Performance assessment in the arts

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

Well-constructed rubrics can provide a way for arts teachers to grade or evaluate student performances easily and equitably, without compromising divergent qualities of individual creative processes and final products or performances. A healthy balance between subjective and objective types of performance assessment can provide the most individually sensitive, accurate, and comprehensive evidence of student learning (Tomlinson 2001). Rubrics typically identify at least three levels of performance (strong, average, weak) by providing brief, written descriptions of student work at each level (Olafson, Bendixen, Shih, Hartley, Quinn, and Schroeder 2002). It is essential to include a clear statement on the rubric of what students should know and be able to do at the conclusion of the lesson. Students should receive copies of the rubric prior to beginning the assignment or learning activity to help them aim for the highest level of performance identified and to stay focused on specific objectives. Students also can gauge their own progress and level of performance during the creative process, before receiving a grade. Specific feedback on rubrics can make a tremendous difference in the performance of students as they work toward meeting standards.

Merging Instruction and Assessment

Your instructional methods-- in the arts or the general classroom-are strategies for teaching a given concept, subject, or skill and an important means for assessing learning. Students' performance can offer solid proof that they know and are able to do what you are trying to teach them and what the standards require. Despite the difficulty of assessing a non quantifiable field like art, teachers in the arts and other areas should creatively embrace different methods of performance assessment to evaluate student work more accurately.

References

Andrade, H. G. 2000. Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership 57(5): 13-18.

Beattie, D. K. 1994. The mini-portfolio: Locus of a successful performance examination. Art Education 47(2): 14-18.

Burton, D. 2001. How do we teach? Results of a national survey of instruction in secondary art education. Studies in Art Education 42(2): 131-45.

Eisner, E. W. 1985. The art of educational evaluation: A personal evaluation. Philadelphia: Falmer.

Guskey, T. R. 1996. Reporting on student learning: Lessons from the past-- Prescriptions for the future. In Communicat

ing student learning: 1996 yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, ed. T. R. Guskey, 13-24. Alexandria, Va.: ASCD.

Guskey, T. R. 2001. Helping standards make the grade. Educational Leadership 59(1): 20-27. McKinley, 1. 1999. Observational assessments:

Validating what teachers see in the classroom. ASCD Education Update 41(8): 5.

Olafson, L., L. D. Bendixen, J. C. Shift, K. Hartley, L. F. Quinn, and M. Schroeder. 2002. Successes and struggles in the development of performance assessments. In Research on meeting and using standards in the preparation of teachers, ed. E. M. Guyton and J. D. Rainer, 157-71. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.