix.
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Aesthetics
A subquestion in this study looks at the use o f aesthetic theories as criteria for
student production o f art. It is necessary to define both aesthetics in general and specific
aesthetic theories before they can be considered as indicators o f quality in student art
products. It is also useful to look at the role o f aesthetics in art education.
Definition o f Aesthetics
The term “aesthetics” was coined by philosopher, Alexander Baumgarten, to refer
to a special area of philosophy, a science o f beauty based upon sense perception (Eaton,
1988, p. 4). The word was derived from the ancient Greek work aisthetikos which meant
“sensory perception’. Aesthetics was first understood as the philosophy o f the beautiful,
an idea that lasted until the beginning o f the twentieth century. “Aesthetics emerged as a
distinct area o f philosophy as a consequence o f the growing centrality o f subjectivity in
modem societies. [Aesthetics is] the task o f understanding our relationship to the world
without the assistance o f dogmatic theology” (Bowie, 1990, p. 254). The definition of
aesthetics depends upon the writer’s definition of art and therefore varies among
philosophers. To Tolstoy, art was communication of emotion while to Santayana, it was
beauty. Crawford (1989) wrote that:
Aesthetics is the attempt to understand our experiences o f and the concepts
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
we use to talk about objects that we find perceptually interesting and attractive - objects that can be valued not simply as mean to other ends but in themselves or for their own sake, (p.227)
At the end o f the twentieth century, aesthetics is seen in the context of a global,
multicultural world. Various theories of art that represent different philosophies are
accepted. These theories are concerned with the nature of art as the product of artistic
creativity. Lankford (1992) defined aesthetics as a group of concepts for understanding
the nature o f art. They address process, product, and response from individual and
societal points of view. The importance o f art to civilization and culture lies in its nature,
value, and function in society. Several writers agree that concepts o f aesthetics are
dependent upon concepts o f art prevalent within a given culture at a given time, therefore
a definition o f aesthetics should be seen within the context of its time and place
(Anderson, 1990; Eaton, 1998; Lankford, 1992). Considering the challenge of finding a
universal definition o f aesthetics in a global society, Richard Anderson (1990) suggests:
...the best way to proceed seems to be by recognizing that when we use the word “art,” we usually have something in mind that is valued beyond its practical contribution to such instrumentalities as subsistence, that is made so as to have some sort o f sensuous appeal, and the production o f which reflects skills that are more highly developed in the maker than among other members o f the society, (p. 8)
Philosophy o f Aesthetics
Aesthetics literature covers two strands: philosophy and experience. This study is
concerned with the former strand, the field o f philosophy dealing with the nature o f art.
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Aesthetics is the branch o f philosophy that involves critical reflection on our experience
and evaluation o f art. Crawford (1989) wrote, “The basic presupposition o f aesthetics as
a branch o f philosophy is that our experiences o f art - creating, appreciating, criticizing -
involve basic human values and, as such, are worthy o f serious inquiry” (p. 228). Barrett
(1997) listed key issues in art philosophy as artists' intentions and their importance to
understanding works o f art. Lankford (1992) noted that key topics in aesthetics are: the
nature, value, and function o f art in society.
There are a variety of issues within the field o f aesthetics. One deals with the
values and standards for the interpretation and criticism o f works o f art. “Aestheticians
ask two common but very thought-provoking and basic questions. They are: “What is
the nature o f art? and What is the value o f art?” (Armstrong, 1999, p. 115). Another issue
deals with the ways artworks have come to have significance or meaning. They might
represent the world, express feelings about it, serve a political or societal function, or exist
for the sake o f their form.
According to Rader (1952) and Eaton (1988) art can be categorized four ways: 1)
the creative, 2) the work o f art, 3) the audience's response, and 4) the relation o f art to the
social order. Stewart (1990) divides the discipline o f aesthetics into three parts: the
philosophy, the products, and the processes.
Aesthetics denotes concepts and methods in the philosophy of art. Students
benefit from its study as it allows explorations o f fundamental ideas about art from ancient
cultures as well as dialogues about contemporary issues (Lankford, 1992). Many writers
have described strategies for engaging students in discussions about the philosophy o f art.
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Examples have been given for role-playing, puzzles, debates, and games which can be
appropriately modified for use with students o f various ages (Erikson, 1986; Eaton, 1988;
Battin Fisher, Moore, & Silvers, 1989; Lankford, 1992; Stewart, 1995, 1997).
Aesthetic Theories of Art
A theory is an attempt to explain phenomena. Aesthetic theories explain human
experiences related to art and art objects (Stewart, 1997). They address all aspects of art,
including process, product, response, individual context, and social phenomena (Eaton,
1988; Lankford, 1992). Questions about definitions of key terms like “ ‘beauty’, ‘art’, and
‘aesthetic’ led philosophers to formulate theories to explain these difficult
concepts...though in contemporary aesthetics, ‘art’ is more often discussed than ‘beauty’”
(Eaton, 1988, p. 5). Theories often present the necessary and sufficient conditions for
asserting that something is an aesthetic object, activity, experience, or situation (Eaton,
1988).
According to Rader (1952), there was a dispute between isolationist (art that is
separate and distinct from life) and contextual (art and life are integral) theories o f art.
However, he indicated that both can be viewed as harmoniously interconnected.
Smith (1989) reflected on the similarity between Weitz and Lanier’s viewpoints.
Weitz suggests that it is worthwhile to consider traditional theories o f art because they
lead us to attend in certain ways to certain features of art. This is similar to Lanier’s
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
suggestion that “imitationalist, emotionalist, intuitionist, and evaluative theories o f art
have the potential, when appropriately translated, to clarify....the nature, meaning, and
value of aesthetic objects” (Smith, 1989, p. 11). Anderson (1990) explains that a
distinctive feature o f Western aesthetics is its pluralism, allowing exceptionally diverse
ways of thinking about art. He describes:
Four schools of thought have developed in the West regarding the fundamental nature and purpose of the fine arts - and, by extension the popular arts. One tradition has emphasized art’s ability to portray its subject matter, either in superficial appearance or as an idealized essence.A second school has used art to promote the spiritual or social betterment of the individual or the community. Emotions have been the chief interest of a third group o f theorists - one that values art for its ability to purge the feelings and stir the passions o f artist and audience members alike. A fourth tradition has argued that art’s significance lies in its formal qualities, with the artist’s skilled use o f sensuous media provoking a distinctive response in audience members. ( p. 292)
In agreement with Anderson, Stewart (1997) notes that “consistent with a pluralistic
society is the view that art can be different things, have different purposes, and be
governed by a range of aesthetic standards” (p. 28). She suggests that an artwork can be
judged from different standards which reflect different theories of art, depending upon the
circumstances under which it was made and viewed. Throughout history, certain theories
of arts match particular world views. In today’s world, Stewart believes that it is
important for teachers to provide students with knowledge o f multiple theories o f art.
It is appropriate to teach theories of art to students through a contextual approach
to art history. Students can understand how an artwork was aesthetically related to its era
and also evaluate the same artwork from multiple theoretical perspectives relevant to
contemporary culture. Thus informed, they can analyze their own and peers’ artworks for
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
intentions related to one or more aesthetic theories. Ultimately, they should be able to
include aesthetics in the decision-making process they use to produce artwork.
Next, it is necessary to consider which theories o f art students should know and be
able to use.
Imitational or Mimetic Theories of Art
Advocates o f imitationalist or mimetic theories believe that an artifact is art if it
copies the physical or imagined ideal world. Ancient Greeks, Plato, Socrates, and
Aristotle, considered art a species o f imitation (Rader, 1952; Eaton, 1988). Plato
chastised art for being mere imitation. Aristotle disagreed, believing that art could convey
the essence o f the subject and express the universal (Anderson, 1990).
Medieval artists assumed that art was primarily mimetic, but they stressed the
religious functions of realism. Renaissance art showed renewed interest in Mimeticism for
its own sake, apparent in the development o f geometric perspective, portraiture, and
figurative painting techniques. During the neoclassical period, Realism communicated not
only classic beauty, but ideal principles o f ethical and moral perfection. Art was expected
to have an uplifting effect upon viewers (Anderson, 1990).
From the onset o f the Romantic movement, Mimeticism as an aesthetic attitude
waned. Read combined the classical theory o f imitation with the romantic theory o f
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
imagination. Nature became the "touchstone" on which imagination was hinged (Rader,
1952, p. 5). The artist's imagination reinterpreted imitation, based upon unconscious wish
fulfillment, and played an instrumental social role. To Santayana art was "beauty, the
expression o f the ideal, the symbol o f divine perfection" (Rader 1952, p. 193). E. H.
Gombich (1960, 1970) discussed the traditional view of Imitationalism in which an artist
imitates the external form o f an object, and a viewer recognizes the subject o f the work by
its form. It can be challenging to explain what takes place when an artwork represents the
real world since it conveys levels o f meaning regarding subject matter, representations,
symbolism, and metaphor (Eaton, 1988).
Imitationalism though always present to some degree, was superceded by
Romanticism, then Formalism for much o f the late nineteenth and the twentieth centuries.
In the 1970-1990's, Mimeticism regained stature through the Super- and Photo-Realism
movements.
Imitationalism is easily understood by school-age students who often share its goal
of representing life as they see it (Gardner & Winner, 1981). Application of
Imitationalism to studio assignments can be limited by a student’s developmental level
and/or degree o f skill. Many drawing lessons at the upper elementary through high school
grades are based upon imitationalist theory.
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Expressionist Theory o f Art
Art is expressive rather than merely descriptive (Rader, 1952).
Expressionist theory which became popular during the nineteenth century
Romantic art movement. It considers an object to be art when the artist expresses
feelings, a personal viewpoint, or emotions which are communicated to viewers. The
focus is on the psychological, inner world o f the artist. Instead of one, universal theory,
there are a variety of theories of expression in art.
Eaton (1988) and Crawford (1989) discuss the distinction Tolstoy made between
science and art. Science was the transmission o f thought while art was the transmission of
feeling. He claimed that successful artists transmitted their feelings to their audience, and
that the viewers became more sensitive to the feelings and needs o f others as a result o f
viewing the work ( Eaton, 1988; Crawford, 1989). Tolstoy criticized European artists at
the end of the nineteenth century for focusing on pleasure rather than on an emotional
expression of the religious attitudes of the age. To Tolstoy, the role o f art was not to
make people smarter, but more humane.
From this point o f view, art is the communication of emotion and that
communication is indispensable to art. The question this theory asks is: Are the emotions
o f the art effectively communicated and are they worthwhile? (Rader, 1952). Rader
explained that from this perspective, art expresses values. However essential the
communication o f feeling, it is compatible with technical skill. “Emotion is not the same
as being overcome with emotion...Van Gogh’s distress did not keep him from exercising
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the care and control required for the production of a skillfully crafted work.” (Eaton,
1988, p. 23).
Eaton (1988) explained Bouwsma’s philosophy that expression does not depend
upon a causal relationship between the object and the viewer’s emotions, but instead
locates expression within the object. People learn to recognize attributes of people who
feel certain emotions, then use them to express and interpret.
Langer (1957) discussed the power o f images to convey feeling:
A work of art expresses a conception of life, emotion, inward reality. But it is neither a confessional not a frozen tantrum; it is a developed metaphor, a non-discursive symbol that articulates what is verbally ineffable - the logic o f consciousness itself, (p.25)
Langer found that associations between emotions and formal qualities are not sufficient to
account for expression. Instead, she described the qualitites o f artworks that serve as
signs or a language based upon associations of “logical form”. While in language we have
to first learn a vocabulary, in art, feelings emerge directly from the form and are apparent
immediately.
Another way to look at communication is through the expression of ideas rather
than of emotions. What makes artists special is their ability to understand and therefore,
emphasis is put on the artist’s conception. Eaton (1988) explained that Croce believed
that art was an idea, in contrast to craft which was the physical act o f creating. Sircello’s
theory o f expression is tied to artists’ treatments o f their subject matter. The way in which
they show feelings is relevant (Eaton, 1988). From this point o f view, expression is
mental rather than physical.
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A related theory o f expression accounts for artist’s feelings and conceptions as
well as the crafted object. Dewey based his theory o f art on experience which differed
from simply being alive. To Dewey (1958) an “experience” involved organized
perceptions such that the function of art was to organize experience meaningfully, more
coherently, more vividly, than ordinary life permitted. Art was articulate and adequate
experience. To achieve oneness of art and life, the means and ends were connected
consciously. For Dewey, experiences began with impulses that became intentions, then
surmounted obstacles to become reflections. Through this process, the emotion was
transformed into an object. Therefore, the object was as important as the artist’s feelings
and ideas.
Eaton (1988) doubted that there could be one general theory o f expression that
would explain all the uses o f “express”. Expressionist theories can be understood by
school-age students if their personal experiences and feelings are related to examples from
art history. Adolescents (Gardner & Winner, 1981; Jeffers, 1999) in particular, are
sensitive to expressive purposes of artwork. Expressionism could be used as a criteria for
studio production by asking students to select media, style, and subject matter to
communicate a feeling or mood.
Formalist Theory of Art
Formalist theory emphasizes meaning that is intrinsic in the formal qualities o f the
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
artwork. By analyzing the artwork’s color, texture, shape, line, space, form, and value,
the viewer arrives at an aesthetic response. Extrinsic information about the artist’s life,
intentions, subject matter content, and social context are considered irrelevant. Formalism
was promoted at the beginning o f the twentieth century to justify abstract and non
objective works. These theorists believe that a special feeling is associated with aesthetic
experience, but it can be evoked only by compositional qualities o f artworks. Formalists
value intrinsic properties o f the object or event itself, rather than what it represents or
expresses. How a work of art presents is more important that what it represents (Eaton,
1988).
Early in the twentieth century art critics, Bell and Fry, rejected criticism from
imitationalist or Romantic traditions, instead they defended modern, abstract art. Eaton
(1988) discusses them:
Paintings, the formalists urged, should not be construed as telling us stories about the world, They are not meant to make us think, for example, about apples. Rather they should be construed as telling us, for example, about colors and space, (p. 79)
Formalists promoted the idea that while creation was emotion and imagination, the work
of art was form. (Rader, 1952). Bell agreed with Tolstoy that art is communication o f
emotions, but he "thinks there is a peculiarly esthetic emotion, quite different from the
emotions o f ordinary life, that is directed to ‘significant form’ by which he means certain
combinations of lines, colors, and spacial elements which excite pure esthetic emotion"
(Rader 1952, p. 312). To Bell, significant form was the one quality common to all works
of visual art. Fry ignored a work’s history and context, insisting that aesthetic experience
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
was based only on the work’s form. A phrase that describes formalist intent is “art-for-
art’s-sake”.
Most teachers introduce formalism to students through activities based upon the
elements and principles o f art (Chapman, 1982). Studio assignments will best
communicate formalist theory when they are integrated with the art historic study of
abstract and non-objective art. If elements and principles exercises are presented as simple
activities, in isolation from a theoretical framework, it is unlikely that students will
understand Bell’s notion o f an aesthetic experience based upon significant form.
Pragmatic or Instrumental Theory o f Art
Pragmatic or instrumental theories require an artifact or event to serve a purpose
beyond art-for-art’ s-sake. The function may express ceremonial or spiritual beliefs,
promote political propaganda, sell a product, or make a positive contribution to the well
being of individual or society (Anderson, 1990). In many non-Western cultures, art is
indistinguishable from its societal function. Hart (1991), reporting on cross-cultural
research, identified and contrasted aesthetic standards form Western and non-Western
cultures. When non-Western art did not meet Western standards o f “high art”, it was
often omitted from art education classrooms. Key differences centered around concepts
of: individuality, originality, permanence, and form. Hart suggested that more than one
universal aesthetic exists, and that the standards should come from within the culture,
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
making it necessary to consider the social, cultural, and historical milieu in which the artist
acts. Western aesthetic, offering imitationalist, expressionist, and formalist philosophies
should be expanded to include a pragmatic or functionalist approach that accounts for the
social role of art in many cultures.
Social critical theories of art have been grouped within this category, in this paper,
since they also have a purpose beyond aesthetic experience. They differ from non-
Westem traditional art in that promoting or changing attitudes and conditions is an overt
part of their agenda. These theorists are interested in what has been called “aesthetic
sociology - the way art functions socially, politically, economically, and historically”
(Eaton, 1988, p. 86). The best-known social theory is Marxism. Marxists viewed art as a
form of indoctrination in which the context is essential to understanding art (Lankford,
1992).
Until recently, the academic study o f art history in United States classrooms was
limited to Western civilization masterpieces, sometimes irreverently referred to as the
work o f dead, white, European males. By the year 2025 the current minority (people of
color) will become the majority. The implications o f this trend for education suggest the
inclusion of artworks by African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans and Asian-Americans.
Minority students need to be included fully in the curriculum; their self-esteem and their
ability to develop their talents are at stake (Stinespring & Kennedy, 1995).
Transformative academic knowledge requires an expansion o f the historical canon by
relating knowledge to cultures (Banks 1998).
Art historical inclusiveness requires a paradigm shift from ethnocentrism to cultural
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
relativity. Ethnographic data is essential for analyzing the art o f any culture. To
understand a culture’s art, it is necessary to understand it’s aesthetic, the philosophy that
indicates salient features and functions o f art within that culture. Furthermore, the art
must be appreciated from the perspective o f its creators. Definitions o f art are culture-
specific, however some commonalities can be found across groups. Usually art is valued
beyond its ability to meet subsistence needs, it has sensuous appeal, and its creation
requires special skills (Anderson 1990).
With Pragmatism/Instrumentalism, the distinction between high and low art is
blurred. Students can experience art through studies of cross-cultural or ceremonial
artifacts, popular arts, advertising or applied design, protest or propaganda posters or
films, or folk arts. Students can select options for studio production that mirror the
functions o f art studied. They can create ceremonial or functional objects, posters with
messages (e.g. fire prevention or environmental conservation), or political commentaries
on national or local issues.
Open Theory o f Art
Open theory had it’s roots in Wittgenstein’s 19S3 publication in which he argued
an anti-essentialist philosophy. Essentialist theories attempt to define art by listing
necessary and sufficient conditions. Contrary to the essentialist approach, Wittgenstein
argued that Plato was wrong, and that many words could not be defined. Instead of a
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
definition composed o f a set o f necessary and sufficient conditions, he described shared
traits or sets of common features that overlap. He called these traits, “family
resemblances” (Battin, Fisher, Moore, & Silvers, 1989). Weitz (1966) applied this
concept to the term ‘art’ since there had been radical changes in style, medium, critical
vision, and taste across time and cultures which precluded a single definition. He divided
language into open or closed concepts. Closed concepts can be defined while open
concepts can not. ‘Art’, an open concept, names things that have a “family resemblance”
to each other. Therefore, Weitz’s theory was labeled, “open theory”. Eaton (1988), in
commenting upon Weitz’s theory, stated: “the very expansive, adventurous character o f
art, its ever-present changes and novel creations, make it logically impossible to insure any
set o f defining properties” (p. 12). Mandelbaum suggested that there may be some
manifest properties that are discemable, while others may be invisible - like a common
history, special interests, or common purpose that cause them to be grouped in the same
family. Open theorists believe the definition of art will always be amendable and
corrigible, a necessary condition for creation o f novel works.
Students can engage in this debate by collecting and labeling objects that have a
“family resemblance” in place o f defining art by its attributes. They could then create an
object that shared the family traits. This assignment would require a high level of analytic
and synthesis skills and could prove daunting to the average student. In addition, using
open theory as a criteria for studio production would make it difficult to evaluate.
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Institutional Theory of Art
Danto believed that the birth o f Modernism in the 1880's was the beginning of the
“Real Theory of Art”, a rebellion against imitationalist theory. “Real” theory was defined
as the creation o f forms that are not imitations (Dickie, 1984). According to this theory, it
is no longer possible to distinguish art from non art on the basis of observation. Looking
at Warhol’s Pop Art o f the 1960's, Danto (1992) introduced the idea o f an artworld,
composed of social institutions that operate from a shared theory of art in labeling objects
or events as “art”. Later, Danto declared that a child could not make art, even if his/her
creation looked like a Picasso because the child had not internalized the history o f art and
aesthetic theory. This point of view evolved into the institutional theory o f art. In the
debate over Weitz’s open theory, Dickie disagreed with the idea that art was indefinable.
Dickie’s (1971) original theory defined art as an artifact and set o f aspects which had been
given the status of art by a social institution The definition was later revised to include:
an artist who participates with understanding in the making of art; a work that has been
created in order to be presented to the artworld; an informed public prepared to
understand; a broader concept o f the artworld; and an artworld system that allows the
presentation o f artwork to the public. In this theory, a social institution, rather than a
formula, distinguishes artifacts that are called art from those that are not (Dickie, 1984).
Institutional theory emphasizes the role o f context in labeling and understanding
art. Rather than asking What is art?, institutional theorists, like Goodman, asks, When is
art? For an artifact or event to be considered art, the artworld (a loose association of
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
institutions including museums, galleries, critics, art teachers, and art historians) must
confer this status. Any object can be presented as a candidate, but must be justified to the
satisfaction o f the artworld to achieve that status (Armstrong, 1999).
The institutional theory o f art places emphasis on “who says, when, and where” an
object, experience, or process is considered to be art. Eaton (1988) explained
that the “art-is-what-anybody-says-is-art” attitude is often applied to only certain
authorities or experts. She observed that art has become so esoteric that it requires
viewers to use “explanatory aides in museums, lengthy written texts on the walls next to
paintings, and cassette players that can be rented at an exhibit” which indicate what to
look fo r and often at as well (p. 9).
Students can relate to institutional theory by role-playing debates that occur among
those in the artworld over the acceptance or rejection o f particular objects. In the case o f
student art production, the art teacher represents the classroom equivalent o f an artworld.
Each time students create something to meet their teacher’s standards, they are dealing
with a narrow example o f Institutionalism. A closer approximation, for advanced
students, would be to have them create works with the intention o f having them displayed
at a local gallery or museum. The completed artworks would be subject to the typical
selection process used by the institution. Works that were accepted would be considered
“art” . Though this is a possible scenario, it is contrary to prevailing pedagogical beliefs
and would not be recommended.
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Postmodern Theory o f Art
Postmodernism began in architecture in the 1970's, then spread to other arts and
humanities. It’s popularity is due to its deliberate ambivalence and communicative
elasticity. Characterized by it’s transitory, transcendent, and transitional nature,
postmodernism’s ambivalence is a result o f movement away from objectivity, rationality,
and universality. Clark (1996) explained:
The sense o f meaning within art has moved away from the modernist emphasis on form toward issues o f content, issues which frequently involve the concept o f power - its source, exercise, and consequence. Artistic meaning is seen as a socially constructed entity, requiring the viewer to look beyond the formalist compositional qualities o f a work, decode its symbolic imagery, and expose its embedded cultural assumptions. Meaning is also seen as fluid and contextual; a disparate array o f interpretations can be derived from any given work since meaning is subject to the varied perspectives o f artists and viewers. ( p.2)
According to Danto (1999), postmodern artists try to reduce the distance between art and
real things, and they create objects that are ambiguously both art and real things. He calls
this period “Post Historical” because an artist can follow any theoretical position, style,
and intention in creating art. Art and the philosophy o f art have become the same thing.
Goodman, like Langer, differentiates between languages and nonlinguistic systems. To
understand an artwork, he believes it is necessary to understand which symbol systems are
relevant and how they work. Gablik (1995) explains that connective aesthetics is
postmodern, looking at art in terms o f social purpose in place o f style. Rather than a
focus on individual self-expression, postmodernism values art that is "found within a
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
dialogic collaborative, interactive, and interdependent processes" (Irwin, 1999, p. 36).
Under the broad umbrella o f Postmodernism are a variety o f social critical theory
constructs. Poststructuralism emphasizes that forms of knowledge do not exist as
universal absolutes, instead they are socially constructed. Deconstruction/Reconstruction
adds that artifacts and social interactions are passed on and modified through successive
generations. Since knowledge is socially constructed, therefore it can be deconstructed,
or taken apart, to reveal social forces embedded within (Clark, 1996). Feminist pedagogy
introduces the values o f collaboration and nurture in addition to female perspectives.
Multiculturalism raises issues o f ethnocentrism, racism, prejudice, sexual preference, and
geographical determinism. Groups that have been historically disenfranchised in the
artworld have called for reevaluation of, and inclusion in, the canon. One example is the
African-American or Black aesthetic which can: reflect prevailing European or Euro-
American ideas; honor their heritage as part o f the African diaspora; record United States
history from a black perspective; express religious, spiritual, social, or political messages;
or synthesize their personal world views with any o f these traditions (Museum o f Fine
Arts, Boston, 1970; Klotman 1977; Dallas Museum of Art, 1989; Driskell 1995). Hoard,
1990, explained:
Black American ethnic culture has its roots in the African aesthetic which presents the felt reality or expressive quality from any work o f art with such intensity that it seeks to evoke movement or utterance (activity, visual and verbal) in the context o f aesthetic response. ( p. 155)
Hoard discussed depth o f feeling and physical responsiveness as part o f the Black
aesthetic. Franklin and Stuhr (1990) identified formal structure which includes the use of
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
color intensity, form, and pattern, as a characteristic o f Black aesthetics.
Students can relate to postmodern theory from a multicultural or social issues
approach by selecting ideas o f personal interest. Due to its broad acceptance of multiple
perspectives, postmodernism could be used alone, or in conjunction with imitationalist,
expressionist, formalist, or pragmatic theories as criteria for students’ studio production.
This study will focus on aesthetic theories that tend to be an underlying purpose o f
student artworks - either due to the teacher’s lesson expectations or to the student’s
artistic intent. The four considered relevant to K-12 art education are: Formalism,
Expressionism, Instrumentalism/Pragmatism, and Imitationalism/Mimeticism. Post
modern attributes are considered to be subsumed within some Expressionist and all
Instrumentalism/Pragmatism Criteria. Although open theory and Institutionalism should
be discussed with students, neither is applicable to most student artwork.
Aesthetic Education in Art Education
Art education can introduce aesthetics experiences that help explain, expand upon and/or change children’s naive value judgments by taking the time to discuss ways that people regard art...The aesthetics experience invites students to sort through specifics and to think critically about the comprehensive or general ideas about art. (Armstrong, 1999, p. 15)
According to Crawford (1989) aesthetic education benefits students by bringing
them to: 1) understand the nature of art and through their experiences with it to better
understand themselves and their values; 2) increase perceptual sensitivity; and 3) introduce
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
them to the study o f philosophy. Smith (1989) cited five clusters o f concepts that define
the discipline: 1) the art object, 2) appreciation and interpretation, 3) critical evaluation,
4) artistic creation, and S) the cultural context.
Children as young as elementary school can discuss aesthetics issues if they are
translated into age-appropriate games or puzzles (Battin, Fisher, Moore, & Silvers, 1988).
“Even young children ask such questions as, ‘Why is this object art and that object is not
art’” (Hurtwitz & Day, 1995, p. 578). Parsons (1994) explained that children think in
characteristic ways about the arts, have implicit philosophies of art which are shaped in the
development o f underlying cognitive abilities and which determine their level o f aesthetic
response. Issues, often taken from local newspapers, become debate or essay items
designed to heighten aesthetic awareness (Stewart, 1987; Battin, Fisher, Moore, &
Silvers, 1988; Eaton 1988; Hurwitz & Day, 1995; Erickson & Katter, 1996; Stewart,
1997; Armstrong, 1999).
Aesthetic education was ushered in as the Progressive Education Movement
declined in popularity. The underlying assumption was that concepts drawn from
aesthetic philosophy would provide the art curriculum with “discipline-centered” subject
matter (Pittard, 1985, p. 166). For more than the first half o f the twentieth century, art
(primarily production) in the schools served an instrumental purpose, supporting general
education, and promoting social harmony and mental health. During the post World War
II era, under the influence o f Lowenfeld, a philosophy o f art as “self-expression” infused
schools in the rapidly growing, affluent suburbs o f America. For Lowenfeld, aesthetic
growth was basic to art experience. It was evident in the creative products o f children as
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“a sensitive ability to integrate experiences into a cohesive whole” (Lowenfeld & Brittain,
1975, p.40).
