University of Rio Grande/Rio Grande Community College

Program Assessment Form (2010-2011)

Part Two-Program Assessment Report

Due on May 20, 2011

Program: Art

Program Representative: Benjy Davies

Program Assessment:

Anchor PSLO:

Student is able to: Create a cohesive body of work within the chosen area of concentration.

Results of the assessment of the Anchor PSLO. What did you discover about student learning? Where did the students excel, and where did they struggle? Was your assessment an accurate measure of student learning? Why or why not?

There is some disagreement among the faculty about the level of cohesivity that is desired in the capstone course (ART 48501 Senior Exhibition). While there is a case that could be made for either requiring (or requesting) ALL of the work for each student to be cohesive, an equally compelling case could be made that the work within a given concentration (Graphic Design, 2d, 3d) should be cohesive, but that different “bodies of work” could be present within each students’ work.

Perhaps more concerning, the Anchor PSLO seems to be almost entirely focused on the Senior Exhibition, and the single criteria of “cohesive” is not sufficient to accurately and fully assess the success or failure of the students’ work.

In our Assessment plan, we stated that the following questions should be addressed:

Has the student made sufficient pieces of work to express their ideas?

Overall, yes. Most students had far too much work to include in the show, and the difficulty was in editing the list of pieces to include. This occurs fairly early in the semester, and is one of the most important discussions with the students.

Are the individual pieces clearly related either formally, technically, or conceptually (or in more than one way)?

This is far more difficult to assess, as most students worked in a variety of media and themes. Although students think of themselves as “Graphic Design” or “Sculpture” majors, in reality all the students in the program are Visual Arts majors, with concentrations in different areas. Although it is possible that there are conceptual or formal elements that cross between media, it is just as possible that the requirements of a certain media or project would disincline the student to make those connections. Graphic Design, in particular, is often client-driven, rather than artist driven, leading to a wider variety of styles than one might experience in “fine” arts.

Are there pieces included in the show or group of work submitted that are not related to greater body?

Each student seemed to have at least some connection between the works included in the show, although several students seemed to have several distinct “bodies of work” within the show.

Based on these results, what changes should be made to improve student learning?

Not only was the assessment of this PSLO vague, it is not clear to the faculty if this is even exactly what we want to assess. Although the creation of a cohesive body of work is essential to a professional artist, there are many aspects of the senior exhibit that are not adequately addressed by this PSLO.

In order to remedy both of these issues, the Anchor PSLO will be rewritten as follows:

Student is able to plan and install a professional exhibition of his or her work.

Program faculty will develop a rubric to assess this PSLO, which will include a variety of factors. Each faculty member will use this rubric to assess the exhibition independently. These rubric scores will then be averaged, and the scores recorded in next year’s assessment of this PSLO.

Other PSLO assessed this year:

Student is able to: Demonstrate formal and technical proficiency in their area of study.

Results of the assessment of the PSLO. What did you discover about student learning? Where did the students excel, and where did they struggle? Was your assessment an accurate measure of student learning? Why or why not?

Student achievement of this PSLO was varied, and is addressed in each course as described below in the “course assessment” section of this document.

Based on these results, what changes should be made to improve student learning?

Again, this varies by course/area, and is addressed in each course as described below in the “course assessment” section of this document.

Other PSLO assessed this year:

Student is able to: Exhibit and document their work and experiences professionally.

Exhibition:

Each student must make an effort to show his or her work. This could take several forms—students could enter a juried competition, organize a group or solo show, complete a design job for a client, or get a commission. This requirement is not attached to a grade for a particular class. Rather, each student has to fulfill this requirement each semester, which will satisfy the requirement for all courses the student is enrolled in that term.

Virtually all of the students completed this requirement, and the positive impact on the program in general and student learning in particular has been great. Completed projects for this requirement include a variety of design projects, commissions, curating exhibitions, showing work in juried exhibitions, participating in print exchanges, etc. The faculty are unanimous in our belief that this has been the most efficient change to our program in recent years. The demand on faculty time is very slight and the benefit to students and to the program is immense.

