Chabot College Program Review Report 2015 ‐2016 Year 3 of Program Review Cycle Art History Submitted on: October 24, 2014 Contact: Diane Zuliani 1 Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course‐Level Assessment Reflections PART IA: COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTSFOR ARTH 4 ANCIENT THROUGH GOTHIC ART Course Semester assessment data gathered Number of sections offered in the semester Number of sections assessed Percentage of sections assessed Art History 4 Spring 2014 1 1 100% of sections assessed 100% of students assessed Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Fall 2014 Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion Diane Zuliani, Dr. Amy Raymond Defined Target Actual Scores** CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE Scores* (these were NOT NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE) (CLO Goal) entered into eLumen but are available upon request) Percentage of 70 % of (CLO) 1:Communicate to advantage the cultural
content/significance of historical artwork from prehistory through students score students who met the pre-Greek period. 2, 3, or 4 (meet the CLO: 84.8% the CLO) Percentage of 70 % of (CLO) 2:Communicate to advantage the cultural
students who met content/significance of historical art from ancient Greece through students score the Gothic period. 2, 3, or 4 (meet the CLO: 87.9% the CLO) Percentage of (CLO) 3:Respond critically to original examples of ancient art or 70 % of modern interpretations of ancient architecture found in the Bay
students who met students score Area, including the Chabot Art Gallery. 2, 3, or 4 (meet the CLO: 90.9% the CLO) 2 PART 1B: COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS FOR ARTH 6TWENTIETH AND TWENTY‐FIRST CENTURY ART Course Semester assessment data gathered Number of sections offered in the semester Number of sections assessed Percentage of sections assessed Art History 6 Fall 2013 1 1 100% of sections assessed 100% of students assessed Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Fall 2014 Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion Diane Zuliani, Dr. Kevin Muller CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE) (CLO) 1: DIFFERENTIATE MAJOR TWENTIETH AND TWENTY‐
FIRST CENTURY ART MOVEMENTS BASED ON VISUAL EVIDENCE. (CLO) 2: INTERPRET TO ADVANTAGE THE VISUAL QUALITIES OF TWENTIETH‐CENTURY ART. (CLO) 3: INTERPRET TWENTIETH‐CENTURY ART MOVEMENTS IN HISTORICAL CONTEXT. 3 Defined Target Scores* (CLO Goal) 70 % of students score 2, 3, or 4 (meet the CLO) 70 % of students score 2, 3, or 4 (meet the CLO) 70 % of students score 2, 3, or 4 (meet the CLO) Actual Scores** (These were NOT entered into eLumen but are available upon request) Percentage of students who met the CLO: 94% Percentage of students who met the CLO: 92% Percentage of students who met the CLO: 94% PART 1C: COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS FOR ARTH 50 INTRODUCTION TO MUSEUM AND GALLERY TECHNIQUES Course Semester assessment data gathered Number of sections offered in the semester Number of sections assessed Percentage of sections assessed Art History 50 Fall 2013 1 1 100% of sections assessed 100% of students assessed Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion Fall 2014 Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop” discussion Diane Zuliani, Erica Mones CONSIDER THE COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY (THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE) Defined Target Scores* (CLO Goal) (CLO) 1: DEMONSTRATE ABILITY TO ACT AS GALLERY DOCENT. 70 % of students score 2, 3, or 4 (meet the CLO) 70 % of students score 2, 3, or 4 (meet the CLO) (CLO) 2: DEMONSTRATE BASIC MUSEUM AND ART GALLERY TECHNIQUES Actual Scores** (These were not entered into eLumen but are available upon request) Percentage of students who met the CLO: 85.71% Percentage of students who met the CLO: 100% RED FLAG! (CLO) 3: DISCUSS CONTENT AND MEANING IN THE WORK OF EXHIBITED ARTISTS 4 70 % of students score 2, 3, or 4 (meet the CLO) Percentage of students who met the CLO: 85.71% 4 PART IIA: COURSE‐ LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONSFOR ARTH ANCIENT THROUGH GOTHIC ART A. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Current CLO 1 score exceeds the target for student success. 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Art History faculty have determined current CLO 1 and assessment target is appropriate. B. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Current CLO 2 score exceeds the target for student success. 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Art History faculty have determined current CLO 2 and assessment target is appropriate. C. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3: 1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Current CLO 3 score exceeds the target for student success. 2. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Art History faculty have determined current CLO 3 and assessment target is appropriate. 5 6 PART IIB: COURSE‐ LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONSFOR ARTH TWENTIETH AND TWENTY‐FIRST CENTURY ART C. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: 3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Current CLO 1 score exceeds the target for student success. 4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Art History faculty have determined current CLO 1 and assessment target is appropriate. D. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: 3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Current CLO 2 scoreexceeds the target for student success. 4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Art History faculty have determined current CLO 2 and assessment target is appropriate. C. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3: 3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Current CLO 3 score exceeds the target for student success. 4. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Art History faculty have determined current CLO 3 and assessment target is appropriate. 6 50 PART IIC: COURSE‐ LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONSFOR ARTH INTRODUCTION TO MUSEUM AND GALLERY TECHNIQUES E. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1: 5. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Current CLO 1 score exceeds the target for student success. 6. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Art History faculty have determined current CLO 1 and assessment target is appropriate. F. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2: 5. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? This CLO indicates a RED FLAG.Current CLO 2 score exceeds the target for student success to an unrealistically high degree. 6. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? The achievement of students to a “perfect” degree—100 percent success—in CLO 2 indicates a problem. When this CLO was written, the term “basic techniques” was used to mean a variety of elementary techniques. Without funding to replenish materials used up each semester or for new materials to mount exhibits of a greater variety (different weights, scales, media) “basic” has come to mean repetitive. As a result, 100% of students are able to meet this CLO—“demonstrate basic techniques”—from which we conclude the target is too low. The target can be raised only if students can be challenged to apply hands‐on practice in a greater range of techniques. Raising the target means the gallery has the budget to put new tools and materials in the hands of students. C. COURSE‐LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3: 5. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in this course level outcome? Current CLO 3 score exceeds the target for student success. 6. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and insights do you have? Art History faculty have determined current CLO 3 and assessment target is appropriate. 7 PART IIIA: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANSFOR ARTH 4 ANCIENT THROUGH GOTHIC ART 1. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions? No specific changes were identified for ARTH 4 in the previous assessment cycle. CLOs and their assessments were determined to be appropriate. Nevertheless, art history faculty often make changes to their courses quickly and based on real‐time observation, changes which are not necessarily formalized in the Program Review process. For example, the instructor for this course, Dr. Amy Raymond, made a thoughtful change to the format of her Spring 2014 ARTH 4 examinations based on her first experience teaching the course (the section assessed, ARTH 4, Fall 2013). Her change was to include multiple‐choice questions in addition to image identification and short‐essay questions on the exam. Dr. Raymond describes her motive for making the change as “creating an opportunity toreward students who are able to synthesize the textbook content with the lecture content.” The addition of multiple choice questions is also a change Diane Zuliani made a few years ago, for the same reason stated by Dr. Raymond, as well as for the purpose of relieving anxiety in students who are intimidated by essay‐heavy exams. 2. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course‐level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights? The change to the ARTH 4 examination format is current to this semester and has not yet been assessed. 3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)? Pedagogical Change to assessment methods 8 PART IIIB: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANSFOR ARTH 6 TWENTIETH AND TWENTY‐FIRST CENTURY ART 1. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions? No specific changes were identified for ARTH 6 in the previous cycle. In this cycle, however, Art history faculty discussed the overall very high success rates in ARTH 6. We learned that the course instructor, Dr. Kevin Muller, experiences a higher rate of withdrawals than art history faculty teaching other courses generally do. After discussing why, we attributed the withdrawals to Dr. Muller’s requirement of a museum visit very early in the semester, which some students are not willing to do, and also possibly to the fact that he is a male instructor and perhaps perceived by students as more strict than the female instructors, though he is actually more lenient than his female colleagues in accepting late work and giving alternative assignments. In any case, because lower‐scoring students tend to drop his course, Dr. Muller’s high success rates for course outcomes are fitting. 2. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course‐level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights? Diane Zuliani and Dr. Muller have discussed the CLOs and may possibly rewrite them justfor better clarity. 3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)? Possible change to CLO or rubric 9 PART IIIC: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANSFOR ARTH 50 INTRODUCTION TO MUSEUM AND GALLERY TECHNIQUES 1. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment cycle, the prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions? Ongoing faculty discussions about the art gallery have increased our commitment to gain much lacking parity between this cultural/learning/lab facility and many other facilities across campus in the form of an operating budget and reassigned time for a coordinator. Without a coordinator to manage aspects of this complex laboratory, the art gallery’s capacity to serve museum studies students is lessened, and its capacity to serve the college and the community is severely limited(see Part A, Appendix A, Appendix B Part IC & IIC, Appendix C1, Appendix E1, Appendix E2, Appendix F1, Appendix F3). Secondarily, in an interest to improve student success and the student experience overall, the instructor for this course, Erica Mones, made a thoughtful change to the format of her Fall 2014 ARTH 50 which involved providing students with two extra credit opportunities. Ms. Mones had noticed that, with the overall drop in the number of late afternoon and evening courses offered by the college, student schedules are growing increasingly compressed, with the result that museum studies students havea difficult time fulfilling gallery sitting hours outside of class time. Because gallery sitting is both an educational opportunity and is critical to the gallery’s accessibility to visitors,Ms. Mones allowed students who did have time in their schedule to sign up for additional shifts for extra credit. Forthose students whose schedules would not accommodate gallery sitting, she offered a different kind of extra credit assignment, so they could back‐fill those points they lost for not gallery sitting. Ms. Mones recognized the need for this change to the syllabus and the student requirements, and the result of her change to the syllabus has been a recognition of students’ unavoidable scheduling conflicts as well as an attempt to ensure gallery access. With reassigned time for gallery coordination, the ongoing problem of gallery access would be improved through expanded staffing. 