Shoreline Community College annual outcomes assessment report—2002-03
Download 1.37 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Practicum Analysis
Project OverviewThis Outcomes/Assessment grant is the direct outgrowth of past efforts involving assessment activities within the Fine Arts area. The departmental focus on continuity with diversity opened the door, so to speak to finding a method or tool that allows sharing and understanding at a level promoting continuity and enabling the features of diversity within the curriculum. Looking back to information gathered last year, the sample of faculty processes for assessment exhibited a wide-range of method (see Appendix VI ). The methods used for examining the individual practices included, but were not limited to charting, check lists, narrative examination, and simple observation. All are acceptable, but when compared require a great deal of experience to understand well enough to reach parity. Even within a single discipline or area of the Fine Arts such as 2-Dimensional art, continuity became difficult to track because varied form and diverse methods of assessments interfere with interpretation. This grant attempts to unify conceptually those differences of form without jeopardizing the highly regarded richness and variety of Shoreline’s Fine Art department. Professors Amstutz and Larson were the principles in the project and were assisted by the efforts of Associate faculty members Kim Newell and Natalie Niblack. All four of the participants are drawing and design instructors and bring a wealth of experience to the classroom, sharing over sixty years of classroom instruction in drawing and design. It was at first thought to be a simple matter of finding a common format that could show the intent of the instruction across teaching styles and establish the relationship of intent and assessment. This proved to be anything but simple and at times frustratingly divisive. Amstutz and Larson discovered that individual terminology and experience biased their views and direction. The MCOs provided no assistance due to their interest in general education and lack of course specific or even Fine Art specific vernacular. In general, after much discussion, individual effort and proposals by both principles, it became apparent that a conceptual method of development was not workable and if developed would infringe upon the highly regarded diversity value. A new beginning was needed and so, the initial efforts were tabled and an opposite approach of searching for commonalities of pattern within the concrete issues of the practicum was undertaken. Again Amstutz and Larson engaged in discussion determining the most productive approach would be to limit the discussions to a single discipline rather than attempt an overall approach; to keep in mind the need for a method of linking outcomes to assessments through the practicum of classroom activities for all 2-D courses. The Foundation drawing series became the focus and so began the consideration of classroom activity in the teaching and learning of drawing skills. The discussion sessions now turned to Larson and Amstutz sharing their respective views and practices in the drawing series. What we as instructors do is important and helps determine what is assessable and when, as well as to what degree. Intent is a critical element to determine before any assessment tools can be defined. Grading though it is a different activity also requires evidence of intent to be present both Amstutz and Larson agree upon the differences in grading and assessing. Both instructors rely heavily upon observation practices in their daily class activities. They also rely heavily upon class critiques where all students display their work collectively on a tack surface in the room and openly discuss their own work and that of their peers. This practice provides an opportunity for the instructor to view the class as a whole and to assess the progress generally regarding the content of the planned activity. Individual critiques are not as universal in the first class, but are a regular form of assessment in the second, third and forth classes in the series. Other considerations for assessment are midterm and term drawing portfolios, assigned objectives in drawings, series drawings developing a concept, discussion of master drawings and written evaluations of drawings by student and/or by teacher. This process extended throughout the Winter quarter 2003 and also included the review of several books (see Appendix VII ) devoted to the topic of teaching and learning to draw. The activities were established in preliminary form and introduced to Kim Newell for a comparative review with her classroom practices. Until they were presented to Newell the activities were a simple comparison of two instructors approach to content which had been specifically defined for a course. Newell’s comments and additions helped in establishing the next step of developing categorical activities. She established a core of activities similar to those in the original document and added a few topical interests that work into the first year drawing series. The addition of the Newell elements pointed toward a simplified set of 2-dimensional considerations for teaching activities and course specific categories for the outcomes. By layering specific outcomes over widely generic outcomes, flexibility is built into the form for course by course application. Also it is easy to maintain continuity when the most general is broken down to the most specific, a step at a time. The list of teaching activities began to fall into place as related to specific interests universally expressed by the participants. The processes were separated into four major areas of concern and expressed in terms of student/teacher expectations and activities. The four areas could then be easily regarded as categories in which course specific content is developed and placed. The four major categories appear to be generic enough in terms of practicum that they may also be applicable to any curricula of 2-D coursework. The areas are Outcomes, Instructional activity, Student activity, Assessment. Within each of the categories course specific expectations can be established. The more abstract the course specific language is the more diversity can be served within the framework. It is the framework that maintains continuity and direction for the practicum of instruction and student activity. It also may provide for the diverse nature of creativity in the 2-dimensional studio courses and establish the direction needed for continuity of effort. The Outcomes for drawing were identified and then limited to four areas of concern. They are visual perception, cognitive application of elements and principles, use of process, and critical dialogue. Under each of these, project specifics can be listed. Like the outcomes, the assessment practices were developed in the abstract and applied categorically under four topical areas of student actions observed by the instructor before, during and following the student activity period in the studio. The four areas are observation, cognitive processing, performance awareness, and affective development. The generality of each category is inclusive, but not prescriptive and allows course specific consideration in all arenas as shown in the case studies and in the generic assessment form for the Drawing series. Once assessment practices were developed in the abstract they matched up well with the generic Outcomes. Instructional and student activities were matched to Amstutz, Larson and Newell papers and found to be very easily abstracted in the same manner as outcomes and assessments. This was the break through in setting about case studies that could be compared and related from outcome through the practicum of the classroom activities and assessed in a manner that allows for accurate comparison of teaching methodologies in the drawing studio. Once the form was established, Larson and Amstutz each developed two case studies using the framework and then compared their respective case samples, refined them and handed them off to Natalie Niblack. Niblack had not been a part of the process to date and was in fact a kind of test case for the framework. She was requested to read each synopsis and then to detail one or more of her drawing class projects in the form of a case study; making use of the outcomes, instruction activities, student activities and assessment formats. She did so and felt the format was easy to understand and it did not limit or prescribe to her methodologies for delivering her academic responsibilities. In fact, the framework appears to be a useful tool for examining and formulating an understanding of the diversities in approach to commonly defined outcomes and equally diverse assessment practices of faculty. The framework will assist in maintaining direction in a series that will often have as many as ten different instructors during the academic year. It may provide a descriptive narrative of classroom practicum demonstrating to the new hire the relationship between course specific outcomes and assessment practices employed by others teaching the same basic content. It has also provided product examples of work in progress and in completed with annotations regarding assessment concerns. Overall, the dialogue that has developed has been beneficial and in itself will aid in promoting continuity within the practicum of the drawing series of courses. The faculty have found it meaningful to discus their methodologies and to hear how others approach teaching in the discipline. Long range, the practicum analysis established should assist the new and adjunct faculty, as the turn-over of faculty occurs, to better provide continuity for the Fine Art area and to maintain the richness of the program generally. It also gives promise to the other disciplines within the 2-D area of establishing a similar practicum analysis to provide a continuum of instruction and still maintain the necessary environment for diversity of instruction. Appendix II Practicum Analysis Practicum AnalysisThe following is a categorical segmentation of the teaching/learning processes involved in the 2-D studio as they relate to outcomes and assessments. Download 1.37 Mb. Share with your friends:
|