Content uploaded by Douglas Gordon Boughton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Douglas Gordon Boughton on Sep 24, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Educational Policy and Mentorship:
Transforming Classroom Practice and Assessment in the Art Class
Deborah N Filbin
Doctoral Student - Art and Design Education
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL 60115
artgirl1969@gmail.com
Douglas G Boughton
Professor of Art and Education
School of Art
Northern Illinois University
DeKalb, IL 60115
dboughton@NIU.edu
1
Introduction (DB)
This is a narrative by a high school art teacher and a PhD student, Deborah Filbin,
reflecting upon the impact of education policy on her classroom practice and assessment
strategies. She reviews the impact of both national and local educational policy on her thinking
about teaching and assessment and the ways in which mentorship helped her, through research,
to reformulate practice to find the best fit between the impact of inappropriate policy and what
she believes to be the most appropriate art learning experience for her students. The pathway she
creates in the story is reflective of the ways in which doctoral program mentorship has shaped
her thinking, engaged her in research, and helped her to redefine educational practices.
The context for the story is important. Deborah reflects upon her transition from the ideas
driving discipline-based art education (DBAE) and the more recent discourse about a visual
culture approach to art education. Both these philosophies are well-established in the literature
and need not be elaborated here (see Wilson, 1997 and Freedman, 2003). As a backdrop to the
literature that influenced Deborah, federal and state policy mandates effected palpable change in
the classroom environment in all Midwestern schools in recent years. Of particular note was the
No Child Left Behind mandate from the Bush administration, signed into law on January 8,
2002. The lasting impact of this initiative is well known to be frequent multiple-choice testing of
math and reading nationwide. Apart from the many serious shortcomings implicit in the design
of standardized tests (Popham, 1999) such testing has serious limitations of validity in the arts
and are not warmly embraced by art teachers.
In the last half decade Legislation enacted by governments in many of the states in the
nation have required teachers to demonstrate effectiveness in their teaching through data based
evidence in order to retain their jobs. This action seems to imply an underlying mistrust of
2
teachers and has consequently disturbed the equilibrium of classroom teachers, and particularly
those teachers of subjects that have not normally been measured by multiple-choice tests. This
legislation has made it clear that within the next two years valid and reliable measures of student
learning, produced on an annual, or semi-annual basis are certain to become critical to the future
job security of all teachers.
To illustrate this situation in specific terms a California judge, on June 10, 2014,
determined that the teacher tenure laws in California violated the civil rights of students by
denying them equality of education (Medina, 2014). The lower court ruling supported the
argument that tenure protects poor teachers allowing them to remain in place negatively affecting
the quality of students’ educational experience, particularly given the practice of assigning the
least effective teachers to schools populated by low income and minority students. California
teachers unions appealed the decision and the ruling was overturned on April 14, 2016 (Los
Angeles Times, 2016). However the activists who brought the case to court were also motivated
to challenge tenure laws in New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Oregon, New Mexico, Idaho and
Kansas. Strong unions in all of these states have previously blocked challenges to the tenure laws
protecting teachers.
In 2010, the state of Illinois passed the Performance Evaluation Reform Act (PERA)
foreshadowing the direct threat to teacher tenure that surfaced in California in 2014. The PERA
act, to be enacted in fall 2016, requires all school districts in Illinois to design and implement
performance reviews that assess both teachers’ and principals’ professional competence. Central
to these reviews are measures of student growth, and these measures are required by the act to be
both valid and reliable. The legislation applies to teachers of all subjects.
3
The implications of this demand on teachers of art and design, and indeed all arts
teachers, are profound as becomes evident in Deborah’s narrative below. While nobody would
argue that it is not unreasonable to expect that teachers should teach effectively and students
should learn the content of the disciplines taught in school, the act of quantifying learning in
ways that make data comparisons easy for administrators and parents to understand is far more
complicated than legislators appear to comprehend, particularly for the arts. Simplistic
approaches to the problem of generating measurable data reflecting arts learning could seriously
reify content and employ cheap assessment methodologies that lack both reliability and validity.
