THESOS

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Effects of Feedback Methods on

Student Achievement in Art Education

presented by

Lisa Marie Nawrocki

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

__Mas_t.er.s_ degree in Am; Edugat ion

W M\
MWessor

Date March 1994

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll’llllllllllll

1293 010336

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove thle checkout from your record.
TO A ID FINES return on or betore date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSUie eAnAtflrmetiveActiONEquel Olppommlty netituion
Wane-m

The Effects of Feedback Methods on
Student Achievement In Art Education

BY

Lisa M. Nawrocki

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial tultillment of the

requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Art Education

1994

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECT OF FEEDBACK METHODS ON
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN ART EDUCATION

By

Lisa Marie Nawrocki

Feedback from teachers is a very effective way to motivate
students to achieve. This study identifies certain methods of
written feedback that can be used by teachers and compares the
effectiveness of the various feedback methods in the achievement
of students. Using this information, a three-part research study
was set up to compare the use of various feedback methods in
promoting student achievement in secondary art education. A
quasi-experimental research study and a descriptive research
study were used. An action research study was designed and used
to support the results from the first two studies using the same
teacher with a different group of students. Forty-two students
from a suburban parochial high school in Grand Rapids, Michigan
and their art teacher were used. Two different art teachers were
used to separately judge students' achievement levels in the

study.

ACKINDWLEDGMENTS

I would like to recognize and show my deep appreciation for
the following people who have been extremely supportive of me
during this whole process.

Thank you to Dr. J. Victoria and Professor C. Steele for all of
the guidance and encouragement on the writing of this paper.

Thank you to J. Wisnewski and S. Wisnewski for the time and
effort that they put into evaluating the artwork.

Thank you to J. Baranoski for her important assistance in the
writing process.

Thank you to the 1993 - 1994 art students from West Catholic
High School.

And a special thank you to my husband Steve and our son

Nicholas for their continual love, support and understanding.

TABLEOFCONTENTS

List of Figures ............................................... IV
Chapter1 - Introduction ...................................... 1
Chapter 2 - Review of Literature ............................... 5
Elawar and Como (1985) .................................. 5
Butler and Nisan (1986) .................................. 7
Krampen (1987) ......................................... 8
Butler (1985) .......................................... 10
Chapter 3 - Study ........................................... 13
Pan1 ................................................ 15
Part 2 ................................................ 18
Part 3 ................................................ 20
Chapter 4 - Results .......................................... 24
Part 1 ................................................ 24
Part 2 ................................................ 26
Part 3 ................................................ 29

II

Chapter 5 - Conclusion ...................................... 34

Chapter 6 - Recommendations ................................ 36
Appendices
Student drawing and teacher comments ................... 37
Student drawing with high improvement rating ............ 38
Student drawing with low improvement rating ............. 39
Descriptive research study student form .................. 40
Action research study student form ...................... 41
References ................................................. 42

III

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Student Improvement Scores ........................ 25
Figure 2 - Feedback That is Most Helpful to Students ............ 31
Figure 3 - Feedback That Motivates Students ................... 32
Figure 4 - Student Drawing and Teacher Comments ............... 37
Figure 5 - Student Drawing with High Improvement Rating ........ 38
Figure 6 - Student Drawing with Low Improvement Rating ........ 39

IV

INTRODUCTION

In 1988 Evans and Engelberg studied the attitudes that
students have toward grading. Three-hundred and four students in
grades tour through eleven were thoroughly questioned on their own
perceptions and feelings about how they were graded in school. The
researchers found that as the age of the student increased, their
positive attitude toward school and grades decreased. Older
students seemed to view grades as important but were very critical
of grading practices and were less accepting of the grades that they
received. Whereas, older students were far more likely to believe
that their teachers graded unfairly. Graded classrooms seemed to
enhance school attitudes among gifted students, while non-graded
classrooms seemed to enhance attitudes among lower-achieving
students. Thus, high-achieving students rather than low-achieving
students viewed grades as important.

Based on these findings and observations that I have made of
my own students, I believe that grading, in general, encourages
already high-achieving students, while the low-achieving students
benefit the least from the usual grading practices. Because

adolescents seemed to be the most negatively affected by grades, I

1

chose to study this particular group. It is my belief that grades are
often a very ineffective way to motivate adolescent students in
achievement and learning.

Since schools expect teachers to grade, evaluate, and judge
their students, it would be best if these grades, evaluations and
judgements would serve to motivate the students to work harder,
perform better, and make more positive achievements instead of the
opposite effect that they many times have. It is my belief that the
main problem with our various grading systems is the perception by
the students that their grade is out of their control. Some students
may think that no matter how hard they try, they cannot obtain the
grades that they wish to receive. Why would a student be motivated
to work harder and perform better if he thinks that there is nothing
that he can do about it? This common perception may only foster a
lack of self-motivation in the students and this may be revealed in
low achievement levels by the student.

