Annual Assessment Report to the College 2009-2010
College: _____MCCAMC___________________________
Department: ____ART________________________
Program: _____FOUNDATION/GATEWAY__________________________
Note: Please submit report to your department chair or program coordinator and to the Associate Dean of your College by September 30, 2010.
You may submit a separate report for each program which conducted assessment activities.
Liaison: _Dr. Lynette K. Henderson_______________________________
1. Overview of Annual Assessment Project(s)
1a. Assessment Process Overview: Provide a brief overview of the intended plan to assess the program this year. Is assessment under the
oversight of one person or a committee?
1a. For the year 2009-10, assessment was under the oversight of the college coordinator and the assessment liaison; assessment was conducted
by the liaison. The intended plan was to assess the course that serves as a gateway from the foundation program to upper division, which is
currently Art 200: Art, Media, Visualization. Our department has also been participating (through the liaison) in the Simplifying Assessment
project as well, so the plan was to combine efforts to avoid confusion. Combined efforts included looking at the gateway course and assessing
for critical thinking, a primary topic of discussion in assessment meetings. We had not assessed for the critical thinking Program Goal (slo)
previously. Also, amongst concerns for the gateway and capstone courses, (with faculty input at a recent department retreat) was a desire to
include more conceptually-based coursework. Final project material from all sections of the Art 200 course was gathered, with the intent to
assess a selection for critical thinking, using a holistic critical thinking rubric developed by the liaison. We were aware that this assessment was a
search for content imposed from an external source, and might not be evident through the means at hand.
The questions were two: 1) Could this type of assessment be done for visual material, or is written reflection required to gain access to students’
critical thinking? 2) Is there currently evidence of critical thinking in students’ final projects?
1b. Implementation and Modifications: Did the actual assessment process deviate from what was intended? If so, please describe any
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
modification to your assessment process and why it occurred.
1b. The liaison viewed, and then discussed with the college coordinator, final projects from 4 course sections; the determination was made that
the answer to question 1 above was that there needs to be written reflection in order to assess students’ critical thinking for visual material. Not
all instructors asked for written reflection with the final projects (it was not part of original course assignments). In those writings found amongst
the student work, reflection was not a formalized assignment; therefore written content was minimal and inconsistent. For example, many
students just had titles that identified the images as belonging to a particular assignment; a few added proverbs, some a brief description of the
assignment, and some a brief discussion about intent and/or choices made.
Given the above, the answer to question 2 was that critical thinking could not be assessed with the material provided. This conclusion came
through the process of attempting to assess the material, and ensuing discussion between the coordinator and liaison.
2. Student Learning Outcome Assessment Project: Answer questions according to the individual SLO assessed this year. If you assessed an
additional SLO, report in the next chart below.
2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
Art Department Program Goal #3, as posted on department website:
Critical Thinking
Analyzing,
estioning
traditional
interpreti
methodologies
ng,and qu
and pre-conceived notions of art and art making through
the process of generating and solving problems.
2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
A Holistic Critical Thinking Rubric developed by the liaison.
2c. Describe the participants sampled to assess this SLO: discuss sample/participant and population size for this SLO. For example, what type of
students, which courses, how decisions were made to include certain participants.
2c. As discussed above, the decision was made to assess the gateway course Art 200 for regular department assessment, as well as for the
Simplifying Assessment project. As the Art 200 course is already digital, it was easy to gather final project materials, which were in the form of
pdfs, from all sections. Originally the plan was to make a selection of projects but it was actually easy to click and view all of them in each
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
section, looking at both the images and for writing of any kind.
2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: For example, was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different points) or was
a cross-sectional comparison used (comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
This assessment was not done longitudinally. The Art 200 course is taken by all students in all art programs, however, at that time they could be
at any level in their degree programs. This is due to the fact that there are large numbers of transfer students, and many students take the
course whenever it fits into their schedule. So there may be graduate students as well as sophomores in the classes. A cross-sectional
comparison could be made if such information on each student was found through the art office advisor (we could ask students in an
assignment, however, some do not know or are mistaken about their exact status.)
2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the data were analyzed and highlight important findings from the
data collected.
