Teaching Art Criticism
1
Teaching Art Criticism and Its Effects on Learning in the Elementary Art Classroom on
Students Who Are Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch
Andrea R. McCatty
University of Central Florida
June 20, 2013
Teaching Art Criticism
2
Introduction
Arts education has been pushed to the sidelines of curriculum, especially in lower
income area schools. Visual arts has been on the chopping block for years, looked at as
expendable due to the limited budgets and the pressure of high stakes academic
accountability in other subject areas. The result is a “progressive degeneration” of
authentic arts education for students who cannot afford opportunities elsewhere, which
reduces these students capacity to compete with more affluent students, widening the
achievement gap (Holloway & Krensky, 2001, p.354).
Purpose
The purpose of this study if to determine if teaching students the methodology of
art criticism throughout their curriculum, through the use of contemporary exemplars will
have a positive impact on the students’ achievement in the visual arts. Closing the
achievement gap between students who are eligible for free and reduced lunch and
students who are not eligible is a desired result of this assessment study.
Questions
1) What effect will teaching students methodology of art criticism and critique have on
student achievement?
2) Will teaching students, who are eligible for free and reduced lunch, methodology of art
criticism close the achievement gap with students who are not eligible for free and
reduced lunch?
3) What impact will the use of contemporary exemplars have on student achievement?
Teaching Art Criticism
3
Current Condition / Status
There is a trend in recent years showing a gap in achievement between socioeconomic challenged students and students who come from higher income households.
Based off the most recent 2008 NEAP Visual Arts assessment of eight graders, students
who were eligible for free and reduced lunch scored significantly lower than students
who were not eligible for free and reduced lunch. Students who were eligible for free and
reduced lunch averaged a score of 133, twenty-seven points lower than students who
were not eligible, scoring on average 160 (See Appendix M). Based on data collected
from principals and art specialists in the 2009-10 school year, only eighty percent of
schools who had seventy-six or more percent of their students qualifying for free and
reduced lunch offered visual arts to their students, in comparison to schools who have
twenty-five percent or less of their students qualifying for free and reduced lunch, offered
visual arts at ninety-two percent of their schools.
Rationale
Socio-economic status has proven to be a predictor of students’ achievement more
times than not. Students coming from a low socioeconomic background have consistently
been lower achievers in academic standing, visual arts included. It is important to find the
disconnects for these students in order to promote success for every student regardless of
socioeconomic standing.
Hypothesis
After all data has been collected and organized, the results of my study, with any
luck, will support the following: Teaching students the methodology of art criticism will
have a positive effect on student achievement. Teaching the methodology of art criticism
Teaching Art Criticism
4
will close the achievement gap between students who are eligible for free and reduced
lunch and students who are not eligible for free and reduced lunch. The use of
contemporary art exemplars will enhance student learning by increasing students’
understanding through enhanced engagement, thus increasing students’ achievement on
the assessment. Through the use of contemporary exemplars along with the
understanding of the method of criticism, race will not be a predictive factor in student
achievement.
Operational Definitions
Free and Reduced Lunch Program: The National School Lunch program provides free
lunches to students whose family income is below 130% of the federal poverty line; it
offers reduced-price lunches to students whose family income is between 130% and
185% of the poverty line. Lunch program participation is often used as an indication of
family income levels at the school (Keiper, Sandene, Persky, & Kuang, 2009, p. 20)
Contemporary Art: Works of art created in the past thirty years.
Bundled Assessment: Multiple measure assessment consisting of various forms of
assessment (Brewer, 2011).
Exemplar: An ideal example of something, worthy of imitation.
Art Criticism: Spoken or written talk about artwork (Feldman, 1994, p. 1)
Describe: First stage of art criticism. Information gathering stage: artist, title, medium,
date of work, and country of origin. Utilize language of line, shape, color, and texture.
Critic should employ neutral, unloaded, value-free language. (Feldman, 1994, p. 25).
Analyze: Second stage of art criticism. Dealing with visual evidence, juxtaposition and
combination of formal elements; line, shape, color, and texture (Feldman, 1994, p. 28).
Teaching Art Criticism
5
Interpret: Third stage of art criticism. Search for meaning, a statement that makes our
descriptive and analytic observations cohere, making meaning of critical exploration
from stages one and two of art criticism (Feldman, 1994, p. 30).
Judge: Form an opinion or conclusion about piece of work of art. Estimating the value in
relation to another work of art. Is it successful? (Feldman, 1994, p. 36)
Formalism: Concern or excessive concern with form and technique rather than content
in artistic creation (Feldman, 1994, p. 38).
Expressivism: An artworks capacity to communicate feeling and ideas honestly, vividly,
and forcefully (Feldman, 1994, p. 39)
Instrumentalism: Artworks capacity to serve an institution that is seen as greater than
Art, religious, government, political, business, etc. (Feldman, 1994, p. 40).
Mixed Method Research: an approach to inquiry that combines or associates both
qualitative ad quantitative forms (Creswell, 2009, p. 4)
Review of Literature
The first study / article to be reviewed is “The Nation’s Report Card: Arts 2008
Music & Visual Arts”. The 2008 NAEP visual arts assessment included four sections that
measured students’ ability to respond to and create visual art. The responding portion
asked students to describe and analyze works of art, which therefore demonstrated their
knowledge of media and techniques, visual organization, cultural contexts of artworks,
how art conveys meaning, and the relationship between form and function in design. The
creating portion assessed students ability to communicate through works of art, create
Teaching Art Criticism
6
solutions to visual problems, generate ideas for design, and create works of art (Keiper,
Sandene, Persky, & Kuang, 2009, p. 20). A comparison between the 1997 and 2008
could not be made due to some changes in scoring procedures, however comparisons can
be made on the multiple-choice portion of the assessment which only showed a
significant difference on one question about a compositional feature of medieval artwork
(Keiper, Sandene, Persky, & Kuang, 2009, p.36).