Giving students a grade on an assignment, whether it be a
letter grade, a numerical grade, or percentage grade, is not as
effective as writing comments on the assignment. After all, a ”0"
grade, a 75 per cent grade, or an 8-point grade may all lead the
student to believe that there is something wrong with the
assignment. The student may very well recognize that there is
something that can be done to improve the work, but what needs to
be done, corrected, or improved on remains unknown to the student.
By the same token, grades of this sort do not point out to the student
what is correct or well done in the assignment. By specific task-

related comments, I mean written comments that inform the student

which elements in the assignment are well done and which elements
are wrong or need to be improved.

I believe that specific task-related written comments on
student work instead of only a grade would eventually lead students
to the belief that they are actually in control of the grades that they
receive. This should result in an increase in the student's level of
achievement.

Many of the researchers studied this idea as it applied to
mathematics, and some concentrated on specific tasks. I would
assume that any research performed in art education on the results
of written comments as feedback versus grades or numerical
evaluative feedback would yield results similar to these. However,
because the area of art education is so unique, I believe research in
this particular area is necessary to actually find the results.

I believe that continual task-related written comments on
student artwork will lead the student to a higher level of
achievement. I believe this process would be most effective if it
were used on weekly assignments as well as final portfolio reviews
and the like.

To research this claim I used a triangulation of research
methods in an effort to find the most reliable results possible. For
all three of the studies, the same secondary art teacher and some of
her 43 art students were used.

The first method involved dividing up eighteen students into
three groups and giving group A only a grade, group B only task-
related written comments, and group C written comments and a

grade as feedback on their weekly assignments. The students were

tested for improvement in their artwork by comparing the students'
drawings from before and after the period in which they received the
feedback treatments.

The second method focused on a student survey which was
given to the same eighteen students used in the first part of the
study, after the completion of the study. The survey questioned the
students on their own perceptions and feelings toward the various
feedback methods and their achievements.

The third method used 23 art students, other than the students
used in the first two methods. These students were given the same
feedback treatments used in part one. Except this time each student
was exposed to each of the three feedback treatments for two-week
intervals of time. The students were then surveyed on their
perceptions and feelings toward the different feedback methods.

I recognize that the relatively low sample number is a definite
limitation of the study. I believe that the thoroughness that using
three different methods of study provides, will outweigh any
limitations of the study on the whole. Replication of this study in

the field of art education is welcomed.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

It seems that many researchers have observed the benefits of
task-related written comments as opposed to only a grade, either a
letter grade or a numerical garde. Certainly this claim has been
researched in the area of mathematics where student achievement is
easily measured. However, there is little research on this topic in
the area of art education where achievement levels are less clear.
There is much written about the positive effects that student
portfolios have on achievement, but again, there is little written on
the statistical proof of the positive effects. Therefore, the studies
that l have included in my review of literature are not necessarily
from the field of art education, but are solid examples of studies in

which this phenomenon occurs in education, in general.

Elawar, M.C. & Corno, L. (1985)

In this study middle school teachers were trained to use
effective written feedback on students' homework assignments. The
teachers were trained to ask themselves a few specific questions
for each of the students' assignments: What is the key error? What

is the probable reason for the key error? How can I guide the

5

student to avoid the error? and, What did the student do well? The
researchers wanted to determine the effects of the training and
subsequent teacher comments on student achievement and attitude.
The researchers hoped that students would begin to use feedback as
a way to learn from their mistakes.

The eighteen classes were split up into three groups to receive
different treatments. In group one, the teachers were trained to use
constructive written feedback on the students' homework
assignments. In group two (the control group) the students received
feedback consisting only of the number of answers correct. In group
three the teachers were trained as in group one, but they were
instructed to divide their class into two groups and to use comments
for only one-half of the class consistently. The other half of the
class was to receive only the number of correct answers as
feedback. The same mathematics curriculum was used in all
classes. The researchers measured the students in the following
areas: self-esteem, attitude toward school and teachers, school
anxiety, attitude toward subject matter, analytic reasoning, and
achievement. The students were assessed with pretests and post-
tests.

Student achievement findings of the study were as such: the
comment group and the half class who received comments increased
their average ability from average pretest performance scores of
16.47 and 16.00 respectively to average post-test scores of 28.36
and 28.45, respectively. The control group and the half class that
received only numerical feedback also increased their achievement

scores but to a significantly lower degree than the previous groups:

average pretest scores of 16.06 and 15.73 respectively to average
post-test scores of 20.00 and 19.16, respectively. The researchers
found similar results in the other areas measured.

The authors concluded that this study demonstrated the
effectiveness of response-sensitive feedback on improving student
achievement and attitude. The study also showed that the treatment
had positive effects on student learning regardless of the ability
level of the student. Teachers can make a difference when they
provide constructive written comments to students. This study was

as extension of an earlier study by Elawar and Corno (1981).

Butler, R. & Nisan, M. (1986)

This study was designed to examine the effects of different
feedback methods on intrinsic motivation of students. The
researchers hypothesized that non-normative information about task
performance, including both positive and negative comments, would
maintain or even enhance subsequent motivation.

Chosen for the study were 261 sixth-grade students who
attended classes in elementary schools serving mainly the middle-
class population. The classes were randomly assigned to each of the
three experimental groups.

The experiment consisted of three sessions. After the first
and second sessions, group one received task-related written
comments on its performance, group two received numerical grades,
and group three received no evaluation at all on its performance.