This struggle constitutes the major theme of Deborah’s reconstruction of her teaching and
assessment methodologies in a high school in the south suburbs of Chicago.
Narrative (DF)
Entering the teaching profession in the mid 1990’s, early in my high school teaching
career I implemented the kinds of lessons I learned about in my undergraduate program. I
entered the field with high ideals and a belief that all my students would want to be in my art
class and would love the challenges that an art making experience would provide. It didn’t take
long for reality to set in. Yes there were some students who actually wanted to be there, and yes,
there were students who didn’t. In my undergraduate experience I was encouraged to use the
DBAE philosophy taught in most university art education programs from the early 80s to late
90s. In my teaching I presented great works of art, discussed the historical significance of these
with my classes, encouraged conversations about the aesthetics of the pieces, and then began
artmaking activities that were inspired by the great works. We concluded lessons with critical
conversations about the final products. When grading the students’ products and critical
4
engagement I followed a rubric that evaluated the students’ work based on examples that were
provided.
I noticed several things that happened in those early teaching experiences. Some students
did exactly as they were told. They made beautiful works, they earned a good grade for
following directions and meeting the goals, and it was clear grades were their primary
motivation. After the work was graded, it was often tossed in the trash can by the students on
their way out. Sometimes students were proud of their work and wanted it displayed, or were
anxious to take it home. Yet I was troubled by the willingness some students had to leave work
behind as an example or to simply toss it away.
Something else happened too; some students challenged me by questioning why I was
teaching the content I was, and questioned my grading practices. It was those students who
started doing work differently; they were students who would incorporate their own ideas and
bring a unique component to an assignment. These students had no regard for the directions or
the grade rubric, they simply wanted to create work that expressed what they were thinking or
feeling regardless of the grade they would earn. According to the rubric I was using those
students should have failed. They resisted instructions, and thought for themselves. This
experience taught me how to be an art teacher (Thomas & Montgomery, 1998). It reminded me
why I chose to make art as a child, and brought me back to the experiences that inspired me to
teach.
These students gave me a lot to think about. They were in the art room because they
wanted to be creative. They wanted access to the art materials so that they could explore their
imaginations and make visual images that meant something to them. It wasn’t about the grade, it
was about the freedom of self-expression and the power it wields. The next lesson I learned was
5
that this work had greater value to them, and this was the work that went home. The students
voiced a desire to have this work displayed because they cared about it. I learned it was okay in
the visual arts to break the rules because that is where new ideas are forged.
Only five years into my career I was open to change. With great humility I was willing to
rethink my grade rubrics, revaluate my teaching methods, and allowed my students to be my
teachers. A great influence form my undergraduate program was Elliot Eisner’s Educating
Artistic Vision (1972). I returned to the community of my professional field for the support,
knowledge and research I would need to achieve this task. My new path was shaped by Eisner’s
view that “the ultimate aim of education is to enable individuals to become the architects of their
own education” (Eisner, 2002, p. 240).
I was able to re-think my path to create an exciting art room, motivate students, allow
opportunities for creativity, and encourage students to take risks. With a completely revised
curriculum which taught a survey of artistic techniques, incorporated a variety of materials, and
allowed for individualized interpretation of assignments, students were enjoying their experience
in school. I was enjoying teaching. Then something interesting happened; the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB) was implemented. The school I was teaching at was considered a ‘failing
school’, and changes were mandated for all departments. District-wide multiple-choice pre, mid
and post-tests had to be implemented as a way to measure student learning in art. Our
performance-based rubric for assessing art needed to be revised for fear that a performance-
based rubric was too subjective. Teachers were instructed to test students more frequently; as
these policies were enacted, slowly the art department began its decline in staff members. When I
was hired in my school district I was one of seven full time art teachers. As the effects of NCLB
was felt in our school, the number of district staff members in the arts in my district slowly
6
dwindled. As a staff member retired or left, those vacancies were not filled. In the spirit of
defending our department, my colleagues and I began implementing district-wide tests. We
developed common art learning goals, assessment rubrics, and agreed on curriculum structure
and content. The development of common multiple choice assessment for students across all
grade levels was the greatest challenge we faced. What types of questions could we ask our art
students that could measure their learning? The only content our community of teachers could
agree upon were the elements and principles of design, visual art terms, and facts about human
proportion. Dutifully we implemented district-wide multiple-choice assessments.
