STUDENT LEARNING ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
SUMMARY FORM AY 2011-2012
Degree and
Program Name:
Submitted By:
Masters of Art in Art
Glenn Hild, Chair
Please complete a separate worksheet for each academic program
(major, minor) at each level (undergraduate, graduate) in your
department. Worksheets are due to CASA this year by June
15, 2012. Worksheets should be sent electronically to
kjsanders@eiu.edu and should also be submitted to your college
dean. For information about assessment or help with your
assessment plans, visit the Assessment webpage at
http://www.eiu.edu/~assess/ or contact Karla Sanders in CASA at
581-6056.
PART ONE
What are the learning
objectives?
How, where, and when are they
assessed?
What are the expectations?
What are the results?
1. Expand and enhance the
level of research/creative
skills in graduate student’s
selected media.
Fall Semester Review; graduate
exhibition portfolio; Alumni
survey of MA grads.
A portfolio of quality graduate
level artworks that could be
used in seeking exhibitions/
grants in professional venues
or admission to Master of Fine
Arts degree programs
including
assistantships/fellowships/
grants. Alumni survey question
#2 item a: Overall quality of
Art Department, and item
b:Quality of your specific
focus of studies in the Art
Department, question #6
Quality of instruction in Major
studio area, Minor studio area
(with rating of 1=Low Quality
to 5=High Quality),
Fall review: 14 out of 14 met
expectation.
Graduate exhibit/portfolio:
13 out of 13 met
expectation.
No alumni data/responses
have been collected since the
survey of 1999-2007 MA in
Art alumni. The following is
data from that survey and
reported in a previous
assessment report; it is
included for information
purposes in this report.
Alumni survey (1999 to
2007 grads) indicated results
for Q#2 of 4.55 in overall
quality of Art Department
and 4.33 in quality of
specific focus of studies,
Q#6 of 4.64 in quality of
instruction Major studio
area, 4.67 in Minor studio
area.
Committee/ person
responsible? How are
results shared?
Masters Committee
provides results of Fall
review and Graduate
Exhibit/portfolio to
Graduate Coordinator.
Results shared with
departmental Graduate
Committee. Results of
MA in Art alumni survey
shared with Graduate
Faculty.
2. Expand and enhance ability
to form and defend judgments
of quality and effectiveness of
creative work.
3. Expand and enhance
teaching skills in the visual
arts.
Fall semester review; oral
comprehensive examination of
ideas, techniques, and formal
solutions involved in the art
works displayed for graduate
exhibition; Alumni survey of
MA grads.
Successfully complete fall
review; pass oral examination
for MA degree program.
Alumni survey question #6
Quality of (a) instruction in
Critical Analysis and (b)
Art/Design History (with
rating of 1=Low Quality to
5=High Quality).
MA in Art with Option in Art
Education oral comprehensive
examination of research paper.
COEPS Advanced Candidate
Assessment of MA in Art with
option in Art Ed graduate
students at entry, mid-point, and
completion of program.
Student and supervisor
evaluations of GA teaching.
Alumni survey of MA grads.
Pass oral examination for MA
in Art with Option in Art Ed
degree program.
From COEPS Advanced
Candidate Assessments (ACA)
of #1 – Entry (assessed after
student completes Current
Trends in Art Education), #2 –
Mid-point (assessed after
student completes Research
Methods in Art Education), &
#3 – Completion (assessed
after student’s oral
examination of research),
COEPS ACA #1 & #2 having
ratings of Proficient or
Developing or Unacceptable
and #3 having ratings of Does
not Meet Standards or Meets
Standards or Exceeds
Fall review: 14 out of 14 met
expectation.
Oral comprehensive exam
for MA: 13 out of 13 met
expectation.
No alumni data/responses
have been collected since the
survey of 1999-2007 MA in
Art alumni. The following is
data from that survey and
reported in a previous
assessment report; it is
included for information
purposes in this report.
Alumni survey (1999 to
2007 grads) indicated results
for Q#6 of 4.11 in quality of
instruction of Critical
Analysis and 4.33 in
Art/Design History
Oral comprehensive exam
for MA in Art Ed: no grads
evaluated.
COEPS Advanced
Candidate Assessment #3:
no grads evaluated;
Assessment #2: no grads
evaluated; Assessment #1:
two grads exceed standards.
Student evaluation of GA
teaching: Fall 2011 4 of 6
GAs exceeded expectations
and 2 of 6 GAs met
expectations. Spring 2012 6
of 6 GAs exceeded
expectations.