Researchers found that average scores at the end of the first

session were similar in all three groups (group 1=38.68, group

2-39.84, group 3-39.95), indicating that ability and performance
levels were generally equal. By the end of the third session, an
important difference existed in the average scores of the three
groups (group 1-55.49, group 2:52.59, group 3-29.46). Groups one
and two had significantly increased their performance scores with
group one having only a slight edge. In group three there was an
actual decrease in the average scores.

The three groups were also measured in terms of their
motivation and interest in the tasks. The testing revealed that the
group that received comments expressed much more interest in the
tasks than the groups that received the grades or no feedback at all.
Similar results were found when the groups were asked of their
willingness to volunteer for further tasks.

Butler and Nisan concluded that, ”Non-receipt of feedback
would undermine interest, numerical grades would foster
extrinsic motivation at the expense of intrinsic motivation, [and]
results showed clearly differential effects of these kinds of

feedback on performance” (Butler & Nisan 215).

Krampen, G. (1987)

Krampen thought that there was not enough evidence to
conclude that any kind of written teacher comments as feedback
retain effectiveness over an extended period of time. His study
compared the effectiveness of three different types of comments on
later performance, motivation, and attitude. Krampen also examined

the effectiveness after a period of time without teacher comments.

Thirteen teachers and their students from sixth to tenth grade
participated in the experiment. Krampen randomly assigned each of
the classes and its teacher to the following four groups: group one =
socially-oriented comments; group two - subject-matter oriented
comments; group three - individually oriented comments; and group
tour - the control group with no written comments at all. The
appropriate comments were to be written on all of the students'
math tests during the first semester of the school year.

Teachers received short instructions about the type of
comments to be made and were given examples. Pretests were given
to all students to evaluate them on each of the following:
perception of classroom atmosphere, level of student performance,
aspects of problem solving behavior, manifest anxiety, and test
anxiety. During the two post-tests the same instruments used in the
pretest were applied.

Generally the test result scores showed a small increase from
the pretest to the first post-test that was given at the end of the
first semester. The general scores than stayed the same or
decreased by the second post-test given at the end of the school
year. The results demonstrated that socially oriented comments
affected low-performing students negatively and medium- and high-
performing students slightly positively or not at all. Subject-
matter-oriented comments tended to produce somewhat positive
effects on all students regardless of performance level. Individually
oriented comments showed positive effects, with low performers
benefiting the most. In each case, after teacher comments stopped,

the effects soon disappeared.

10

The researchers admitted that the ”pure” comments applied in
the experiment probably do not correspond to real school situations
where teachers are apt to use a variety of comments. The results
suggest that for optimal student learning and performance, teachers
should emphasize different aspects and contents of the students'
work when commenting. Commenting on homework as well as tests
may be most effective. However, discretion was advised because
the study revealed that comments do not produce only positive
effects.

The validity of this study should be questioned based on the
following aspects. The experiment took place over one school year,
pretest scores were average (at the beginning of the year), first
post-test scores slightly increased (at the end of the first
semester), and post-post-test scores decreased or stayed the same
(at the end of the year). The results could have been due to the
treatment conditions or due to the normalcy of the school year. It
would seem that in any school year students do slightly better
during the middle of the year when they are used to the teacher's
testing methods, and may do worse at the end of the school year due

to boredom or the anticipation of the school year's end.

Butler, R. (1985)

Ruth Butler identified two evaluation methods that teachers
use. The first is task-involved evaluation in which teachers let
students know how they are doing in a specific activity. Direct
comments are made about what is good and what can be improved on

in that particular activity. Ego-involved feedback is the second type

ll

of evaluation method. It occurs when a teacher gives grades by
comparing one student to the rest of the class. The purpose of this
study was to evaluate the effects of these two methods of feedback
on motivation, performance, and interest levels for both low-ability
and high-ability students.

Butler conducted the extensive study on fifth- and sixth-
graders. She randomly assigned high-ability and low-ability
students to two different groups that would receive comments or
grades to evaluate their performance. Both groups had to perform a
convergent anagram task and a divergent task that required
creativity.

The experiment consisted of three sessions. In each session,
the students were to work on a different version of the original task
and were scored for achievement. At the beginning of the second and
third sessions, the students in group one were given a task-involved
evaluation of their previous work, and students in group one received
ego-involved feedback, a grade.

At the end of the first session, as expected, the high-ability
students out performed the low-ability students in all of the groups.
By the end of the third session, the students in the task-related
comment group were performing well; their scores had increased.
However, in the graded group, the students' scores went down on the
average.

The exact procedure was used again in the three sessions for
the divergent/creative task. At the end of third session, low-ability
students from the task-related comment group scored the same as
or even better than the high-ability students in the graded group.

12

All students were asked to rate their own interest in the
activities. At the end of the first session both groups rated the
tasks as interesting. By the end of the third session, low-ability
and high-ability students alike in the comment group still rated the
task interesting, but the low-ability and high-ability students in the
graded group reported, on the average, that they had lost interest.

The researcher concluded that comparative grading practices
involve ego needs and undermine both performance and interest. In
contrast, task-involving, personal comments seem to enhance and
sustain student performance and interest by appealing to the

students' need to perform well.

