ࡱ> XZW *bjbj++ 0`II"||<&}$ }}`9Ri0p| : ART 10000 Introduction to the Visual Arts of the World. Assessment Report, Spring 2016 The assessment of Writing Skills, Information Literacy Skills, and Critical Thinking in Art 10000 was conducted by the instructors Leah Abraha, Amy Young and Lise Kjaer, and coordinated by Ana Vasovic, (Coordinator for General Education) and Lise Kjaer (Coordinator of Art 10000). Art 10000 Introduction to the Visual Arts of the World is a 100-level course that serves as a part of the General Education Curriculum, a prerequisite course for all 200-level courses in the Art Department, and a requirement for all students majoring and minoring in Art. The main focus of the course is to introduce students to a broad range of painting, sculpture and architecture made in the Americas, Africa, Asia and Europe. Students learn how to identify, interpret and analyze works of art and become familiar with art historical terms through discussions, lectures, readings, museum visits, group projects, written assignments and exams. Art 10000 is one of the few courses where students are introduced to visual literacy, develop their skills in visual analysis, use of appropriate vocabulary when applicable, consider art historical information, while they examine works of art from prehistory and to the present from a global perspective. As it serves as a prerequisite for all upper level courses in art history, it prepares students for the more specialized courses with a chronological overview of the history of the arts viewed from a socio-cultural and historical perspective. We collected thirty-six research papers from sixteen Art 10000 sections and assessed using the General Education Writing, Information Literacy, and Critical Thinking rubric system. In addition, we developed a rubric system for Art 10000 purposes. This allowed us to assess the students use of visual analysis, vocabulary words, as well as their abilities to view the work in a sociopolitical and/or art historical context. Please note: The use of a scale 1-4 reflects a range from a beginning level to an accomplished level. It is meant as a college span scale, and it is expected that the majority of freshmen would not be in the accomplished end of the scale. In fact, 2 is considered a benchmark for this 100-level course. Discoveries and recommendations: The students papers were overall well crafted in terms of organization, mechanics and style. With a caveat that the sample we are working with is very small, we noticed the following: Slight, gradual improvement in the writing scores. Thesis went from 2.04 to 2.13. Evaluation of Information Sources 1.89 to 2.01. Use Information Ethically 2.16 to 2.37. The papers showed a wide range of teaching approaches. The committee discussed the possibility of developing more specific requirements for the writing assignments, but was also aware of the strength in cultivating instructors own individual styles. A summary of the findings and suggestions follows below: Writing: The papers demonstrate a good understanding of organization and progression of thought. The majority of papers had an introduction, visual analysis, and conclusion. Not all introductions and conclusions were strong and convincing, often due to the lack of a strong and compelling thesis statement. The average score is 2.26, which is above our benchmark of 2. Most of the students are either developing or beginning to master the task of developing a thesis. 63 % scored 2 or above. 78% scored a 2 or above in Structure and Organization of the papers. Integrating supporting evidence appears to be a little harder for them. For the rubric Evidence and Development, 59% scored above the benchmark, while 83% did well in terms of Mechanics and Style. Information Literacy: The students have a clear understanding of the importance of using credible information and using it ethically. While all found evidence in the visual objects to support their ideas, some students made some references to a number of scholarly texts, while others only referenced a few. The range of citation formats suggests a need for more uniform standards. The students reliance on online sources (although many of them were credible and reliable) may be reduced through closer collaboration with our libraries. Critical Thinking: The students ability to extract both metaphorical and