The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) offers free / reduced lunch to
students who are eligible, being eligible for this program indicates living at or below
poverty level (Keiper, Sandene, Persky, & Kuang, 2009, p. 35). Results from the 2008
NEAP showed that on average students who were eligible for free or reduced lunch
scored twenty-nine points lower on the responding portion of the assessment than
students who were not eligible. Students who were eligible also scored nine points lower
on the creating portions, compared to students who were not eligible for free/reduced
lunch (Keiper, Sandene, Persky, & Kuang, 2009, p. 22). This information aligns with the
findings from “Arts Education in Elementary and Secondary Public Schools”. Students
who come from low socioeconomic backgrounds are offered visual art instruction twelve
percent less than students who come from a more affluent socioeconomic background
(Parsad & Speigelman, 2012, p. 28). How are students to gain a deep understanding of
visual arts with no consistency in the program, which, in turn denies them of the
opportunity to build upon knowledge from year to year?
Differences in performance were also found based on race and ethnicity. Finding
from the 2008 NAEP data website, National Public school students who were White
preformed best over all with an average score of one-hundred and fifty-nine, followed by
Teaching Art Criticism
7
Asian/Pacific Islander students who scored an average of one hundred and fifty-four,
followed by Hispanic students scoring one hundred and thirty-three, and performing
lowest were Black students with an average score of one hundred and twenty-eight (See
Appendix N), (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2008).
The next articles to be reviewed are Harwell and LeBeau’s “Students Eligibility
for a Free Lunch as an SES Measure in Education Research”, followed by Sparks’
“NAEP Seeks to Test New Measure of Student Poverty”. Eligibility for the National
School Lunch Program has, for years, been a predictor for students’ socioeconomic
status, becoming deeply ingrained in K-12 education in the United States. Originally the
NSLP was created with the intentions to improve student nutrition, especially among the
poorest of the student population, the desired result being an increase in student learning.
Evidence has been found to support these results, although the increase of student
learning has left much to be desired.
One of the major outcomes of NSLP is students’ eligibility being used as a
predictor for socioeconomic status in educational research. Its popularity in educational
research may be attributed to educational researchers having easy access to students’
eligibility for free and reduced lunch through the NSLP. Despite its accepted and frequent
use, this variable possesses important deficiencies that suggest the need for additional
predictors and measures of socioeconomic status (Harwell & LeBeau, 2010, p.128).
Sparks’ “NAEP Seeks to Test New Measure of Student Poverty” is practically a
continuation and remedy to Harwell’s and LeBeau’s found shortages. Sparks’ reports that
the NAEP is aiming to get a clearer picture of how students’ home and community
resources affect their academic achievement by building a comprehensive new way to
Teaching Art Criticism
8
gauge socioeconomic status. New measures of student socioeconomic status are being
developed by the National Assessment Governing Board and the National Center for
Educational Statistics. Eight researchers in the areas of education, economics, statistics,
human development, and sociology were commissioned to develop new indicators of
poverty beginning in 2010.
The new measures and predictors of socioeconomic status look beyond family
income, which currently determines a students’ eligibility for free and reduced lunch, and
now looks at family, community, and school supports for learning. Current measures that
have shown to be linked to educational access are: family income, parent’s level of
educational achievement (See Appendix R), parents’ employment status, how long a
child has lived in the United States, number of family members are living with a child,
how many adults residing in the home are employed, internet availability, and number of
books in the home (See Appendix S). Potential expanded indicators of socioeconomic
status will look at Family: family structure, stability, and the presence of extended
family; Neighborhood: concentration of poverty or linguistic isolation, percentage of
unemployed adults, availability of museums, parks, and safe walking routes; School: the
socioeconomic status of student population; Physical Stressors: rates of illness or
environmental problems; Psychological Stressors: level of crime in school and
community; and Psychological Protectors: student perception of parent involvement and
expectations (Sparks, 2013, p.7) The governing board plans to present the proposed
socioeconomic status indicators at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association before piloting their use in 2014, results to be reported in 2015.
Teaching Art Criticism
9
The next article review is a study that was conducted by teachers in Berkeley,
California at Long Fellow Arts and Technology Magnet Middle School. Longfellow if
one of three middle school in the Berkeley Unified School District and located in the
plains of Berkeley, which is predominately African American and a relatively poor area.
Longfellow opened in 1922 as an elementary school and has been wrestling with the
issue of desegregation since the 1960’s when Berkeley made headlines as the first school
district to voluntarily desegregate using a bussing system. In the 1990’s the School Board
declared Berkeley as an open enrollment school district in the mid 1990’s when parents
became fed up with the long commutes. Shortly after, Longfellow reopened as a state-ofthe-art arts and technology magnet school
As a new school with a focus on education in and through the arts, teachers and
administrators had to develop forms of assessment that captured how the arts enhanced
education. Reports were needed for administrators at the State and District level. These
reports were also needed to convince parents of the advantages of an arts oriented
curriculum seeing as parents now had the option to send their child to any school in the
district. As a result, the school contacted ETS (Educational Testing Service) in 1998 to
have the NAEP visual arts assessment piloted at Longfellow.
