Assessment in an arts education program involves the selection, collection, and interpretation of information about student performance and program adequacy (NAEA, 1994, 7).

One of the primary goals of assessment is to inform instructional planning. It is directly linked to decisions about the need to remediate, reinforce, or extend student learning. Intervention strategies cannot be planned until judgments have been reached about student performance based on a range of assessments, both formal and informal. Once assessment information has been obtained, it can be evaluated and used to develop strategies to address identified student needs.

Large-scale assessments are used to determine how well an arts program is enabling students throughout the district to achieve the knowledge and goals expected as part of that program. School districts may use assessment developed commercially or by other school districts to develop their own. (Comprehensive Arts Education: Ohio's Model Competency Based Program (CAEC), p. 77, 81, 106).

A portfolio provides opportunities to observe the nonverbal responses of art production activities, although verbalizing in either oral or written form about the performance is integral to the portfolio process. The portfolio assessment can function as either formative or summative evaluation. Suggested components of portfolio include: 1. Idea, the conceptual development process; 2. Process, the application of the outcomes of the conceptual process; 3. Product(s), the final synthesis of Idea and Process; 4. Reflection, the self-examination of the idea, process, and product. The length of time over which the learner will build the portfolio must be adequate for the arts learning and observation to occur. Portfolio assessment, including several mini-portfolio, is an effective strategy for assessing a variety of concepts in depth and to document learner achievement over time.

The structure of the portfolio assessment process must be clear to the learner and include:

*the general nature of the portfolio (idea, process, product, and reflection);

*presentation of purpose, parameters, rules, and description of the portfolio-building process (designated time period, in-class work, a specified collection, etc.);

*an implementation plan;

*a method for displaying the portfolio;

*predetermined criteria;

*a system for judging/evaluating the portfolio including an optional second rater; and

*an action plan for reporting and next steps (Beattie, 1994).

 

*Identify desired goals and objectives: What knowledge and skills should learners have at the end of the unit or class?

*Establish standards: At what level should students perform?

*Identify resources: What people, sites, books, films, equipment, technology, manipulatives, or other learning materials are available to support teaching and learning?

*Design and implement instruction: How can teachers and learners use the resources to achieve the objectives? What alternative approaches might be used to reach all children?

*Design assessment tasks: What products or processes will illustrate what students have learned?

*Design scoring methods: How will the performance-based assessments be judged? What constitutes outstanding or acceptable results? Is there a rating scale that shows how points or grades will be assigned?

*Identify next steps: How will teachers and learners respond to different scores? What will learners do to improve performance weaknesses? How might instruction be adapted to improve outcomes? (National Art Education Association, 1995, p. 13).

1. Alignment with objectives

Are scoring rubrics well aligned with the objectives?

Do they actually evaluate the extent to which students demonstrate the content and skills described in the objectives?

Will the rubrics produce the kind of information needed for measuring student achievement related to the objectives?

2. Alignment with tasks

Do all rubrics address important components of the tasks?

Do the rubrics evaluate everything that learners will be required to demonstrate?

3. Design of dimensions

Will the rubrics provide separate information that indicates the extent to which students have attained specific objectives, or do they summarize several kinds of information?

Are the rubrics designed to measure multiple dimensions of a complex objective?

If rubrics are multi-dimensional are the dimensions independent of each other to ensure that a particular characteristic or quality is not evaluated in more than one dimension?

4. Development of levels

Are all rubric criteria and scoring levels described clearly enough that there is a distinction between levels?

Does each rubric describe a range of quality in student work from unsuccessful to very successful?

Are the targeted knowledge and skills present at each scoring level?

Is a logical developmental progression apparent from one scale point to the next?

Are there more levels below the expected proficiency than above it?

Would different raters who evaluated the same learners be likely to assign them the same scores?

(State Consortium on Assessments and Student Standards, 1996)