Yin Ying Kong 33412930 BA Design
Actionable Ethics Assessing Student Art: A-Level Grading Procedure and its Alternatives
Impetus for Investigation On 24 December 2016, following a lecture on radical pedagogy by Dr Beth Williamson, educators discussed the conditions needed for creativity, students’ creative anxiety, and the limitations of the educational system. An anecdote raised by former A-level teacher David Barton was particularly emphatic (refer to Appendix A): “I had a very, very talented sixth form boy. […] He produced some of the most amazing work [and] immediately got accepted into art colleges […] he put up his A-level exhibition, and he had a pile of sketchbooks […] The chief examiner for the A-level came in and went through a few of them [and told me], ‘you are just encouraging him in his neurosis’.” Barton’s account demonstrates an unsettling divide between how the art examiner and institute determines the value of a student’s work. Seeing as “neurosis” suggests obsessiveness and compulsion (Random House “Neurosis.”), it is clear that the A-level examiner had graded the student poorly. This is a vastly different assessment from the colleges which had accepted him on the same portfolio and calls into question both the reliability and validity of the A-level Art grading procedure. Reliability and validity are two conditions necessary for grades to transmit information to relevant stakeholders and may be understood as accuracy and meaningfulness respectively. (Brookhart 23) Grading procedure also bears structural influences on students’ learning habits and psyche. Some educators mentioned the psychological effects of having to “fulfil a criteria” in art: students manifest performance anxiety (“They have to be fulfilling their potential at every possible moment, in every possible way”) and self-inhibition (“If you’re suddenly saying to them, ‘have a bit of your […] initiative’, they’re just so not used to doing it”). (Refer to Appendix A.) This forces us to consider that, beyond misrepresenting aptitude, grading procedures have the potential to negatively impact creative learning, and thus highlights the possibility that they may be inherently incompatible with creative subjects.
Method This investigation hopes to uncover the reasons for this incompatibility and develop strategies for reconciliation. Towards this end, the A-level syllabi and rubric will be unpacked and evaluated. Insights from past and current students from various creative courses (namely art, illustration, design, and architecture) have also been collected via email interviews to conduct a qualitative study of alternative grading procedures.
Scenario This essay will focus on the General Certificate of Education (GCE) Advanced-level (A-level) Art coursework grading procedure as the case study for criticism. It is a major examination in over a dozen countries [1] and may be considered a widely used assessment format. The A-level is characterised by deontological grading, where “teachers […] follow a strict path for grading once it has been established” (Patel, Krop, Meyer 6) [2], one-off assessment, and a final alphabetical grade. Its procedure is communicated to relevant institutions via a syllabus guide. Therein, the coursework rubric uses five assessment domains: Gathering and Investigation of Information, Exploration and Development of Ideas/Concepts, Aesthetic Qualities, Selection and Control of Materials and Technical Processes, and Personal Response. (Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board and Cambridge International Examinations 12)
[1] Cambridge International AS & A Levels is used in UK, Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore, Egypt, Jordan, South Africa, the Netherlands, Germany and Spain. (“Cambridge International AS & A Level Recognition.” cie.org.uk.) [2] “[D]eontology deals with morally acceptable acts regardless of consequences, which are most often thought of in terms of duty.” (Blanke 136)
1. Rubric-oriented procedure The A-level programme’s “strict path for grading” seems to demand a “strict path” for creating. For instance, under Technical Processes, students are required to “apply and manipulate appropriate techniques […] in a thoughtful and disciplined manner”. (Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board and Cambridge International Examinations 12) Ministry of Education scholar Quek Jia Qi, who took the A-level H2 Art programme, reflects that, in order to score well, one simply has to exhibit technical control and “just follow [the] rubric”. (Refer to Appendix B.) The discovery of this “hack” has paid off for her and accounts for why many students have allowed the rubric to structure their approach in art making. This rubric-oriented approach is more clearly observed in the resources that have emerged with this hacking culture. The Student Art Guide is one of several databases that offers detailed articles, resources, and examples of A* student work. (Refer to fig. 1 and 2.) Their articles boil art down to a science, specifying even the proportion of annotation and image within a page and offering “accompanying guide[s on] how to select a good A-level Art theme”, which ironically removes the “your” in “your ideas”. (Gale. “How to develop your ideas in an Art project”) (Refer to fig. 3 and 4.) In them, we observe that highly structured criteria lends itself to formulaic responses and reduces students’ impetus to use their personal voice or experiment. It also threatens the fairness of the exam as it assesses understanding of the rubric more than artistic ability.
Fig. 1: “Tips for Producing an Amazing GCSE or A Level Art Sketchbook: Student Work” source: The Student Art Guide
Fig. 2: “How to develop your ideas in an Art project: Student Work” source: The Student Art Guide
The articles reference Claire Lynn’s work and Nikau Hindin’s project, taking care to mention their respective scores, 100% (A*) and 98% (A*). Here, valuation of student work by grades is clearly observed.
Fig. 3: “Tips for Producing an Amazing GCSE or A Level Art Sketchbook” source: The Student Art Guide The Student Art Guide insists twice-over that images should be prioritised over annotation. This suggests the A-level’s focus on aesthetic and implies that conceptual works better articulated in words may score poorly.
Fig. 4: “How to develop your ideas in an Art project” source: The Student Art Guide The article provides a link to guide on A Level Art themes, suggesting that examiners only look for a certain type of themes. The specific number of drawings the article recommends and the instruction to “select another artist and repeat the process” imply a formulaic process to scoring well in A-level Art.
2. Absolute authority with the teacher Deontological grading assumes absolute authority on the part of the professor or examiner, constituting a unilateral system of value judgment. [3] It is valid to claim that it is the ethical duty of the teacher to ensure that grades given are fair. However, it is problematic to place sole ethical responsibility on them. Firstly, value judgments made by singular agents are not entirely reliable. As opinions vary from teacher to teacher, the grade a student receives becomes a matter of luck. If David Barton were the A-level chief examiner, his student would have received a vastly different grade. Additionally, the act of grading is, in itself, deeply political and at risk of misinterpretation by students. This is highlighted by American philosopher Daniel Bonevac: “In grading my students, […] I think I am rewarding excellence and punishing incompetence. Not so, say the insurgents; I am using my power to oppress, to force conformity to some model of behaviour that I find politically useful.” (Bonevac 7) As can be seen, how grades are intended to be transmitted have little bearing on how they are received. Grades which should “express neither approval nor disapproval of students as persons” (The Educational Policy Committee of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 6) can be interpreted by students to express precisely that. As such, giving sole ethical responsibility to the teacher limits the reliability and meaningfulness of the grade to the student.
3. One-off assessment The A-level, like “[m]ost grading curriculums[, is] designed with the intention to minimi[s]e subjectivity” (Patel, Krop, Meyer 5). It achieves a fixed benchmark by running all submissions from one examination through Cambridge. This format allows for consistency but is questionable in other ways. These are a few points of contention: How can two years of preparatory studies [4] be adequately represented by “[no] more than eight A2 sheets”? (Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board and Cambridge International Examinations 11) How can the examiner determine if two years of progress was not two months of rushed work? How can non-linear developments be tracked in a format that is so static? A one-off submission seems to be woefully inappropriate in measuring progress [5], and a grade that comes from it would certainly lack meaning in this respect.
