web viewit still seemed that much of the emphasis in the class was geared toward painting and...

URG Program Assessment Report updated: August 25, 2012

Program: ARTProgram Assessment Report

Program Representative: Although Kevin Lyles is the Art Department coordinator and Program Representative, during the Spring Semester, Kevin was on sabbatical, so Benjy Davies assumed this role. This document was jointly written.

How does your assessment process distinguish between Evaluation (measuring individual students’ scores on tests, classes or activities) and Assessment (measuring the program’s students as a whole)?Evaluations: Student grades are determined by reviewing each student’s portfolio of work by the instructor of the course as the course is conducted, through the use of rubrics specific to each course/project. Projects have specific learning outcomes that relate to course content and Program Student Learning Outcomes. Course grades also include factors outside the actual work created, such as work ethic, attendance, documentation, etc. Assessment: For program assessment, all the work created in each course is collected and reviewed by all program faculty together to determine if, as a whole, a majority of students are achieving program student learning outcomes. We are able to see both formative and summative elements, as we are examining courses from the freshman to the senior year.

Please list here all the people who are involved in your program’s assessment. Include names, titles and the responsibilities of each. Add extra rows if necessary.

Name Title ResponsibilitiesKevin Lyles Professor, Program

Coordinator, Fall Semester

Gather, sort, archive data for the entire program. Primary writer of assessment documents. Submits documents to ASLC (Fall)No responsibilities spring semester-Sabbatical

James Allen Professor Gather assessment data from his classes, submit to Program coordinator, review data with other faculty

Benjy Davies Associate Professor, Chair of Fine Arts, Program Coordinator, Spring Semester

Gather assessment data from his classes, submit to Program coordinator, review data with other faculty (Fall)Gather, sort, archive data for the entire program. Primary writer of assessment documents. Submits documents to ASLC (Spring)

Please list each assessment activity, when and where it’s conducted and who is present for each.

Activity When is it conducted? Where is it conducted? Who participates?End-of-Semester Review

The week after finals each semester

FA 134-computer lab with projector

Kevin LylesBenjy DaviesJim Allen

AQIP Document Writing

After each review Faculty office Program Coordinator

AQIP Document Review

After document is written Via email Each faculty reads the document, sends feedback, program representative makes changes, submits to ASLC

Please list all assessment data that is recorded and where it is stored.

Data Where is it stored? Who maintains these If this person were no longer


records? available, how would this data be retrieved?

Images of Student Work, Student Papers

Instructor Computer, FA 134, also backed up on portable external storage device daily (via Time Machine).

Program Representative User Account:GDRPW: 1798Files located in Pictures>AQIP, Sorted by year and semester

Program Assessment Reports

MOSS Assessment Coordiator Log on to MOSS, look in Assessment Committee, sort by year.

Please describe the process for sharing data about student learning amongst the program faculty.

Students are required to submit to their instructor files representing each completed project, paper, etc. All files are named according to strict naming guidelines provided by the instructor.

Professors Jim Allen and Kevin Lyles and Benjy Davies to meet in the computer lab to review the collected data in the week following Final Exams. For each course reviewed, the faculty will review listed learning objectives as they appeared on the course syllabus. Faculty to determine if learning objectives have been achieved by students, as evidenced by collected images. Each course is reviewed individually. Overall program assessment to be determined as a result of discussion of the interaction of the individual courses.In the fall semester of 2011, the Art Department began the process of program review. Program faculty wrote a self-study, and nominated an external evaluator. That evaluator read the self-study, visited the campus, observed classes, interviewed students, faculty and administrators. Following his visit, he wrote a report including suggestions for improvement. Each of his suggestions was answered by a formal response in the program review process. Although the final Memorandum of Understanding still remains unfinished as of early May 2013, many of our discoveries and his suggestions found their way into our assessment process.

Anchor PSLO:

Student is able to: Plan and install a professional exhibition of his or her work.

Please describe what you learned from your assessment of the Anchor PSLO.

Overall results are good. Students typically struggle with the following issues: Framing Hanging work consistently Selecting cohesive work for the show Excising work that does not “fit” with other work Keeping the number of pieces down to an appropriate level (students always want to put in too much

work)This is the list of what students have typically struggled with in completing their senior exhibition and this year’s students were no exception. However, there is a wide variety of levels of success in this show. Although all three of the senior shows that we held this spring were acceptable, the better students clearly struggled less with all of these issues.

What program changes will be made as a result of this data?Tentative plans are to modify the course content of ART 23201 Exhibits to require that each student participate in the framing and hanging of her or his own work in a group show on campus prior to their senior year. This “hands-on” approach to planning, promoting, preparing, procuring and presenting should be an appropriate activity to prep students for their senior show.


