Sophomore Review/ARTS 297ReportFall 2011 – Spring 2012

Student Final Gradesin ARTS 297

Fall 2011 total students =23

A =3

B+=1

B =6

C =7

I =2

F = 3 (no show)

WF = 1

Incomplete status =2(below c average and mustwork with me next semester toimprove portfolio)

Statistical analysis of faculty responses to student portfolios

Fall 2011

1.Drawing 1

  • 8.9% of student’s drawings received an excellent (5)rating
  • 46.4% of student’s drawings received a very good (4) rating
  • 33.9% of student’s drawings received an average (3) rating
  • 7.1% of student’s drawings received a poor (2) rating
  • 0% of student’s drawings received a failure (1) rating
  • 3.6% of student’s drawings received a (0) no fault rating

2.Drawing 2

  • 20.0% of student’s drawings received an excellent (5) rating
  • 50.9% of student’s drawings received a very good (4) rating
  • 21.8% of student’s drawings received an average (3) rating
  • 7.3% of student’s drawings received a poor (2) rating
  • 0% of student’s drawings received a failure (1) rating
  • 0% of student’s drawings received a (0) no fault rating

3. 2D Design

  • 10.9% of student’s designs received an excellent (5) rating
  • 40.0% of student’s designs received a very good (4) rating
  • 30.9% of student’s designs received an average (3) rating
  • 9.1% of student’s designs received a poor (2) rating
  • 0% of student’s designs received a failure (1) rating
  • 9.1% of student’s designs received a (0) no fault rating

4.3D Design

  • 36.8% of student’s 3D received an excellent (5) rating
  • 36.8% of student’s 3D received a very good (4) rating
  • 17.2% of student’s 3D received an average (3) rating
  • 2.3% of student’s 3D received a poor (2) rating
  • 1.1% of student’s 3D received a failure
  • 0% of student’s 3D received a (0) no fault rating

5. Portfolio Presentation

  • 38.9% of student’s portfolio presentation received an excellent (5) rating
  • 40.7% of student’s portfolio presentation received a very good (4) rating
  • 14.8% of student’s portfolio presentation received an average (3) rating
  • 3.7% of student’s portfolio presentation received a poor (2) rating
  • 1.9% of student’s portfolio presentation received a failure (1) rating
  • 0% of student’s portfolio presentation received a (0) no fault rating

6. Creativity

  • 24.1% of student’s portfolios rated excellence (5) in creativity
  • 53.7% of student’s portfolios rated very good (4) in creativity
  • 20.4% of student’s portfolios rated average (3) in creativity
  • 1.9% of student’s portfolios rated poor (2) in creativity
  • 0% of student’s portfolios rated failure (1) in creativity
  • 0% of student’s portfolios rated a (0) no fault rating

Spring 2012

total students =40

A=10

B+=3

B =12

C+=4

C =6

I =3 (Incomplete status must work with me next semester)

F (no shows)=2

Withdrawal = 1

Statistical analysis of faculty responses to student portfolios

Spring 2012

  1. Drawing 1
  • 17.1% of student’s drawings received an excellent (5) rating
  • 47.7% of student’s drawings received a very good (4) rating
  • 20.7% of student’s drawings received an average (3) rating
  • 5.4% of student’s drawings received a poor (2) rating
  • 0% of student’s drawings received a failure (1) rating
  • 9% of student’s drawings received a No Fault (0) rating
  1. Drawing 2
  • 31.1% of student’s drawings received an excellent (5) rating
  • 49.5% of student’s drawings received a very good (4) rating
  • 17.1% of student’s drawings received an average (3) rating
  • 0.9% of student’s drawings received a poor (2) rating
  • 0% of student’s drawings received a failure (1) rating
  • 0.9% of student’s drawings received a No Fault (0) rating
  1. 2D Design
  • 25.9% of student’s designs received an excellent (5) rating
  • 49.1% of student’s designs received a very good (4) rating
  • 13.4% of student’s designs received an average (3) rating
  • 4.5% of student’s designs received a poor (2) rating
  • 0.9% of student’s designs received a failure (1) rating
  • 6.3% of student’s designs received a No Fault (0) rating
  1. 3D Design
  • 22.5% of student’s 3D received an excellent (5) rating
  • 35.1% of student’s 3D received a very good (4) rating
  • 26.1% of student’s 3D received an average (3) rating
  • 3.6% of student’s 3D received a poor (2) rating
  • 0.9% of student’s 3D received a failure (1) rating
  • 11.7% of student’s 3D received a No Fault (0) rating
  1. Portfolio Presentation
  • 47.7% of student’s portfolio presentation received and excellent (5) rating
  • 41.4% of student’s portfolio presentation received a very good (4) rating
  • 9.0% of student’s portfolio presentation received an average (3) rating
  • 1.8% of student’s portfolio presentation received a poor (2) rating
  • 0.0% of student’s portfolio presentation received a failure (1) rating
  • 0.0% of student’s portfolio presentation received a No Fault (0) rating

6. Creativity

  • 43.2% of student work rated excellent (5) in creativity
  • 44.1% of student work rated very good (4) in creativity
  • 11.7% of student work rated average (3) in creativity
  • 0.9% of student work rated poor (2) in creativity
  • 0.0% of student work rated failure (1) in creativity
  • 0.0% of student work rated No Fault (0) in creativity

Observations and areas to beaddressed

  1. The break down this Spring 2012 semester on student status shows that 12 students enrolled in Arts 297 were Seniors, 23 were Juniors, 3 were Sophomores and 1 Post Graduate student. The faculty may want to discuss a mechanism that automatically enrolls student’s in Arts 297 when foundations are complete as we begin to include Sophomore Review as a portal to the future BFA in Studio/Graphic Arts.
  2. Students have suggested a benchmark drawing as part of the portfolio to exhibit artistic growth. Growth is an area that the current rubric doesn’t account for. Should an additional growth factor be used in the grading rubric?
  3. The rubric and the assessment of foundation art courses in general needs some current discussion and revisiting by the art faculty.
  4. Foundation art faculty may need to spend more time on skill development ensuring mechanical linear perspective in one and two point perspective drawing. There is not always evidence in ARTS 111 student portfolios of the mechanical understanding of linear perspective.
  5. I feel it is a step in the right direction to have a Coordinator/Director of Foundation Art Courses. With Treelee who is an experienced foundation level professor coordinating and directing, I feel the art department will come closer to the goal of insuring a consistent and thorough art foundation for all of the visual arts majors.

Submitted on Aug. 14,2012

Maura Kenny