Utilizing Ungraded Portfolios for Evaluation in Fine Arts
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Utilizing Ungraded Portfolios for Evaluation in Fine Arts by Michael Barry Saul M.A. (Education), Simon Fraser University, 2004 B.Ed., Simon Fraser University, 1987 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in the Arts Education Program Faculty of Education © Michael Barry Saul 2011 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Fall 2011 All rights reserved. However, in accordance with the Copyright Act of Canada, this work may be reproduced, without authorization, under the conditions for Fair Dealing. Therefore, limited reproduction of this work for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review and news reporting is likely to be in accordance with the law, particularly if cited appropriately. Approval Name: Michael Barry Saul Degree: Doctor of Philosophy Title of Thesis: Utilizing Ungraded Portfolios for Evaluation in Fine Arts Examining Committee: Chair: Dr. Susan O'Neill, Associate Professor Dr. Carolyn Mamchur Professor Senior Supervisor Dr. Linda Apps Assistant/Associate/Professor Supervisor Dr. Stuart Richmond Professor Supervisor Peter Grimmett, Professor and Head EDCP, Dept of Curriculum & Pedagogy, UBC External Examiner Date Defended/Approved: 06 December 2011 ii Declaration of Partial Copyright Licence The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. The author has further granted permission to Simon Fraser University to keep or make a digital copy for use in its circulating collection (currently available to the public at the “Institutional Repository” link of the SFU Library website <www.lib.sfu.ca> at: <http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/handle/1892/112>) and, without changing the content, to translate the thesis/project or extended essays, if technically possible, to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation of the digital work. The author has further agreed that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by either the author or the Dean of Graduate Studies. It is understood that copying or publication of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without the author’s written permission. Permission for public performance, or limited permission for private scholarly use, of any multimedia materials forming part of this work, may have been granted by the author. This information may be found on the separately catalogued multimedia material and in the signed Partial Copyright Licence. While licensing SFU to permit the above uses, the author retains copyright in the thesis, project or extended essays, including the right to change the work for subsequent purposes, including editing and publishing the work in whole or in part, and licensing other parties, as the author may desire. The original Partial Copyright Licence attesting to these terms, and signed by this author, may be found in the original bound copy of this work, retained in the Simon Fraser University Archive. Simon Fraser University Library Burnaby, BC, Canada Last revision: Spring 09 Abstract In this thesis the use of portfolios to assess and evaluate fine arts students is examined. It is argued that the best and most authentic form of evaluation in the fine arts is the ungraded fine arts portfolio. A philosophical overview of the debate is presented by examining traditional versus progressive models of education. Literature reviews present the background of research surrounding both portfolio assessment in education and the use of letter grades. The argument for ungraded portfolios proceeds with an examination of how art is assessed and evaluated ‘authentically’ within the field outside of the educational context, a review of the history of assessment in fine arts within and outside of the realm of public education, an examination of the interplay between creativity, student motivation and assessment and an overview of curriculum theory as it relates to assessment in the fine arts. Examples of the classroom use of ungraded fine arts portfolios are presented, with concrete suggestions on how to proceed. Discussions include the use of digital formats, what to include in the portfolio, collaborative planning with the students, emphasizing metacognitive processes, goal-setting and self assessment in the portfolios and creating a culture of art in the classroom with the portfolios as a central component. In conclusion, there is a discussion of how to adapt the ungraded fine arts portfolio for use should letter grades be required institutionally. Keywords: fine arts assessment; fine arts evaluation; portfolios; letter grades; ungraded portfolios; authentic evaluation iii Dedication As was the case with my Masters Thesis, this work is dedicated to my family. My wife Megan and my daughters Catherine and Elisabeth let me spend family finances on tuition and books, and gave me time and space to attend courses and work over the several years that I worked on this thesis. iv Acknowledgements I’d like to thank my Senior Supervisor, Dr. Carolyn Mamchur, who allowed me time and space to immerse myself in research and writing but took care to bring me back to focus with timely prodding as required. Her enthusiastic support was critical in helping me to finish this. I’d also like to thank Dr. Linda Apps whose suggestions and careful edits and corrections were well appreciated. I was also thankful to have Dr. Richmond on the committee. His teaching has been critical to my growth. My work with teaching colleagues, administrators and parents at the schools I have worked at over the past twenty-four years has deeply influenced my thinking and my work. In particular, as a teacher working in a classroom with a wall that opens to the next room for ten of those years, I have had the immense pleasure of working collaboratively with a series of fellow professionals who I stand in awe of. Thank you Andrew Stubley, Ryanne Rajora, Erin Kieneker, and Jennie Cole. I am also indebted and in awe of the dozens of teachers who have co-directed and helped build the many musical productions I have engaged in over the years. I cannot calculate the number of students who have passed through my classroom doors through my years of teaching. I also cannot calculate the amount they have taught me, other than to speculate that this amount surpasses all other learning I’ve done as a teacher. Special thanks to my family; Megan, Catherine and Elisabeth. I love you. I could not have completed this stage of my education without your love and support. v Table of Contents Approval.............................................................................................................................ii Abstract............................................................................................................................. iii Dedication.........................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgements............................................................................................................v Table of Contents..............................................................................................................vi List of Acronyms .............................................................................................................. vii Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Traditional Versus Progressive Education................................................................... 8 Establishing Terms....................................................................................................... 15 Literature Review: Portfolio Assessment................................................................... 23 Literature Review: Letter Grades ................................................................................ 36 Why Portfolios in Fine Arts Education Need Not and Should Not Be Letter-Graded: Authentic Assessment in the Fine Arts ...................................................................... 49 Introductory Comments................................................................................................... 49 The Community of Response ......................................................................................... 55 Art, Culture and Education.............................................................................................. 68 Creativity, Motivation and Arts Assessment.................................................................... 87 Competing Curriculum Theories and Arts Education.................................................... 107 Assessing and Evaluating Students with Ungraded Fine Arts Portfolios............. 118 1. Go Digital .............................................................................................................. 119 2. Include All Types, Stages and Levels of Work....................................................... 125 3. Engage in Collaborative Planning.......................................................................... 127 4. Emphasize the Metacognitive Piece ...................................................................... 131 5.