STUDY

The studies from the review of literature have demonstrated
how strong an effect of specific task-related written comments can
have on students' ability, performance, and interest in school. . Again
and again researchers show low-ability and high-ability students
alike who received specific task-related written feedback, out-
performed similar students who have received grades and/or no
feedback at all.

Since teachers are expected to grade their students, it would
be best if these grades would serve to motivate the students to
work harder, perform better, and make more positive achievements
instead of the opposite effect. It is my belief that the main problem
with our various grading systems is the perception by the students
that their grade is out of their control. The students' often believe
that there is nothing that they can do that will directly result in a
higher grade. This common perception may only foster a lack of
self-motivation in the students and be revealed in low achievement
levels. Specific, task-related written comments would inform the
student what elements in the assignment are well done and which

elements are wrong or need to be improved. I believe that specific

13

14

comments on student work instead of only a grade would eventually
lead students to believe that they are actually in control of the
grades that they receive. And this should be evident in the student's
level of achievement.

Many of the studies researched this idea as it applied to
mathematics, and some concentrated on specific tasks. I assume
that any research performed in art education on the results of
written task-related comments as feedback versus grades or
numerical evaluative feedback would yield results similar to the
previous research findings. However, because the area of art
education is so unique, I believe research in this particular area is
necessary.

My belief is that in the area of art education continual task-
related written comments on student artwork will lead the student
to a higher level of achievement. This process would be most
effective if it is used on weekly assignments as well as final
portfolio reviews and the like.

To research this claim l used a triangulation of research
methods in an effort to find the most reliable results possible. The
research methods involved were a quasi-experimental research
design, a descriptive research study, and an action research study.
The following is a description of the three methods in used in the

study.

PART1
The quasi-experimental strategy was used as a base for the

research, while the descriptive and action research studies were

15

used to support and better understand the initial findings. The
initial experiment involved a certified art teacher and one class of
art students. Being a study of significant involvement, the sample
was limited. The school system used was a parochial, middle class,
suburban high school. The teacher was a female with seven years
experience in public and private school art education, grades
kindergarten through twelve.

The experiment extended over the first semester of the school
year. This was done to avoid some of the limitations that were
present in the Krampen's study in 1987. It was in this study that
validity was questioned because the experiment took place over one
school year, pretest scores were average (at the beginning of the
year), first post-test scores slightly increased (at the end of the
first semester), and post-post-test scores decreased or stayed the
same (at the end of the year). The results could have been due to the
treatment conditions or due to the normalcy of the school year. It
would seem that in any school year students do slightly better
during the middle of the year when they are used to the teacher's
testing methods, and may do worse at the end of the school year due
to boredom or the anticipation of the school year's end. For this
study, I was concerned not so much with the growth of the students,
but a comparison of the growth that took place in the students.
Since in looking at the Krampen study, it seems that maximum
growth is evident in students during the middle of the school year, I
placed the study during this time frame.

The study was set up during the art class in which drawing

techniques were taught. The teacher randomly assigned the students

16

to each of the three experimental groups. In group A, the students
received only a letter grade on the drawing with no other form of
feedback. This is similar to what R. Butler described in her 1985
study as Ego-involved feedback which occurs when a teacher gives
grades by comparing one student to the rest of the class. Students
in group B received specific task-related written comments about
their artwork which involved at least one statement on what was
correct in the assignment and at least one statement on what could
be improved in the drawing, a method described by R. Butler as task-
involved evaluation. This is feedback in which teachers let students
know how they are doing in a specific activity. Direct comments are
made about what is good and what can be improved in that particular
activity, a technique taken from Elawar & Corno's 1985 study where
the teachers were trained to ask themselves a few specific
questions for each of the students' assignments: What is the key
error? What is the probable reason for the key error? How can I
guide the student to avoid the error? and, What did the student do
well? Group C received written comments identical to the
comments received in group B, but these students also received a
letter grade on the work as in group A, a combination of the two
feedback methods. For an example of the actual teacher comments
used on student work see Appendix A.

Other than receiving the feedback treatment, the students
were treated the same in all other areas by the teacher. The lessons
and instructions were the same and the verbal contact with the
students remained the same and unaffected by the experimental

conditions.

17

The feedback treatments were applied to all of the take-home
sketchbook drawings assigned each week, using Krampen's 1987
study where he concluded that commenting on homework as well as
tests may be most effective. Each of these thirteen assignments
was treated appropriately by the teacher and returned to the
students within one day.

To begin with, all of the students involved in the experiment
were asked to draw from a specific still life in direct light in class,
which was set up by the teacher. The students were encouraged to
use any methods and techniques that they knew in order to produce
the best drawing that they possibly could. The teacher then spent
the entire semester (approximately thirteen weeks) introducing and
developing drawing techniques that she viewed as important for her
students. The teacher also faithfully applied the respective
treatment conditions to her students‘ artwork. At the end of the
thirteen weeks, the students again were asked to draw in class a
still life in direct light set up by the teacher. Again they were
encouraged to use any techniques and methods that they knew to
produce the best drawing that they were now capable of.