[3] Several texts discussing grading procedure propound the same notion that agency is positioned with the teacher. Grading and Evaluation Procedures states that, “[u]nder the utilitarian perspective, each professor has to determine what grading procedure is best for each course.”(Patel, Krop, and Meyer 6) Similarly, the Faculty Council at the University of North Carolina claims that “[g]rading is the process of a teacher’s arriving at and recording a summarizing, symbolic remark on the academic performances of his or her students. […] value judgments [are] made by the teacher.” (The Educational Policy Committee of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 6) [4] Preparatory studies comprises “research into the selected theme or topic and the development of ideas or concepts leading to the final artwork”. (Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board and Cambridge International Examinations 11) [5] Similar assessments include the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP) where students’ portfolios are assessed as a final submission at the end of two years. The IBDP prides itself on its segmented assessment structure which tracks progress through the whole course but ironically does not do so for the subject that, arguably, requires evidence of constant development the most.
4. Incomplete transmission of value judgement through final grade Final grades are communicated to students as an alphabet in a result slip. (Refer to fig. 5.) The nature of the letter is static; they offer neither directives nor indication of relative success [6]. Students cannot ascertain the accuracy of their grades as no reasoning is offered and, without feedback, grades are also meaningless in terms of reflecting on or furthering projects. In contrast, institutions receive feedback and general statistics on student performance. (Refer to Appendix B.) Here, beyond reliability and accuracy, an issue with accountability arises: are the students not one of the appropriate audiences deserving of meaningful value judgments? -------- From the above, it is clear that the A-level grading procedure and its effect on learning habits is fundamentally unfair to Art itself as a subject that is characterised by fluidity, exploration, and independent articulation. On a practical level, continued use of this grading procedure is a pressing concern as it occurs at the cost of misrepresenting student aptitude, learning, and progress, which in turn affects their employability and likelihood of admission into further education. Developing strategies that target these problems is thus paramount.
[6] Relative success is understood as per the following quote by Waters, R.: “Learning outcomes can be measured in mathematics - a student calculates the correct answer. With the Arts nothing is so clear firstly because differing judgements intervene, and secondly because there is no single correct answer. The learning outcome is measured as ‘more successful’ or ‘less successful’.” (qtd. in Boyd 9)
Fig. 5: GCE Advanced Level Result Slip Sample Source: Physics.com.sg.
On the A-level result slip, each subject is listed with its level, examining authority, and an alphabetical grade. No further feedback is given.
Strategies and Evaluation 1. Breakdown the grades The use of a breakdown by domain along with detailed explanation, in lieu of “just a flat grade at the end” (refer to Appendix C2), would address accountability to the student. It offers students a chance to verify their grades’ accuracy by reviewing the teachers’ reasoning. Students can also reflect on their relative strengths or weaknesses, and in so doing, uncover meaning behind the grade. (Refer to fig. 6 and 7.)
2. Share the Agency This strategy involves an expansion of assessments to include peer and self-evaluation. It acknowledges that education is not only the responsibility of teachers and students must take ownership of their learning. This occurs by offering students platforms to assert effort and personal development. Singapore University of Technology and Design’s (SUTD) Denise Lee claims that “peer evaluation is necessary to give […] due credit to those who have worked harder than others” and Nanyang Academy of Fine Art’s (NAFA) Lydia Tee mentions that “research [or] development parts [of her work are usually in] more visual forms” so self-evaluation would provide the lecturer with evidence of thought processes beyond the work. The final grade would thus be more indicative of aptitude and development as an aggregate of “several forms of assessment”. (Refer to Appendix C3-5.) ——— The above strategies still depend on set rubrics, which has its drawbacks. They do not always provide direction or address the students’ concerns. University of Southern California Art student Ankita Mukherji reflects that the feedback “focus could be more on […] improvement”. (Refer to Appendix C1.) Similarly, Warwick’s Art History student Chua Ching Yi wants original scripts to be returned, in addition to feedback documents, to understand “how [she] could improve”. She also requested a model essay for reference to “better grasp the level of depth, analysis, critique required, and possible ways of structuring”. (Refer to Appendix C2.) Their comments prove that the grades and feedback are less meaningful than they could be within this rubric-oriented grading structure. Moreover, Chua’s request for a model essay - a demonstration of excellence in each domain - echoes the rubric-oriented learning attitude that the A-level programme engenders. Camberwell College of Art student Clarice Ng also raises a valid concern that “[n]ot all students’ definition of a successful […] work line up with what the rubric states. Certain components might not even be relevant to the artwork in question.” For instance, the domain of Professional Working in Camberwell’s rubric (refer to Appendix E) may not be applicable to works intended for non-commercial settings. The problem of “forcing young creatives into churning out work[s] that fit into a particular mould” remains. (Refer to Appendix C3.)
University of Warwick, Department of History of Art Feedback Form – Engagement and Presentation in Seminars (year 2) Student name
Ching Chua
Module
HA2E7 Exhibiting the Contemporary
Student ID
Total mark (%)
68
Signature & date
1532106
13.12.16 Excellent Very Good Fair Poor Good
Comments
Presentation Did the presentation provide a clear and concise introduction to the exhibition?
x
The presentation gave a very good, clear introduction to a complex exhibition by Forensic Architecture.
Did the presentation demonstratement an engagement with relevant literature?
x
Yes, I felt that it was clear the students had engaged with relevant material.
Did the presentation raise any salient criticisms of the exhibition?
x
Did the presentation consider aspects of the exhibition design?
x
Did the presentation make useful comparisons to other exhibitions within or beyond the biennale? x
Was the presentation long enough?
x
Specifying different tiers of excellence and domains of assessment gives students a clear visual representation of where their relative strengths and weaknesses lie.
The presentation was not obviously critical, but concentrated chiefly on deciphering the material. Yes, the trade-off between aesthetic impact and communication was discussed.
x
Did the presentation stimulate further discussion?
Fig. 6 University of Warwick Art History rubric, provided by Chua Ching Yi (Original document in Appendix D)
These were generally implicit, but a good awareness of the wider biennale was demonstrated. Comparison with the other ‘forensic’ show in the biennale – ‘The Evidence Room’ – would have been welcome. Yes, a lively discussion followed the presentation. Yes, it was a very good length.
Was the group able to x follow?
Yes, absolutely, and under challenging conditions at times, with ambient noise etc.
Participation
Quality of contribution to class discussions throughout the term
x
Ching was a very engaged contributor to class discussions this term, attentive and inquisitive.
The contents of this form will only be used for the purposes of providing assessment feedback to individual students and for the purposes of reviewing teaching and learning quality by the University of Warwick or an external agency and will not be used for another purpose or disclosed to a third party under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998.
Fig. 7 University of Warwick Art History feedback, provided by Chua Ching Yi (Original document in Appendix D) Going into detail on the reasons behind the grade in the feedback gives students further guidance on how to improve. Here, the marker offers four tiers of description: a general explanation on why the student received the mark, general remarks, detailed comments, and resources to improve.
