Art Department Assessment Report – 2014-15
Submitted June 2, 2015
Mission Statement
The Art Department is devoted to the study and practice of creatively solving complex problems, within the context of the visual arts and design.
We focus on each student’s educational and professional development. We maintain educational standards that ensure excellence and
leadership in art and design, art education, and art history. We prepare students to innovatively meet the ever-changing challenges of professional
practice. We provide the means for students to excel in visual arts studies.
We believe in a broad based education as the foundation upon which a discipline specific understanding is built. We provide a rich, multidisciplinary educational experience. We strive to bring our students to a broad, global perspective.
We enable students to understand historical artistic traditions and contemporary issues in art and design.
We are devoted to excellence in every level of arts education, from Foundations through graduate studies, including terminal degrees.
We are committed to excellence in instruction that is founded on professional practice and research. We build a culture of service, collaboration,
and community responsibility.
We provide visual arts studies to the university at large to help prepare all students to flourish in the creative economy.
Degree Programs
1. Bachelor of Arts in Art History
2. Bachelor of Fine Arts in Applied Media Arts (concentrations in Cinema, Graphic and Interactive Design, Photography)
3. Bachelor of Fine Arts in Studio Arts (concentrations in Ceramics, Drawing, Jewelry and Metalsmithing, Painting, Printmaking, Sculpture, Wood/Furniture
Design)
4. Bachelor of Science in Art Education
5. Master of Arts (concentration in Art Education)
6. Master of Arts (concentrations in Ceramics, Jewelry/Metalsmithing, Painting, Printmaking, Sculpture)
7. Master of Fine Arts
Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
Department: Art
History
Academic Year: 2014-15
Program: Bachelor of Arts in Art
Year
Assessed
Objective
Assessed
Direct
Measure
Direct
Measure
Results
Indirect
Measure
Indirect
Measure
Results
Proposed
Action Item
Assessment
Tool
Proposed Action Item
Program
Action
Items
Implement
ed
Objective to be Assessed
Again/Next
2014-15
Cultural
and
Historical
Contexts
Objectives
4.1-4.7
Questionnair
e scored
using rubric,
distributed
during the
2013-14
academic
year. See
Table 2.
There was no
clear
correlation
between the
respondents’
year and level
of response;
in other
words,
seniors did
not provide
stronger
responses to
questions
than
freshmen in
the program.
Honors
students
provided
stronger
answers than
non-Honors
students.
All grades
from Core
2, Required
Foreign
Language,
and
Required
World
History
classes.
A total of
4
graduatin
g
students
earned
grades in
a total of
29 Core
2,
Required
Foreign
Language
, and
Required
World
History
classes in
2013-14.
Students
scored an
average
of 3.41 in
these
courses.
None. The
assessment
tool elicited
useful
results.
Class discussion,
testing and writing
assignments should
more consistently
require students to
address cultural and
historical contexts by
relating specific artists
and works of art to
specific events in both
short answer and
narrative formats.
This survey and
testing patterns
establish that students
have particular
difficulty recalling
specific names and
dates, and
understanding/establi
shing specific
historical contexts.
This demands writing
intensive assignments
difficult in large
surveys, but might be
encouraged by
emphasizing this
approach in
discussion, review,
collaborative writing,
and short in-class
writing prompts that
are reviewed but not
graded.
We have
begun
collecting
data from
every
student in
the
program
due to the
small
sample
set, which
should
enable us
to identify
more
effectively
when and
where
deficiencie
s might
best be
addressed.
The Assessment
Committee is
collecting data for our
Professional
Proficiencies
objectives this year,
and will report on our
findings next spring.
See
Table 1
Number of
responses: 7
(53%).
Survey
administered
: April 2014.
Students
surveyed
include
Freshmen,
Sophomores,
Juniors, and
Seniors in the
Art History
program; all
majors are
assessed each
year.
Generally,
half of the
respondents
included
references to
specific
events,
artists, and
examples to
supplement
their
answers. Few
referenced
both an event
and a specific
See last
column for
more details
on our plans
for a revised
assessment
protocol.
Other areas of
weakness include
difficulty identifying
specific art criticism
Following this year, we
are planning a
complete overhaul of
our SLO assessment
protocol. We are
developing plans for
the collection of a
digital portfolio of
work from students in
the B.F.A., B.S.A.E.,
M.A. (Studio Areas)
and M.F.A. programs,
and developing plans
for an exit exam to
more effectively target
assessment of several
of our goals.
