题名

The Use of a Diagnostic Profile in Assessing the Art Understandings of Taiwanese ESL Students

并列篇名

使用「診斷剖析」評量臺灣英文系大學生之藝術認識

作者

馬丁．福客(Martin Forker)

关键词

藝術評量 ； 藝術教育 ； 診斷剖析 ； 跨領域課程 ； art assessment ； art education ； diagnostic profile ； interdisciplinary course

期刊名称

藝術教育研究

卷期/出版年月

27期（2014 / 05 / 01）

页次

101 - 140

内容语文

英文
中文摘要

本論文採用Stavropoulos（1992）「以口頭回應藝術作品的藝術認識診斷剖析」（DP）做為評量英文系學生修一學期西方和亞洲藝術的跨領域課程後之藝術認識。運用DP評量四向度（描述、形式、詮釋和歷史）分析學生對圖像的書面回應，結果顯示學生多種較低階的藝術認識。形式向度方面，許多學生成功運用藝術知識，以設計元素和原理來分析藝術品；詮釋向度，許多學生使用知識尋找策略尋找藝術認識；大部份學生在歷史向度並未取得高分；每個向度皆發現回應錯誤、不合邏輯或藝術判斷能力幼稚、模糊地描述畫作；亦明顯缺乏支持性判斷、美學推論、描述性訊問、延伸或挑戰藝術歷史家、有力的論調評論藝術等。有幾位學生的圖畫則印證了Howard Gardner的空間智能觀念。總之，研究結果建議跨領域課程可提供給學生有用的知識庫來發展藝術教育。
英文摘要