The beginning of the next school year provided us with an unexpected surprise. At a data
meeting with our department chairperson we were asked to analyze our student’s pre-test results.
It was determined that our students did too well on their pre-tests leaving little room for
improvement in the post-test. We were reprimanded for our students’ high level performance on
their pre-tests which left us with too little to teach them. Our incoming high school students
showed they already understood most of the information about the elements and principles of
design, and this knowledge would negatively impact our projected growth for final exams. This
absurd conversation was an abrupt wake-up call. We realized that what was missing here was
validity in assessment. What was it that the arts really taught, and how would we know when our
students learned it?
As a department we reviewed the tests, reflected seriously on the results, and we decided
those written pre, mid, and post-tests were not valid because they were simplistic, and did not
assess content that was central to the discipline of art. They were a means, perhaps, for creating
reliable data to satisfy administrators, but without validity such data is useless; the tests had very
little to do with what was really happening in our art rooms. The things that were important for
7
student learning and the arts are not able to be measured with multiple choice tests. The capacity
to engage in creative thinking, and to employ risk-taking was a more accurate reflection of
student learning.
At this point in my career I realized I wanted to make meaningful changes in assessment
practices in the arts. This became my motivation for seeking my PhD in Art Education.
Fortunately I was close enough to Northern Illinois University to begin classes while continuing
to work full time, and it was there I found mentors in my professional field who were able to
provide me with the knowledge to promote the best methods for assessing my students, and the
scholarship to advocate for the arts to be a part of a student’s educational experience. I met Dr.
Doug Boughton, and he shared a story in class about a committee opportunity he had, some years
ago, to work on the development of a state content assessment for art teachers. He described the
multiple choice items he was asked to review as “complete nonsense”. His words and the
conviction he expressed about this issue nearly knocked me out of my chair. This experience not
only validated my decision to pursue my doctorate, but provided direction for my studies. I don’t
think I realized it at that moment, but I had found the mentor who would help me make sense of
all the nonsense I experienced (Gearity & Mertz, 2012).
Comment (DB)
It is worth repeating the story, referred to by Deborah, about the state art teacher content
test development. The committee I was invited to work with was charged with the responsibility
of developing a test required to be taken by all art teachers in the state of Illinois to determine
eligibility for licensure. The test employed multiple-choice test items to interrogate potential
teachers’ knowledge of studio practice. One of the test items was “What is the correct way to
hold a pencil when beginning a drawing?” Clearly such a question cannot demand a single
8
correct answer in the context of art making. But there it was in the current test scheduled for
revision. The correct answer, by the way, was “Firmly but without tension.” After some argument
with committee members and the team leader the test item was deleted, but it illustrated the
nonsense that could be promulgated at a state level of testing without input from assessment
experts.
It is interesting to me that this example was something that resonated with Deborah’s
concern about the impact of inappropriate assessment practices in her immediate life world. Her
motivation, and determination to make a difference, seems to have grown from this, and other
stories I have shared with her, Deborah’s insight and intuition signaled to her that not all was
well in her assessment world and it was fortuitous for her to find a place in our program at NIU.
Narrative Continued (DF)
Doug provided clear and articulate language about educational assessment in the arts that
was research based, valid, and applicable to the learning that takes place in the art room
(Boughton, 2004, 1996). Dr. Kerry Freedman provided supportive mentorship on advocating for
arts programs (Freedman 2011; 2014). Their expertise and experience, coupled with learning the
language of assessment, provided me with the professionalism I needed to communicate to
administrators and colleagues in other disciplines what is taught in the art room, and how to
generate valid and reliable assessment data through judgement rather than measurement.