Strategies and Evaluation (continued) 3. Forget the rubric and the grade Strategies should therefore challenge the assumption that rubrics or grades are necessary. School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC) follows a pass-fail grading system based on critiques. Cornell’s Architecture programme employs a more radical system that removes grades entirely. Such critique-based assessments give students a chance to defend their work or listen to the tutors’ reasoning in a more reflexive manner. Each students’ work can also be considered independently, allowing for fair and targeted assessment of highly individualised works which do not fit rubric domains. Further, we must consider that the grade itself carries psychological weight, not just its procedural structure. Not having numbers reflected in their transcripts make students’ creative process “less stressful […] as [they do not] have to chase after a numerical grade”. (Refer to Appendix C6.) One can imagine not having a grade at all allows full focus on the creative process. Similarly, not having a specific rubric allows students to “work freely and at [their] own pace [without being] caught up with meeting the criteria.” While students do occasionally feel lost, the lack of a rubric drives students to construct their own learning. Architecture student Shruti Shah aptly states that it “forces [her] to work independently and […] create [her] own rubric.” (Refer to Appendix C7.) Notably, this mindset matches radical pedagogy, which intends for students to “formulate their own objective bases”. (Crippa and Williamson 9) Assessment by critique thus counters unconstructive feedback, unreliable grades, and the breeding of performance anxiety.
4. Track Progress For assessments to be indicative of “intellectual development”, they must occur at higher frequencies to checkpoint learning. Cornell’s Architecture programme assesses students using desk-crits “every studio session (3 times a week)”. From session to session, professors provide “advice on how to move forward, suggestions on possible changes to [their student’s] scheme, feedback on where [the student went] wrong, [and] architects [or] drawings to look at for inspiration” and the student, in turn, is expected to produce evidence of responses to their advice. (Refer to Appendix C7.) This structure not only records learning and progress through time, it drives students to actively develop their work.
Conclusion From the above exploration, it is clear that the A-level Art examination is obsolete. Its procedures are incongruent with most of the undergraduate courses surveyed, namely in its unilateral valuation system and rubric-oriented, one-off format. Consequently, the grades that come from it bear little relevance to higher education institutions in creative fields. A 2013 survey by University of the Arts London (UAL) confirms that more than half of the students and teachers are of a similar opinion; they believe that the programme did not prepare them for higher education (55%) or employment in creative industries (58%). (Ratcliffe. “Arts and Design A-level Fails to Prepare Students.”) This is, in part, due to the learning attitude the programme fosters that focuses on fulfilling criteria rather than personal artistic development. In totality, the A-level grade and procedure can be seen as invalid, unreliable, and an affront to Art as a subject. The strategies developed target the characteristics of A-level procedure that make it incompatible with Art. In them, two directions can be adopted: one, attempt to reconcile their contrasting characteristics; two, acknowledge that they are irreconcilable and therefore remove grading procedure entirely (assess without grading). All of them depend on the investment of both student and teacher. For instance, critiques can vary greatly in quality “[d]epending on the class’ dynamics[; they] can either be dominated by the instructor’s opinion, or the students’.” (Refer to Appendix C6.) Furthermore, an open-ended system can easily breed vagueness. For example, feedback from various sources can be inconsistent, as students reflect that sometimes “when we [got] our grades back[,] it wasn’t what we expected”. (Refer to Appendix C5.) The strategies on their own are undoubtedly imperfect and may work better when combined. However, the likelihood of such policy change at present is low. The host at Dr. Williamson’s lecture rightly notes that radical ideas require “times propitious for that kind of thinking”. (Refer to Appendix A.) At risk of sounding bauhaus-like, the third strategy in particular requires an educational system that has “continual shifts of emphasis” with “different, and often conflicting, creative currents” (Sudjic 27) - essentially, a fluid system that the A-level cannot accommodate. They are currently limited by the need for accountability and must produce evidence of performance within time constraints. Assessments in the above strategies are harder to distill as an aggregate statistic and to transmit as information. If we cannot expect a swift paradigm change, the solution may be to apply strategies the system is more receptive to now - such as strategies 1 and 2, despite them being more imperfect - to generate a gradual shift in the educational climate. First and foremost, the A-level programme must be brought to acknowledge the student as both a primary stakeholder in education and primary agent in their artwork. The outlook is a hopeful one, though, as assessment structures are gradually meeting pedagogic shifts. Some of these radical procedures are already quite successful - Cornell’s Architecture programme was ranked first in America last year! (Design Intelligence. “America’s Best Architecture Schools 2015.”) At some point in the future, we may find a way for prevailing assessment procedures like the A-level to do justice to the teachers, students, and creative subjects.
Bibliography Blanke, Heidi Griminger. “Grading by Theory: An Ethical Reflection.” College Teaching, vol. 47, no. 4, 1999, pp. 136–138. <www.jstor.org/stable/27558963.> Bonevac, Daniel. “Leviathan U.” The Imperiled Academy. Ed. Howard Dickman. New Brunswick, N.J, USA: Transaction, 1993. 1-26. Print. Boyd, Janis. “Myths, Misconceptions, Problems and Issues in Arts Education.” Diss. Griffith U, 1998. Qcaa.qld.edu.au. Web. 26 Dec. 2016. <https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/downloads/publications/research_qscc_arts_boyd.pdf>. Brookhart, Susan. The Art and Science of Classroom Assessment: The Missing Part of Pedagogy. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, vol. 27, no. 1, 1999. George Washington University. “Cambridge International AS & A Level Recognition.” Cie.org.uk. Cambridge International Examinations, 2016. Web. 27 Dec. 2016. <http://www.cie.org.uk/programmes-and qualifications/cambridge-advanced/cambridge-international-as-and-a-levels/ recognition/>. Crippa, Elena, and Beth Williamson, eds. Basic Design. London: Tate Britain, 2013. Print. Design Intelligence. “America’s Best Architecture Schools 2015.” DesignIntelligence. N.p., 20 Jan. 2015. Web. 1 Jan. 2017. <http://www.di.net/articles/americas-best-architecture schools-2015/>. Gale, Amiria. “How to Develop Your Ideas in an Art Project.” Student Art Guide. N.p., 02 Sept. 2015. Web. 23 Dec. 2016. <http://www.studentartguide.com/articles/a-level-art-coursework development>. Gale, Amiria. “Tips for Producing an Amazing GCSE or A Level Art Sketchbook.” Student Art Guide. N.p., 23 June 2016. Web. 24 Dec. 2016. <http://www.studentartguide.com/articles/a-level art-sketchbook>. Patel, Nipa, Benjamin Krop, and Justin Meyer. “Grading and Evaluation Procedures.” Diss. Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship, 2006. Print. Random House. “Neurosis.” Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, 2017. Web. 16 Dec. 2016. <http:// www.dictionary.com/browse/neurosis>. Ratcliffe, Rebecca. “Arts and Design A-level Fails to Prepare Students.” Guardian Students. Guardian News and Media, 23 Apr. 2013. Web. 28 Dec. 2016. <https://www.theguardian. com/education/2013/apr/23/arts-and-design-a-level-fails-to-prepare-students>. Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board and Cambridge International Examinations. Art Higher 2 (2016) Syllabus 9750. 2016. Ministry of Education, Singapore and University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. PDF file. Sudjic, Deyan. B Is for Bauhaus: An A-Z of the Modern World. London: Penguin, 2015. Print. The Educational Policy Committee of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Grade Inflation at UNC - Chapel Hill: A Report to the Faculty Council. Rep. University of North Carolina, 2 Feb. 2000. Web. 20 Dec. 2017. <https://www.unc.edu/faculty/faccoun/reports/1999-00/R2000 EPCGrdInfl.PDF>. Images GCE Advanced Level Result Slip Sample. Digital image. Physics.com.sg. N.p., 2013. Web. 1 Jan. 2017. <http://www.physics.com.sg/Testimonials.htm>. “How to Develop Your Ideas in an Art Project.” Student Art Guide. N.p., 2 Sep. 2015. Yin Ying Kong’s screenshot. 5 Jan. 2017. “How to Develop Your Ideas in an Art Project: Student Work.” Student Art Guide. N.p., 2 Sep. 2015. Yin Ying Kong’s screenshot. 5 Jan. 2017. “Tips for Producing an Amazing GCSE or A Level Art Sketchbook.” Student Art Guide. N.p., 23 June 2016. Yin Ying Kong’s screenshot. 5 Jan. 2017. “Tips for Producing an Amazing GCSE or A Level Art Sketchbook: Student Work.” Student Art Guide. N.p., 23 June 2016. Yin Ying Kong’s screenshot. 5 Jan. 2017.