ETS selected the Bearden Collage Block to administer to students at Longfellow
Middle School. Teachers who were present while ETS staff administered the test
indicated critical procedural problems of how the test was presented to students.
Longfellow students had never been given such a small amount of time to create such a
large piece of work. This caused some students to ignore time constraints in order to
finish their artwork. Consequently the writing portion was rushed and / or incomplete.
Teaching Art Criticism
10
Teachers agreed the test itself was valid but questioned the procedural reliability in
certain areas.
Longfellow teachers and administrators met with an assessment consultant to see
how the NAEP could be reconfigured and rescored so it could provide a valid and
reliable portrait of student achievement. They were particularly interested in answering
two questions, “Was there anything distinctive about student learning in art? And, Did
student participation in visual art class contribute to general academic success?” (Diket,
McCulloch, Siegesmund, 2001, p. 49). Holistic scoring was abandoned and the scoring
factors Analyze, Describe, and Interpret were renamed and treated as independent
variables. Analyze became exploring, which meant to capture data as the gathering task of
perception. Describe became Attending, which meant to identify visual materials,
gestures, elements and principles of design that convey a feeling or specific visual
quality. Interpret became Relating, which meant to assemble all evidence to support
meaning. The variable of Responding was added to keep track of whether students had
addressed the problem as it was posed, this allowed judges to still score the answer for
exploring attending and relating even if the answer was not relevant to the question. The
last variable, Sustaining, was added due to the assumption that the during the NAEP
assessment students will work with ideas that emerge through the responses of individual
questions. With this variable students are given credit for ideas that are introduced and
developed further in other areas of the assessment (Diket, McCulloch, Siegesmund, 2001,
p. 49).
Longfellow arts teachers administered the revised version of the assessment in
May of 2000 to four art classes that were composed of seventy-one seventh and eighth
Teaching Art Criticism
11
graders. Through the use of the new scoring rubric they created test scored ranged from
15-48 out of 54. The average score was 28.2, in which the level of student achievement
corresponded to the 1997 NAEP national test results (Diket, McCulloch, Siegesmund,
2001, p. 50). Other findings were that this assessment was not a predictive model for
student achievement in non-art subject areas and students who felt personally invested
performed better. An important and unexpected finding was that socioeconomic status
was not a predictor of achievement on this test; unlike the 1997 and 2008 NEAP reported
findings (Keiper, Sandene, Persky, & Kuang, 2009)
The new scoring rubric had direct implications for how the visual art
faculty should structure their curriculum. It was found that students who scored higher on
the attending (formerly describe) and sustaining scored higher on the assessment. This
assessment measured a form of students’ thinking that was not captured in assessment
practices in other subject areas. These cognitive skills are not the outcome of art
instruction; rather, if the development of cognitive skills are the goal of instruction then
curricular objectives and pedagogy need to be aligned to achieve this goal. Which
implicated that, “Teachers should be guiding students through visual arts lessons that
emphasize how visual materials are shaped in qualitative relationships that are indicative
of feeling and emotion.” It also implicated that, “Teachers should provide opportunities
for students to construct and analyze meaning in visual qualitative relationships that are
created by the manipulation of visual media and that students should have opportunity to
reflect about their own thinking as they are making art” (Diket, McCulloch, Siegesmund,
2001, p. 52). This idea is supported by the 2008 NAEP findings, showing that students
who talked about artwork everyday scored significantly higher than students who hardly
Teaching Art Criticism
12
ever or never talked about artwork (See Appendix O), (National Center for Educational
Statistics, 2008).
Longfellow teachers and administration discovered the critical thinking skills
necessary to do well on the re-visioning NAEP. These finding align with the 2012 Diket
article, “What did Students Do in Their Critical Analysis of 5 Mother/Child Artworks
Presented in the 1997 and 2008 NAEP Arts with Whatever They Knew about Art, from
Wherever Opportunity to Learn Source?” Diket presented necessary thinking strategies to
perform well on the 2008 NAEP that conformed to specific features of various critical
theories, including Edmund Feldman’s Critical Method of Art Criticism, which is
comprise of four stages: describe, analyze, interpret, and judge (Diket, 2012).
The next article to be reviewed is “The Perfect Marriage? Language and Art:
Criticism in the Hong Kong Public Examination Context”. Hong Kong has recently
undergone an educational reform. In response, art education has made various changes in
their curriculum. One major change is the inclusion of art critique as a required
component of public examination. Students are required to write critical responses to
artwork exemplars and develop a portfolio that consists of school-based written art
critique and visual art creation. Hong Kong planned to implement this new portion of
examination in the 2012 school year. With the introduction of art curriculum changes, a
major concern has surfaced and questions have arisen about the role of written language
in critiquing art.
Since art critique relies greatly on writing, some fear that written critique will be
assessed based on a student’s written language abilities rather than their critical abilities.
A pilot study was done in Hong Kong in 2007, including seventeen senior secondary
Teaching Art Criticism
13
schools. The students involved were to complete an art critique paper, given forty-five
minutes to respond to one of five questions requiring students to analyze, interpret, and
evaluate an artwork exemplar. The study used a criterion-based method to measure
students’ performance on the assessment. The evaluators used three levels of
achievement to judge students writing, level three being the highest. Students and their
teachers also partook in post assessment interviews (Wong, 2012).