Other PSLO assessed this year:

Student is able to: Demonstrate formal and technical proficiency in their area of study.

Results of the assessment of the PSLO. What did you discover about student learning? Where did the students excel, and where did they struggle? Was your assessment an accurate measure of student learning? Why or why not?

Student achievement of this PSLO was varied, and is addressed in each course as described below in the “course assessment” section of this document.

Based on these results, what changes should be made to improve student learning?

Again, this varies by course/area, and is addressed in each course as described below in the “course assessment” section of this document.


Student is able to: Document their work and experiences professionally, and engage in professional practice.


Exhibition:Each student must make an effort to show his or her work. This could take several forms—students could enter a juried competition, organize a group or solo show, complete a design job for a client, or get a commission. This requirement is not attached to a grade for a particular class. Rather, each student has to fulfill this requirement each semester, which will satisfy the requirement for all courses the student is enrolled in that term. Virtually all of the students completed this requirement, and the positive impact on the program in general and student learning in particular has been great. Completed projects for this requirement include a variety of design projects, commissions, curating exhibitions, showing work in juried exhibitions, participating in print exchanges, etc. The faculty are unanimous in our belief that this has been the most efficient change to our program in recent years. The demand on faculty time is very slight and the benefit to students and to the program is immense.

Documentation: Overall performance was fairly good. This element of the PSLO relates to the AQIP disks that students are required to submit for each course. Although this is a burden for both the students and the faculty, we are seeing better and better results as the years go by. The writing is improving, and students are doing a better job of editing. This year the addition of the professional light box for taking images of three-dimensional work, virtually eliminated 95% of the problems we previously saw in those photographs. We still have file naming issues. Faculty need to be more diligent about getting the file names to students earlier.


Faculty are unanimous in their agreement that the AQIP Disk Rubric should be applied to the collection of disks. In reality this does not always seem to happen in the application of the grades.

*All faculty agreed to use the AQIP Disk Rubric to evaluate this aspect of the PSLO. However, only two of the three faculty used the rubric consistently in all courses.



Student is able to: Explain the historical and conceptual aspects of their work.


This is largely accomplished through the requirement of an “Art History” project in each studio course. This project requires the student to make art in relation to an existing famous work of art. In addition to creating the work, the student has to write an explanation of the “historical, cultural and/or conceptual” aspects of the work they created. In reading the students’ writing, it is evident that students are aware of these issues, and are adequately explaining the connections between their work and that of others.Additionally, students are required to write an artist’s statement beginning in their first semester for ART 13201 Art Portfolio, in their last semester in ART 48501 Senior Exhibit and in all courses in between. Comparing the typical statements in the beginning and ending courses is a clear indication of the students’ growth and development.


This PSLO seems to be adequately addressed. No changes suggested.


Student is able to: Conduct independent research in the arts.


Last year we implemented an independent research component to all upper-level studio courses. The intention of these projects was to encourage/require students to be more self-directed in their studies. Rather than relying on faculty to construct lessons, students were responsible for initiating independent research in the visual arts. These projects often dealt with issues of technique, tools, software, pedagogy or media. Results of this project have been mixed for the past two years. In some cases, students became highly engaged, and completed ambitious projects that resulted in finished artworks of high quality. In other cases, students got side-tracked or lost interest, changed direction, or were unable to complete the project. The amount of faculty time required to monitor these projects proved to be more significant than anticipated, which may have been a factor in some students’ failure to complete. It is important to note that a failed experiment was not necessarily a failed project, as negative results are common with experimental approaches to art-making. These types of failures were found to be useful learning tools.


Faculty agree that although there was not universal success on these projects, requiring independent, student-directed research at the upper level is good for the program. It should also be noted that more and more students are expressing the desire to work collaboratively with each other. Students were often highly successful when they worked collaboratively, both in these research projects and in other assignments. Faculty to continue to implement this requirement, monitor student progress more closely and encourage collaborative learning.


What changes will be made in future assessment processes?

SEE BELOW AND ABOVE

Other: What other feedback would you like to share regarding program assessment or student learning?

Worked Well:The best aspect of our assessment process is the communication and collaboration that it has created. This takes several forms. The most obvious and immediate aspect is that each semester, all full-time faculty in the program meet and discuss the curriculum and activities of the term. In addition, because the assessment process that we have developed relies so heavily on student involvement, we feel that students are more engaged in assessing their own work. The complexity and demands of our process require us to communicate much more clearly and completely with the students, and this has been extremely beneficial in developing their own reflective process and professional development. As noted above, the documentation of work is both a Student Learning Outcome and also the means to assess the outcome.

