Visual Art Teachers' Ranges of Understanding and Classroom
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Visual Art Teachers’ Ranges of Understanding and Classroom Practices of Assessment for Student Learning In Visual Art Education Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of a Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Constance A. Lutz, B.F.A, M.A.T., M.Ed., NBCT EAYA/Art Graduate Program in Art Education The Ohio State University 2014 Dissertation Committee: Christine Ballengee Morris, Advisor Deborah L. Smith-Shank Karen Hutzel Copyright by Constance A. Lutz 2014 Abstract The purpose of this qualitative research study was to gain comprehension of visual art teachers’ ranges of understanding about and classroom practices in assessment for student learning in art education. Twelve art teachers from traditional public schools; teaching in elementary, middle, or high schools; from three school districts from three states in the United States participated in this study. The setting for the study was their art education classrooms. This study was constructed around individual, guided, and semi- structured interviews with the art teachers. These interviews were supported by multiple sources of information including pre-site visit questionnaires, artifacts, and field notes from one-day observations within the art teacher’s classroom. The interview and pre-site visit questionnaire protocols were developed through field-tests with over 50 art teachers. The analytical framework for interpretation was developed around feminist principles of assessment (Shapiro, 1992). Aligned to this framework were assessment practices from the literature in visual art education: Wilson (1992); Beattie (1997a); National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (2000, 2001); Dorn, Madeja, and Sabol (2004); and National Art Education Association (2009a). This framework had two themes: Student-Centered Assessment and Assessment as a Professional Practice of the Art Teacher. Analytical coding was used in the analysis the units of data of the research sub-questions questions. Findings included a range of awareness of assessment practice, different purposes of art teacher comments to students, a progression of including the ii student in assessment towards role of the student in shared power, and influences of school district support. For those art teachers who both had a greater awareness of their assessment practices and used a wider variety of assessment tools for information for improving student learning, connections were found to their amount of professional development in assessment, inclusion in school-wide assessment practices, and use of an up-to-date art curriculum guide. Conversely, the art teachers who were unaware or uncertain of their assessment practices and had not been provided professional development or a current art curriculum guide, used fewer assessment strategies to inform their practice, did not utilize the assessment tools correctly or completely, and often equated assessment with grading. It was found when the art teachers focused on improving their students’ art product, they used a limited range of assessment strategies, issued directives on how to fix artwork without checking for student understanding, and their students produced similar looking artwork. When the art teachers’ focus centered on their students’ learning skills and knowledge in art, they applied a larger variety of assessment strategies, including student self-assessment, checked understanding before providing comments to support learning, and their students created more individualized looking artwork. Art teachers’ assessment practices were either supported or hindered by decisions made by those in power external to the art classroom was found. Art teachers from districts that provided professional development and a current art curriculum guide used more of the best practices of assessment in art education and focused on student learning in art. iii Dedication For those learning art and for those who teach them iv Acknowledgments First, thanks and gratitude to my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Christine Ballengee Morris, for her support and assistance in navigating this process. Also, appreciation to Dr. Michael Parsons for his interest in assessment in art education and direction in getting me started with my dissertation. Thank you to my dissertation committee members, Dr. Karen Hutzel, for her suggestions on data analysis and Dr. Debbie Smith-Shank, for her recommendations about including contexts of art education as well as for her own contributions to the literature of assessment in art education. With gratefulness for your influences on my perceptions and perspectives, my thanks for teaching me: Dr. Vesta Daniel, to include all in the assessment process; Dr. Terry Barrett, to write what needs to be said; Dr. Susan Witten, how assessment in art education needs to be structured to best gather an understanding of what art students know and can do; Dr. Laura Chapman to reflect upon personal experiences influencing practice and how to lead for change; and Dr. Bill Loadman, how to frame questions on assessment for all parts of the school community. With gratitude to their influences on my view and practice of assessment through their workshops and words: Rick Stiggins on the role and power of assessment for student learning, Jay McTighe on assessment in art education, and Grant Wiggins on assessing what is essential and the influence of feedback on student learning. v Thank you to: Dr. Bob Sabol for all his contributions to the literature on assessment in art education and for providing me with some his research reports; Dr. Stanley Madeja for sharing resources; the gatekeepers who allowed me to do my research with art teachers in their school district; my friends Deb Myers, Shirie Drath, and Katie Hall for their support; and Dr. Julie Lindsey for opening the door to art education for me. Without these people, this dissertation would not happened: the persistence of Cathy Thompson; the support of so many teachers, principals, and administrators of my former school district, all of the art teachers of the field-tests who gave me so much insight on assessment in art education; and the encouraging rise and runs and balustrades that my brother Chip Lutz provided for me to help me climbing towards my goal. My profound gratitude goes to my best teachers about assessment for student learning art education—my former art students. From kindergarteners asking me, “how do you know if I know my colors?” to my middle school art students teaching me so much about creating assessment tools to my high school senior Advanced Placement students talking about self-assessment and feedback. Thank you for all you taught me. Lastly, but the with most sincere appreciation, gratitude, and respect, I thank the twelve art teachers who gracious participated in this research study. I appreciate your trust, your candor, what you shared, and what you taught me about assessment for student learning in art education. Your importance to this process cannot be recognized enough. vi Vita June 1974 ......... Sidney High School 1979 .................. Bachelor of Fine Arts • Bowling Green State University 1982 .................. Master of Art Therapy • Wright State University 1983 .................. Master of Education in Gifted Education • Wright State University 2000–2020 ........ National Board Certified Teacher • Early Adolescent Young Adult Art Fields of Study Major Field: Art Education Minor Field: Classroom Assessment vii Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Dedication .......................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................v Vita .................................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xvi Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................1 Overview ..........................................................................................................................1 The Beginnings of the Inquiry .........................................................................................3 Purpose of Research Study ..............................................................................................7 Rationale for Research Study ..........................................................................................8 Research Question and Sub-Questions ............................................................................8 Structure of the Research Study .......................................................................................8 Foundation for the Research Topic ..................................................................................9 Art Education in the Public School and Art Teacher Certification Contexts ................10 Subsequent Chapters ......................................................................................................26 Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................27 Introduction