Skip to content
1981
Volume 22, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1474-273X
  • E-ISSN: 2040-0896

Abstract

Of all academic fields of study, few encounter as much difficulty with issues of assessment than the fine arts. Yet despite calls for greater transparency and accountability at the post-secondary level, the majority of relevant research and literature focuses on primary and secondary school instruction; post-secondary instructors are essentially abandoned to wrestle with the apparently irreconcilable goals of quantifiable measures of assessment, on the one hand, and the chaotic nature of the creative process, on the other. Given the above, the goal of the present research is to add to the understanding of the pedagogy of post-secondary studio instruction by examining how instructors go about the problematic exercise of assessing their students. Findings indicated a strong sense of confusion amongst participants and a need for teaching institutions to invest more in instructor training and support in order to increase dialogue amongst faculty and the dissemination of best practices.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/adch_00077_1
2023-11-28
2024-07-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barrett, T. (1988), ‘A comparison of the goals of studio professors conducting critiques and art education goals for teaching criticism’, Studies in Art Education, 30:1, pp. 2227.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Barrett, T. (2000), ‘Studio critiques in college art courses: As they are and as they could be with mentoring’, TIP: Theory into Practice, 39:1, pp. 2935.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bersson, R. (2005), ‘Building the literature of art pedagogy’, CAA News, 30:5, pp. 140.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blair, L. and Fitch, S. (2015), ‘Threshold concepts in art education: Negotiating the ambiguity in pre-service teacher identity formation’, International Journal of Education through Art, 11:1, pp. 91102.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bogdan, R. and Biklen, S. (2007), Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods, 5th ed., Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Budge, K. (2012), ‘A question of values: Why we need art and design in higher education’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 11:1, pp. 516.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bulka, M. (1996), ‘You call that art? A critique of the critique’, New Art Examiner, 23:6, pp. 2225.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cannatella, H. (2001), ‘Art assessment’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26:4, pp. 31926.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Caroll, J. (2006), ‘An investigation of the relationship between artistic practice, teaching practice and research in universities’, Working Papers in Design, 4:1, https://www.herts.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/12383/WPIAAD_vol4_carroll.pdf. Accessed 16 November 2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cohen-Evron, N. (2002), ‘Why do good art teaches find it hard to stay in the public school system?’, Studies in Art Education, 44:1, pp. 7994.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. L. (2008), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dineen, R. and Collins, E. (2005), ‘Killing the goose: Conflicts between pedagogy and politics in the delivery of a creative education’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 24:1, pp. 4352, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2005.00422.x.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Edstrom, A. (2008), ‘Art students making use of studio conversations’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 7:1, pp. 3144.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Elkins, J. (2001), Why Art Cannot Be Taught: A Handbook for Art Students, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Elkins, J. (2014), ‘Artists with PHDs’, personal website, http://www.jameselkins.com/yy/?page_id=305. Accessed 15 March 2019.
  16. Ellmers, G. (2006), ‘Assessment practice in the creative arts: Developing a standardized assessment framework’, in Teaching and Learning Scholars Report, Wollongong: Faculty of Creative Arts, University of Wollongong.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Elton, L. (2006), ‘Assessing creativity in an unhelpful climate’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 5:2, pp. 11930.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fitch, S. (2016), ‘Critiques, credits and credibility: Assessment practices in higher education studio courses’, Ph.D. dissertation, Montreal: Concordia University.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Glaser, B. G. and Holton, J. (2004), ‘Remodeling grounded theory: Article 4’, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5:2, pp. 117.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago, IL: Aldine.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Harland, R. and Sawdon, P. (2011), ‘From fail to first: Revising assessment criteria in art and design’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 10:1, pp. 6788.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. de la Harpe, B., Peterson, J. F., Frankham, N., Zehner, R., Neale, D., Musgrave, E. and McDermott, R. (2009), ‘Assessment focus in studio: What is most prominent in architecture, art and design?’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 28:1, pp. 3751.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Harwood, E. (2007), ‘Artists in the academy: Curriculum and instruction’, in L. Bresler (ed.), International Handbook of Research in Arts Education, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 31330.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hope, S. and Wait, M. (2013), ‘Assessment on our own terms’, Arts Education Policy Review, 114:1, pp. 212.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Johnson, B. and Christenson, L. (2008), Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed Approaches, 3rd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Klebesadel, H. (2006), ‘Reframing studio art production and critique’, in J. Marstine (ed.), New Museum Theory and Practice: An Introduction, Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 24765.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Klebesadel, H. and Kornetsky, L. (2009), ‘Critique as signature pedagogy in the arts’, in R. A. R. Gurung, N. L. Chick and A. Haynie (eds), Exploring Signature Pedagogies: Approaches to Teaching Disciplinary Habits of Mind, Sterling, VA: Stylus, pp. 99120.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kushins, J. (2007), ‘Brave new basics: Case portraits of innovation in undergraduate studio art foundations curriculum’, Ph.D. dissertation, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lachapelle, J. R. (1991), ‘In the night studio: The professional artist as an educational role model’, Studies in Art Education, 32:3, pp. 16070.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lavender, R. (2003), ‘The subordination of aesthetic fundamentals in college art instruction’, Journal of Aesthetic Education, 37:3, pp. 4157.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lichtman, M. (2006), Qualitative Research in Education: A User’s Guide, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Merriam, S. (2009), Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Morrisroe, J. and Roland, C. (2008), ‘A collaborative approach to preparing MFA art students to teach at the university level’, Art Journal, 67:4, pp. 8791.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Nan, L. (2009), ‘Teaching painting and drawing at Florida State University’, Ph.D. dissertation, Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Owens, K. (2007), ‘Classroom critiques: Transforming conformity into creativity’, Industry and Higher Education, 21:5, pp. 34551.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Salazar, S. M. (2013a), ‘Laying a foundation for artmaking in the 21st century: A description and some dilemmas’, Studies in Art Education, 54:3, pp. 24659.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Salazar, S. M. (2013b), ‘Studio interior: Investigating undergraduate studio art teaching and learning’, Studies in Art Education, 55:1, pp. 6478.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Salazar, S. M. (2014), ‘Educating artists: Theory and practice in college studio art’, Art Education, 67:5, pp. 3239.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Shreeve, A., Sims, E. and Trowler, P. (2010), ‘“A kind of exchange”: Learning from art and design teaching’, Higher Education Research & Development, 29:2, pp. 12538.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Torraco, R. J. (2005), ‘Theory development research methods’, in R. A. Swanson and E. F. Holton III (eds), Research in Organizations: Foundations and Methods of Inquiry, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, pp. 35174.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Vaughan, S., Austerlitz, N., Blythman, M., Grove-White, A., Jones, B., Jones, C., Morgan, S., Orr, S. and Shreeve, A. (2008), ‘Mind the gap: Expectations, ambiguity and pedagogy within art and design higher education’, in L. Drew (ed.), The Student Experience in Art and Design Higher Education: Drivers for Change, Cambridge: Jill Rogers Associates, pp. 12548.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/adch_00077_1
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error