This study uses Stavropoulos’ (1992) ＂A Diagnostic Profile of Art Understandings Based on Verbal Responses to Works of Art (DP)＂ to evaluate ESL students’ understandings of Western and Asian art during a one-semester interdisciplinary course. Stavropoulos’ DP uses four dimensions to assess student’s verbal and written responses to imagery: descriptive, formal, interpretative, and historical. The findings reveal that the students gave multiple lower-order descriptive art understandings. Within the formal dimension, many students successfully developed their formal art knowledge-base as many analyzed artworks in terms of elements and principles of design. Within the interpretative dimension, many students employed knowledge-seeking strategies in their search for understanding. Most students’ responses did not score highly within the historical dimension. There is evidence of students giving incorrect appraisals, illogical findings, immature judgment, and nebulous or unclear statements within each dimension. It is also palpable that there is a scarcity of responses which provide supported judgment or aesthetic reasoning, descriptive questioning, extending or challenging the art historian’s or the art critic’s description of the work through convincing argument. Several of the students’ drawings demonstrate Howard Gardner’s (1983) notion of spatial intelligence. Overall, the findings suggest that the interdisciplinary course provided students with a useful knowledge-base for developing their art education.
主题分类 人文學 > 藝術
社會科學 > 教育學
参考文献
  1. Forker, M.(2012).Achieving visual literacy: Prior knowledge of spiritual symbolism in modern art.Research in Arts Education,24,111-147.
    連結：
  2. Forker, M.(2008).Assessing the written responses to conflict imagery by Northern Ireland art and non-art students.Journal of Taipei Municipal University of Education,39(1),137-178.
    連結：
  3. Sweeney, J. J. (1946). Marc Chagall. New York, NY: Museum of Modern Art.
  4. New York State Education Department Office of Bilingual Education and Foreign Languages Studies.(2010). Art as a tool for teachers of English language learners. Retrieved from http://www.p12.nysed.gov/biling/docs/Art_as_a_Tool-for_Teachers.pdf.
  5. Graves, D. (2013). Copying the masters. The Florence Academy of Art. Retrieved from http://www.florenceacademyofart.com/news.php?id=10&r=f
  6. Winslow, L. (1939). The integrated school art program. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  7. Alexander, P.,Schallert, D.,O' Hare, V.(1991).Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge.Review of Educational Research,61(3),315-345.
  8. Alvermann, D. E.,Smith, L. C.,Readence, J. E.(1985).Prior knowledge activism and the comprehension of compatible and incompatible text.Reading Research Quarterly,20(4),421-436.
  9. Arnheim, R.(1969).Visual thinking.California, CA:University of California Press.
  10. Blair, L.(Ed.),Morbey, M. L.(Ed.)(1993).Arts and learning research, 1992-1993.The Journal of the Arts and Learning,10(1),1-15.
  11. Bransford, J. D.,Johnson, M. K.(1972).Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,11(6),717-726.
  12. Bransford, J. D.,Sherwood, R. D.,Vye, N.,Rieser, J.(1986).Teaching thinking and problem solving: Suggestions from research.American Psychologist,41(10),1078-1089.
  13. Bruner, J.(1973).Going beyond the information given.New York, NY:Norton.
  14. Cason, N.(1998).Interactive multimedia: An alternative context for studying works of art.Studies in Art Education,39(4),336-349.
  15. Catto, M.(1977).Art in Ulster 2.Belfast, NI:Black Staff Press.
  16. Chapman, L. H.(1985).Discover art.Worcester, MA:Davis.
  17. Chi, M. T. H.(Ed.),Glaser, R.(Ed.),Farr, M. J.(Ed.)(1988).The nature of expertise.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  18. Compton, S. P.(1985).Chagall.New York, NY:Harry N. Abrams.
  19. Confrey, J.(1987).Misconceptions across subject matters: Science, mathematics, and programming.Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics,New York, NY:
  20. Davis, J.(1993).Art education in the 1990s: Meeting the challenges of accountability.Studies in Art Education,34(2),82-90.
  21. Efland, A. D.(1990).A history of art education: Intellectual and social currents in teaching the visual arts.New York, NY:Teachers College Press.
  22. Efland, A. D.,Koroscik, J.,Parsons, M.(1991).,Atlanta, GA:National Art Education Association.
  23. Evans, D.(Ed.),Patel, V.(Ed.)(1989).The Cognitive sciences in medicine.Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
  24. Feldman, E. B.(1967).Varieties of visual experience.New York, NY:Harry N. Abrams.
  25. Forker, M.(2002).Northern Ireland,School of Education, Queen's University of Belfast.
  26. Frankel, J. R.,Wallen, N. E.(1990).How to design and evaluate research in education.New York, NY:McGraw-Hill.
  27. Gardner, H.(1983).Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.New York, NY:Basic.
  28. Gick, M. L.,Holyoak, K. J.(1983).Schema induction and analogical transfer.Cognitive Psychology,15,1-38.
  29. Guba, E. G.(1978).Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation.Los Angeles, CA:Center for the Study of Evaluation, UCLA Graduate School of Education, University of California.
  30. Herberholz, B.,Hanson, L.(1990).Early childhood art.Dubuque, IA:W. C. Brown.
  31. Hobbs, J.,Salome, R.(1991).The visual experience.Worcester, MA:Davis.
  32. Holyoak, K.,Spellman, B. A.(1993).Thinking.Annual Review of Psychology,44,265-315.
  33. Hubbard, G.,Rouse, M. J.(1981).Art: Meaning, method, and media.Chicago, CH:Benefic Press.
  34. Hubbard, G.,Rouse, M. J.(1981).Art: Meaning, method, and media.Chicago, CH:Benefic Press.
  35. Hubbard, G.,Rouse, M. J.(1981).Art: Meaning, method, and media.Chicago, CH:Benefic Press.
  36. Hubbard, G.,Rouse, M. J.(1981).Art: Meaning, method, and media.Chicago, CH:Benefic Press.
  37. Hubbard, G.,Rouse, M. J.(1981).Art: Meaning, method, and media.Chicago, CH:Benefic Press.
  38. Hurwitz, A.,Day, M.(1991).Children and their art.New York, NY:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  39. Ives, W.,Pond, J.(1980).The arts and cognitive development.The High School Journal,63(8),335-340.
  40. Koroscik, J. S.(1992).Assessing student learning in the visual arts: Application of a theoretical model.Arts and Learning Research,10(1),5-15.
  41. Koroscik, J. S.(1982).The effects of prior knowledge, presentation time and task demands on visual art processing.Studies in Art Education,23(3),13-22.
  42. Koroscik, J. S.(1990).Novice-expert differences in understanding art and their implications for student assessment in art education.Arts and Learning Research,8(1),2-29.
  43. Koroscik, J. S.,Short, G.,Stavropoulos, C.,Fortin, S.(1992).Frameworks for understanding art: The function of comparative art contexts and verbal cues.Studies in Art Education,33(3),154-164.
  44. Koster, J.(1981).Bringing art into the elementary classroom.Belmont, CA:Wadworth.
  45. Makarius, M.(1988).Chagall.New York, NY:Portland House.
  46. McKenzie, W.(2005).Multiple intelligences and instructional technology.Oregon, OR:ISTE=International Society for Technology Education.
  47. Parsons, M. J.(1990).A comparison of novice-expert and developmental paradigms in terms of their use in work on the assessment of student learning in art education.Arts and Learning Research,8(1),30-49.
  48. Perkins, D. N.,Salomon, G.(1987).Are cognitive skills context bound?.Educational Researcher,18(1),16-25.
  49. Perkins, D. N.,Simmons, R.(1988).Patterns of misunderstanding: An integrative model for science, math, and programming.Review of Educational Research,58(3),303-326.
  50. Piaget, J.,Inhelder, B.(1967).A child's conception of space.New York, NY:Norton.
  51. Prawat, R. S.(1989).Promoting access to knowledge, strategy, and disposition in students: A research synthesis.Review of Educational Research,59(1),1-41.
  52. Resnick, L. B.(1987).Education and learning to think.Washington, D.C.:National Academy Press.
  53. Sadoski, M.,Paivio, A.(2001).Imagery and text: A dual coding theory of reading and writing.Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
  54. Short, G.(1996).Incorporating a depth of understanding model into a high school studio curriculum.Arts and Learning Research,12(1),18-32.
  55. Short, G.(1995).Understanding domain knowledge for teaching: Higher-order thinking in pre-service art teacher specialists.Studies in Art Education,36(3),154-169.
  56. Sless, D.(1981).Learning and visual communication.London, UK:Croom Helm.
  57. Stavropoulos, C. S.(1995).Assessing student learning in the arts: Building a bridge between theory and practice.Arts and Learning Research,12(1),18-32.
  58. Stavropoulos, C. S.(1994).Distinguishing the effectiveness of a writing-intensive DBAE curriculum: A quasi-experimental study comparing three elementary classrooms' written responses to a work of art.Arts and Learning Research,11(1),25-44.
  59. Stavropoulos, C. S.(1992).A diagnostic profile of art understandings based on verbal responses to works of art.Marilyn Zurmuehlen Working Papers in Art Education,11(1),48-53.
  60. Vosnaidou, S.,Brewer, W. F.(1987).Theories of knowledge restructuring in development.Review of Educational Research,57(1),51-67.
  61. Wilson, B.(1986).Testing and the process of change.Design for Arts in Education,8(12),6-11.
print cancel