Two judges who had not, to this point, been involved in the
experiment, rated levels of individual student improvement. One
judge was a male secondary art teacher with 26 years of experience.
The second judge was a female elementary art teacher recently
graduated from college with only one year experience. The judges
separately studied and compared each of the pairs of student
drawings. For each of the drawing pairs the teachers rated the

students' level of artistic improvement on a scale of 0 - 10. A 0-

18

rating signified that the student had made no visible improvements
during the semester, while a 10-rating would represent the highest
level of improvement achieved by the student. The judges were told
to observe artistic skills such as: line quality, proportion of the
subject matter, accuracy, quality of shading, and value development.
These 2 ratings were then averaged so that each student received
one average improvement rating from 0 - 10. For examples of
student work receiving high and low improvement ratings from the
judges see Appendix B and C.

At this point, the students' scores were divided into the
original treatment groups. The scores that represent each of the
experimental groups were added up and compared for any significant

differences.

PART2

To support the results found in part one, a descriptive research
study approach was also used. Each of the students involved in the
previous study were be asked to complete a survey form on the
effectiveness of the particular treatment method that they received
during that semester. This was done to measure the three groups in
terms of their motivation and interest in the tasks, something used
by Butler 8. Nisan in their 1986 study. The form included the
following questions and directions:

1) Give a brief example of the type of grades and/or feedback
that you consistently received on your assignments in this class.

2) Do you feel that this type of grading and/or feedback is

relevant to your drawing?

l9

3) Do you feel that this type of grading and/or feedback has
aided in your growth and development in art?

4) Do you think that a different type of grading and/or
feedback method(s) would be more helpful to you? If yes, list what
kind(s) and give examples. (see Appendix D)

The survey was designed to reveal the perceptions of the
students on the various feedback methods used and give support for
the experiment's reliability. For example the statement, ”Give a
brief example of the type of grades and/or feedback that you
consistently received on your assignments in this class,” was
designed to reveal to us whether or not the student even noticed the
feedback. Also, the replies to this statement would give us some
information as to how reliable the teacher's use of the feedback
treatments was. ”Do you feel that this type of grading and/or
feedback is relevant to your drawing?” should reveal to us just how
much of a parallel there exists between the teacher's intentions in
the feedback and the students' use of it. ”Do you feel that this type
of grading and/or feedback has aided in your growth and development
in art?” should let us know if the students believe that the feedback
has had any influence at all on their growth as artists. And ”Do you
think that a different type of grading and/or feedback method would
be more helpful to you? If yes, list what kind and give examples,”
should identify which types of grading and/or feedback methods the
students believe are the most affective.

The students were asked to fill out this survey form after the
final drawing was done but before any type of final grade was given

to the student. This was done so that the students' answers would

20

better reflect the students' own perception of how much they
improved their drawing skills, rather than the students' perception
of how much their teacher thought that they improved their drawing
skills.

Prior to the distribution of the survey forms to the students,
the teacher labeled the forms with an identifying group letter. All
of the surveys were exactly the same except for the identifying
group letter written on the top. This process lead to both proper
identification of treatment groups and the anonymity of the
students.

The students were reassured that any information that they
might reveal would not affect their final grades and that the results
of the survey would only be used to improve the class in the future.
The surveys were then divided into the original experimental

treatment groups, read, compared and evaluated.

PART 3

A final research study made use of an action research design.
The study looked closely at students' perceptions and comparisons of
their own use of the various methods of feedback. The sample of
students used in this study was different from the sample used in
the two previous studies. The same art teacher was used, but this
time two upper level art classes were used.

During the middle of the semester (approximately the sixth
through eleventh week) the teacher treated all of the students' take-
home sketchbook assignments in the same way for two week

intervals. More specifically, during weeks six and seven any

21

assignment that the students handed in received feedback equal to
the feedback treatment of group one in our first study. These
students received specific task-related comments on their artwork,
a statement on what could be improved in the drawing, as well as a
statement on what is well done or correct in the drawing. During
weeks eight and nine all art assignments were treated with
feedback by the teacher like group two received in the first
experiment, specific task-related comments and a letter grade.
During weeks ten and eleven the students received group three
treatment, only a letter grade with no additional forms of feedback.
This process guaranteed that at the end of the six-week period, each
of the students had been exposed to each of the three types of
feedback treatments.

The teacher then asked the student to review these six
assignments and the feedback that they received in their
sketchbooks. The students were then asked to fill out an anonymous
survey regarding the effectiveness of these different feedback
methods.

The survey asked the students to identify each of the forms of
feedback by identifying the sketchbook assignment that had received
the feedback treatment. The students were to identify a) a grade
only, b) task-related written comments only and c) task-related
written comments and a grade. This was done to force the students
to think about the various types of feedback that they had indeed
received and to make sure that the students were identifying the
types of feedback in a way that was consistent with the way that

the researcher was identifying them.

22

The students were then asked to answer the following
questions on the survey:

2) Which method of feedback do you think was most helpful to
your growth and development in the art class? How was it helpful
to you?

3) Do you think that there are any different methods of
feedback that may have been even more beneficial to your growth
and development in art? If yes, what are they?