In 1958, Ecker and Kaelin expressed the view that principles o f modern aesthetics
would contribute to general education (Smith, 1989). Barkan (1962) predicted the
aesthetic education movement when he wrote that an aesthetic life was an educational
frontier and would become a reality for students in the in 1960s. Lanier, in 1963,
discussed the role o f the visual arts in providing an aesthetic experience which could only
be achieved through interaction between a student and an object. Marantz, in 1964, stated
that appreciation o f art should be the principal concern o f art education rather than art
production. Smith, in 1965, wrote that an integration of child-centered and discipline-
centered curriculum was needed (Smith, 1989). In the mid-1960's, Ecker and Barkan
marked the change to an essentialist perspective by proposing that “artistic activity was a
form of qualitative problem-solving” and “the discipline o f art consisted of three modes of
scientific inquiry: studio, art history, and art criticism” (Clark, 1996, p. 19). Elliot Eisner,
in 1965, predicted that humane education would occur through the arts (Smith, 1989). In
1967, as a reaction to the post-Sputnik emphasis on math and science in education, The
Central Midwest Regional Education Laboratory (CEMREL) was charged with the
development o f an aesthetic education curriculum for elementary students.
The Central Midwest Regional Laboratory (CEMREL) project (Madeja &
Onuska, 1977) conceptualized in 1965 at a national aesthetic education conference, was a
program o f curriculum modules for grades K-6 designed to supplement general education,
not replace, traditional arts education. Led by Barkan and Chapman, national experts in
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the arts were brought together to develop guidelines. Madeja oversaw the creation o f
instructional units o f aesthetics activities for the visual arts, music, literature, theater,
dance, film, the natural world, and popular culture which were designed to increase
students’ perception and exploration. Each grade level was based upon a theme: level
one - aesthetics in the physical world; level two - aesthetics and art elements; level three -
aesthetics and the creative process; level four - aesthetics and the artist; level five -
aesthetics and the culture; and level six - aesthetics and the environment. Only 12 o f 44
planned units made it through the process o f development, implementation, and
evaluation. Funding cuts stopped the development of the remaining units. The program’s
evaluation, published in 1976, concluded that the Aesthetics Education Program had been
successful in addressing general problems in aesthetics, development, and learning; that
aesthetic development was better conceptualized as a profile than as a trait; and that
aesthetic criticism and appreciation contain important and intriguing subproblems of
preference, judgment, and justification (Madeja, 1976). Clark (1984) commented that the
units were complex and difficult to use and repackage, with many parts being difficult or
impossible to replace (Efland, 1989). For several years, the materials were available for
purchase from CEMREL.
At the same time as CEMREL, the Southwest Regional Laboratory (SWRL)
developed its own art program for classroom teachers, organized into blocks o f four units,
each with four media, four types o f subject matter, and four styles. Every studio
production unit involved the study and practice of beginning concepts and techniques from
the fields o f aesthetics, criticism, and history (Efland, 1989). Activity, analysis, media, and
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
student evaluation guides were included. The program included a series o f filmstrips that
were keyed to production and criticism activities.
The Kettering curriculum for elementary art was developed in 1967 by Eisner at
Stanford University so that classroom teachers without artistic training would be able to
teach significant art content. It was based upon six premises: 1) art offers unique and
essential content; 2) artistic learning is complex and benefits from sensitive instruction; 3)
in addition to studio, students should learn art criticism and history; 4) both an art
curriculum and support materials were necessary; 5) at least some art learning could be
evaluated; and 6) classroom teachers could improve art instruction by using a sequentially
ordered curriculum with support materials (Efland, 1989). Student activities involved
three “domains”: productive, critical, and historical. It stressed a sequential, written
curriculum, appropriate support materials, the product of student’s work as well as the
process, and evaluation. Activities and support materials were placed in “Kettering
Boxes” that could be moved from room to room. Each unit was field tested and evaluated
using short and long-term, formal and informal techniques. The curriculum was never
made available for commercial use, however it was adopted by the state o f Hawaii (Eisner,
1968).
Langer, (1957) wrote that words could not adequately convey human feelings.
Art, however, is the objectification of feeling. In addition, developing a discriminating eye
through art experiences transfers to an ability to extract meaning in other areas. Artistic
expression projects thoughts and feelings. Art freezes tensions o f life so that they can be
examined. Langer saw two purposes of artistic images: they articulate our own life o f
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
feeling so that we become conscious o f its elements, and they show that the basic forms o f
feelings are common to most people.
In 1969, Chapman presented a curriculum planning paper which refined and
clarified structures from the CEMREL project. Encouragement o f personal fulfillment
was one o f the functions she listed for general education. The parallel goal for art
education was personal response and expression in art. Subgoals were for students to
perceive visual qualities as sources o f feeling, interpret the meanings of visual qualitites,
and judge and explain the significance o f the encounter (Efland, 1989).
In 1971, the Aesthetic Eye project, funded by the National Endowment for the
Humanities, was a collaboration o f universities and schools in Los Angeles, California. A
series o f teacher workshops were presented over a period o f 18 months. During that time,
teachers were introduced to aesthetic content, developed a curriculum, implemented it in
their classrooms, and provided feedback. The program was influenced by Broudy’s
approach which identified four levels o f aesthetic perception and three levels o f aesthetic
criticism. According to Broudy (1987), since imagery affects life and learning, the skills o f
aesthetic perceiving should be a major focus o f instruction in conjunction with
performance skills. He recommends “aesthetic scanning” whereby students point to
sensory properties, formal qualities, expressive properties, and technical merits o f an
object. Students also engage in aesthetic criticism (historic, recreative, and judicial).
Aesthetic education was viewed as the development and refinement of aesthetic perception, that is, the process o f helping the pupil respond to the appearance of objects in a given medium in terms o f its sensory, formal, technical, and expressive properties. (Efland, 1989, p. 83)
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The emphasis o f the program was to be true to the way artists work. All participants
developed an individualized aesthetic education curriculum to implement in their own
classrooms.
In 1972, after guidelines had been published by the National Center for School and
College Television, Schwartz and Cataldo, advised by Feldman, prepared a 30-program
television series, “Images and Things”, that provided analyzes o f artworks and history.
Tollifson developed a supplementary learning resource kit that consisted o f 180 slides of
artworks shown in the series (Efland, 1989).
Feldman (1970) and Eisner (1972) promoted school curricula in which critical
thinking skills are applied to interpret aesthetic meaning. “Aesthetic organizing”, a type of
creativity, involved students’ ability to organize components with a high degree o f
coherence and harmony. During the same time period, Ecker and Kaelin suggested that
the aesthetic experience become the basis for research in art education.
Feldman (1973) presented his model o f art criticism for student analysis o f works
of art. The process consisted o f four steps: description, analysis, interpretation, and
judgment. He warned that adults or children who were functioning as critics had to “resist
the tendency to reach a premature closure to our aesthetic experience” and rush to making
a judgment (p. 60).
Amheim, in 1974, explained that perception intertwines feeling and thinking, that
people “think with their senses”, and that artistic representation in children’s work
progresses from a preference for simple structures to more complex ones. (Smith, 1989, p.
13).
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Goodman, in 1976, promoted symbol systems as an approach to understanding the
nature and meaning o f art. Chapman (1977) wrote that aesthetic perception is not limited
to decoding symbols with fixed meanings. It is particularized rather that generalized; it is
connotative, not denotative. Multisensory associations can be developed by having
students translate from one sense or art form to another.
Madeja and Onuska’s definition o f aesthetic education was “learning how to
perceive, judge, and value aesthetically what we have come to know through our senses”
(Madeja & Onuska, 1977, p.3). They included the aesthetic experience, the artistic
process, the object or event, and the cultural or historical tradition in which the art was
produced. In 1987, Parsons described developmental stages in the growth o f aesthetic
awareness (Smith, 1989).
Madeja, in 1981, suggested that the content of teaching art derives from all four
disciplines of art: aesthetics, artistic creation, the history of art, and art criticism (Smith,
1989). These became the cornerstones o f Discipline-Based Art Education (DBAE), an
antecedent of the aesthetic education movement. Beardsley’s rationale for the study o f art
was adopted by Smith in early writings on DBAE. Benefits to students would be:
perception, response, and understanding of artworks; development o f a store of images;
and increased understanding o f visual metaphor (Clark, Day, & Greer, 1989). The term
Discipline-Based Art Education was selected to suggest a comprehensive approach to the
study of art. Influenced by Bruner’s suggestion that math and science be taught using the
disciplines as models, the proponents o f DBAE chose to use practices of the four arts
disciplines as the basis for their proposed curriculum. From these fields, they drew upon a
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
community o f scholars and artists, methods o f inquiry, and conceptual structure.
The discipline o f aesthetics under DBAE consisted o f five main clusters of
concepts: the art object, appreciation and interpretation, critical evaluation, artistic
creation, and the cultural context (Clark, Day, & Greer, 1989). Students explored
questions: What is art? and How is quality determined? Aesthetics was not included to
train future aestheticians, rather its goal was to be a part o f liberal arts education designed
to broaden perspectives and to develop critical skills (Crawford, 1989). Curricula were
written sequentially and articulated for all grade levels, making modifications for the
developmental level o f the child.
Funded by the Getty Center for Education in the Arts, DBAE was promoted
nationally through the 1980's and 1990's. Grants to regional development sites provided
free teacher inservice workshops and dissemination o f materials. In California, where art
specialists had been eliminated from the elementary schools, classroom teachers were
trained to use DBAE with their students. National workshops, such as the one in
Cincinatti in the summer o f 1990, brought together aestheticians, aesthetics educators, and
teachers. Strategies, including games and puzzles, were shared as ways of engaging
students in aesthetic inquiry (Stewart, Russell, & Eaton, 1990). Aesthetics was taught as
an essential component o f general education and as a foundation for specialized art study.
Works o f art were central to all units o f instruction. Artworks included folk, applied, and
fine arts from Western and non-Western cultures which ranged in time from ancient to
contemporary times. Student achievement and program effectiveness were to be
confirmed through evaluation. Though written, sequential curricula were requirements o f
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DBAE, the Getty Center did not produce a curriculum guide, believing teachers should
write individualized documents for their communities (Clark, Day, & Greer, 1989).
Gardner (1973) proposed that in the aesthetic domain, human feelings and
messages are communicated through images. In 1983, he published his theory o f multiple
intelligences as well as a cognitive view o f the arts. To Gardner, artistry was an activity o f
the mind. “By manipulating symbol systems, the artist shapes form and gives voice to his
perceptions, ideas, and feelings” (Gardner, 1983, p. 102). Harvard’s Project Zero started
in 1967 as a research group under the leadership o f philosopher, Goodman. Its goal was
to study cognition and its relationship to human development, the arts, and education.
Project Zero attempted to enhance individuals’ capacity for encoding and decoding artistic
symbols (Gardner, 1989; Lankford, 1992). The Rockefeller Foundation made a
commitment to fund development o f non-traditional models o f assessment, based upon
Gardner’s theory, which would be appropriate for students engaged in artistic processes.
From a collaboration among Harvard’s Project Zero, the Educational Testing Service, and
the Pittsburgh Public Schools, the Arts PROPEL model was developed and field tested
between 1986 and 1991. This model offered an alternative to the DBAE approach. The
three components were: perception, production, and reflection. The central aspect was
studio production, with teacher-student dialogue guiding the student into investigation of
art history as it fit the student’s work. Tenets o f the approach were: students are active
learners, making art is not only for the gifted few, making art is the central activity, and
assessment is an integral part of learning. Aesthetics, through the segment labeled
perception, was described by Winner (1992) as:
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the processes by which students come to see and understand the world around them and to look closely at works o f art - their own and their peers’ as well as the work o f artists from diverse cultures and eras. (p. 9)
Erickson, Katter, and Stewart published the Basic Curriculum fo r A rt (1988).
Their section on aesthetics minimized the aesthetic experience, placing greater emphasis
upon the philosophy of art. Their goals were for students to: understand the philosophy
of art, engage in aesthetic inquiry, and appreciate the value o f aesthetic inquiry. Students
were involved with considering, presenting and evaluating use o f words, statements, and
definitions; making and sharing supported judgments; listening to, recognizing, and
evaluating divergent views; using philosopher’s statements and theories; and respecting
alternative answers as long as they are backed by reasons.
Eaton (1994) proposed that aesthetics be included in the art curriculum in two
ways: asking philosophical questions in the context o f artworks to engage students in
addressing the nature and value o f art, and asking philosophical questions as a way of
directing attention to specific artworks.
The standards movement o f the 1990's included aesthetics in general education
requirements. The National Standards for Arts Education, 1994, stated that students
should “reflect upon and assess the characteristics and merits o f their work and the work
of others” as well as “understanding the visual arts in relation to history and cultures”
(Consortium o f National Arts Educators, 1994, p. 34). Missouri’s Show-Me State
Standards asked students to “have a knowledge o f the vocabulary to explain perceptions
about and evaluations o f works in dance, music, theater, and visual arts” (Missouri Board
of Education, 1996, p.2).
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Aesthetics has been valued in art education since the 1960s. Though some
programs described included studio production, and one, ARTS PROPEL, made
production the centerpiece of their program, the predominant emphasis within aesthetics
education has been on students acquiring and using vocabulary to describe artworks, and
engaging in the philosophical debates about the nature and value o f art.
Aesthetic Theories of Art and Student Art Production
The major impetus of aesthetic education has been focused upon students’
responses to art. However, a few writers have suggested that a consideration of aesthetic
theories should be a part of students’ art production.
Barrett (1997) promotes the idea that the teacher should include aesthetics as part
of the student’s creative decision making and intent. "Students benefit from considering
intent, the worthiness o f the art, and whether they effectively fulfilled it in shaped media
that others can see" ( p. 50). In addition, he suggests that students should be taught to
select media for the expressive properties that may be independent o f their intent.
Chapman (1982) in discussing the inadequacy of current art curricular content
notes that most teachers base lessons on the elements and principles o f art. “These
concepts are part o f ‘formalist aesthetic theories’ - those which place great value on the
form or design within a work of art” (p. 137). She is concerned that art history and
aesthetics play small roles in practice, and that the other aesthetic theories are ignored.
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hamblen (1984) addresses the social context that influences student attitudes and
art activities. Stout (1999) indicates that students must make a significant connection
between themselves and ideas. To achieve meaning, students must recognize the critical
connection between personal experience and knowing. Jeffers (1999) notes that teachers
are part o f the context that defines for students their own beliefs about the nature o f art.
As such, teachers need to recognize their influence and make their embedded philosophy
overt.
In a study o f high school students responding to fine and popular art images,
researchers found that students interpret on the basis o f a creator, not audience. Students
thought o f imagery “as a form o f communication involving a sender, a message and a
receiver” (Freedman & Wood, 1999, p. 3 5). None of these students thought that an art
career an be chosen to influence people and society. Instead, they see the purpose o f art
in terms of self-expression. Their interpretations o f art are viewed as personal statements
independent o f sociocultural norms.
Erikson (1994) similarly found that students from elementary through college age
all focus on the artist more than the viewer in aesthetic responses to art. Parsons (1987)
reports that high school students cite expressiveness as the most important characteristic
o f visual imagery. This attitude reflects two belief systems: the intention o f the artist, and
the viewer projecting his/her emotions onto the image.
Day (199S) suggests that aesthetic approaches be built into art production. Field
(1982) studied criteria that were used to evaluate students in three settings: an art college,
an art department in a large university, and an amateur art club. She organized the criteria
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
on a continuum. At one end were attitudes within the artist such as expression,
confidence, and honesty. At the opposite end were object-centered qualities such as
beauty, economy, and rhythm (Anderson, 1990). In art colleges, the most important
criteria emphasize artist-centered qualities relating to the spirit in which the work was
created (expressionism). Art club teachers are most interested in the objective features of
the work itself (imitationalism, formalism). The university artworks fell between these
two poles.
Jeffers (1999) explored the relationship between diverse students’ and teachers’
preferences and definitions of art by asking them to answer the question, “ What is art?”
She compared her own research with studies conducted by Johnson (1982) and Stokrocki
(1986). Findings were similar across studies and diverse cultural groups. Fourth grade
children defined art in terms of doing or making activities. Tenth grade students,
preservice teachers, and elementary teachers conceived of art as a way to express
themselves or communicate. Many definitions were subjective and relativistic. Frequent
comments indicated that art was “everything or nothing”, or depended upon any
individual’s opinion. Stokrocki and Johnson both found that elementary school students
identified art with a place and time where and when they created art. This definition was
more common for students who were taught art by a specialist than those who were
taught art by their classroom teacher. Jeffers’s results support Hamblen’s theory (1984)
that socially relative, learned expectations create a predisposition for the aesthetic. She
calls for art teachers to become aware o f their roles in the socialization process through
which students learn answers to “What is art?” One way to do this would be for teachers
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to make conscious connections about the art they have children create and the multiple
theories of the nature o f art.
Two practitioners, Jones (1999) and Armstrong (1999) advocate incorporation o f
aesthetic theories in curriculum for art production as well as reflection. Both have
experimented with this integration through assignments used in their college-level classes.
Jones (1998) outlined his approach to teaching introductory art appreciation. Each
of his studio assignments included the four primary aesthetic theories with other concepts
(such as elements and principles). For example, an assignment might ask students to
create a mimetic artwork with line using block printing media and the portrait as subject
matter. He found that students have a better understanding o f aesthetics after having
theories integrated with production than they had when studying aesthetics from a solely
responsive mode.
Armstrong, (1999), made aesthetic integration the premise o f her book on
curriculum development. She suggests that teaching students to respond aesthetically and
to be knowledgeable about different aesthetic theories is insufficient. Teachers, and
ultimately, students should select aesthetic theories as part o f their intent in the creation o f
art. Lankford (1992) agrees:
As educators strive to strike a balance o f theoretical perspectives, they should bear in mind that indoctrination is possible whenever points of view are presented as fact, unexamined concepts prevail, and alternatives remain unexplored. ( p. 14)
Many studio assignments given in art classrooms have implied or embedded
criteria that, upon examination (or deconstruction), reflect a bias toward a particular
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
aesthetic theory. If, as Danto says, it takes an aesthetic theory to make something art,
then students should be told which theory o f art informs the evaluation of their work.
Unfortunately, according to Hamblen (1990) teachers value classroom activities for their
own sake rather than for adhering to goals or theory. She found that art teachers can be
resistant to theory unless it fits their personal value system.
For students to become empowered to create aesthetic works of art, it is necessary
for them to do more than reflect upon their products using appropriate vocabulary. They
need didactic information about aesthetics and self-reflection to determine the effect they
want to have on the audience that will view their works. In particular, students need to
understand aesthetic theories so that they will be able to select an aesthetic approach along
with subject matter, materials, and techniques when creating artworks. To prepare
students to create art, teachers should go beyond the presentation o f aesthetics
information and make explicit aesthetic theory a part o f the criteria for studio production
activities.
Rationale for this Study Based upon the Literature Review
Based upon studies reviewed in this paper, the possibility exists that large-scale,
high-stakes art assessment that meets demands for accountability could be developed for
the state o f Missouri. Zerull (1990) stated that
Where states have initiated testing requirements, the arts education
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
community is in a position to take a leadership role in the design and implementation of arts evaluation. This will ensure two important outcomes. First, arts educators, rather than legislative committees, will devise and pilot test evaluation instruments for use with students. Second, this exercise will lead to an examination o f the content and quality o f arts curricula, (p. 20)
Before Missouri criterion-referenced tests can be developed, its art educators need
to reach consensus on a common core of curriculum content that is appropriate for
testing. Drawing from the formalist tradition of twentieth century art education, the
elements and principles o f art would be key concepts (N ational Standards fo r Arts
Education, 1994). To assess art history, art educators first need to answer questions.
Which art should all students be able to recognize, analyze, respond to, and discuss?
Which cultures and time periods should be included, and in which contexts? In addition to
the western canon, selections must be sensitive to post-modernist concerns for traditional
and folk artforms, multiplicity o f solutions, representation o f diversity, multiple
perspectives, and socio/cultural/political meanings. The role o f aesthetic theories in the
judgment o f student artwork should be explored. This study focuses on the four aesthetic
theories that are most relevant to K -12 art education: Formalism, Expressionism,
Instrumentalism/Pragmatism, and Imitationalism/Mimeticism. Post-modern attributes are
subsumed in Expressionism and Instrumentalism/Pragmatism subcategories. Although
open theory and institutionalism should be discussed with students, neither is applicable to
most student artwork.
To begin the art accountability process in Missouri, the Missouri Art Education
Association conducted a survey based upon the Frameworks fo r M issouri Schools (1996).
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Its goal was to determine art teachers’ preferences for specific art historical and cultural
content that could be assessed at grades 4, 8, and 12 by a state art test (Venet, 1998).
Results from that survey were used to inform development o f the Missouri Fine Arts
Assessment by CTB McGraw Hill. The NAEP studies, never developed into standardized
tests, serve as the best models for test developers. They included multiple-choice and
cued-choice responses to art images that were written to require application and analytic
levels o f thought, short answer, open-ended essay, and production activities in which both
process and final product were evaluated. The challenge will be to infuse standardized
tests with items that require higher level thinking and to build performance into the exam.
If the testing agency (state or school district) is willing to use performance
assessment (despite increased time and costs required to develop scoring guides, gather
exemplars, train and use judges to evaluate large numbers o f artworks), then the
recommended format would be an authentic assessment embedded in instruction. To
guide students during creation of artwork, and raters in scoring, it will be necessary to
develop a rubric that lists criteria and descriptors of various levels o f quality. Rubric or
scoring guide criteria, itemized with descriptive levels of quality, might include:
• research and critical analysis;• creative thinking and synthesis;• problem-solving;• appropriate selection of media and techniques;■ application o f elements and principles o f art to create desired aesthetic effect;• reflection on the process and meaning o f the work;• relation to an artistic tradition; and• indicators o f quality products.
Opportunities for students to select a context for the artistic problem would allow
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
adaptations that account for individual differences in gender, race, ethnic background,
socio-economic status, and interests. To minimize costs, a system o f internal grading with
external moderation could be adapted from the British or Australian models. Using
Popham’s suggestion, small, genuine matrix sampling could provide statistically useful
comparative data while those students not participating in the test would be solving similar
problems that teachers could score at the local level, using the same standards, and scoring
guides as the state exam. The portfolio process could become the model for organizing
and reflecting upon the component parts o f the authentic task, the means for formative
assessment, and presentation o f the total assessment package. It would be important to
standardize, to the degree possible, the results of these assessments. Without systematic
comparability, authentic assessments would be unable to provide information needed to
“take the temperature o f ’ art achievement, inspire curriculum and program modifications,
monitor progress, and inform stakeholders.
If large-scale assessment is not supported by the state, then criterion-referenced
portfolio assessment is recommended at the classroom, school, and/or district level for
monitoring student growth, achievement o f objectives, and communication to parents.
Student work should reflect the common content and standards expected for all students
which are specified in a rubric. Authentic tasks would be ideal assignments for use in
portfolio evaluation. This is supported by Burton (1998) who conducted a national survey
o f assessment and evaluation among United States teachers o f art. Eighty-seven percent
believed that assessment and evaluation were helpful to their students. Main components
of the curricula being taught were studio art and art history, although art exhibition,
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
interdisciplary, and multicultural components were also valued. He found that current
assessment practices “tended toward informal, subjective and interactive purposes. This
suggests the assessment process may be used more for ongoing instructional purposes
than to ascertain clearly the student’s achievement or ability” (p.2).
Summary
During the history o f testing in the visual arts, a wide range o f instruments and
philosophies have been employed. Major categories for types of assessment are:
standardized, criterion-referenced, performance-based, authentic, and portfolio. Aesthetic
theories o f art represent ways o f defining art. The aesthetic focus o f this study is limited
to four aesthetic theories, Formalism, Expressionism, Instrumentalism/Pragmatism, and
Imitationalism/Mimeticism that can be the purpose o f student-created artworks.
Large-scale, high-stakes, criterion-referenced assessment can co-exist with high
quality art instruction. Standardized tests can be used in addition to qualitative and
quantitative measures teachers employ to measure student achievement. Each serves
particular functions. Common, basic, content in art must be agreed upon by art educators
before criterion-referenced assessments can be developed. Without this core, any attempts
at large-scale testing will remain measurements o f interest or natural aptitude. Authentic
assessment in art has been used elsewhere and could be adapted to large-scale assessment
in the United States. Trained scorer/raters, using rubrics, can make highly reliable
judgments o f student artworks and written work. Embedded authentic assessments are
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
integrated with instruction, becoming learning activities as well as demonstrations o f what
has been learned. Therefore, teachers (who may have avoided systematic assessment due
to anti-test bias) could be taught to design and evaluate complex, meaningful, life-related
art tasks through presentation and scoring of the test. As participants in authentic
assessment, students would be thinking, reflecting, researching, discussing, problem
solving, and creating using real-life artistic issues. The best o f all assessments could drive
high quality, art instruction, improving programs and student achievement while informing
the school administration, parents, community, and government that supporting the arts in
education is an excellent investment of time, energy, and tax dollars.
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER THREE
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
Introduction
Survey research methodology was used to gather data on local assessment of
Missouri standards. The data consisted o f Missouri art teachers’ opinions o f criteria
planned for an art production scoring rubric. The Art Assessment Survey, an instrument
using a Likert five-point scale, was developed as a vehicle for obtaining teacher responses.
The survey was sent to a random sample o f 382 (19%) o f the population
consisting of all Missouri art teachers, kindergarten through twelfth grade. A
questionnaire, cover letter, and self-addressed stamped envelope were mailed in to sample
participants in early November, 1999. Non-respondents received a second mailing in late
November with a deadline for return of surveys by December 15. No letters were
returned by the postal service as undeliverable. A letter was faxed to the building principal
of each non-respondent teacher. The letter asked for principals to check options and
return the form by fax or mail. Options indicated that the teacher would return the
survey, had retired, had moved, chose not to participate, or that another teacher would
respond. The sample size was reduced to 344 as a result o f teachers eliminated because
they had retired or moved. The number o f teachers responding to the mail survey was 259
(75%). Phone interviews were conducted with an additional sample (10%) o f non-
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
respondents to indicate whether non-respondents were similar to respondents in their
answers to survey questions.
Descriptive statistics were used to determine which criteria a rt teachers prefer for
inclusion on the state rubric. Percentages o f teachers, at each grade level, who responded
that a criterion was important for inclusion on a state rubric are presented in Tables 8, 10,
12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 23, and 25 in Chapter Four.
Additional statistical procedures were employed. One Way-Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) was used to compare responses o f elementary, middle, and high school
teachers on each criterion (Myers & Weil, 1995). To control for Type 1 error, which can
occur if the null hypothesis is not accepted, Tukey’s post hoc comparisons were computed
(Myers & Weil, 1995). Where ANOVA differences were significant at alpha = 05,
contrasts were used to identify the pair(s) which represented the significant difference(s).
Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient was used to determine the internal reliability o f scales in
each survey category (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994). Pearson Product Moment
correlations were used to determine relationships between aesthetic approaches and
importance of teaching related content (Myers & Weil, 1995).
The results o f this study were shared with the Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task
Force and are being used to support the creation o f a state-wide rubric for local
assessment of student art products.
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research Questions
Main Research Question
The main research question o f this study was driven by a practical consideration.
The researcher, as a member o f the Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task Force, had been
assigned the task of developing a state rubric. Having examined a wide variety o f rubrics
used in the field, a list of criteria was compiled. To determine the applicability o f each
criteria in light o f practice in Missouri, teachers’ expert opinions were being sought. The
main research question being addressed by this study was:
■ Which criteria for assessing student art production do art teachers recommend for
inclusion on a state rubric?
Subquestions
Subquestions ask whether multiple versions o f a state rubric should be considered.
Construction o f multiple rubrics could be based upon differences in expectations for
students among elementary, middle, and high school art teachers. Differences in
expectations related to the aesthetic approach inherent in the instruction and assignment
could also suggest a need for “mix and match” sets o f criteria. Each set o f criteria could
be thought o f as a “window” or lens (Armstrong, 1999, Broughton, 1999). If significant
differences among aesthetic approaches exist, then a flexible rubric that provides aesthetic
approach options would be most useful for teachers. More customized rubric options
would allow the students’ work to express a variety o f cultural contexts (Broughton
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1999). The subquestions o f this study were:
1. What are differences among elementary (k-5), middle (6-8), and high school (9-12)
teachers’ selections o f criteria used to judge student art products? The null hypothesis is:
There is no significant difference at the p< 05 level among mean scores o f elementary,
middle, and high school teachers on criteria recommended for inclusion on a state art
production rubric.
2. What are differences among aesthetic approach criteria selected by teachers forjudging
student art products? The null hypothesis is: There is no significant difference at the
p<05 level among the mean scores of the four aesthetic approaches (imitationalist,
expressionist, formalist, pragmatic) on criteria recommended for inclusion on the state
rubric.
3. What are differences in teacher selection o f aesthetic approach criteria related to the
value they place on teaching different kinds o f art content? Written as four null
hypotheses:
A. There is no significant relationship between the imitationalist aesthetic approach
score and having students draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation (item
VTI-2).
