Visual Inquiry - Volume 4, Issue 1, 2015

The contemporary rhetoric of education policy is replete with references to problem solving, divergent thinking, learning from and through failure, risk-taking and similar desired qualities of education. Yet the connection between the ‘new’ rhetoric of education policy and the established language of art and design is rarely made. This is especially true in matters of student assessment. Perhaps the truth is that much of the rhetoric of education policy is presented in a deceptive discourse of criticality that masks an essentially different policy orientation: a ‘command-economy’ model of education. Educationists generally, and art and design educationists in particular, have been weak in challenging or at least questioning the new globalized orthodoxies. This article addresses the fault lines between these fields, with particular reference to the visual arts and suggests some options and implications for education policy. A brief introduction to the curriculum context in Ireland is provided in the first section. The second section comprises the main body: a discussion of fifteen principles of assessment that are derived from the literature of the past few decades. These fifteen principles are grouped in four categories and these are discussed in terms of their implications for curriculum structure and their resonance to with art and design education. The third and final section is a brief reflection on the potential of art and design education to inform general curriculum policy.

The reference to ‘whippet-fancying’ in the title refers to the notion of connoisseurship; teachers, who best know their students’ abilities, play the part of the connoisseur. Procrustean references, when applied to education, refer to the tendency to trim the curriculum according to the prevailing assessment practices. There appears to have been a tendency in many developed countries to de-professionalize the profession of teaching, nowhere more so than in the area of assessment, with external examining boards making decisions about students’ capabilities. Such tendencies are felt particularly harshly in the arts. This article argues for assessment practices in visual art that are student-centred and that take the form of a dialogue between teacher and student, taking into account the developing nature of a student’s portfolio. I argue further that meaningful learning in art should not be pre-specified, and that the objectives model of teaching and learning is inappropriate, given our innate need to create and confer aesthetic significance.

This article examines the experiences of six teachers who participated in an action research project using formative assessment (FA) in their teaching of art with pupils from 4 to 12 years of age. It emanates from a larger study conducted in Ireland from June 2011 to February 2013 investigating various aspects of FA in primary art education. Data relating to the teachers’ experiences in this qualitative study include pupils’ artworks, transcripts of interviews with the teachers and their answers to follow-up e-mails a year after completion of the project. Analysis of data revealed that teachers believed the use of FA in art education considerably enhanced teaching and learning in a number of ways. However, there were also challenges to implementing FA successfully. These findings have significant pedagogical implications for primary art education.

This article discusses issues relating to the assessment of visual art in the Irish Leaving Certificate Examination, which is a high-stakes terminal examination for school leavers taken at the end of their secondary education. There is an expectation from stakeholders, which includes the students themselves, their parents and the users of the results that in a state-run examination every subject examined, be it mathematics or visual art, will conform to the basic principles of validity, reliability and freedom from bias. In order to achieve these aims for visual art as a subject, two conditions must be ensured: first, the assessment technique used must be a valid and reliable reporting mechanism for student achievement; and second the assessment of learning in art must be capable of standing up to equal rigour of inspection in its processes and techniques as do other subjects. The challenges of finding a model that is both ‘art fair’ and ‘assessment fair’ are identified along with some insightful research findings.

This article draws on recent research that explored the role of extra-curricular portfolio preparation tuition in the context of Irish visual arts education. This mixed methods study comprised three distinct but interrelated components including a conventional content analysis of published portfolio guidelines for all 2013 entry to degree programmes in visual art institutions in the State. This article presents the results of this analysis, identifying Technical Ability, Desired Personal Attributes and Critical Enquiry as the three main criteria for success. It is further suggested that due to a lack of clarity and to ambiguities in design, portfolio guidelines are often hard for second level students to decipher unaided. This creates an Institutional Barrier to participation to visual arts higher education when combined with the differing objectives of the State Leaving Certificate examination in art; resulting in a requirement for extra-curricular portfolio preparation tuition.