高中生在考試情境下的藝術評論模式

Patterns of Art Criticism of Senior High School Students in an Examination Context

譚祥安(Cheung-On Tam)；劉仲嚴(Chung-Yim Lau)

考試情境 ； 高中生 ； 語文 ； 模式 ； 藝術評論 ； art criticism ； examination context ； language ； pattern ； senior high school student

藝術教育研究

20期（2010 / 12 / 01）

1 - 31

繁體中文

本文爲一項有關高中生在考試情境下以文字回應藝術作品的研究報告。本研究根據95名參與「香港中學文憑」模擬考試學生的成績，選出6位高分級別以及6位低分級別的學生作爲研究對象。透過分析學生的答題表現及晤談記錄，研究者審視學生建構藝術評論的方法，並探討形成其表現差異的原因。研究發現高分的學生能夠將作品描述與藝術知識、仔細觀察、情境資訊、個人評價及其它科目知識作出聯繫，並提出較多及較合理的理由和證據支持其對作品的詮釋。研究建議教師應平衡對作品的形式和情境分析以及幫助學生發現作品與其他作品、文化以及個人生活與知識之間的連繫。此外，研究亦建議透過課堂活動和展覽，實踐以藝術探究和評論的方式來提升學生批判藝術的能力。

This article reports on a study which examined students' written responses to artwork reproductions in an examination. Based on the results obtained from a pilot examination for the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education, six high achievers and six low achievers were selected as subjects of the study. Through analyses of the examination scripts and interviews of the students, the study examined the ways in which students constructed their critical responses and identified factors contributing to the differences in their performance. It was found that high achievers had the ability to intertwine specific descriptions with visual arts knowledge, keen observations, contextual information, personal judgments and other subject knowledge. They could give more evidence and more reasoned arguments to support their interpretations. The study recommends that teachers should put equal emphasis on the formal and contextual analysis of artworks and help students to see artworks in relation to other artworks, cultures, their personal life and knowledge. It is also recommended that the critical response ability of students be enhanced through art inquiry and criticism practice in schools and exhibitions.