Documentation:

Overall performance was fairly good. This element of the PSLO relates to the AQIP disks that students are required to submit for each course. This has been a perennial concern: student performance of this element of the PSLO has never been entirely satisfactory, and although a variety of punitive and coercive measures have been established, none have been especially effective.

ART Portfolio is the student’s first introduction to these skills, and although students often achieve some measure of success in this course, disks submitted in subsequent courses are occasionally woefully inadequate (although this seems to be confined to individual students, rather than to classes). The most recent attempt at remedying this problem is to establish a standard grade element for documentation of work in all ART courses. This element is graded with a standard rubric, and the aqip disk counts for 20% of the grade of the course. Faculty are split on the utility of this strategy. Although some faculty found it to be extremely useful, and improved overall quality, others did not.

Because this seems to be the best strategy employed so far, we will continue to use the grade penalty and rubrics.

Based on these results, what changes should be made to improve student learning?

This PSLO should be changed slightly, as the exhibition element is more thoroughly covered in the Anchor PSLO. The revised PSLO for next year will read as follows:
Student is able to document their work and experiences professionally, and engage in professional practice.

Additionally, the faculty will continue to use the grade penalty and assessment rubric for all aqip disks.

Other PSLO assessed this year:

Student is able to: Explain the historical, cultural and conceptual aspects of their work.

This is largely accomplished through the requirement of an “Art History” project in each studio course. This course requires the student to make art in relation to an existing famous work of art. In addition to creating the work, the student has to write an explanation of the “historical, cultural and/or conceptual” aspects of the work they created.

In reading the students’ writing, it is evident that students are aware of these issues, and are adequately explaining the connections between their work and that of others.

Additionally, students are required to write an artist’s statement in their first semester for ART 13201 Art Portfolio, and in their last semester in ART 48501 Senior Exhibit. Comparing the typical statements in each of these courses is a clear indication of the students’ growth and development.

Based on these results, what changes should be made to improve student learning?

This PSLO seems to be adequately addressed. No changes suggested.

Other PSLO assessed this year:

Student is able to: Conduct independent research in the arts.

Results of the assessment of the PSLO. What did you discover about student learning? Where did the students excel, and where did they struggle? Was your assessment an accurate measure of student learning? Why or why not?

This year we implemented an independent research component to all upper-level studio courses. The intention of these projects was to encourage/require students to be more self-directed in their studies. Rather than relying on faculty to construct lessons, students were responsible for initiating independent research in the visual arts. These projects often dealt with issues of technique, tools, software, pedagogy or media.

Results of this project were mixed. In some cases, students became highly engaged, and completed ambitious projects that resulted in finished artworks of high quality. In other cases, students got side-tracked or lost interest, changed direction, or were unable to complete the project. The amount of faculty time required to monitor these projects proved to be more significant than anticipated, which may have been a factor in some students’ failure to complete. It is important to note that a failed experiment was not necessarily a failed project, as negative results are common with experimental approaches to art-making. These types of failures were found to be useful learning tools.

Based on these results, what changes should be made to improve student learning?

Faculty agree that although there was not universal success on these projects, requiring independent, student-directed research at the upper level is good for the program. Students were often highly successful when they worked collaboratively, both in these research projects and in other assignments. Faculty to continue to implement this requirement, monitor student progress more closely and encourage collaborative learning.

General Feedback: What worked well for you in conducting program assessment? What did not work well? What were you most pleased by? What was most frustrating or disappointing? What would you like to change about the process? What support do you need to improve student learning?

Worked Well:

The best aspect of our assessment process is the communication and collaboration that it has created. This takes several forms. The most obvious and immediate aspect is that each semester, all faculty in the program meet and discuss the curriculum and activities of the term. In addition, because the assessment process that we have developed relies so heavily on student involvement, we feel that students are more engaged in assessing their own work. The complexity and demands of our process require us to communicate much more clearly and completely with the students, and this has been extremely beneficial in developing their own reflective process and professional development. As noted above, the documentation of work is both a Student Learning Outcome and also the means to assess the outcome.