By providing an applicable solution to our assessment problem, performance-based pre,
mid and post-tests, the school district allowed us to implement these judgement practices as the
accepted district-wide assessments. These tests required teachers to make a qualitative judgment
about the degree to which student learning was evident in the work as opposed to the previous
9
multiple-choice test data. As a department we were able to come to consensus on what our
performance indicators were, thinking about how our students demonstrated valuable learning.
Doug frequently discussed the importance of risk-taking, and it was this insight that helped
impart clarity into seeing what the important indicators of student learning were (Boughton, In
Press; 2014). The new assessment methods that were developed, based upon the notion that risk-
taking should be valued, promoted creativity, and encouraged risk-taking in our students, thus
opening opportunities for students to think for themselves, and be rewarded for taking on artistic
challenges rather than receiving a grade penalty for taking a chance.
Comment (DB)
Timing is always an interesting issue in the relationship of mentors with graduate
students. At the time Deborah was a student in my assessment class I had just begun an
international research project examining the relationship of risk-taking and the creative process
in senior high school art students’ art making. Several questions about the notion of risk-taking
have never been seriously addressed in the research literature which prompted me to set up a
study to ask some key questions dealing with the nature of risk, conditions under which students
will take risks in the art class, what happens if a risk fails, and most importantly how does one
assess the nature and quality of risks taken by students in the art program? It happened that
Deborah was also thinking about this issue of risk so the timing, for her, was right and the
content subsequently resonated with her own professional reflections about assessment.
It seemed to me that Deborah wanted and needed both support and direction to pursue her
mission to reform the manner in which arts teachers were expected to produce valid and reliable
data demonstrating student learning in their art classes within her school district. I was pleased
she was able to find a degree of synchronicity with my work that provided the insight and
10
authority for her to do this. There were moments of great satisfaction for me, and joy for her, as
she reported the successes she achieved in the execution of her mission
Narrative continued (DF)
Adopting a visual culture approach (Freedman, 2003) was, for me, a natural pedagogic
transition which helped students develop critical thinking skills to develop awareness of the
flood of visual images they are surrounded with daily. More importantly, allowing students to
make visual commentary on the things they question about their contemporary society became a
rewarding opportunity. Visual expression helped students challenge themselves to find
application for what they were learning in other courses, in the arts, and on their own. However
one of the consequences of this approach is that students need to put themselves at risk of failure
in the process of finding ways to express creatively the critical visual commentary that is
important to them. Assessment that does not value risk-taking will discourage students from
taking such risks. Consequently new assessment strategies need to be found (Boughton, In
Press).
The current perpetuation of standardization in public schools has kept me vigilant about
an awareness of how to assess and grade student work and using alternate assessments to
promote creative engagement and find accurate evidence that learning has occurred
(Siegesmund, 2009). Fear of failure and current lack of acceptance of failure as a normal part of
the learning process can become paralyzing to students who are under the current pressure to
perform well on tests. With teacher evaluations being tied to student test scores, many teachers
have become reluctant to encourage educational risk taking and have become less creative with
their lessons, fearful they too will be penalized if their students don’t perform well on
standardized tests.
11
Doug’s interest in researching risk taking had me reflect on how it seems contemporary
education theories have forgotten that some of the most meaningful learning experiences resulted
from initial failure. How many experimental planes had to crash before the Wright brothers
finally got their plane successfully off the ground? Failure paved the way for taking risks,
learning, and eventual success. In the current data driven culture students aren’t being told its
okay to fail. An art room that allows educational risk-taking makes the possibility of failure okay
because the risk can also yield great success and memorable learning experiences. Often when
my students ask, “can I?” my response is usually “I don’t know, can you?” This passing of the
responsibility of learning to the learner changes the role of the teacher.
Inspired by Dr. Boughton’s work with assessment (2004; 2006; 2014), in 2015 I
conducted a pilot case study of former arts students asking them to reflect on appropriate
assessment in the arts (1). The findings confirmed and strengthened the hypothesis Boughton
shared in class, so when he began his current research on risk-taking in the arts (Boughton, In
Press), I was motivated to conduct an ethnographic pilot study researching my current students
who chose to take higher level art courses. Interested in closely examining the learning that was
taking place with students in my art room when they were encouraged think creatively and take
risks with their work, I pursued the following research questions: How do visual arts students
view creative problem solving? How do visual art students view educational risk-taking? And
finally, how do members of the class interact with each other to support each other’s creative
behaviors?
