Annual Assessment Report to the College 2010-11
College: _______MCCAMC__________
Department: ____ART__________________
Program: _____BA in Art______________
Note: Please submit your report to (1) the director of academic assessment, (2) your department chair or program coordinator and (3) the
Associate Dean of your College by September 30, 2011. You may submit a separate report for each program which conducted assessment
activities.
Liaison: __Dr. Lynette K. Henderson__
1. Overview of Annual Assessment Project(s)
1a. Assessment Process Overview: Provide a brief overview of the intended plan to assess the program this year. Is assessment under the
oversight of one person or a committee?
Assessment was planned and implemented by the Art Dept. liaison and the two primary tenured professors of the gateway and capstone course.
However, during the Spring 2011 semester, an Assessment Committee was formed in the Art department that helped analyze data collected
during the year. That analysis contributed to the findings in this report.
The plan was to utilize data collected through participation in the University’s Simplifying Assessment project, which focused on a signature
assignment given to gateway and capstone courses. Those assignments were collected in Fall 2010 and Spring 2011, and were posted on the
Simplifying Assessment repository site. The signature assignments collected from the Fall 2010’s gateway course were analyzed during the
summer of 2011; data from the capstone courses will be analyzed during the Fall 2011 semester.
The signature assignment was the same for both gateway and capstone, for the purpose of making a comparison between levels of
understanding, to gauge students’ knowledge base and skills in problem-solving in the second half of the program (post-foundation). The
Program SLOs used were Critical Thinking and Basic Skills. Since the art department program SLO’s are multi-faceted, partial elements of each
were ultilized for this assessment. Students were asked to analyze a work of art of their choice (The options varied from section to section). They
wrote three paragraphs in which they identified concepts and ideas in the artwork, named the appropriate elements and principles of design
July 18, 2011, Bonnie Paller
used, and described how those were used to problem-solve in creating the image. Student PDFs included the artwork analyzed and three
accompanying paragraphs, which were uploaded to the repository site. Assessment was done by analyzing a selection of PDFs from the 4
sections collected. The number of documents in the selection was determined by the liaison, after previewing the 4 sections of uploaded
documents and consulting with the committee.
The assignment was collected at the end of Spring 2011; just before the semester ended. The assessment committee went through a norming
process with several of the collected assignments, to agree on application of the rubric. Then each member (there were 4 of us) analyzed the
selections using the rubric over the summer break. We reconvened in Fall 2011 to discuss our combined findings, looking at discrepancies in our
analysis and discussing recommendations for changing the next signature assignment, as well as modifying the assessment process. The specific
assignment and implementation for the 2011-2012 assessment of gateway will be based on those recommendations.
The 5-year plan submitted in spring 2011 continues the use of gateway and capstone courses in alternate years. It is to be noted that the BA in
Art is currently undergoing restructuring and many courses are being modified within the various art disciplines.
SIGNATURE ASSIGNMENT: developed by Assessment Liaison and Art 200 primary Instructor
Write a three-paragraph reflection paper on one of the following:
1) your cover design for your final booklet; OR
2) you can choose a work of 2D art or design made after the year 1900. This choice can be a painting, an advertisement, a design, even a
frame from a movie.
Paragraph 1
Describe your cover or artwork in writing - refer to the elements & principles used in it’s design as well as what is depicted. [Elements of
art: line, shape, color, value, space, texture. Principles of design: unity, variety, repetition, movement, balance, rhythm, focal point].
Paragraph 2.
Using the Features in Modern Representing chart, categorize the artwork/design you chose. Which project from the semester is most
similar to the work you are analyzing? What features make it similar? What are some of the potential meanings of this creative
approach? If the artwork does not seem to match any of the categories on the chart, describe how it is different.
July 18, 2011, Bonnie Paller
Paragraph 3.
Describe how the features and potential meanings you discussed in paragraph two are used to communicate an idea, emotion and/or
other qualities. Add your own observations/analysis of the meaning of the artwork/design. Refer to other similar art or design images
through online research to support your analysis.
RUBRIC FOR VISUAL ART ASSESSMENT 2010-2011.
Date:____________________________________
ART 200 & ART 438, Signature Assignment: Reflection.
Assessor Name:___________________________
FILE NAME:_____________________________
Categories and Criteria Descriptors
Scoring Scale (1-5)
Identification
Interpretation
Problem Solving
EXCELLENT - 5
Excellent identification and
explanation of concepts and ideas.
Concepts and ideas are exceptionally
stated and elaborated upon.
Concepts and ideas are directly
related to each other.
