Provost's Office
Admin South 311 UALR
2801 S. University Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72204
(501) 569-3204
Use the dynamics of team-teaching to continually re-examine and assess the two courses
Refine assessment rubric to evaluate integrated analyses
Measure students’ ability to write an integrated analysis of a work of fine art and its historical, cultural, social, and international contexts, which can be examined visually, musically, and dramatically
Students will use the vocabulary of Art, Music, Theatre and Dance to review concerts, theate productions and art exhibits using description, analysis and interpretation. And in class, in the form of quizzes, mid-term and final exams.
Objective 1: Aesthetic-Identification of formal elements and concepts, performance practice and interpretation using the SOLO Rubric.
Objective 2: Verbal-Communication of observed elements and concepts with infrequent errors in sentence construction or misapplication of terms.
Objective 3: Critical Thinking-Application of class materials. Analysis of new and old ideas, values based on knowledge of styles.
Objective 4: Historical -Demonstrated awareness of style periods, how they overlap and interrelate among the three arts disciplines.
Samples from the Fall 2003 and Spring 20024 final exam questions were collected. Since FNAR 2300 focuses on acquiring and using terminology in the arts, students in that class were asked to relate two terms to visual arts, music, and theatre/dance. Students chose two of the following: Line, Color, Texture, Rhythm. Since FNAR 2301 builds on the information and skills from the first class and applies that knowledge to understanding the arts in an historical context, students in that class were asked to discuss a film clip from The Red Shoes in terms of visual arts, music, theatre/dance, and the historical period. Critiques from FNAR 1 and 2 were added.
The rubric, based on the SOLO Taxonomy yet substantially altered to reflect the interdisciplinary quality of FNAR 2300-2301, was used by the faculty for a third year, and supplemented with catagories: verbal, Critical Thinking and Historical.
Faculty determined that appropriate scores of student samples from FNAR 2300 should be around 2.0 and from FNAR 2301 around 3.0. Reaching a level of “elementary critical thinking” was thought to be appropriate for a set of core courses, and considering the minimal background in the arts most UALR students have.
Seven faculty, working in teams, evaluated the samples using the rubric.
The 3-person teaching teams met regularly each semester, in addition to the end of academic year meeting of all teaching team members.
Blue Ribbon Goals and course objectives were introduced in the first week of class.
The review of student writing showed interrater reliability of only 74%. Terms like “verbal” and “historic awareness” need further definition. DeTurk defines the ideal as 3 raters being within 1 point of each other for 85% of the samples.
Students are more aware of goals and objectives because they were introduced to “The Arts and your Liberal Arts Education at UALR” the first week of class..
Faculty found the new rubric workable, but in need of further definition by catagory. It will be further modified for use in spring 2005.
Faculty teaching FNAR 2300 added more “interdisciplinary topics” days so students would think about the arts are interrelated before they reached FNAR 2301.
A FNAR 2301 website and CD-ROMS available with texts have offered greater opportunities to students for individual review and self-assessment.
Faculty teaching FNAR 2300-2301 work as teams, so there is constant assessment throughout a semester.
Most faculty teaching FNAR 2300-2301 also teach in the 2200 courses, so assessment methods are similar across this “aesthetic competency” curriculum. Music and Theatre also use the SOLO taxonomy and Art also has students analyze a work of art.
Assessment activities from October 2003 through Octoberber 2004, including this poster, took approximately 60 hours. This includes the regular 3-person team meetings throughout the fall and spring semesters.
The review of student writing indicated that the level of student achievement is 3.0 for FNAR 2300 and 2.9 for FNAR 2301. This is an advance of nearly a point over previous years due to the fact that critiques were included in this year’s samples of student writing for the first time. This more than meets the faculty’s goals of approximately level 2 for 2300 students and approximately level 3 for 2301 students.
Overall, the critiques were higher than the essays, which is a given. There was very little difference in composite scores between the semesters and I can only offer this explanation: in FNAR II they are asked to learn the general outline of histories in three interrelated, but very different disciplines. What’s amazing is that they can retain the language of elements (also unfamiliar to them) and apply them to FNAR II. The numbers do not in themselves reveal what an accomplishment this is, and speaks to the quality of teaching and learning going on in the classroom. That’s my take.
A new scoring system for the rubric will be developed to provide more information about which aspects of the course need more attention.
The catagories will be better defined for the readers doing assessment.
Student samples collected from Fall 2004 classes will be evaluated using the refined rubric in spring 2005.
Student surveys will be taken to learn more about the background and motivation of students in 2300 and 2301. A possible activity would be to see if students with previous arts experience do significantly better than those with none.