Pleased by:The Exit Interviews completed by the graduating seniors were very useful. Without exception, the students identified the AQIP process as being very helpful in developing professional portfolios, and although they found them to be onerous initially, eventually they grew to value them. Also, students who participated in the student trips and activities rated them very highly, often stating that those activities were more important than any other extra-curricular events or activities in their academic careers, and often more important than ANY learning opportunity, including academic courses.

The faculty are also pleased by the new push that we see in Academics. It seems that slowly but surely change is taking place for the better here at the University and this helps us to maintain a positive attitude towards our assessment process. Our external evaluator was very impressed by our assessment process.

Frustrating:The review process is very cumbersome and time-consuming. One small change to our semester end review occurred when the faculty took one hour to review all the images independently. We made notes on each course. After the hour we went down the list discussing our findings. We did not project images and examine them as a group. This really seemed to streamline our group review and we will continue this approach.

Other: What other feedback would you like to share regarding program assessment or student learning?

One of the major initiatives for assessment and student learning that we have maintained is the annual spring juried student exhibition. This show highlights each year of student work. After last year’s assessment it was agreed that more formal rules would be written regarding entry, jurying and prizes for this show by the gallery coordinator. This was implemented this year.

It was suggested by the external evaluator that we capitalize upon outside evaluators more for this assessment process. While this is probably helpful, it’s unclear how to fit this into our already robust and often exhausting program assessment process. One possible feasible way to approach this is to tie it into our visiting artist program, asking the visiting artists to write a short report of their observations of the strengths and weaknesses of the program. We have not yet implemented this idea, but intend to do so next year.

Each year, we nominate two graduating seniors to compete in the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio Visual Arts Awards. As we are competing with many top-notch schools, such as Columbus College of Art and Design, and the Cleveland Institute of Art, the competition if very stiff. This year, for the first time, both of our nominated students were among the six finalists. Although


neither won the Grand Prize, reaching finalist status was very gratifying for the students and the faculty. In recent years, we have studied our students’ portfolio entries, the selected finalists, and noticed ways that our students could improve their odds, both in terms of the work they produce and in how it’s presented. This year, our efforts, and those of our students, seem to have paid off. This seems like a positive assessment of the program.

It was also recommended by the external reviewer that the Department join FATE (Foundations in Art Theory and Education). This organization is a repository for current trends and ideas in foundational art courses. The cost is minimal and we plan on joining this group.

It was agreed by the faculty that we should have more critiques where students have access to all three of us at once. This year we initiated the first Art Department Critique Night. We met with students in a less formal circumstance in the evening. We brought potluck items for eating and enjoyed each other’s company while talking about the work shown. This is also different than class critiques as there were students from different academic levels and different media. Although this was an enjoyable and beneficial experience, it takes a lot of extra time on the part of the faculty and students. While we plan on continuing this practice, it will likely be fairly sporadic.

Students keep telling us over and over that the most valuable learning tool provided them while at the University is travel to cultural centers. We have continued trips to New York, and other cultural centers. Although during the summer of 2012 a faculty took a group of 12 to Rome, Florence and Venice, our desire to create a more permanent base in a European cultural center has not yet come to fruition. This is partly due to the fact that one of the three full time art faculty was on academic sabbatical for the Spring 2013 semester. Additional uncertainty about administrative leadership has hampered efforts to start other exchange/foreign travel.

One of the major things that took place was the implementation of the long-term Artist in Residence Program. The artist that was present on campus was Ms. Kelly O’Brien. Ms. O’Brien replaced Kevin Lyles for his coursework, as well as had responsibilities to create artwork, do workshops, an exhibition, and speak with the community. This was an enormous benefit to the students, the faculty, the institution and the community, as Ms. O’Brien brought new perspectives to the program.

In response to a desire to incorporate journaling in classes, one faculty member has required students to keep a written journal/sketchbook, and write a summary of its content as a graded component of the class. These journal essays provided good feedback about class content and structure and also showed good evidence of student engagement. However, not all faculty are interested in this initiative, and this will not become a requirement of all ART courses.

Disc collection has been problematic in the past. This was brought up in the fall assessment, and changes were immediately implemented. In the spring semester, faculty switched to requiring files to be submitted on a flash drive. This change made collection of images much easier, and will continue to be used.

This is the end of Part Two-Program Assessment Report. Upon completion, email to [email protected].

