LEARNING OUTCOMES

The Assessment Committee formulated the Learning Outcomes for the School of Art devised the methodology for assessment during the fall semester, 2001. The Learning Outcomes for the School of Art are:

• Demonstrate proficiency of technical abilities within the studio media.
• Engage in and apply scholarly and/or creative research in visual, written and oral contexts.
• Demonstrate an understanding of the professional practices maintained in the respective areas of study.
• Apply knowledge of art history and theory to the practice of the visual arts.

ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES:

The Assessment Committee executed the following assessment methods during the spring semester, 2002:

Assessment activity #1: Undergraduate Exhibition

Description of Assessment Tool

As a beginning tool for measuring our level of achievement at the undergraduate level, the Assessment Committee chose to assess the Undergraduate Exhibition. This exhibition featured work conceived by undergraduates and juried by faculty committees. Two jurors from outside the School of Art were invited to select the awards for the exhibition, at which time a questionnaire was distributed to the external jurors. The questionnaire asked for a description of the juror's background, including teaching experience and media in which they have expertise. The questions pointed the jurors toward specific areas within the School of Art.

Results of Questionnaire used in the Undergraduate Exhibition

There was a consistency to the juror's responses regarding 'strength in studio area'. Both jurors cited ceramics, metals and computer art as having particularly strong work. They felt the pieces in these areas represented innovative as well as traditional approaches to the media. One juror pointed out printmaking as a strong area as well. Both jurors were impressed by the representation in the mixed media and installation art but felt these areas were underrepresented. The disciplines that seemed weak to the jurors were fibers, painting, and photography. The jurors felt that the students were not "pushing" the medium in those areas. The jurors agreed that the technical quality across the disciplines was "excellent" and "appropriate" (Learning Outcome #1).

Analysis of data collected from the Undergraduate Exhibition

The Assessment Committee feels that, while some of the jurors' responses and comments were informative, others were not, and there appeared to be some negative biases in relation to the jurors' particular areas of specialty. Still, the Assessment Committee feels that the Undergraduate Exhibition is an excellent venue in which to examine the technical qualities of our students' work (Learning Outcome #1), and the questionnaire is an adequate beginning to the process of understanding the quality of our teaching with regard to technical information within the disciplines.

Suggestion for Action

The committee suggest further investigation into the assessment tools used to assess the technical quality if undergraduate work, in order to yield information more suitable for analysis. Questions such as the ones used in the 'questionnaire' yield answers that are difficult to quantify (and perhaps suggest that the visual arts are easily judged in terms of personal taste or preference). A quantitative measurement tool, using a scale of 1-5 with 5 being strongest, would provide more significant information.

Assessment Activity #2: BFA Exhibition

Description of Assessment Tool

Following the receipt of funding from the Student Achievement Assessment Committee, the Assessment Committee, in consultation with Dr.. William Knight, created an evaluation form to assess senior work from the BFA exhibitions. The evaluation form was quantitative and allowed room for comments. Visiting Artists were solicited to assess the work of randomly selected graduating seniors displayed in two of three BFA Exhibitions. Six student thesis shows in Exhibition 1 and five student thesis shows in Exhibition 2 were selected for assessment. Several School of Art faculty were also solicited to assess the same students, in order to see hoe internal and external evaluations compared. All evaluators were given guidelines and were to evaluate on a 1-5 scale in the following categories: Craft and Technical Proficiency, Creativity, Concepts and Content, Form, Presentation and Artist Statement (Learning Outcomes 1, 2, 3).

Results from BFA Evaluation Form

In general, our students scored 3 and above on all categories. The most obvious exception to the is in the Artist Statement category, which was by far the weakest grouping of scores overall. Concepts and Content were slightly above the average number of 3. There was a fair amount of consistency in the rankings between faculty and Visiting Artists. Weak students were perceived as weak by all evaluators; strong students were likewise perceived as strong by all evaluators. The evaluator;s comments shed light on their choice of a particular score. These will be important to share with students if given the opportunity, as well as with the students' major advisor.