These in-depth interviews showed concern by the teachers that written critique
would be assessed based on a student’s written language abilities rather than their critical
abilities, and as a result students’ scores would suffer in the critique assessment. Some
teachers talked about how this assessment may stifle student creativity. Teachers also
feared that students who had low skill levels for writing would give up taking art all
together in response to assessing art critique. Students, on the other hand, found the
difference between assessing art critique, which focused on students’ art knowledge, and
assessing written skills, which focused on composition rather than content, to be
distinctively different, but admitted that having better writing skills would be helpful in
the writing portion of the art critique (Wong, 2012).
Results showed that forty-three percent of students who partook in the pilot
achieved a level three, while only three percent achieved a level one. The remaining fiftyfour percent of students achieved a level two. Scores ranges between eighty-three percent
and twenty-five percent, the average score for students was fifty-eight percent. From the
results of the study, Wong (2012) found that language in the art critique pilot
examination did not influence the interpretation of idea. Wong (2012) also found the
differentiation in student and teacher opinion to be of concern. Perhaps, after years of
Teaching Art Criticism
14
implementation, and enhanced art critique abilities for both the teachers and students
there will be less of a contradiction in opinions of written language and its effect on art
critique.
Arts Education in the United States have been more focused on the
method in which to teach art criticism rather than using it as a method of assessment. The
main issues have been how to develop a model of classroom art talk from both a teaching
and learning standpoint and then how to apply this art talk in a classroom setting. The
importance of verbal language has been assumed and the issue of written language, such
as brought up in Hong Kong, has seldom been raised (Wong, 2012).
Artworks use visual forms to express and communicate meaning, verbal language
can be used to interpret and translate that meaning (Wong 2012). In a school classroom,
verbal language, spoken and written, is the method used to show learning in not only art,
but nearly every subject area. Concern over written language should not deter art
educators as using it as a means to assess students’ art criticism. Students will rise to the
expectations of teachers, in turn teachers should not be expecting the worst. When
teachers gain a better understanding of criticism they will be better prepared to
implement it in a classroom setting, students will be able to eventually become
successful. If spoken and written art criticism is taught beginning in primary grades, by
the time they reach secondary level written language will not be an issue in art critique, it
will just be a means to the end. Teaching written critique could even have a positive
impact on students writing skills in all other subject areas, but that is a whole other study
all in itself.
Teaching Art Criticism
15
Hong Kong has adopted the Feldman method of art criticism for teaching primary
and secondary grades. Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council suggests five areas
of focus when approaching artworks, “literal description, comprehensive feeling, formal
analysis, interpretation of meaning, and value judgment” (Wong, 2012). These areas can
be directly related to Feldman’s method of critique, which is describe, analyze, interpret
and judge. R. Diket also referenced Feldman’s methodology as a means to teach critical
strategies in her 2012 article.
A related issue brought up in this article is the debate between modernist and post
modernist views of contemporary art and criticism. Speaking from a modernist
viewpoint, “meaning is universal and context free” (Wong, 2012). The modernist view
puts emphasis on visual qualities created by the organization of visual elements, without
considering context. The post-modern view, on the other hand, is dependent on socialcultural context of both the artwork and the viewer. In this view art can only be
understood in its social-cultural relationships; and viewers of this art are creating
meaning based on their own social-cultural experiences and understandings (Wong,
2012). Since students learn better when they can connect with the subject, or apply
background knowledge, the post-modernist view is the way in which students should
interpret contemporary art.
The next article to be reviewed is Arts at the Core: Recommendations for
Advancing the State of the Arts Education in the 21st Century. This article states, “One of
the greatest challenges for this nation is to ensure that achievement gaps in all areas of
education among racial and ethnic minorities are eliminated” (College Board, p.11,
2009). It is believed that greater access to arts education can serve as an effective tool in
Teaching Art Criticism
16
closing the achievement gap, but arts education is not equally accessible or available to
all students. Data has shown that students who come from low-income households are
often the students who are offered fewer opportunities to partake in “consistent, highquality” arts education (College Board, p.11, 2009). NAEP data states that students who
receive art instruction at least once a week scored significantly higher than students who
did not received art (See Appendix P), (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2008).
Reasons for the lack of opportunity are accredited to the deficiency of funding and
financial resources. In low income areas the rate of teachers turnaround is higher than in
high income areas due to lack of resources and a more challenging work environment,
keeping highly qualified teachers becomes a challenge. Also, when a student reaches the
middle and high school level, many will be placed in remedial academic courses in place
of electives and will not be given the opportunity to take arts courses, which are
considered to be an elective (College Board, p.12, 2009).
This article touches briefly on multiculturalism as an important aspect of a quality
arts curriculum. “Studying diverse art forms and multicultural artists would increase
equal educational opportunities for students from diverse racial, ethnic, gender, religious,
social class and cultural groups, and potentially increase academic engagement among
these groups”(College Board, p. 12, 2009). When a student can make personal connection
or relate background knowledge with new subject matter and information, they will have
a greater understanding of it. “Art and music require the use of both schematic and
procedural knowledge and, therefore, amplify a child’s understanding of self and the
world” (College Board, p. 12, 2009). “Curriculum should be rooted in the life
experiences of students and explore how personal perspectives are intertwined with
Teaching Art Criticism
17
broader society” (Feldman & Woods, 1981, p. 80). By using contemporary, multicultural
exemplars students will have an abundance of opportunities to do so.