Comments from the committee: None


Course Assessments-Art Department 2012-13Disks not yet in

ART 10303 (TM) Art AppreciationIt must be noted that Art Appreciation has historically been taught by an adjunct faculty, and is not taken by art majors as they may opt out of this humanities requirement in the general education sequence. This year saw continued improvement in the Art Appreciation research papers. As per suggestions from the 2011 AQIP review, the instructor did not mandate the research subjects but instead required a comparison between two artists of the student’s choice. And although this was better, it still seemed that there was much overlap within the student papers. Several students had selected the same two artists to compare. It will be suggested to the faculty that they perhaps allow students to randomly select pre-arranged artist combinations so that no two students do the same research. There has also been much success in the Western Art History sequence requiring students to take their thesis papers to the Learning Center for Review. This practice will be suggested to the art appreciation faculty. A thesis grading rubric developed by the full time faculty was forwarded to the adjuncts. This rubric also applies a grade to the review component. Additionally it had been suggested that the adjunct faculty utilize Turnitin for document collection. Although they did use Turnitin, it was for their originality reports only and not as a repository for AQIP document collection. It will be reinforced that instead of all the discs, which are difficult to collect in this class, that the faculty could download all required documents from Turnitin to one disc. There were some file naming issues present with the thesis paper. Some students named them Paper. Others named them Research. Still others named them Thesis. This was confusing for the review process. Partly, it was because on available department documents we are also not consistent with those names. It was agreed that all written, papers for art appreciation or art history sequence from now on these will be called Thesis, and all available guidelines on the Department website would be changed accordingly. The adjunct implemented the Museum Visit requirement to Art Appreciation and made it a part of the grade. This seemed to be the highlight of this class as most of these students had not ever attended a museum. Their journal entries from this visit were pretty neat. Overall, the full time faculty were satisfied with the work going on in Art Appreciation.MINOR REVISIONS SUGGESTED

ART 10403 Two-Dimensional DesignTwo-Dimensional design did not show significant progress towards the recommendations that were given by the faculty from last year. It still seemed that much of the emphasis in the class was geared toward painting and drawing and less towards design. And although some painting and drawing are certainly acceptable, there was a preponderance of projects that utilize this: the Positive/Negative, and the Gray Scale Portrait projects being the exceptions with good results. It had been suggested to turn the crosshatch project into pen instead of pencil and to embed the emotional word into the image of the work electronically, instead of a paper slip being attached to the painting. Neither of these suggestions was implemented. The Art History project was well received and implemented although the final images were not shown side by side as suggested last year. It was agreed by the full time faculty that across the board in future documentation of AQIP images, art history projects will be shown side by side, as well as inside of the Art History short research papers. There are still some file-naming issues. The faculty seemed to have done better with his communication on this issue, but students seem to confuse this regardless. This is somewhat across the program, and it has been decided to just let it ride and utilize the AQIP Disc Rubric to continue to hold the students accountable, and that we cannot do it for them. As students matriculate through the program, they seem to get better at all components of the AQIP process. Lastly, there were some glare issues in some of the images. Photographing two-dimensional work is difficult. It was agreed by the primary faculty that he would build some sort of diffused light table for his students, similar to what was constructed for the three-dimensional work last year. REVISIONS SUGGESTED

ART 10503 Three-Dimensional DesignAs Kevin Lyles was on Sabbatical leave this semester, this course was taught by our Artist-in-Residence Kelly O’Brien. Kelly’s approach was a significant shift from Kevin’s. Although both teachers stressed


professionalism, engagement with ideas and materials, and developing the student’s thinking in three dimensions, there following areas of similarity and difference are noted.

Although image quality was good, the organization and naming conventions of submitted documentation was better when Kevin taught the class. This is likely due to Kelly’s relative inexperience with the AQIP process. Despite tutelage from the chair, there were numerous mistakes in student submissions, and a number of files seem to be missing.

The art history projects that students completed were all contemporary, young artists (under 50), mostly working with non-traditional materials (foam cups, paper scraps, etc).

Kelly’s projects included more emphasis on temporal, site-specific projects. Kevin’s projects probably taught the students more about shop tool use and traditional materials. Kelly seemed to spend more time talking about contemporary art and artists, although this is difficult

to determine definitively. It is unclear if student engagement was higher or lower with either teacher.

REVISIONS SUGGESTEDWhile there is great value in teaching a traditional approach to 3D design, and to the other courses in our curriculum, there is some concern that the faculty is aging, and the newest ideas are not always being included in the curriculum. Although frequent trips to museums and galleries help with this somewhat, it may be necessary to look at this idea as a program-wide concern. The PBS series ART21 may be a good resource for including newer ideas and artists in the canon.