This study was designed to analyze what role visual arts courses play in helping prepare
students for college or the work-world where application of problem solving skills are desired.
The research was premised on the assumption that allowing students to take educational risks
12
presented students the opportunity to experience success or failure in an environment where it
was safe and acceptable, and they were not penalized academically for it. The main question of
the investigation was to explore the validity of this assumption.
Working ethnographically allowed me to collect data from observation, interview, and
analyze the visual artworks my students produced (Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 1995; Staikidis,
2014; Sullivan, 2009). There were three major findings that emerged in the data: The first was
identification of the categories of creative risks taken by the participants. Consistent with
Boughton’s research (In Press; 2014), the visual artifacts revealed two distinct types of risks
taken by students. One type was a risk in experimenting with new art materials, and the other
was risky content. The risk in material seemed to be a lower level risk since the most that was at
stake was failure with the media. In taking this type of risk, students could always turn to the
teacher, classmates or the internet for help. The content risk however was a greater risk since
students who took these types of risks were exposing their thoughts or opinions visually, risking
the perceptions others may have of them, or openly discussing issues that were considered
‘taboo’ in a high school setting. Students in my pilot study who took risks in content visually
explored themes which included but were not limited to homosexuality, depression, feminist
issues, symptoms of anorexia, pressures faced by academically high performing students, self-
harm, and sexually provocative images.
The second finding revealed the reasons participants took creative risks as (inter-alia) an
innate need or desire to express themselves, and to achieve self-satisfaction and stress relief. It
appears from the data that the art room was the only time and place in their high school career
that students felt they were allowed to think creatively or take risks, or as my participant put it,
‘the only fun you’re allowed to have in school’. The third finding was the emergence of a caring
13
community that was created among the participants within the classroom. This community
manifested itself as taking ownership the studio space, caring for each other during work or
critique, and encouraging or helping one another.
Conclusion
Throughout this study, not only was I able to find evidence in my classroom of
educational benefits of creative risk-taking in students, but I was also able to closely examine
how my students became partners in their own assessment, ultimately passing the responsibility
of learning to the student, and the teacher playing a key role in providing educational
opportunities that promote this exchange. As a consequence of the mentoring relationships that
has led to my educational research, my educational practice has been re-shaped, and who I have
become as a teacher, forever changed. I have learned the importance of research and how
systematic inquiry can inform both teaching and assessment practices. In this time of change in
educational policies, vigilance in doing what is best for students must remain at the forefront.
Through the mentorship of my graduate professor, Doug Boughton, I learned to embrace
the value of what I was teaching staying true to a philosophy of education which is learning by
doing (Dewey, 1938). I examined closely the important lessons I wanted to teach in my
classroom, and had to answer to myself what I felt were the experiences I wanted my students to
gain. I learned advocacy for my students and how to articulate to administrators and parents the
value of what was taught in my classroom. I learned how to respectfully challenge policies that I
knew were not in the best interest of my students, yet while making challenges, offer fruitful
solutions and alternatives. The greatest source of confidence however throughout this entire
process came from how I have been treated as a graduate student, not only by Doug but by the
entire community of professors at NIU. I have been treated with collegial respect, encouraged to
14
present at conferences, and provided pathways to co-construct knowledge (Barnes & Austin,
2009; Schlosser, Knox, Moskovitz & Hill, 2003). As I have sought validity for my students, I
found the same validity as an educational professional.
Footnote
1. The (unpublished) pilot study conducted in the spring of 2015 involved interviewing former
high school art students who are now working professionals. During their interviews, the
participants were asked to reflect on their high school art learning experiences, and what
learning experiences from the arts they felt were the most useful in their adult lives. The
findings suggested formative assessments like critique, helped them learn how to handle
disappointment, and were most useful in their adult lives. The findings also suggested that
the participants felt a lack of standardized right / wrong answers also helped them develop
the skills they needed for building the skills they needed for learning thinking skills to
develop habits of self-improvement.