No alumni data/responses
Masters Committee
provides results of Fall
review and oral
examination to Graduate
Coordinator. Results
shared with departmental
Graduate Committee.
Results of MA in Art
alumni survey shared
with Graduate Faculty.
Masters Committee
provides results of oral
examination to Graduate
Coordinator. TA
supervisor provides
teaching evaluations to
Graduate Coordinator and
Student evaluations are
tabulated by Art Office.
Results shared with
departmental Graduate
Committee; results of
COEPS Advanced
Candidate Assessment
shared with graduate
faculty in Art Education;
results of MA in Art
alumni survey shared
with Graduate Faculty.
4. Demonstrate effective
written and oral
communication skills
Standards.
On student evaluation of GA
teaching a average mean score
between 4.0 and 5.0 to exceed
expectation, between 3.0 and
4.0 to met expectation, and
between 1.0 and 3.0 is below
expectations. (NOTE: scoring
on student evaluation change
from FA11 (1 high & 5 low) to
SP12 (5 high & 1 low); FA11
scores converted to new
system)
Alumni survey question
#10:What were influence of
opportunities on personal
career development (with
rating of 1=No Influence to
5=Tremendous Influence), and
question #17: Rate
assistantship according to (a)
Contribution to personal and
career development and (b)
Preparation for subsequent
professional responsibilities
(with rating of 1=Terrible to
5=Excellent).
have been collected since the
survey of 1999-2007 MA in
Art alumni. The following is
data from that survey and
reported in a previous
assessment report; it is
included for information
purposes in this report.
Alumni survey (1999 to
2007 grads) indicated results
for Q#10 of 4.75 in
Independent studio work, 2.4
in collaborative projects, 4.0
in Participation in
exhibitions, and for Q#17 (a)
4.38 in Contribution and (b)
4.13 in Preparation.
Written communication skills
evaluation for course research
paper by the instructors of ART
4765 (Fall) and 4775 (Spring).
Score on paper of 4 to exceed
expectations; 3 to meet
expectations; 2 or 1 are below
expectations.
For written communications
over the course of the year 5
exceeded expectations, 3
met expectations, and 3 were
below expectations.
Oral communication skills
evaluation for formal
presentations made in class by
the instructors of ART 4765
(Fall) and 4775 (Spring).
Score on presentation of 4 to
exceed expectations; 3 to meet
expectations; 2 or 1 are below
expectations.
(Continue objectives as needed. Cells will expand to accommodate your text.)
For oral communications
over the course of the year 5
exceeded expectations, 6
met expectations, and none
were below expectations.
Faculty teaching Art 4765
and 4775 provides results
to Graduate Coordinator
and department chair.
Results shared with
departmental Graduate
Committee.
PART TWO
Describe what your program’s assessment accomplishments since your last report was submitted. Discuss ways in which you have responded to
the CASA Director’s comments on last year’s report or simply describe what assessment work was initiated, continued, or completed.
For AY2011-2012, as in previous years, the faculty of the various studio areas of the department engage in refinements of the
curriculum based on the needs of the individual graduate student; this is usually a mutually agreed upon program of study that will
facilitate the graduate student in meeting his/her education goals. Graduate students met with individual Masters Committee (3
graduate faculty members) during Oct/Nov for the Fall semester review. At these fall reviews the graduate faculty and the student’s
masters committee reviews his/her progress and recommends or suggests a direction of study based on the artwork presented
(portfolio review). This arrangement, with the addition of the group critique (see below), continues to be very effective in helping the
graduate student to realize and develop the potential of his/her creative work for the Graduate Exhibition in the Spring Semester.
During the Spring semester the graduate student’s masters committee will meet with the student to review artwork completed (usually
completed since the fall review) for the graduate exhibition and again the graduate faculty will provide direction and set expectations
for the graduate student. The graduate oral examination takes place while the graduate student’s art is on exhibit at the Tarble Arts
Center; the graduate student is expected to explain, evaluate, and defend his/her artwork in a manner that demonstrates knowledge of
the art process(es) used to create the artwork, use of the principles and elements of design, and how the subject matter/content is
articulated visually. In addition, the graduate students in the MA in Art program had the opportunity to be critiqued by four (4) visiting
art professionals during AY12. The graduate coordinator conferred with each visiting artist after he/she had conducted individual
critiques with graduate students; the general response from these professionals was the graduate program has high standards and the
graduate students are producing artwork that meets those high standards.
