The Use of a Diagnostic Profile of Art Understandings in the Assessment of Taiwanese Art Students' Written Responses to Chagall's The Birthday

使用藝術認識“分析工具”之研究：以臺灣藝術系大學生對夏卡爾的畫作“生日”所做之書面回應爲例

10.6793/JNTCA.200710.0071

馬丁‧福克(Martin Forker)；張妙珍(Miao-Jen Chang)

分析工具 ； 基本知識策略 ； 知識搜尋策略 ； 高階認識 ； diagnostic profile ； knowledge-based strategies ； knowledge-seeking strategies ； higher-order understandings

藝術學報

81期（2007 / 10 / 01）

71 - 91

英文

本篇研究主要探討以臺灣藝術系的大學生以特定圖像對藝術認識所做的各項書面回應之結果。採用Stavropoulos(1992)藝術認識「分析工具」；以描述（D-descriptive：物體、場景及圖象）、形式（F-formal：設計元素、設計原理、素材、技巧）、詮釋（I-interpretative：含義、感情、表達）、歷史（H-Historical：類別、記憶）四個向度判斷藝術認識。並以初階、高階、誤解三種狀況做爲評分依據。受試者爲臺灣南部某國立大學美術系的學生分別爲29位女同學以及29位男同學。每位參與者皆拿到一張馬克•夏卡爾(Marc Chagall)的畫作－生日(The Birthday)的彩色複製品。他們必須寫下對此畫所有的瞭解程度。研究結果顯示臺灣藝術系的學生具有足夠的藝術知識，能夠使用「知識搜尋策略」轉化爲高階認識。本研究中大學藝術系學生之視覺書寫能力已達精通標準。總之，男女學生在「描述」和「形式」二方面的分數不相上下。在「形式」方面有些學生使用複合句、各種思想結構、相關連接、比較、假設等等積極地尋求「形式」的理解力；有些使用設計元素（線條、形體、色彩）和設計原理（變動、動作、平衡、協調、支配、對比）。不過有許多學生並沒有依照技巧過程、繪畫手法、所使用的素材對此畫像做分類。也有一部分學生四方面的得分皆低，因爲他們的藝術判斷力不成熟，描述畫像時模糊不清。在歷史方面，只有極少數學生給予典型的回應。值得一提的是在詮釋方面有最多男女學生皆得高分。

Multiple examples of Taiwanese art students' responses are offered to illustrate individual categories of Stavropoulos' (1992) Diagnostic Profile of Art Understandings which employs four dimensions (Descriptive, Formal, Interpretative, and Historical) to score the higher, lower, and misunderstandings of students’ written responses to a particular image. 29 female Fine Art and 29 male Fine Art students from a Taiwanese national art university participated in the study. Each participant was asked to give his/her written responses to Marc Chagall's The Birthday. The findings suggest that Taiwanese art students have sufficient prior knowledge, an adequate art knowledge base, and use knowledge-seeking strategies in making high-road transfers. In general, the findings reveal that the combined scores of female and male Taiwanese art students in the descriptive and formal dimensions are comparable. Commendably, within the formal dimension, some students actively search for formal understanding using compound sentences, complex thought-structures, connection making, comparisons, speculation, and hypotheses in making their conclusions. Some students analyze the image in terms of the elements of design (line, shape, color), and also in terms of the principles of design (variation, action/movement, balance, unity, dominance, and contrast). Nevertheless, many students do not classify the artwork in terms of technique processes, media or the materials used. There is also evidence of some students making immature judgments, nebulous or unclear statements within the four dimensions. Although some students give exemplary responses within the historical dimension, such responses are few. Laudably, the greatest number of higher-order responses for both male and female students is evident in the interpretative dimension. Overall, the findings suggest that the Taiwanese art students in this study have reached a proficient standard of visual literacy.