ART 12301 Art PortfolioThere were good projects with evidence of student engagement. Photography was much better since the addition of the three-dimensional photo booth. Last year there was much discussion as to whether or not to turn this course back into a 16 week course, from its current 8 week offering, or of the feasibility of combining it with a special art major’s section of LA 101, Freshman Success. The wheels of academic change are sometimes slow. The primary faculty has taken these issues through the Academic Affairs Proposal process. It was even proposed that for Art Students LA 101 could be dropped and much of the learning outcomes be transferred to Art Portfolio. This proposal was not accepted. It has been decided by the full time faculty that in the future we would offer a special 8 week LA 101 just for art majors, followed by an 8 week Art Portfolio. This will allow the faculty to split the course topics so that students get the best of both worlds. This will be particularly helpful with the photography component of Art Portfolio. Since this has been taking place in the first 8 weeks, students have not had current artwork to photograph. By moving Art Portfolio to the second half of the semester they will be able to photograph work that will go into their AQIP discs and portfolios. Just as in many of the foundational courses, the writing samples were better but still weak. This is an ongoing issue across the program. It had been suggested that the faculty would rely on the University Learning Center to help with the proofreading in more of the writing components in art classes. This is still not happening across the board. This class is more difficult since that review process seems to work best with research/thesis papers. We are not even sure we want that for reflective journals. But the Art Portfolio faculty has agreed to at least implement this with the assigned Letter of Application project.MINOR REVISIONS SUGGESTED

ART 12403 DrawingOverall fair achievement in this course. The primary faculty was a bit frustrated in the final work of the students. About half of the students did a great job, the other half were average. The art history project was one of the stronger projects as it had been decided that for this class the students would drop the writing component of the project and devote that time to copying as closely as possible the work of a master drawer. The first and last, the first and last still life, and the art history work and copy, were three projects that were displayed side by side in the images, and this made it much easier to see the results of student learning. Faculty were confused by some file names. It was suggested and that the names for these files should be changed to FirstandLastChoice, and FirstandLastStill for clarification. This seems to be a good idea and the faculty will implement this in the future.


This year a smaller size drawing pad was provided making for more drawings with good results. There are file-naming issues present. The faculty provided the list of names, and several times reinforced the name but spent less time reviewing these issues in the end and allowed the AQIP Disc Rubric to do its job. This made for more mistakes and a more difficult review process, but less stress on the faculty. This faculty feels that there is a tipping point in the AQIP collection and review process. Most of the students in Drawing I are freshmen and it has been observed that students get better with the AQIP as they matriculate through the process. Lastly the students in this drawing class showed great results with the contour drawings but less admirable results with the perspective and value projects. This seemed to be because in the contour projects they are required to draw in pen. This forces the brain to work harder before making a mark. In the weeks of perspective drawing they are allowed to draw in pencil and then shade. In the future drawing perspective will be done with pen contours. Perhaps at this level they are just not ready to combine more advanced skills and the faculty needs to remember to divide and reinforce basic drawing skills and techniques. MINOR REVISIONS SUGGESTED ART 15404 Western Art History IThis course showed good engagement by the students in the samples from the portfolio, Blackboard assignments, and the thesis. This engagement in art history is a major goal of the faculty. This semester the art history faculty utilized the University Learning Center to help with the proofreading of the thesis assignment, which was a great help in alleviating the teaching of “English” so that more time could be dedicated to art history content. This semester the Thesis Grading Rubric for Art History I and II was redesigned making edits by the Learning Center, and posting on Turnitin a graded step in the process. Additionally, the paper was collected twice, once at just after midterm, and once at the end. Students are graded each time with the same rubric, but 25% of the grade is applied to the first draft, and 75% of the grade is applied to the final paper. This seemed to alleviate most, but not all, of the errors in grammar and plagiarism and will be continued. Additionally the primary faculty tried something new with the final examination. A semester review document is available all semester in Blackboard. Students are told to print that off, visit it often, and fill in answers. This they do for the most part. Additionally, the last day of class, students are given a review based on that document. This semester we reviewed for 45 minutes then the faculty handed them the final examination to study for a week. Typically this final has 30 cultures, concepts, images, and artists available. During the test students are asked to select 20 to write about for 5 points each. For this exam however, they were given the test ahead of time, but told that on exam day, the faculty would pick the 20 questions. It was interesting. Half of the students took advantage of this opportunity and scored in the upper 90’s or perfect. One quarter of the students scored average or well. One quarter seemed to do worse than if they had not been given the exam previously at all. The faculty does not know what to make of this and will try this technique again before making a decision whether or not to make this practice permanent.MINOR REVISIONS SUGGESTED