We plan to spend the
2015-16 assessment
cycle developing these
new instruments, and
to work out the
logistical challenges of
collecting portfolios
and administering
exams to every
graduating Art
student.
artist and
title in their
answers.
and theory (4.3).
More explicit
reference to critics,
criticism and theory
should be made in
course syllabi,
lectures, discussion,
and testing/writing.
The second area of
weakness is students’
abilities to both
identify and explain
artistic perspectives in
cultures other than
their own (4.5). The
major cause of this
shortcoming is
twofold: the
elimination of a
faculty position
dedicated to nonwestern art history,
and the bifurcation in
the art history
curriculum of western
and non-western
perspectives, as well as
courses predicated on
broad coverage rather
than more theme
based approaches.
Remedies for this
require revising course
content to include
global perspectives as
well as ethnic and
racial diversity.
Presenting a broad
spectrum of examples
of art and artists from
different cultures
would need to be
incorporated not only
in the art history
curriculum but would
also need to be
addressed by all areas
Following the
development of our
new protocol, we will
begin our four-year
assessment cycle again
with our Art
Production objectives
in 2016-17.
Note: The B.A. Art
History program is
currently on
moratorium. The
department is
attempting to have it
reinstated as an active
program.
across the department
and via other
assessment goals (i.e.
aesthetics and art
production).
Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
Department: Art
concentrations)
Academic Year: 2014-15
Program: Bachelor of Fine Arts in Applied Media Arts and Studio Arts (all
Year
Assesse
d
Objective
Assessed
Direct
Measure
Direct Measure
Results
Indirect
Measure
Indirect
Measure
Results
Proposed
Action Item
Assessment
Tool
Proposed
Action Item
Program
Action Items
Implemented
Objective to be
Assessed Again/Next
2014-15
Cultural
and
Historical
Contexts
Objectives
3.1-3.5
(Candidacy
and
Graduatio
n). See
Table 3
Question
naire
scored
using
rubric,
distribute
d during
the 201314
academic
year. See
Table 4.
In reviewing the
results of the
Questionnaire (See
Table 9), the
Assessment
Committee
concluded several
things. We found
that four of the
seven questions
(1,2,3,7) produced
more useful and
consistent results,
and that the
remaining three
questions were
either too general
(4) or were
confusing in the
way they were
written (5,6). We
also determined
that our objectives
should be rewritten
to increase clarity
and to better reflect
what we teach.
Grades in
all Art
History
(ARHI---)
for B.F.A.
Studio Arts
(all
concentrati
ons) and
B.F.A.
Applied
Media Arts
(all
concentrati
ons)
students
who
graduated
during the
2013-14
academic
year.
A total of
142
graduating
students
earned
grades in a
total of
833 ARHI-- courses
in 2013-14.
Students
scored an
average of
2.93 in
these
courses.
We reviewed
the
Questionnai
re questions
that elicited
less useful
results, and
determined
that there
was a
problem in
the way
these
questions
were
written. We
will work to
ensure that
questions
are targeted,
clear and
concise in
future
instruments.
The
Assessment
Committee
has
recommended
that the
department
incorporate
more reading
and writing
into our B.F.A.
programs,
specifically in
studio courses
at all levels.
Our specific
recommendati
on can be
found in
Table 5
below.
At the Art
Department’s
March 27,
2015 faculty
meeting, the
department
voted to
approve the
Assessment
Committee’s
recommendati
on. See
Table 5.
The Assessment
Committee is
collecting data for our
Professional
Proficiencies
objectives this year,
and will report on our
findings next spring.
As for the results of
questions 1,2,3 and
7, the results we see
at Graduation are
comparable to
those at Candidacy,
but significantly
lower than we see
from our
M.A./M.F.A.
students. Students
at the
See last
column for
more details
on our plans
for a revised
assessment
protocol.
Emphasize
historical and
cultural
contexts as
integral to
understanding
of art and
developments
that occur
across the art
curriculum.
From last
year’s action
items related
to our
Aesthetics and
Critical
Theory
assessment,
we have
created an ad
hoc
committee
charged with
collecting and
organizing a
list of
readings and
other
resources that
will be
accessible by
the faculty.