Excellent interpretation of the
composition using elements and
principles of design. Excellent use of art
vocabulary. Thorough and complete
interpretation of composition. Excellent
reference of image and content to
support interpretation.
Excellent discussion of visual problemsolving solutions that combine concepts,
ideas and images. Excellent use of
compositional elements and principles to
reinforce concepts and ideas.
.
GOOD – 4
Good identification and explanation
of concepts and ideas. Concepts and
ideas are well stated and elaborated
upon. Concepts and ideas are well
related to each other.
Good interpretation of the composition
using elements and principles of design.
Appropriate use of art vocabulary.
Reasonable interpretation of
composition. Good reference of image
and content to support interpretation.
Good discussion of visual problemsolving solutions that combine concepts,
ideas and images. Good use of
compositional elements and principles to
reinforce concepts and ideas.
SATISFACTORY - 3
Satisfactory identification and
explanation of concepts and ideas.
Concepts and ideas are satisfactorily
stated and elaborated upon.
Concepts and ideas are satisfactorily
Satisfactory interpretation of the
composition using elements and
principles of design. Satisfactory use of art
vocabulary. Satisfactory interpretation of
composition. Satisfactory reference of
Satisfactory discussion of visual problemsolving solutions that combine concepts,
ideas and images. Satisfactory use of
compositional elements and principles to
reinforce concepts and ideas.
July 18, 2011, Bonnie Paller
related to each other.
image and content to support
interpretation.
MINIMAL - 2
Minimal identification and
explanation of concepts and ideas.
Concepts and ideas are minimally
stated and elaborated upon.
Concepts and ideas are minimally
related to each other.
Minimal interpretation of the
composition using elements and
principles of design. Minimal use of art
vocabulary. Minimal interpretation of
composition. Minimal reference of image
and content to support interpretation.
Minimal discussion of visual problemsolving solutions that combine concepts,
ideas and images. Minimal use of
compositional elements and principles to
reinforce concepts and ideas.
UNACCEPTABLE - 1
Little or no identification and
explanation of concepts and ideas.
Concepts and ideas are not clearly
stated and elaborated upon.
Concepts and ideas are unrelated to
each other.
Little or no interpretation of the
composition using elements and
principles of design. Little or no use of art
vocabulary. Little or no interpretation of
composition. Little or no reference of
image and content to support
interpretation.
Little or no discussion of visual problemsolving solutions that combine concepts,
ideas and images. Little or no use of
compositional elements and principles to
reinforce concepts and ideas.
CATEGORY SCORES:
Identification_________ Interpretation__________ Problem Solving__________
SAMPLE STUDETN ASSIGNMENT COLLECTED FROM ART 200: PDF of artwork and accompanying analysis.
Includes page 1 and 2 below.
July 18, 2011, Bonnie Paller
July 18, 2011, Bonnie Paller
1b. Implementation and Modifications: Did the actual assessment process deviate from what was intended? If so, please describe any
modification to your assessment process and why it occurred.
After previewing the four uploaded sections of the gateway documents, it was determined that in 2 of the sections the instructor had not
correctly administered the assignments, therefore they were not assessable. The instructor errors were helpful in letting us know what to avoid
in the next assessment. The assessed items, therefore, came from only half of the students who uploaded their assignments.
It was assumed that this first assessment project might be more experimental, that we would learn what worked will and what did not in terms
of implementation, the type of assignment and the rubric, vs. gaining solid findings from our analysis. This proved to be the case with the
gateway assessment (see discussion of findings below).
Although the capstone documents are to be analyzed this Fall, a preview of those documents appears to show similar errors in instructor
implementation. We may not be able, therefore, to analyze all 4 sections of the capstone either. Ideally errors will inform our next assessment of
not only capstone but gateway as well.
1.
Student Learning Outcome Assessment Project: Answer questions according to the individual SLOs assessed this year. If you
assessed more than one SLO, please duplicate this chart for each one as needed.
2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was assessed this year?
The first of two Program SLOs used for this assessment was:
1. Basic Skills: Acquire a basic knowledge, theories, and concepts about art; develop a foundation of art skills and a high level of
craftspersonship; communicate ideas and concepts through writing, speaking and art making; acquire a competency with the tools and
technologies associated with the visual arts.
Assessment utilized the following section of this SLO for this project: “Basic Skills: Acquire a basic knowledge, theories, and concepts about art;
develop a foundation of art skills and a high level of craftspersonship; communicate ideas and concepts through writing,…”.
2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to gather evidence about this SLO?
The signature assignment asked students to choose an artwork and write three paragraphs that identified concepts and ideas found in the
artwork, and identify the elements and principles of design.
