“EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES FOR
TEACHING ART ANALYSIS”
-Using Formative assessment of various teaching strategies
and their impact on student learning to drive instruction in
the middle school art room.
Edu-505 Oswego State
By: Heather Ladd and Ann Wright
Art Teachers
Central Square Middle School
Our project is born:
Q.-How can we better teach
these standards to our students?
Visual Art Standard 3:
Responding to and Analyzing Works of Art
Students will respond critically to a variety of works in the
arts, connecting the individual work to other works and
to other aspects of human endeavor and thought.
CCLS: Common Core Learning Standards Supported by
this project:
RS #1,2,3,4,5,7,9 and 10
WS #1b,2b,2d,4,9 and 10
Visual Literacy
“The problem”
L.-”It’s a boy at Christmas. And he’s getting a present, only the present is from “freaky”
thing that Santa is using. I don’t think I like it by the way”
SG.- “ It’s the Matrix. No, It’s the Return of the Jedi, you know , like the movie. The
eyes are bulging like Barbie. Why does he have a crew cut? What are the star things?
It’s kind of freaking me out!”
Visual Literacy
“Using the Language of Art”
D. –”It’s an interior space, a living room. There is a child in the foreground, Christmas tree
in the background, and a fireplace in the middle ground”.
P. – “The path of the robots arm creates a path for the viewers eye to follow.”
A. – “The form of the metal arm makes your eye follow it across the painting.”
Past tries:
Searching for a clear concise kid friendly format that
students can use to organize their new Art Language.
Current Art Analysis Format
Setting up the project:
We separated the 16 classes into four groups with 2 classes being instructed
in each of the four instructional strategies listed below
(Table groups are ‘stacked ‘ by Lexile scores and students behaviors)
• Class A-Whole group- Teacher Directed Instruction for all lessons
with little /no teacher intervention.
(Unless specifically asked for by student)
• Class B-Whole group- Teacher Directed Instruction combined with
1:1 continuous redirection and re-teaching.
• Class C- Small group- “Heads together” Cooperative Learning
model.
• Class D- Small group-“Jigsaw”- Cooperative Learning model“Expert Training Groups”.
The Process:
Data collection Parameters:
• Data collection -analyzed 5 times over the course of the project.
• A total number of 400+ 7th & 8th grade students were included in
the sampling.
• Initial data (baseline data-pre test) without any prior instruction.
• Lessons were scripted so that both teachers were using the same
language and process
• Teaching strategies were implemented 3 times.
• Final data collection was given in the form of a quiz.
• All data would be gathered entered into an Excel spread sheet and
analyzed for student / whole class growth.
• Final Data Analysis occurred at the end of the project.
We compared and contrasted the individual class growth charts
with reference to the type of instructional practice the class
received.
Compiling the data
The Data
Group D – “Jigsaw” Cooperative Learning Strategy–
‘Expert training.’
• Growth Score: 287-lowest growth score.
• Expert training -created only a single person in each group
who knew a specific part of the process.
• Students did not remember what they had learned from the
session to session.
• Students did not work well in both “Expert” and table.
• The actual learning process took twice as long to complete.
• It takes longer to “ figure out” the process with their peers
than to have the teacher lead them through the process.
Group B-Teacher directed lesson with teacher circulating and
intervening whenever she sees the need.
• Growth Score: 338
• *This is the strategy that both Art teachers employ most often
and feel most comfortable with.
• Initially this class seemed to have the greatest amount of
growth from the Pre-test to the first round of grading.
• As time progressed the gains became less and less evident.
• The final data collection proved that this strategy doesn’t
generate greatest learning.
Group A-Teacher directed with minimal 1:1 instruction
• Growth Score: 597
• Teachers instructed the process of art Analysis then students
worked through the process.
• Teachers only intervened when a student(s) directly asked for
help.
• It was very difficult not to intervene when we observed a
student struggling.
• *Frequently, and as the project continued, this model ended
up looking like peer or group work as the students initiated
working together to better understand, compare and
confirm their answers.
Group C-Heads Together Cooperative Learning Strategy
• Growth Score: 626 -highest growth score
• Results 3 times the overall growth of the lowest group.
• Teacher circulated encouraging all students to be vested.
• Initially students were not too willing to work with their
groups but most groups worked better and better together as
the project continued.
Final percentages and kid quotes
Group D(Jigsaw) Score 287- “I didn’t like the groups because some
people didn’t know it well and other people wouldn’t help you if
you needed it. I think if the teacher teaches it you learn it better.”
Group B (Teacher directed) Score 338 - “I liked the way she teached it
because she taught each part at different times –not all at once so
we got into depth more with each part of the art analysis.”
Group A-(Teacher directed minimal intervention) Score 597
“I think it was easy for us to be able to take our own responsibility only
asking for your help when we needed it.”
Group C –(Heads together) Score 626
“It was hard but it becomes easier after a while.”
“Issues” of note
•Classes are ‘stacked’–due to scheduling
•Smaller classes had more difficult time working
together due to the make up of the class.
•Having classes every other day makes this process
difficult. Students did not retain information well.
•Student absences, snow days, and shortened class
periods became an issue-Students absent for pre or final
quiz not represented in growth scores.
Confirmation from text:
“…sometimes less is more-when students were given only
the minimum amount of support to get them unstuck and
to make progress….they learned more and retained their
learning longer than those given full solutions.”
“…those given the complete solutions had the opportunity
for learning taken away from them.”
Embedded Formative Assessment
–Dylan Wiliam
How it will effect our future teaching practices:
More specifically: How will it change our teaching?AW- “Personally, I need to back off and let my students struggle
more –they need to ask each other for help through difficult
concepts.”
“I also need to make sure students work together whether or not
they want to.”
HL – “I am going to use more “Heads together” when working
through problems.”
“ I am going to back off and let students struggle and give them
just enough information to ‘find’ the answer...”
Now it’s your turn:
“I and the
Village”
1911
By: Marc
Chagall