Critical Intervention Plan
Going from Basic to Brilliant:
Changing the High School Final Exam for
Art Courses
Natalie Dellavia (Davis)
Contemporary Issues in Art Education
ARE6641
University of Florida
Research Brief
The formulation of my critical intervention plan is below in the form of a letter addressed
to the District School Board. The letter includes the issues regarding the existing final exams for
all high school art courses, research from scholars about why the exams are not conducive to
learning, and a new approach that evaluates art students effectively. Following the letter is a call
to action in the form of a PowerPoint presentation that lays out the implementation plan in detail.
Natalie K Dellavia
 Ft Lauderdale, Florida 33315 Phone: 414-331-3371
E-Mail: taldavis2000@yahoo.com Web: http://nataliedellavia.weebly.com/
Date: March 29th, 2015
Hillsborough County Public Schools
Board of Directors
901 E Kennedy Blvd
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 272-4000
Dear Hillsborough County Board of Directors:
As a veteran teacher of Hillsborough County Public Schools, I am writing to request a
permanent change to all high school final art exams. Currently, the district mandated final
assessment for all art electives is a 75 multiple-choice exam. It is my professional opinion that
the format needs to change because it does not effectively measure student growth. Hillsborough
County School District is among top districts in the nation, comprised of incredible educators
supported by an administration known for using cutting edge, innovative techniques. With that
in mind, I propose that the current art exam format change so that we can better serve our
students with excellence and pioneer a course for other districts by using contemporary methods
to effectively measure student achievement in the arts.
As a professional art educator for over 12 years, I agree that students need to be held
accountable. However, the current final exam for art is not conducive to properly measuring
students’ performance, nor does it assess critical thinking skills and synthesis of information.
These skills are the basis of the curriculum learned through our hands-on studio art practices.
Art education scholar Elliot Eisner points out that current educational reform is a technical
solution to a much more complex problem in improving our school. While it might make sense
in some courses, such as math, the data driven approach is not an effective way to measure
student success in the arts (Eisner, 2001). I propose to solve this concern by recommending a
final exam portfolio that models the reputable AP College Board Studio Art portfolio review.
Students submit 5 works of art with a written portion explaining their work. Three different
professional art educators evaluate these portfolios and students receive a score ranging from 15, which can be translated into a letter grade. The review is similar to the process for other AP
courses.
As we know, learning is a complex process. Educational child psychologist Jean Piaget,
has informed us that children’s cognitive development is achieved with various components. As
Piaget’s has said, “You cannot teach concepts verbally; you must use methods founded on
activity”. (Hopkins, 2011, para 10). However, it appears that Piaget’s 60 years of educational
research methods are being pushed aside by the emphasis on assessing adequate yearly progress.
This is completely a paradox. Why is it that if we know how children learn that we are not
adapting an appropriate assessment format that correlates with this development?
In the 1980’s Howard Gardner, a Harvard psychologist, introduced us to his “theory of
multiple intelligences” (Christen, Horn & Johnson, 2008). Gardner’s research explains that
intelligence is not simply based off an IQ test score but rather described in eight different
categories. The category, noted as Spatial, identifies artistic intelligence which is “the ability to
think in three-dimensional ways; perceive external and internal imagery; re-create, transform, or
modify images; navigate oneself and objects through space; and produce or decode graphic
information: Frank Lloyd Wright” (Christen, Horn & Johnson, p. 26). Furthermore there is
strong evidence that supports that “project-based learning is a highly motivating way for many
students to synthesize what they are learning as well as to identify gaps in their knowledge that
need to be filled” (Christen, Horn & Johnson, 2008, p. 33).
Another source to identify stages of learning is Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy created in
1956. Bloom’s diagram lists the highest form of cognitive memory as the Creation process,
which is the ability to design, construct and apply previous learned concepts into an original
design. At the bottom of the diagram sits the lowest form of cognitive memory, which is
Remembering. Remembering information refers to listing, describing, naming, locating and
finding. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). As you can see, a standard multiple-choice test falls
under the Remembering category, the lowest order of thinking skills. I believe that when we
change the final exam format, we will ultimately raise the bar for our students and
simultaneously make the assessment more applicable to the arts.
I am willing to present further information to the school board at the next monthly
meeting. I will provide a PowerPoint action plan on how to effectively administer and grade the
new final art exam and answer any questions and concerns the board might have. I hope you
consider this request, as I believe that this new art exam format will benefit our students, raise
the bar for Hillsborough County and help push our students to the next level in their education.
Sincerely,
Natalie K. Dellavia
Art Education Instructor
References
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001). Iowa State University. Date of access 3/24/15
Retrieved from: http://www.celt.iastate.edu/teaching-resources/effective-practice/revisedblooms-taxonomy/
Christensen, C., Horn, M., & Johnson, C. (2008). Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation
Will Change the Way the World Learns. Chapter 1 Why Schools Struggle to Teach
Differently When Each Student Learns Differently, (p. 21-42)
Eisner, E. (2001). Should we create new aims for art education? Art Education, 54(5), 6-10.
Hopkins, R. (December 2011). The Enduring Influence of Jean Piaget. Observer, 24(10) Date of
access 3/24/15
Retrieved from:
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2011/december11/jean-piaget.html