2. Based on the current assessment and reflections, what course‐level and programmatic strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? What actions has your discipline determined might be taken as a result of your reflections, discussions, and insights? Reassigned time for gallery coordination and an ongoing operating budget areimperative for reliable functioning of the art gallery as an educational facility used by students and enjoyed by the campus and community overall. 3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?  Resource‐based 10 Appendix C1: Program Learning Outcomes for MUSEUM STUDIES Considering your feedback, findings, and/or information that has arisen from the course level discussions, please reflect on each of your Program Level Outcomes. Program: MUSEUM STUDIES PLO #1: Develop an understanding and appreciation for the important social and cultural functions of museums of all types. PLO #2: Acquire and practice the skills needed by a range of museum professionals. What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions? As an unfunded and uncoordinatedstudent lab, the art gallery cannot provide adequately varied opportunities and thus offers limited career training. As a campus facility, the art gallery cannot live up to its potential for cultural engagement and arts‐based learning without a coordinator and areliable operating budget.See Part A, Appendix A, Appendix B Part IC & IIC, Appendix C1, Appendix E1, Appendix E2, Appendix F1, Appendix F3. What program‐level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? The program level strengths are primarily the faculty themselves, who provide students with a rigorous (if repetitive) hands‐on museum experience despite no funds for new materials. These faculty are masters of recycling, but keeping old materials on hand (especially large sheets of plywood used for many previous projects) takes up so much space that our storage area has shrunk to the point of unworkability. What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students completing your program? Discipline faculty are committed to seeing the gallery coordinated and funded so the students’ experience is supported—as it is in laboratory facilities across campus—with the necessary supplies and equipment (and their replenishment). We want the program to provide appropriately varied hands‐on experiences. We also want students to have the lasting impression (through marketing, pleasant openings, etc.), that the college sees value in their exhibits. 11 Appendix C2: Program Learning Outcomes for ART HISTORY Considering your feedback, findings, and/or information that has arisen from the course level discussions, please reflect on each of your Program Level Outcomes. Program: ART HISTORY PLO #1: Develop the ability to interpret artistic content through the analysis of subject matter and form. PLO #2: Acquire a critical understanding of art in historical eras that accounts for changing cultural frameworks over time. What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions? Our newest “Best Practice” is the product of collaboration meetings between all art history lecturers (Dr. Kevin Muller, Dr. Amy Raymond, and Diane Zuliani) throughout Fall 2014. This best practice became a priority after we saw a need to create some basic shared logic in our introductory gateway course, ARTH 1. We will initiate our standards beginning in Spring of 2015. This initiative is intended to establish minimum discipline standards for both faculty and students in the introductory level ARTH 1, “Introduction to Art.” The standards are as follows (for more information, see Appendix E6):  a minimum of 50% of ARTH 1 is to address artwork made by women and non‐white artists, to ensure inclusivity;  a minimum of 20% of ARTH 1 is to be presented in a case study format, ensuring depth of analysis;  a minimum 20% of ARTH 1 is to cover twenty‐first century artwork, to ensure relevance;  a minimum of 8 pages (preferably 10 pages) of student writing is to be submitted and graded.  all faculty teaching ARTH 1 will convene at regular times to provide evidence of meeting these standards. Additionally, art history faculty have discussed what we are each doing to achieve these program outcomes. As a group, we agree philosophically that the best means of ensuring successful program outcomes is to always keep art objects as the primary focus of our instruction. Theoretical frameworks can be helpful, but each Chabot art historian takes an object‐based approach to teaching, empowering students to rely on their own careful visual assessment of the art object itself—the most authoritative primary document there is‐‐as the best means of understanding the content of art in a historical content. This is quite a fortunate circumstance, as many art historians take a theory‐first approach. Chabot art historians make a symbiotic team.
What program‐level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed? The program strength is the faculty, and their commitment to best practices, discipline and pedagogical standards, and object‐based learning in order to help the diverse body of Chabot students capitalize on their own strengths to become more visually, historically, and critically astute. What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students completing your program? 12 We have discussed the need to meet more frequently, especially now that that the art history program is degree‐granting. We would like to meet more often to discuss strategies for promoting the degree, to teach best practices, to provide evidence of meeting best practices, to share effective classroom activities and classroom issues, to share news from the art‐world, etc., but this can be difficult when seventy‐five percent of the art history faculty are part‐time and can’t be on campus at the same time. Still, the current faculty are committed to success and we do meet as often as is feasible. 13