References
Barnes, B. J. & Austin, A. E. (2009). The role of doctoral advisors: A look at advising from the
advisor’s perspective. Innovation in Higher Education, 33, 297-315. DOI
10.1007/s10755-008-9084-x.
Blume, H. Resmovits, J. & Kohli, S. (2016). In a win for unions, appeals court reverses ruling
that threw out teacher tenure in California. Los Angeles Times, April 14.
Boughton, D. (In press), Risk Taking and the Future of Assessment in Art and Design Education.
Conference Proceedings, “Art & Education: Teaching and Pedagogical Approaches for the School
15
in the 21st Century”, Onassis Cultural Centre. Sponsored by Institute of Education Policy (IEP),
Athens School of Fine Arts (ASFA), and the Onassis Cultural Centre.
Boughton, D, (2014). Research themes in art education: Making sense of the discipline. In K. M.
Miraglia & C. Smilan (Eds.) Inquiry in action: Paradigms, methodologies, and
perspectives in art education research (pp. 67-79). Reston, VA: National Art Education
Association.
Boughton, D. (2004). Assessing art learning in changing contexts: High-stakes accountability,
international standards and changing conceptions of artistic development. In E. W. Eisner
& M. D. Day (Eds.), Handbook of research and policy in art education: A project of the
national art education association. (pp. 585 - 605). Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Boughton, D. (1996). Assessment of student learning in the visual arts. Translations: From
Theory to Practice: A Referred Publication of the National Art Education Association
6(3), pp. 1 – 7.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
Eisner, E. W. (1972). Educating artistic vision. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Eisner, E. (2002). The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven & London, Yale University
Press.
Emerson, E. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL:
The University of Chicago Press.
16
Freedman, K. (2003). Teaching visual culture: Curriculum aesthetics, and the social life of art.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press, and Reston: VA National Art Education
Association.
Freedman, K. (2011). Leadership in art education: Taking action in schools and communities. Art
Education. 64(2), 40-45.
Freedman, K. (2014). Research as social action: The research process in art education. In K. M.
Miraglia & C. Smilan (Eds.) Inquiry in action: Paradigms, methodologies, and
perspectives in art education research (pp. 1-7). Reston, VA: National Art Education
Association.
Gearity, B. T. & Mertz, N. (2012). From “bitch” to “mentor”: A doctoral student’s story of self-
change and mentoring. The Qualitative Report. 17, Article 59, 1-27.
Medina, J. (2014). Judge Rejects Teacher Tenure for California, The New York Times. New York,
NY. June 10. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/us/california-teacher-
tenure-laws-ruled-unconstitutional.html.
Popham, W.J. (1999). Why standardized tests don’t measure educational quality. Educational
Leadership. 56(6), 8 -15.
Schlosser, L.Z., Knox, S., Moskovitz, A. R., & Hill, C. E. (2003). A qualitative examination of
graduate advising relationships: The advisee perspective. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 50(2), 178-188.
Siegesmund, R. (2009). Assessing creative performance: Artistic process and pro-social
outcomes. Arts and Learning Research Journal. 25(1), 54-67.
17
Staikidis, K. (2014). Decolonizing methodologies and the ethics of representation: A
collaborative ethnography with Maya artists Pedro Rafael Gonzalez Chavajay and Paula
Nicho Cumez. In K. M. Miraglia & C. Smilan (Eds.) Inquiry in action: Paradigms,
methodologies, and perspectives in art education research (pp. 67-79). Reston, VA:
National Art Education Association.
Sullivan, G. (2009). Art practice as research: Inquiry in the visual arts (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Thomas, J. A. & Montgomery, P. (1998). On becoming a good teacher: Reflective practice with
regard to children’s voices. Journal of Teacher Education. 49(5), 372-380.
Wilson, B. (1997) The quiet evolution: Changing the face of arts education. Los Angeles: The
Getty Education Institute for the Arts.
18