Pleased by:

The Exit Interviews completed by the graduating seniors were very useful. Without exception, the students identified the aqip process as being very helpful in developing professional portfolios, and although they found them to be onerous initially, eventually they grew to value them. Also, students who participated in the student trips and activities rated them very highly, often stating that those activities were more important than any other extra-curricular events or activities in their academic careers, and often more important than ANY learning opportunity, including academic courses.

Frustrating:

The review process is very cumbersome and time-consuming. We hope to find ways to streamline the process for next year’s assessment while still maintaining the integrity of actually viewing all the work.

Disappointing:

The greatest disappointments continue to be poor motivation/attendance and a lack of retention of course content. Specifically, students who do well in Art Portfolio often turn in poor disks in future courses. We have addressed this in some fashion through the above-listed grade penalties, and with changes to course content in entry-level discipline based courses that emphasize formal elements.

The faculty were unanimous in their opinion that this was the worst freshman class in recent memory. It is hard to know whether this is a trend that will continue or an anomaly. While we understand the necessity to adjust curriculum to “work with what we have”, we are reluctant to make any changes to curriculum to accommodate this level of preparation and performance.

Changes:

The Art program’s assessment process is too cumbersome and time-consuming. We would like to find ways to reduce the workload on faculty while still maintaining core elements.

Support:

Other: What other feedback would you like to share regarding program assessment or student learning?

A campus writing center would help-faculty are unanimous in their belief that student writing is poor, and needs to improve, but are reluctant to take on the extra job of teaching writing.

This is the end of Part Two-Program Assessment Report. Upon completion, email to .

Course Assessments-Art Department 2010-2011

ART 10303 (TM) Art Appreciation

Very little information has been collected. The only files collected were the final paper in one instructor’s sections of Art Appreciation. Most notable about these files was the fact that all students wrote about the same artist each semester. This is problematic, and exposes the relative lack of communication between the full-time faculty and the adjuncts. Additionally, as there is no “standard” syllabus, it is very difficult to assess what is being taught, let alone how well students are achieving outcomes.

This is a continual frustration, and it is unlikely to improve without significant changes to the adjunct reimbursement package. Low pay (and no mileage) means we have very little competition for these courses, and we are often forced to hire anyone who will agree to teach the course.

Program faculty are in agreement that a more proactive approach to the hiring and supervision of adjunct faculty is necessary. Faculty will meet to develop a standard list of required elements of the course to provide some means of assessing achievement. These elements will be developed prior to the commencement of Fall semester 2011.

SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS SUGGESTED

ART 10403 Two-Dimensional Design

Although there was improvement in most courses reviewed, no course showed more dramatic progress than Two Dimensional Design. Due to faculty efforts, course projects are linked to clear competencies, and are structured in a logical sequence. Course objectives seem more comprehensive and appropriate than in past reviews and student achievement is higher. A few areas for improvement were identified. There is still no Art History project. There remain some problems with photography of work, and some of the file names were somewhat confusing.

SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS SUGGESTED

The Art Department Coordinator has developed a draft syllabus for this course for review by the faculty. This syllabus, or a modified version of it, will be used for the Fall 2011 offering of this course.

ART 10503 Three-Dimensional Design

Course projects and approach were the same as in previous years, but student achievement was much lower. Faculty attribute this to a generally weak freshman class, as compared to previous years. Faculty are reluctant to make any significant changes to the course, but will re-evaluate this course next year.

NO REVISIONS SUGGESTED

ART 12301 Art Portfolio

No significant changes needed. As with other foundations courses, students do not seem to retain these skills at the desired level, and it is probably necessary to reinforce skills introduced in this course in future courses or program activities. Most notably, often students that submitted good quality images in this course submitted poor images in subsequent courses.

NO REVISIONS SUGGESTED

ART 12403 Drawing

Overall good achievement. Perspective much improved, value is still very strong. The art history project did not function well in this course, as the students’ research took too much time away from practicing the fundamental skills relevant to the course. The art history project will be re-configured to allow students to practice drawing from Master drawings to develop the use of line, mark, value, composition and other elements as demonstrated in existing works of art.