1. Alexander, S.(1978).Marc Chagall: A Biography.New York:G. P. Putnam & Sons.
2. Alvermann, D. E.,Smith, L. C.,Readence, J. E.(1985).Prior knowledge activation and the comprehension of compatible and incompatible text.Reading Research Quarterly,29(4),315-344.
3. Avgerinou, M,Ericson, J.(1997).A review of the concept of visual literacy.British Journal of Educational Technology,28(4),280-291.
4. Barrett, T.(1990).Criticising photographs: An understanding to understanding images.Mountain View, CA:Mayfield.
5. Bransford, J. D.,Johnson, M. K.(1972).Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour,11,717-726.
6. Compton, S.(1985).Chagall.New York:Harry N. Abrams.
7. Confrey, J.,Novak, J. D. (Ed.)(1987).Misconceptions across subject matters: Science, mathematics and programming.Second International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics Education,1,81-106.
8. Crespelle, J. P.(1970).Chagall.New York:Coward-McCann, Inc.
9. Efland, A.(1990).An approach to the assessment of art learnings.Arts and Learning Research,8(1),50-65.
10. Feldman, E. B.(1967).Varieties of visual experience.Harry N. Abrams:New York.
11. Feltovich, P. J.,Spiro, R. J.,Coulson, R. L.(1988).The nature of conceptual understanding in biomedicine: The deep structure of complex ideas and the development of misconceptions.Tenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society,Hillsdale, NJ:
12. Forker, M.(2002).Belfast, Northern Ireland,The Queen's University.
13. Hurwitz, A.,Day, M.(1991).Children and their art.New York:Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich.
14. Kirrane, D.(1992).Visual learning.Training & Development,46(9),58.
15. Koroscik, J. S.(1993).Assessing student learning in the visual arts: Application of a theoretical model.Arts and Learning Research,10(1),5-15.
16. Koroscik, J. S.(1982).The effects of prior knowledge, presentation time and task demands on visual arts processing.Studies in Art Education,23(3),13-22.
17. 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.
18. Lesgold, A.,Rubinson, H.,Feltovich, P.,Glaser, R.,Kloper, D.,Wang, Y.,Chi, M. T. H. (Eds.),Glaser, R. (Eds.),Farr, M. J. (Eds.)(1988).The Nature of Expertise.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
19. Linn, M. C.(1985).The cognitive consequences of programming instruction in classrooms.Educational Researcher,5,14-29.
20. Makarius, M.(1988).Chagall.New York:Portland House.
21. Nickerson, R. S.(1985).Understanding "Understanding".American Journal of Education,93(1),201-239.
22. Oring, S.(2005).A call for visual literacy.School Arts,99(8),58.
23. Parsons, M. J.(1990).A comparison of novice-expert and developmental paradigms in terms of their use.Art Education: Arts and Learning Research,8(1),30-49.
24. Parsons, M. J.(1987).How we understand art: A cognitive developmental account of aesthetic experience.New York:Cambridge University Press.
25. Perkins, D. N.,Salomon, G.(1989).Are cognitive skills context bound?.Educational Researcher,18(1),16-25.
26. Perkins, D. N.,Simmons, R.(1988).Patterns of misunderstanding: An integrative model for science, maths and programming.Review of Educational Research,58(3),303-326.
27. Plantinga, C.(1995).A review: Visual "literacy": image, mind, and reality.Film Quarterly,48(4),60.
28. Prawat, R. S.(1989).Promoting access to knowledge, strategy and disposition: A research synthesis.Review of Educational Research,59(1),1-41.
29. Schoenfeld, A. H.(1985).Mathematical problem solving.New York Academic Press.
30. Short, G.(1996).Incorporating a depth of understanding model into a high school studio curriculum.Arts and Learning Research,12(1),18-32.
31. Stavropoulos, C. S.(1992).U.S.A,Ohio State University.
32. 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.
33. Stavropoulos, C.,Flood, J (Eds.),Heath, S. B. (Eds.),Lapp, D. (Eds.)(1996).A Handbook for Literacy Educators: Research on Teaching the Communicative and Visual Arts.New York:Macmillan.
34. Sweeney, J.(1946).Marc Chagall.New York:Simon and Schuster.
35. Vosnaidou, S.,Brewer, W. F.(1987).Theories of knowledge restructuring.Review of Educational Research,57(1),51-67.

1. Forker, Martin(2012).Achieving Visual Literacy: Prior Knowledge of Spiritual Symbolism in Modern Art.藝術教育研究,24,111-148.
2. Martin Forker(2008).An Assessment of Written Responses to Conflict Imagery by Northern Ireland Art and Non-Art Students.臺北市立教育大學學報：人文藝術、社會科學類,39(1),137-177.