The use of contemporary art is brought up in this next article, “Substantive Art
Integration Equals Exemplary Art Education” by Julia Marshall. Marshall (2006) states
that, “Contemporary postmodern art offers new ways for understanding and making art”
(p.17). She describes current art as eclectic; taking many forms, styles and approaches;
giving students more opportunity to find something they connect with and that is
relatable and significant to their lives. Marshall (2006), goes on to say that contemporary
art often quotes images and styles from visual culture and global visual traditions, as well
as from Western art history (p.17). This statement is visually supported in the Exemplars,
Faith Ringgold’s Dancing at the Louve and Kihinde Wiley’s Napolean Leading the Army
over the Alps (See Appendix K&L). Contemporary art is conceptually based, and it
emphasizes ideas. Contemporary art is focused not on pure form or aesthetic pleasure but
on making meaning or reinterpreting meaning. Marshall (2006) states that,
“Contemporary art promotes an art education that: foregrounds thinking and
conceptualization, building conceptual and technical skills simultaneously; utilizes
current art strategies; appropriates or quotes images from visual culture and art; looks at
art in an anthropological way— examining how art expresses cultural values and
meanings; teaches a myriad of techniques, materials, forms and art genres, including
experimental and inter- disciplinary genres; has meaning making as its primary
objective.; and current art focuses on content from all areas of life, therefore, it also calls
for curriculum integration (p.18). Marshall’s review of contemporary art characteristics
Teaching Art Criticism
18
and benefits supports the use of contemporary exemplars in the following proposed
assessment.
Methodologies
Sample
A total of approximately 50 fifth grade students will be assessed, 25 students from
school A and 25 students from school B. Both schools A and B will have at 75% of their
student population eligible for free/reduced lunch. The teacher from school A will have
taught and consistently focused on the methodology of art criticism (describe analyze,
interpret, judge) throughout the year alongside the visual art curriculum. The teacher
from school B will have not taught or implemented art criticism throughout the year.
Research Design
I currently work at a school with one hundred percent of the student population
eligible for free breakfast and lunch. My previous school was the same. Students at both
of these schools have had a very unstable visual arts education from year to year with
programs being cut, years without visual arts, to be reinstated half -time with a new
teacher, followed by a different instructor the next year. NAEP data showed that students
who receive art instruction from a fulltime certified art specialist score significantly
higher than students who are not (See Appendix Q), (National Center for Educational
Statistics, 2008). With a fairly new principle understanding the importance of a quality
arts education, I am receiving all the support I need to educate these students, but there is
a lot of lost time to make up for.
In the Fall semester of 2011 I took ARE 6195, Teaching Art Appreciation with
Interdisciplinary Strategies. This class changed they way my students and I talked about
Teaching Art Criticism
19
art, it changed the way my students and I look and responded to art, and it changed the
way my students and I created and reflected on their work. The class reshaped the
dynamics of my classroom. I am taking what I have learned about art criticism and
combining it what I have learned about assessment in two research design courses.
This research is a quasi-experimental research design that will use a mixed
method approach in gathering and analyzing both qualitative and quantitative data.
Students at school A will receive treatments using instrument (See Appendix J). The Art
Teacher at School A will utilize this treatment with every lesson; it can be used for an
artist’s or student’s artwork. Students will be assessed twice, at the beginning of the year
and at the end of the year, to measure independent achievement and to see how much
growth that has been made by students who received the treatment in comparison to
students who did not receive the treatment. Student demographic and teacher profile data
will be used to further compare separate variables to determine if relationships exist
between them.
Instrumentation
A demographics survey will be given to students to gather information on
economic status, ethnicity/race, and gender (See Appendix A). A teacher profile survey
will be given to the teacher to gauge educational experiences and the curriculum they
implement (See Appendix B). The assessment will include and multiple choice /
matching portion based on contemporary exemplar (See Appendix C), a critique portion
(See Appendix D), and a planning and final creating portion (See Appendix E & F).
Rubrics will be used to assess the students’ art criticism (See Appendix G) and drawing
(See Appendix H & I) portions of the assessments.
Teaching Art Criticism
20
Procedural Details
This study will be conducted during the course of one school year, August until
May, at two separate Orange County public schools. Fifty fifth-grade students, living in
the greater Orlando area of Florida will participate in a pre / post bundled assessment.
The pre and post assessment will be the same with the exception of the exemplars. The
pre-test will be given in August, and the post-test will be given in May.





Day One – Pre-assessment
o Students will fill out demographics survey; teacher will fill out teacher
profile.
o Multiple choice portion of assessment will be given
Day Two – Pre-assessment
o Art criticism writing portion
Day Three – Pre-assessment
o Planning and Final Creating Portion
Day One - Post -assessment
o Multiple choice portion of assessment will be given
o Art Criticism writing portion
Day Two – Post- assessment
o Planning and Final Creating Portion
Data Analysis
Once all data has been collected, data will be evaluated and compared, focusing
on finding correlations between curriculum, achievement level, and students’ eligibility
to receive free and reduced lunch. Correlations between curriculum, achievement level,
and ethnicity/race and gender will also be looked at. Once all data has been analyzed all
the hypothetical questions will be answered.
Assessment / Pilot
This assessment is modeled after the portrait portion of the 2008 NAEP and
portions of Brewer’s Bundled Assessment (Brewer, 2011). The assessment will consist of
four separate, but relatable, sections. Section One – Multiple Choice /Analysis; Section
Teaching Art Criticism
21
Two – Art Criticism; Section Three – Creating, Planning self-portrait sketch; and Section
Four – Creating, Final self-portrait drawing. Two contemporary artists’ paintings are used
as exemplars, Kehinde Wiley and Faith Ringgold. There will be a pre and post
assessment given. The pre-assessment will cover a three-day period; the post-assessment
will cover a two-day period.