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
B. There is no significant relationship between the expressionist aesthetic
approach score and having students express their feelings or attitudes (item VI1-6).
C. There is no significant relationship o f between the formalist aesthetic approach
score and having students use elements and/or principles to create abstract or non
objective art (items VII-1 and VII-3).
D. There is no significant relationship between the instrumental aesthetic approach
score and having students create functional art or communicate social, political, or
personal messages (items VTI-5 and VTI-4).
Three other questions will be examined that relate to the demographic data.
4. How many students are taught by elementary, middle, and high school teachers,
respectively?
5. What are the percentages of teachers who attended staff development or college
classes on assessment in the last two years?
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.
Relationship to the Literature
Beliefs have been regarded as one’s evaluation o f the truth or falsehood o f something...The term ‘opinion’ is o f a similar nature...an opinion is what a person believes to be factually true. (Severy, 1974, p. 2)
Most educational surveys reviewed were not subject-specific, rather they sampled
teachers o f all subjects as a class. The Educational Research Service conducted major
teacher opinion polls in 1984 and 1985 using national samples o f K.-12 teachers. Though
teachers were asked to identify the level at which they taught, they were not asked to
identify the subjects they taught. Self-administered, anonymous, written questionnaires
included demographics, status and experience questions, and opinions o f current issues. A
Likert scale was used to obtain a range o f responses. With a population o f over two
million teachers, names were randomly selected in the ratio o f one teacher in the sample
for every thousand in the population (Educational Research Service, 1984, 1985). Pena
and Henderson (1986) studied the sampling procedures used for national surveys o f public
school teachers. They found that representativeness and adequacy were basic criteria o f
good sampling procedures. In addition, results indicated that bias was the result o f a lack
of randomness due to incomplete returns or to oversampling one group of respondents. A
major problem was the incompleteness o f the sampling frame, or list o f the total
population. “The inherent problems in sampling teachers are the availability o f home
telephone numbers, the difficulty o f accessing teachers through the districts, and the
absence o f nationwide data sets” (Pena & Henderson, 1986, p.l). This problem exists in
Missouri where the Department o f Elementary and Secondary Education records list
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teachers’ names for the preceding year. Therefore, teachers who have retired or moved
from one district or school to another may not be located.
Studies were also reviewed to suggest ways o f reporting survey data. In some o f
the studies reviewed, a 5 or 6 point Likert scale was be collapsed. For example, the
Center for Education Statistics (1987) national survey o f K-12 private school teachers’
opinions used a six point scale on the survey questionnaire. However, when analyzing the
data, ratings of 1, 2, and 3 were grouped to indicate disagreement, while ratings o f 4, 5,
and 6 were grouped to indicate agreement. A similar reporting technique was used in this
study. Teachers who rate a criterion as important (rating of 4) or very important (rating
o f 5) were grouped into a category labeled “important”.
In another educational research study, Henderson (1991) surveyed Texas K-12
classroom teachers (undifferentiated by subject taught) to determine their common
characteristics. A questionnaire was used with 78 discrete questions, three continuous
data questions, and one open-ended question. Questions were answered on a Scantron
Form 882. The return rate was 40% and no follow-up mailing was done. This study
adopted the use o f discrete and open-ended questions. However, in an effort to increase
the response rate, teachers were asked to circle and write on the survey rather than using a
Scantron form (which could be perceived as less personal) and follow-up mailings were
conducted.
National surveys of art teachers that included questions on assessment practices
were done by Burton (1998) for the United States, and MacGregor, Lemerise, Potts, and
Roberts (1993) for Canada. Likert scales were used to obtain teachers’ attitudes and
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
opinions and checklists were used to identify practices. In both cases, results were
reported in percentages o f teachers falling into each category. Sabol (1994), Finlayson
(1988) and Peeno (1996) conducted surveys o f state departments o f education to give
progress reports on state assessment of the arts. Both Sabol and Finlayson analyzed
copies of state tests, then categorized and summarized the content covered. Peeno
obtained information from telephone interviews about each state’s time line for art testing
and the format o f those tests.
In this study, art teachers’ professional opinions will be elicited to identify criteria
for assessment o f K-12 students’ art production and reflection. Local school districts are
responsible for assessing standards which are not included in the statewide Missouri Fine
Arts Assessment (Missouri State Board o f Education, 1996). The results o f this study
will be used by the Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task Force, Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education, as it develops a rubric for local assessment o f state standards.
For this purpose, a survey instrument was developed, pilot tested in May, 1998, and
revised. Douglas Broughton (1999), chief examiner for the International Baccalaureate,
has written that assessment in the multi-faceted, postmodern era, may necessitate
“windows” of grouped criteria that can be matched with the intent and cultural context of
particular student products. Aesthetic theories o f art provide a structure for recognizing
the various intents and purposes for which artworks are created (Lankford, 1992).
Therefore, the aesthetic theories o f imitationalism, expressionism, formalism, and
instrumentalism were used as categorical windows for sets o f related criteria in the Art
Criteria Survey.
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
How will the Study Answer the Research Questions?
Which criteria fo r assessing student art production do art teachers recommendfor
inclusion on a state rubric?
A quantitative approach was selected as the best means for obtaining agreement.
By using a survey format with a five point Likert rating scale, all teachers will be
considering the same criteria with consistent measures o f emphasis. An open-ended
qualitative approach was not selected as teachers’ responses would have been limited to
the criteria they have traditionally used, and their answers might not be aligned with the
standards which are to be assessed. To provide teachers with a list of criteria that
represent best practice in the field, examples o f criteria were compiled from: art education
text and professional books (Armstrong, 1994 & 1999; Beattie, 1997; Boughton, 1996 &
1999; Chapman, 1978; Clark, Zimmerman & Zurmuhlen, 1987; Eisner, 1972; Gaitskell,
Hunvitz, & Day, 1982; Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987;); journal articles (Blaikie, 1994;
Burton 1998; Clark & Zimmerman, 1984; Gardner, 1989 Zimmerman, 1992); assessment
rubrics used by other states, provinces, and countries (Alberta Department o f Education,
1993; Board o f Education o f the City o f New York, 1997; Boughton, 1996; Finlayson,
1988; Gaston, 1997; Karpati, 1995; Kentucky, 1996; MacGregor, Lemerise, Potts, &
Roberts, 1993; Manitoba Department o f Education and Training, 1990; Maryland State
Department o f Education, 1990; Sabol, 1994); ARTS PROPEL (Gardner, 1989; Winner
& Simmons, 1992; W olf & Pistone, 1991); the Advanced Placement Art Portfolio Review
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(Educational Testing Service, 1992); the International Baccalaureate (International
Baccalaureate, 1996); local school districts (Columbia Public Schools K-12 Art
Curriculum, 1998; Fairfax, VA County Curriculum, 1999; Huffman, 1998; Indiana
Department o f Education, 1988; Monett School District, 1999; Mundelein, Illinois
Assessment Rubrics, 1999; Vermont Arts Assessment Project, 1995; Wisconsin State
Department o f Public Instruction, 1995); and focus groups at the Missouri Art Education
Association Spring Conference, 1999 (Venet, 1999).
Are there differences among aesthetic approach criteria selected by teachers fo r judging
student art products?
Aesthetic approaches can influence the kind o f criteria that teachers consider
important for assessment (Jeffers, 1999; Armstrong, 1999). Four aesthetic approach sets
of criteria were included in the survey: Imitationalism, Expressionism, Formalism, and
Instrumentalism. Each aesthetic philosophy was described by four criteria. Summative
scores in each category were compared to determine if a difference exists in the degree to
which teachers consider the criteria important in assessing student work. Boughton
(1999) suggests that there should be “windows” of criteria that can be matched to the
cultural context o f students being assessed. If his theory is demonstrated by teachers
responses, then it would suggest that a single set of criteria is insufficient, instead,
interchangeable sets might be matched to the intent o f the student artist.
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Are differences in teacher selection o f aesthetic approach criteria related to the value
they place on teaching different kinds o f art content?
Since teacher assessment could be expected to mirror values evident in their
selection o f art content to teach, correlations among aesthetic approach sets and particular
content taught were calculated. If aesthetic sets do exist, then internal validity would be
demonstrated by high correlations between lesson content and assessment criteria.
Subjects
The population for this study was K-12 art teachers currently teaching in the state
of Missouri. The frame used to identify the population was a list o f 2065 art teachers
obtained from the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Thirty-
five art teachers from Columbia Public Schools were deleted from the population because
they had been subjects in the pilot test of the survey instrument, leaving a list o f art
teachers is 2030. The sample size in doctoral dissertations reviewed was generally 15% to
20 % o f the population. A random sample o f 382 teachers, 19% o f the population, was
selected by starting from a random point on the list and referring to a SAS generated list
of random numbers.
A limitation o f the study is that the only available frame, Missouri Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education records, lists teachers employed for the previous
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
year by district and school. Pena and Henderson (1986) critiqued the sampling procedures
used for surveys o f teachers. They discuss the inadequacy o f State Department lists o f
teachers as a frame, however, they agree that this is still the best list available. Transfers
among school buildings and districts is common for art teachers since art is offered as an
elective after grade six. As annual enrollments change, art teachers’ jobs change.
Surveys that could not be completed due to teachers’ retirements or transfers to other
school were eliminated from the sample, lowering the total N o f the sample.
Two questions of sample stratification were considered before being dismissed.
The first was grade level stratification. Multiple grade levels are taught concurrently by
many art teachers, particularly those in small or rural districts. Since many art teachers
also travel among school buildings, if stratified by grade level, it could be possible for the
same teacher to be selected in all three grade-level sample groups raising the concern of
oversampling. Therefore, no attempt was made to stratify the sample by grade level
taught. Instead, teachers were asked to self-report the grade levels they teach as well as
to indicate which o f three grade level categories they are considering when completing the
survey. If they teach at more than one level, teachers were offered the opportunity to
copy the survey and respond to the statements from a second, or third grade-level
perspective. The question o f regional stratification was also considered. Larry Peeno,
Missouri Supervisor for Fine Arts indicated (phone conversation, August 26, 1999) that
since the Show Me Standards are a constant for all state teachers, regardless o f region,
community, or school size, he believes that a random sample were sufficient. In order to
be certain that all regions are represented, and to look for skewness toward any region,
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the surveys were identified by district code from which the location of respondents was
tracked.
The Instrument
Questionnaires and interviews are used extensively in educational research to collect information that is not directly observable (p. 288)...Questionnaires have two advantages over interviews for collecting research data: The cost o f sampling respondents over a wide geographic area is lower, and the time required to collect the data typically is much less. (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996, p.289)
According to Bourque and Fielder (1995) a checklist to determine when to use a
self-administered mail questionnaire listed the following criteria.
Respondents are literate and can answer all questions.Respondents are motivated.
They want to know the information.They feel part o f a group that has reason to want the information.
The topic is amenable to study, (p. 30)
This study met those criteria. Art teachers are literate and able to answer the questions.
As survey results were intended to be given to the Department o f Elementary and
Secondary Education as data for the construction o f a state-wide scoring rubric for local
assessment, teachers should have been motivated to effect the content o f that rubric. The
study is focused, it deals with teachers’ present practice, and questions are written so they
can be answered by everyone in the sample. Therefore, a survey questionnaire was
determined to be the best format for reaching art teachers throughout the state o f
Missouri. While interview or open-ended questions would provide a deeper level o f
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
understanding, it would also provide more shades o f difference. Since the results were
intended to become part o f a scoring rubric, prepared statements, listed as criteria, will
match edthose in a rubric format with the least change in meaning. Krathwohl (1993)
suggests that phrasing and language be understood and appeal to all segments o f the
intended population. In addition to obtaining a clear picture o f teacher opinions, it was
desirable to provide the opportunity for a range o f responses, so a five point Likert, scale
was selected over checklists. Likert’s scale appears to be the most popular in present
research (Severy, 1974; Bertie, 1979). “The goal o f this approach is to generates a series
of statements which reflect the subject’s opinion regarding... the [item] in question”
(Severy, 1974, p.6).
“A small pretest helps ‘debug’ operational procedures: provides a basis for early
check and edit techniques, and aides in the elimination o f ambiguously worded items and
poor overall instrument design” (Bertie, 1979, p, 43). The A rt Assessment Survey
(Appendix, p.295) instrument is a four page questionnaire consisting o f 51 items requiring
responses on a five-point Likert scale where categories are: very important, important, no
opinion, little importance, and no importance. According to Bertie (1979), “it is helpful to
provide the respondent with a safety valve as one o f the options, such as ‘undecided’,
‘don’t know’ or ‘no opinion’” (p.39). The items were grouped into seven categories.
Each addresses a different set o f criteria related to a part o f the art production process. In
addition, there were six demographic questions and eight areas for open-ended comments
at the end of each section.
During the development o f this instrument, feedback was obtained from university
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
professors, (including national art assessment experts who teach at other institutions),
graduate students, and art teachers. Categories o f criteria were discerned from the
literature and a focus group during the Missouri Art Education Association Conference in
February, 1999. In March o f 1999, a six page version o f the instrument was pilot tested
with a group of 35 art teachers in Columbia, Missouri, who were eliminated from the
population for the dissertation study. As a result o f feedback from all sources, the scope
of the instrument changed from portfolio to general production assessment. One factor
was that only 10% of Missouri Art Education Association members who participated in
focus groups indicated that they conducted portfolio assessment. In the pilot
questionnaire, one section asked teachers to indicate the percentage o f class time spent on
different types o f art content, and other questions asked for short essays. After analyzing
the responses, it was determined that both sets of questions should be converted into the
Likert scale format used in the rest of the instrument. Redundant and confusing items
were deleted. Wording was changed in response to suggestions. Suggestions for the
construction o f the survey were taken from Bertie (1979), Gall, Borg & Gall (1996), Fink
(1995), and Krathwohl (1993).
Themes of Questionnaire Categories
Criteria were grouped into categories most frequently mentioned in Chapter Two,
the literature review. They came from a variety o f sources including art education texts,
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
journals, professional books, the Advanced Placement exam, International Baccalaureate
exam, Arts PROPEL, state and school district curriculum guides, and art assessment focus
groups. Each is briefly explained.
What do you assess?
A wide variety o f processes, behaviors and art products are considered as the
subject o f assessment. This category sought information about teachers’ art assessment
practices.
Responding C riteria
This broad category includes oral and written products. Art history, aesthetics,
and art criticism standards can be assessed under this heading (NAEP, 1996). It includes
students’ responses to their own work, self-evaluation according to assignment criteria,
and responses to both historical works and those of peers.
Creating or Process Criteria
This category includes creative thinking and problem-solving considered to be
fundamental to art production (Beattie, 1997 & 1999; Armstrong 1994 & 1999; NAEP,
1996).
Attitude or H abits-of-M ind
On standardized tests, there is no way to assess these qualities o f persistence,
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
respect, ongoing reflection and revision, commitment through difficulty, and
responsiveness to feedback. However, these traits are valued both by researchers who
study portfolio processes (Gardner, 1989; Wolf & Pistone, 1991; Beattie, 1999) and art
teachers (Huffman, 1998; Kotler, 1999; Columbia Public Schools, 1998; Venet, 1999).
A rt Product C riteria
This category o f criteria are those that can be discerned through observation o f the
students’ artwork. Evaluation of the inherent quality o f final artworks are considered o f
primary importance in most approaches to art assessment (Armstrong, 1994; Blaikie,
1992; Gaston, 1997; Beattie, 1997; International Baccalaureate, 1996; Advanced
Placement, 1992; Venet, 1999).
Aesthetic Approach Criteria
This category has not been a traditional part of art assessment. However, a few art
educators have raised the question o f a connection between aesthetics, art production, and
assessment in the literature and at National Art Education Association conference
presentations (Armstrong, 1999; Jeffers, 1999; Jones, 1999). After a century o f formalist
domination, postmodernist thinkers are questioning tradition. Aesthetics was included in
this study to identify existing connections between aesthetics, instruction, and assessment.
Historically, one aesthetic theory at a time prevailed, influencing both artists and
viewers (Rader, 1952; Lankford, 1990). At the end of the twentieth century, travel,
television, popular arts, and the internet have placed various world cultures and their arts
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
in close proximity (Anderson, 1990; Duncum, 1999). Within the United States, cultural
diversity brings contrasting artistic approaches in contact with each other. No longer is
there one aesthetic approach for art. A few art educators are calling for aesthetic
approaches to become an overt part o f the art production process (Armstrong, 1999;
Jones, 1999). Even when covert (Jeffers, 1999), aesthetic philosophies are embedded in
the type of assignments given to a student. One characteristic o f the contemporary,
postmodern era, is the juxtaposition o f art from different cultural and aesthetic contexts
(Clark, 1996). Though the artworld is in a postmodern period, the current practice of art
education is primarily modernist or formalist (Lloyd, 1997). If this is true, then aesthetic
approach criteria for the formalist category will be viewed as important more frequently
that other aesthetic approach categories.
What do you Teach?
This category was included to describe current art education practice in Missouri.
It is hypothesized that correlations will be found between what is taught and the aesthetic
approach criteria judged as important for assessment. This would indicate that aesthetic
theories are embedded in instruction.
Demographics
Demographic information includes the grade level considered when completing the
questionnaire, the number o f students taught, the grade levels taught, years o f teaching
experience, and staff development or college background in assessment. Teachers were
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
also asked to list criteria they use for assessment that were not included in the survey.
Reliability and Validity
It is necessary to minimize error in data collected (Litwin, 1995). To minimize
random error, a sample size was selected to provide in excess of 100 subjects for each
group category. The survey was written to be precise to eliminate as much measurement
error as possible. The instrument did not measure a construct, therefore a split-half
coefficient o f internal consistency (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996) is not being done. A
limitation of the study is that there is no test-retest opportunity to establish that teachers
would rate criteria in an identical manner on a different day.
“The extent to which the answer given is a true measure and means what the
researcher wants or expects it to mean is called v a lid ity (Fowler, 1993, p.80). Content
validity (Litwin, 1995) was established in three ways. After the questionnaire was initially
written, the researcher held focus groups at the Missouri Art Education Association
conference in February, 1999. Teachers were divided into groups o f elementary, middle
level, and high school teachers. Approximately 80 teachers participated. They were
roughly divided into the three grade level groups with slightly fewer in the middle level
group than the other two. There are fewer middle level art educators teaching in Missouri
since there is no state requirement for art at that level. Each teacher was asked to answer
the question: What criteria should be included on state scoring guides for student art
production? Answers were discussed in the small groups, then criteria that received
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
consensus were written on chart paper and reported to the assembled teachers.
Categories that emerged from discussion were: Craftspersonship, Individual
Creativity/Originality, Composition (use o f elements and principles), Growth (student
builds upon previous knowledge), Attitude (citizenship, cooperation, respect for people
and materials, effort, completion o f work, etiquette...), Process (use o f materials,
equipment, vocabulary), Knowledge o f Art History, Art Criticism, and Aesthetics. It was
suggested that there might be separate scoring guides for the art product, the process, and
writing/speaking about art (history, aesthetics, criticism). The report from the focus group
discussions echoed most statements on the questionnaire. Where they did not, the
questionnaire was modified.
The second validation came from mailing the revised questionnaire to nationally
prominent art assessment experts, Carmen Armstrong, author o f D esigning Assessm ent in
A rt (1994) and Including A esthetics in A rt Curriculum Planning (1999), Robert Burton,
chair of the National Art Education Association Demographics Task Force and author o f
A Survey o f Assessm ent and Evaluation am ong U.S. K-12 Teachers o f A rt (1998), and
Donna Kay Beattie, chair o f the National Art Education Association Assessment Task
Force and author o f Assessment in A rt Education (1997). A cover letter asked for
feedback on the questionnaire. I arranged to meet with each o f these experts at the
National Art Education Association Conference in April, 1999 to discuss the survey. In
addition, I received detailed written feedback for both Dr. Armstrong and Dr. Burton.
The questionnaire was revised again based upon their suggestions.
The third opportunity for validation occurred in a pilot test when the survey was
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
mailed to 32 art teachers in the Columbia Public Schools, in Columbia, Missouri. The
format included an open-ended essay question asking “What criteria do you use to assess
student work? Write your answer.” Those responses, along with comments made to
other items on the questionnaire, indicated that survey items were similar to criteria listed
on the survey. Again, based upon responses, the questionnaire was further refined.
Administration o f the Survey
Application was made to and approved by the Review Board for Research
Involving Human Subjects. The survey, a cover letter, and a stamped return addressed
envelope was mailed to a random sample o f 382 art teachers drawn from a list of
approximately 2000 provided by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education. Columbia Public School District art teachers were eliminated from the
population since they had participated in the pilot. The survey was mailed to the sample
population through the school district to which teachers were assigned in the previous
academic year. Since art is provided only one hour per week to elementary students and
on an elective basis to secondary students, art teachers change buildings and districts
more frequently than full-time classroom teachers. This resulted in a lower rate o f return
as some questionnaires never reached the selected participants. A code was used for each
participant to track responses. A follow-up letter and survey were mailed to those who
did not respond by November 29, 1999. A letter was faxed or mailed to building
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
principals of teachers who had not responded by December 15, 1999. To minimize bias
that could result if non-respondents would have answered differently from respondents, a
random sample o f non-respondents was telephoned and asked to complete the survey
orally. Frequency and percentage data from the phone surveys was compared to those of
respondents.
Participation was voluntary, as teachers chose whether to complete and return the
survey. Six teachers responded that they did not choose to participate. They were
included in the sample as non-respondents.
Coding o f Surveys
Surveys were coded to provide identification of respondents by school district and
to allow follow-up letters to be sent to non-respondents.
Optimizing Return Rate
“Generally speaking, almost anything that makes a mail questionnaire look more
professional, more personalized, or more attractive will have some positive effect on
response rates” (Fowler, 1993, p. 45). In order to increase the likelihood that respondents
will complete and return the survey, the following factors were incorporated into the
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
methodology (Bertie, 1979; Fowler, 1993; Krathwohl, 1993; Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996;
Fink, 1995).
The instrument:
• was copied on bright yellow paper
• required the respondent to mark (circle, check, write) on the instrument toeliminate negative reaction toward machine scoring
• uncrowded, clear, easy to read, and limited to four pages with 12 point type
• included the response deadline
The cover letter:
• was personalized using a mail merge program
• was signed with a blue ballpoint pen that leaves an imprint
• appealed to teachers’ desire to have input in a state rubric
• was included the response deadline
The mailing included:
• a stamped-self addressed return envelope
• colorful, special edition stamps on both the packet and return envelopes
Follow-up procedures were:
• a second survey and modified cover letter were mailed to non-respondents
• a third letter was faxed or mailed to each non-respondent’s building principal
• fourth, phone surveys were conducted with a random sample o f non-respondents
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Data Analysis
Criteria were grouped into categories to clarify the intention o f each statement and
make the layout o f the instrument easy to read and complete. Whether criteria within a
category were correlated was a question o f interest, but not essential for the purpose of
the survey. Rather, it was important to determine which o f the individual criteria were
thought to be important enough to be used on a rubric for large-scale
performance/production assessment.
Data for Likert responses to items in categories: Responding Criteria, Creating
Criteria, Attitude Criteria, Art Product Criteria, and Aesthetic Approach Criteria (A
Formalist, B Expressionist, C Instrumental/Pragmatic, D Imitationalist/Mimetic treated
separately) were analyzed for response frequencies and percentages o f total sample.
Scores were obtained for each item from a rating scale: very important, important, no
opinion, little importance, no importance. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient analyzes were
computed to determine whether each category represented a scale with internal reliability
(Hatcher & Stepanski, 1996). A one-way Analysis o f Variance was used to compare
mean scores among elementary, middle, and high school teachers on each criteria. For
criteria found to exhibit differences significant at the p<05 level, Tukey’s Post Hoc
Comparisons were calculated to determine the confidence level after accounting for Type I
errors which can occur when a null hypothesis is rejected. Finally, follow-up Contrasts
were run to determine where differences occurred. Since the purpose o f this survey is to
determine which criteria should be included on a state rubric, only two categories, very
110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
important, and important were considered. The two were summed to represent the
frequency and percentage of teachers who believe it is important for the item to be
included on the rubric.
Seventy-percent agreement was determined (with input from Larry Peeno,
Missouri Fine Arts Supervisor) to be the cut off for recommending a criterion be included
on the state rubric. The rationale for this choice was based upon a belief that if most
teachers agreed that the criteria were important, they would be more likely to use the
rubric for state assessment. Significant differences between teachers of different grade
levels indicate varying priorities and therefore, suggest that separate elementary, middle,
and high school rubrics should be considered.
Descriptive statistics were computed for categories: Demographics, What do you
Assess? and What do you Teach? The data is presented in Chapter Four in Tables 1, 2, 3,
4, and 8.
Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients were calculated for scores on
categories o f aesthetic approaches and teaching content. A correlation o f .7 or higher was
interpreted to mean that teachers value assessment criteria that are consistent with the
information they think it is important to teach. This indicated internal reliability for part of
the survey instrument.
Interview and written responses were recorded. The data were reviewed to look
for patterns where either identical words were used or the same idea was described in
slightly different ways. Those that were similar were grouped together and tallied. The
data are reported in descending order by the frequency o f similar comments that were
111
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
written independently by more than one teacher. Comments that typified a particular
perspective have been quoted. Since written responses followed each section o f the
questionnaire, the results are discussed along with the statistical findings by section.
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
Introduction
The purpose o f this study was to provide a rubric development model for states or
school districts to use when designing large-scale authentic assessments. The key to
performance-based assessment is the development o f rubrics which can be used to score
diverse artworks and writings. Specifically, this study was intended to determine which
criteria were important for inclusion on a state rubric for the local assessment of Show-Me
Standards fo r M issouri Schools (1996).
The results o f this study are discussed in nine parts, corresponding to the
questionnaire categories and research questions: (1) Demographics, (2) What do you
Assess? (3) Responding Criteria, (4) Creating or Process Criteria, (5) Attitude or Habits-
of-Mind Criteria, (6) Art Product Criteria, (7) Aesthetic Approach Criteria, (8) What do
you Teach? (9) Relationship Between Aesthetics and Instruction. Parts one through eight
address the main research question: Which criteria for assessing student art production do
art teachers recommend for inclusion on a state rubric? and subquestions: What are
differences among elementary (k-5), middle (6-8), and high school (9-12) teachers’
selections o f criteria used to judge student art products? and What are differences among
aesthetic approach criteria selected by teachers forjudging student art products? The
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ninth section o f this chapter addresses the research subquestion: What are differences in
teacher selection o f aesthetic approach criteria related to the value they place on teaching
different kinds of art content?
Criteria had been grouped for the survey but had not been previously tested to
determine if each category would function as a reliable scale. To answer the main
research question, the presentation o f results focuses on individual criteria and their
relevance for teachers at different grade levels rather than on categories o f criteria,
therefore an ANOVA was conducted for each individual hem. In the tables, each criterion
is followed by the percentage (rounded to the nearest whole number) o f elementary,
middle, and high school level teachers who indicated it was important for inclusion on a
Missouri art rubric. The hypotheses stated that the level o f significance being sought was
alpha=.05. In cases where the actual alpha level indicated a stronger probability, the
actual level of significance is reported.
For the stated purpose o f determining which criteria should be included on a
generic rubric, only those deemed “important” are reported. The survey utilized a five-
point Likert scale. However, in the analysis, categories labeled “important” and “very
important” were collapsed and treated as one unit called “important” to simplify the
decision about which should be used on a state art assessment rubric. Percentages o f
teachers who rated the item “undecided”, “little importance”, or “no importance” are not
reported in this document but are available to interested researchers. A criteria will be
recommended for inclusion on the state rubric if at least 70% of teachers in a grade level
category rated it “important”.
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The population was Missouri art teachers. A list was provided by the Missouri
Department o f Elementary and Secondary Education that included each art teacher’s
name, the district and school code, school address, school phone number, and school fax
number, if available. The sample was selected by generating a list o f random numbers
using the SAS statistical program. This random sample consisted o f 382 individuals, 19%
of a reported population o f2030. Thirty-five Columbia Public Schools art teachers were
excluded from the population as they had participated in the pilot study. Thirty-eight
subjects who had retired or moved were removed from the sample resulting in a sample o f
344 individuals. The number o f surveys returned was 259, a return rate o f 75% of the
sample, and 13% o f the total population. An additional 8 teachers, randomly selected
from the group o f non-respondents, completed the survey as part o f a phone interview,
increasing the percentage of participating teachers to 78%. The interviewed non-
respondents’ ratings, generally similar to those o f mail respondents, are listed later in this
chapter.
Part One: Demographic Variables
Many configurations exist in the grades levels taught by Missouri art teachers.