July 18, 2011, Bonnie Paller
2c. Describe the participants sampled to assess this SLO: discuss sample/participant and population size for this SLO. For example, what type of
students, which courses, how decisions were made to include certain participants.
The course is currently considered the gateway course of the BA in Art program, as the last required core course in the foundation program. The
course should be taken approximately in the fourth semester of the first two years of the BA. Ideally students have completed most if not all of
their foundation courses, and will be entering upper division in the following semester. Many are transfer students and this may be their first
semester at CSUN, but oftentimes students also take this course where it fits in to their schedules, so skill levels and knowledge base may vary.
In addition, there may be a small group of non-art students who are in CTVA that may take the course for beginning digital art software.
This course is in the process of being modified, it will be changed to Art 300 and course content will be modified and updated. The change is
intended to capture all incoming students regardless of transfer status, and for this course to more specifically function as a gateway to the
various art disciplines. The new course is anticipated at the earliest for Fall 2012 or Spring 2013.
All sections of the gateway course that were running at the time were included in the assessment project. This was so that if there were errors
with this first implementation, enough material could be gathered that would be useful to assess. (Ideally, all sections could have been useful
and then a fuller picture of the program would have been available. That is also the plan for the 2011-2012 assessment.)
2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was assessed this year?
The second of two Program SLOs used for this assessment project was:
2. Critical Thinking: Apply processes of generating and solving problems in art; analyze, interpret and question traditional methodologies
and preconceived notions of art and art making.
Assessment utilized the following section of this SLO for this project: “Apply processes of generating and solving problems in art; analyze,
interpret…”.
2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to gather evidence about this SLO?
The signature assignment asked students to choose an artwork and write three paragraphs that identified concepts and ideas found in the
artwork, identify the elements and principles of design, then describe the application of those to problem-solve in creating the image.
2c. Describe the participants sampled to assess this SLO: discuss sample/participant and population size for this SLO. For example what type of
students, which courses, how decisions were made to include certain participants.
July 18, 2011, Bonnie Paller
The course is currently considered the gateway course of the BA in Art program, as the last required core course in the foundation program. The
course should be taken approximately in the fourth semester of the first two years of the BA. Ideally students have completed most if not all of
their foundation courses, and will be entering upper division in the following semester. Many are transfer students and this may be their first
semester at CSUN, but oftentimes students also take this course where it fits in to their schedules, so skill levels and knowledge base may vary.
In addition, there may be a small group of non-art students who are in CTVA that may take the course for beginning digital art software.
This course is in the process of being modified, it will be changed to Art 300 and course content will be modified and updated. The change is
intended to capture all incoming students regardless of transfer status, and for this course to more specifically function as a gateway to the
various art disciplines. The new course is anticipated at the earliest for Fall 2012 or Spring 2013.
All sections of the gateway course that were running at the time were included in the assessment project. This was so that if there were errors
with this first implementation, enough material could be gathered that would be useful to assess. (Ideally, all sections could have been useful
and then a fuller picture of the program would have been available. That is the plan for the next assessment also.)
2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different points) or was
a cross-sectional comparison used (comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
The intention was to compare assessment of these lower division students, just beginning their upper division or about to, with upper division
students at the end of the program. It was not longitudinal, although the new Art department’s five year plan calls for repeating the gateway
and capstone assessment every other year.
2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the evidence was analyzed and highlight important findings from the
collected evidence.
The data collected was assessed using a rubric originally created by the assessment liaison. Analysis was conducted by all four members of the
committee individually. A norming process was conducted with the committee as a group prior to analyzing the documents, to assist in putting
all committee members on the same page with the meaning of the rubric criteria. When the committee reconvened this fall to discuss combined
results, the following came up as primary concerns for this and the next assessment project:
•
While looking at discrepancies between the members in assigning scores to particular documents, committee members identified biases
that may have contributed to their valuing of student responses. In one example (extreme differences accounted for about 30% of our
analyses), one person assigned the above student example an average score of 2.5; another person gave it a 5. Reasons for the 2.5 were
that while the student made identification of appropriate terms, they were not very well applied to this particular artwork, and
July 18, 2011, Bonnie Paller
problem-solving analysis was considered shallow. The assessor who assigned a score of 5 was impressed by the student's engagement
of the content and communication of the work, and valued that engagement highly, in addition to the ability of the student to name
accurately the elements of art, with reasonable analysis.
The discussion that ensued was very helpful in identifying not only biases, but also weaknesses in both the rubric and assignment
questions. Weaknesses included such things as the assignment being too specific to particular theories, convoluted in terms of wording,
and not in complete alignment with the rubric.