4) Do you feel that you were motivated to achieve more as a
result of any of these feedback methods? Which one or ones? and
Why? (see Appendix E)

The second question, Which method of feedback do you think
was most helpful to your growth and development in the art class?
How was it helpful to you? was submitted to the students in order
to try to identify which feedback methods, it any, were successful
in producing positive feelings in the students about being evaluated.

The students were asked to answer, Do you think that there are
any different methods of feedback that may have been even more
beneficial to your growth and development in art? If yes, what are
they? to identify any methods not included in the study that may
produce positive feelings in the students about being evaluated.

The fourth question, Do you feel that you were motivated to
achieve more as a result of any of these feedback methods? Which
one or ones? and Why? was designed to hopefully reveal which
method the students thought was the most effective in pushing them

toward growth in artistic development.

23

This action research study was carried out during the sixth
through eleventh weeks of the school year. This was done so that
the students were comfortable with the teacher and the class, as
opposed to if it were done during the first weeks of school. Also by
avoiding the very end of the semester I was avoiding possible
tension, rush, and feelings of apathy on the part of the students and
maybe even the teacher.

The study also used students who had not participated in any
of the previous two research studies. This is an assurance that the
students used have minimum prior knowledge and maybe some fresh

ideas on the subject.

RESULTS

This study has produced results which imply that in the minds
of the students, specific written task-related comments and a grade
on assignments are the most effective means of motivating them to
achieve, significant data supported this claim. What was evident
was that students drastically preferred receiving specific written
task-related comments and a grade as opposed to only grades or only
specific written task-related comments. It seemed that the
comments were not enough for the students, they still needed the

ego-involved feedback element, a grade.

PART1

The eighteen students involved in part one of the study were
enrolled in a year-long drawing class. The students were studied
during the first semester when they worked on development of
artistic skills such as: line quality, proportion of subject matter,
accuracy, quality of shading, and value development.

At the end of the thirteen weeks of receiving different
feedback treatments on their weekly assignments, the students

were judged for improvement based on what they had learned. The

24

25

judges rated each students' level of improvement on a scale of 0 -
10, with a O-rating representing no improvement and a 10-rating
representing the highest level of improvement possible.

Group A, who received only grades, increased their abilities by
a total group score of 78 which represents an average score student
of 6.5 according to the two judges. Group B which received only
specific task-related written comments increased their abilities by
a total group score of 79 which represents an average student score
of 6.6, this score being only slightly higher than the students in
group A. In contrast, the students in group C who received specific
task-related written comments and a grade increased their abilities
by a total group score of 96, which represents a student average

score of 8.0, this score being significantly higher that the previous

 

 

 

 

 

two groups.
Figure 1 - Student Improvement Scores
10
10 = highest 9
rate of im- 8
provement ;
5
0 = no im- 4
provement 3
at all 2
1
0
group A group B group C
students received students received students received
a grade only comments only comments & grade

(score = 6.5) (score = 6.6) (score = 8.0)

26

I was not surprised that the improvement scores of group C
were significantly higher that the other two groups, but I originally
thought that the improvement scores of group B would be
significantly higher than group A. My theory was that specific
written task-related comments were actually the most effective
means of feedback by which to push students to artistic
improvement, and that the addition of a grade was only extra and
would not significantly increase the improvement rating as it did. It
would seem, from the results of this first study, that giving
students only a grade or only specific written task-related
comments is just not enough information for the students. Another
possibility is that because of past experiences, students view any

ungraded assignments as unimportant.

PART2

The same eighteen art students that were used in the quasi-
experimental research study were used for the following descriptive
research study. The sample was made up of ten males and eight
females. The group ranged from ninth to twelfth grade, with nine
students from grade nine, four students from grade ten, two
students from grade eleven, and three students from grade twelve.

In response to part one of the survey, l was surprised to see
that out of the six individuals in group A (receiving a grade alone),
only three correctly identified the feedback treatment that they had
received for the previous thirteen weeks. The three incorrect
students believed that they had also received comments with their
grade.

27

Still, when the group A students were asked, ”Which method of
feedback, if any, do you think was most helpful to your growth and
development in this class? How was it helpful? five of the six
students thought that the feedback method was relevant to their
work making statements such as, "I think the grades have pushed me
because I like having good grades so I try hard."

'It is relevant because it tells you where you're at and gives
room for improvement.“

”Yes because it makes [me] think harder and work harder on my
drawings.“

While the student who disagreed said, ”No, because I would like
comments and grades.“

In answering number three, all six group A students thought
that the feedback method aided their artistic growth making with
comments such as, "Yes because it pushes me to do my absolute
best”

“Yes, because it tells me when I need to push myself.”

And, ”Yes, because it helps me learn more as we go.”

Responding to the fourth question, only two of the group A
students thought that a different type of feedback method would
better motivated them to a higher level of achievement. One student
suggested comments on what was wrong and the other made no
specific suggestions.

As for the students in group B (written comments only) all six
students correctly identified the feedback method that they had been
receiving. Five of the six students thought that the feedback method

was relevant to their work. One students said, ”Yes, because the

28

comments tell me what I need to improve on or what is good in the
drawing.”

Another said, "Yes, because it helps me to try to do the right
things on the next drawing.”