Appendices A: Post-Lecture Transcript B: Conversation with Quek Jia Qi (Ministry of Education Scholar) C: Email Interviews
C1. Ankita Mukherji, Anthropology and Art, USC
C2. Chua Ching Yi, History of Art, University of Warwick
C3. Clarice Ng, Illustration, Camberwell College of Art, UAL
C4. Denise Lee, Architecture and Sustainable Design (ASD), SUTD
C5. Lydia Tee, Graphic Design Diploma, NAFA
C6. Phoebe Chin, Fine Art (Sculpture), SAIC
C7. Shruti Shah, Architecture, Cornell University
D: University of Warwick Art History rubric and feedback E: UAL Marking Criteria
A. Post-Lecture Transcript Q&A following Dr Beth Williamson’s Lecture ‘Radical Pedagogy in Post-War British Art’ Location: Room 8, 288 New Cross Road. 288 NXRD, Room 8 Department: Educational Studies, Centre for Arts and Learning 24 November 2016, 530-7PM “Dr Beth Williamson talks about radical pedagogy in post-war British Art through the work of Anton Ehrenzweig. In the 1950s and 1960s, inspired by the Bauhaus, new ideas on art education developed in art schools across Britain. Ehrenzweig forged new ground at Goldsmiths College with his Art Teachers Certificate (ATC) course 1964-6. This was the forerunner to the PGCE and moved towards a more responsive form of art education. // Dr Beth Williamson is a freelance art historian who specialises in the history and theory of art in Britain in the 20th century. From 2009 to 2014 she was a Research Fellow at Tate and co-curator of Basic Design (March-October 2013) at Tate Britain. Recent publications include her monograph on Anton Ehrenzweig Between Art Practice and Psychoanalysis Mid-Twentieth Century (Ashgate, 2015) as well as chapters in The London Art Schools (Tate Publishing, 2015), On Artists and their Making (Unicorn, 2015) and Imagining a University (Mead Gallery, 2015).” (“Radical Pedagogy in Post-War British Art.” Gold.ac.uk. Goldsmiths University of London, 2016. Web. 18 Nov. 2016. <https://www.gold.ac.uk/calendar/?id=10171>.) David Barton is a former student of Anton Ehrenzweig and worked closely with Beth Williamson on his books. ——— [Beginning from 0:49:43 of recording] Host (from Educational Studies Department): If we could open up to questions now, I know I’ve got quite a few to kick off. In Ehrenzweig’s writing, very serious in terms of psychoanalytic thinking, and really had something to contribute in terms of rethinking the role of the unconscious and how we can understand and his whole theory of the process of creativity and the stages of that - it was a very serious and important contribution. In terms of how that figured on the ATC course, from what I can gather, different people in the course made different things out of it. I was talking to John Steers (?) recently and he wasn’t terribly interested in the psychoanalytic side. Beth: No, he wasn’t, as far as I could tell. Host: It was interesting what Ehrenzweig has to say about serialisation and colour along with music and those kinds of analogies. I wonder if there was any evidence that people came out of the ATC course and took psychoanalytic thinking or a therapeutic ethos into the classroom? Is there any evidence that that went anywhere? Because it is certainly something that I’m interested in. Beth: Yeah. It’s not something that I’ve looked at, being something that is beyond the ATC, if you like. Do you want to say something David? David: One thing that’s happened to me is that I’ve woken up this morning having lost my voice, more or less, and I’m sure Anton would have realised why. But I think - I’ve been teaching in schools for 38 years and although I would say that I never understood analytic theory, psychology, et cetera. [unintelligible] in Anton’s class. [unintelligible] I’ve always taught in the way that Anton taught me. And this was the way that he said in his book, and that is the pupil is your paintbrush. Because, Anton although he was an artist, he treated his students as his paintbrush, his pencils, and he didn’t look at the work - he didn’t set work for them to do as projects. What he did was, as the work progressed - however it began - as the work progressed, he read the work, he responded to the work as it progressed. And as the work spoke to him, as he responded to the work, he spoke back to the students and said what the work was telling him and what the dialogue was between him and the work. So what happened with his students - which was why some students liked him and some students disliked him - was that he was reading into the work what the students perhaps were
not really wanting to know about themselves, perhaps, accidental things that they disliked, things that they’d rather suppressed, or in my case, things that suddenly I was amazed that I had been suppressing. I was surprised that I was actually given the go-ahead to explore and what happened was that this was what I wanted to do with my own pupils in school! And I could do it. Now, in school, it is a different matter, because I’ve got students who don’t actually want to do art but there are [unintelligible] students who are 11 and 12, they have very open minds, they worry about whether they can draw or paint or not. But if you suddenly see things happening in their work - right - or you point out that something is happening, [unintelligible] they can be excited by things happening that they hadn’t expected. Then they can begin to see that the actual process of painting and drawing is an exciting process and not one which is - you have to be in control of it, you have to do it right unless you’ll have a bad drawing. [unintelligible] You can begin to open their eyes and their minds to the fact that art is a creative thing, and there is a dialogue between you and the work. This is the most important thing that Anton taught me, that I was suppressing so much in thinking that I had to paint, as I’d come from Goldsmiths’ Painting school. And there was so much happening in my work that I was rejecting. [unintelligible] [The work] was a live thing. [unintelligible] I would begin every morning wondering what would happen next. [unintelligible] Anton taught like that himself. He taught by using all his students as his paintbrush. Host: Thank you very much. That was really, really interesting. Beth: What was it that - that sounds really about giving students self-belief and self-confidence more than anything. David: [unintelligible] I mean, it’s a struggle. [unintelligible] I think it’s about opening up to what can be. [unintelligible] Anton was much more aware of what things were happening in their work. He talked about [unintelligible] [how] you can take just a line [unintelligible] you can begin from nothing. You can build from [it], you can invent from [it], if you take notice of [what is happening in] your work. Female Educator 1: I was just thinking, you can draw an analogy between cooking and school art could be considered at times [to be] following a recipe to an outcome which you’ve pre-predicted and follow skill levels Beth: Yeah. Female Educator 1: - Which whilst you learn, you determine what the good outcome is at the end, whereas creativity in this manner would be to use one’s instincts, look at the fridge and make whatever you feel like eating. Beth: Yeah. That’s right. Female Educator 1: And then remembering that worked this time, perhaps I’m going to take it a little further next time. It’s hard to have both in a classroom environment, isn’ it. Beth: I’m sure it is. I mean, I don’t know if that’s still possible in schools. Host: I think that’s one of the big questions isn’t it? Is the approach [that] someone like Ehrenzweig uses with that openness and that responsiveness - a kind of groping approach, you know - or making leaps to other times propitious for that kind of thinking and they’re not, I don’t think, not because teachers are not open to that themselves but because of pressures of constraints, pressures of time and pressures on accountability and so on. So how do we link back to that kind of breadth of vision and depth of thinking and the seriousness that someone like Ehrenzweig had in the current climate, because it’s really challenging. Beth: I’m sure. Yeah, I mean, I don’t know - are there students here from the PGCE? Female Educator 1: Yeah, it really struck me when you said something about readymade tasks creating readymade results or outcomes. I think it’s the constraints of time in the classroom… In