ART 20104 Raster GraphicsOverall very good achievement in this course. Room assignment is particularly effective. In this course the students implemented the art history project by utilizing a major work for influence but then creating their own work, which might be significantly different. This technique worked well but the source and student work were not documented side by side as had been agreed upon in previous AQIP reviews. This will be done in the future and has been agreed upon by all arts faculty in studio courses. The animation project was particularly interesting and effective showing good learning and immersion by most students. The primary faculty did suspect a violation of academic integrity in one of the submissions, as it did not seem like the student was capable of accomplishing it. However, with short digital animation there is no Turnitin as in written work, and the faculty cannot find the suspected original online. This may be alleviated in the future by an observational step somewhere in the process. The written journal assignment was very effective giving the student reflective writing practice as well as giving the instructor feedback on what worked well and what didn’t. The biggest and most exciting change to both Raster and Vector Graphics was the implementation of a new grading rubric that empowered the students to select how they wanted to be graded. These options included 25% of the grade for the selection of; Improvement, Quality, Quantity, or Effort. The students seemed to really appreciate this option


and it seemed to help the overall work. At least one of the other art faculty are interested in exploring this approach to grading. MINOR REVISIONS SUGGESTED ART 20204 Vector GraphicsThis class achieved relatively good project results from the students. The Zine project was especially effective showing excellent work by the students. The communication issues about printing of these projects that had existed last year were cleared up. There were some weaknesses in the Poster Project and the documentation is missing in the Research projects. Additionally the faculty feel that some sort of progress/improvement strategy might be helpful. This faculty did however implement a new grading system with excellent results. This system is explained in the above Raster Graphics Course assessment summary. It was also discussed whether or not this class could go on an every other year rotation. Although the long-term effects of this are not yet known, it seems more than likely this will be implemented.MINOR REVISIONS SUGGESTED ART 20304 Web GraphicsPrevious assessments of this course suggested simplifying the content, so that it is less technically challenging and more focus is placed on the design elements. This was partially achieved this year, but more could be done. Images captured make assessment of the student’s success somewhat simpler to determine for faculty not conversant in web technology, but improvement still needs to be made. Lesson images are hard to read. Animations seem too simplistic.SUGGESTIONS FOR REVISION

Get rid of half the lessons. Start working with Dreamweaver in week one and focus more on design, rather than coding. Add more animation projects, require more “finished” animation.

ART 21504 Printmaking, 31504 Printmaking II and 41504 Printmaking IIIThis semester, the course had an emphasis on contemporary printmakers, with four separate projects related to this. The Art History Project required that students research a mid-level academic artist, email the artist and attempt to get some dialogue with them. This was partially successful. Students also attended a lecture by a famous contemporary artist who works in print-Leslie Dill. A printmaking professor from another university came to Rio to show her work and conduct a workshop with student on a new technique. Lastly, the students assisted the instructor of this course in printing three prints by visiting artists. Each of these initiatives was highly successful, and these kind of activities should be continued.However, from examinations of the submitted images, it seems as if the overall level of technical proficiency has declined somewhat. Perhaps this is a result of more emphasis on the ideas and conceptual elements.MINOR REVISIONS SUGGESTED

Continue engagement activities Renew focus on technique and quality of craft

ART 23201 ExhibitsThis course will need to be revised to address deficiencies in Senior Exhibit. Current course outcomes seem to be adequately addressed.MAJOR REVISIONS SUGGESTED

Increase course to three hours Require students to plan and conduct an exhibition of enrolled students, like a mini senior exhibit.

Require each student to frame at least two pictures.

ART 23504 Ceramics I, 33504 Ceramics II, 43504 Ceramics III, Selected Topics CeramicsWork is exceptionally strong with a significant increase in quality as well as quantity. This was most likely due to the fact that the faculty member attended three Walter Gropius Workshops at the Huntington Museum of Art over the previous year. (and took five art students interested in ceramics) In one of the workshops taught by


