ART HISTORY CLOS & LOOP CLOSURE
Spring 2015
Submitted by:
Diane Zuliani
Dr. Kevin Muller
Dr. Amy Raymond
Erica Mones
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course-Level Assessment
Reflections.
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop”
discussion
ARTH 5
SPRING 2014
2
2
100%
SPRING 2015
Diane Zuliani, Dr. Amy Raymond
Form Instructions:
 Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course-Level assessment reported
in this Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student
Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule.
 Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in
aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.
 Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the
individual CLO.
 Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on
the course as a whole.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY
(THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
(CLO) 1:
70 % of students
score 2, 3, or 4
(meet the CLO)
Percentage of
students who met
the CLO: 87.5%
(CLO) 2:
70 % of students
score 2, 3, or 4
(meet the CLO)
Percentage of
students who met
the CLO: 89.16%
Communicate to advantage the cultural
content/significance of historical artwork from the
Modern period and later.
Communicate to advantage the cultural
content/significance of historical artwork from the
proto-Renaissance through the pre-Modern period.
(CLO) 3:
Identify and establish an argument for the art historical
origins of original artwork found in Bay Area museums.
70 % of students
score 2, 3, or 4
(meet the CLO)
Percentage of
students who met
the CLO: 90.69%
(CLO) 4:
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate
success for this CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on
the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
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?
CLO 1 scores exceed the projected 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 projected 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?
CLO 2 scores exceed the projected 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 projected 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?
CLO 3 scores exceed the projected 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 projected assessment target is
appropriate.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4:
1. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in
this course level outcome?
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?
E. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED.
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
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 5 in the previous assessment cycle.
CLOs and their assessments were determined to be appropriate.
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?
No actions have been identified. ARTH 5 CLOs appear to assess appropriately
and targets appear appropriate as well.
3. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular
 Pedagogical




Resource based
Change to CLO or rubric
Change to assessment methods
Other:_________________________________________________________________
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course-Level Assessment
Reflections.
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop”
discussion
ARTH 7
SPRING 2014
1
1
100%
SPRING 2015
Diane Zuliani, Dr. Kevin Muller
Form Instructions:
 Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course-Level assessment reported
in this Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student
Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule.
 Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in
aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.
 Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the
individual CLO.
 Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on
the course as a whole.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY
(THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
(CLO) 1: Differentiate trends in American Art.
70 % of students
score 2, 3, or 4
(meet the CLO)
Percentage of
students who met
the CLO: 100%
(CLO) 2: Interpret American art in historical context
70 % of students
score 2, 3, or 4
(meet the CLO)
Percentage of
students who met
the CLO: 93%
(CLO) 3: Interpret to advantage the visual qualities of
70 % of students
score 2, 3, or 4
(meet the CLO)
Percentage of
students who met
the CLO: 93%
American art.
(CLO) 4:
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate
success for this CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on
the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
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?
CLO 1 scores exceed the projected 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 projected 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?
CLO 2 scores exceed the projected 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 projected 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?
CLO 3 scores exceed the projected 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 projected assessment target is
appropriate.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4:
3. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in
this course level outcome?
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?
E. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED.
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
4. 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 5 in the previous assessment cycle.
CLOs and their assessments were determined to be appropriate.
Nevertheless, art history faculty make unplanned changes to their courses—
quickly and based on real-time observation—far more often than those changes
formally noted in these annual CLO assessments and reflections.
In his Spring 2014 section of ARTH 7, Dr. Muller made a significant, unplanned
change to the course. In the past, Dr. Muller’s students were incentivized to take
thorough class notes because they were allowed to use their notes during
exams. This policy was much appreciated by students, and Dr. Muller reported
that the quality of exams was better for it because students responded to exam
questions with greater specificity.
Unfortunately, as time has progressed, Dr. Muller reports noticing that while
students may have an incentive to take good notes, they seem to be losing the
ability to do so. Note-taking skills within each new crop of students are
degrading. Dr. Muller attributes this weakening of skills to the national shift
towards a model of K-12 education where “teaching to the test” forces a false
binary in which every question has one given answer, and the goal of
“education” is getting from question to answer with little to no attention to the
“why” of the answer, which requires the thoughtful processing of information
through research, contemplation, case-building, and argument.
