University of Nebraska Kearney

Art and Art History Assessment Report 2006

Submitted Fall, 2006

Department of Art and Art History
2004-2006 Assessment Report

Summary

The department continued to test the viability of assessment instruments through the spring semester of 2006. It was decided during the Fall semester of 2004 that the junior level portfolio review would be discontinued. This was replaced by a sophomore portfolio review which was tested at the end of the spring semester of 2005. The first senior research papers were assessed during the 2005 – 2006 school year. The assessment of senior exhibitions has been conducted each semester and has provided the most data of any of the indirect or direct measures. The alumni survey (indirect measure) was converted to an online format during the 2005-2006 school year. It has been tested and the first participants have submitted responses.

1. Learning Objectives Being Assessed:

1. knowledge and appreciation of the theory, history and philosophy of art.
    
2. an awareness and understanding of their own cultural heritage and that of other cultures
    
3. a working knowledge of art criticism.
    
4. an understanding of the visual language of art (elements and principles of art and design)
    
5. skills and knowledge to appropriately utilize technology in their discipline.
    
6. evidence of concentrated experience in studio art or graphic design and of development in their creative process.
    
7. the appropriate skills and knowledge to pursue a productive career or further education in their discipline.
    

2. Description of Assessment Measures

Direct Measures:

Senior research papers

Art majors enrolled in Art 425, Critical Perspectives (formerly Aesthetics) and Art History majors enrolled in Art 440 (Special Problems in Art History) complete a research paper as part of the requirements of the course. A random sample of senior research papers is evaluated by a team of 2 faculty, excluding the course instructor. These research papers are reviewed for specific content that suggests the attainment of departmental learning objectives set down in the assessment plan.
(Learning Objectives 1, 2, 3 & 4)

Senior Exhibition and Portfolio Reviews

With the exception of Art History all majors in programs administered by the art department must take Art 499 (Senior Exhibition). Students who take this course are expected take part in an oral critique session open to all of the art faculty (with the exception of graphic design students*). Students are expected to defend their work and provide evidence of their understanding of aesthetics and art history. In response to each critique and to each student’s exhibition of work faculty complete the Senior Exhibition/Portfolio Review rubrik.

* The process varies for Visual Communication and Design students who’s portfolios and senior projects are evaluated by a team of faculty and at least one independent reviewer during the senior exhibit course (Art 499). (Learning Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)

Art Education Student Teaching Evaluations

The UNK college of education evaluates student teaching performance in the areas of lesson planning (learning objectives 1 and 2), assessment and evaluation (learning objective 7), instructional planning, instructional delivery (objective 3, 4 and 5), and classroom management (objectives 5 and 7). The data generated in connection with these evaluations is incorporated into the department of art assessment report as a direct measure of student teaching performance. Student teachers are also evaluated on discipline specific content through the departments other direct and indirect measures.

Sophmore Portfolio Review

The Junior Level Portfolio review was replaced by a review at the sophomore level for all art majors. Data was collected during the Spring semester of 2005, the measure was not continued and may be reintroduced at a later date.

Indirect Measures

Alumni Surveys

An instrument measuring alumni perceptions regarding preparation for a career or further education in their discipline and provision of skills and knowledge in the use of technology. The survey is also used to help determine graduate placement in educational or professional settings.
(Learning Objectives 1, 2, 5, 6, 7)

Competitive Activity

Faculty will make available evidence of student recognition such as the results of competitive exhibitions, internships and juried publications. The information is compiled into an annotated listing of such recognition and is included in the assessment report as an indirect measure of learning outcomes related to learning objective 7.

3. Data Collected

The following assessment activities produced data:

Senior Exhibition and Portfolio Review:

Spring 2004 – 9 Visual Communication and Design majors reviewed
Fall 2004 - 2 Art Education and 9 Visual Communication majors reviewed
Fall 2005- 5 Art Education/BFA Studio and 4 Visual Communication majors reviewed
Spring 2006 – 8 Visual Communication majors reviewed

Senior Research Papers:

Fall 2005, Spring 2006 – 11 student papers reviewed

Sophomore Portfolio Review:

Spring 2005 – 9 students reviewed

Alumni Survey:

Fall 2004 – 65 responses (mailing)
Spring 2006 – 13 responses (web based)

Art Education Student Teaching Evaluations:

The department has not yet compiled data on student teaching performance.

Specific Fall 2004 - Spring 2006 Assessment Data is presented in Appendix A.

4/5. Interpretation of the Data/Actions to be taken

Senior Research Papers:

Interpretation of senior research paper review data is somewhat limited at this time do to a lack of sufficient statistics but a pattern has already emerged in the existing data which suggests that the department may need to place more emphasis on the development of students research and writing skills. (learning objective 7) This issue will be addressed in the writing assessment plan which is currently under development by the department as part of a university wide initiative to increase the emphasis on writing within each department and discipline.