Papers about works of art or works performed will again be collected and evaluated; possibly the focus of FNAR 2300-2301 assessment will shift to evaluating samples of these papers in 2004-05.
Meetings of 3-person teams and the larger group will continue.
The faculty who teach these courses remain concerned about how students are advised about these courses and will seek ways to make sure students and campus advisors understand the nature of these courses.
1. Prestructural
Failure to deal with the question in any way
Didn’t understand question, guessed, no evidence of basic course content
2. Unistructural
Limited understanding
Identifies and can use basic formal terms
No social or historical context
Addresses 1-2 art disciplines, not all 3
Written in complete sentences / Shows verbal literacy
3. Multistructural: Elementary Form of Synthesis; Elementary Critical Thinking
Good understanding of all 3 art disciplines
Identifies and can appropriately apply formal terms / Identifies and can appropriately apply formal terms to define artistic movements (for example, Baroque or Expressionism)
Elementary level of analysis
Recognizes similarities and dissimilarities
Written in complete sentences and thoughts are organized
4. Relational: Higher Form of Synthesis; Higher Critical Thinking
Good understanding of all 3 art disciplines, and how they relate to each other
Shows some understanding of more complex terms and ideas, across disciplines
Can integrate information about different disciplines
Social and historical context accurately discussed / Artistic movements and related historical events (for example, World War I) accurately discussed
Written in compete sentences and thoughts are organized
5. Extended Abstract: Highest Level of Synthesis and Critical Thinking
All items in #4 above
Offers alternative readings
Refers to other works or ideas, possibly from other courses
Informed opinion
2 = Unistructural 3 = Multistructural 4 = Relational 5 = Extended Abstract
Aesthetic Experience
Identifies and can use basic formal terms (2)
Good understanding of all 3 art disciplines (3)
Identifies and can appropriately apply formal terms (3)
Elementary level of analysis (3)
Recognizes similarities and dissimilarities (3)
Good understanding of all 3 art disciplines, and how they relate to each other (4, 5)
Shows some understanding of more complex terms and ideas, across disciplines (4, 5)
Can integrate information about different disciplines (4, 5)
Offers alternative readings (5)
Refers to other works or ideas, possibly from other courses (5)
Historical Consciousness
Social and historical context accurately discussed (4, 5)
Refers to other works or ideas, possibly from other courses (5)
Social and Cultural Awareness
Recognizes similarities and dissimilarities (3)
Social and historical context accurately discussed (4, 5)
Refers to other works or ideas, possibly from other courses (5)
International Awareness
Recognizes similarities and dissimilarities (3)
Social and historical context accurately discussed (4, 5)
Refers to other works or ideas, possibly from other courses (5)
Critical Thinking
Addresses 1-2 art disciplines, not all 3 (2)
Recognizes similarities and dissimilarities (3)
Good understanding of all 3 art disciplines, and how they relate to each other (4, 5)
Shows some understanding of more complex terms and ideas, across disciplines (4, 5)
Can integrate information about different disciplines (4, 5)
Offers alternative readings (5)
Refers to other works or ideas, possibly from other courses (5)
Informed opinion (5)
Verbal Literacy Written in complete sentences (2)
Written in compete sentences and thoughts are organized (3, 4, 5)
The power of appearance
leads us astray and throws us into
confusion...whereas the art of
measurement...would have caused
the soul to live in peace and quiet
abiding in the truth .
PLATO
The FNAR Assessment rubric is based on the SOLO Taxonomy. This is fully discussed by Mark Snyder deTurk, in his dissertation within the field of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin – Madison, entitled, “The Relationship Between Experience in Performing Music Class and Critical Thinking About Music” (1988).
The “Observed Learning Outcome” (SOLO) Taxonomy provides a hierarchical method of evaluating student responses to open ended questions (Galileo’s subjective qualities). The outline of the Taxonomy resembles the developmental hierarchy of Jean Piaget.
Students at UALR take either a series of three 2200 courses in the arts or the 6-hour sequence in Fine Arts. Fine Arts courses are team-taught, and there is an interdisciplinary approach to the material, especially in FNAR 2301. So the basic content a student might get is similar in both tracks (three 2200 courses or two Fine Arts courses) but the Fine Arts track will present a more integrated approach
Example of FNAR 2300 Assessment Question
(this is the sheet numbered 1-10)
Example of FNAR 2301 Assessment Question
(this is the sheet numbered 02b)
Notebook with photos from The Red Shoes
[FM already has this from 2001 poster]