Realizing his students weren’t taking adequate notes to help them see the “why”
of their answers, Dr. Muller altered the nature of his course drastically, cutting
his lecture time by half and supplanting it with a daily worksheet exercise based
on the current lecture topics. After a shorter-than-usual lecture, students now
work in groups to fill out the worksheets. These worksheets are timeconsuming to produce and time-consuming to review, but this is Dr. Muller’s
solution to the decline in note-taking skills that he has witnessed.
The worksheets were a success. Just as his shift to worksheets was getting
underway, Dr. Muller underwent his standard three-year evaluation, and his
students reported that they were grasping the material more fully and that they
appreciated the way the worksheets helped them process information. They
also felt they did better on exams when they could refer to completed
worksheets instead of their own less-thorough, less well-organized class notes.
One side effect of the worksheet is that Dr. Muller is unable to cover nearly as
much art-historical territory as he once could. With lecture cut down to fifty
percent of what it was, he covers less ground with students, but finds they learn
the landscape much more effectively.
5. 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?
Dr. Muller plans to implement the worksheet strategy into all of his Chabot
lecture classes, not just ARTH 7. These have not yet been assessed.
6. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Curricular
 Pedagogical
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course-Level Assessment
Reflections.
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop”
discussion
ARTH 20
FALL 2014
1
1
100%
SPRING 2015
Diane Zuliani, Dr. Kevin Muller
Form Instructions:
 Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course-Level assessment reported
in this Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student
Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule.
 Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in
aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.
 Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the
individual CLO.
 Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on
the course as a whole.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY
(THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
(CLO) 1: Given the sample provided, identify its period
70 % of students
score 2, 3, or 4
(meet the CLO)
Percentage of
students who met
the CLO: 55.5%
(CLO) 2: Specify the specific technical, historic, and
70 % of students
score 2, 3, or 4
(meet the CLO)
Percentage of
students who met
the CLO: 89.6%
(CLO) 3: Specify the specific technical, historic, and
70 % of students
score 2, 3, or 4
(meet the CLO)
Percentage of
students who met
the CLO: 84.3%
(technical processes).
artistic issues of photography in the 19th century.
artistic issues of photography in the 20th century.
(CLO) 4:
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate
success for this CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on
the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
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?
CLO 1 scores fell below the projected 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?
Nearly half of students in this course performed below the target level for CLO 1,
which asked them to identify nineteenth century photographs by their technical
processes. The low outcome, which was assessed just prior to the middle of the
semester, came as a surprise to the instructor (Diane Zuliani) and the students alike.
To understand the reason for the low outcome, Zuliani questioned her students. She
asked the class as a whole to describe its impression of the assessment and explain
why, if they performed poorly, that they thought they were unable to identify
photographs by their technical processes. The class gave consistent answers. They
uniformly agreed that the assessment was fair—they agreed that it accurately matched
the course content (in general) and their study guide (specifically)—but that many
simply had not studied adequately. Although they acknowledged that they had been
told in class what they would be required to know and do for the assessment—and
were given a guide to follow when preparing for it (and strongly encouraged to use
it)—many said they didn’t read their chapters or use the guide. Students expressed
the sentiment that they were very busy with midterms exams and work, and so didn’t
read the pertinent book chapters or utilize their study guide.
Based on these low outcomes, Zuliani reviewed the technical processes before moving
on to the next course topic.
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?
CLO 2 scores exceed the projected 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?
After the low outcomes of CLO 1 and the class discussion about it, students’
performance picked up immediately. They clearly got the message that they need to
put in adequate study time to achieve course goals. From that point on, CLO scores
exceeded projected targets.
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?
CLO 3 scores exceed the projected 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?
As per the reflection of CLO 1 and CLO 2 above, student performance from this point
on exceeded projected targets because students recognized the need to put in
adequate study time and use their study guides.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4:
5. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in
this course level outcome?
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?
E. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED.
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
7. 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 5 in the previous assessment cycle.
CLOs and their assessments were determined to be appropriate. Despite the fact
that the success target was not met for CLO 1, faculty still feel CLO 1 and its
assessment is appropriate, since the student explanations pointed to their own lack
of studying, not a problem with content delivery or course management, as
responsible for their poor performance on the assessment.
8. 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?
Zuliani is considering implementing the worksheet model developed by Dr.
Muller in ARTH 20, and perhaps in all her lecture courses. There is no
absolutely compelling reason to make this change—students generally exceed
their outcome goals and Zuliani’s courses have high enrollment, retention, and
continuity rates, but Dr. Muller’s success with his worksheets is compelling.