They range from K-12 teachers to those who teach a single grade level. Teachers were
asked to select one grade level category (elementary K-5, middle 6-8, or high school 9-12)
when responding to the survey. However, participants who taught more than one grade
level were allowed to photocopy the survey and complete it from the perspective o f a
115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
second and/or third grade level category.
O f the 259 teachers who returned surveys, 110 selected elementary for their first
response, 11 copied the survey after first responding to either middle or high school thus
the total number o f elementary surveys was 121. Fifty-one teachers selected middle level
for their first response, 13 copied the survey after first responding to either elementary or
high school thus the total number o f middle level surveys was 64. Ninety-six teachers
selected high school for their first response, 9 copied the survey after first responding to
either elementary or middle levels thus the total number o f high school surveys was 105.
Teachers were also asked to circle each grade level they were currently teaching. The
frequencies for each grade level are shown in Table 1.
The reduction in numbers of teachers at the middle level is a reflection o f Missouri
education requirements. Missouri requires art to be taught for 50 minutes per week at the
elementary level. Departmentalized middle or junior high schools are required only to
offer art as an elective. In some middle schools art is taught as part o f a “wheel” in which
all students are enrolled in art for one block (ranging from 5-8 weeks). In those programs,
all students in a grade level will rotate through art in the course o f a year. At the high
school level students must obtain one unit o f fine arts credit to graduate. This credit can
be earned in any fine arts area including visual art, theater, music, dance or humanities.
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 1.
Frequency o f Grade Levels Currently Taught bv Art Teachers in Sample
Grade Level Frequency n=292*
K 136
1 140
2 147•*>j 147
4 146
5 136
6 116
7 109
8 109
9 119
10 124
11 126
12 126
* n=292 some inflation is due to teachers who completed multiple surveys
Table 2 indicates the number o f years o f teaching experience for art teachers in the
sample. The majority o f teachers have more than five years of experience. This either
represents typical experience for Missouri art teachers, or experience may have been a
factor in causing teachers to complete and return the survey. One teacher interviewed by
phone as part o f the follow-up sample of non-respondents volunteered that she had not
completed the previously mailed surveys because, as a second-year teacher, she felt she
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
had little to contribute. O f non-respondents interviewed, 38% had taught 1-5 years, 25%
for 6-10 years, and 38% for 21=years.
Table 2.
Years o f Teaching Experience for Art Teachers in the Sample
Range o f Years % o f K-12 Teachers
1-5 20
6-10 14
11-20 32
21+ 33
n=259
Teachers indicated the number o f students they taught each year in Table 3. There
is a large discrepancy among the number of art students taught by elementary, middle
level, and high school art teachers. Elementary art teachers have the largest caseloads but
meet less frequently with each student. Since 50 minutes o f art per week is required for
elementary students, most elementary art teachers must teach 20-30 classrooms of
students each week. Middle level schools vary greatly in the programs they offer to their
students. Many buildings rotate art with other “exploration” subjects so that the art
teacher is responsible for art instruction with all students during the year. High school
courses meet one class period (approximately 50 minutes on a traditional schedule) per
118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
day for a year in order to fulfill requirements for a graduation unit of credit. Elementary
teachers’ comments indicated that although they value portfolios, rough drafts, and
written reflections, they did not use them due to limited teaching time and large numbers
o f students they taught each week.
Table 3.
Number o f Art Students Taught in a Year bv Grade Level
Number of
Art Students
* % Elementary
Teachers n=l21
% Middle
Teachers n=64
% High
Teachers n=105
1-99 3 15 23
101-199 5 25 61
200-399 25 25 13
400-599 52 20 2
600+ 15 14 1
* Percentages have been rounded to nearest whole number
Geographic location o f respondents was tracked with a county code written on the
surveys. Responses were received from 85 o f the 115 counties in Missouri. More schools
from highly populated counties in Kansas City, St. Louis, and Springfield metropolitan
areas were in the frame and, therefore, the sample included more teachers from those
regions than less populated areas of the state. No statistical analysis was done on this
data. It’s purpose was to confirm that the sample was geographically dispersed across the
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
state.
Teachers were asked if they had attended staff development or college classes on
assessment in the last two years. Seventy-seven percent o f all teachers answered “yes” .
Fifty-four percent o f all teachers indicated they had attended staff development or college
classes on art assessment in the last two years. Teachers were interested in continuing
education in assessment. Since only 20% o f respondents had been teaching 5 or less
years, the majority of art teachers in the sample would have taken graduate classes or
attended staff development in order to be informed about assessment.
Part Two: What do Art Teachers Assess?
Table 4 illustrates the percentage o f elementary, middle level, and high school art
teachers who believe it is important to assess a variety o f art products. Frequencies and
percentages were calculated by teachers’ selection o f a grade level category. The “final
product” was considered important by 93% o f elementary, 95% o f middle level, and 98%
of high school teachers. The other product considered important by greater than 70% of
all teachers was the “student’s self-evaluation” . Results were analyzed using a one-way
ANOVA between-groups design, followed by Tukey’s Post Hoc Comparisons and
Contrasts (Tables 36-48 in Appendix) were calculated for each criteria to isolate the
significant differences among teachers by level taught. There were significant contrasts
between elementary and high school teachers’ mean scores on the importance o f assessing:
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“rough drafts”, p< 0007; and the “final product”, p< 029. Significant differences were
found between elementary and middle level teachers, p< 0019, and between elementary
and high school teachers, p< 0002 on the importance of assessing “art criticism” .
Significant differences were found between elementary and middle level teachers, p<.0001,
and between elementary and high school teachers, p<.0001 on the importance o f assessing
“art historical writing”. Significant differences were found between elementary and middle
level teachers, p< 01, and between elementary and high school teachers, p<.0001 on the
importance o f assessing “portfolio of student work”.
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.
Products Considered Important for Teachers to Assess
Type o f Product
Percentages rounded to nearest whole number
ElementaryK -5%
Middle6-8%
High9-12%
Rough drafts or process sketches, *p<0007 between elementary-high school
54 65 74
Final product,*p<.029 between elementary-high school
93 95 98
Aesthetic reflections about own or other artists’ work
65 69 76
Art criticism analysis of own/other artists’ work, *p< 0002 between elementary-middle and *p<0019 between elementary-high school
60 78 80
Art historical writing,*p< 0001 between elementary-middle and *p< 0001 between elementary-high school
15 37 39
Student’s self-evaluation 71 79 85
Portfolio of student work,*p< 01 between elementary-middle and *p<0001 between elementary-high school
44 61 75
*In Appendix: ANOVA Tables 35,38,41, 45; Tukey’s Tables 36, 39, 42, 46; Contrasts Tables 37, 40, 43, 47. Alpha level o f significant contrasts is shown below criteria.The number of respondents is:Elementary teachers. K-S, n=l 10 who completed the survey on the yellow paperElementary teachers, K-5. n=l 1 who copied the survey, responding first to middle or high schoolTotal elementary teachers, K-S, n=121Middle level teachers, 6-8, n=51 who completed the survey on the yellow paperMiddle level teachers, 6-8, n=I3 who copied the survey, responding first to elementary or high schoolTotal middle level teachers, 6-8, n=64High school teachers, 9-12, n=96 who completed the survey on the yellow paperHigh school teachers, 9-12, n=9 who copied the survey, responding first to elementary or middleTotal High School Teachers, 9-12, n=105Total teachers who returned the survey. K-12, n=259
122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Portfolio Assessment
Table 5.
Additional Products Teachers Assess Comments
Statement listed under comments Number o f Teachers
Sketches, journals, rough drafts, process 9
Attitude, behavior 8
Work ethic, effort 7
Tests 6
In process work 5
Follow directions 4
Art history 4
Craftsmanship, media skill 4
Elements and principles of art 4
Use o f rubrics 4
Reports or term papers 4
Research on styles, cultures tied to assignment 4
Knowledge o f art vocabulary terms 4
Daily participation 3
Masterworks identification 3
Writing 3
Neatness 3
Working in a group when applicable 3
Effort 3
Finish on time 3
There were two open-ended comment sections related to student
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
portfolios. The first asked what else teachers assessed, results o f which are in Table 5.
Some teachers commented about what they do not assess. Three mentioned that
portfolios were not used due to a lack o f storage space, one mentioned that time
constraints didn’t allow for aesthetics, criticism, or history to be taught. A typical
statement was made by an elementary art teacher:
We do not use a formalized assessment in our school district. I know this will be forthcoming. My concerns are how can you fairly evaluate 600 pieces o f artwork? What will this do to the discovery and experiential process for the elementary student?
Teachers who indicated that they assessed portfolios were asked to itemize the
contents of their students’ portfolios. Most teachers indicated that their portfolios
contained final art products (n=38), and that the portfolio also contained all works over a
period o f time such as a grading period or semester (n=35). Many (n=24) also included
the student’s self evaluation. Table 6 shows the comments mentioned by 3 o r more
teachers.
124
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6.
What is included in Student Portfolios Comments
Art Product Number o f Teachers
Finished product 38
All student work for a grading period/semester 35
Self-evaluation/reflections 24
Rough drafts or sketches 19
Depth and breadth (range o f 2-D and 3-D) 16
Daily exercises/process 13
Evaluation sheets/rubrics from teacher/peers 12
Journal writings 11
Aesthetic reflections/journals 10
V ocabulary/handouts/notes 10
Art criticism about masterworks/cultures 8
Do not use portfolios in elementary 8
Technical or process skills 6
Improvement 6
Sketchbook 5
Portraits 5
Perspective 5
Peer critique 4
Still life 4
Assess only advanced high school students 4
Homework 4
Graphite drawings 3
Elements and principles assignments 3
Vocabulary 3
125
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Part Three: Responding Criteria
The survey category of “Responding” criteria focused on art products which do
not involve studio production. They include the disciplines o f art history, art criticism, and
aesthetics which are required by the Show-Me Standards fo r M issouri Schools (1996), and
Frameworks fo r M issouri Schools (1996). Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient test was used
determine if scores on “Responding” individual criteria were correlated and therefore
could be considered a reliable scale. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates exceeded .70
(considered a rule o f thumb for determining significance) and are reported on the diagonal
of Table 7 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994).
126
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7.
Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for “Responding” Criteria
for RAW variables: 0.74
for STANDARDIZED variables: 0.74
Raw Variables Std. Variables
DeletedVariable
Correlation with Total Alpha
Correlation with Total Alpha
n i 0.50 0.69 0.50 0.70
112 0.51 0.69 0.51 0.69
113 0.44 0.71 0.45 0.72
114 0.54 0.68 0.54 0.68
115 0.51 0.69 0.52 0.69
K-12 n=273
Frequencies and percentages o f individual Responding category criteria were
analyzed for each group o f teachers. Each criterion was viewed as being increasingly
important as students moved through the K-12 school system except for criteria two,
“identifies connections among arts and with other subjects”. Based upon elementary and
middle level teachers’ comments, thematic integration is most important at the elementary
level, is used in middle schools, and is not considered very important at the high school
127
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
level. All criteria were considered important by more than 70% o f teachers and would be
recommended for inclusion on a state rubric. ANOVA indicated that a significant
contrast, p< 006, was found between elementary and high school teacher’s mean scores
for the criteria “uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate artworks” .
“Student self-evaluation” was significantly different, p<007, between elementary and
middle level teachers, and, p<02, between elementary and high school teachers. These
results are shown in Table 8.
Teachers responded with open-ended comments about Responding to Art criteria.
The most frequently mentioned comment involved self- evaluation. A K-12 art teacher
wrote, “Self-evaluation permits a student to make aesthetic reflections and technical
observations about work. It also promotes and reinforces problem-solving”. Another K-
12 art teacher explained, “My main objective in this area is to make sure that students
value their own work and appreciate the time and effort of other students. I also want
them to have an appreciation for various artists, styles, periods, methods, and time
periods”. A high school teacher commented, “I believe in DBAE [discipline-based art
education] but find my students rebel against writing in art. At this point I am holding
off.. .Next year and an 8 block schedule will give me time I need to change”. Another high
school teacher expressed similar sentiments, “I feel these are all very important but it is
very difficult to get most of my students to take them seriously”.
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 8.
Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Student ResponseCriteria
Type of Response
Percentages rounded to whole numbers
Explains perceptions of artwork
Identifies connections among arts and with other subjects
Uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate artworks,*p< 006 between elementary-high school
Student self-evaluates,*p< 007 between elementary- middle and *p< 02 between elementary-high school
Elementary Middle HighK- 5 6-8 9-12n=110 n=51 n=96% % %
76 82 79
79 77 73
72 82 80
86 92 94
79 87 87
Relates art from historical periods, movements, and/or cultures to own work
* in Appendix: ANOVA Tables 50, 53; Tukey’s Tables 51, 54; Contrasts Tables 52, 55; were computed with mean scores o f elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. The p value for Alpha level o f significant contrasts are indicated below the statement.
Teachers’written comments regarding the Responding category are displayed in
Table 9.
129
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 9 .
Responding to Art Comments
Self-evaluation is very important 13
At elementary, integrating art with other subjects has a dramatic effect 5
Writing and speaking about artworks in proper art vocabulary is very important 4
Ideally I find these important. Realistically my schedule does not allow me to 4do most when I evaluate work.
Art history-based projects 3
At middle school, we do big projects on history integrated with social studies 3
At elementary level we just start introducing these ideas, don’t assess them 3
Basic writing (terms, poem) as intro to artwork with grades 3, 4, 5 2
This is all important 2
Depends upon the level taught 2
Explains perceptions is very important 2
Explaining perceptions is very important but not assessed 2
Know the value o f differences in individual expression 2
Critique 2
I am not sure what this means 2
130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Part Four: Creating or Process Criteria
Process criteria were correlated using Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient. The raw
score was less than .7, therefore this category can not be treated as a reliable scale.
Frequencies, shown in Table 10, indicated support for “correctly uses assigned processes,
media, and techniques”; “demonstrates problem-solving process”; and “demonstrates
originality, creativity, or inventiveness”, and suggest these be included on a state rubric.
On the other hand, “documents process in sketchbook or journal entries” should not be
part o f the rubric based upon the percentages and comments. ANOVA, Tukey’s Post Hoc
Comparison, and Contrasts were calculated for each criteria, comparing mean scores o f
the three grade level groups o f art teachers. The only criteria that showed a significant
difference, alpha=.05, was “documents process in sketchbook or journal entries”, where
the contrast for elementary - middle was p<.005 and between elementary - high school
teachers, p<0002.
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 10.
Percentage o f 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%
Middle6-8n=51%
High9-12n=96%
Correctly uses assigned processes, media, and techniques
98 100 96
Demonstrates problem-solving process: brainstorms, develops and revises idea, produces final product, self-evaluates
96 95 100
Demonstrates originality, creativity or inventiveness
98 98 100
Documents process in sketchbook or journal entries, *p<005 between elementary and middle level and, *p<0002between elementary and high school level
32 47 52
*In Appendix: ANOVA Table 56, Tukey’s Table 57, Contrasts Table 58 compared mean scores o f elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. Alpha level o f significant contrasts are indicated below the statement.
Teachers had the opportunity to write open-ended comments about Creating or
Process criteria. Comments mentioned by three or more writers are displayed on Table
11. Typical o f many comments, an elementary art teacher said, “There is very little time in
art class for this kind o f reflection. Ideally it would be great but kids expect to ‘work’ in
my room, not write reflectively1’. A middle school teacher expressed, “O f my coworkers
132
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(five teachers at middle level), three assign sketchbooks. I have found that my extra credit
drawing projects work well for me. Students who struggle are overwhelmed by
sketchbooks”. A high school teacher focused on a common dilemma, “The first criteria
[correctly uses assigned processes, media and techniques] seems vague. How can I assess
Tania who breaks all the rules o f process, but turns out exciting pieces to Carl who does
everything by the rules and there is no ‘life’ in his work?” Another high school teacher
offered another perspective, “It is a delight to see a student though all o f the criteria.
They are learning to learn if they meet these objectives.”
Table 11.
Creating or Process Criteria Comments
Statement listed under comments Number o f 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 3others 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.
Part Five: Attitude or Habits of Mind Criteria
Correlation among criteria was calculated using Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient.
The raw score was less than .7, therefore, this category can not be treated as a reliable
scale. In this category more than 90% o f art teachers at all grade levels answered that
each criteria was important, therefore, all would be recommended for inclusion on a state
rubric. ANOVA, Tukey’s Post Hoc comparisons, and Contrasts were calculated for each
criteria, comparing mean scores of the three grade level groups o f art teachers. Only one
criteria “shows commitment, pursues problem through revisions” demonstrated a
significant contrast, p<01, between elementary and high school. The high percentages
might represent a philosophical viewpoint mentioned in teacher comments. Many art
teachers believe that all students can be successful in art if they follow directions and put
forth effort. On a large scale assessment, it would be difficult to factor in habits-of-mind
criteria. At the classroom level, which is were local assessment will most likely take place,
these criteria are considered appropriate. Results are shown in Table 12.
134
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 12.
Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Attitude or Habits
of Mind Criteria
Type o f Attitude
Percentages rounded to whole numbers
Elementary K -5 n=l 10%
Middle6-8n=51%
High9-12n=96%
Is persistently on task 95 98 99
Respects materials, equipment, other students and their art
99 97 100
Shows commitment, pursues problems throughrevisions,*p<01 between elementary and high school
92 97 99
Is responsive to teacher’s feedback 94 90 97
*In Appendix: ANOVA Table 59; Tukey’s Table 60; Contrasts Table 61 compared mean scores o f elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. Alpha level o f significant contrasts are indicated below the statement.
Teacher comments included a debate over whether students should take a
teacher’s feedback. One teacher wrote, “students are not expected to take my suggestions
unless it fits their vision”. Another art teacher presented a different point o f view, “The
student may choose to follow his/her own notion of design, but I feel they need to be
receptive to the instruction input” . A third commented, “I expect students to listen to my
advice but make their own decisions” . The comment section responses are listed in Table
13.
135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 13.
Attitude/Habits o f Mind Comments
Statement listed under comments Number o f 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.
comparing mean scores o f the three grade level groups o f art teachers. Two criteria were
significantly different. One criteria that showed a significant difference among teachers of
three grade levels, alpha=.05, was “demonstrates technical skill or craftspersonship”,
p< 05 between elementary-middle, and p<0001 between elementary-high school. The
other criteria that showed a significant difference among teachers o f three grade levels,
alpha=.05, was “demonstrates planned, effective composition”, p<01 between
elementary-middle, and p< 0002 between elementary-high school.
137
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 14.
Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Art Product Criteria
Type o f Product
Percentages rounded to whole numbers
Elementary K -5 n=l 10%
Middle6-8n=51%
High9-12n=96%
Demonstrates technical skill or craftspersonship. *p<05 between elementary and middle level *p>.0001 between elementary and high school
83 90 95
Demonstrates planned, effective composition *p<01 between elementary and middle *p<0002 between elementary and high school
87 97 97
Work shows improvement from past products 92 94 93
Artwork includes relevant art historical influences 45 48 56
Demonstrates assigned concepts, processes, elements, and/or principles
95 97 98
Intent o f artist is communicated 77 79 85
*In Appendix: ANOVA Tables 62, 65; Tukey’s Tables 63, 67; Contrasts Tables 64, 67; compared mean scores of elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. The alpha level of significant contrasts are shown below the statement.
Under the teacher comment section for art product criteria, the highest frequency
o f responses related to art historical influences on student work. Several teachers
indicated that these criteria depended upon the assignment and type o f work. Table 15
shows comments made by three or more independent respondents.
138
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 15.
Art Product Criteria Comments
Statement listed under comments Number o f Teachers
Historical influences if it is a focus o f the assignment 9
Depends upon the assignment 6
Spelled out in rubric 3
Part Seven: Aesthetics Criteria
This study focused on the four aesthetic theories that were most relevant to K-12
art education: Formalism, Expressionism, Instrumentalism/Pragmatism, and
Imitationalism/Mimeticism. Some post-modern criteria were used in Expressionism and
Instrumentalism/Pragmatism. A variety o f analyzes were computed on data in the
Aesthetics section.
First, aesthetics was treated as a single category in order to determine if all the
aesthetics criteria could be considered as a single scale (Table 16). Then, the four
subcategories of Formalism, Expressionism, Instrumentalism, and Imitationalism were
compared to see if each was significantly different from the others (Tables 17, 18, 19).
Next, the four subcategories were examined to determine if each represented a reliable
139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
scale (Tables 20, 23, 25). If four different aesthetics scales exist, then teachers would be
able to select the most appropriate subcategory o f aesthetic criteria for assessing a
particular assignment. Finally, percentages o f teachers who deemed each criteria
important for inclusion on a state rubric were reported (Tables 21, 22, 24, 26). ANOVA
was run on each criterion and, where significant, was followed by Tukey’s Post Hoc
Comparison and Contrasts.
First, the category of Aesthetics was viewed as a whole. Cronbach’s Alpha
Coefficient test was used determine if scores on all aesthetic categories combined would
be a reliable scale for measuring an aesthetic component o f art production. Individual
criteria were correlated and therefore, could be considered a reliable scale. Coefficient
alpha reliability estimates exceeded .70 (considered a rule of thumb for determining
significance) and are reported on the diagonal o f Table 16 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994).
The variables represent the mean score o f Formalist criteria, Expressionist criteria,
Instrumental or Pragmatic criteria, and Imitationalist or Mimetic criteria. Since the raw
score exceeded .7, it can be anticipated that aesthetics functions as a distinct scale.
140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 16.
Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for all “Aesthetic” Criteria
for RAW variables : 0.71 for STANDARDIZED variables:
Raw Variables0.71
Std. Variables
Deleted Correlation Variable with Total Alpha
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 o f this study was to see if the four subcategories o f aesthetic criteria
could be used as interchangeable “windows” (Boughton, 1999). A three-way ANOVA
was used to determine if there were significant differences among the means o f Formalist
Criteria, Expressionist Criteria, Instrumental Criteria, and Imitationaiist Criteria. The
result, shown in Table 17, was a difference significant at the p<0001 level. Tukey’s Post
Hoc Comparisons, Table 18, showed that differences at alpha=.05 level were significant
for all pairings o f the four variables except the mean o f Expressionist criteria versus the
mean of Imitationaiist criteria. Follow-up Contrasts were calculated are displayed in Table
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19. This would suggest that for aesthetics survey categories do describe distinctly
separate sets o f criteria. The analysis o f variance is shown in Tables 17.
Table 17.
General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Aesthetic Means
Sum o f Mean
Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F
Model 3 145.08 48.36 91.04 0.0001
Error 1141 606.06 0.53
Corrected Total 1144 751.14
R-Square C.V. Root MSE III4 Mean
0.19 18.40 0.73 3.96
Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
LEVEL 3 145.08 48.36 91.04 0.0001
Source DF Type HI SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
LEVEL 3 145.08 43.36 91.84 0.0001
142
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Tukey’s Post Hoc Comparisons were computed to determine the significance o f
contrasts when controlling for Type I errors Results are presented in Table 18.
Contrasts comparing the mean scores o f Formalist, Expressionist, Instrumental,
and Imitationaiist criteria demonstrated significant contrasts for all combinations except
the means of Formalist versus instrumental criteria. These contrasts are reported in Table
19.
143
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 18.
Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for Aesthetics Subcategories: Formalist.
Expressionist. Instrumental, and Imitationaiist Criteria
NOTE: This test controls the type I experimentwise error rate.
Alpha= 0.05 Confidence^ 0.95 df=280 MSE= 1.50
Critical Value o f Studentized Range= 3.33
Comparisons significant at the 0.05 level are indicated by '***'.
Simultaneous Simultaneous
Lower Difference Upper
LEVEL Confidence Between Confidence
Comparison Limit Means Limit
Formalism- Imitationalism 0.21996 0.37651 0.53305 ***
Formalism-Expressionism 0.24372 0.39999 0.55625 ***
Formalism-Pragmatism 0.83715 0.99355 1.14996 ***
Imitationalism -Formalism -0.53305 -0.37651 -0.21996 ***
Imitationalism -Expressionism -0.13360 0.02348 0.18056
Imitationalism - Pragmatism 0.45982 0.61704 0.77427 ***
Expressionism -Formalism -0.55625 -0.39999 -0.24372 ***
Expressionism-Imitationalism -0.18056 -0.02348 0.13360
Expressionism-Pragmatism 0.43662 0.59356 0.75051 ***
Pragmatism-F ormalism -1.14996 -0.99355 -0.83715 ***
Pragmatism -Imitationalism -0.77427 -0.61704 -0.45982 ***
Pragmatism -Expressionism -0.75051 -0.59356 -0.43662 ***
144
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 19.
Contrasts for Aesthetic Subcategories o f Formalism. Expressionism. Instrumentalism, and
Imitationalism
Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Formalism vs. Expressionism 1 23.04 23.04 43.37 0.0001
Formalism vs. Instrumentalism 1 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.70
Formalism vs. Imitationalism 1 50.29 50.29 94.68 0.0001
Expressionism vs. Instrumentalism 1 20.34 20.34 38.29 0.0001
Expressionism vs. Imitationalism 1 141.89 141.89 267.13 0.0001
Instrumentalism vs. Imitationalism 1 54.16 54.16 101.97 0.0001
Formalist Criteria
Formalism is the aesthetic theory that considers good design to be sufficient
content for an object to be labeled ‘art’. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient test was used
determine if Formalist Aesthetic Criteria would be a reliable scale for measuring an
aesthetic component o f art production. Individual criteria were correlated and therefore
could be considered a reliable scale. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates exceeded .70
(considered a rule o f thumb for determining significance) and are reported on the diagonal
o f Table 20 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994).
145
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 20.
Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Formalist Aesthetic Criteria
for RAW variables: 0.75for STANDARDIZED variables: 0.77
Raw Variables Std. Variables
DeletedVariable
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 o f the four
criteria, “use o f elements”, “use o f principles”, and “composition”, teachers o f all grade
levels were in greater than 70% agreement that they were important. One the criteria,
“distorts, exaggerates for purpose o f design”, only more than 70% o f high school teachers
agreed that it is important. It would be recommended that separate rubrics be used, with
this item included only on the high school rubric. ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc, and
contrasts were calculated for each criteria, comparing mean scores o f the three grade level
146
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
groups of art teachers. Three sets o f contrasts showed a significant difference, alpha=. 05.
One was the mean o f all formalist criteria, p<.04 between middle-high school, and p< 009
between elementary-high school. The second was “distorts, exaggerates for purpose of
design”, p< 02 between middle-high school, and p<0007 between elementary-high school.
The third was “composition”: p<05 between elementary-middle, and p<0008 between
elementary-high school.
Table 21.
Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Formalist AestheticCriteria
Criteria
Percentages rounded to whole numbers
Elementary K-5 n=l 10 %
Middle 6-8 n=51%
High9-12n=96%
Use of elements of art 97 95 98
Use of principles o f design 96 99 97
Distorts, exaggerates for purpose of design *p<02 between middle-high school *p<0007 between elementary-high school
66 67 80
Composition 90 98 96*p<.05 between elementary-middle *p<0008 between elementary-high school
* In Appendix: ANOVA Table 86, 89; Tukey’s Tables 87, 90; Contrasts Tables 88, 91; compared mean scores o f elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. Significant contrasts are indicated below the statement.
147
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Expressionist Criteria
Expressionism is the aesthetic theory that considers an object to be ‘art’ if it either
expresses the artist’s feelings or emotions or evokes emotional responses in the viewer.
Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient test was used determine if scores Expressionist Aesthetic
Criteria would be a reliable scale for measuring an aesthetic component o f art production.
Individual Expressionist criteria were not highly correlated and therefore could not be
considered a reliable scale. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates did not exceed .70
(considered a rule of thumb for determining significance).
Frequencies and percentages were computed for each teaching level on each
criteria within Expressionist Criteria sub category and are shown on Table 22. Teachers
of all grade levels were in greater than 70% agreement that the following criteria should
be included on a state art assessment rubric: “Expresses ideas, attitudes, or feelings”, and
“evokes emotions or feelings in viewer”. It would be recommended that “communicates a
point o f view” be included only on middle level and high school rubrics. ANOVA,
Tukey’s post hoc, and contrasts were calculated for each criteria, comparing mean scores
o f the three grade level groups o f art teachers. No set o f contrasts showed a significant
difference, alpha=.05.
148
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 22.