•
Expectations for this type of assessment were discussed, such as whether or not we would expect to find that scores would be lower for
gateway than capstone. If the scores appear low (they seem on the low end, although this was not a complete assessment of all
sections) should this indicate a need for change in course content or something else. I.e., what do we want to find out? More
assessment and discussion is needed to come to conclusions.
•
We discussed the issue of pre-req’s for some courses that do not now have them, such as the gateway course; this will be an issue for
discussion as we modify courses in the BA through this and next semester. Also the question came up of whether or not there is any
language in the catalog or department advising that prevents students from moving into upper division too quickly or ensures they
complete foundation prior to going into upper division (more information and faculty input is needed; liaison will follow-up).
•
While the primary concepts of the questions and the rubric were deemed good and useful to continue with, the questions themselves
need to be streamlined and clarified. As mentioned above, the questions and the rubric need to be better aligned. A suggestion was
made to utilize a multiple choice method for such things as identifying terms, and deciding on a correct answer; essay response could be
included for analysis and application. This type of streamlining may help alleviate some of the biases amongst assessors.
•
The assignment could be more embedded in the courses, and all sections need to implement in the same way.
•
There was discussion about whether or not students should analyze their own or others’ artworks. Benefits of both strategies were
discussed with no committee agreement at this time. It was thought that students can more easily analyze an outside artwork as
opposed to their own; on the other side, students should be able to articulate their process and decisions in problem-solving. As
planning will take place over the fall semester, with implementation scheduled for the spring, discussion will continue until agreement is
reached on this issue.
2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Think about all the different ways the resulting evidence was or will be used to improve academic
quality. For example, to recommend changes to course content/topics covered, course sequence, addition/deletion of courses in program,
July 18, 2011, Bonnie Paller
student support services, revisions to program SLO’s, assessment instruments, academic programmatic changes, assessment plan changes, etc.
Please provide a clear and detailed description of how the assessment results were or will be used.
•
The question of adding pre-req’s and/or some language regarding student movement from lower-to-upper division will be discussed in
the curriculum committee with the chair and the advisor, to get more information and to see if this might be a good idea. Given that
our students often come from other schools, and the current push to move students smoothly through to graduation, the trend right
now is to keep thing open while tightening up the program. These ideas seem on the surface to conflict, so more discussion is needed;
they will be addressed in an upcoming Sept. 30 meeting.
•
The next assessment project will have streamlined questions, better alignment between assignment and rubric, and the committee
members will spend more time in the norming process. The goal is that results will be more accurate and more useful in terms of
gauging where students are at different points in the program for knowledge and skills.
•
Ideally this assessment will help us decide at what levels we desire students to be in particular points of their program. Currently we
have only the general program SLOs, they are not broken down by upper and lower division. Last year there was some preliminary work
done on creating those, this assessment points to the need to continue that effort. This will also be a point of discussion in the
upcoming Sept. 30 meeting.
3. How do this year’s assessment activities connect with your program’s strategic plan and/or 5-yr assessment plan?
As described above, the 5-year plan calls for continued undergraduate assessment of gateway and capstone courses. This is a collegewide collaboration across departments, just put in place this year. The art department participated in the University’s Simplified
Assessment program last year, which was gateway/capstone data collection for assessment. In the art department we have that
experience to improve upon this next year for undergraduate assessment.
The Assessment Committee is also going to plan a pilot project for graduate assessment that will be implemented in Spring 2012. (That
planning process has not begun yet.)
4. Overall, if this year’s program assessment evidence indicates that new resources are needed in order to improve and support student
learning, please discuss here.
July 18, 2011, Bonnie Paller
The assessment from 2010-2011 does not indicate the need for new resources at this time, except perhaps for more thorough buy-in
from and training for current faculty and new part-time instructors, if they are involved in gateway or capstone assessment activities.
5. Other information, assessment or reflective activities not captured above.
Associate Professor Peri Klemm is participating in the HOT (Hybrid/Online/Traditional) university assessment project. She is evaluating
an art history SLO through a signature assignment in an on-line and a hybrid section of ART 112 (World Arts: Africa, Oceania, and Native
America). The assignment is geared to making comparisons between the two types of instruction. The assessment project was designed
in Spring 2011 and will be implemented this term (Fall 2011).
6. Has someone in your program completed, submitted or published a manuscript which uses or describes assessment activities in your
program? Please provide citation or discuss
I have not heard of anyone writing about assessment in the Art department this year.
July 18, 2011, Bonnie Paller