terms of creativity and in terms of not shutting students off, these approaches are incredible. But if you’ve got an hour’s lesson, and you’ve got to have something produced at the end that you can evaluate and see how they’re doing, then it’s not a good [approach to use]. I think there are certain aspects of what you were saying - they are ways in which you could draw this out on a smaller scale within set tasks. Like you [David] said, 11-13 [year olds] they do love drawing, but they do worry that they’re not doing it right. Even if you’re doing a set task, maybe if you’re drawing out, looking at the things that are going right, [unintelligible] getting them to rework those things into what they see is right. Why aren’t they right? Beth: I’m not a teacher, so I don’t know about that. I’d just be really interested to hear what new people who are training to be teachers think. David: I remember that the year that I resigned… I had a very, very talented sixth form boy. Who had been a student of mine for two or three years. [unintelligible] He produced some of the most amazing work. Extremely good work. He got into - I [can’t remember] which art colleges he got into, but he immediately got accepted into art colleges [unintelligible] Without any problem at all, he put up his A-level exhibition, and he had a pile of sketchbooks - easily a pile. The chief examiner for the A-level came in and went through a few of them and he called me in and he said, ‘you are just encouraging him in his neurosis’.” [unintelligible] Host: One of the things that strikes me - we can talk about the psychoanalytic aspects that Ehrenzweig was interested [in], things that were about aggression and the death drive and - it’s hard to talk about those things […] to children. It’s tricky territory. I’m very interested in bringing a therapeutic ethos into the classroom, but obviously it’s not art therapy. Beth: It’s not, and I know, I have heard art therapists talk about Ehrenzweig’s work as if it’s relevant to art therapy, but it’s not. Host: Well that’s interesting. Beth: I don’t think it is. Host: Yeah? Beth: You disagree? Host: Only because I know people who are on therapeutic studies courses here who hail Ehrenzweig as a kind of - as someone that’s an important figure to look to. And there’s that interesting link between art therapy and teaching and the way that it emerged as a separate discipline. Female Educator 1: But the outcome is so different. The outcome is art, and it’s not therapeutic development of the individual. Beth: No, it’s not. Host: It’s a difference, but I would say it’s a difference in kind rather than a completely qualitative difference. Because what you’re talking about is the level of sophistication with which an artist, to make painting as an art or drawing as an art, or sculpture, or any other form of art, to bring some kind of internal sources to bear on making a work of art really complex and subtle and rich. In that respect, I’m also interested in another writer, Richard Wollheim, who gives very interesting, sophisticated accounts of art but using similar kinds of psychoanalytic material. I think there is a way to bridge [art and art therapy]. Beth: Maybe. I kind of feel it’s not… On the one hand I feel it’s not relevant to art therapy, Ehrenzweig’s writing. On the other hand, I read something a student wrote recently to me, and he said that one of Ehrenzweig’s students - and he told me that [Ehrenzweig] took the ATC class to Warlingham Park Hospital to watch patients making art. So, it’s a fine line, so I don’t know. I don’t know why he did that? The student didn’t know why either. I don’t know whether it was for their benefit or his, or… I
don’t know. I haven’t been able to find out any more. David: [unintelligible] I don’t that art therapy - the thing about art therapy is that it is curing - it cures, it brings things to light which you did not know, or which you’re not sure of, or are important for you to know. I think Anton’s theories are theories of creativity, really, which are relevant to everyone. I think […] everyone is a potential artist, in that they all carry about within them a common unconscious which, if we wish to know anything about art (?), we can access in some way. I think drawing, painting, dancing, making music, just being alive and being with people and communicating with people is […] a way of reaching a part of yourself and bringing something out of yourself which you did not know was there. Which is important. It is what is commonly called the unconscious. [unintelligible] Bringing it out in a way which communicates to other people - hopefully - communicates with other people. Communicates in an art form, in symbols, in English, and you set out to do it differently, you set out to do it how you want to do it, not because you want to cure yourself of something or find out what is wrong with you. I think somehow art therapy is - I think a lot of art therapy produces beautiful and very strange things. [unintelligible] If you are an artist you would say, “that is not enough”. [unitelligible] Tomorrow I’ve got to start again. You can’t stop. Host: I was wondering if I could bring in Jane. It was Jane, wasn’t it? Jane: I was a student of Anton’s. I was doing Textile Design over 3 years. […] One of the things that he - the students either adored him or hated him, because he was deliberately tactless, saying the most outrageous things. Pull you to bits - psychologically pull you to bits then [make you] put yourself back together again on your own. Host: So he’s quite a challenging figure, penetrating in the comments that he made to the students. Jane: It wasn’t so much about their work, it was about their personality. Because he wasn’t talking about their work very much, only from a technical point of view, but he was - I mean, I adored him, but some people really really didn’t like. Once the Fine Art students found out what was under the same roof as them, they watched because he was such an extraordinary person. They couldn’t leave him alone. They were always up there, hanging around waiting to grab a word with him. Host: So he was both admired and sort of feared, or…? Jane: Well, some of the students couldn’t cope with his tactlessness, but to me, he was mischievous. I think in a very nice way. He wasn’t destructive, but he was definitely a bit mischievous in what he said. David: [unintelligible] A tutor at Goldsmiths - he called him a puck. Host: I’m interested to know how did he fit into an institutional setting because - I don’t know, maybe it was a different world, but certainly puck-ish individuals are often subject to the constraints of all sorts of Jane: [He wasn’t only involved in] technical stuff. He encouraged one to go out of one’s comfort zone in terms of - [unintelligible] ended up doing something that was huge, which was ridiculous. And we hadn’t even done one before. [unintelligible] He encouraged that. Beth: But I think that certainly at Central at that time he was employed by William Johnstone and he was quite a mischievous figure himself, trying to disrupt things. He’d already made huge changes at Camberwell, and then when he went to Central, he was employing people like Ehrenzweig and Hamilton and Pasmore, all on these part time contracts to actually shake things up and do things differently. So, I don’t think there would’ve been a problem in being that kind of disruptive force. I think it would’ve been welcomed, really. It seemed to be kind of par for the course at that point. I’m not so sure about here, but certainly when he was at Central. I think that was what Johnstone wanted. Jane: Well, thinking about it, one of the reasons why he left the Central, is [because] he didn’t
particularly get on with the new head of textiles. And he didn’t like the fact that it was getting all too pat and organised. He didn’t like that. Beth: No, he wouldn’t. Host: It’d be interesting to hear, maybe from other people, about the premise in a way that something that we’re perhaps putting across is that in today, in the current climate, there’s certain things that are not possible, or certain things that are made more difficult. But maybe there are people here who don’t agree with that, or…? Male Educator 1: I work in a Foundation course, so in school situations and teaching, I’m fascinated with the kind of license you have to [unintelligible] obviously, he was working with teachers as opposed to art school [students]? It’s kind of a different thing, how you then take that and introduce that to your own classroom situations [unintelligible] I think it’s different, depending on the context that you’re at. I think that’s the sort of thing that springs to mind for me, the context and how you take some of these ideas and apply them. I think one of the biggest challenges now is you’ve got to bring everyone along with you, haven’t you? If you’re gonna [teach] in school, you can’t afford to just do it on your own. Is there a way to compromise, perhaps? You might be able to do that with an older group? In Foundation, you’ve got a little bit more license to be provocative, to sort of break a school culture. Beth: Yeah. So you’re working with - what? 16, 17, 18 year olds generally? Male Educator 1: 18 up. Yeah, I just found it really fascinating. I’m wondering what the teachers, in particular, have taken from this? Host: Well, maybe I could ask Claire, because clearly - as a teacher, as someone who works in a classroom and deals with children day to day… Female Educator 2: Maybe we should talk about issues of agency in some of the things that have been discussed. From my point of view and how I’ve understood what’s being said, there’s been a lot of positioning of agency with the teacher and the tutor - and the teacher doing to or using pupils as. That language - that explains to me quite a lot, from what I can understand. That’s where I think, within the classroom today, that’s what I’d be trying to trouble - I’d be trying to