PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT IN ART EDUCATION
[WU1]
Building Visual and Cognitive Connections
Through Standards-Based Assessment
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is my own or was done in collaboration with my Advisor. This thesis does not include proprietary or classified information.
Ronald Wayne Hunt
Certificate of Approval:
______
Donald R. Livingston, Ed.D.Sharon Livingston, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Project AdvisorAssistantociate Professor and Project Advisor
Education DepartmentEducation Department
PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT IN ART EDUCATION
BUILDING VISUAL AND COGNITIVE CONNECTIONS
THROUGH STANDARDS-BASEDASSESSMENT
Aworking project submitted
by
Ron Hunt
to
LaGrangeCollege
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
EDUCATIONAL SPECIALIST
in
Curriculum and Instruction
LaGrange College
July 00, 2011[WU2]
Portfolio Assessment in Art
Abstract
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract...... iii
Table of Contents...... iv
List of Tables and Figures...... v
Chapter I: INTRODUCTION...... 1
Statement of the Problem...... 1
Significance of the Problem...... 2
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks...... 4
Focus Questions...... 5
Overview of Methodology...... 5
Human as a Researcher...... 6
Chapter II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...... 8
Chapter III: METHODOLOGY...... 13
Research Design...... 13
Setting...... 14
Sample / Subjects / Participants...... 14
Procedures / Data Collection...... 15
Validity and Reliability Measures...... 15
Analysis of Data...... 15
Chapter IV: RESULTS...... 17
Chapter V: ANALYSIS and DISCUSSION OF RESULTS...... 18
Analysis...... 18
Discussion...... 18
Implications...... 19
Impact on Student Learning...... 19
Recommendations for Future Research...... 21
List of Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 3.1.Data Shell………………………………………………………………p
Figures
Table 4.1.Comparative National Data Table ……………………………………p
CHAPTER ONE[WU3]: INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Assessment in the Fine Arts classroom has always been central to establish and track the progress of students. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) andGeorgia Performance Standards (GPS)for Fine Artsare now in positionto make it even more important by aligning student progress withtest scores as a meter of forward movement in that progress (Gray, 2010). Stakeholders interested in student education often regard the progression of test scores as an accurate indicator of whether information is being delivered and retained. Arteducators must struggle toestablish quantifiable measures of students increasingly showing advancement or they and their schools face gradually mounting sanctions under NCLB(Sobol, 2010).The art educators’[WU4]challenge is to measure progress in an area that cannot be measured using the same method other academics useto gauge forward progress.
Art students summative test scores arechiefly based on assessment of art worklinking theirrecognition and use of the Elements and Principles of Art. The fundamentalsof Art are:form,line,shape,color,texture,space and value. The Principles of Art are emphasis,balance,harmony,variety,movement,rhythm,proportion,and unity. These qualities form the foundations of art and all artwork incorporates at least one or more of these fundamentals.
Successful student scores are dependent upon their ability to recognize, successfully identify and incorporate several of these elements and principles in each original workof artas theyare creating it.Because this isan introductory art course, the majority of students are exposed to the abstract concepts by which art is critiqued. Opinions expressedabout certain aspects of an artistic image are being made and heard for the very first time.
Significance of the Problem
Summative scores indicate that many art students ability to recognize and identify theconceptual components of fine arts and art production have not achieved a desired level of proficiency. Traditional academic classroom procedures such as audiovisual presentations, teaching using rote memorization of facts, classroom lectures using static examples and high frequency of assessment have shown these associationsare not being decoded successfullyby art students.
A more comprehensive and student centered method should be used to align the elements and principles of art with the students’ own creation and critique of their artwork. A more student centered approach with the assessment and evaluation of the works that the student creates will ensure a personal level involvement.
Can a students ability to correctly recognize and identify the conceptual components of art within their own work and the works of their peers be increased to a higher level of competency?
Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks
Measurement is a process of assigning numbers to some phenomena, which ideally is reliable, meaningful, and valid. Assessments, on the other hand, involve appraisal andcomparison, which are used to make judgments and decisions about the people being assessed, for instance, when deciding which students should or should not be accepted into a program for the gifted and talented. Measurement and assessment are not synonymous ( Kerr, 2004 ). Learner-centered vs. curriculum-centered instructionpresents theparadox to which art teachers must respond. A blend of both methods with the teacher as facilitator is more suitable for aconstructivist method of infusing student involvement.The constructivist theory promotes the incorporation of individual processes of accommodation and assimilation by which students construct new knowledge. Producing art is basic to constructivism because it is the epitome of Deweys’ pedagogic approach that promotes learning by doing (Nakamura, 2009).
Conceptual Frameworkis the guide used by the Education Department at LaGrange College (2008) It is the document that guides the development and expresses the instruction of the professional education courses taught at the college. The Conceptual Framework is guided by social constructivism, a theoretical base from which teacher education candidates learn how to be critical educators who can create learning environments in which learning is both enjoyable and rigorous (LaGrange College p. 3). Social constructivism is a theory in which teachers are facilitators, rather than lecturers or dispensers of information, and it requires teachers to organize, manage, and create learning environments in which students can be actively involved in the teaching and learning process (Tomlinson, 2001).