Analysis of Data collected from the BFA Exhibition

The committee agreed that the data collected was useful information and a good beginning to our assessment process. The data generally indicates that our faculty is doing an above-average job with their students; roughly 2/3 ofd our graduating students meet/exceed our expectations in the area of studio work; however, few students meet our expectations regard to written statements. Overall, this information points to a need for change in the BFA exhibition procedure and the Senior Studio course leading to the exhibition,. In fact, because the BFA Exhibition is currently not a requirement for graduation, it raises a fundament question about the viability of the BFA Evaluation form as an assessment tool. Students are somewhat "juried" into the BFA Exhibition, based on successful completion of the Senior Studio course, so weaker BFA students may not be allowed to exhibit In other cases, because there is no sign-off mechanism for the exhibition, weak students may exhibit without the approval of their major advisor. This latter situation points to another issue surrounding the Senior Studio course, in that faculty have a difficult time supervising students through the process of making work "exhibition ready". Often the reason for this is due to students not being enrolled in a class with their major professor spring spring semester, when the exhibition is scheduled; hence, the result may be a lower quality senior thesis show. The results of the assessment, however, do not fully support this argument; a few of the "unsupervised" students were in the pool of students surveyed; some were unsupervised because they had graduated in December. Supervised or not does not necessarily indicate a lower score for the student. Indeed, some of the December graduates were among the top scores (student #1 and 3 in Exhibition 1 and student #5 in Exhibition 2).

Suggestions for Action

The School of Art is currently addressing the mechanics of the BFA Exhibition and Senior Studio course; faculty mentoring of students must become a priority in order to result in an above-average to excellent senior thesis exhibition. If we do not require the exhibition we must determine whether the BFA Exhibition Evaluation form is an accurate assessment tool. We must also re-design the curriculum for greater development of writing skills, and improve the critical thinking component.

Assessment Activity #3: Design Division Portfolio Review

Description of Assessment Tool

The Design Division has had, for a number of years a Portfolio Review process for sophomores wishing to enter the program. The process is intended to strengthen the quality within the division through acceptance of students who score 75 or higher. Those who score 70-74 are placed on probation; those students scoring 69 or lower are not accepted. As part of the Assessment process for the School of Art, the Design Division invited two professional designers to review the senior portfolios. Each senior portfolio was scored and these scores were compared to those received sophomore level.

Results of Design Division Portfolio Review

The Design Division found that the most scores remained in a similar range between the sophomore level review and the senior review. In addition, they found that, with the exception of two students who showed dramatic improvement, the strong students remained strong and the weak students remained weak. Overall, students generally scored lower in the 'Conceptual' category and higher in the 'Technical' categories. It should also be noted that between professional designers, there was a discrepancy in assigning the points; there was approximately a seven-point difference.

Analysis of Data Collected from the Design Division Portfolio Review

The Design Division and the Assessment Committee agreed that the data collected was useful information that will become more informative after a number of years have cycled through the process. The external reviewer's data indicate that Design students and faculty already have an excellent means for assessing teaching and learning due to the sophomore-level Portfolio Review process, in which areas of weakness can be identified and then corrected by the senior year. The data also provides incentive to modify curriculum to increase time spent on "conceptual" development.

Suggestions for Action

Redesign the curriculum to bolster conceptual development within the assignments as well as the content of discussions within critiques.

Assessment Activity #4: Incoming Portfolio Reviews for the School of Art

Description of Assessment Tool

Seen as an important tool in regulating numbers and quality of student, the School of Art instituted a mandatory portfolio review in 2001-02 for incoming art majors.

Results of Incoming Portfolio Review

Approximately 300 students completed a review; of those only 180 students passed the review for admission to the BFA program, which indicates a 60% acceptance rate.

Analysis of Data collected from the Incoming Portfolio Review

The School of Art faculty found that 40 % of the admitted students were not adequately qualified for admission to our BFA program.

Suggestions for Action

As the Incoming Portfolio Review is a new process for the School, it will take a few years to develop statistics to track our progress in managing enrollment and raising the quality of our students. The Assessment Committee has had preliminary discussions surrounding this review in its relationship to the overall assessment process. A suggestion was made to randomly select students to be tracked and annually evaluated from freshman-senior year, using a rubric similar to the BFA Exhibition Evaluation form. It is hoped that over time, this process might help the faculty ascertain areas in the curriculum in need of strengthening.

CONCLUSION

As a result of the Assessment activities outlined above, the School of Art plans to:

• Develop a quantitative measurement tool for the Undergraduate Exhibition.
• Address concerns regarding the BFA Exhibition and Senior Studio course and determine the viability of the BFA Exhibition Evaluation form as an assessment tool.
• Redesign the curriculum to promote writing and critical thinking skills.
• Redesign the Design curriculum to bolster conceptual development.
• Track and annually evaluate randomly selected students from freshman-senior year.