Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byAldous Mosley Modified over 9 years ago
1
CRESST’s Evaluation of the Artful Learning Program: “Findings,” Contexts, and Future Explorations Noelle Griffin,Ph.D UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) CRESST Conference, September 10, 2004
2
Artful Learning Program Arts-based education model: Arts infused across the curriculum Currently implemented in 7 states, 22 schools Four phases: Experience, Inquire, Create, Reflect Use of Masterworks of art
3
Where Does Artful Learning Fit? Comprehensive school reform Instructional, organizational, assessment components Focused on helping kids improve academic performance Depends upon trained teachers and administrators
4
Theory of Action for Artful Learning The underlying theory motivating the Artful Learning model is that the joy, discipline, and commitment required by the arts will provide a useful framework for the overall improvement of education and for individual growth
5
Evaluation Background CRESST/UCLA Beginning in 2001 Both external and internal applications Qualitative and quantitative strategies Emphasis: Capacity building
6
Evaluation Methods Yearly implementation survey (participating schools, n=@400 per year) Pre-post professional development surveys (on-going) Teacher/administrator interviews (n=@30 per year) School-level achievement data Supplemental information
7
Academic Achievement Student Engagement/Motivation Quality Implementation Organization And Leadership Classroom Instruction Connections Processes Professional Development/ Support District/Schoo l Context
8
Contextual Factors Need for both administrative and district support Middle/high school vs. primary Teacher/student turnover Role of arts teachers/specialists Based on qualitative data
9
Professional Development and Support Overall quality/utility high (quantitative and qualitative) Consistency across levels/experience Differences across program components
10
Professional Development Quality: Percent “Agree” or “Strongly Agree”
11
Significant Pre/Post Development Increase in Reported Teacher Expertise (MANOVA) Level I and Level II Artful Learning Instructional Process Assessment Practices Organizational/structural Practices General Instructional Quality
12
How Well Did Development Prepare You to Implement Classroom Component?
13
How Well Did Development Prepare You to Implement Assessment Component?
14
Implementation Survey Multiple Regression Results: Implementation of Artful Learning Classroom Process Artful Learning Process Standards Use/Understanding Assessment Use/Understanding High Quality Instruction Reported Impact Shared Mission * * * * * *=Significantly Predicts p<.05
15
Multiple Regression: No Significant Relationship to Implementation Artful learning experience Teaching experience/Teacher background Parent involvement Shared leadership
16
Implementation: Other Findings Teacher evaluation of program after use is high Continued growth of program/use over time Assessment/parent involvement weakest components Based on Qualitative and Quantitative Data
17
Additional Findings: Shared Efficacy Teacher perceptions of school’s overall effectiveness in teaching process Student achievement links Group competency and task analysis components Included in implementation survey
18
Multiple Regression Findings: Shared Efficacy Shared Leadership Years Experience Grade Level Taught Combined Shared Efficacy Combined Shared Efficacy Group Competency Task Analysis *All Significant relationships are negative *No significant relationship to other Artful learning implementation variables
19
Student Outcomes Engagement and other teacher- reported outcomes Achievement Quantitative and qualitative consistency Access to information – what teachers “don’t know” re: assessment results
20
Teacher Reported Program Impact: Student Engagement
21
Teacher Reported Program Impact: Quality of Student Work
22
Teacher Reported Program Impact: Classroom Tests/Assessments
23
School-Level Achievement Data: Limitations Cohort group issues Dilution of effects Test changes/lack of comparability Insufficient information statistically
24
Tentative Findings: Comparative Average Growth in Students Meeting/Exceeding Standards GRAMMYDISTRICTCOMP. SCHOOLS READING16109 ELA985 MATH1296
25
CRESST Project Synergy: QSP use in Artful Learning QSP: Quality School Portfolio assessment use software Address program difficulties collecting achievement data in multiple districts/states Build project self-evaluation capacity
26
Potential QSP Applications for Artful Learning: Track student-level data Compare participating vs. non- participating students Compare students based on “dosage” Compare teachers based on program experience
27
Enduring Questions Related to Arts Education What should we value as attainment of serious learning? Can arts programs in schools be sustained as political and parental pressure increasingly focuses on traditional academic attainments? What should count as quality education? How scalable is change away from a compartmentalized view of learning? How can such change be sustained and expanded ?
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.