In Section One students will study the two exemplars (See Appendix K & L) and
answer eight multiple choice questions about the works (See Appendix C). Students will
have thirty minutes to study the works of art and answer all eight questions. Questions are
directly related to the exemplars.
Section Two is the Art Criticism portion of the assessment. Students will choose
one of the two exemplars to critique. Students will describe, analyze, interpret, and judge
their work of choice on the sheet provided (See Appendix D). Students will be given
sixty minutes to complete this section of the assessment. Students’ responses will be
graded using a rubric (See Appendix G).
In Section Three, the creating / planning self-portrait pencil sketch, students are
asked to sketch one idea to later be finalized. Students should include characteristics that
portray self-identity. Students should reference the exemplars used for section one and
section two. The sketch should be relatively complete and represent a cohesive idea.
Students will be given thirty minutes to complete this section of the assessment (See
Appendix E). A rubric will be used to assess the sketch (See Appendix H)
In Section Four, students will be asked to create a finalized self-portrait using the
insight and knowledge they have gained from previous sections. The final self-portrait
should be a finalized version of the planning sketch (See Appendix F). The drawing
Teaching Art Criticism
22
should show the student as the main subject and the student’s personal identity. It should
be an organized, cohesive, work that uses good craftsmanship. The final drawing should
also show evidence of the student’s understanding of the elements of art and principles of
design. Students will be given a pencil, eraser, and crayons to finish this work. Students
will be given sixty minutes to complete this section of the exam. The final self-portrait
will be assessed using a rubric (See Appendix I).
Implication for Teaching
“We assess a situation as the basis for deciding a future course of action”
(Pistone, 2002, p.3). If and when this assessment was implemented the results would shed
some light on the effect of teaching students art criticism and its relation to all students
achievement in visual arts. If teaching art criticism proves to have a positive effect on
student achievement in all students, including students who are eligible for free and
reduced lunch, teachers, especially those who teach in low income areas, will need to
begin incorporating it into their visual arts curriculum. Art criticism could be the method
of teaching that will close the achievement gap between student who are eligible for free
and reduced lunch and those students who are not eligible. Teachers will need
professional development in the area of art criticism, as they will need to fully understand
it before they can effectively teach it. If students show a high rate of success on this
assessment, the variable of contemporary art will also have to be looked at. When
students are able to relate to the exemplar, student engagement is usually higher and a
higher level of understanding can be achieved. As a result, teachers should reevaluate the
exemplars they are utilizing in their classrooms.
Teaching Art Criticism
23
Results
This research proposal has resulted in a four-section assessment tool that can be
used to gather data. The rubrics created for this assessment can be used as a means to
assess the data collected, and the student demographics survey and teacher profile can
help to compare and contrast achievement gains and gaps in student achievement to
configure answers to the hypothetical questions stated previously. The contemporary
exemplars used in this assessment could also be looked at as a variable that effected
student achievement. Since this assessment has not yet been implemented, no results are
available to be included in this proposal.
Conclusion
I have moved past the point of debating whether or not to assess the arts.
Assessment is more than a way to prove visual arts place in education, it is the way to a
quality, authentic, and effective visual arts education. My research has shown the evervaluable critical thinking skills that can be gained, and perhaps a means to attain them.
It is clear through my experience in teaching and research, students who come from
low-income backgrounds struggle to make the same academic achievement gains as
student who comes from a more affluent background. The reasoning is varied, but the
result is the same. Since I teach at a school with one hundred percent of the student
population fitting into the category of low-income backgrounds it is my duty as an
educator to find a means to close this achievement gap and make success available to
every single student, regardless of their socioeconomic status.
Every student can learn, just not on the same day or in the same way.
~George Evans~
Teaching Art Criticism
24
References
Brewer, T. (2011). Lessons learned from a Bundled Visual Arts Assessment. Visual Arts
Research, 37(1), 79-95.
College Board. (2009). Arts at the core: recommendations for advancing the state of arts
education in the 21st century. Retrieved on June 8, 2012 from
http://advocacy.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/arts-task-force-report.pdf
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Chapter One.
Diket, R. (2012). What did Students Do in Their Critical Analysis of 5 Mother/Child
Artworks Presented in the 1997 and 2008 NAEP Arts with Whatever They Knew
about Art, from Wherever Opportunity to Learn Source? Paper presented at AERA
2012, Vancouver, BC.
Diket, R., McCulloch, S., & Siegesmund, R. (2001). Amending a performance
assessment for middle school art students. National Art Education Association,
(43) 1, 45-56.
Feldman, E. B., & Woods D. (1981). Art criticism and reading. Journal of Aesthetic
Education, (15) 4 , 75-95.
Keiper, S., B.A.Sandene, H. R. Persky, and M. Kuang. (2009). The Nation’s Report
Card: Arts 2008 Music & Visual Arts (NCES 2009-488) National Center for
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, D.C. Available at: http://nationsreportcard.gov/arts_2008/
Marshall, J. (2006). Substantive Art Integration Equals Exemplary Art Education. Art
Education, (59)6, 17-24.