literal meanings from artworks is clear in the strong visual analysis. This is a notable ability since students are more experienced in evaluating textual information and are much less accustomed to assessing visual information. As this course has its emphasis on visual literacy and interpretation, the focus of the students papers is also largely on the objects, allowing the students to bring forward their interpretations and opinions in relation to their experiences of both objects and literature. Visual Literacy: The majority of papers showed evidence of the strengths of this course. The majority of papers provided both vivid descriptions and relevant and insightful analysis based on visual information. The students visual analysis was for the most part very well organized and easy to follow. 80% of the students reached the benchmark. 33% scored between 2 and 3. 47% scored 3 and above. It was clear to the committee, that the level of sophistication demonstrates the students abilities to incorporate information and exercises from in-class instruction and activities into their academic writing. Vocabulary Words: The students demonstrate a good understanding of vocabulary words and they effectively use them in their papers. A total of 86% scored above 2. 44 % scored a 3 or above. Review of Objects in Relation to Their Sociopolitical and/or Art Historical Context: The new rubric system for Art 10000 allowed us to better assess the focus of the course, and the biggest surprise was our discovery of how many students consider the works of art within a sociopolitical and/or art historical context. The majority of the papers made concerted efforts to understand larger concepts that informed a specific time period and how they applied to the works of art in question. In fact 89% of the students scored above 2. 64% scored a 3 or above. Recommendations: The suggested actions for further improvement are as follows: Consider Sequence of Courses: While students often take Art 10000 during their first semester at CCNY, two research papers (one in FIQWS and one in Art 10000) may become a daunting task and a bit overwhelming for them. A sequenced course of study, where Art 10000 follows a FIQWS, might be something for the college to consider. Additional help with note taking, building study skills, and tutoring support might also be useful to build into the students first year studies at CCNY. Course Size: The current cap of 40 students in Art 10000 is a considerable challenge to students and instructors. A writing intensive course, like Art 10000, requires time and nurturing of the individual students strengths and interests. Instructors find themselves stretched thin between teaching visual literacy, historical content, note taking, time management, critical thinking and writing. Lowering the number of students in the class would allow for much more satisfactory learning outcomes and student experiences. Tutoring: The committee recommends developing an Art History tutoring cohort in support of students and instructors. 200-level and graduate students majoring art history could develop workshops and offer one on one tutoring for the Art 10000 students. A tutoring cohort would be a win-win situation for all involved. It would provide the freshmen students in Art 10000 with additional area specific help, build community and increase our own number of majors. Suggestions for the Rubrics: The critical thinking and information literacy scores are not that straightforward, and may need some revisions. In addition to the small sample size, we note that both rubrics were difficult to score, as "reflections" on the Critical Thinking rubric were hard to gage and score while the Information Literacy rubric had N/A categories. In conclusion, it is important to note that the common sentiment was that the papers showed excellent use of visual literacy and a good level of student writing and information literacy skills. The average rubric scores are shown below. ART 10000: AVERAGE SCORES. WRITING ThesisStructure and OrganizationEvidence and DevelopmentMechanics and Style2.132.352.102.61 INFORMATION LITERACY Understand info needs/ search efficientlyEvaluate info sourcesUse info ethically2.282.012.37 CRITICAL THINKING Explanation of IssuesEvidence2.262.17 ART HISTORY Visual AnalysisVocabulary WordsSocio-Political and/or Art Historical