Percentage of Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Expressionist Aesthetic Criteria
Criteria Elementary Middle HighK- 5 6-8 9-12n=llO n=51 n=96
Percentages rounded to whole numbers % % %
Expresses ideas, attitudes, or feelings 91 84 92
Evokes emotions or feelings in viewer 74 69 79
Communicates a point o f view 68 71 78
Responds to personal, social, or spiritual contexts 62 60 66
Instrumental or Pragmatic Criteria
Instrumentalism is the aesthetic theory that considers an object to be ‘art’ if it
serves a function in it’s society. For the purpose of this study, post-modern as well as
multicultural artworks that serve political, moral, or spiritual purposes were included in
this category. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient test was used determine if scores on
Instrumental or Pragmatic Aesthetic Criteria would be a reliable scale for measuring an
aesthetic component o f art production. Individual Instrumental/Pragmatic criteria were
correlated and therefore could be considered a reliable scale. Coefficient alpha reliability
149
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
estimates, presented in Table 23, exceeded .70 (considered a rule o f thumb for
determining significance) and are reported on the diagonal of Table 23 (Hatcher &
Stepanski, 1994).
Table 23.
Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Instrumental/Pragmatic Aesthetic Criteria
for RAW variables : 0.851289for STANDARDIZED variables: 0.853169
Raw Variables Std. Variables
DeletedVariable
Correlationwith 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% o f 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.
and contrasts were calculated for each criteria, comparing mean scores o f the three grade
level groups of art teachers. There were no significant differences on any criteria.
Instrumental/pragmatic criteria described Post-Modern or multicultural ideas about the
function o f art in a society. Teachers may have been unfamiliar with these non-traditional
ideas about art and therefore have not incorporated them into the curriculum.
Table 24.
Pragmatic Aesthetic Criteria
Criteria Elementary Middle High
K -5 6-8 9-12
n=l 10 n=51 n=96
Percentages rounded to whole numbers % % %
Reflects a society, culture or group o f people 62 61 49
Shows personal interpretation of art history or culture
63 61 59
Responds to environmental or political contexts 40 44 52
Serves a functional purpose 36 47 45
Imitationaiist or Mimetic Criteria
Imitationalism is the aesthetic theory that considers an object to be ‘art’ if it copies
151
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the real or idealized world. Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient test was used determine if
scores on Imitationaiist or Mimetic Aesthetic Criteria would be a reliable scale for
measuring an aesthetic component o f art production. Individual criteria were correlated
and therefore could be considered a reliable scale. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates
exceeded .70 (considered a rule o f thumb for determining significance) and are reported
on the diagonal of Table 25 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994).
Table 25.
Cronbach Coefficient Alpha for Imitationaiist or Mimetic Aesthetic Criteria
for RAW variables: 0.88for STANDARDIZED variables: 0.88
Raw Variables Std. Variables
DeletedVariable
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.
criteria within Imitationalist/MimeticCriteria sub category and are shown on Table 26.
More than 70% of art teachers at all grade levels agreed that three criteria were important,
therefore “shows form”, “ shows texture”, and “show space” would be recommended for
use on a state art assessment rubric. “Real or idealized representation o f life” should be
included only on a high school rubric. ANOVA, Tukey’s Post Hoc, and Contrasts were
calculated for each criteria, comparing mean scores o f the three grade level groups of art
teachers. There was a significant contrast, p<004, between the mean scores of all
Imitationalist/Mimetic Criteria between elementary and high school teachers. Significant
contrasts, alpha=.05, were found for each criteria in this category. “Real or idealized
representation o f life”, had a contrast, p<05, between elementary and high school groups.
“Shows realistic form” scored contrasts between elementary and middle level, p<02, and
between elementary and high school groups, p< 01 . “Shows realistic texture” had a
significant contrast, p< 02 between elementary and high school groups. “Shows space”
demonstrated contrasts between elementary and middle levels, p<05, and between
elementary and high school, p<001. The significant contrasts on all criteria in this
category suggest that teachers view representational drawing/painting skills to be, at least
partially, developmental, supporting Lowenfeld’s theory o f the stages o f artistic growth
(Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987).
153
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 26.
Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Assess Imitationalist or Mimetic Aesthetic Criteria
Type o f Product
Percentages rounded to whole numbers
Elementary Middle HighK- 5 6-8 9-12n=110 n=51 n=96% % %
Real or idealized representation o f life 66*p< 05 between elementary- high
Shows realistic form (3-D), or illusion o f 78form (2-D)*p< 02, between elementary-middle level, and *p<.01 between elementary- high school
Shows realistic texture (2-D), or illusion o f 78texture (3-D)*p< 02 between elementary-high school
Shows space (3-D), or illusion o f depth (2-D) 83*p< 05, between elementary-middle levels, and *p< 001 between elementary-high
64
89
85
92
79
88
86
92
*In Appendix: ANOVA Tables 92, 95, 98, 101; Tukey’s Tables 93, 96, 99, 102; Contrasts Tables 94, 97, 100, 103; compared mean scores o f elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. Significant contrasts are indicated below the statement.
The means o f the four aesthetic subcategories were compared to determine if they
were significantly different using a four-way ANOVA (Table 17). The difference was
significant at p<0001, therefore the separate treatment of the four sets of aesthetic criteria
(formalist, expressionist, instrumental, imitationalist) was appropriate.
There was a comment section in which teachers could write their responses to the
154
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
category of Aesthetics. Many art teachers noted that these four sets o f aesthetic criteria
were important at different times. One middle school teacher wrote,
All of these areas are probably of equal importance depending upon the unit of study in each grade. For example, Imitationalism is stressed during still life, Expressionism is stressed more in 8* grade who have some foundation in the elements and principles (Formalism). Depends on objective for particular project.
A high school teacher expressed a similar point o f view,
I teach both Formalist and Imitational. In some classes we start with realism and then switch to Formalism (Cubism) with the same subject. I also teach other approaches in various classes. In painting class, while doing “realism” some students work impressionist, expressionist, while others are more imitational though all must achieve form through value.Usually the more expressive students were those with more experience and confidence.
Elementary teachers were concerned about the appropriateness of aesthetics for
younger students. One wrote that aesthetics was “relevant for older elementary students,
but were not developmentally appropriate before fifth grade”. Another said, “not
applicable at elementary level, they don’t have thinking skills”.
The idea that realism must precede abstraction was frequently mentioned. A high
school teacher wrote, “First need to be a draftsperson, then work on expressing ideals,
etc. through breaking rules or emphasizing and exaggerating”.
Some teachers commented that formalism, the elements and principles of art, were
the basis for their curriculum and instruction. A high school teacher explained, “I deal
very little with imitationalism. Formalism is an approach most welcomed and manageable
by past and present students...emotionalism evolves miraculously through this approach”.
155
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
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 o f 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 o f Formalist, Expressionist, Instrumental, and
156
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Imitationalist Criteria were significantly different from each other, indicating that these are
alternate ways of assessing student artwork. Teachers communicated through comments
that they were confused whether the all aesthetic theory criteria were expected to be used
to assess all student work. This pointed out a deficit in the survey instrument which
should be remedied before it is used again. In the directions, teachers should be instructed
that these may be interchangeable depending upon the intent o f the project. Formalist
criteria received the strongest teacher support. The Expressionist Criteria that referred to
the expression of emotion were strongly supported. In contrast, both Expressionist and
Instrumental Criteria that described attributes o f post-modernism were viewed as less
important: “communicates a point of view”; “responds to personal, social, o r spiritual
contexts”; “reflects a society, culture, or group o f people”; “shows personal interpretation
of art history/culture”; “responds to environmental or political contexts”; and “serves a
functional purpose”. Imitationalist criteria were more important at upper grade levels,
perhaps because they are more developmentally appropriate there.
Part Eight: What is Important to Teach?
This category was included in the Art Assessment Survey so that it would be
possible to find out if a correlation existed between what teachers believe is important for
them to teach and their scores on aesthetic criteria. The data provides a picture o f art
practice at the current time in the representative sample. Frequencies and percentages
157
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
were calculated by teachers’ selection o f a grade level category. Table 28 illustrates the
percentage of elementary, middle level, and high school art teachers who believe it is
important to assess a variety o f art products. Over 90% of respondents teach the elements
of art and/or principles of design. More than 80% of participating art teachers reported
that they teach students to work from observation; to abstract or create non-objective art;
and to express their feelings and attitudes. Based upon the data, teaching students to
“create art based upon a particular historic period, style, or culture” decreases in
importance as grades advance. This phenomena could mean that at higher grade levels
teachers expect students to begin developing their own styles. ANOVA, followed by
Tukey’s Post Hoc Comparisons and Contrasts were calculated for each criteria to
compare the difference among teachers by level taught. Significant contrasts were found
on two criteria: “draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation” showed p<.04
between elementary and middle levels, and p<0004 between elementary and high schools;
“create art based upon a particular historical period, style, or culture” was p<005 between
elementary and high school.
158
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 28.
Percentage o f Art Teachers who Indicated it was Important to Teach Specific Content
Type o f Art Content
Percentages rounded to whole numbers
Elementary K -5 n=l 10%
Middle6-8n=51%
High9-12n=96%
Use elements o f art and/or principles o f design 95 97 97
Draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation*p<04 between elementary-middle levels, and *p<0004 between elementary-high schools
80 97 93
Abstract or create non-objective art 83 82 87
Communicate social, political, or personalmessage
60 71 56
Create functional art 56 62 54
Express their feelings or attitudes 87 85 82
Create art based upon a particular period, style, or culturep<005 between elementary-high
81 71 68
*In Appendix: ANOVA Tables 68, 71; Tukey’s Tables 69, 72; Contrasts 70, 73; compared mean scores of elementary, middle, and high school teachers for each statement. Significant contrasts are indicated below the statement.
Teachers’ open-ended comments regarding the category, “What do you Teach?”
are presented in Table 29. The most prevalent comment was that the “elements and
principles” were important was illustrated by a high school teacher who wrote:
159
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
What I teach or emphasize varies from work to work and level o f the class.I teach specialized classes. The only thing above that is constant on every project is elements and principles.
A middle school teacher supporting this point o f view explained, “If they can understand
the elements and principles, they will be successful in lifelong creative problem-solving” .
An elementary teacher expressed,
I feel that small children need to become familiar with the basic aspects o f art such as line, color, texture, shape, etc. before they can begin to fully make a social statement or purposely “evoke emotions or feelings” from their viewers.
A high school teacher described a different reason for a similar perspective, “Expressing
feelings or attitudes is getting hard to accomplish with restrictions on what is or is not
‘school appropriate’” .
A middle school teacher explained her philosophy o f teaching art:
I always try to keep the perspective with 7* and 8* that I am not sending them to a life o f a professional artist. (If they are so inclined I will give them all I can.) I want them to see the importance o f art in cultures and in their lives and to have an understanding o f why things in their life look the way they do, to be able to interact with a painting, a sculpture, a building, and to be able to express , using intelligent vocabulary, their views, to have an awareness.
160
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 29.
“What do vou Teach?” Comments
Statement listed under comments Number of Teachers
Elements and principles o f art 10
Multicultural and global art studies 4
Expose students to many different kinds and styles o f art 4
Depends upon the project 4
Theme-based integration 4
All are covered during year 3
Teachers were given a final opportunity to answer this question: What other
criteria do you use in assessing student work that were not included in this survey?
Most of the comments repeated criteria already included. The most frequently mentioned
statements are included in Table 30.
161
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 30.
Assessment Criteria not Included in this Survey Comments
Statement listed under comments Number of Teachers
Student effort, work habits and/or participation 29
K-4 students do not receive grades, should enjoy art 12
Rubrics created by teacher, or teacher-students 12
Tests 7
Some teachers used this section as an opportunity to express their concerns and
frustrations. An elementary teacher wrote, “I have taught art ed assessment at the college
level (K-4 teachers) . Situations are so varied that a blanket assessment is extremely
dubious and, I doubt, can be justified” . Another elementary teacher echoed this concern
by writing, “ I believe that grading a child’s artwork is counterproductive”. An urban
elementary art educator shared:
The urban elementary school cannot be put in the same category as suburban elementary. I have made great strides if by the end of first grade I have most children able to: identify colors, cut on ‘the line’, paint the paper rather than themselves, use glue appropriately, not eat, steal or destroy supplies. By the upper elementary I am able to get some children to understand Art/Design principles, make sense o f historical periods or even find worth in their own art. Basically students have done well if they have followed directions, created a pleasing product, and are themselves pleased with their work.
Several teachers indicated that the survey “covered everything”. A K-12 teacher
162
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
shared a positive experience, “Art integrated with communication allows my students to
"voice’ in an appropriate manner, their views and opinions about themselves, their
community, and their beliefs” .
Relationship Between Aesthetics and Instruction
To identify a relationship between aesthetic approach criteria and what a teacher
believes it is important to teach, Pearson Product Moment Correlations were calculated
for each aesthetic criteria subcategory.
To test the null hypothesis, there is no significant relationship o f between the
formalist aesthetic approach score and having students use elements and/or principles to
create abstract or non-objective art (items VII-1 and VII-3), the mean K-12 score for the
sub category Formalist Criteria was compared to criteria, it is important to teach students
how to “use elements o f art and/or principles o f design” and “abstract or create non
objective art” . The Pearson Correlation Coefficients .38 and .32, shown in Table 31, did
not exceed .8 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994), therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected.
163
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 31.
Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the Mean o f Formalist Criteria. Uses Elements/Principles, and Abstracts/Non-Objective
/ Prob > |R| under Ho: Rho=0 / N = 286
Formalism VIII VII3
Formalism 1.00 0.38 0.32
0.0 0.00 0.00
VIII 0.38 1.00 0.18
0.00 0.0 0.00
VII3 0.32 0.18 1.00
0.00 0.00 0.0
To test the null hypothesis, there is no significant relationship between the
expressionist aesthetic approach score and having students express their feelings or
attitudes (item VO-6), the mean K-12 score for Expressionist Criteria was compared to
teaching students to “express their feelings or attitudes”. The correlation coefficient or .5
is lower than .8 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994) needed to reject the null hypothesis,
therefore, it is not rejected. Results are shown in Table 32.
164
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
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.
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 o f the criteria in the
imitationalist category was correlated with the criteria It is important to teach students
how to “draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation”. The correlation
coefficient of .51 is lower than the .8 (Hatcher & Stepanski, 1994) needed to reject the
null hypothesis, therefore, it is not rejected. Results are in Table 34.
166
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 34.
Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Imitationalism and Draw/Paint/Sculpt/PrintRealistically 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%) o f the non-respondents were randomly selected for a phone interview.
More than forty phone calls were made in an attempt to contact these teachers. Messages
were left with requests for home numbers and times when the art teacher might be
available. In the end, eight participants were interviewed.
The interviewees answers were generally parallel to those who returned surveys by
mail. Three of the teachers were elementary, two middle level, and three high school.
Frequencies and percentages were calculated and compared with K-12 answers obtained
167
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
previously.
Non-respondents’ rated criteria as important more frequently than the sample of
respondents on: assessing the “final product” (100% versus 96%); “art criticism” (88%
versus 72%); “explaining perceptions” (88% versus 78%); “self-evaluates” (88% versus
84%); “documents process in sketchbook/journal” (63% versus 43%); “work shows
improvement” (100% versus 93%); “artwork includes relevant art historical influences”
(75% versus 50%); “intent of artist is communicated” (88% versus 80%); “expresses
ideas, attitudes, or feelings” (100% verus 90%); “communicates a point o f view” (88%
versus 73%); “uses elements/principles” (100% versus 96%), and “draw realistically from
observation” (100% versus 89%).
Non-respondents’ rated criteria more important less frequently than the sample of
respondents on: “rough drafts” (50% versus 64%); “portfolio” (43% versus 59%);
“problem-solving” (75% versus 97%); “persistently on task” (88% versus 98%); “shows
commitment (88% versus 96%); “responsive to teacher’s feedback (88% versus 94%);
“craftspersonship” (63% versus 89%); “evokes emotions or feelings in viewer” (50%
versus 75%); “responds to personal, social, or spiritual contexts” (38% versus 63%),
“reflects a society, culture, or group o f people” (29% versus 57%); shows personal
interpretation o f art history or culture (38% versus 62%); “responds to environmental or
political contexts” (38% versus 45%); “shows realistic texture” (75% versus 82%);
“shows space” (75% versus 88%); “communicate social, political, or personal messages” (
38% versus 60%); “create functional art” (50% versus 57%); express feelings or
attitudes” (75% versus 84%), and “create art based upon a particular historical period,
168
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
style, or culture” (50% versus 73%).
The non-respondents sample is incomplete since some participants could not be
reached. It is also too small for generalization. Though percentages vary, responses
between the sample and the sample of non-respondents are generally similar.
Summary
In this chapter, the findings of this study were presented. Qualitative analyzes
were used to describe art assessment practices and the values placed upon including
specific criteria on a state level rubric.
Over 90% o f teachers assessed their students’ final art products. Other products
such as rough drafts, aesthetic reflections, art criticism, student’s self-evaluation, and
portfolios were considered important more frequently at upper grade levels. In portfolios,
the final product and all work for a grading period were the most frequently mentioned
comments.
All criteria in the Responding category were considered important at all grade
levels. Included in this category were non-production activities such as talking or writing
about aesthetics, criticism, or art history.
In the Creating or Process category, the use o f assigned processes, media, and
techniques; demonstrating problem-solving; and creativity were considered important at
all grade levels. In contrast, documenting process in sketchbooks or journals o f lesser
169
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
importance.
All criteria in the Attitude or Habits-of-Mind category were considered to be
important by over 90% o f teachers at all grade levels. This encompassed students being
on task, respecting students and materials, showing commitment, and being responsive to
teacher’s feedback.
All criteria in the Art Product category were highly regarded by teachers o f all
grade levels except the criteria “artwork includes relevant art historical influences”.
Criteria considered important referred to the demonstration of: skill, craftspersonship,
planning, composition, assigned concepts/processes/elements/principles, growth over time,
and communication of intent. Teachers appeared to value students’ knowledge o f art
history, but not their ability to create art based upon it. This may be due to teachers’
emphasis on creativity which would be diminished if students were limited to expressing
themselves as others had.
Aesthetics was viewed as a construct with separate, component subcategories o f
Formalism, Expressionism, Instrumentalism, and Imitationalism. The Formalist criteria
were considered important by the highest number o f art teachers at all grade levels. Two
Expressionist criteria, students’ ability to “express ideas, attitudes, or feelings”, and to
“evoke emotions or feelings in viewer” were well supported. Other Expressionist and
Instrumental criteria which described post-modem and multicultural ideas were not
considered important as frequently. The descriptors related to: expressing a point o f
view, responding to a variety o f contexts (personal, social, spiritual, environmental,
political), and reflecting a society or group o f people. While all criteria in the subcategory,
170
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Imitationalist criteria, were considered important, high school teachers valued them more
frequently. In all, teachers valued aesthetics o f traditional art criteria: those tied to
representing life, expressing emotion, and demonstrating design qualities. Although post
modernist art, which responds to the contemporary, multicultural world can be found in
galleries in art centers across the United States, Missouri art teachers have not yet adapted
it to art classroom activities.
Missouri art teachers reported that it was important to teach: the elements and
principles; how to represent reality; how to abstract and create non-objective art; and how
to express feelings. They considered it less important to teach students how to:
communicate messages, create functional art, or create art based upon art history.
Most elementary art teachers have weekly contact with many more students than
middle or high school teachers. Missouri requires: all K-S students to receive art
instruction for 50 minutes per week, middle school students to be able to choose art as an
elective, and high school students to complete one unit o f a fine arts to graduate from high
school. The number o f students taught is directly connected to the Missouri requirements.
Sixty-five percent o f respondents indicated they had been teaching for more than
11 years. Over 3/4 o f participants had participated in staff development or college courses
on assessment within the last two years. Since the Missouri Assessment Project
(statewide tests in core content areas, fine arts, health and physical education) have been
phased in over the last few years, assessment has been a popular staff development topic
across the state. Information on assessment from the Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education has been disseminated through regional professional development
171
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
sites. Fifty-four percent o f survey respondents had attended staff development or college
classes on art assessment. The results will be further discussed in the next chapter.
172
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
This project demonstrated that a representative sample of Missouri art teachers
agreed that designated criteria were important for inclusion on a state art assessment
rubric. Criteria were presented for their review in an instrument designed for the purpose
of the study, Art Assessment Survey. This questionnaire was developed from: the
literature in the field; a state-level focus group of K-12 Missouri art teachers; a
compilation of rubrics currently used by art teachers, Advanced Placement exam,
International Baccalaureate, Arts PROPEL assessment rubrics; a pilot study; and feedback
from national experts in assessment, (Carmen Armstrong, Donna Kay Beattie, and Robert
Burton).
Teachers were randomly selected from year-old data provided by the Missouri
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Surveys were mailed to 382
teachers. The sample size was reduced to 344 when teachers who had retired or moved
were eliminated. There were 259 responses returned by mail, a 75% return rate. A
random sample o f 8 non-respondents were interviewed by phone. Their responses were
scripted during the conversation, raising the total response rate to 78%.
Data was analyzed comparing the Likert five-point ratings for each criteria among
173
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teachers in broad grade level categories: Elementary, K-5; Middle, 6-8; and High School,
9-12. Percentages indicated differences by grade level on most items. For the purpose o f
defining criteria for a state rubric, the Likert scale scores for “important” and “very
important” were combined to form a single category, “important”. Three statistical
procedures were used: ANOVA to identify differences among groups, Tukey’s Post Hoc
Comparisons to correct for Type I errors and establish the level o f confidence; and
Contrasts to pinpoint the groups with significant differences. Written teacher responses
for each section o f the questionnaire were grouped into like statements which were then
tallied to provide frequencies. Their comments supported the numeric data, adding
understanding o f teachers’ meanings.
The results were used by the Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task Force to
develop a draft o f an interdisciplinary arts rubric for teachers to use when conducting local
assessment o f the state education standards. A copy of this rubric is in the appendix.
The main research question for this study was: Which criteria for assessing student
art production do art teachers recommend for inclusion on a state rubric? Subquestions
that expanded upon the main question were:
1. What are differences among elementary (k-5), middle (6-8), and high school (9-12)
teachers’ selections o f criteria used to judge student art products? The null hypothesis is:
There is no significant difference at the p>.05 level among mean scores o f elementary,
middle, and high school teachers on criteria recommended for inclusion on a state art
production rubric.
174
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
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.
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 staff development or college
classes on art assessment?
Summary
The purpose o f Chapter Five is to answer the research questions introduced in
Chapter Three and restated above. The research findings were presented in Chapter Four.
The results are examined in this section. Criteria were categorized into eight sections, and
discussion follows each category. Teachers indicated the degree to which they believed
each criterion was important for assessment. It was assumed that if 70% o f teachers were
in agreement, that the likelihood of the rubric being used would increase. Therefore,
176
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
criteria deemed important by at least 70% o f art teachers would be recommended for
inclusion on a state rubric.
What do Teachers Assess?
Art products that were considered important by K-12 Missouri art teachers are
followed by the percentage of support each received: “final product”, 96%; “aesthetic
reflections about own or other artist’s work”, 70%; “art criticism analysis of own or other
artists’ work”, 72%; and “student’s self-evaluation”, 78%.
Art products considered important by fewer than 70% of K-12 Missouri art
teachers are followed by the percentage o f support each received: “rough drafts or
process sketches”, 64%; “art historical writing”, 28%; and ‘portfolio of student work”,
59%.
Comments supported the percentages. The final product was mentioned by 38
teachers who responded to the question, “I f you assess portfolios, what is included in the
portfolio?” Teachers, especially at the elementary and middle levels, commented that
they frequently lacked time for students to develop an idea through a series of drafts, or to
have students engage in the disciplines o f aesthetics, art criticism, and art history, and that
they lacked storage space to save portfolios o f student work. Some elementary teachers
commented that as soon as work was completed, they would put it on display, then send it
home.
Student’s self-evaluation was important to all teachers while art criticism was
177
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
considered important to middle and high school teachers. Aesthetic reflections and use of
portfolios were important to only high school teachers. An explanation for this
phenomenon is that most art teachers were trained with a studio focus, and the majority of
classroom instructional time is allocated to art production, therefore it is logical that
teachers most frequently assess student artwork.
Responding Criteria
Teachers’ responses indicated that all criteria that involve students responding to
artworks were considered important. The percentages o f support follow each criteria:
“explains perceptions o f artwork”, 78%; “identifies connections among arts and with
other subjects”, 77%; “relates art from historical periods, movements, and/or cultures to
own work”, 77%; “uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate
artworks”, 91%; and “student self-evaluates, 84%. Theses criteria were sufficiently
correlated to be considered a scale. Teachers’ comments placed high value on student
self-evaluation, and highlighted the importance o f integration with other subjects at the
elementary and middle levels. Teachers’ strong support of criteria in the Responding
category appear to have been influenced by Discipline-Based Art Education which is
embedded in the, Show-Me Standards fo r M issouri Schools (1996).
178
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Creating or Process Criteria
Three o f the criteria in this category had extremely high support from K-12 art
teachers: “correctly uses assigned processes, media, and techniques”, 99%;
“demonstrates problem-solving process”, 97%; and “demonstrates originality, creativity,
or inventiveness”, 99%. The lower approval rating o f the fourth, “documents process in
sketchbook or journal entries”, 42%, was explained in teacher comments. Constraints
mentioned were time, cost, and that students were unwilling to complete assignments
outside o f class. A non-respondent to the mail survey who was interviewed by phone, said
that sketchbooks had been eliminated from the introductory level high school courses in
his district because they had a negative impact on grades. In the advanced courses
sketchbooks had symbolic associations for students with career aspirations in art. The
strength o f responses in the Creating Category demonstrate a common philosophical belief
, that the artistic process is as important as the final art product.
Attitude or Habits-of-M ind Criteria
All four criteria in this category were strongly supported by K-12 art teachers: “is
persistently on task”, 98%; “respects materials, equipment, other students and their art”,
99%; “shows commitment”, 96%; and “is responsive to teacher’s feedback”, 94%. In
comments, teachers placed emphasis on students working hard, being on task, following
directions, and showing responsibility. A few teachers expressed that they didn’t want
179
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students to do as the teacher requested, but rather to be independent creators. The
philosophical belief held by many art teachers and suggested by these findings is that the
creation of artwork is not limited to those labeled as ‘talented’, but that all students are
capable of finding success in art if they follow directions, show commitment by staying on
task, and put forth their best effort.
Art Product Criteria
Five of the six criteria in this category were considered important by K-12 art
teachers: “demonstrates technical skill or craftspersonship”, 89%; “demonstrates planned,
effective composition”, 89%; “work shows improvement from past products or
performances”, 93%; “demonstrates assigned concepts, processes, elements and/or
principles”, 97%; and “intent o f artist is communicated”, 80%. The criteria that was not
highly valued for the purposes of state art assessment was “artwork includes relevant art
historical influences”, 50%. Comments explained that teachers were ambivalent about the
importance of having student art look like historic exemplars. Nine teachers wrote that
historical influences only applied if they were a focus of the assignment, while another six
replied that it depended upon the assignment. Teachers appear to value students’
knowledge of art history, but not their ability to create art based upon it. This may be due
to teachers’ emphasis on creativity which would be diminished if students were limited to
expressing themselves as others had.
180
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Aesthetics Formalist Criteria
All criteria in this category were valued as important for a state rubric by greater
than 70% of K-12 art teachers. The criteria and associated percentages were: “use of
elements o f art”, 97%; use of principles o f design”, 97%; “distorts, exaggerates for
purpose o f design”, 72%, and “composition”, 94%. A few teachers commented that
formalist criteria were the basis for what they teach. The strength o f this aesthetic
category reflects the pervasive influence o f modernist art in the last century.
Aesthetics Expressionist Criteria
Three o f the four criteria were rated important by more than 70% of art teachers:
“expresses ideas, attitudes, or feelings”, 90%; “evokes emotions o f feelings in viewer”,
75%; and “communicates a point o f view”, 73%. Though “responds to personal, social or
spiritual contexts” was important to only 63% o f the survey participants, teachers who
were interviewed indicated that they believed personal contexts to be very important, but
not social or spiritual ones. Even though “or” rather than “and”, was used to connect the
three contexts, teachers may have discounted the entire question if they disagreed with
one part of it. If the survey is used again, or serves as a model for another study, the three
contexts should be listed as separate criteria. These findings support the research of
Freedman and Wood, 1999, who found that most students saw self-expression as the
181
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
purpose o f art.
Aesthetics Instrumental Criteria
None o f the criteria in the Instrumental subcategory was considered to be
important by 70% of art teachers. Percentages o f K-12 art teachers who considered each
criteria important follow: “reflects a society, culture, or group o f people”, 57%; shows
personal interpretation of art history or culture”, 62%; responds to environmental or
political contexts”, 45%; and “ serves a functional purpose”, 42%. One possible
explanation for the low percentages is that instrumental criteria are most relevant to post
modern or multi-cultural art. Although postmodernism is prevalent in contemporary
museums and galleries in art centers o f the United States, most Missouri art teachers have
relied upon traditions o f the past and have not integrated current attitudes toward art into
their curricula. As shared previously, teachers strongly favored the modernist criteria,
elements and principles o f art.