National Center for Educational Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, National
Assessment of Educational Progress. (2008). Visual Arts Assessment. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/
Parsad, B., and Speigelman, M. (2012). Arts Education in Public Elementary and
Secondary Schools: 1999-2000 and 2009-10 (NCES 2012-014). National Center for
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC.
Pistone, N. (2002). Envisioning arts assessment: a process guide for assessing arts
education in school districts and states. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State
School Officers.
Teaching Art Criticism
25
Ringgold, Faith. (1991). Dancing at the louvre. [Oil on canvas]. Private collection.
Retrieved from: http://www.faithringgold.com/ringgold/d11.htm
Sparks, S. D. (2012). NAEP seeks to test new measure of student poverty. Education
Week. (32)14, 6-8.
Wiley, Kehinde. (2005). Napolean leading the army over the alps. [Oil on canvas].
Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn. Retrieved from:
http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/169803/Napoleon_Leadin
g_the_Army_over_the_Alps
Wong, S. L. (2012). The perfect marriage? Language and art criticism in Hong Kong
public education. (Unpublished paper).
Teaching Art Criticism
26
Appendix A
Student Background Survey
Name:____________________________ School:_____________________________
Answer the following questions to the best of your knowledge.
1) What is your gender?
O Female
O Male
2) What is your race/ethnicity?
O White
O Black / African American
O Hispanic / Latino
O Asian / Pacific Islander
O Other ___________________
3) What is your Age?
O 10
O 11
O 12
O 13
O Other _________
4) Is this your first time in fifth grade?
O Yes
O No
5) Have you ever repeated a grade?
O Yes
O No
If yes, what grade? ________
6) Who do you live with?
O Mother and Father
O Mother only
O Father only
O Grandparents
O Foster parents
O Other ______________________
7) What is your mother’s highest level of education?
O Did not finish high school
O High school graduate
O Some education after high school
O Graduated from college
8) What is your mother’s highest level of education?
O Did not finish high school
O High school graduate
O Some education after high school
O Graduated from college
Teaching Art Criticism
9) How many different schools have you attended since Kindergarten?
O Only this school
O Other _______
10) Did you have art class when you were in:
Kindergarten?
1st Grade
O Yes O No
2nd Grade
O Yes O No
3rd Grade
O Yes O No
4th Grade
O Yes O No
5th Grade
O Yes O No
11) Is there artwork displayed in your home?
O Yes
O No
O If yes, how many pieces? _______
12) How many books are in your home?
O 0-10
O 11-25
O 26-100
O More than 100
13) Do you have access to the internet outside of school?
O Yes
O No
O Where? (Example: in home computer, library, etc.) ____________
14) Have you had art every year at school, kindergarten all the way through fifth grade?
O Yes
O No
O If No, what grades did you not have Art? ___________
27
Teaching Art Criticism
28
Appendix B
Teacher Profile
Name:____________________________
School:_____________________________
Answer the following questions.
1) What is your gender?
O Female
O Male
2) What is your race/ethnicity?
O White
O Black / African American
O Hispanic / Latino
O Asian / Pacific Islander
O Other ___________________
3) What is your highest level of education?
O Bachelor’s Degree
O Master’s Degree (or working on)
O Doctoral, Ph.D. (or working on)
4) How many years have you been teaching?
O 1-5 years
O 5-10 years
O 10-20 years
O 25 years and above
5) Did you take an alternate route program to become certified to teach?
O Yes
O No, I received my bachelors in Art Education
6) Do you teach art fulltime?
O Yes
O No
O Other, explain_________________
6) Is Art offered to all grade levels?
O Yes
O No
O If No, explain _________________________________
7) Is Art offered all year?
O Yes
O No
8) Does your curriculum include art criticism?
O Yes
O No
O Explain, _______________________________________________________
9) Does your curriculum include contemporary exemplars and artists?
O Yes
O No
O Explain, _______________________________________________________
Teaching Art Criticism
29
Appendix C
Section 1 - Multiple Choice
Name:_________________________
School:____________________________
1. The Principle of Design that best describes the work by Wiley?
A. Pattern
B. Unity
C. Color
D. Line
2. What element of art is most obvious in the painting by Ringgold?
A. Texture
B. Form
C. Color
D. Pattern
3. What style would describe the work by Wiley?
A. Abstract
B. Impressionism
C. Cubism
D. Realism
4. What principle of design best describes Ringgold’s painting?
A. Balance
B. Unity
C. Movement
D. Pattern
5. What element of art is NOT used in Wiley’s work?
A. Form
B. Color
C. Shape
D. Value
6. How are Wiley and Ringgold’s artwork similar?
A. Both works are landscapes
B. Both works are abstract
C. Both works include an image or images of portraits
D. Both works emphasize movement
7. When comparing and contrasting Wiley’s and Ringgold’s paintings, what makes them different?
A. Wiley’s artwork is a portrait while Ringgold has no portraits in her painting.
B. Wiley’s artwork is Folk Art while Ringgold’s is Realism
C. Wiley’s artwork is Realism, while Ringgold’s is Folk Art
D. None of the above
8. Both Wiley’s and Ringgold’s paintings include an image or images of classical artwork ?
A. True
B. False
Teaching Art Criticism
30
Appendix D
Section 2 - Art Criticism
Name:____________________________ School:__________________________
Choose one piece of artwork to complete this portion of the assessment.
Elements of art: color, line, shape, form, texture, space, value
Principles of design: contrast, balance, pattern, rhythm, movement, unity, emphasis
Description: Describe what you see using the elements of art…
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Analysis: Analyze the artwork by making visual connections using the elements of art
and principles of design.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Interpretation: Interpret what you see by creating meaning using supporting details
from the description and analysis portions
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Judgment: Choose one of the following: Formalism, Expressivism, or Instrumentalism.