We are
considering
the
aforemention
Following this year, we
are planning a
complete overhaul of
our SLO assessment
protocol. We are
developing plans for
the collection of a
digital portfolio of
work from students in
the B.F.A., B.S.A.E.,
M.A. (Studio Areas)
and M.F.A. programs,
and developing plans
for an exit exam to
more effectively target
assessment of several
of our goals.
We plan to spend the
2015-16 assessment
cycle developing these
new instruments, and
to work out the
logistical challenges of
collecting portfolios
and administering
exams to every
graduating Art
student.
undergraduate level
consistently scored
below the
Acceptable level.
They had difficulty
with articulating
their ideas, and
with citing
examples of
artworks, even
from their own
concentration
areas.
ed list in lieu
of adopting a
common
reader.
The
committee
reviewed all
goals and
objectives and
revised these
to increase
clarity and to
better reflect
what we
teach. See
Table 6.
Following the
development of our
new protocol, we will
begin our four-year
assessment cycle again
with our Art
Production objectives
in 2016-17.
Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
Department: Art
(B.S.A.E.)
Academic Year: 2014-15
Program: Bachelor of Science in Art Education
Year
Assessed
Objective
Assessed
Direct
Measure
Direct
Measure
Results
Indirect
Measure
Indirect
Measure
Results
Proposed
Action Item
Assessment
Tool
Proposed
Action Item
Program
Action Items
Implemented
Objective to be Assessed Again/Next
2014-15
Cultural
and
Historical
Contexts
Objectives
3.1-3.5. See
Table 7.
Praxis Test
(Art:
Content
Knowledge
) Part II:
Historical
and
Theoretical
Foundation
s of Art.
See Table
8.
Our
Students
scored an
average of
65%
correct
answers,
compared
with a 70%
statewide
average.
All grades
in Art
History
courses
(ARHIprefix) for
B.S. in Art
Education
(BSAE)
students
who
graduated
during the
2013-14
academic
year.
A total of
15
graduatin
g students
earned
grades in
a total of
76 ARHI-- courses
in 201314.
Students
scored an
average of
3.11 in
these
courses.
See last
column for
more
details on
our plans
for a
revised
assessment
protocol.
Emphasize
historical and
cultural
contexts as
integral to
understandin
g of art and
development
s that occur
across the art
curriculum.
Valuing the
integration of
art historical
and cultural
contexts
continues to
be emphasized
in Art
Education
methods
courses and
fieldwork.
The Assessment Committee is
collecting data for our Personal
Qualities and Teaching
Competencies objectives this year,
and will report on our findings
next spring.
An
interpretati
on of this
difference
might
reveal that
historical
and
cultural
content is
too limited
with only
12 credit
hours of
required
Art History
courses,
and/or that
this
knowledge
is not being
adequately
applied or
integrated
in other art
courses.
Encourage
students to
prepare for
Praxis test
#5134.
Following this year, we are
planning a complete overhaul of
our SLO assessment protocol. We
are developing plans for the
collection of a digital portfolio of
work from students in the B.F.A.,
B.S.A.E., M.A. (Studio Areas) and
M.F.A. programs, and developing
plans for an exit exam to more
effectively target assessment of
several of our goals.
We plan to spend the 2015-16
assessment cycle developing these
new instruments, and to work out
the logistical challenges of
collecting portfolios and
administering exams to every
graduating Art student.
Following the development of our
new protocol, we will begin our
four-year assessment cycle again
with our Art Production
objectives in 2016-17.
Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
Department: Art
Education
Academic Year: 2014-15
Program: Master of Arts in Art
Year
Assessed
Objective
Assessed
Direct
Measure
Direct
Measure
Results
Indirect
Measure
Indirect
Measure
Results
2011-15
Dispositions
Student
survey at
the
beginning
of the
program
and after
three
semesters.
2011-12: 12%
decrease 1st
survey to 2nd
survey.
All grades in
all courses for
students in
the Master of
Arts in Art
Education
program.
A total of 8
graduating
students
earned grades
in a total of 71
courses in
2013-14.
Students
scored an
average of
3.92 in these
courses.
2012-13: 6%
decrease from
1st survey to
2nd survey.
13-14: 7%
decrease from
1st survey to
2nd survey.