trouble that relationship. I think there’s quite an interesting problem in that. Rather than it being with the students. I wonder what people thing about that, being teachers themselves. But I think a lot of the practise that perhaps try to engage with - or hope to engage with - I don’t know if that is the gist of where pedagogy is moving towards. How do you then create agency or create situations where pupils can self-empower, rather than the position of the teacher who then, perhaps, is white or male or female or… From working with students from different ethnicities or backgrounds or social or class, there are so many different stories playing out in the classroom. I think it’s quite dangerous to want to use pupils as a particular tool for the teacher. Maybe I am misinterpreting that in some ways, but I think that that’s a really important question to maybe discuss. Host: Yeah, I think you’re right. I think that quotation about using students as a paintbrush does speak of a certain sort of slightly egotistical way of thinking that - do you think not? David: I don’t think it’s an egotistical thing at all, when you think about it. It is simply responding to the painting and talking about the painting. You’re simply talking about what you like about the painting, what you notice about the painting. [unintelligible] It is not egotistical at all. Female Educator 2: Going back to your question… I’m a teacher in secondary school. I’ve been sort of given a chance to do one tiny project that’s slightly sort of experimental, but you get one chance at it. One class. And the whole is the process of it. It requires time for them to build their confidence, giving them the chance to do the work they want to do, and giving them some agency. But because of the way the system is built, they have to be fulfilling their potential at every possible moment, in every possible way. And to do that, to build their own confidence, they might not necessarily be doing that, but that is seen as failure or not a successful product of a project or
a time. And also as a teacher, in order to implement these things, you have to have concessions to do these sorts of things, things that are not slick and smooth. Beth: But you only get one chance. Female Educator 2: Yeah, you’ve got one chance to do it. Even if your school is willing to give you some concession, it’s not enough to produce something in a school setting where you’ve got so many specifics and remits that you have to be fulfilling. It’s an ongoing process and in order for everyone to get involved, it’s [really difficult]. Host: Yeah, when you have an expectation of rapid and continuous and measurable progress, which is very unrealistic. Female Educator 2: [unintelligible] It’s so different from what the kids are doing at school, when they’re given like ‘this is how you fulfil a criteria’ in maths or in science. ‘This is the answer, learn this answer’ and that’s the way to get the mark. So, if you’re suddenly saying to them, ‘have a bit of your own sort of initiative’, they’re just so not used to doing it in a school setting - many of them can’t do it, and they need that time. [unintelligible] Female Educator 1: In thinking about allowing for time, I’m also a secondary school teacher, and I was very interested when I was training with Marion Milner’s idea of useful imagination when she was trying to combat learning how to paint and found that there are no constraints, and you don’t know whether it is good or not, and it could go anywhere, really. I think there’s certainly room in schools to find small snippets of every lesson in which they’re asked to draw from their imagination in response to perhaps - what do you think of when you hear the word ‘bang’? - and they have a small piece of paper and they draw their response to [it]. Or even creating a situation where mistakes are supposed to happen, so perhaps asking them to draw with their left hand when first looking at an object, because then the requirement of ‘good’ is not longer there, and there is room for experimentation, and they’re our opportunity to see exciting developments from the mistakes they make. But I suppose that however you can sequence your practice and your lessons, whether that be a starter, whether that be some kind of post-it note starter where you see the progression when you see the plenaries. You’re still meeting the criteria of assessment in your lessons. Male Educator 2: It’s interesting, that paintbrush [analogy] popped into my mind as well, but it seems slightly out of step with some of the things that I’ve read with the things that he’s said, for example, about Basic Design that could be interpreted as not open to - for students to experience themselves. On the one hand, it’s trying to show the collaboration between, to enable them, to get over their own creative anxiety. On the other hand, in collaborating, can you become a bit overbearing? The paintbrush thing seems to be where it’s becoming overbearing. [unintelligible] Collaborating to get students to overcome creative anxiety. Host: Go on, Anna. Anna: I was just thinking. [unintelligible] I think some of the studies being made about how art is creative and opening up to mistakes and experimenting with your voice - I think actually that speaks to me in terms of every subject. Beth: Yeah, absolutely. Anna: I think within the confines of the neo-liberal system we’re finding ourselves in more and more. I think some of the conversations that have taken place between Math teachers - ‘Let the children explore, let the children see Maths for all it is and the patterns!’ It’s quite interesting how - I don’t know if it’s just in art - but creativity in general in education needs to be addressed. And I was wondering whether Finland will get it right, because they’ve said in 2020 - well hopefully - they’re aiming to get rid of all subjects. Beth: Oh really?
Host: Oh wow. Anna: And actually use themes. And explore in terms of pedagogic development [unintelligible]. Host: Keep an eye on Finland. Anna: It’s just quite interesting, the idea of creativity, I think. Beth: I think definitely, for me, in his writing, it’s not - although it is mainly about art - it’s not just about art. It’s about living creatively. It’s not even just about learning individual subjects. It’s about living creatively. So your [referring to Female Educator 1] analogy of picking things out of the fridge was a great one, really. It’s like - well, what am I gonna make tonight? I’m not gonna just - I’m gonna actually create something here and enjoy doing it and feel better about myself because I’ve done it. And I thinks that’s really what it boils down to. Host: I wonder if - because we’ve sort of run out of time - but I wonder if I could come back to you, Beth, and just ask something about addressing this issue about the notion of, or perhaps the misunderstanding that that quotation about using students - if you bring out, if you could say something about - I don’t know if it’s about his notion of the dying god or the process of creativity or just generally the idea that in some way the creativity involves a loss of control, and a kind of surrender to something. That would maybe help… Beth: His theory of creativity, what’s central to it, is what he calls the Differentiation, which is really kind of - it is a surrender. It’s like giving up yourself. So it’s when you’re - I kind of think about it, or at least my understanding of it, is when you’re totally absorbed, you’re not consciously… there’s no preconceptions, you’re just totally absorbed, totally surrendered to the work. And it’s not just about making, it’s about looking as well, which is helpful for me, because I’m not an artist or a teacher. And it’s about why do you look at art. And it’s that kind of moment when you… He says that making art or looking at art, it’s like a dialogue with another person. I kind of think it’s slightly more nuanced than that. It’s not really another person, it’s something in the work that speaks to you, that you suddenly recognise something in yourself you’d forgotten, or was suppressed - whatever language you want to use. There’s something in the work that speaks to you whether you’re making it or looking at it, and it just catches you unawares. Host: Therein I think lies Ehrenzweig’s radicalism, which still speaks to us today. In times where we’re constantly being urged to have control or take back control, this is someone who’s saying, ‘actually, we need to learn to lose control or let go of control, and help others to be able to do that and yes, feel anxious, but to deal with that anxiety and lie with that. I think that is why he is radical still, and why he can actually speak to us, and we should be reading his books - and we should be reading your book, Beth, because that tells us all about it. So can we thank Beth once again. [Applause]
B. Conversation with Quek Jia Qi (Ministry of Education Scholar)
C. Email Interviews All samples taken from current students or recent graduates (within 1-2 years) of Art, Design or Architecture-related courses. The following standardised email was sent out, allowing for further questions asked depending on response.