Use one of these as grounds for judging. Is the artwork successful or not? Why?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Teaching Art Criticism
31
Appendix E
Name:_________________________
School:____________________________
Section 3 - Planning Sketch
In the space given, sketch a self-portrait. Use yourself as the main subject. Think about
what you can include in this drawing to show your personal identity. What makes you,
you? You will have 30 minutes to complete the planning drawing.
Teaching Art Criticism
32
Appendix F
Name:_________________________
School:____________________________
Section 4 - Final Drawing
In the space given, draw a finished version of your self-portrait sketch. Remember, you
are the main subject. Show your personal identity, show what makes you, you? You will
have 60 minutes to complete the planning drawing.
Teaching Art Criticism
33
Appendix G
Art Criticism Rubric
CATEGORY
Description
Analysis
Interpretation
Judgment
4
3
2
1
Makes a
complete
and detailed
description of
the subject
matter and/or
elements seen in
a work.
Makes a
detailed
description of
most of the
subject matter
and/or elements
seen in a work.
Makes a
detailed
description of
some of the
subject matter
and/or
elements seen
in a work.
Descriptions
are not
detailed or
complete.
Accurately
describes
Relationships
between several
dominant
elements or
principles used
by the artist in
the artwork.
Accurately
describes at
least three
relationships
between
dominant
elements and
principles used
by the artist in
the artwork
Describes at
least two
relationships
between
dominant
elements
and principles
used by the
artist.
Little or no
relation
between
elements and
principles.
Forms a
reasonable
hypothesis about
symbolic
meaning and is
able to support
this with
evidence from
the work.
Student
identifies the
literal meaning
of the work, but
lacks symbolic
meaning.
Student can
express how
the artwork
makes him /
her feel, but
lacks symbolic
and literal
meaning.
Student does
not identify
symbolic,
literal, or
personal
meaning.
Students judges
artwork on basis
of Formalism,
Expressivism, or
Instrumentalism,
and is able to
support with
multiple pieces
of evidence
formed in
previous stages
Student judges
artwork on basis
of Formalism,
Expressivism, or
Instrumentalism,
and somewhat
supports with
evidence from
previous stages
Student judges
the artwork off
personal
opinion only,
lacks
supportive
evidence from
previous
stages
Student is
unable to make
a clear
judgment of
the artwork,
little or no
supportive
details from
previous stages
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
TOTAL SCORE
Student Name:
School:
SCORE
4 3 2 1
4 3 2 1
___________
Teaching Art Criticism
34
Appendix H
Sketch Rubric
Name:_________________________
Sketch shows
evidence of
student’s personal
identity
Sketch is
complete,
showing evidence
of a cohesive idea
Students is the
main subject
School:____________________________
Excellent
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Work
2
Unsatisfactory
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
TOTAL
TOTAL
Appendix I
Final Drawing Rubric
Name:_________________________
Image is a finalized
version of the planning
sketch
Final drawing shows a
sense of personal
identity
Student is the main
subject
Composition is visually
organized
Evidence of use of
elements of art and
principles of design
Drawing shows good
craftsmanship
Drawing is complete
School:____________________________
Excellent
4
Satisfactory
3
Needs Work
2
Unsatisfactory
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
TOTAL
TOTAL
Teaching Art Criticism
35
Appendix J
Name:__________________ Classroom Teacher:______________ Table #:_______
Elements of art: color, line, shape, form, texture, space, value
Principles of design: contrast, balance, pattern, rhythm, movement, unity, emphasis
Describe what you see…
1) What COLORS do you see?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2) What SHAPES do you see?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3) What types of LINES do you see?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4) What types of TEXTURE do you see?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5) What other elements of art do you see?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Analyze what you see…
Look at what elements you listed in the DESCRIBE portion, how were they used? How
are the elements of art used to create principles of design? For example, you might write
that the repetition of red shapes in the painting creates a regular rhythm in the work. Be
as specific as you can when writing about what you see.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Teaching Art Criticism
36
Interpret what you see…
A good interpretation fits all the facts together. In this paragraph explain what you think
the artist is trying to say. What is the meaning of the artwork? Your interpretation must
be based on facts and clues you collected during you’re the DESRCIBE and ANALYZE
steps. Your interpretation can be based on your feelings, but must be supported by what
you actually see in the artwork.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Judge what you see…
Choose one of the following: Formalism, Expressivism, or Instrumentalism. Use one of
these as grounds for judging. Is the artwork successful or not? Why?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Teaching Art Criticism
37
Appendix K
Artist: Kehinde Wiley
Title: Napoleon Leads the Army Over the Alps
Year: 2005
Size: 108 in x 108 in
Medium: Oil on canvas
Teaching Art Criticism
38
Appendix L
Artist: Faith Ringgold
Title: Dancing at the Louvre
Year: 1991
Size: 73.5 in x 80 in
Medium: Acrylic on Canvas, pieced fabric border
Teaching Art Criticism
39
Appendix M
Teaching Art Criticism
40
Appendix N
Teaching Art Criticism
41
Appendix O
Teaching Art Criticism
42
Appendix P
Teaching Art Criticism
43
Appendix Q
Teaching Art Criticism
44
Appendix R
Teaching Art Criticism
45
Teaching Art Criticism
46
Appendix S