Aesthetics Imitationalist Criteria
All criteria in the imitationalist aesthetic subcategory were viewed as important by
70% or more art teachers. The criteria and the percent of teachers who valued each
182
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
follows: “real or idealized representation o f life”, 70%; “shows realistic form”, 84%;
“shows realistic texture”, 82%; and “shows space”, 88%. In their comments, elementary
teachers expressed the opinion that realism was not developmentally appropriate for
young children. Some suggested that these criteria depended more on grade level than on
philosophical stance which supports Lowenfeld’s developmental theories o f artistic
growth (Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987). There is a strong belief in the value of assessing
students on their ability to represent life as they observe it, especially at the upper grade
levels.
What do Teachers Consider Important to Teach?
More than 70% o f teachers reported that it was important to teach students how
to: “use elements and principles”, 96%; “draw...realistically from observation”, 89%;
“abstract or create non-objective art”, 84%; “express their feelings or attitudes”, 84%; and
“create art based upon a particular historical period, style, or culture:, 73%. Less than
70% believed it was important to teach students how to: “communicate social, political,
or personal messages”, 60%; and “create functional art” .
This indicates that most art teachers focus both instruction and assessment on the
elements and principles o f art; observational drawing, painting, sculpting, or printing;
abstracting or creating non-objective art; having students express their feelings; and
creating art based upon an historical period or culture. Teachers’ comments, reported in
Chapter Four, supported this conclusion. The traditional models set forth by Formalism,
183
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Imitationalism, and Expressionism appear relevant to teachers while the political, social,
environmental, spiritual, multicultural concerns found in post-modern art (presented as
criteria 3 and 4 in Expressionist Criteria, and criteria 1-4 o f Instrumental Criteria) are
considered to be less important.
Aesthetics
All criteria in the four subcategories o f Formalist, Expressionist, Instrumental, and
Imitationalist Criteria were correlated and functioned as a scale. Each o f the criteria in
subcategories o f Formalist Criteria, Instrumental Criteria, and Imitationalist Criteria, were
highly correlated and could be considered to be individual scales.
Research question two asked: What are differences among aesthetic approach
criteria selected by teachers forjudging student art products? The significant differences
among aesthetics criteria suggest that the instrument measures four constructs which
could be used as “windows” for scoring different types o f artwork.
To answer the third research question Pearson Product Moment Correlations were
calculated between the aesthetic criteria subcategories and specific items in the survey
section, What do you Teach? In spite o f the superficial similarity between aesthetic
criteria and what teachers believe is important to teach their students, correlations between
mean scores on each aesthetic category and teaching were limited. There was a moderate
relationship between the Imitationalist aesthetic approach and having students draw, paint,
sculpt, or print realistically from observation. The Pearson correlation between
184
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Expressionist aesthetic approach score and having students express their feelings or
attitudes was moderate. There was no correlation between the formalist aesthetic
approach score and having students use elements and/or principles to create abstract or
non-objective art. A moderate relationship existed between the instrumental aesthetic
approach score and having students create functional art or communicate social, political,
or personal messages.
It was anticipated that there would be a high correlation among the aesthetic
means and the teaching contents, sufficient to show internal reliability o f the questionnaire.
Though some relationship exists, teachers seem to consider production activities and
aesthetics as discrete entities. This is not surprising since aesthetics has traditionally been
relegated to perception and reflection activities. The groundbreaking notion that
aesthetics should be a conscious component of art production activities has only been
recently discussed (Armstrong, 1999; Jones, 1999; Jeffers, 1999). One purpose for
including aesthetic categories with production assessment criteria on the A rt Assessment
Survey was investigate this issue from a research perspective.
How many students are taught by elementary, middle, and high school teachers,
respectively?
There are differences in numbers of students taught in a year depending upon the
grade level of art instruction. Most elementary art teachers (77%) are responsible for
teaching between 200-600 students a year; with only 8% teaching fewer than 200
185
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students. At the middle level, percentages are more evenly spaced with 25% teaching
100-199, 25% teaching 200-399, and 20% teaching 400-599. The shift to smaller
numbers continues into the high school level where 23% teach 1-99, and 61% teach 100-
199 students per year. The discrepancy is due, in part, to the differential number of
minutes o f art instruction per week. While most elementary teachers see each classroom
group of students for 50-60 minutes per week, most high school credit art courses teach
each class group for 250 minutes per week.
What are the percentages o f teachers who attended sta ff development or college classes
on assessment in the last two years?
Results show that 77% of respondents received instruction in assessment during
the last two years. This is a surprisingly large number since 80% had been teaching for
more than five years so that it was not part o f their undergraduate education. A possible
explanation is the change from the multiple-choice, fact-based Missouri achievement tests
to the Missouri Assessment Project (MAP), which is a more performance-based state
wide assessment in math, science, communication arts, social studies, health and physical
education, and the fine arts. To inform teachers about the new assessments, regional
professional development centers have disseminated information, and grass-roots, school-
based teachers’ assessment teams have been formed.
What are the percentages o f teachers who attended sta ff development or college classes
186
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
on art assessment?
The percentage o f art teachers who participated in art assessment instruction was
54%. Since the Fine Arts MAP test is the last to be implemented, with field testing
occurring in March, 2000; voluntary school participation in 2001; and mandated
participation in 2002; additional opportunities to learn about art assessment should be
available soon. Another possible reason that more teachers had not attended college
classes on art assessment could be that assessment is usually subsumed under an umbrella
of curriculum and/or instruction rather than being offered as a single course.
Discussion
In many ways, this research project reported results similar to those considered in
the review o f related literature, Chapter Two.
Portfolio contents mentioned in teacher comments were typical of the field (Wolf
& Pistone, 1991; Vermont Portfolio Project, 1995; Arter, 1995). Respondents to this
study agreed with the emphasis on reflective thinking found in the ARTS PROPEL model
(Gardner, 1989) and the International Baccalaureate (1996). However, they were less
supportive o f the workbook and process emphasis o f the International Baccalaureate than
Blaikie reported (1992, 1994). One reason for this discrepancy is that the IB involves
students at the upper high school levels while participants in this study taught K-12, and
187
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the strongest support for sketchbooks/process documentation occurred at the high school
level.
Performance assessment criteria also supported writers in the field. Clark and
Zimmerman, 1984, looked at criteria evident in artworks and student behaviors that
indicate success. The strong responses to Art Product as well as the Attitude or Habits-
of-Mind criteria indicate that Missouri art teachers valued the same aspects o f assessment.
In addition, high percentages o f this study’s respondents valued the specific criteria
considered important to Clark and Zimmerman: creativity; composition/design; elements
and principles; skill at representation; use o f media; and techniques. A difference between
the two studies was that subject matter, highly important to Clark and Zimmerman, was
infrequently mentioned by study participants.
Criteria used in the ARTS PROPEL project which were similarly important in this
study were craftsmanship in production, inventiveness, expression, and effort (Gardner,
1989; Winner, 1992). Some International Baccalaureate (1996)criteria were similar:
creative thinking and expression, technical skill, and persistence; while there was a
difference in the value placed upon design and composition. A large percentage o f
Missouri teachers considered the elements and principles as important while is was worth
only 10% on the IB examination. Chapman’s 1982 research found that teachers based
lessons on elements and principles which represented formalist principles. Armstrong’s
(1994) recommended rubric criteria included items Missouri teachers also mentioned:
media, tools, equipment, process, techniques and concepts o f discipline-based art
education. Beattie, 1997, also included DBAE along with creating, responding, using
188
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
formal elements, and resolving as criteria for art assessment. While agreeing with the
former characteristics, Missouri teachers did not support Beattie’s emphasis on research,
the intent o f the artist being communicated, nor that students should respond to personal,
social, political, environmental, or spiritual contexts. Fewer Missouri teachers rated the
latter ideas as important. The concept o f socially relevant art, typical o f multicultural and
post-modern art, was not held to be important among survey respondents. It is possible
that the rural nature o f much of the state has kept teachers from being aware o f less
traditional and more contemporary artforms. In a similar way, Missouri teachers who
downplayed historical research, may have been responding to the lack o f research
resources in their schools and communities.
Survey participants validated the criteria found by Venet (1999a) in Missouri art
teacher focus groups: Craftspersonship; respect; growth; composition; elements and
principles o f art; growth; attitude; and knowledge o f art history, art criticism and
aesthetics.
Missouri teachers frequently did not support the literature which recommended a
connection between aesthetics and production o f art. Danto’s (1992, 1999) belief that it
takes an aesthetic theory to make something art was not supported since there were no
significant correlations between aesthetic criteria and what was taught. Other writers who
promoted the union o f aesthetic approaches and studio projects were Day, 199S; Barett,
1997; Jones, 1999; and Armstrong, 1999.
In the area o f aesthetics, Missouri teachers did support Hamblen, 1990, who found
that art teachers valued classroom activities for their own sake. Like respondents to this
189
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
study, there were several writers who valued expression (Erikson, 1994; Parsons, 1997;
Freedman & Wood, 1999).
Conclusions
The findings describe what a sample of Missouri art teachers teach and assess, and
what they consider important in that process. This data can become part of the framework
of future art educational research in Missouri. Many o f the criteria listed on the survey
instrument are appropriate for inclusion within the context o f a state rubric. The specific
criteria are reported in Figure 1.
The figure is divided into sections by the category headings used on the
questionnaire. Under each category is a list o f criteria recommended for inclusion on a
state rubric. Criteria have been included if 70% or more teachers at a grade level agreed
that they were important. Columns represent the three grade levels: elementary, middle,
and high school. A check mark recommends that the individual criterion should be
included on a grade level rubric.
In Figure 1, the category names and numbers refer to their placement on the
questionnaire.
The following symbols are used in figure one:
✓ means that the criterion is included on the specific grade level rubric, and
0 means that the criterion is not included on the specific grade level rubric.
190
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
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 o f artwork ✓ ✓ ✓
Identifies connections among arts and with other subjects
✓ ✓ ✓
Relates art from historical periods, movements, and/or cultures to own work
/ ✓ ✓
Uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluated artworks
/ ✓ ✓
Student self-evaluates ✓ ✓ ✓
Category in . Creating or Process Criteria Include on Rubric for Grade Level:
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.
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.
Figure 1, continued
Category VI. Aesthetics, Formalist Include on Rubric for Grade Level for:
Criteria Elementary Middle High
Use of elements o f art ✓ ✓ ✓
Use of principles o f design ✓ ✓ ✓
Distorts, exaggerates for purpose o f design 0 0 ✓
Composition ✓ ✓ ✓
Category VI. Aesthetics, Expressionist Include on Rubric for Grade Level fo r
Criteria Elementary Middle High
Expresses ideas, attitudes, or feelings ✓ ✓ ✓
Evokes emotions or feelings in viewer ✓ 0 ✓
Communicates a point o f view 0 ✓ ✓
Category VI. Aesthetics, Imitationalist Include on Rubric for Grade Level.
Criteria Elementary Middle High
Real or idealized representation o f life 0 0 ✓
Shows realistic form (3-D), or illusion of form (2-D)
✓ ✓ ✓
Shows realistic texture (3-D), or illusion of texture (2-D)
✓ ✓ ✓
Shows space (3-D), or illusion o f depth (2-D) / ✓ ✓
193
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
An analysis o f the data in this study suggests the following conclusions:
1. There should be three separate Missouri art assessment rubrics, one each for
elementary, middle, and high school levels. The percentages o f teachers who believe each
criterion to be important varied by grade level, in some cases showing significant
differences. Criteria that garnered greater than 70% support from teachers at each grade
level are included in the rubric recommendations for that grade level. Twenty-three
criteria are included on all three rubrics. When less than 70% of teachers at a grade level
agreed that a criterion was important, it was not recommended for inclusion on a Missouri
rubric. Each o f the criteria were manifest at all grade levels with four exceptions. Two
criteria, “distorts, exaggerates for purpose o f design”, and “real or idealized representation
o f life”, are recommended for only the high school rubric. The criteria, “evokes emotions
or feelings in viewer”, is not suggested for the middle-level rubric. “Communicates a
point o f view” was deemed important at both middle and high school levels, but not at the
elementary level.
2. Aesthetic subcategories o f Formalist, Expressionist, Instrumental, and Imitationalist
criteria are significantly different from each other. Teachers would select one or more sets
o f aesthetic criteria to use when judging a particular artwork. The decision would be
based upon the intent or style o f the work. Teachers who responded with written
comments stated that the use o f aesthetic criteria depended upon the assignment.
194
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. This research indicates that teachers make few connections between given aesthetic
theories (Formalist, Expressionist, Instrumental, Pragmatic) and what they teach their
students. Aesthetics, when taught at all, is limited to students’ responses to art. Even
though the elements and principles o f art are highly valued and frequently taught, the data
show that in teachers’ practice they are not related to a formalist philosophy o f art.
4. Teachers in Missouri are interested in assessment. This is supported in two ways by
study results: the return o f 75% o f mailed questionnaires; and the 77% of teachers who
participated in staff development or college classes on assessment in the previous two
years.
Recommendations
As a result o f the findings and conclusions of this study, the following
recommendations related to the study o f art assessment are made:
1. The results o f this study suggest the need for three state rubrics, one each for
elementary, middle, and high school levels, as displayed in Figure 1. The questionnaire
criteria manifest at all grade levels with four exceptions. The criteria teachers did not
support were:
1) under the Creating category, “documents process in sketchbook or journal entries”;
2) under the Art Product category, “artwork includes relevant art historical influences”;
3) under the Expressionist subcategory of Aesthetic Criteria, “responds to personal,
195
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
social, or spiritual contexts”; and
4) all descriptors listed under the Instrumental subcategory o f Aesthetic Criteria
a) “ reflects a society, culture, or group o f people”;
b) “ shows personal interpretation o f art history or culture”;
c) “ responds to environmental or political contexts”; and
d) “ serves a functional purpose”.
2. In order to create a rubric based upon the results o f this study, descriptors must be
added that depict various achievement levels. The Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task
Force (2000) reviewed the A rt Assessment Survey developed for this study, and decided
that the criteria, overall, could be used on a single rubric for all the arts: visual, music,
theatre, and dance. They developed a rubric with descriptors gleaned from the significant
criteria selected by teachers in this study. The Missouri rubric rearranged all presented
criteria into categories previously used in Frameworks fo r M issouri Schools (1996).
These categories are: Art Production, Art History, Art Criticism, and Aesthetics. All
aesthetic theories and references to expression were deleted to forestall criticism from
political factions opposed to having aesthetics in the state goals. The Missouri Art
Assessment Rubric, draft version, is located in the Appendix on page 306.
3. In the process o f rubric development, once a rubric has been constructed, it should be
field tested for validation by art teachers working with students’ artworks and writings.
Benchmark, or anchor, examples should be selected from student works which illustrate
196
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
each described level o f quality. If the rubric doesn’t function to help teachers differentiate
among works of various levels of quality, then the state will have the responsibility for
making revisions. After the field test results have been used to improve the rubric,
teachers can be trained in its use.
4. Further study is needed to determine whether or not the specific criteria considered
important to a sample o f Missouri art teachers would also be important to art teachers
outside of this state. Missouri teachers tend to value criteria similar to those used in
Advanced Placement (1992), Arts PROPEL (1992), and International Baccalaureate
(1996) assessments. This alignment could suggest that the Missouri rubric can be
generalized. Future research should be sensitive to regional, cultural, and language
differences to determine if modifications would be necessary.
5. Research should be conducted on definable connections between aesthetic approaches
to art and practice in K-12 classrooms. The scales used to describe the four subcategories
of aesthetic criteria were significantly different from one another, making them applicable
to future research that examines the relationship o f aesthetic theories to curriculum and
instruction. If the Art Assessment Survey, presented in this study, is used again, directions
should be clarified to explain that each aesthetic theory would be used only when relevant
to a specific image or project goal.
6. The problem considered in this study was limited to identifying criteria that teachers
197
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
agreed were most important for assessing student artwork and related writing. Additional
manuscripts that highlight a single survey category should report the range o f teachers’
opinions regarding that specific category o f art assessment criteria. Results should include
percentages of teachers’ responses for each criteria, and would report them by points on
the Likert scale: “very important”, “important”, “no opinion”, “little importance”, and “
no importance”.
Implications
As a result o f the findings o f this study, the following list presents broad
implications for research and practice:
1. Assessment has the power to drive curriculum development and instructional practices.
If the assessment requires students to use higher order thinking and creating skills, then
the quality o f teaching and learning will increase. A generic rubric for student portfolios
(composed of diverse, teacher-designed assignments) is a tool for reaching higher
standards. The rubric suggested in this study can be flexibly adapted at the regional, state,
local, and classroom levels. However, the rubric must be paired with teacher training in
assessment o f student work. Portfolio scoring should be a group activity during which
critical attributes o f quality artwork are the focus of teacher discussions. Teachers who
participate in this group scoring experience will bring improved focus and new ideas back
to the classroom.
198
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. The process, used in this study, which asks teachers to reflect upon the importance o f
various aspects o f assessment, could be used as a model by school districts and/or other
states. At the state level, the process can lead to achievement o f state standards. At the
district or building level, a survey o f this type could become part o f the self-study
component of a school improvement plan.
3. The data suggest a major discrepancy between what is being taught in Missouri art
classrooms and what is being presented as important by significant art education journals.
Formalism, represented by an emphasis on teaching the elements and principles o f art, is
most important to teachers in this state. Outside the classroom, postmodernist art
communicates social, personal, political, environmental, spiritual, technological, or
cultural messages. In order for students to understand art in society, they must be
exposed to aesthetic points o f view beyond the formal, or modernist perspective. It is
essential for them to be able to analyze artworks in light o f aesthetic theories of
Imitationalism, Instrumentalism/Pragmatism, and Expressionism as well as formalism.
4. Students should be able to produce art from a variety o f aesthetic viewpoints. It is
important for them to understand that, as artists, they can create for various intents and
purposes. To improve visual communication, students should be able to select among a
variety of aesthetic theories as tools, just as they would select from diverse media and
technical skills
199
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5. Teachers consider the artistic process and problem-solving to be important but do not
embrace assessment o f these processes. Even though growth, improvement, and
experimentation were listed as important by teachers, they frequently do not assess
sketchbooks, journals, rough drafts, sketches, o r developmental drawings. Teachers
spend the majority o f their time assessing the final product. In contrast, energy spent
assessing the process may be more effective since it gives students the opportunity to
reflect upon and improve their work. Teachers should be trained to assess critical and
creative thinking so that their feedback can help students improve their process skills.
6. Missouri art teachers indicate little support for art historical writing even though it is
required by the Show-Me Standards fo r M issouri Schools (1996) and Frameworks fo r
M issouri Schools (1996) with which all local curricula must be aligned. Teachers’ low
opinions of art history could stem from a lack o f art historic knowledge, writing skills, and
traditional methods o f college instruction. Results from the Art History Assessment
Survey o f Missouri A rt Teachers (Venet, 1998) indicate that when asked which art
historical figures, periods, and works should be included on a state test, teachers had
limited preferences. Missouri art teachers chose white, male, Euro-American artists with a
few exceptions such as Faith Ringgold, and Mary Cassatt. Missouri standards state that
students should know the work of artists from various cultures, but teachers lack the
knowledge base to implement this plan. Though all Missouri art teachers had college
courses in art history, most courses were isolated from educational theory and involved
memorization o f images, artists, and dates from the Western canon. Art education majors
200
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
were not given models for teaching K-12 students to conduct art historical research.
Public school art history is generally taught as shorter versions o f college lectures. Art
educators and art historians on college campuses should jointly develop non-traditional art
history courses which integrate history, multiculturalism, and art education while teaching
writing skills. Further educational practices that could impart this vital information include
in-service workshops and/or staff development opportunities.
7. The strong support for including Attitudes or Habits-of-Mind criteria on a state rubric
indicates that in many cases (especially at the elementary and middle levels) art grades
reflect students' behavior more than it does achievement o f artistic skills in reflection,
problem-solving, or art production. Especially in early childhood art education, teachers’
goals for their students have little to do with art knowledge or skill, but more with
wanting the child to enjoy art. Though all teachers want students to find personal pleasure
in artistic endeavors, it becomes evident that little actual assessment occurs in art
classrooms, in spite o f grades assigned during each marking period. When students are
not held accountable for learning, teachers can relieve themselves of the responsibility for
teaching art content. To counteract this tendency, art teachers at all three grade levels
need to discuss grading practices and find a comfortable middle-ground where students
are both encouraged to enjoy art as well as to demonstrate art knowledge and skills.
201
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Summary
This study encompassed many aspects o f teacher’s opinions about assessment and
led to the development o f a Missouri Art Assessment Rubric. Beyond the state of
Missouri, this study provides a model for determining which criteria are appropriate for
assessment o f student art products at the elementary, middle, and high school grade levels.
Unlike a teacher’s typical classroom rubric, the criteria in this study are generic, so that
they translate to a variety o f media and projects. Large-scale assessment in the United
States has been hindered by the pluralistic art content, curricula, and contexts in which it is
taught. Following the example of the Advanced Placement and International
Baccalaureate Exams, which test high level thinking and creating, national rubrics could be
constructed to provide a means for reporting achievement while encouraging the creativity
and production skills inherent in quality art. The use o f assessment rubrics could guide
and increase student achievement as teachers and students use them to discuss portfolios.
When both teachers and students are held accountable to high standards, the quality of
instruction and student achievement tend to increase. It is the goal o f this research that
the implications o f teacher preferences for assessment criteria will help the states review
their standards and practices. Portfolio assessment, guided by the rubric recommended in
this study could inform teacher practice and thereby, help to elevate student achievement.
202
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX
203
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
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.
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 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 -0.2052 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.
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.
Table 38.
General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: 12. Final Product
Source
Sum o f Mean
DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F
Model 2 2.44997329 1.22498665 3.60 0.0285
Error 285 96.87988782 0.33992943
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.
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 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 -0.20742 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.
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.
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.
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 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 -0.3554 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.
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.
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.
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 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
-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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Table 52.
Contrast for Dependent Variable: 114. Uses Vocabulary
Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value P r> F
elem vs. middle 1 1.86965812 1.86965812 3.07 0.0807
elem vs. high 1 4.54624062 4.54624062 7.47 0.0067
middle vs. high 1 0.22002377 0.22002377 0.36 0.5481
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
Table 57.
Tukev's Studentized Range (HSDl Test for variable: 1114 . Sketchbook/Journal
NOTE: This test controls the type I experiment wise error rate.
Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 df=280 MSE= 1.504192
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 -0.3904 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.
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.
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 i n SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
LEVEL 2 2.46407635 1.23203818 3.34 0.0369
elementary n=121
middle n=62
high n=105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
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 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 -0.14692 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.
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.
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.
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 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 -0.10872 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.
Table 64.
Contrasts for Dependent Variable: Vl.Craftspersonship
Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value P r> F
elem vs. middle 1 2.13232516 2.13232516 3.75 0.0540
elem vs. high 1 8.86486816 8.86486816 15.57 0.0001
middle vs. high 1 1.19302620 1.19302620 2.10 0.1488
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
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.
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 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 -0.16333 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.
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.
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.
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 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 -0.1889 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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
Table 74.
General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: V. Category o f Art
Product Criteria
Sum o f Mean
Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F
Model 2 2.73760945 1.36880472 6.20 0.0023
Error 286 63.09417063 0.22060899
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.
Table 75.
Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: V. Category o f 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.
Table 76.
Contrasts for Dependent Variable: V. Category o f 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.
Table 77.
General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: VI. Category of
Aesthetic Criteria
Source DF
Sum o f
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.
Table 78.
Tukev's Studentized Range fHSD) Test for variable: VI. Category o f 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 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 -0.10152 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.
Table 79.
Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VI. Category o f 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.
Table 80.
General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: MEANFORM.
Aesthetic Subcategorv o f 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.
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.
Table 82.
Contrasts for Dependent Variable: MEANFORM. Aesthetic Subcategorv o f 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.
Table 83.
General Linear Models Procedure ANOVA for Dependent Variable: MEANMIM1.
Aesthetic Subcateeorv o f 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 i n SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
LEVEL 2 4.75166541 2.37583270 4.54 0.0114
elementary n=l 18
middle n=62
high n=102
252
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
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 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 -0.18922 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.
Table 85.
Contrasts for Dependent Variable: MEANMIML Aesthetic Subcategory o f 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 o f 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.
Table 94.
Contrasts for Dependent Variable: VTM1. Realism
Contrast DF Contrast SS Mean Square F Value P r > F
elem vs. middle 1 0.50243404 0.50243404 0.58 0.4457
elem vs. high 1 5.03005533 5.03005533 5.84 0.0163
middle vs. high 1 1.43510591 1.43510591 1.67 0.1979
263
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
Table 99.
Tukev's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for variable: VTM3. Shows Realistic Texture
NOTE: This test controls the type I experiment wise error rate.
Alpha= 0.05 Confidence= 0.95 df=278 MSE= 0.661349
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 -0.2054 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.
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.
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.
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 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 -0.18988 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.
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.
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.
REFERENCES
Alberta Department of Education. (1993). Educational quality indicators in art and mathematics. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Amburgy, P. (1985). Loved illusions and real beliefs: The concept o f aesthetic experience. In The history o f art education: Proceedings from the Penn State conference. College Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
Abruscato, J. (1993) Early results and tentative implications from the Vermont portfolio project. Phi Delta Kappan, 74 (6), 474-477.
Anderson, D. (1992). Portfolio assessment as a record o f artistic learning. In M. Stokrocki (Ed.) New Waves o f Research in Art Education, 126-137.
Anderson, R.L. (1990). Calliope’s sisters: A comparative study ofphilosophies o f art. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Anderson, T. (1998). Aesthetics as critical inquiry. Art Education, 51(5) 49-55.
Anderson, T. (1994). The international baccalaureate model o f content-based art education. A rt Education, 47(2), 19-24.
Archbaud, D.A., & Newman, F.M. (1988). Beyond standardized testing: Assessing achievement in the secondary school. Reston: VA. National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Armstrong, C. (1994). Designing assessment in art. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Armstrong, C. (1999). Including aesthetics in art curriculum planning. Sycamore, IL: ABAFA Systems.
Arter, J. (1990) Curriculum-referenced test development workshop series. Addendum to workshops two and three: Using portfolios in instruction and assessment. Northwest Regional Education Lab. Portland, OR. Paper. ERIC Digest ED335365. Greensboro,NC.
Arter, J. (1995). Portfolios fo r assessment and instruction. ERIC Digest ED38889095. Greensboro, NC.
Arter, J. (1990). Using portfolios in instruction and assessment. Portland, Or:Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. ERIC Digest ED335364. Greensboro, NC.
274
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Banks, J. A. (1998) Multicultural education and curriculum transformation. In F.Schultz (Ed.), M ulticultural Education 98/99. Sluice Dock, Guilford, Connecticut: Dushkin/McGraw H ill.
Barkan, M., Chapman, L., and Kem, E. (1970). Guidelines: Curriculum development fo r aesthetic education. St. Louis, MO: CEMREL.(Central Midwest Regional Education Laboratory).
Barrett, M. (1990). Guidelines for evaluation and assessment in art and design education 5-18 years. Journal o f Art and Design Education, 9(3), 229-313.
Barrett, T. (1997). Talking about student art. Worcester, Massachusetts: Davis Publications.
Battin M.P., Fisher, J., Moore, R., and Silvers, A. (1989). Puzzles about art: An aesthetics casebook. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Beardsley, M. (1958). Aesthetics: Problems in the philosophy o f criticism. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Beattie, D. K. (1997). Assessment in art education. Davis publications, Worchester,Mass.
Beattie, D. K. (1992). The feasibility of standardized performance assessment in the visual arts lessons from the Dutch model. Studies in Art Education, J-/(l), 6-17.
Beattie, D. K. (1994). The mini-portfolio: Locus o f a successful performance examination. Art Education, 47(2), 14-18.
Beattie, D. (1997). Visual arts criteria, objectives, and standards: A revisit. Studies in Art Education, 38(4), 217-231.
Beattie, D. (1999). Assessing current conceptions o f creativity. Presentation at National Art Education Association Conference in Washington, D C.
Berty, E. (1979). Ye olde maile surveye. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 177710: Charleston, WV.
Bezruczko, N. (1992). Development and evaluation o f a visual arts achievement test. Vernon Hills, IL: Illinois State Board of Education.
Bingham, D. (1989). Focus on fine arts: Visual arts. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association and National Art Education Association.