And, ”Yes, because it pointed out my problems and next time I
knew to fix it and they [the comments] really helped me out.”

The student who did not agree suggested that she needed to
know what letter grade she received.

All six thought that the feedback method that they had
received aided their artistic growth saying, ”...it pushed me to
accomplish a higher art skill and make my drawings perfect.”

"...the comments help me to improve my drawing and I didn't
think that grades would help me much because they wouldn't tell
(me) how to improve it.”

Only one of the students thought that a different type of
feedback method would better motivate him to achieve. The student
suggested that he would do better if told what was wrong with the
drawing.

As for the students in group C (written comments and a grade)
all six correctly identified the feedback method that they had been
receiving. All six students thought that the feedback method was
relevant to their work. Students said, ”I like to know the grade i
received and I also like to know what I need to work on.”

"Yes, because when you grade my work and make comments, I
can usually find exactly where and what you are talking about.”

And, ”Yes, a grade/comment lets me know exactly where I

stand and what is good or bad about the picture.”

'I 1‘2?"

29

All six thought that the feedback method aided their artistic
growth saying, "...I feel that because I know what I need to work on
after each drawing, I am able to fix the problem on my next
drawing.‘

'...if you make a comment on a sketch book assignment, I take
that and apply it to my next assignment or project.”

None of the group C students thought that a different type of
feedback method would better motivate them.

What I found most surprising in this survey was the number of
students in group A (grades only) that did not correctly identify the
method of feedback. After receiving consistent feedback for
thirteen weeks in a row it is amazing that fifty percent of this
group could not accurately remember what type of feedback they
received. This leads me to believe that either as the weeks went on
the students in group A were less likely to even look at the feedback
or the students looked at it but held it with so little importance

that it was soon forgotten.

PART 3

Twenty-four high school, upper-level art students participated
in the action research study. The sample was made up of thirteen
males and eleven females from the tenth through twelfth grades.
This part of the study took place during the middle of the semester
when the teacher treated all of the students' take-home sketchbook
assignments in the same way for two-week intervals. The students
were then asked to fill out a survey on their thoughts and feelings on

the various methods of feedback that they were exposed to.

30

In responding to the first section of the survey, 23 of the
students correctly identified the feedback treatments that they
received on their sketchbook assignments, while one student did not
answer.

In response to the second question, Which method of feedback
do you think was most helpful to your growth and development in the
art class? and How was it helpful to you? Only one student chose a)
a grade only saying, ”Because they could be good or bad and without
knowing our grade we won't know how we did.”

Two students thought that b) written task-related comments
only was the most helpful method replying, ”A comment was more
effective” and "I think that telling us what we can do to make us
better artists is a good way to help us - give us comments!”

Nineteen students identified c) written task-related comments
and a grade as the method of feedback that they thought was most
helpful to their growth and development in the art class. A majority
of the student's comments described the effectiveness of the
feedback on themselves or on their artwork saying, "It showed me
how I was doing in the class and how I was developing as an artist."

"It is very helpful because I learned a lot.”

"I knew the grade, yet I can learn what I needed to do yet."

"It made me better my abilities."

"It lets me know what to do better next time."

"I knew what to do and I liked knowing the grade."

Two of the students who picked 0) written task-related
comments and a grade as most helpful, replied by describing an

effect that the teacher had on them, writing, ”It is helpful when you

31

tell us what you like and dislike about it" and "The consistent
harping got me motivated.”
One student thought that none of the methods were effective.

This student did not explain.

Figure 2 - Feedback That is Most Helpful to Students

Which method of
feedback do you
think was most
helpful to your
artistic growth
& development?

 

W/A
grade comments comments none
Number of students only only & grades
out of 23 total 1 student 2 students 19 students 1 student

Responding to the third question, Do you think that there are
any different methods of feedback that may be even more beneficial
to your growth and development in art? twenty students said that
they could not think of any. Four students said yes, suggesting such
ideas as: using student critiques, using teacher examples, and
letting the students grade their own work.

in response to the fourth question, Do you feel that you were
motivated to achieve more as a result of any of these feedback
methods? Which one or ones? and Why? the students were strongly

in favor of the c) written task-related comments and a grade

32

feedback method. Nineteen students made this choice relaying
comments such as, “When you do comments and a grade it helps me
understand better."

“Because I like to see what I can improve and how I have
improved.”

'It helps give me ideas to better my work and I get a grade to
rate it."

”When you do comments and a grade because it helps me
understand better."

Two students thought that b) written task-related comments
only was the method of feedback that motivated them the most
explaining, "When you tell us how to do better because it helps me
try harder.“ and "The written task-related comments were most

helpful in improving future art.”

Figure 3 - Feedback That Motivates Students

Which method do
you feel motivated
you the most to
achieve?

 

grade comments comments none
Number of students only only a, grades

out Of 23 total 0 students _2 students 19 students 2 students

33

However two other students felt that none of the above
methods of feedback were helpful to them, but that receiving a bad
grade did the trick saying, “Maybe a bad grade on something I worked
hard on would make me mad and motivate me" and the other student
said, “When I get a bad grade that is the best motivation to do

better next time."

