Performance assessment in the arts

Kappa Delta Pi Record, Fall 2002 by Clark, Robin E

"You've either got talent or you don't." "Anybody can pass art." Such attitudes may exemplify the familiar "fuzzy" nature of assessment in the arts. Grading students in the arts has always been a tough issue for teachers. In fact, the arts traditionally have been treated as nonacademic subjects; as such, grading and evaluation often have been neglected. Now that discussion of standards, high-stakes testing, and accountability in schools is rampant, the question of how to evaluate student learning in the arts is likely to reappear in full bloom. Art teachers must be ready with creative and effective means of evaluation, many of which may apply to the regular classroom as well.

What Is Performance Assessment?

The concept of performance assessment, also drawing attention in this climate, seems to acquire specialized meanings dependent upon context. In a standards-based curriculum, student performance generally is expected to be the most important indicator that learning has taken place. This holds true for arts classrooms as well. In the very near future, teachers will likely be asked to provide evidence of students' learning based on multiple assessments of their performance. Actually, the arts should be leading the way with implementation of performance assessment. After all, performance is synonymous with the arts.

Visual arts teachers, in particular, frequently base their grading on either a process or product approach. Process, in this case, refers to the entire range of activities required to produce a work of visual or performance art, from concept to creation. Product refers to the aesthetic quality of the student's finished result or work of art. In the past, these two approaches to assessment have fueled controversy regarding the goals of education in the arts. A learner-centered approach would recommend evaluation using the process approach for grading. However, if the goal is to create aesthetically significant artistic objects or performances, the product approach would be the grading method of choice. Generally speaking, arts teachers recognize the importance of using both approaches when grading student learning and work. Without meaningful involvement, depth of understanding, adequately developed skills, and committed effort on the part of the student, any resulting product or performance likely would be doomed to mediocrity from the very start. A finished product or performance does not necessarily reveal the skills, knowledge, creative thought, and personal meaning of the process that created it. A balanced approach to grading considers both student engagement in the process of creation and the quality of the resulting product or performance.

Eisner (1985, 148) stated that schools should focus more on the "cultivation of intellectual power" using the process of learning and not concentrate so much effort on evaluating the products of learning. In the arts, as well as in other areas of the curriculum, grading student products and projects (including final performances) has become the sole approach used by many teachers and the only type of reporting generally accepted by schools and understood by parents. As Peeno (1999, 1) noted, "Documenting what students know and can do is essential, but to continue to report this information with only a number or letter grade, however convenient, is insufficient and not helpful as an indicator of progress in art."

Guskey (1996) has suggested three types of criteria to consider when grading: product, process, and progress. As Guskey (1996, 21) explained, "Product criteria relate to students' specific achievements or levels of performance. Process criteria relate not to the final results, but to how students got there." Guskey (2001, 22) stated that progress criteria "relate to how much students actually gain from their learning experiences." Teachers using Guskey's progress criteria as a means of assessment typically consider the amount of growth over time rather than focus exclusively on a student's immediate achievement level. Wolf and White (2000) have noted that measuring and tracking a student's progress over a period of time is critical to address future learning needs best.

With the advent of mandated standards-based learning-for better or worse-it has become even more important to evaluate student learning and achievement in various ways. States have begun requiring the use of performance assessments as demonstration that standards have been met satisfactorily. When used as the only means of evaluation, tests often yield very limited information about student learning. According to McKinley (1999), to produce valid results, student performance as it relates to any given standard must be assessed using multiple means. Any arts activity in which students are asked to demonstrate their understanding or skill openly can be used as a performance-assessment strategy.

Assessment Methods Galore

How, then, have arts teachers been evaluating their students? One indication comes from a national survey of secondary art education teachers. Burton (2001, 141) found that direct observation was the most common method of assessment among 84 percent of 177 respondents. Using direct observation, a teacher might observe students at work and subjectively determine the degree to which they have satisfied lesson objectives. The second highest percentage of respondents (58 percent) indicated that "behavior and attitude," including such items as time on task and work habits, was an assessment tool they used frequently. The quality of student work can be deeply affected by behavior and attitude; however, these may not be appropriate for an assessment of learning. Perhaps teachers who continue to use student behavior and attitude for assessment do so simply because that is what is expected of them by schools or parents. Burton (2001, 141) also reported that "formal grading criteria"-allotting a set number of points for specific portions or features of an assignment-had a 49 percent selection rate.