The ‘wow’ factors: the assessment of practical media and creative arts subjects

Abstract

This article proposes that within media arts and other practical creative subjects, the ‘wow’ factors have a legitimate place within assessment criteria. Three distinctive considerations of assessment procedures within these subject areas are identified and the QAA benchmarks for the creative arts subjects are examined, noting that the music benchmarks are particularly inspiring. Three practices are suggested as ways of encouraging students to ‘live dangerously’ when doing practical assignments. The piece concludes that media arts and other creative subject areas entail a number of skills and qualities that are going to require subtle assessment procedures.

Drawing on assessment: using visual representations to understand students' experiences of assessment in art and design

“…Gordon (2004) highlights these as being the 'wow' factors, qualities which are not easily reducible to quantifiable and defined components. Nevertheless, they are important qualities which comprise the creative worth of an artwork or design.…”

“…If we are producing such a negative experience of assessment for students, then we must bear in mind the consequences this has on their creative abilities in an assignment. Gordon (2004) calls for students to be rewarded in the assessment process for their creative abilities and warns that not doing so will lead to students who simply work to the assessment criteria. Rowntree (1987) suggests that there are many stereotypes in assessment which can lead to its prejudicial nature.…”

A Cross-Sectional Study on Visual Art Students’ Perceptions of the Assessment Experience in a Public Higher Education in Ghana

“…However, theories of creativity increase the subjectivity and bias controversies. Gordon (2004) and Mckillop (2004) note that since previous experience and knowledge do affect the way we think about, interpret and perceive an art work, the issue of subjectivity dominates assessment in visual arts. In some cases, assessment in art and design has focused on the quality of the artifact (product) very often summative rather than what the student has learnt during the process of producing (creative process) which could be formative (Mckillop, 2004), resulting in a surface approach to learning where pleasing the instructor is the motivation.…”

Underlying knowledge-knower structures in graphic design: Contributing to establishing a cohesive language for use in graphic design education

“…As with the other two fields above, there may be disputes over the valued knowledge at this stage, particularly when negotiated during graphic design panel marking sessions. Common across assessment in Art and Design is the recognition that criteria are often slippery to define or articulate explicitly (Morgan 2011), such that students and other stakeholders may feel that the high-stakes decisions made during assessment are subjective or lack substantiation (Gordon 2004). Some argue that it is possible Page 7 of 26 Preprint that the referential frameworks for interpretation are so deeply embedded within such disciplines, that the languages of outcomes and criteria, adopted from educational development discourses, may be inadequate for the task (Belluigi 2015).…”