Hi _____,
Thanks for agreeing to answer my questions!
Some background: I’m writing an Actionable Ethics paper discussing and seeking strategies to deal with the problematic nature of assessing Art/Design/Architecture course work.
If you could answer the following questions, that would be much appreciated.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
What is the course of study you are in/ have recently undertaken? Does your course of study use a fixed assessment format, marking scheme and rubric? If yes, what does it comprise of (grade bands and assessment fields such as technical control or concept development; provide a sample of format or rubric if possible)? If no, what alternative method(s) of assessment does your course use? What are the benefits and/or drawbacks to your course’s method of assessment? Do you have ideas for improving this method, and if so, what are they?
Thanks again! Yin Ying
Responses: C1. Ankita Mukherji, Anthropology and Art, University of Southern California (USC) Hi YY! My answers: 1. The two classes I can compare are mold-making and int. sculpture. 2. Mold-making did use a pretty formal assessment format because it was a class meant for introducing students to a new technique (mold-making), but this was not really the case for sculpture. 2a. Uhh I’m overseas rn and my rubric copies are at home heh but the mold-making class was structured based on the projects we had: - slip casting (modeling an object, making a plaster mold, making and glazing slip casts) - alginate project - latex molds - silicone molds - a final project of whatever material we choose And each project was graded based on: - Ambition - Quality of (parts of the process) e.g. quality of plaster/alginate mold, quality of cast, quality of glazing, etc. (and this is purely technical) - Participation during critique Apart from this, we also had to do a research paper. 2b. The sculpture class did not really have a formal grading rubric. At least, none that we were handed out. Instead, the class was structured as work days where we would individually work on projects, and field trip days where we would go out to see either art shows, or visit artist studios. A lot of emphasis was placed on the critiques for each project, and I found that the critiques were where I learned most about where my strong points were, and where I could improve. During critiques,
comments made were mostly about how the form conveyed certain ideas, and whether or not this was successful/effective. Comments about technique were also made, if it was important to the piece, or if some technical fault distracted from the experience of the piece. What was interesting was that even though I didn’t produce my best works for most of this class, and the crits were very critical and definitely helped me, I still got an A, so idk what the professor’s rubric was. In the end the grade didn’t really matter, and I still made a lot of progress in that class. 3. Benefits of mold-making’s really formal assessment rubric: It’s good for an intro/technique based class. In this way, we all got to learn the various mold-making processes in-depth, and know the right way to do each one, so we can use them confidently for other projects. Drawbacks: Too confining at times. If this kind of rubric is used for all classes, it can be draining, and it’s not a good motivating factor for making art. Even in this class, some of my friends tended to focus more on what the professor might like or what might get a good grade, rather than what might convey their idea best. Benefits of less structured system: I was thinking more about what I wanted to achieve and how best to go about achieving it, rather than the grades I was going to receive. Drawbacks: May feel too abstract at times. 4. Maybe even for more technique based classes, the focus could be more on feedback for improvement, rather than grades? Maybe even craftsmanship and technical faults can also be commented on in the form of a crit? Hope that helped and good luck!! Anki C2. Chua Ching Yi, History of Art, University of Warwick What is the course of study you are in/ have recently undertaken? History of Art, Warwick Uni Does your course of study use a fixed assessment format, marking scheme and rubric? If yes, what does it comprise of (grade bands and assessment fields such as technical control or concept development; provide a sample of format or rubric if possible)? apparently we do, but the rubrics for essays and presentations are vague but we are provided with feedback (how detailed the feedback is depends on each tutor, meaning it can also be quite vague sometimes). Attached are: an essay feedback + a presentation feedback. Besides essays, we also sit for exams in the summer term - we are not aware of how it is being marked, and we are not returned our scripts. just a flat grade at the end. If no, what alternative method(s) of assessment does your course use? What are the benefits and/or drawbacks to your course’s method of assessment? Depending on each tutor, degree of detail with each essay feedback varies but we are always encouraged to meet with them if we need clarifications. Drawback would definitely be the fact that we do not get scripts returned to find how we could improve etc. Do you have ideas for improving this method, and if so, what are they? I think having a “model essay/script” would definitely help so that students can better grasp the level of depth, analysis, critique required, and possible ways of structuring.
I hope this helps....!!!!!!!? Cheers, Ching Yi <sample of feedback forms attached> C3. Clarice Ng, Illustration, Camberwell College of Art, UAL 1. What is the course of study you are in/ have recently undertaken? - BA (Hons) Illustration 2. Does your course of study use a fixed assessment format, marking scheme and rubric? - Yes 1. If yes, what does it comprise of (grade bands and assessment fields such as technical control or concept development; provide a sample of format or rubric if possible)? 8 Main Components: - Research, Analysis, Subject Knowledge, Experimentation, Technical Competence, Communication and Presentation, Personal and Professional Development, Collaborative and/or Independent Professional Working Grades for each component range from (A-F) *Full Rubric attached to email 2. If no, what alternative method(s) of assessment does your course use? 3. What are the benefits and/or drawbacks to your course’s method of assessment? Helps assessors to keep the marking process in schools consistent and holistic (in the event where different tutors have polarizing views and approaches as to what defines ‘good art’) Challenges students to step out of their comfort zone and to consider and integrate other aspects of art making into their works that they may not have considered beforehand - But it is questionable to look at a piece of art and to accurately translate it to numbers/grades. Art is subjective and every student’s work is different in nature. - Not all students’ definition of a successful piece of work line up with what the rubric states. Certain components might not even be relevant to the artwork in question. In that sense the education system might be forcing young creatives into churning out work that fit into a particular mould rather than their personal definition of works 4. Do you have ideas for improving this method, and if so, what are they? - Using a standardized rubric isn’t ideal but I think that as of now, it is the closest and most efficient way of grading works. Peer assessments or personal assessments could counter the rigid approach to assessing works, but those in itself have drawbacks as well. Perhaps a percentage/weightage system could be introduced where the full grade is a contribution of several forms of assessment, rather than relying on one rubric for the final grade. if you want more info on my uni’s method of assessment you can check out this link. good luck with your paper!! <rubric attached> C4. Denise Lee, Architecture and Sustainable Design (ASD), Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) Hey YY, No problem, here are my mods and answer: For your reference: 20.211 Introduction to Design Computation 20.101 Core Studio 1 20.201 Architectural Science & Technology 1. Architecture and Sustainable Design (ASD)