Context2.652.562.92   8WZy 3 D E I P o p +45R]ezdpǻǬǬ|||Lj|hCJOJQJaJh4CJOJQJaJhoCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhW1 hCJOJQJaJh?tCJOJQJaJhWhCJOJQJaJhohoCJOJQJaJho5CJOJQJaJhW1 h5CJOJQJaJ08Wp  $vw4 dd[$\$gd$dd[$\$a$gdo #5A ~14D[hԪsg[s[s[L[s[sgh75h75CJOJQJaJhE+BCJOJQJaJh75CJOJQJaJhW1 hE+BCJOJQJaJhwghwgCJOJQJaJhWhCJOJQJaJhC5CJOJQJaJhWhhCJOJQJaJhW1 hoCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhW1 hCJOJQJaJhoCJOJQJaJhW1 h5CJOJQJaJ#$ʾʾʾ||m]M@h6cT5CJOJQJaJhW1 h5CJOJQJaJhW1 hC5CJOJQJaJh3[\hCCJOJQJaJh3[\CJOJQJaJh3[\h3[\CJOJQJaJh75h75CJOJQJaJhCCJOJQJaJhE+BCJOJQJaJh75CJOJQJaJhW1 hE+BCJOJQJaJhWhCJOJQJaJhC5CJOJQJaJh755CJOJQJaJ$w4 + A X c d s !!!!!!!!!}"~"""̿rcWcrcrWWWhCJOJQJaJhJhCJOJQJaJhJh5CJOJQJaJhW1 hCJOJQJaJhW1 h5CJOJQJaJhXhCJOJQJaJh6cTh6cTCJOJQJaJh6cT5CJOJQJaJh~*%h~*%CJOJQJaJhC5CJOJQJaJh~*%CJOJQJaJh6cTCJOJQJaJ4d x "$}&'(((((((()) )')@)T)U) $Ifgd`gda dd[$\$gd dd[$\$gd6cT"""#$$$$$z&|&}&&& 'Z'b'''''''e((((ȻȬȟȀtȀȀfYOYEhaCJOJQJhCJOJQJhW1 hCJOJQJhJh5CJOJQJhCJOJQJaJhW1 hCJOJQJaJhJh5CJOJQJaJhK5CJOJQJaJhKhKCJOJQJaJh~*%5CJOJQJaJhKCJOJQJaJh~*%CJOJQJaJh~*%h~*%CJOJQJaJh~*%h~*%5CJOJQJaJ((((()))T)U)V)W)[)\)`)a)e)f)j)l)m)n)))))))))))))))))ôéÝÝÝÝé鐁vjjjvjvhaCJOJQJaJhJhaCJaJhJhaCJOJQJaJhW1 haCJOJQJhBCJOJQJaJhJhBCJaJhahBCJOJQJaJhJhBCJOJQJaJhW1 hBCJOJQJhCJOJQJhaCJOJQJhW1 hCJOJQJ%U)V)W) $Ifgdkd$$Iflpֈ& .''LFs'p 2644 laXp<ytaW)\)a)f)k)l) $Ifgd $$Ifa$gdl)m)n)o)))><<</ $If]gdakdM$$Ifl|ֈ& .''L'F's''p644 laXp<yta))))))3kdR$$Iflrv 'F$' (44 laXp2yta $Ifgd))))))))Bkdx$$Iflrv ''F''$'44 laXp2yta $$Ifa$gd $Ifgd)))))))*NE`gd>( kdb$$Iflrv ''F''$'44 laXp2yta $Ifgd)*****%*&*'*(*)*-*.*2*4*5*6*7*B*C*D*S*T*d*e*********************οοڴڴοοοڴڴhJhCJaJhJhCJOJQJaJhW1 hCJOJQJhCJOJQJhJh>( CJaJhah>( CJOJQJaJh>( CJOJQJaJhJh>( CJOJQJaJhW1 h>( CJOJQJh>( CJOJQJ,***&*'*(*)*.*PD $$Ifa$gd8<kd0$$Iflp\ 8''LF'p 644 laXp(yt>( $Ifgd8<.*3*4*5*6*7*C*D*T*YWWN`gd>( kd5$$Ifl|\ 8''L'F'p644 laXp(yt>( $Ifgd8< $$Ifa$gd8<T*e*****2kd $$Iflpr&  ''LFs'p (644 laXp2yt>( $Ifgd8<*******A?kd3$$Ifl|r&  ''L'F's'p644 laXp2yt>( $Ifgd8< $$Ifa$gd8<********* $Ifgd**kd $$Iflִ` Am 't''-','-'-'-' 6    44 laXpPyta********* $Ifgd**kd $$Iflִ` Am 't''-','-'-'-' 6    44 laXpPyta********* $Ifgd**kd $$Iflִ` Am 't''-','-'-'-' 6    44 laXpPyta**.:p/ =!"#$% K$$IfX!vh#v#vL#vF#vs#v#vp:V lp 26,55L5F5s55p99/ / / aXp<yta$$IfX!vh#v#vL#vF#vs#v#vp:V l|6,55L5F5s55p9/ / / aXp<yta$$$IfX!vh#v#vF#v#v$#v:V l (,55F55$599/ / / aXp2yta$$IfX!vh#v#vF#v#v$#v:V l,55F55$59/ / / aXp2yta$$IfX!vh#v#vF#v#v$#v:V l,55F55$59/ aXp2yta$$IfX!vh#v#v#vF#vp:V lp 6,55L5F5p99/ / / aXp(yt>( $$IfX!vh#v#v#vF#vp:V l|6,55L5F5p9/ / / aXp(yt>( '$$IfX!vh#v#vL#vF#vs#vp:V lp (6,55L5F5s5p99/ / / aXp2yt>( $$IfX!vh#v#vL#vF#vs#vp:V l|6,55L5F5s5p9/ / / aXp2yt>( $$IfX!vh#vt#v#v-#v,#v-#v:V l 6,5t55-5,5-59/ aXpPyta$$IfX!vh#vt#v#v-#v,#v-#v:V l 6,5t55-5,5-59/ aXpPyta$$IfX!vh#vt#v#v-#v,#v-#v:V l 6,5t55-5,5-59/ aXpPyta^ 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666866666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p(8HX`~_HmH nH sH tH @`@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k (No List PK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭V$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3N)cbJ uV4(Tn 7_?m-ٛ{UBwznʜ"Z xJZp; {/<P;,)''KQk5qpN8KGbe Sd̛\17 pa>SR! 3K4'+rzQ TTIIvt]Kc⫲K#v5+|D~O@%\w_nN[L9KqgVhn R!y+Un;*&/HrT >>\ t=.Tġ S; Z~!P9giCڧ!# B,;X=ۻ,I2UWV9$lk=Aj;{AP79|s*Y;̠[MCۿhf]o{oY=1kyVV5E8Vk+֜\80X4D)!!?*|fv u"xA@T_q64)kڬuV7 t '%;i9s9x,ڎ-45xd8?ǘd/Y|t &LILJ`& -Gt/PK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!0C)theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] "`$"()*$4U)W)l))))*.*T********** !"#%&'()*+,-./8@0(  B S  ?" KQ~;@"333333>( oaC~*%75E+BK6cT3[\?tWh?qB 8<Xwg4G""@"@UnknownG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx ArialA$BCambria Math Ah c c9cg0?0?%24""K#qP?_2!xx ,ZWith a caveat that the sample we are working with is very small, we noticed the following: Lise UserTempOh+'0 , L X d p|\With a caveat that the sample we are working with is very small, we noticed the following: Lise UserNormalTemp2Microsoft Office Word@F#@ɵ@(@(0՜.+,0L hp  + C.C.N.Y.?" [With a caveat that the sample we are working with is very small, we noticed the following: Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./02345678:;<=>?@ABCDEFHIJKLMNPQRSTUVYRoot Entry F[Data 11Table9WordDocument0`SummaryInformation(GDocumentSummaryInformation8OCompObjr  F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q