1. 羅美蘭(2007)。「批評與脈絡學習」在藝術師資培育的應用研究：跨文化的觀點與在地教學行動研究的省思。藝術教育研究，13，95-121。
   連結：
2. HKEAA. (2010). 1998-2009 HKCEE Statistics of candidates’ results in individual subjects. Retrieved from http://www.hkeaa.edu.hk/DocLibrary/HKCEE/Release_of_Results/Exam_Report/Examination_Statistics/ceexamstat09_7.pdf
3. Addison, N.(ed.),Burgess, L.(ed.)(2003).Issues in art and design teaching.London, UK:Routledge Falmer.
4. Aguirre, I.(2004).Beyond the understanding of visual culture: A pragmatist approach to aesthetic education.Journal of Art & Design Education,23(3),256-269.
5. Anderson, T.(1995).Towards a cross-cultural approach to art criticism.Studies in Art Education,36(4),198-209.
6. Barrett, T.(2004).Improving student dialogue about art.Teaching Artist Journal,2(2),87-94.
7. Barrett, T.(2003).Interpreting art: Reflecting, wondering, and responding.Boston, MA:McGraw-Hill.
8. Blandy, D.(ed.),Congdon, K. G.(ed.)(1991).Pluralistic approaches to art criticism.Bowling Green, OH:Bowling Green State University Popular Press.
9. Bloom, B. S.(ed.)(1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals.New York, NY:Longman.
10. Bresler, L.(ed.)(2007).International handbook of research in arts education.Dorchecht, The Netherlands:Springer.
11. Broudy, H. S.(1987).The role of imagery in learning.Los Angeles, CA:The Getty Center for Education in the Arts.
12. Carroll, T.(2002).Cultivating the critical mind in art.Journal of Art and Design Education,21(1),60-71.
13. Cunliffe, L.(2005).Forms of knowledge in art education and the corollary of authenticity in the teaching and assessment of such forms of knowledge.Journal of Art & Design Education,24(2),199-208.
14. Denzin, N. K.(ed.),Lincoln, Y. S.(ed.)(2003).Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials.Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
15. Dobbs, S. M.(1998).Learning in and through art: A guide to Discipline-Based Art Education.Los Angeles, CA:Getty Education Institute for the Arts.
16. Feldman, E. B.(1994).Practical art criticism.Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.
17. Feldman, E. B.(1992).Varieties of visual experience.New York, NY:Harry N. Abrams.
18. Gagné, R.(1985).The conditions of learning.New York, NY:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
19. Geahigan, G.(2002).Art criticism: Reflections on the evolution of an educational concept.Journal of Aesthetic Education,36(2),84-97.
20. Geahigan, G.(1999).Models of critical discourse and classroom instruction: A critical examination.Studies in Art Education,41(1),6-21.
21. Gooding-Brown, J.(2000).Conversations about art: A disruptive model of interpretation.Studies in Art Education,42(1),36-50.
22. Hickman, R.(ed.)(2005).Critical studies in art and design education.Bristol, UK:Intellect.
23. Hughes, A.(1993).Don't judge pianists by their hair.Journal of Art and Design Education,12(3),279-289.
24. Hutchens, J. W.(ed.),Suggs, M. S.(ed.)(1997).Art education: Content and practice in a postmodern era.Reston, VA:The National Art Education Association.
25. Ishizaki, K.,Wang, W.(2003).Postmodern approach to art appreciation for integrated study in Japan.Journal of Aesthetic Education,37(4),64-73.
26. Mason, R.,Steers, J.(2006).The impact of formal assessment procedures on teaching and learning in art and design in secondary schools.Journal of Art & Design Education,25(2),119-123.
27. Poon, Y. K.,Wong, Y. C.(2008).Education reform in Hong Kong: The "Through-Road" model and its societal consequences.International Review of Education,54(1),33-55.
28. Smith, R. A.(ed.)(1989).Discipline-based art education: Origins, meaning, and development.Urbana, IL:University of Illinois.
29. Tam, C. O.(2006).Making meaningful personal connections: A phenomenological study of non-art specialist museum visitors' experience of paintings.Canadian Review of Art Education: Research and Issues,33,101-117.
30. 余樹德(2005)。各國高中美術／視覺藝術科畢業試／會考評核比較。香港美術教育，1，24-25。
31. 吳香生(2000)。香港美術教育發展六十年，1939-1999。香港=Xianggang=Hong Kong:香港教育學院=Xianggang jiaoyu xueyuan。
32. 香港考試及評核局(2009)。香港中學文憑考試覺藝術─水平參照成績匯報資料套。香港=Xianggang=Hong Kong:香港考試及評核局=Xianggang kaoshi ji pingheju。
33. 黃素蘭(2007)。香港中學文憑考試視覺藝術科樣本試題「先導測驗計劃」研究報告。香港=Xianggang=Hong Kong:香港教育學院=Xianggang jiaoyu xueyuan。
34. 黃素蘭(2005)。紙筆考試能反映藝術教育的本質與價值嗎？=Zhibi kaoshi neng fanying yishu jiaoyu de benzhi yu jiazhi ma?。香港美術教育，1，22-23。
35. 課程發展議會(2003)。視覺藝術科課程指引（小一至中三）。香港=Xianggang=Hong Kong:課程發展議會=Kecheng fazhan yihui。
36. 課程發展議會、香港考試及評核局(2007)。視覺藝術課程指引及評估指引（中四至中六）。香港=Xianggang=Hong Kong:課程發展議會Kecheng fazhan yihui。

1. 李佳蓉(2013)。視覺思考策略對美術資優教育之啟示。資優教育，129，31-39。
2. 譚祥安、劉仲嚴(2016)。2005 至2015 藝術批評教育實證研究之評析。藝術教育研究，32，35-68。