Question 4 on the research paper assessment rubrik allows faculty to rate students on their use of source material and the effective use of libraries or archives.

Question 5 addresses writing and communication skills.

Senior Exhibition and Portfolio Reviews

A notable disparity exists in the mean senior exhibition review scores of Studio and Art Education versus Visual Communication majors. Data from Fall 2004 and Fall 2005 Senior Exhibition Reviews shows the mean score for Studio and Art Education students to be 3.0 as compared to 4.02 for Visual Communication students. Several factors could contribute to this difference including the fact that Visual Communication students are always reviewed by the design faculty and one external reviewer while the Studio and Art Education students are reviewed by a variety of faculty from different areas of the department. A more likely explanation derives from the schedule of required courses for Art Education majors. Do to the requirements of their degree program and in order to complete the requirements for their endorsement Art Education students spend less time in studio courses than do BFA students in studio or Visual Communication. This would have a significant affect on the development of certain skills which are assessed in the senior exhibition review. These include: basic drawing, two and three dimensional techniques, materials handling and computer related skills.

The number of art education students who participate in senior exhibitions is typically greater than the number of BFA studio students. The department has approx. 20 BFA Studio majors and 40 Art Education majors. Since the studio and Art Education students were assessed together and the data does not provide a way to distinguish between the two it would be difficult to determine the extent to which Art Ed. scores affected the averages in the samples from Fall 2004 and Fall 2005.

A policy change is being considered that would change the senior exhibition for Art Education students. If it is adopted the policy would create a separate exhibition course (other than Art 499) for Art Education students. They would then be evaluated differently than the BFA students in studio and Visual Communication.

Alumni Surveys

The majority of former students who responded to the alumni survey were between the ages of 26 and 35. The data from the alumni surveys suggests that alumni generally have a positive view of their experience in the department. All but one of the respondents to the surveys was an art major at UNK. 80% of the respondents stated that they were currently employed in a field for which they studied at UNK. This would seem to support the departments efforts related to learning objective 7. The survey from 2004 did show a notable difference in the responses with respect to questions number 5 and 8.

5. Awareness and understanding of your cultural heritage and that of other cultures.

8. Skills and knowledge to appropriately utilize technology in your career.

The department will continue to offer the alumni survey online. Postcards with be mailed periodically to remind alumni to check the website and encourage them to respond to the survey.

6. Evaluation of the Current Assessment Process and General Recommendations

The collection of data from senior research papers, senior exhibitions and alumni surveys has provided the most consistent pool of statistics for art department assessment activity up to this point. After the discontinuation of the junior portfolio review and the possible discontinuation of the sophomore portfolio review the department needs to consider whether the remaining direct measures are adequate to properly assess student outcomes from every major program of study within the department.

It will be important for faculty to begin collecting data from Art Education majors or find another instrument by which they can be assessed. To date little or no data has been obtained from the College of Education that would help the department meet its goals connected with the assessment of Art Education students. The current process of evaluating student teachers is problematic for assessment because student teaching coordinators fill out the assessment rubrics for their own students (as opposed to an external review by a sponsoring teacher). In addition, faculty have not filled out the student teaching evaluation forms properly (see Figure 1 below). For example the student teaching evaluation rubric, which has been adopted by the College of Education, allows for the measure of student performance on a four point scale. In filling out the form evaluators have often marked to the center, left or right within a given blank. The data is then compiled on a four point scale which does not reflect the original intentions of the evaluators.

Figure 1: Example of intended versus actual method of filling out student teaching evaluation forms.

This problem can be easily resolved by communicating to evaluators the proper procedure for filling out the form. If the resolution of the scale is inadequate for the needs of responders then perhaps the rubric needs to be modified.
 

7. Actions to be Taken in Making Changes to the Assessment Process

The department will continue to consider additions to the existing list of direct and indirect measures of student performance.

The Senior Exhibitions of Art Education, BFA Studio and Visual Communication majors will continue to be assessed separately so that the department can keep track of the specific outcomes in each area.

Data from Art Education teaching evaluations will be obtained or a new assessment instrument will be developed that will enable faculty to properly assess these students.

The department will continue to discuss and eventually decide the issue of the validity of listing student awards as an indirect measure of student outcomes.

The department will continue to contact alumni and encourage them to take the alumni survey online. As the number of responses increases faculty will strive for a more thorough interpretation of the data in connection with the department learning objectives.

The department will continue to review its learning objectives to ensure their validity.

The department will update the assessment plan to reflect the most recent changes made to the assessment process.