The tricky problem of criteria based assessment in art and design

As a result of a conversation this morning, I have started to rethink my understanding of how art and design teachers make judgements and how they might guide students in their successful interpretation of assessment criteria. I have also reflected on the perception of relative values made by subject specialists about the arts and the visual arts in particular. It would help if I briefly explain the context to this development in my thinking.

The discussion explored how assessments should be made of creative outcomes from AS students taking the Extended Project qualification. Within this, they sustain a period of independent 'project' based study, producing a record of this process and an outcome that can be selected from one of a number of forms. These might include the production of an artefact or the creation of a performance. The problem being discussed will be familiar to teachers of art and design and relates to the perception of judgements in art and design as subjective, as opposed to objective using Criteria Referencing, followed by national Norm Referencing. The example in question, challenges our perception of how we assess an artefact that has been presented as a painting or set of paintings, particularly when the student is a science and maths major, but has chosen to complete their research into velocity through the form of a painting? And this artefact was a representational painting as well! How then should a student present their research into such an abstract concept as velocity, using scientific knowledge through the form of a representational painting, without having the painting skills to achieve this? And should their work then be assessed as art or science?

Our expectation is that the criteria for assessment are provided by the examination board. However, the criteria do not enable the teachers to achieve accuracy, because in this example, the science teacher assessed the research and painted outcomes as an 'A' grade, having been easily impressed by the quality of the painting; yet when shown to the colleague art and design subject leader, he thought the 'artefact' paintings would merit only a D grade when compared to similar outcomes by other AS level art and design students. Dilemma!

 Clearly in this example, the science teacher does not have the relevant experience in art and design to assess the outcomes in line with other AS level examples and may be easily impressed by the breadth and detail of the independent research carried out by the student leading to a final outcome that appeared to them (in their experience) to be well painted. The view of the art and design specialist, was that this was clearly the work of a non-specialist and lacked the sophistication necessary to gain a higher grade. However, the art and design specialist also did not see within the research, the kind of focus they would recognise by an creative specialist. Instead they saw scientific information about velocity, annotated with naive illustrations of running horses (the interest of the student and final subject matter she used to represent her ideas about velocity). 

This started me thinking about how we make assessments in art and design and to question whether we make students suitably metacognitive about their processes and their learning. I began to question whether in art and design we are at times too 'intuitive' about our expectations regarding these processes? I also question whether by increasing a reflection on how we are thinking (to gain a deeper learning about our thinking) this may in some way limit the creativity, or by slowing the process, we may loose something from the momentum that will then adversely impact on the energy within the ideas or form of expression? I also wondered about the creative process itself and considered how wedded we are in the arts to style and the contemporary iterations of style, that make us interpret this science students' work as naive, and consequently judge it as having less creative and skill value. I also reflected on whether the student had used their scientific experience in investigating the properties of velocity along with the properties of painting media and the way that they might be affected by speed and velocity, from a more abstract perspective.  Would this not have resulted in a more purposeful research? Had an investigation into paint with different viscosities been subjected to wind or thrown at a canvas in different ways, would this have yielded more visible information about velocity, than a controlled painting ever could? This would have enablied the student to produce non-representational works that better represent the concept of velocity.

As a specialist Engaged in similar study, I might consider the works of the Futurists or American abstract expressionist action painters who represent speed and action within their works using very specific drip, dribble and paint throwing techniques. This might help me shape my ideas and inform my research, but we are not describing an art and design specialist, but a science students who likes art. She did not research these movements and I suspect they might not be to her taste. She chose the style of art that she enjoys as the form with which to represent her ideas about velocity. So, is our assessment of her outcomes based on our perceptions of her artistic skill? Or her research, independent development skills, or an assessment of her taste? Do we assess her understanding of creative influences or her ability to complete an assignment completely independently, making suitable choices about her chosen medium?

 The truth is, these judgements reside with the assessor and their 'interpretation' of the criteria. Unfortunately, the criteria for the Extended Project lack the detail necessary to direct our thinking to the conceptual elements of the project and purely describe differences in the representation of the processes carried out by the student. These are open to interpretation and here lies the problem for moderation and consistency.

We might ask whether science teachers should avoid encouraging science students to complete artistic artefacts as an outcome? But I think not. We might also question whether it is right to seek parity of assessment between the creative outcomes of an Extended Project artefact and an artefact produced in an AS level art and design exam? Equally, I think not.

 To resolve this conundrum we must examine the way we make judgements and arrive at an assessment of merit and a definition of what constitutes an expectation for the level of that merit ( the grade). Each art and design teacher develops their 'experience' informing their ability to assess and their accuracy in assessing over many years and in doing is they build a form of 'mental database' that adds a memory of visual examples to the criteria they know. By teaching these criteria to students in helping them reflect on their actions, they reinforce the accuracy and clarity of these assessments. The students learn this through the specialist courses and use their metacognition and reflection to help them improve, make progress and take action towards their target grade. Non specialist teachers will not have this experience or knowledge and in the example I cite, the science teacher uses a separate set of experiences which perhaps set higher expectations on aspects of the research and written elements than the art and design specialist would value.

This helps us understand differences in the perceptions of value between subjects and the view held by academics that these processes in art and design are somehow not academic, but instead, practical. This may reduce them to the value of a repetitive skill, or manufacturing process rather than the highly complex, high level creative form of thinking and actions that are really taking place. But without the necessary experience, they will not know this. The value of art and design for example, is therefore difficult to perceive within the evidence of the processes and though a judgement of the artefact that is produced. Except for those of us who are specialist or practitioners. We are able to 'measure' this using our 'mental database' and years of experience. The non specialist cannot see this or share in our experience, they either trust our judgement or they don't.

The common perception of contemporary art seems to undermine this trust, as many non-specialists will just not appreciate what we value. They will want something representational where they can see evidence of the skill to be explicit. They find it harder to measure the quality of thinking and creativity that seems somehow imbued within the work as intangible. They do not have the experience or our criteria referenced mental database to help them both recognise these characteristics, and assess them with a measurable value.

 What then might we conclude from this? We can see that perceptions of value are different between subjects and that subject specialists are more exacting in their expectations of standards than non-specialists. This is because our expectations are higher and we use our 'mental database' of experience to help us define our grade related expectations.

We can see that it is helpful if examination boards define these expectations more clearly with assessment criteria that set out the standards more exactly, in ways that transcend subject specialism. More importantly, it is essential that we gain a better consensus about assessing process and defining some shared understanding of what quality thinking looks like when presented as evidence. By doing so, we may eliminate the perception of an academic/practical divide and ensure we respect and correctly guide our students in the selection of relevant learning processes, where they may gain experience equally applicable across subject specialisms.

Understanding how we think and learn is certainly important to making progress in any subject, and improves our ability to complete similar processes in the future. We know that we get better at doing things, when we reflect on how we did it and how we learned. This metacognition results in improved practices and should also result in improved grades. This must inform the views of an art and design teacher assessing an artefact produced by a science student, or the views of a science teacher assessing a creative outcome. Both must be brought closer together if we are to improve learning for all and help our students make good choices in the future.