275
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Blaikie, F. (1992). Structures and values inherent in senior secondary student assessment in studio art in Britain and North America. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.
Blaikie, F. (1994). What’s being measured in qualitative secondary studio assessment. Studies in A rt Education, 35(4), 237-251.
Bloom, B., Hastings, J.T., Madaus, G. (Eds.) 1981. Evaluation to improve learning.New York: McGraw-Hill.
Boughton, D. (1996). Introduction to the evaluation and assessment o f the visual arts. In D. Broughton, E. Eisner &J. Ligtvoet (Eds.) Evaluating and Assessing the Visual Arts in Education, 17-26. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Boughton, D. (1997). Reconsidering issues of assessment and achievement standards in art education. Studies in Art Education, 38(4), 199-213.
Boughton, D. (1999). Unpublished draft o f book chapter to be published in Wul£ C. (Ed.) European studies in education. New York: Waxman .
Bourque, L.B. and Fielder, E.P. (1995). How to conduct self-administered and m ail surveys. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bowie, A. (1990). Aesthetics and subjectivity: from Kant to Nietzsche. New York: Manchester University Press.
Bradley, W. (1984). National examinations in art. In R.W. Ott, and A. Hurwitz, (Eds.), Art in education: An international perspective, 251-162. State College, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Broudy, H.S. (1981). Arts education as artistic perception. In Foundations fo r curriculum development and evaluation in art education. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company.
Broudy, H.S. (1981). How basic is aesthetic education? Or is ‘rt the fourth R? In Foundations fo r curriculum development and evaluation in art education. Champaign,IL: Stipes Publishing Company.
Broudy, H.S. (1987). The role o f imagery in learning. Los Angeles: The Getty Center for Education in the Arts.
Burton, D. (1998). A survey o f assessment and evaluation among U.S. K-12 teachers o f art. Grant Report to National Art Education Fund.
276
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Carroll, D. (1993). The portfolio review process in practice at Ridgewood high school. Chicago: Paper presented at National Art Education Association.
Castiglione, L., (1996). Portfolio assessment in art and education. Arts Education Policy Review, 97(4), 2-9.
Cayne, B ., (1992). New W ebster’s dictionary and thesaurus o f the English language. Danbury, Ct: Lexicon Publications, Inc.
Center for Educational Statistics. (1987). Private school teachers’ opinions, 1985-86. Washington, D.C.
Chamberlin, J. (1988). Aesthetic scanning. [Workshop materials and additional lecture by Connie Newton during a workshop for Columbia Public Schools, Columbia, MOJanuary 27, 1989],
Chang, L. (1991). Higher education criticism: Do university faculty members and community professionals have different viewpoints? Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 339287: Charleston, WV.
Chapman, L.H. (1978). Approaches to art in education. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.
Chapman, L. (1985). Curriculum development as process and product. Studies in Art Education, 26(4) 206-11.
Chapman, L.H. (1982). Instant art, instant culture'. The unspoken policy fo r American schools. New York: Teachers College Columbia University.
Chapman, L. (1987). Lecture on aesthetics presented to audience at the University o f Missouri-Columbia.
Charles, C.M., (1998, 3rd ed.). Introduction to educational research. New York: Longman.
Clark, G. A., Day, M.D., and Greer, W.D. (1989). Discipline-based art education: Becoming students of art. In Smith, R.A. (Ed.). Discipline-based art education: Origins, meaning, and development. Urbana, II: University o f Illinois Press.
Clark, G., Zimmerman, E. (1984). Educating artistically talented students. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
Clark, G., Zimmerman, E., Zurmuehlen, M. (1987). Understanding art testing. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
277
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Clark, R. (1996). Art education: Issues in postmodernist pedagogy. Reston, VA:NAEA.
Clark, R. (1998). Doors and mirrors in art education: Constructing the postmodernist classroom. Art Education, 5 J(6) 6-11.
Coates, M., Gaither, J., Shauk, B. (1993). Dimensions o f portfolio assessment: Pushing practice beyond reflection. Chicago: Paper presented at National Art Education Association Conference.
Columbia Public Schools. (1998). Art Curriculum K -l2. Columbia, MO: Columbia Public Schools.
Council o f Chief State School Officers. (1998). Arts Education Consortium Field Test of Arts Assessment Materials. Unpublished materials available from 1 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 700, Washington, D.C. 20001-1431.
Costa, A.L. (1989). Guest editorial: Re-assessing assessment. Educational Leadership. 46(7), 2-3.
Crawford, D.W. (1989). Aesthetics in discipline-based art education. In Smith, R.A.(Ed ). Discipline-based art education: Origins, meaning, and development. Urbana, II: University o f Illinois Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology o f optimal experience. New York: Harper Collins Publishers
Curriculum Update. (1998). Arts Education: A Cornerstone of Basic Education. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Spring, 1998.
Dallas Museum of Art, and Driskell, D. (1989). Black Art Ancestral Legacy. Dallas: Abrams, Inc.
Danto, A. (1999). A conversation with Arthur Danto. Conference radio script. New York: Columbia University. Http://www.columbia.edu/cu/conference/conf7ldanto.html
Danto, A (1992). Beyond the Brillo box. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux.
Day, M.D. (1995). Art education in action: Aesthetics. Santa Monica, CA: Getty Center for Education in the Arts.
Day, M.D. (1985). Evaluating student achievement in discipline-based art programs. Studies in Art Education, 26(4), 232-40.
278
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Day, M.D. (1998). Focus on NAEP and the visual arts: Framework, field test, and assessment. Art Education, 57(5)37-43.
Dewey, J. (1958). Art as experience. New York: Dover Publications.
Dewey, J. (1944). Experience and thinking. Reprinted in (1970) Pappas, G. (Ed.). Concepts in art and education: An anthology o f current issues. London: Macmillan Company.
Dickie, G. (1971). Aesthetics: An introduction. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc.
Dickie, G. (1984). The art circle: A theory o f art. New York: New Haven Publications.
Dobbs, M. (Ed.). (1988). Research readings fo r discipline-based art education: A journey beyond creating. Reston, VA: NAEA.
Dorn, C. (1994). Thinking in art: A philosophical approach to art education. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Dorn, C. and Azcuy, R. (1992). Teaching aesthetics, a discipline-based art education approach. Presentation to the National Art Education Association Atlanta, GA.
Driskell, D. C. (1995). African American visual aesthetics: A postmodernist view. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Duncum, P. (1999). A case for an art education o f everyday aesthetic experiences.Studies in Art Education. 40(4) pp. 295-311.
Eaton, M.M. (1994). Philosophical aesthetics: A way o f knowing and its limits. In Moore, R., (fid.) Aesthetics fo r young people. Reston, VA National Art Education Association.
Education Update. (1994). Making assessment meaningful. Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development, 36(6).
Education Update. (1995). Designing performance tasks. Association fa r Supervision and Curriculum Development, 37(6).
Education Update. (1997). Assessment that serves instruction. Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development, 39(4).
Education Update. (1997). Using assessment to motivate students. Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development, 39(8).
279
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Educational Testing Service. (1992). Advanced placement studio art scoring rubric. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Educational Testing Service. (1998). The praxis series: Art, music, and theater.Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Efland, A., (1990). An approach to the assessment o f art learnings, In P. Stuhr (Ed.) Arts and Learning Research, 50-65.
Efland, A.D. (1989). Curriculum antecedents o f discipline-based art education. In Smith, R.A. (Ed ). Discipline-based art education: Origins, meaning, and development.Urbana, II: University of Illinois Press.
Efland, A., Freedman, K., Stuhr, P. (1996). Postmodern art education: An approach to curriculum. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Eisner, E. (1972). Educating artistic vision. New York: Macmillan.
Eisner, E. (1996). Evaluating the teaching of art. In D. Broughton, E. Eisner & J. Ligtvoet (Eds ). Evaluating and Assessing the Visual Arts in Education, 15-95. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Eisner, E. (1996). Overview o f evaluation and assessment: Conceptions in search o f practice. In D. Broughton, E. Eisner & J. Ligtvoet (Eds.) Evaluating ami Assessing the Visual A rts in Education, 1-16. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Eisner, E. (1993). Supersession: Why standards will not work in art education. San Francisco: Presentation at National Art Education Association Conference.
Eisner, E. (1985). The art o f educational evaluation a personal view. New York: The Falmer Press.
Eisner, E. (1994). The educational imagination: On the description and evaluation o f school programs. New York: Macmillan.
Eisner, E. (1968). The Kettering curriculum for elementary art. In (1988) Dobbs, M., Feinstein, H., and MacGregor, R.N. (Eds). Research readings fo r discipline-based art education: A journey beyond creating. Reston, VA. National Art Education Association.
Elliot, S. (1995). Creating meaningful performance assessments. ERIC Digest, E531.Ed381985.
280
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ERIC Clearinghouse. (1997). Praxis H: Subject assessments, arts. The ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. Washington, DC: Educational TestingService.
Erikson, M. (1986). Teaching aesthetics K -12. In (1988) Dobbs, M., Feinstein, H., and MacGregor, R.N. (Eds). Research readings fo r discipline-based art education: A journey beyond creating. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Erickson, M. (1994). Evidence for art historical interpretation referred to by young people and adults. Studies in Art Education, 35(2), 71-78.
Erickson, M. and Katter, E. (1986). Teaching aesthetics K-12: Activities and resources.
Erikson, M, Stewart, M. and Katter, E. (1988). Basic curriculum fo r art: Balanced, articidated, sequential, instructional core curriculum fo r art. Kutztown, PA: Published by authors.
Ernst, Karen. (1996). Art in your curriculum: Assessment in the workshop. Teachingpre K-8, 26(1), 34-35.
Evans, J.W. (1977). Introductory remarks. In M.J. Wargo and D.R. Green (Eds.), Achievement testing o f disadvantaged and minority students fo r educational program evaluation, 1-18. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Feldman, E.B. (1967). Varieties o f visual experience: Art as image and idea.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Feldman, E.B. (1970). Becoming human through art: Aesthetic experience in the school. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Feldman, E.B. (1973). The teacher as critic. In (1988) Dobbs, M., Feinstein, H., and MacGregor, R.N. (Eds). Research readings fo r discipline-based art education: A journey beyottd creating. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Feur, M., and Fulton, K. (1993). The many faces of performance assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6), 478.
Fink, A. (1995). The survey handbook. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Finlayson, S. (1988). A critical description o f selected state level arts assessment instruments. Unpublished masters thesis, University o f Oregon.
Frameworks fo r M issouri Schools. (1996). Jefferson City, MO: Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
281
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Franklin, P. G., and Stuhr, P. (1990). Black adults’ aesthetic responses to selected African American and African art. In B. Young (Ed.), Art, Culture, and Ethnicity. Reston. VA: National Art Education Association.
Frederiksen, J. and Collins, A. (1989). A systems approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 27-32.
Freedman, K. and Wood, J. (1999) Reconsidering critical response: Student judgments of purpose, interpretation, and relationships in visual culture. Studies in Art Education, 40(2), 128-142.
Fuch, L. (1995). Connecting performance assessment to instruction: A comparison of behavioral assessment, mastery learning, curriculum-based measurement, and performance. ERIC Digest, ES70.Ed381984.
Gaitskell, C., Hurwitz, A., and Day, M. (1982). Children and their art (4th edition). New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Gall, M.D., Borg, W.R., and Gall, J.P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. Longman Publishers USA: New York.
Gardner, H. (1990). Art education and human development. Los Angeles: The Getty Center for Education in the Arts.
Gardner, H. (1983). Artistic intelligences. Art Education, 36(2) 47-49.
Gardner, H. (1983). A cognitive view o f the arts. In (1988) Dobbs, M., Feinstein, H., and MacGregor, R.N. (Eds). Research readings fo r discipline-based art education: A journey beyond creating. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Gardner, H. (1990). Multiple intelligences: Implications for art and creativity. InW.J. Moody (Ed.), Artistic intelligences: Implications fo r education, 57-59. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gardner, H. (1989). Zero-based arts education. An introduction to ARTS PROPEL. Studies in A rt Education, 30(2), 71-83.
Gardner, H., and Grunbaum, J. (1986). The assessment o f artistic thinking: Comments on the national assessment of educational progress in the arts. Paper commissioned by the study group on NAEP. U.S. Department o f Education.
Gardner, H. and Winner, E. (1981). How children learn...Three stages o f understanding art. In Hardiman, G.W. and Zemich, T. (Eds.). Foundations fo r curriculum development and evaluation in art education. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company.
282
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Gaston, D. (1997). The Brits got it right. New Orleans: Unpublished manuscript presented at the National Art Education Association Conference.
Gentile, J.R. (1989). How shall students be graded in discipline-based art education? Art Education, 42(6), 33-41.
Getty Center for Education in the Arts. (1990). Inheriting the theory: New voices and multiple perspectives on DBAE. Seminar proceedings, Austin, TX. 1989. New York: Keens Company.
Gilchrist, D. (1993). Evaluation and assessment handbook fo r secondary visual arts (draft document September 1992). Chicago: Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association Conference.
Gitomer, D., Grosh, S. and Price, K. (1992). Portfolio culture in arts education. Art [education, 45( 1), 7-15.
Gombrich, E. H. (1970). Meditations on a hobby horse or the roots o f artistic form. In Pappas G., Concepts in art and education: An anthology o f current issues. London: The Macmillan Company.
Gordon, E.W. (1977). Diverse human populations and problems in educational program evaluation via achievement testing. In M.J. Wargo and D.R. Green (Eds.), Achievement testing o f disadvantaged and minority students fo r educational program evaluation, 29- 40. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Greer, W.D. (1984). Discipline-based art education: Approaching art as a subject of study. Studies in Art Education. 25 (4) 212-218.
Grove, B. (1996). Assessing student achievement in the visual arts: Collaborative inquiry as a model fo r professional development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.
Gruber, D. (1994). Evaluation o f student achievement in k-12 art education programs: A balanced approach. Art Education, 47(2), 40-45.
Hamblen, K. (1984). Artistic perception as a function o f learned expectations. Art Education, 37(3), 20-30.
Hamblen, K. (1988). If is to be tested, it will be taught: A rationale worthy of examination. Art Education, 41(5), 59-62.
283
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hamblen, K. (1990). Theory-practice schisms of the 1990s. In Little, B.E. (Ed.). Secondary art education: An anthology o f issues. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Hardiman, G.W. and Zemich, T. (1981). Foundations fo r curriculum development and evaluation in art education. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company.
Hart, L. M. (1991). Aesthetic pluralism and multicultural art. Studies in Art Education, 32(3) 145-159.
Hatcher, L. and Stepanski, E. (1994). A step by step approach to using the SAS system fo r univariate and multivariate statistics. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc.
Hausman, J. (1992). On the use o f portfolios in evaluation - an editorial. Art Education. 46( 1) 4-5.
Hausman, J. (1993). Portfolio evaluation. NAEA Advisory.
Henderson, D.L. (1991). Profile of Texas teachers: A study o f the characteristics of Texas teachers in 1990. Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 329523: Charleston, WV.
Higgins, R. (1989). Approaches to evaluation in art education at the state level. Paper for the Minnesota State Department o f Education.
Hoard, A. W. (1990). The Black aesthetic: An empirical feeling. In B. Young (Ed.), Art. Culture, and Ethnicity. Reston. VA National Art Education Association.
Hoepfher, R. (1984). Measuring student achievement in art. Studies in Art Education, 25(4), 251-258.
Huffman, E.S. (1998). Authentic rubrics. Art Education, 51(1)64-68.
Hurwitz, A., Carroll, K., and Sandell, R. (1993). Assessment k-12 art education.National Endowment for the Arts grant report 88-5170-0086.
Hurwitz, A. and Day, M. (1995). Children and their art: M ethods fo r the elementary school. New York: Harcourt Brace.
International Baccalaureate. (1996). Art and design assessment criteria. Cardiff, Wales.
Irwin, R. L. (1999). Listening to the shapes of collaborative artmaking. Art Education52(2), 35-39.
284
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Isaac, S., and Michael, W.B. (1990). Handbook in research and evaluation fo r education and the behavioral sciences. EdITS Publishers: San Diego, CA.
Jeffers, C. (1999). What happens when we ask, “what is art?” Art Education, 52(1) 40-45.
Johnson, M., and Cooper, S. (1974). Developing a system for assessing written artcriticism. Art Education, 47(5), 21-26.
Johnson, N.R. (1982). Children’s meanings about art. Studies in Art Education, 25(3), 61-67.
Jones, L. (1999). Aesthetic basis for assessment. Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association Conference in Washington, D.C.
Karpati, A. (1995). Assessment o f art education in Hungary: Historical problems in contemporary perspective. NCAD. United Kingdom: National Society for Education in Art and Design.
Kellogg, R. (1969). Analyzing children’s art. Palo Alto, California: National PressBooks.
Kentucky. (1996). Arts education in the states: An information clearinghouse o f state legislation and policies.
Klotman, P. R. (Ed.). (1977). Humanities through the Black experience. Dubuque, LA Hunt Publishing, Co.
Kotler, W. (1999). Art curriculum rubrics. Unpublished manuscript, Fairfax County, Virginia: Fairfax County Schools.
Krathwohl., D.R. (1993). Methods o f educational and social science research. Longman Publishers USA: New York.
Lai, M., and Shishido, J. (1987). A model fo r evaluating art education programs. Washington, DC: Paper presented at annual meeting o f the American Educational Research Association.
Langer, S. (1957). Philosophy in a new key; A study in the symbolism o f reason, rite, and art. Cambridge, M A Harvard University Press.
Lankford, L. (1992). Aesthetics: Issues and Inquiry. Reston, Virginia: National Art Education Association.
285
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Lankford, L. (1990). Preparation and risk in teaching aesthetics, Art Education, 43(5)50-56.
Litwin, M.S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lloyd, B., (1997). Souvenirs o f formalism: From modernism to postmodernism and deconstruction. A rt Education, 50(23), 15-22.
Lonergan, N. (1997). Eighth grade acceleration in art examination. New York: Board o f Education o f the City of New York.
Lowenfeld, V. and Brittain, W.L. (1987). Creative and mental growth (8th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Luehrman, M. (1999). The relationship between the art experiences o f public school principals and their attitude toward art education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University o f Missouri-Columbia.
MacGregor, R. (1992). A short guide to alternative assessment practices. Art Education, 45(6), 315-327.
Macgregor, R., Lemerise, S., Potts, M., and Roberts, B. (1993). Assessment in the arts:A cross-Canada study. Vancouver: University o f British Columbia.
MacGregor, R. (1990). Reflections on art assessment practices. Journal o f Art and Design Education, 9(3), 315-327.
Madaus, G., and Kellagham, T. (1993). The British experience with “authentic” testing. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6), 458-469.
Madeja, S. (1976). The aesthetic education program: A report on the accomplishments 1969-1975. St. Louis, MO: CEMREL, Inc.
Madeja, S. and Onuska, S. (1977). Through the arts to the aesthetic. St. Louis, MO: CEMREL, Inc.
Maeroff, G. (1991). Assessing alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(4), 272- 281.
Mandelbaum, M. (1965). Family resemblances and generalization concerning the arts. American Philosophical Quarterly (2) 219-28 .
286
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Manitoba Department o f Education and Training. (1990). Art education guidelines, K- 12. Winnipeg, Canada: Curriculum Support Series.
Manitoba Department o f Education and Training. (1983). Manitoba art assessment program. Winnipeg, Canada: Curriculum Support Series.
Maryland State Department o f Education. (1990). Outcomes for criterion-referenced tests in the fine arts.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., McTighe. (1993). Assessing student outcomes: Performance assessment using the dimensions o f learning model. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Milbrandt, M. (1998). Postmodernism in art education: Content for life. A rt Education,51(6) 47-52.
Missouri Fine Arts Assessment Task Force. (2000). Draft Rubric fo r Local Art Assessment o f the Show-Me Standards, Jefferson City, Missouri: Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Mitchell, Ruth. (1993). A prelude to performance assessment in the arts: Towards art assessment project (TAAP). Sacramento, CA: Bureau o f Publications, California Department of education.
Monett. Middle School. (1999). Unpublished scoring guide for Monett middle school art. Monett, MO: Monett Public Schools.
Moore, R. (Ed.) 1995. Aesthetics fo r young people. Reston, V A: National Art Education Association.
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. (1970). Afro-American artists: New York and Boston. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
Myers, J.L., and Well, A.D. (1995). Research design and statistical analysis. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
NAE A Advisory. (1994). Student portfolios: Classroom uses, November, 1993 Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
NAEA Advisory. (1994). Student portfolios: Administrative uses, Spring 1994. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
287
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
NAEP. (1981). A rt and young Americans, 1974-79: Results from the second art assessment. Report # 10- A-01. National Assessment of Educational Progress. Denver, CO: Education Commission o f the State.
NAEP (1996). NAEP arts education assessment and exercise specifications. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
National Art Education Association. (1994). The national visual arts standards.Reston, VA. The association.
Newman, W B. (1990). The effect o f standardized testing on education in the arts. In W.J. Moody (Ed.), Artistic intelligences: Implications fo r education, 52-56. New York: Teachers College Press.
O’Neil, J. and Tell, C. (1999). Why students lose when “tougher standards” win: A conversation with Alfie Kohn. Educational Leadership, 57(1)18-23.
Panofsky, E. (1955). Meaning in the visual arts. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.
Parsons, M.J. (1990). A comparison o f novice-expert and developmental paradigms in terms of their use in work on the assessment o f student learning in art education. In P. Stuhr (Ed ), Arts and Learning Research, 30-49.
Parsons, M.J. (1994). Can children do aesthetics? A developmental account. In Moore, R., (Ed.) Aesthetics fo r young people. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Parsons, M.J. (1987). How we understand art: A cognitive development account o f aesthetic experience. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Patchen, J. and Borgmann, C.B. (1988). Indiana eighth grade diagnostic visual art achievement test. Indianapolis, Indiana: Indiana Department o f Education.
Peeno, L. (!997). Update on status o f arts assessment. Presentation to Missouri Art Education Association Fall conference, Knob Noster, MO.
Peeno, L. (1996). Status o f arts assessment in the states. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Peeno, L. (1999). Presentation to Missouri art education association. Lake of the Ozarks, MO. February 25.
288
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Pena, D M and Henderson, R.D. (1986). Sampling procedures used for national surveys of public school teachers - problems and possible solutions. Unpublished manuscript presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco,CA.
Perrone, V. (Ed.). (1991). Expanding student assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Perry, J. (1993). Art portfolios: Reflection and knowledge. Chicago: Paper presented at National Art Education Association Conference.
Pittard, N.K. (198S). Preliminary considerations concerning aesthetic education. In The history o f art education: Proceedingfrom the Penn State conference. College Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
Popham, W.J. (1993). Circumventing the high costs o f authentic assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 7-1(6), 470-473.
Popham, W.J. (1999). Why standardized tests don’t measure educational quality. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 8-16.
Rader, M. (1952). A m odem book o f esthetics. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Rayala, M. (1995). Art education: A guide to curriculum planning. Bulletin #95185. Madison, WI: Wisconsin State Department o f Public Instruction.
Reynolds, J. (1993). A portfolio fo r portfolio assessment. Chicago: Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association Conference.
Rudner, L. (1993). Test Evaluation. Internet: [email protected]
Rudner, L. and Boston, C. (1994). Visual arts education reform handbook. M aintaining a substantive focus: A look at performance assessment fo r art education. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Sabol, R. (1994). A critical examination o f visual arts achievement tests from state departments o f education in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Bloomington, Indiana. Indiana University.
Sadler, R. D. (1987). Specifying and promulgating achievement standards. Oxford Review o f Education, 13(2), 191-209.
Sandell, R. and Spiers, P. (1999). Feminist concerns and gender issues in art education. Translations from theory to practice, 8(1). Reston, VA: NAEA.
289
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Sargent, B. and Fitzsimmons, D. (1999). Statements o f authentic assessment and rubric use. Mundelein, Illinois, High School. Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association Conference in Washington, D.C.
Schonau, Diederik. (1999). Integrated arts as a nationwide exam. Presentation at National Art Education Association Conference in Washington, D.C.
Scriven, M. (1981). The methodology o f evaluation. In G. Hardiman & T. Zemich (Eds.), Foundations fo r Curriculum Development and Evaluation in Art Education, 242- 279. Champaign, II: Stipes Publishing Company.
Seidel, K. (1994). Developing successful arts program evaluation. National Association o f Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 78(561), 7-19.
Severy, L.J. (1974). Procedures and issues in the measurement o f attitudes. ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurement, and Evaluation: Princeton, NJ.
Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1992). Skills and tasks fo r jobs: A SCANS report fo r America 2000. U.S. Department of Labor. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Show-Me Standards fo r Missouri Schools. (1996). Jefferson City, MO: Missouri State Board o f Education.
Siegler, R.S. (1989). Strategy, diversity and cognitive assessment. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 15-20.
Smith, R. A. (1970). Aesthetic criticism: The method of aesthetic education. In Pappas, G. (Ed.), Concepts in art and education. London: Macmillan Company.
Smith, R.A. (1989). Discipline-based art education: Origins, meaning, and development. Urbana, II: University o f Illinois Press.
Smith, R. A. (1981). Justifying aesthetic education. In Foundations fo r curriculum development and evaluation in art education. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company.
Smith-Shank, D., and Hausman, J., (Eds.), Evaluation in art education. Vernon Hills, IL: Illinois Art Education Association.
Stake, R. (1981). To evaluate an arts program. In G. Hardiman & T. Zemich (Eds.), Foundations fo r Curriculum Development and Evaluation in Art Education, 242-279. Champaign, II: Stipes Publishing Company.
290
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Stankiewicz, M. (1998). Reflecting on postmodemisms. Art Education, 57(6) 4-5.
Stavropoulos, C. (1995). Assessing student learning in the arts: Building a bridge between theory and practice. San Francisco: Unpublished manuscript presented to annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Stewart, M. (1995). Aesthetics and the art curriculum. In R. Moore, (Ed ). Aesthetics fo r young people. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
Stewart, M. (1997). Thinking through aesthetics. Worcester, Massachusetts: Davis Publications.
Stewart, M, Russell, R, and Eaton, M. (1990) Unpublished notes from Getty Institute for Teachers Workshop on Aesthetics. Cincinnati: Getty Foundation.
Stinespring, J. A., and Kennedy, L. C. Meeting the need for Multiculturalism in the Art Classroom. The Clearing House, January 11, 1995.
Stokrocki, M. (1986). Expanding the artworld o f young, elementary students. ArtEducation, 39(4), 13-16.
Stolnitz, J. (1960). Aesthetics and the philosophy o f art criticism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Stout, C. J. (1999). The art o f empathy: teaching students to care. A rt Education52(2),21-24, 33-34.
Stout, C. J. (1990). Critical thinking and writing in the visual arts classroom. A workshop for Columbia Fine Arts Faculty, Columbia, MO.
Stubbs, C. (1985). Evaluating a conceptually based course of study. A rt Education,38(2), 23-27.
Stuhr, P. (1990). Arts and learning research, 1990. The Journal o f the Arts and Learning Social Interest Group, 8(1).
Swann, A. and Bickley-Green, C. (1993). Basic uses o f portfolio in art education assessment. NAEA Advisory, Summer 1993.
Taylor, P. (1991) In the process. Carmichael, CA: California Art Education Association.
Thomas, Jackie. (1993). Curriculum assessment using portfolio. Chicago: Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association Conference.
291
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
U.S. Department o f Education. (1991). America 2000: An education strategy. Washington D.C. ED 332380
U.S. Department o f Education. (1998). National assessment o f educational progress and the visual arts: Framework, fie ld test, and assessment. Washington D.C. NCES 98-526.
U.S. Department o f Education. (1998). The National assessment o f educational progress 1997 Arts Report Card. Washington D.C. NCES 1999-486.
U.S. Department o f Education. (1999). CD ROM addendum for The National assessment o f educational progress 1997 Arts Report Card. Washington D.C. NCES 1999-486.
U.S. Department o f Education and the Arts Education partnership. (1998). Arts literacy fo r a changing America. National Teleconference December 1, 1998. Washington D.C.
Venet, C. (1998). Art History Assessment Survey of Missouri Art Educators. Unpublished manuscript presented at the Missouri Art Education Association conference in Lake Ozark, MO.
Venet, C. (1998a). Creating a model for state art assessment. Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association conference in Chicago, II.
Venet, C. (1999). Third grade art assessment. Unpublished manuscript presented at National Art Education Association conference in Washington, D.C.
Venet, C. (1999a). Focus group: What criteria should be on a state-supported rubric for local assessment of Missouri standards? Unpublished manuscript presented at Missouri Art Education Association spring conference. Lake of the Ozarks, MO.