A teacher using the constructivist framework in the art classroom creates an environment that encourages social interaction, promotes active engagement in learning and entails student self- motivation.
In 2010, Georgia High Schools received the initial Fine Arts GPS standards to be used in all Georgia art classrooms. The Georgia Department of Education (GDOE) mandates that teachers inFine Arts teach within these standards. The standards require that teachers have strong knowledge oftheir particularcontentarea. The curriculumstandards are driven by teachers when they provide unique learning opportunities and reflective evaluation of assessment goals.
The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) has five core propositions that outline the foundations for experienced teachers (LCED, 2008). My study aligns most evidently with NBTS Proposition One. Thispropositionstates that educators must treat all students equitably and provide, with commitment, an environment encouragingstudent learning.
This project study also aligns with Tenet 1: Enthusiastic Engagement in Learning of LaGrange College Education Department’s [LCED] (2008) Conceptual Framework. Under this tenet, Competency Cluster 1.2, Knowledge of Curriculum, is most relevant to this study. The strategies used will provide opportunities that support student knowledge of thecurriculum goals. Teachers are to expect that students willperform at high levels and be proficient in knowledge of content areas in fine arts.Domain 2 of the Georgia Framework for Teaching supports this research study and states, Knowledge of Students and Their Learning: Teachers support the intellectual, social, physical, and personal development of all students. The research aligns itself with element 1C of the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Standards: Professional and Pedagogical Knowledge and Skills for Teacher Candidates. The Interstate New Teachers Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) Principles that uphold this research are Principles 2 and 3. INTASC Principle 2 states, the teacher understands how children learn and develop, and can provide learning opportunities that support their intellectual, social, and personal development. INTASC Principle 3 states, the teacher understands how students differ in their approaches to learning and creates instructional opportunities that are adaptive to diverse learners. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) Core Proposition 1 matches with this research study: Teachers are committed to students and learning.
The second tenet of the LaGrange College Education Department’s (2008)ConceptualFramework that this research project is aligned with is Tenet 3.3, Action. Tenet 3.3, action addresses that candidates will advocate for curriculum changes, instructional design modifications, and improved learning environments that support the diverse needs of and high expectations for all students. Domains 5 and 6 of the Georgia Framework for Teaching adhere to the action tenet of the Conceptual Framework. Domain 5 addresses planning and instruction: teachers design and create instructional experiences based on their knowledge of content and curriculum, students, learning environments, and assessments. Domain 6 addresses professionalism: teachers recognize, participate in, and contribute to teaching as a profession. The research project aligns with element 1G of the NCATE Standards: Professional Dispositions for All Candidates. Principle 9 of the INTASC Standards is supported through the research: that teachers are reflective practitioners who continually evaluate the effects their choices and actions on others (students, parents, and other professionals in the learning community) and who actively seeks out opportunities to grow professionally. NBPTS Core Proposition 4 is aligned with the research, teachers think systematically about their practice and learn from experience.
The Georgia Framework for Teaching [GFT] (LCED, 2008) has six domains. This study is closely aligned with Domain 3, whichinvolves the creating of learning environments that encourage positive social interaction, active engagement in learning and self motivation. Students attain understanding and achieve positive functions in their learning environment. Students engagein problem solving experiences through art activities which allow them todiscover and create solutions for themselves as well as encourage positive relationships with their peers through interaction.
This study allowed for professional growth by thoughtful reflection of input from others, as well as additional instructional design for increasedopportunities for achievement of diverse learners while retaining high expectations of all students. This is growth and action asit relates with LCED’Tenet 3: Caring and Supportive Classrooms and Learning Communities, specifically including Competency Cluster 3.3 (LCED, 2008). Blending with Domains Five and Six of the GFT, Element 1G of NCATE Standard One, INTASC Principle Nine, and Core Proposition Four of the NBPTS,involving teachers in professional character development, enhancement of instructional strategies and improved learning as they reflect and evaluate the results of their procedures (LCED, 2008).
Effective educators usestrategies that include actively engaging learners in a social learning environment.Grounded on this basis, using these tenets,social constructivism should be used in the fine arts classrooms to support students in achieving an energetic and flourishing learning environment.
Creating assessment instruments that correspond well with the implicit theories of the people completing them not only addresses the definitional problem, but yields a socially valid technique for instrument design that is particularly sensitive to cross-cultural and discipline-specific research questions. Assessment plays a part in all of these activities (Kerr, 2004).
Focus Questions
The focus of this research study was to determine if the employ of student portfolios using standards based assessment methods can improve student assessment scores.ComparitiveComparative statistics were used to study effects of portfolio use between American and European/Canadian art students. NEED TRANSITION SENTENCE HERE TO INTRODUCE THE FOCUS QUESTIONS
1.Will the use of personal student created Art portfolios result in a significant increase in student assessment scores?
