Some things have changed, for the better I think, in my art department. We have finally split the level by teacher instead of both of us teaching all levels. This is better for both the students and for us. It lessens the amount of preps for each of us, and it really makes sure that each student gets similar experiences after art 1, and the best each of us as teachers have to offer. Art students would have my partner for Art 2 and learn/practice lots of technique (that is his strength). Then when they come over to my room for Art 3, we would focus on the Artistic Process, finding their voices, and developing a studio practice. They return to him for Art 4 / AP, with the hopes that the year in my room really helps prepare them for the next level–especially creating a portfolio for AP. (Just as an aside, it did not lessen my preps this year, I have 7–one of which is AP. Such is life in a growing district with less than the ideal number of teachers. But I digress.)
I usually run my Art 3 like an Open Studio, where students follow their own interests in both subject matter and media. This year, I did find that many students do need help with the ATP (specifically ideation), so I brought in themes to help them. In previous years, it really was an open studio, but you have to adjust to the students you have if you want to be an effective teacher. I also use this studio format in my upper ceramics classes–Art 3: Ceramics still has themes where Art 4: Ceramics is fully student-led.
The biggest hurdle I have run into with these classes is how to evaluate my students and ultimately how to turn that into grading. I decided the main things to be evaluated should be the studio practice habits of each student. I evaluate them bi-weekly on their studio practices. It has taken a lot of trial and error to come up with a rubric that I feel works for what I want them to get from their time in my class. Evaluating their studio practices gives the students a lot of leeway on what and how they want to create.
Photo credit K. Douglas & C. Fralick
I based my rubric on the 7 Goals of Art Class from Katherine Douglas. I thought that while the goals were created those for elementary students, they apply to any studio practice. I created a rubric that is based on these studio habit goals that are incorporated into the ATP (Artistic Thinking Process) stages. Coming up with a point system was a not so easy task, but I ultimately decided that every habit is equally important. Engagement is the highest because that really reflects their attitudes and productivity during the studio time each week. I use this rubric to determine my bi-weekly major grade for my upper level classes.
Studio Habits Bi-Weekly Grade
As time goes on and I reflect upon my students and my teaching, I keep tweaking the rubric to be a better reflection of what I hope they are learning and practicing as emerging artists. But so far, this has worked well and I think is an accurate reflection of my students’ studio habits and practices.
At the end of the year, I start to think about the next year. I like to have some ideas written down so I can leisurely work out details over the summer so I am ready for the year in August when I return. This coming year, one thing I really want to work on is my grading system. I have been using a “Level of Engagement” system for some years now, but I’ve become disillusioned with it because I feel it is too much like a participation grade and doesn’t really show any sort of progress towards mastery or whatever it is grades are “supposed” to show.
Before I go any further, I want to say that if you are reading this post with the anticipation of some kind of answer to the meaningful grading question, I’m not sure you’re going to find it. In fact, you might end up walking away with more questions. Also, I am writing with high school grading in mind, which is a huge beast that is often wrong in what it represents.
If you Google “purpose of grading in education”, you will find that basically grades are meant to communicate learning progress and achievements. But, as we all know, grades don’t really show that at all…meaning that final number doesn’t actually show progress in learning. Because, if you get a 70 in the first marking period because you are still developing a skill/studio habit, and then you get a 100 in the final marking period because you finally mastered the skill/studio habit, you won’t receive a 100 for the year. Your grade will appear as if you just were average or proficient, even though you did what the point of learning is–you progressed and eventually mastered. Who goes to look at all the grades over the course of the year to see that your grade steadily improved? Only that final number is looked at.
As I have written about in the past, and it has be talked about over and over, grading =/= assessment. And perhaps that is why grading becomes such the dilemma. Should we, under the system we have to use, try to have our grades match our assessments that show actual progress over time, or should we just give out grades for participation? I know this is my dilemma. It’s something I’ve dealt with for years of being a TAB teacher. When I was DBAE, I used rubrics and based grades on students’ artworks having certain elements and principles, depending upon the project, as well as “good” craftsmanship and effort. But now, those things are not as important to me because of the current purpose of my teaching. I am trying to teach my students a way of thinking, a way of behaving, and having a variety of lines in an artwork shouldn’t be up to me, but up to the students. I know that some students will understand the artistic process faster than others. I know that some will demonstrate Studio Habits of Mind easily and others will need more time to develop those habits. I know that all of my student will grow artistically, both in behaviors and skills from where they were when they stepped into the classroom. I know each journey is different. What I don’t know is how to show that in our society’s “beloved” grading hierarchy.