2. No, it actually varies depending on who is leading the course but the entire cohort uses the same grading system for a particular year. Attached are the syllabuses for each mod and ‘measurable outcomes’ in each of the brief (It is not explicitly shown so you will need to search ‘measurable outcome’ to find them) 3. I think the fact that it changes every year makes the grading subjective to the course lead but also fair to each cohort for 20.101. Each course lead has his/her preferences on what they wish to teach to the cohort, so the grading criteria would change which is fair. Also, one will not be able to ‘spot’ the criteria each year, so every cohort is given a new brief unique to their cohort. There are not much benefits/drawbacks for this unless one has prior knowledge of the previous year’s criteria (which i don’t, sorry) 20.211 and 20.201 are group project based (there are individual exams but I am not sure how they are marked since they have never been revealed to us) and is graded based on the group work. I feel that it is unfair to the individual who is doing most of the work in the case of some groups (like mine and a few others) because some people use 20.101 as an excuse to cut down on commitment to the group. Hence, from a 5 man team, it became a 2-3 man team. It was only after letting my prof know of this that there was a peer evaluation, otherwise all profs would assume that everyone in the group is participating. I think the main drawback is not getting due credit for the effort you put in since the rubrics have no individual component. 4. For all group work, I think a peer evaluation is necessary to give the due credit to those who have worked harder than others as some sacrifice on time for other commitments to finish the group work. Also, some peers are putting in extra effort as they wish to put the projects in their portfolio (eg. my friend for 20.211’s second project) but are unable to produce quality work because of individuals who do not see its importance. Hence, I feel that to make the grading more fair, they should have a peer evaluation component. Hope this helps, do let me know if you need any clarifications and all the best for your paper! Cheers, Denise Lee PS. I don’t have much for 20.201, I think the prof removed all the content <mod syllabus attached> C5. Lydia Tee, Graphic Design Diploma, Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts (NAFA), Singapore Hey YY! I think the first time your mail went to spam so i didn’t see it haha. I’ll try to answer your questions best as I can! 1. I studied/graduated with a Diploma in Graphic Design from NAFA. 2. Yes we usually have a fixed assessment format and rubric. (refer to IM3 document attached) ***Overall disclaimer*** Although the rubric was there, it wasn’t something that was always reinforced for us to refer to. a) We usually have 3 projects a semester, 2 intermediate projects leading up to one Final project. For each project we are assessed usually with the same rubric, which focuses on research, development (including consultations with our lecturer) and the final outcome, which encompasses the quality of art direction and commercial viability (how “workable” is the project). Depending on the module, we can also be assessed on how well we use the skill/software taught in class. (eg. Motion Graphic class teaching Adobe After Effects)
b) Just wanted to mention another method of assessment we used in our graduation project, which was an assessment feedback form (refer to other attached document). It’s different from our usual assessment as this is more self-evaluation, done in response after assessment class critique and it supplements our usual physical design outcomes. The rubric you see at the bottom was used to grade our whole project in the end as well. 3. Depending on the module, it can be quite vague and “open” (refer to GS3 document). I guess on one hand it’s good because we aren’t driven towards a same/fixed outcome, everyone’s projects always turns out in varied directions. Also, in a way it was easy to meet the module requirements and do decently well for the module, especially in conjunction with regular consultations with the lecturer. However, there is also a drawback, there were times when we get our grades back and it wasn’t what we expected (eg. good comments from lecturers but getting a subpar grade), it’s hard to see where we were lacking even when we thought we met the requirements. 4. hmm... I’m not too sure what improvements to make, since I feel like it didn’t really impede the creative process, and we tend to benchmark ourselves according to lecturer’s feedback. I do think implementing the Self-evaluation component more often would be good to help the lecturer in assessing us, as the research/development parts usually are more visual forms and not much of the student’s thought process are being reflected. Feel free to ask me more questions to clarify! Hope this is helpful for you~ <rubrics attached> C6. Phoebe Chin, Fine Art (Sculpture), School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC) 1. I’m in SAIC’a BFA in Fine Art program, specializing in sculpture. 2. Our grading system for the academic and fine art modules are different: there are percentage based grades for the academic subjects, and only numerical grades on participation for the art ones. Our “grades” for the art modules are the critiques that we have. However, in both cases, SAIC follows a pass/fail grading system. So the numerical values will not be reflected in our transcripts. 3. It’s less stressful due to the pass/fail system, as we don’t have to chase after a numerical grade. However, the quality of the critiques are highly dependent on the instructor you have and your classmates. 4. More one-on-one or individualized feedback from professors, as there isn’t enough time during critiques for more in depth discussion sometimes. —Hi Phoebe, Just to clarify: Are the critiques you mentioned more student- or instructor-led, and how often are they conducted? Are there/ have you noticed specific things that instructors look for in your critiques to assess if you pass/fail? What makes a “quality” critique? Thanks! —Hi YY!! Depending on the class’ dynamics, critiques can either be dominated by the instructor’s opinion,
or the students’. Oftentimes though, the person being critiqued would mention if they’d like a “cold read” (which means people of the class would begin talking about the work as they first encounter it), or would want to say a few words about the piece before going into the discussion. Instructors can only “grade” you based on the participation aspect of the class, which includes submitting work on time and showing up to class on time. We don’t necessarily get “graded” for our critiques. A good critique, I feel, helps you to understand what’s working and what’s not working in a piece, and is an honest discussion about your progress. Hope this helps! C7. Shruti Shah, Architecture, Cornell University Hi YY, Here are my responses: 1. What is the course of study you are in/ have recently undertaken? Bachelor’s in Architecture (B.Arch) 2. Does your course of study use a fixed assessment format, marking scheme and rubric? Course: Design Studio. Our Core Design Studio does not have a fixed assessment scheme and the professors do not make use of rubrics at all. Instead at the beginning of each semester, we are given a project brief, which explains the problem. For instance, this semester we were tasked to design an Aquatic Center. The brief would simply explain areas that we would or should consider while designing, which includes issues pertaining to the site, structure, material, functionality, lighting, circulation etc. We would also be given a specific square footage that we should adhere to. We are not given a specific rubric because that could restrict creative explorations. We are in a way “assessed” every studio sessions (3 times a week) for our development. The professors would give us desk-crits, which would mainly consists of advice on how to move forward, suggestions on possible changes to your scheme, feedback on where you wen wrong, architects/ drawings to look at for inspiration etc. There are about 55 of us in our cohort and there are 11 students to a professor. While the project brief is the same for all, each professor has there own way of allocating work and assessing development. Some professors are more specific and assign specific tasks whereas others could be slightly more open to allowing you to make your own creative explorations. I could say that different professors vary in their methods of assessment, depending on what they believe constitutes a good architectural scheme. That being said, it is never really biased and the overall judgement is fair. My other architecture classes e.g. Building Technology, Structural Systems etc. do have a syllabus and a breakdown of the grade allocation (subject to change). But even still its quite open-ended and somewhat vague. 3. What are the benefits and/or drawbacks to your course’s method of assessment? As I said earlier, I guess the benefit is that you are able to work freely and at your own pace. You are not caught up with meeting the criteria in the rubric. The drawback would be that sometimes I can be lost or stuck and a rubric could possibly help me gain some direction on what I could focus on. 4. Do you have ideas for improving this method, and if so, what are they?
No. I actually like not having a rubric because I feel that even though I am lost, it forces me to work independently and to in fact create my own rubric. Hope this helps! I have also attached my Syllabus for Architectural Theory and Building Technology for your reference if you want to look at it. I have my project brief for studio in paper form, if you want I could take a picture and send it to you on whatsapp. Cheers, Shruti <attached syllabus and studio brief photos>
D. University of Warwick Art History rubric and feedback (provided by Chua Ching Yi)
E. UAL Marking Criteria (provided by Clarice Ng)