2. What are the attitudes and opinions of the U.S. group when compared with International group data regarding the use of portfolios ?
3. What was the level of success in changing assessment strategies among students,
administrators and teachers?
Overview of Methodology
High school students, grades 9 through 12, that who were enrolled in two introductory art classes, Comprehensive Art 1, in 2010 were the participants in this action research project. Both groups were taught at the same pace, with the same expectations. The groups were combined statistically into a total test group of 54 students. All the students were entering the art classroom for the first time.
All participants were taught using the same pace and teaching methods. Eachstudent selected and stored their [WU5]best 5 to 7 portfolio pieces.Assessment of all finished pieces using classroom critiques as criteria for reflective observation and interpretation were used in the study.
Each classroom of students were [WU6]involved inclassroom critiquesat the completion of each project. Using a rubric criteria guideline sheet, studentscritique of the artworks[WU7]. Assembled class members vocally assess the artworks qualities.Successis was assessed using rubric criteria guidelines. These presentations were made once each week for 18 weeks with the attention of the class as the audience/participants.
After 18 weeks, the treatment group was assessed using the identical test given to the control group from which archival scores were obtained. There were 54 members in the control group . The hypothesis for this study maintained that when both groups’ quantitative data were compared, the scores of the treatment group will be significantly higher than the scores for the control group with scores in the treatment group. These data were analyzed using an o complete the research data, the control groups’ archival records for the previous 2 semesters of Comprehensive Art 1 test scores were calculated using independent t-tests.
Mixed methods of quantitative and qualitative measures are used to assess the results. Assessment will was used to gaugethe effectiveness of instructional strategies based on the use of art portfolios for student assessment and how ittheeffects on student learning. Self- assessment rubrics and classroom critiques are were implemented as part of this strategy as formative learning tools.
Previous scores of students that who were taught in the traditional academic method are were compared with the scores of the participants in my the treatmentcontrol group. Traditional methods were taught without incorporating portfolio collections and self assessment rubrics. This will be the quantitative part of my research. This research will statistically compareThesummative student test scores of both groups were compared statistically . The difference of the treatment group will be compared to the control group using independent t-tests to determine if there is significant difference in the two groups summative assessment scores.
Qualitative [WU8]data will werebe collected from a survey of participants at the end of the semester. The data consists of sixteen Lykert[WU9] scale questionscoded for attitudes and responses that align with student success in improvement and their perceived learning in regards to portfolio use. The data taken from the participants in my group will be coded and compared with data retrieved from the 2004 survey of the opinions and attitudes of art students regarding their use of portfolios in England, Netherlands and Canada. (Blaikie, Schönau & Steers, 2004).
All student participants completed self-assessment rubrics, critiques and participated in the use of portfolio collecting.All the participants, on their own accord, completed the research survey sheet at the end of the semester. WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THIS STUDY ?
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE[WU10]
In the Fine Arts field, instructional techniques vary from system to system, school to school and even classroom to classroom. One common denominator is that all art instructors endeavor to improve studentunderstanding and create environments that foster student creativity.Art instructors want to improve their student outcomes,so they strive to responsively address assessment of studentknowledge. If any area of deficiency is identified, steps must be taken to increase student understanding in that area.
Comprehensive l Art assessment scores indicate thatstudent identification andapplication of the elements andprinciples of artare deficient when summative scores are tabulated. The intellectuallinkage the student/artist makes with their[WU11]artwork to theethereal quality of the elements and principles of art forges an important association that is fundamental for understanding relationships connected to the creative process. When student scores do not meet predetermined expectations, the instructors’ charge is toincrease that understandingby researching effectiveteaching and assessment tools that can improve student performance.
Will the use of personal student created Art portfolios result in a significant increase in student assessment scores?[WU12]
A plethora of methods have been used to assess artin the high school curriculum.The current research possesses considerable implications for NCLB arts language and provides the opportunity for a unified message for revisions, leaving no child behind in art education.(Gray, 2010). Fortunately,there is a significant amount of literature that addressesthe various assessment tools and methods that are available for art instructors.( Madeja,2004), (Eisner &Day,2004),(Cho, 1999), (Castiglione,1996).[WU13] Although no one technique can be opined as the penultimate answer, several methods have had positive results in high schools and shownto increase student knowledge.
Research byCho (1999),somewhat differs from Blaikie,et al. (2004) as it describes portfolio development by art teachers (rather than art students) in a secondary teaching program at California State University in Los Angeles, CA. Chostates that a portfolio reflects knowledge, skills, and beliefs about teaching in general and teaching art specifically. It displays one’s learning experiences as they are collected, organized, and refined to provide a critical framework and rich portrayal of one’s best work. The author[WU14]also addresses the questions of what a portfolio in art education is, what its goals are, how to create a portfolio, how to assessportfolios once they are developed, what the issues and challenges around the use of portfolios as assessment tools are, and finally, some likely future developments of portfolio assessment in teacher education.