CONICLUSION

The three parts of this study were designed to support each
other so that any weaknesses in one part would be compensated for
by strengths in another part. By using three different research
approaches to study the same question, similar results demonstrate
validity in the findings. The research has produced significant
results that are important to the field of art education, specifically
for the secondary school level.

One important question that the results of this study raise is
that of the effect of past experiences on the findings. More
specifically, was the students' apparent need for the ego-involved
method of feedback, namely a grade, the result of past school
experiences? Would results of this study be similar if the
experiment was carried out on students in early grade school when
students may be less conditioned about the importance of grades? or
would the results be the same if the experiment was carried out on
students who were previously from non-graded classrooms?

Nevertheless the results of this study definitely show that
students prefer receiving specific written task-related comments

and a grade on their art work. The students had strong positive

34

35

feelings about this form of evaluation feedback. This is important
in light of the 1988 study by Evans and Engelberg which revealed
that older students seemed to view grades as important but were
very critical of grading practices and were far more likely to
believe that their teachers graded unfairly. These same researchers
also found that as the age of the student increased, their positive
attitude toward school and grades decreased.

Because grading artwork is not as subjective as grading in
other subject areas, there is sometimes too little thought put into
the process. Teachers assisting students in their desire to improve
artistically can only be made more effective by using specific task-
related written comments and grades as feedback on their work

regularly.

RECOMMENDATICNS

This research has produced significant results that are
important to the field of art education, specifically for the
secondary school level. Despite the low sample number, in using
three different research approaches to study the same question,
similar results have demonstrated validity of the findings.

To further research the effectiveness of specific task-related
written comments, grades, and/or no feedback at all, research
should be done with students from the elementary level of art
education. Research should also be done with students from non-
graded classrooms such as certain alternative school learning
systems. I would also recommend researching the effectiveness of
written comments as opposed to verbal comments on achievement

levels of students in art.

36

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Figure 4 - Student Drawing and Teacher Comments

 

 

 

 

(above - an example of a student sketchbook assignment and
below - an example of written comments by the teacher)

 

 

 

 

37

 

APPENDIX B

Figure 5 - Student Drawing with High Improvement Rating

 

 

 

 

(both drawings were created by the same art student
above - September 1993, below - December 1993)

 

 

 

 

38

 

 

APPENDIX C

Figure 6 - Student Drawing with Low Improvement Rating

 

 

 

 

 

(both drawings were created by the same art student
above - September 1993, below - December 1993)

 

 

 

 

39

APPENDIX D

DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH STUDY STUDENT FORM

GROUP

1. Give a brief example of the type of grades and/or feedback that
you consistently received on your assignments in this class.

 

 

 

 

2. Do you feel that this type of grading and/or feedback is
relevant to your drawing?

 

 

 

 

3. Do you feel that this type of grading and/or feedback has aided
in your growth and development in art? How?

 

 

 

 

4. Do you think that a different type of grading and/or feedback
method would be more helpful to you? If yes, list what kind and give
examples.

 

 

 

 

4O

APPENDIX E

ACTION RESEARCH STUDY STUDENT FORM

1. Please identify each of the following feedback methods by
writing the sketchbook assignment number that corresponds to the
feedback that you received.

 

a) task-related comments only

b) task-related comments and a grade
c) a grade

d) no feedback at all

 

2. Which method of feedback, if any, do you think was most
helpful to your growth and development in this class? How was it
helpful to you?

 

 

 

 

3. Do you think that there are any different methods of feedback
that maybe even more beneficial to your growth and development in
art? If yes, what are they?

 

 

 

 

4. Do you feel that you were motivated to achieve more as a
result of any of these feedback methods? Which one or ones? and
Why?

 

 

 

 

41

UST OF REFERENCES

Berliner, D. & Casanova, U. (1988). Are grades undermining motiv-

ation? 1am, 1Q. 18 - 21.

Butler, R. (1985). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation:
the effects of task- -involving and 690- involving evaluation

of interest and performance. Wanna].
25mm 5.8 1- 14

Butler, R. & Nisan, M. (1986). Effects of no feedback, task—rela-
ted comments and grades on intrinsic motivation and per-

formance JoumaLbLEducatlnnaLEsxchclm 18. 210 -216

Collins, C. (1989). Grading practices that increase teacher ef-

fectiveness. W.fifl. 167 - 169.

Corno, L. 8 Elawar, M. C (1985). A factorial experiment in teach-
ers' written feedback on student homework. mm:

W. 12, 162- 173.

Denton, J. (1989). Selecting an appropriate grading system. Ine_
QIaaflnoquse. 83. 107 - 110.

Evans, D. & Engelberg, R A. (1988). Student perceptions of school

grading. Wm.
21, 19, 45 - 54.

IsaaC. Stephen. & Michael. Wm. B. WWI:
nation, (2nd edition). San Diego. Edit Publishing, 1981.

42

Krampen, G. (1987). Differential effects of teacher comments.

JaumaLctjducatmaLEmbalnox. 28. 137 - 146.

Ornstein, A. (1989). The nature of grading. W52.
62, 365 - 367.

Varvus, L. (1990). Put portfolios to the test. Lnstmctgr, 100,
48 - 54.

43

"Iillllllllllllllllli