Consistently,
student rate
themselves
higher on their
personal
qualities than
after three
semesters. We
see the
decrease as
good, as it
demonstrates
student selfawareness as
increasing.
Proposed
Action Item
Assessment
Tool
None.
Proposed
Action
Item
Program
None.
Action Items
Implemented
None.
Objective
to be
Assessed
Again/Next
All
objectives
for this
program are
assessed
each year.
2011-15
Goal 3: The
student is able
to analyze,
synthesize
and evaluate
the historical,
theoretical,
and practical
foundational
literature to
understand
the scope and
sequence of
knowledge
development
in the field of
art education
and how it
applies to the
classroom.
Student
Survey at
the
beginning
of program
and at the
end of the
program.
2011-12 .2%
increase.
2012-13 .20%
increase.
2013-14 no fall
data collected
for 2013.
Spring data
similar to
other spring
data collected.
Based on 201113, students
are showing an
increase for
this goal.
More
consistent
data collection
will help with
this.
All grades in
all courses for
students in
the Master of
Arts in Art
Education
program.
A total of 8
graduating
students
earned grades
in a total of 71
courses in
2013-14.
Students
scored an
average of
3.92 in these
courses.
Make sure
data is
collected
consistently.
We are
working on a
rubric to
apply to the
final research
project to
determine if
the
culminating
project
demonstrates
the program
goals.
None.
None.
All
objectives
for this
program are
assessed
each year.
2011-15
Goal 1: The
student is able
to analyze,
synthesize,
and evaluate
historical and
contemporary
research in art
education and
related fields
to inform
current
practices and
generate ideas
for possible
research
projects.
Student
survey at
the
beginning
of the
program
and at the
end of the
program.
2011-12: 11%
increase.
2012-13: 32%
increase.
2013-14 no fall
data collected
for 2013.
Spring data
similar to
other spring
data collected.
Based on 201113, students
are showing an
increase for
this goal.
More
consistent
data collection
will help with
this.
All grades in
all courses for
students in
the Master of
Arts in Art
Education
program.
A total of 8
graduating
students
earned grades
in a total of 71
courses in
2013-14.
Students
scored an
average of
3.92 in these
courses.
Make sure
data is
collected
consistently.
We are
working on a
rubric to
apply to the
final research
project to
determine if
the
culminating
project
demonstrates
the program
goals.
None.
None.
All
objectives
for this
program are
assessed
each year.
2011-15
Goal 2: The
student is able
to embody
desirable
characteristics
of exceptional
teachers
within the
field of art
education in
terms of
leadership
and diversity.
Student
survey at
the
beginning
of the
program
and at the
end of the
program.
2011-12: 4%
increase.
2012-13: 7%
increase.
2013-14 no fall
data collected
for 2013.
Spring data
similar to
other spring
data collected.
Based on 201113, students
are showing an
increase for
this goal.
More
consistent
data collection
will help with
this.
All grades in
all courses for
students in
the Master of
Arts in Art
Education
program.
A total of 8
graduating
students
earned grades
in a total of 71
courses in
2013-14.
Students
scored an
average of
3.92 in these
courses.
Make sure
data is
collected
consistently.
We are
working on a
rubric to
apply to the
final research
project to
determine if
the
culminating
project
demonstrates
the program
goals.
None.
None.
All
objectives
for this
program are
assessed
each year.
Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
Department: Art
Academic Year: 2014-15
Program: Master of Arts (studio concentrations)
Year
Assessed
Objective
Assessed
Direct
Measure
Direct Measure
Results
Indirect
Measure
Indirect
Measure
Results
Proposed Action
Item Assessment
Tool
Proposed
Action Item
Program
Action
Items
Impleme
nted
Objective to be Assessed
Again/Next
2014-15
Cultural
and
Historical
Contexts
Objectives
3.1-3.5
(Candidac
y and
Graduatio
n). See
Table 10.
Questionnair
e scored
using rubric,
distributed
during the
2013-14
academic
year. See
Table 4.
In reviewing the
results of the
Questionnaire
(See Table 9),
the Assessment
Committee
concluded
several things.
We found that
four of the seven
questions
(1,2,3,7)
produced more
useful and
consistent
results, and that
the remaining
three questions
were either too
general (4) or
were confusing
in the way they
were written
(5,6).