Studio faculty continue to conduct ongoing assessment of graduate student artwork and individual critiques/reviews, and the faculty
compare those activities to previous years’ experiences. Based on these assessments faculty can see improvements or deficiencies and
institute changes next time course is offered. One faculty member continues assessment began last year of meeting with graduate
students as group at the start of the Fall semester to explain faculty member’s course expectations to motivate studio production; then
instructor revising feedback at individual meeting by providing a letter grade based on work completed in hopes graduate students will
be more productive. Instructor found providing graduate students at start of semester with readings about how artists work in studio
resonated well for motivated students; plans to modify readings so that pertain more directly to the individual students studio work and
ask for written responses to the readings.
The Fall semester group critique of graduate students by the graduate faculty was conducted November 4, 2011. The critique was
beneficial to graduate students; gave each an opportunity to orally explain process and ideas (mini pre-orals experience). Critique
recommendations from faculty provided feedback to each student that members of Masters Committee subsequently discussed with
student and could be investigate by the student during remainder of Fall semester and if successful developed into finished works in
time for the April graduate exhibition. The group critique continued to use the system introduced last year; the system involved each
graduate student providing a handout with a brief explanation of his/her artwork (content/direction) and three questions that the
graduate student hope to have answered during the portion of the critique allocated to his/her artwork. This system continued to be
efficient and effective at guiding the discussion, graduate students appreciated the feedback they received and felt they were given
pertinent information to their specific questions, and the critique avoided conversations that were not productive to the students’
interests.
As part of NCATE Self-Study the Art Department will assess MA in Art with Option in Art Education students at three points in the
program; during AY2011-2012 two students were assessed at the entry point in the program. Declining in enrollment for this option
has resulted in plans to no longer offer the program after Summer 2012 until a sufficient number of qualified students are interested in
starting as a cohort group; because of this, it is likely data from NCATE Self-Study survey will not be available for assessment
purposes after AY13.
The instructor of Art 4765 continues to use & refine a 3-step process to assist and provide feedback to students writing the research
paper. The steps are reviewing and providing feedback for improvement after submission of the (1) abstract with attached
bibliography of 10 sources with two being journal articles, (2) rough draft – one copy is reviewed by instructor and another copy is
read and evaluated by an assigned peer reviewer using a rubric, (3) finished paper responding to comments from instructor and peer
reviewer. This process continues to result in satisfactory or superior research papers from over 90% of graduate students (10 out of 11
students) in the course. In addition, all Art 4765 all students provided a peer evaluation of each graduate student oral presentation; this
peer review process resulted in better audience attention and awareness of various topics presented.
PART THREE
Summarize changes and improvements in curriculum, instruction, and learning that have resulted from the implementation of your assessment
program. How have you used the data? What have you learned? In light of what you have learned through your assessment efforts this year and
in past years, what are your plans for the future?
The graduate faculty are closely involved with the assessment of MA students through direct instruction and masters’ committee
reviews (fall review, review of artwork and artist statement for graduate exhibition, and review of comprehension (oral examination)).
These assessment processes have continued to be effective in raising and maintaining the academic performance of the students.
For the MA in Art with option in Art Education the instructor uses formative assessments (on-going) and summative assessments
(project-based assignments) to monitor student success in the course and student indicators of interest, value, and rigor. When
assessments, formative and or summative, indicate, the instructor makes the necessary curricular change. For the graduate courses, art
5500, and 5800, instructor modified the reading assignments to include current content and student interest (when appropriate). In all
cases, both formative and summative assessments play a valuable role in curricular design by ascertaining student value and interest.
As stated by the NASAD Evaluation Team in the 2009 Visitor’s Report (and 2008-2009 Assessment Summary Report), “A review of
transcripts and viewing of original student artwork indicated that results are excellent to superior in this program. The visitors
commend the graduate faculty on the numerous strengths of its M.A. Graduate programs, with creative results probably among some
of the best in the nation.” Graduates of the MA in Art program over the past five years (SP08 to SP12) have been admitted to the
following MFA programs: University of Chicago, Indiana University (3), University of Wisconsin-Madison (2), University of Notre
Dame, Cranbrook Academy of Art (2), University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Washington University (St. Louis) (4), Herron School of
Art (Indianapolis), University of Pennsylvania, and the Royal College of Art (London UK); and PhD program: Hacettepe University
(Ankara, Turkey).