A holistic critical thinking rubric with four levels (strong, acceptable, weak and unacceptable) was used, including the following categories:
Strong 1.
o Interpretation: Excellent interpretation of project criteria including technology and conceptual content, as applicable to chosen
images or graphics.
o Identification: Clear identification of students’ conceptual basis for their data bank, booklet or collection.
o Process: Clear description of students’ formal and conceptual process within the written summary of their coursework or course
experiences.
o Problem Solving: Clear discussion of problem solving in determining image and graphics assembly and craft issues to communicate
students’ main concept or premise about their work.
o Supporting Material: Clear reference to images and formal content to support claims made about coursework or course experiences.
The attempt was made to assess whatever was found in the visual and written material within the final projects using the above categories. As
noted, without written reflection accompanying the images, it was not possible to determine critical thinking in students’ processes. And, as
noted, written material was sporadic and differed not only from section to section but also from student to student. Visual images appeared to be
geared towards learning to use the software, with some flexible parameters so students could make personal choices about imagery. The images
that appeared to have the most content or meaning was an assignment based on a surreal association of images. However, since students did not
describe their process in creating the images they were not assessable for critical thinking by outside assessors. Hence, the conclusion was made
as described above, that writing was needed and that the writing needed to be formalized to make sure students address particular issues.
2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Think about all the different ways the results were or will be used. For example, to recommend
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
changes to course content/topics covered, course sequence, addition/deletion of courses in program, student support services, revisions to
program SLO’s, assessment instruments, academic programmatic changes, assessment plan changes, etc. Please provide a clear and detailed
description of how the assessment results were or will be used.
2f. The next step for this particular course is to continue with the Simplifying Assessment project, which is to give a signature assignment that is
a written reflection addressing particular issues and that can be assessed through an accompanying rubric. Other results are manifold: our
department has recently undergone review for reaccreditation by NASAD and we are now addressing concerns expressed by the reviewers.
Some of their concerns indicate a need for more conceptual content in foundation program courses, of which Art 200 is the pinnacle. In
addition, we are conducting strategic planning over the course of this year for all areas and the department as a whole, to become more
efficient and unified. Other NASAD concerns related to more faculty input for assessment. Per agreement with the new chair of the art
department we have created a new committee for assessment, which will be both advisory and ideally assist with tasks such as gathering
material when needed, for example. This is our first assessment committee, so exact input will be determined by future needs; right now the
committee is ad hoc. It was evident from the last two years’ assessment projects that assessment done by only one person in the department is
difficult to conduct, and it is difficult to get faculty buy-in. There needs to be more agreement on the courses or programs to be assessed, and
assessment needs to feed into the larger picture of the direction the department wants to go in. So for the year 2010-11 we are continuing with
what was planned last spring based on results from 2009-10, but future assessment plans will be based on strategic planning, for 2011-12.
Some programs assess multiple SLOs each year. If your program assessed an additional SLO, report the process for that individual SLO below. If
you need additional SLO charts, please cut & paste the empty chart as many times as needed. If you did NOT assess another SLO, skip this
section.
2a. Which Student Learning Outcome was measured this year?
2b. What assessment instrument(s) were used to measure this SLO?
2c. Describe the participants sampled to assess this SLO: discuss sample/participant and population size for this SLO. For example, what type of
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
students, which courses, how decisions were made to include certain participants.
2d. Describe the assessment design methodology: Was this SLO assessed longitudinally (same students at different points) or was a crosssectional comparison used (comparing freshmen with seniors)? If so, describe the assessment points used.
2e. Assessment Results & Analysis of this SLO: Provide a summary of how the data were analyzed and highlight important findings from the
data collected.
2f. Use of Assessment Results of this SLO: Think about all the different ways the results were (or could be) used. For example, to recommend
changes to course content/topics covered, course sequence, addition/deletion of courses in program, student support services, revisions to
program SLO’s, assessment instruments, academic programmatic changes, assessment plan changes, etc. Please provide a clear and detailed
description of each.
3. How do your assessment activities connect with your program’s strategic plan?
3. As described above, we do not currently have a strategic plan in the Art Department. However, we are in the process of
developing one and expect to have a draft by the end of this semester, that will be finalized through a retreat and continuing discussion,
by the end of spring semester.
4. Overall, if this year’s program assessment evidence indicates that new resources are needed in order to improve and support student
learning, please discuss here.
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller
4. We determined that to improve and support student learning, we needed a strategic plan and more faculty input and participation in
assessment.
5. Other information, assessment or reflective activities not captured above.
5. None.
6. Has someone in your program completed, submitted or published a manuscript which uses or describes assessment activities in your
program? Please provide citation or discuss.
6. Not that I know of.
March 30, 2009, prepared by Bonnie Paller