Grades in
all Art
History
(ARHI---)
courses.
A total of 1
graduatin
g student
earned
grades in
a total of
14 courses
in 201314. The
student
scored an
average of
3.82 in
these
courses.
We reviewed the
Questionnaire
questions that
elicited less
useful results,
and determined
that there was a
problem in the
way these
questions were
written. We will
work to ensure
that questions
are targeted,
clear and
concise in future
instruments.
Emphasize
historical and
cultural
contexts as
integral to
understanding
of art and
developments
that occur
across the art
curriculum.
None.
The Assessment Committee is
collecting data for our
Professional Proficiencies
objectives this year, and will
report on our findings next
spring.
As for the
results of
questions 1,2,3
and 7, these
were consistent
with those of our
M.F.A. students
– ranging from
acceptable to
meeting our
target.
Note: we had
just one student
in the M.A.
(Painting)
Following this year, we are
planning a complete overhaul
of our SLO assessment
protocol. We are developing
plans for the collection of a
digital portfolio of work from
students in the B.F.A.,
B.S.A.E., M.A. (Studio Areas)
and M.F.A. programs, and
developing plans for an exit
exam to more effectively
target assessment of several
of our goals.
We plan to spend the 2015-16
assessment cycle developing
these new instruments, and to
work out the logistical
challenges of collecting
portfolios and administering
exams to every graduating Art
student.
Following the development of
our new protocol, we will
begin our four-year
assessment cycle again with
our Art Production objectives
in 2016-17.
program last
year.
Student Learning Outcomes Assessment
Department: Art
Academic Year: 2014-15
Program: Master of Fine Arts (all concentrations)
Year
Assessed
Objective
Assessed
Direct
Measure
Direct Measure
Results
Indirect
Measure
Indirect
Measure
Results
Proposed
Action Item
Assessment
Tool
Proposed
Action Item
Program
Action Items
Implemented
Objective to be Assessed
Again/Next
2014-15
Cultural
and
Historical
Contexts
Objectives
3.1-3.5
(Candidacy
and
Graduation)
. See Table
10.
Questionna
ire scored
using
rubric,
distributed
during the
2013-14
academic
year. See
Table 4.
In reviewing the
results of the
Questionnaire (See
Table 9), the
Assessment
Committee
concluded several
things. We found
that four of the
seven questions
(1,2,3,7) produced
more useful and
consistent results,
and that the
remaining three
questions were
either too general
(4) or were
confusing in the
way they were
written (5,6).
Grades in
all Art
History
(ARHI---)
courses
and
Graduate
Seminar
(ART700/
701/702)
courses.
A total of
3
graduatin
g
students
earned
grades in
a total of
9 courses
in 201314. The
student
scored an
average
of 3.78 in
these
courses.
We reviewed
the
Questionnaire
questions that
elicited less
useful results,
and
determined
that there was
a problem in
the way these
questions
were written.
We will work
to ensure that
questions are
targeted, clear
and concise in
future
instruments.
Emphasize
historical and
cultural
contexts as
integral to
understanding
of art and
developments
that occur
across the art
curriculum.
For students
with
concentration
s in Metals,
Painting,
Printmaking,
and Sculpture,
we have begun
to ensure that
9 credits out
of the 30
credit
concentration
be taught as
Individualized
Instruction in
order to meet
NASAD
(National
Association of
Schools of Art
and Design)
requirements.
The Assessment
Committee is collecting
data for our Professional
Proficiencies objectives
this year, and will report
on our findings next
spring.
As for the results of
questions 1,2,3 and
7, these
consistently
exceeded the
undergraduate
scores, and ranged
from acceptable to
nearly meeting our
target.
Following this year, we
are planning a complete
overhaul of our SLO
assessment protocol.
We are developing plans
for the collection of a
digital portfolio of work
from students in the
B.F.A., B.S.A.E., M.A.
(Studio Areas) and
M.F.A. programs, and
developing plans for an
exit exam to more
effectively target
assessment of several of
our goals.
We plan to spend the
2015-16 assessment
cycle developing these
new instruments, and to
work out the logistical
challenges of collecting
portfolios and
administering exams to
every graduating Art
student.
Following the
development of our new
protocol, we will begin
our four-year
assessment cycle again
with our Art Production
objectives in 2016-17.