This would be a drastic change to her current mode of content delivery, and
would have the downside of allowing her to cover far less material, but…it’s
being taken under consideration.
9. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?


Curricular
Pedagogical
Appendix B2: “Closing the Loop” Course-Level Assessment
Reflections.
Course
Semester assessment data gathered
Number of sections offered in the semester
Number of sections assessed
Percentage of sections assessed
Semester held “Closing the Loop” discussion
Faculty members involved in “Closing the Loop”
discussion
ARTH 51
SPRING 2014
1
1
100% of sections assessed
SPRING 2015
Diane Zuliani, Erica Mones
Form Instructions:
 Complete a separate Appendix B2 form for each Course-Level assessment reported
in this Program Review. These courses should be listed in Appendix B1: Student
Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule.
 Part I: CLO Data Reporting. For each CLO, obtain Class Achievement data in
aggregate for all sections assessed in eLumen.
 Part II: CLO Reflections. Based on student success reported in Part I, reflect on the
individual CLO.
 Part III: Course Reflection. In reviewing all the CLOs and your findings, reflect on
the course as a whole.
PART I: COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES – DATA RESULTS
CONSIDER THE COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOMES INDIVIDUALLY
(THE NUMBER OF CLOS WILL DIFFER BY COURSE)
Defined Target
Scores*
(CLO Goal)
Actual Scores**
(eLumen data)
(CLO) 1: Articulate to advantage the history of
70 % of students
score 2, 3, or 4
(meet the CLO)
Percentage of
students who met
the CLO: 91%
(CLO) 2: Differentiate duties of museum professionals.
70 % of students
score 2, 3, or 4
(meet the CLO)
Percentage of
students who met
the CLO: 83%
(CLO) 3: Implement to advantage proper museum-
70 % of students
score 2, 3, or 4
(meet the CLO)
Percentage of
students who met
the CLO: 91%
museums.
specific skills.
(CLO) 4:
 If more CLOs are listed for the course, add another row to the table.
* Defined Target Scores: What scores in eLumen from your students would indicate
success for this CLO? (Example: 75% of the class scored either 3 or 4)
**Actual scores: What is the actual percent of students that meet defined target based on
the eLumen data collected in this assessment cycle?
PART II: COURSE- LEVEL OUTCOME REFLECTIONS
G. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 1:
7. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in
this course level outcome?
CLO 1 scores exceed the projected target for student success.
8. 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 projected assessment target is
appropriate.
H. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 2:
7. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in
this course level outcome?
CLO 2 scores exceed the projected target for student success.
8. 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 projected assessment target is
appropriate.
C. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 3:
7. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in
this course level outcome?
CLO 3 scores exceed the projected target for student success.
8. 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 projected assessment target is
appropriate.
D. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 4:
7. How do your current scores match with your above target for student success in
this course level outcome?
8. Reflection: Based on the data gathered, and considering your teaching
experiences and your discussions with other faculty, what reflections and
insights do you have?
E. COURSE-LEVEL OUTCOME (CLO) 5: ADD IF NEEDED.
PART III: COURSE REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE PLANS
10. What changes were made to your course based on the previous assessment
cycle, the prior Closing the Loop reflections and other faculty discussions?
Coordinating gallery programming outside of class time—which is required for the
gallery’s success as a campus facility—continues to be an issue. Erica Mones reports that,
just as with the Spring 2013 section of ARTH 51, Spring 14 students met their SLO
targets and the course met the COR, but the gallery continued to suffer as a facility
without an operating budget and reassigned time for a coordinator to manage the facility
and its programming. One particular problem Erica faces in ARTH 51 is finding ways to
ensure that the gallery is staffed outside of class-time, which is a basic requirement if the
gallery is to have daily visiting hours for the campus and public.
11. 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
are imperative for reliable functioning of the art gallery as an educational
facility used by students and enjoyed by the campus and community
overall.
12. What is the nature of the planned actions (please check all that apply)?
 Resource based
Appendix C: Program Learning Outcomes
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.

PLO #3: none

PLO #4: none
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or
discussions?
Currently, Art History faculty are primarily concerned with PLO #2. As an unfunded and
uncoordinated student 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 a
reliable operating budget.
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.
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 and
accessibility 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 existing 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?
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.