ceramists Randy Johnston, the faculty member learned how to create functional works without a wheel, by using paper patterns and wooden slump molds. For this semester, all the wheels were put in storage and the students were in turn taught how to create patterns and molds. This alleviated the problem of beginners who tend to want to create hundreds of pots on the potter’s wheel, mostly of inferior quality. This technique will be continued especially for beginning classes. Some wheels will be returned for more advanced level students. One project that all students were required to do was to create a non-working teapot out of non-clay materials and then use that work to create a real ceramic teapot. Although many students complained about this assignment initially, most agreed it was one of the best projects they did. The art history project showed good student immersion, especially in the written portion. In past ceramic courses the photographic images were almost always sub-par. This past year the ceramic faculty built a professional light box. This has eliminated most of the photography issues, although there are still some cropping, noise, and lighting issues existing. These seem to be more closely linked to the work the students do subsequent to photography in Photoshop. The faculty will attempt to more closely monitor this portion of the documentation process although he is cognizant of the tipping point previously mentioned and more inclined to let the AQIP Disc Rubric do its work. Timing in ceramics is frustrating. Because of the process of building, drying, and firing clay the deadline for starting new works is before Thanksgiving break. This is a full 2 ½ weeks before finals, and still not long enough to complete and document all the work before the end of the semester. In this particular class students were so engaged, that several kiln loads of firings were accomplished after final exams. Although the faculty enjoys seeing the students so involved in creating work, it is difficult and a solution will be considered. This faculty is also quite interested in the grading system developed by his colleague that gives the students choices on grading Improvement, Quality, Effort, or Quantity and will explore this idea.MINOR REVISIONS SUGGESTED

ART 24504 Sculpture I, 34504 Sculpture II, 44504 Sculpture IIIThis course was taught by our Artist in Residence. Observations include the following:

Less attention paid to structural concerns, permanence, and traditional materials More conceptual installation-based work was created. Similar amount of work completed. More contemporary approach.

REVISIONS SUGGESTEDRegular faculty should consider including some of the more contemporary, temporal, or site-specific elements while maintaining the strong attention to craft and material.

ART 25404 Western Art History II Artist-in-Residence Kelly O’Brien taught this course this semester, and she attempted to incorporate more studio projects in this course, with mixed success. The Rococo projects seemed to be engaging and address the course content well, but the blind contour project seemed out of place in the course. The more traditional approach of the regular instructor probably yields better results.SUGGEST RETURNING TO TYPICAL APPROACH

ART 26604 Darkroom PhotographyThere was a good variety of work in this course although the other faculty had some difficulty determining the project or the level of student. This could be somewhat alleviated by the use of P2 and P3 (photo 2 or 3) prefixes on the naming files to let us know which level student created the work. There was mixed printing quality in the images. This has been improved since previous classes and could be due to the work ethic of individual students. There seemed to be a lack of different shapes other than the 8x10 vertical or horizontal rectangles and it was suggested this be encouraged in the future. There is a good awareness of concept in this course as well as an obvious teaching of strong design concepts. Although as before mentioned it was sometimes difficult for the other faculty to determine what the assignment was. This seems to be a file naming issue. Although overall the work seems be strong in this course the most discussion took place regarding expectations, syllabus, and grading issues. There seems to be much confusion to the students on how or why grades are given. In some cases the parameters of the course syllabus were not followed. It is strongly suggested by the faculty that the syllabus be


re-visited and followed, as well as a grading rubric be developed for this course. Each of these should be disseminated to the students beforehand and then adhered to during the course and at the end. REVISIONS SUGGESTED ART 26904 Digital PhotographyMixed results. The “good” students did well, and the “poor” students did not. Overall, the results were not as good as the same class in the previous year. Most of the best work came out of the student-directed projects, rather than the “lesson” projects. At the same time, students reported both in class and in their journals that the “lesson” projects were very useful. The curriculum and assignments were almost identical to previous years’ offerings, so some other factor is probably responsible for weaker performance. Potential causes include, but are not limited to:

Different students (weaker group) Instructor busier with committee work and other service activities, distracted from course prep/energy. Course conducted three days a week for two hours rather than two days a week for three hours.

REVISIONS SUGGESTED Switch back to two-day schedule Reduce committee work Hope for better students More focus on individual assignments, less on “lessons”.

ART 28604 Painting I, ART 38604 Painting II, ART 48604Generally good outcomes. In general, the work seems stronger than in previous years. Several projects would benefit from “process” photos as the work is developed. Good range of art history references.MINOR REVISIONS SUGGESTED

ART 4880? Selected TopicsGenerally good outcomes. This course is actually a combination of courses in which students work independently in a variety of media outside typical course offerings. Because of the variety of selections, this course does not really lend itself to assessment in this manner. Students do not typically have the benefit of feedback from a group, which is limiting.REVISIONS SUGGESTEDRequire students in Selected Topics to participate in group critiques scheduled for other classes.

ART 30104 Junior Design Studio I, 40104 Senior Design IAlthough the work in this class was acceptable, it did not seem to surpass the expected output of those students. Because of the small enrollment of this course (three) the faculty taught this course for one hour load and basically taught it as three independent studies. It lacked the critical mass to attempt some of the collaborative projects normally attempted by this faculty. Additionally since all the students were upper level they each had separate interests in their approach to work. This being said, the students did reflect that they enjoyed the freedom to approach their work independently and were able to delve deeper into personal design goals. NO REVISIONS SUGGESTED

ART 30204 Junior Design Studio IIJunior and Senior Design Studio II was not offered this year.