Vermont Arts Assessment Project. (1995). Montpelier, VT: Vermont Council on theArts.
Warner, F. (1993). Performance assessment - in progress a t an elementary school. Chicago: Paper presented at National Art Education Association Conference.
Weate, A. (1999). Phone conversation May 10, 1999.
Weitz, M. (1956). The role of theory in aesthetics. Journal o f Aesthetics and Art Criticism (15)32. Cited in Eaton, M. Basic Issues in Aesthetics.
Weitz, M. (1988). Theories o f concepts: The history o f the major philosophical tradition. New York: Routledge.
292
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Weitz, M. (1966). Twentieth-century philosophy: The analytic tradition. New York: Free Press.
White, J.H.. (1998). Inspecting magic words. Art Education, 5/ ( 6) 12-21.
Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, May 1989, 703-713.
Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessment: Authenticity, context, and validity. Phi Delta Kappcot, 75(3), 200-214.
Wiggins, G. (1999). Assessment Reform Overview. Presentation to Columbia Public Schools on June 11, 1999.
Wiggins, G. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and improve student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wiggins, G. (1996-97). Practicing what we preach in designing authentic assessments. Educational Leadership 54(4), 18-25.
Wilson, B. (1971). Evaluation o f learning in art education. In B. Bloom, J. Hastings, and G. Madaus, (Eds.), Handbook on formative and summative evaluation o f student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Winner, E. and Simmons, S. (Eds.) (1992). Arts PROPEL: A handbook fo r visual arts. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service and the President and Fellows o f Harvard College.
Wolcott, A. (1992). Is what you see what you get? A postmodern approach to understanding works of art. Studies in Art Education, 37(2), 69-79.
Wolcott, A. (1994). Whose shoes are they anyway? Art Education, 47(5), 14-20.
Wolf, D. and Pistone, N. (1991). Takingjull measure: Rethinking assessment through the arts. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Worthen, B.R. (1993). Critical issues that will determine the future o f alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(6), 444-454.
Worthen, B.R., and Spandel, V. (1991). Putting the standardized test debate in perspective. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 65-69.
Yau, M. (1990). A holistic approach to evaluation: An example from the visual arts. Ontario, Canada: Paper presented to the Toronto Board o f Education.
293
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Zerull, D. (1990). Evaluation in arts education: Building and using an effective assessment strategy. Design fo r Arts in Education, 92(1), 19-24.
Zimmerman, E. (1999). A cautionary tale for those involved in large-scale arts assessments. Art Education, 52(5) 44-50.
Zimmerman, E. (1992). Assessing students’ progress and achievements in art. Art Education, 45(6), 14-24.
Zimmerman, E. (1994). How should students’ progress and achievements in art be assessed? A case for assessment that is responsive to diverse students’ needs. Visual Arts Research, 20(1), 29-35.
Zimmerman, E. (1997). Standardized testing and authentic assessment research. In LaPierre, S.D., and Zimmerman, E. (Eds.). Research Methods and Methodologies for Art Education. National Art Education Association: Reston, VA.
294
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
Art Assessment Survey
This survey asks your expert opinion in identifying the most important criteria to use when grading two* and three-dimensional artworks at the completion of a: project, unit, term, semester, or a “portfolio” of work over time. Spaces have been provided for your comments. Your participation is completely voluntary and you do not have to answer any specific question that is asked. Your responses will be keptconfidential.
Check one grade-level category for your responses. If you teach more than one level and would like to respond to additional grade-level categories, please copy the survey. elementary K-5 middle 6-8 high school
C ircle the number hat indicates the importance of assessing each kind of student a r t product.
5 4 3 2 1
very important important undecided little importance no importance
I. W hat Do You Assess?1. rough drafts or process sketches............................................................................. ..........5 4 3 2 12. final product.............................................................................................................. ..........5 4 3 2 I3. aesthetic reflections about own or other artists’ work.......................................... ..........5 4 3 2 14. art criticism analysis of own or other artists’ work..........................................................5 4 3 2 15. art historical writing................................................................................................. ..........5 4 3 2 16. student’s self-evaluation.......................................................................................... ......... 5 4 3 2 1
7. portfolio of student work (please comment if the portfolio is electronic)......... ......... 5 4 3 2 1If you assess other products, please list them:
If you assess portfolios, what is included in the student’s portfolio?
II. Responding Criteria
1. explains perceptions of artwork 5 4 3 2 12. identifies connections among arts and with other subjects...............................................5 4 3 2 13. relates art from historical periods, movements, and/or cultures to own work................5 4 3 2 1
4. uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate artworks.....................5 4 3 2 15. self-evaluates......................................................................................................................... 5 4 3 2 1
Comments: 295
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
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 Criteria1. correctly uses assigned processes, media, and techniques............................................ 5 4
2. demonstrates problem-solving process:brainstorms, develops and revises idea, produces final work, self-evaluates..................5 4
3. demonstrates originality, creativity, or inventiveness......................................................5 4
4. documents process in sketchbook or journal entries........................................................5 4
Comments:
3
33
222
IV. Attitude or Habits-of-Mind Criteria
1. is persistently on task 5 4 3 22. respects materials, equipment, other students and their art............................................ 5 4 3 23. shows commitment, pursues problem through revisions................................................ 5 4 3 2
4. is responsive to teacher’s feedback................................................................................... 5 4 3 2Comments:
V. Art Product Criteria1. demonstrates technical skill or craftspersonship 5 4 3 22. demonstrates planned, effective composition...................................................................5 4 3 23. work shows improvement from past products/performances.........................................5 4 3 24. artwork includes relevant art historical influences..........................................................5 4 3 2
5. demonstrates assigned concepts, processes, elements, and/or principles.......................5 4 3 26. intent of artist is communicated......................................................................................... 5 4 3 2Comments:
296
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
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 o f elements o f art (line, shape, color, value, form, texture, space) 5 4 3 2 1
2. use of principles o f design (balance, emphasis, contrast rhythm, proportion, unity)...5 4 3 2 13. distorts, exaggerates for purpose o f design......................................................................... 5 4 3 2 14. composition............................................................................................................................ 5 4 3 2 1
B. Expressionist Criteria express and/or evoke moods or feelings.
1. expresses ideas, attitudes, or feelings 5 4 3 2 12. evokes emotions or feelings in viewer.................................................................................5 4 3 2 1
3. communicates a point of view...............................................................................................5 4 3 2 14. responds to personal, social, or spiritual contexts.............................................................. 5 4 3 2 1
C. Instrumental or Pragmatic Criteria emphasize moral, social, or political functions of art.1. reflects a society, culture, or group o f people....................................................... ............ 5 4 3 2 12. shows personal interpretation o f art history or culture.......................................... ........... 5 4 3 2 13. responds to environmental or political contexts.................................................... ...........5 4 3 2 14. serves a functional purpose...................................................................................... ........... 5 4 3 2 1
D. Imitationalist or Mimetic Criteria represent the real or ideal.
1. real or idealized representation o f life.................................................................... .......... 5 4 3 2 12. shows realistic form (3-D), or illusion o f form (2-D).......................................................5 4 3 2 13. shows realistic texture (3-D), or illusion o f texture (2-D).................................... .......... 5 4 3 2 14. shows space (3-D), or illusion o f depth (2-D)....................................................... ........... 5 4 3 2 1Aesthetic Approach Comments:
297
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
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 o f teaching your students how to:1. use elements o f art and/or principles o f design 5 4 3 2 1
2. draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation..............................................5 4 3 2 1
3. abstract or create non-objective art....................................................................................5 4 3 2 14. communicate social, political, or personal messages...................................................... 5 4 3 2 15. create functional art............................................................................................................ 5 4 3 2 1
6. express their feelings or attitudes...................................................................................... 5 4 3 2 1
7. create art based upon a particular historical period, style, or culture............................ 5 4 3 2 1Comments:
VIII. Demographics
1. Check your yearly number o f art students: 1-99, 101-199, 200-399, 400-599, 600+
2. Circle each grade you currently teach: K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
3. Check your years o f experience including this y e a r 1-5, ___6- 10,____11-20, ___ 21+
4. Did you attend staff development or college classes on assessment in the last two years? Yes No
5. Have you attended staff development or college classes focusing on art assessment? Yes No
6. What other criteria do you use in assessing student work that were not included in this survey?
The following section is optional.Do you want a copy o f the results of this survey? Yes NoAre you willing to be interviewed by phone to follow-up on your comments? Yes No
Home phone ( j_____________ School phone ( )______________ Best time to call______Name__________________________________________ School___________________________Address______________________________________________________________________________
Please return by December 15, 1999 to Cheryl Venet, 28J3 Rain Tree Court, Columbia, MO 65201.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
555 Vandiver Dr., Suite A Columbia, MO 65202-1508
(573) 886-2227 Fax #(573) 886-2078
e mail: [email protected]
Cheryl Venet. Coordinator Elementary and Secondary Art
November 4, 1999
Dear
We need your help in deciding w hat will be on a rub ric for Missouri Art Assessment. You have been selected as one of a small group o f Missouri art educators to contribute to the development o f a rubric forscoring two- and three-dimensional art.
We are required to conduct K-12 assessment of the Show-Me Standards. Even in fifth grade, where art history and criticism are part of the state arts test, art production and aesthetics will be evaluated in your school districL The Missouri Department o f Elementary and Secondary Education is supporting the development
want input from Missouri art teachers, so I decided to focus my Ph.D. dissertation on teachers' opinions on the content o f the state-supported rubric. Your responses will benefit both my study and the task force.
Rubric criteria on the enclosed survey were obtained from: art education literature, other states and countries, ARTS PROPEL, the Advanced Placement Exam, the International Baccalaureate, school districts, and teachers at the Missouri Art Education Association Spring Conference, 1999.
To ensure the rubric matches your classroom expectations, we need your expert opinion on which of the criteria on the survey are most im portant for inclusion on a state rubric. Consider those that could be useful whether a teacher assesses work daily, at the end o f a unit, or in a year-long portfolio. After each section of the questionnaire, space is provided for your comments. It has typically taken art teachers fifteenminutes to complete.
A code on your surveys tracks responses state region. The code will be destroyed after I receive your survey and vour responses will be kept confidential. Your participation is completely voluntary and you do not have to answer any specific question that is asked. If you should have any questions about this research project, please feel free to contact me at (573) 441-4017 or my adviser, Dr. Kantner, at (573) 882-6462. For additional information regarding human participation in research, please feel free to contact the UMC Campus IRB Office at (573) 882-9585.
Please return the completed questionnaire by November 24, 1999. You will find a self-addressed stamped envelope included in this packet. At the conclusion o f the study, I’ll be happy to send you a summary o f results. Thank you for sharing your time and knowledge.
o f a rubric that teachers may use to score student work. I serve on the Fine Arts Assessment Task Force and
Sincerely,
Cheij^Venet
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
C O L U M B IA C o l u m b i a P u b l i c S c h o o l s Cheryl Venet, Coordinator Elementary and Secondary Art
555 Vandiver Drive, Suite A Columbia, MO 65202-1508
(573) 886-2227 Fax (573)886-2078
«First_Name» «Last_Name»«Schoob>«Address»«City», «State» «Zip»
November 29, 1999Dear «First_Name» or Current Art Teacher (if this teacher has left your school),
I recently wrote requesting your help in deciding which criteria should be included on a rubric for M issouri A rt Assessment. I teach art in addition to coordinating a K-12 art program, so I know how busy you are meeting the needs o f your students, their parents, your administrators, and communities. I hope the Missouri Art Assessment Survey is in your “to do” pile and that this reminder will encourage you to give it your attention. In case you did not receive it, or it has been lost, I've enclosed another copy with a self-addressed, stamped envelope.
You were one o f a select group o f art teachers asked to provide input. As a member o f the Missouri Art Assessment Task Force and a Ph.D. student conducting research, I'm asking for you to please take a few minutes to complete and return the enclosed survey. In order to predict that the responses we receive represent Missouri art teachers, we need to receive surveys from every teacher who receives this letter.
A code on your survey tracks responses by state region. This identification will be destroyed after I receive your survey and vour responses will be kept confidential. Your participation is completely voluntary and you do not have to answer any specific question that is asked. I f you have any questions about this research project, please feel free to contact me at (573) 442-4017, or my advisor, Dr. Kantner, at(573) 882-6462.
Your expert opinions a re important! Please re tu rn the survey by December 15,1999.
Thank you for sharing your time and knowledge.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Venet
300
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
C O L U M B IA COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS ART OFFICE555 Vandiver Dr., Suite A
Columbia, MO 65202-1508 (573) 886-2227
Fax #(573) 886-2078
Cheryl Venet, Coordinator Elementary and Secondary Art
Fax to: Principal
From: Cheryl Venet, Fax (573) 886-2078
December 19, 1999
I am conducting research on Criteria for Missouri Art Assessment for my Ph.D. dissertation and for the Department o f Elementary and Secondary Education’s Fine Arts Assessment Task Force o f which I am a member. The task force is developing a rubric/scoring guide to help art teachers conduct local assessment o f the Show-Me Standards. A survey provides your building art teacher with an opportunity to help shape that document
A code on the survey tracks responses by state region. This identification will be destroyed after I receive the survey and all responses will be kept confidential. Participation is completely voluntary and the teacher does not have to answer any specific question that is asked. If you should have any questions about this research project please feel free to contact me at (573) 442-4017 or my advisor, Dr. Kantner, at (573) 882-6462. For additional information regarding human participation in research, please feel free to contact the UMC Campus IRB Office at (573) 882-9585.
Two copies of the Art Assessment Survey with stamped, return envelopes were mailed to your art teacher who was included in a random sample o f Missouri art teachers. The list o f teachers provided by DESE was based upon last year’s faculty, so it is possible that this teacher is no longer working in your building. Please help us update our records by completing and returning this page by fax or mail. Below is a copy of the mailing label used to reach your building’s art teacher.
Please Check:
This art teacher will complete and mail the survey.
This art teacher will not mail the survey but is willing to answer survey items by phone inwhich case his/her evening phone number is :___________________________
This art teacher is no longer working in this building and no survey will be returned.
Another art teacher in this building will complete and return the survey.
An art teacher is employed in this building, but chooses not to participate in the survey.
Thank you so much for your help.
Cheryl Venet
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
Cheryl Venet, 555 Vandiver, Columbia, MO, 65202, (573) 886-2227, [email protected] Results o f Missouri Art Teachers Art Assessment Survey
Each survey criterion is listed with a percentage of teachers at elementary, middle, and high school levels who scored it as important for inclusion on an art assessment rubric/scoring guide. A one-way analysis of variance was computed for each criterion to determine whether there was a significant difference among mean scores of elementary, middle, and high school teacher groups. Follow-up contrasts were calculated when a significant difference of p<.05 occurred.
The number of respondents is:Elementary teachers, K-5, n=l 10 who completed the survey on the yellow paperElementary teachers, K-5, n=l 1 who copied the survey, responding first to either middle or high school levels Total elementary teachers, K-S, n=121Middle level teachers, 6-8, n=51 who completed the survey on the yellow paperMiddle level teachers, 6-8, n=13 who copied the survey, responding first to either elementary or high school levels Total middle level teachers, 6-8, n=64High School teachers, 9-12, n=95 who completed the survey on the yellow paperHigh School teachers, 9-12, n=9 who copied the survey, responding first to either elementary or middle levels.Total high School Teachers, 9-12, n=105
Total teachers who responded to survey, K-12, n=259
Table 1. Percentage of teachers who Think it b Important to Assess Various Types of Art Products
I. What Do You Assess? •/.K-12
•/.K-5
%6-8 9-12
1. rough drafts or process sketches, *p<0007 between elementary-high school 64 54 65 74
2. final product, *p<029 between elementary-high school 96 93 95 98
3. aesthetic reflections about own or other artists’ work 70 65 69 76
4. art criticism analysis of own or other artists’ work, *p<.0002 between elementary-middle and p<0019 between elementary-high school
72 60 78 80
5. art historical writing, *p<0001 between elementary-middle and elementary-high school
28 15 37 39
6. student’s self-evaluation 78 71 79 85
7. portfolio of student work, *p<OI between elementary-middle and p<..0001 between elementary-high school
59 44 61 75
Table 2. Percentage of Art Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Responding Criteria.
II. ResDonding CriteriaK-12
%K-5
%6-8
%9-12
I. explains perceptions of artwork 78 76 82 79
2. identifies connections among arts and with other subjects 77 79 77 73
3. relates art from historical periods, movements, and/or cultures to own work 77 72 82 80
4. uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate artworks,*p<..006 between elementary-high school
91 86 92 94
5. student self-evaluates, * p<007 between elementary-middle and p<02 between elementary-high school
84 79 87 87
302
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
Table 3. Percentage of Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Creating or Process Criteria
III. Creatine or Process Criteria •/.K-12
•/.K-5
•/.6-8
%9-12
1 correctly uses assigned processes, media, and techniques 99 98 100 96
2 demonstrates problem-solving process: brainstorms, develops and revises idea, produces final work, self-cvaluates
97 96 95 100
3 demonstrates originality, creativity, or inventiveness 99 98 98 100
4 documents process in sketchbook or journal entries, *p< 0048 between elementary-middle and p<0002 between elementary-high school
43 32 47 52
Table 4. Percentage of Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Attitude or Habits-of-Mind Criteria
IV. Attitude or Habits-of-Mind Criteria %K-12
%K-5
%6-8 9-12
1 is persistently on task 98 97 98 9?
2 respects materials, equipment, other students and their art 99 99 97 10C
3 shows commitment, pursues problem through revisions, p< 01 betweenelementary-high school
96 92 97 95
4 is responsive to teacher’s feedback 94 94 90 97
Table S. Percentage of Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Art Product Criteria.
V. Art Product Criteria %K-12
•/.K-5
%6-8
%9-12
I demonstrates technical skill or craftspersonship, *p< 05 between elementary- middle and p< 0001 between elementary-high school
89 83 90 95
2. demonstrates planned, effective composition, *p< 01 between elementary-middle and p< 0002 between elementary-high school
89 87 97 97
3 work shows improvement from past products/performances 93 92 94 93
4 artwork includes relevant art historical influences 50 45 48 56
5. demonstrates assigned concepts, processes, elements, and/or principles 97 95 97 98
6. intent of artist is communicated 80 77 79 85
Table 6. Percentage of Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Formalist Aesthetic Criteria.
VI.A. Formalist Criteria consider formal desien qualities as art content. %K-12 K-5
•/.6-8
%9-12
1. use of elements of art (line, shape, color, value, form, texture, space) 97 97 95 98
2. use of principles of design (balance, emphasis, contrast, rhythm, proportion, unity) 97 96 99 97
3 distorts, exaggerates for purpose o f design, *p<007 between elementary-high andp< 02 between middle-high school
72 66 67 80
4 composition, *p< 05 betw een clcm cntary-m iddlc and p< 0008 bcuwx-n clcm cntary-high school 94 90 98 96303
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
Table 7. Percentage of Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Expressionist Aesthetic Criteria.
VLB. Exnressionist Criteria express and/or evoke moods or feelings %K-12
%K-5
%6-8
•/«9-12
1. expresses ideas, attitudes, or feelings 90 91 84 92
2. evokes emotions or feelings in viewer 75 74 69 7?
3. communicates a point of view 73 68 71 7*
4 responds to personal, social, or spiritual contexts 63 62 60 6<
Table 8. Percentage o f Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Instrumental Aesthetic Criteria.
VI.C. Instrumental or Pragmatic Criteria emphasize moral, social, or political functions of art.
%
K-12
%
K-5
%
6-8
%
9-12
1. reflects a society, culture, or group o f people 57 62 61 49
2. shows personal interpretation of art history or culture 62 63 61 59
3. responds to environmental or political contexts 45 40 44 52
4. serves a functional purpose 42 36 47 45
Table 9. Percentage o f Teachers who Think it is Important to Assess Imitationalist Aesthetic Criteria.
VI.D. Imitationalist or Mimetic Criteria represent the real or ideal. %
K-12
%
K-5%
6-8%
9-12
1. real or idealized representation of life, *p<02 between elementary-high school 70 66 64 79
2. shows realistic form (3-D), or illusion o f form (2-D), *p<02 between elementary-middle and p<01 between elementary-high school
89 78 89 88
3. shows realistic texture (3-D), or illusion o f texture (2-D), *p>.02 between elementary-high school
82 78 85 86
4 shows space (3-D), or illusion of depth (2-D), *p>.001 between elementary-high school and p<05 between elementary-middle
88 83 92 92
304
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
Table 10. Percentage or Teachers who Think it is Important to Teach Specified Content.
VII. What Do You Teach? %
K-12
%K-5
%6-8
%9-12
1. use elements of art and/or principles o f design 96 95 97 97
2. draw, paint, sculpt, or print realistically from observation, *p< 04 between elementary-middle and p< 0004 between elementary-high school
89 80 97 93
3. abstract or create non-objective art 84 83 82 87
4. communicate social, political, or personal messages 60 60 71 56
5. create functional art 57 56 62 54
6. express their feelings or attitudes 84 87 85 82
7. create art based upon a particular historical period, style, or culture, *p<005 between elementary-high school
73 81 71 68
Table 11. Percentage of Teachers who Indicated they Fit each Demographics Category.
VIII. DemoeraDhics
1. number of art students taught 1-99 101-199 200-399 400-599 600+
% elementary K-5 3 5 25 52 15
% middle level 6-8 IS 25 25 20 14
% high school 9-12 23 61 13 2 1
2. Frequency of K-12 Teachers, n=254, Teaching each Grade Level
Grade K I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
# 136 140 147 147 146 136 116 109 109 119 124 126 126
3. Years ofTeaching Experience K-12, n=254
number of years 1-5 6-10 11-20 21+
% of teachers 19 14 34 33
4. Percentage of K-12 Teachers, n=254, who attended staff development or college classes onassessment in the last two years.
77%
5. Percentage of K-12 Teachers, n=254, who attended staff development or college classes onart assessment in the last two years.
54%
305
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
March 6 ,2000 DRAFT Rubric for Local Arts Assessment of Show-Me Standards
Criteria Advanced Level 4 Proficient Level 3 Nearing Proficient Level 2 Novice Level 1
Fine ArtsProduct/Performance
PartiProcess
The process through which an artwork evolves.
Show-Me Standards: FA 1 ,0 1.1,0 1.3, G 1.5, G 2.1, G 2.2, G 2.5, G 3.1, G 3.2, G 3.3, G 3.4, G 3.6
4 independently expands upon assigned processes, media, and techniques
4 independently formulates problems and demonstrates problem-solving process:1 investigates, 2) develops and revises, 3) produces/performs, 4) reflects (with others if required)
4 demonstrates originality on a consistent basis
4 composes original works that reflect careful planning and are effective for desired purposes
4 improves, in a continuous, self-directed manner from past performances
✓ correctly applies assigned processes, media, and techniques
✓ identifies problems and demonstrates problem-solving process: 1) investigates, 2) develops and revises, 3) produces/performs, 4) reflects (with others if required)
/ demonstrates originality with prompting
/ composes original works that are well organized
✓ improves from past performances
/ - uses some assigned processes, media, and techniques
/ - demonstrates most steps of problem-solving process:1 )investigates, 2) develops and revises, 3) produces/performs, 4) reflects(with others if required)
/ • modifies ideas of others
/ - composes original works that reflect some planning
/ - improves minimally from past performances
• as attempts to use signed processes, media, and techniques
- demonstrates few steps of the problem-solving process:1 )investigates, 2) develops and revises, 3) produces/performs, 4) reflects(with others if required
- copies ideas of others
- composes works without planning
-remains the same as past performances
Fine ArtsProduct /Performance
Part IICompleted Work
Terminal exhibition or performance that demonstrates knowledge and skills in the fine arts: dance, music, theater, and/or the visual arts.
Show-Me Standards: FA I , FA 2, G 4.1, G 4.8
4 demonstrates high degree of technical skill, craftspersonship, and/or artistry
4 synthesizes relevant historical influence with student's personal interpretation in artwork
4 creates/recreates complex works that demonstrate assigned concepts, processes, elements, and/or principles
4 articulates clear, well thought- out intent of artist
✓ demonstrates technical skill, craftspersonship, and/or artistry
✓ demonstrates relevant historical influences, modified by student
/ creates/recreates works that demonstrate many assigned concepts, processes, elements, and/or principles
/ communicates intent of artist
/ • demonstrates developing technical skill, craftspersonship, and/or artistry
/ • restates relevant historical characteristics, copied instead of personalized
/ - creates/recreates work that demonstrate some assigned concepts, processes, elements and/or principles
/ - attempts to communicate the intent of artist
•attempts to demonstrate technical skill, craftspersonship, and/or artistry
- lacks relevant historical characteristics
- creates/recreates work that attempt to demonstrate some assigned concepts, processes, elements and/or principles
- does not communicate the intent of artist
8
Rep
rodu
ced
with
pe
rmis
sion
of
the
copy
righ
t ow
ner.
Fu
rthe
r re
prod
uctio
n pr
ohib
ited
with
out
perm
issi
on.
March 6 .2000 DRAFT Rubric for Local Arts Assessment of Show-Me Standards
Criteria Advanced Level 4 Proficient Level 3 Nearing Proficient Level 2 Novice Level 1
Fine Arts HistoryRecords and analysis of the past as seen through works of art. Show-Mc Standards: FA S,G 1.6, G 1.7, G 1.9, G 2.4, G 4.1
4 identifies and categorizes art
4 compares, contrasts, and evaluates characteristics in historic artworks
4 Analyzes cultural context of historic artworks their influences on own artwork
/ identifies many artworks
/ compares and contrasts characteristics in historic artworks
/ explains cultural context of historic artworks and their relationship to own artwork
✓- identifies few artworks
/ - explains characteristics in historic artworks
/ - relates art from some historical periods, movements and/or cultures to own artwork
- attempts to identify artworks
-lists characteristics in historic artworks
•attempts to relate historic artworks to own artwork
Fine Arts CriticismCritical analysis of artistic work based upon the elements and principles of the art form. Show-Me Standards: FA 2, FA 3, FA 4, G 1.5, G 1.6, G 1.9, G 2.4, G 4.1
4 uses precise art vocabulary to fluently describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate artworks created by: 1) self, 2) peers, and 3) artists of historical/cultural significance
4 analyzes connections among arts and other disciplines
J uses relevant art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, and evaluate artworks created by: 1) self, 2) peers, and 3) artists of historical/cultural significance
/ identifies connections among arts and other disciplines
/ - sometimes uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, interpret, or evaluate artworks created by: 1) self, 2) peers, and 3) artists of historical/cultural significance
/ - makes some connections among arts and other disciplines
- rarely uses art vocabulary to describe, analyze, or interpret artworks
-attempts to make connections among arts and other disciplines
Fine Arts AestheticsThe nature of art and it’s impact on an audience.Show-Me Standards: FA 3, G 1.6, G 2.3, G 2.4, G 4.1
4 formulates and defends complex perceptions of artwork
4 supports and defends others' responses to artwork
/ formulates detailed perceptions of artwork
/ compares and contrasts others' responses to artwork
/ - explains perceptions of artwork
/ - describes others’ responses to artwork
-attempts to explain perceptions of the artwork
-attempts to describe others' responses to artwork
The following category refers to attitudes and behaviors conducive to success. They are to be encouraged but not assigned score points.
Responsibility 4 is consistently on-task / is usually on-task / - is frequently on-task - is rarely on-task
Show-Mc Standards 4 independently uses and / uses materials and equipment ✓- frequently uses materials - rarely uses materials andG4.5, G4.6, G4.7 assists with materials and appropriately and equipment appropriately equipment appropriately
equipment appropriately✓- frequently respects students - rarely respects students and
4 consistently respects students / usually respects students and and their artistic their artistic products/equipmentand their artistic their artistic products/equipment products/equipmentproducts/equipment
✓ collaborates, with assistance, / - works in groups, with - works poorly in groups4 collaborates as required as required assistance, as required
Rep
rodu
ced
with
pe
rmis
sion
of
the
copy
righ
t ow
ner.
Fu
rthe
r re
prod
uctio
n pr
ohib
ited
with
out
perm
issi
on.
VITA
Cheryl Venet was bom December 11, 1947, in Chicago, Illinois. After graduating
from New Trier Township High School in Winnetka, Illinois (1965), she received the
following degrees: B.F.A. in Art and Education from the University o f Illinois at Urbana,
Illinois (1969); M.S. in Education from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Illinois
(1972); Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction, Art Education, from the University o f
Missouri-Columbia (2000). She has taught art in the Columbia, Missouri, Public Schools
from 1975 to the present, and has also served as Coordinator o f Art, K-12, since 1988.
308
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.