Image credit Katherine Douglas and Clark Fralick
I feel like I am digressing a little here. I was talking about moving on from engagement grading to something more meaningful. I feel like I have figured out what I want to assess my non-first level students on this coming year and beyond. Katherine Douglas shared with me a poster about the things that artists can do in art class. I am in the process of creating an assessment chart for my artists based on this image. I know it was originally meant for elementary, but the behaviors truly span through to any artist at any stage/age. Where I get stuck is the grading part. The chart is easily used as a rubric for assessing students’ artistic thinking processes, but translating that to a numerical grade sucks. There is no other way to say that. I mean, I figured out a point system that makes sense and correlates to emerging, proficient, and mastery levels. But, it does not work well with our antiquated grading system. Their report card just shows some average number that doesn’t accurately show anything meaningful to their learning.
I know that some schools have changed their grading systems, but not mine. And mine isn’t going to change for the foreseeable future. And probably, most schools won’t either. So, in the end, how do we deal with this? How do we use our grading system to truly show growth? I am unsure if it is possible in a system where high school students rely on GPAs for things like scholarships and top % for automatic admission to state schools. Do I just give in and grade on participation, continue with engagement and add in conferences with each student to talk about their growth assessment?
I think this is the hardest part of being a teacher for me. And, the hardest part of being a TAB teacher since I am teaching a way of thinking and not just something that has right/wrong answers. I told you I wasn’t going to make things any clearer in this post. And, I didn’t get any closer to solving my dilemma of how to create a point system for my assessments of artistic growth, thinking, and understanding. But hopefully this post gave you something to think about and discuss. And perhaps, the more we discuss it with each other, the discussion will start to move to those above us teachers that make decisions and we can begin to change the face of education.
I thought I was done, but I think I want to add here that I wrote this post over a week ago, but haven’t published until now because I’ve been going over and over in my head what the purpose of my grading is, and grading in general. At my school, fine arts is a required class to graduate (1 credit worth), but it is not counted towards GPA–something I felt strongly against, but now am not so sure anymore if I want it to count towards GPA. Above you read what Google says the purpose is supposed to be, but that’s not reality. And after reading several posts/conversations this week in both TAB groups and non-TAB groups, the dilemma for me is even worse. I don’t want grades to be punitive. I want my grades to reflect learning and growth, but I can’t figure out a way to where they show growth that isn’t punitive. Assigning lower grade numbers for developing habits/skills and higher grades for mastered skills averages to some number that can seem “negative”. A student that grows over the course of the class should have a 100 for their final grade, right?
How to grade artwork is a topic that comes up often in groups populated by art teachers. I am sure that not one art teacher really wants to grade art, but unfortunately for most of us, it’s part of the expectations those in higher pay grades at central office place upon us. But, if we really thought about it, is grading the artwork itself really a good measure of a student’s artistic growth, learning, application and understanding? And, isn’t that the point of school–growth, learning, application and understanding? I mean, school is the best place to “screw up”–to fail at something, reflect on it, and learn from the process/what went “wrong”. No big merger or client’s money is really at stake here, so why not take risks.
Risks are huge in creating artwork. All the masters that so many teachers use in their classrooms are great because they took risks and experimented. For every artwork that was successful, they had at least 3 that either sucked and were failures or just were meh. (Just for the record, I am making that number up. I am basing it on my own journey as an artist.) If that is the case, why are we holding our students to different standards that working artists don’t hold to themselves?
If we grade artwork on how many lines students used, or if they incorporated X# of organic shapes and X# of geometric shapes, then how do we as teachers know what are they really learning. I don’t know many artists that work like that? Why are we telling them they need to have this or that? Shouldn’t the artwork dictate that? Whose work is it anyway? Letting the students figure out where and what to use or not use in their work will help them learn how to grow as an artist. Having conversations with them will help them reflect and grow.
BUT, what if we just decided NOT to grade the artwork and grade their engagement in the process instead? What could that lead to? I’ll tell you what it could lead to. It could take the pressure off students to be “perfect” in their work. It could tell them that they are in charge of their work, not me, the teacher. It could lead to students taking risks in their artworks. It could lead to students trying new media and techniques. It could lead to experimentation that otherwise may not have happened if they are just trying to have X# of shapes in their work. It could lead to failure, which in turn with reflection leads to learning. And all of this leads to the students learning to behave, think, and become artists. And, isn’t that what one of our end goals of art education should be?
TAB Studio with Mrs. B 