Various methods of assessment and critique exist and rely on the understanding of
context to be appropriately used. Considering context before making judgments about art in the classroom means thinking about the scale of the piece, age of the person, cultural background, the given objective, prior art experience, and if the lesson was formulated or not. When selecting an effective method of assessment to apply, the context in which it will be applied must be considered first. Three main types of assessment that support the need for an understanding of context are norm referenced assessment, criterion referenced assessment, and student referenced assessment.
Norm referenced assessment is based on a bell curve of student achievement and is
generally used only for standardized tests. This method of assessment is educationally unfair
because not all students are able to achieve the same goal. This method of assessment has been applied in the visual arts through standardized testing by bubbling in answers and has not been successful. Ronald MacGregor (1992) addresses the need to move away from this method of assessment in all areas when he writes:
It is ironic that, when teachers of other subjects are discovering that art teachers have had the right idea about how to conduct evaluation, through portfolio examination and student interview, measures of performance in art in several states are now being concocted from inappropriate and outmoded forms of reductionist testing. A time when accountability is required of art teachers is no time to be adopting simplistic measures for complex activities (p. 34-35).
This method neglects the need for authentic assessment which acknowledges the complexity of
creating, interpreting, and responding to art. Additionally, it denies the opportunity for all
students to succeed since it is based on comparison of normality for a mark.
Two other types of assessment that refute the need for standardized records which
neglects every student’s ability to succeed are criterion referenced assessment and student
referenced assessment. Criterion referenced assessment relies on clear criterion for students to be assessed. This means that all students have a clear understanding of the expectations the teacher has of the students so that they have the opportunity to all meet the criterion. This communicates to students that they have the possibility to achieve the goals set by the teacher for their academic advancement in the art classroom that can be applicable in real life. It is important to note that the results of this assessment may be influenced by student interest and time spent outside of class advancing skills. This method of assessment is effective in communicating standards to the parents of students. During parent teacher conferences, if parents are upset with their kid’s grade, you can show them benchmarks for context. This helps makes the criteria clear to the parent. The second method of assessment that gives every student the opportunity to succeed is student referenced assessment. This form of assessment considers the individual and their capabilities, given their prior performance. This method is commonly used for students with special needs or students who aren’t excelling. As much as this method of assessment is used for students at a lower level, I wish to apply this to all of my students when I am a teacher. This method of assessment places a priority on the student’s development, which needs to be considered regardless of their level of achievement in criterion referenced assessment.
Above: Image of Dusan Krtolica, a skilled young artist. His ability to excel artistically may be due to his laborious efforts outside of the art classroom and high level of interest. When using criterion referenced assessment, the results of Krtolica's assessment on a class project will most likely be influenced by his efforts outside of class.
When I am a teacher, I plan to use both criterion referenced assessment and student
referenced assessment for each of my students as an intertwined method of assessment. It is
important for students to understand the overall objective of the assignment, but they also need to be aware of their capabilities and acknowledge their own accountability for success. Student referenced assessment acknowledges students individual ability to advance and appeals to both students who are advanced and below average to create goals realistic to what they can achieve. This increases engagement among all students. When considering context in this method, the given objective is one of the components that must be considered when making judgements about art. The context of the student’s qualities also needs to be considered, such as the age, cultural background, and prior art experience. Relying solely on an objective is unfair to the student’s capabilities and does not consider the individual influences on their art. Criterion referenced assessment communicates to students what is expected of them. Applying the criterion referenced assessment to each student’s individual needs provides them with an appropriate challenge that still addresses the importance of each criterion. Using this method still allows a teacher to provide context to parents about what is expected of their child as well. This intertwined method is closely related to standards-based grading where the teacher considers standards and uses individual abilities to appropriately gauge their personal progress with the content. The difference between these two methods is that the teacher selects the criteria expected from students as opposed to the state governing what is expected. This combination method of assessment requires a lot of dedication from the teacher, yet most effectively assesses student learning for their benefit.
All in all, there are a variety of assessments that rely on the context of their application
for successful use. Applying methods of assessment where the central focus allows all students to be successful is best for student motivation and engagement. This means refuting norm
referenced assessment which neglects authentic assessment and intertwining criterion referenced assessment with student referenced assessment as they consider the context of the student before making judgements about their art is the best method of assessment for student development and success. The complexity of art does not make it a simple topic to assess, yet it does not imply that teachers need to reduce the quality of assessment for simplicity. Quality assessment relies on dedicated teachers, but ensures the highest levels of success for their students.
References:
MacGregor, R. N. (1992). A Short Guide to Alternative Assessment Practices. Art Education, (p. 34-38).