ART 38504 Drawing II, Selected Topics DrawingThis course was not offered last year because of low enrollment. One student had taken an advanced level of drawing on an independent study basis, with excellent results. There were some successes in this course including the Art History assignment and the drapery assignment. It did seem however that the file names of AH, Research, and Classic all addressed the same project of an art history image. Also as in all the studio courses the Art History image should be side by side with the student completed work, or copy. In many of the


drawings there is a significant absence of heads, faces, hands, and/or feet. Although it was argued that this is a verified technique with artists such as Phillip Pearlstein, the other faculty believe that these artists are professionals and in a beginning figure drawing course this should be the exception rather than the rule. Many course outcomes listed in the syllabi had no evidence of being addressed including; contour, hatching, graphite, conte crayon, different papers, interpretations of the figure, critical analysis, sketchbook images, and matting. It is suggested either the syllabus be changed to eliminate techniques, or followed. It was also suggested that a comparison image be included in the documentation of before and after to better show student improvement. There seemed to be confusion by the primary faculty as to whether or not a research component should be included in this class. It is an upper level studio course and it had been agreed that independent research is a component of these courses across the art curriculum. As is prevalent with other two-dimensional work, the documentation of images was weak. This was not entirely anyone’s fault, as we do not have a good system for taking images of two-dimensional work. The primary faculty has agreed to work on some sort of solution for photography as has been implemented in three-dimensional classes. It is unclear to the other faculty how the watercolor images of leaves are pertinent to the other body of work. One student did turn in an image of a watercolor portrait with excellent results. Perhaps this assignment could be changed to a watercolor portrait or figure study. Lastly, there was a marked absence, and even frustration expressed by the primary faculty, about the student’s handling of negative space in the drawings. The faculty stated that students spend so long on the figure and then just ignore or quickly draw in the surrounding space. It seems some emphasis ought to occur on this. At the conclusion of the last review of this course, the Art Department Coordinator developed a draft syllabus for this course for review by the faculty member that teaches it. The faculty member agreed to use this syllabus, or a modified version of it this year. This did not occur.

SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS SUGGESTED

ART 36503 Non-Western Art HistoryOnly two students enrolled in this course this semester. The course was taught as a hybrid studio and art history course, with each student completing three studio art history projects, writing a paper, presenting a PowerPoint lecture on one of the chapters and listening to instructor-prepared PowerPoint lectures on the other chapters. Although this was a small sample, this approach seemed to be a more engaging way to cover the material than the typical lecture/test/paper format.REVISIONS SUGGESTEDContinue some version of this approach, with significant student-led, rather than faculty led activity. Suggest making student-created PowerPoint lectures available to other students and/or faculty to increase the “stakes” of the presentation.

ART 46503 Art History Criticism and PhilosophyNot offered this semester-this will become an every-other-year course. Instructor is revising content based on previous assessments.SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS SUGGESTED

ART 48501 Senior ExhibitGenerally high achievement of outcomes. The faculty are proud of how the senior exhibitions come together. It was noted during the process of preparing the exhibits, and by reading the senior’s exit interviews that the students seemed overwhelmed by the entire process. They perceive that all of this comes down on them all at once, at the end, while they are finishing other classes and graduating. In reality, they know from the beginning of the course what is expected yet seem to inevitably procrastinate in the preparations. Usually these exhibits are group shows where two or three students are assembled, and we historically have one to three exhibitions. The students in each group work collaboratively to prepare, hang, advertise, and do all the necessary work to have a successful exhibition. Future senior exhibits will require all exhibitors to help with all the shows in the groups whether or not they are exhibiting. This will give them practice as well as apply more workers to the tasks. Additionally, the students seemed panicked about framing their work. Learning how to frame has been sporadic in the program. It happens in some classes but not others. Although faculty are always willing to help with


framing, there is no one place where this is taught to every student so that they can do this on their own. From now on, framing will be taught in ART 23201 Exhibits.MINOR REVISIONS SUGGESTED

This is the end of the Program Assessment Report. Upon completion, email to [email protected]. Comments from the Committee:

The committee enjoyed the focus on what you learned from your failures (as well as your successes). Assessment is supposed to show us the cracks in our programs, so we can work to fill them. The program appears to be viewing these yearly assessments as teaching and learning moments.

web viewit still seemed that much of the emphasis in the class was geared toward painting and...

Documents