Students' Gendered Experiences of High School Portfolio Art Assessment in Canada, the Netherlands, and England

This study combines findings in the literature with a small-scale survey of male and female students' gendered experiences of high school assessment in art in Canada, England, and the Netherlands. The main research question was: “Are high school experiences of portfolio assessment in art different based on gender?” As well, we raise a related question asked by Nochlin, “Why have there been no great women artists?” (Collins and Sandell, 1996). The survey data reveal that students' experiences of high school portfolio assessment in art differs according to gender. Males are less likely than females to know and understand the qualities a teacher is looking for in their work; males consider it less important than females do to know and understand the criteria for assessment; it is less important to males than females to discuss their an with their teacher; and males find group critiques less valuable than females do. The findings from the literature concur: In high school an education, girls are more numerous and successful. We posit that biological differences and socio-cultural influences are factors. As well, in spite of gender inclusive strategies for teaching art in which classroom power relations are ‘flatter,’ a modernist paradigm persists in which patriarchal control of curriculum and education prevails. At the tertiary level, females outnumber males, but are less successful. They are pathologized as disturbed or depressed by patronizing male instructors and are much less visible as practicing artists and designers. In light of Nochlin's question, it continues to be difficult for women to be visible artists and designers because in spite of the short-lived success of females in high school portfolio art assessment, the fundamental inner structures of patriarchal western society have not changed significantly.

[1]  A. Zempléni,et al.  EXPERT AGREEMENT IN JUDGING ART PROJECTS - A MYTH OR REALITY?' , 1998 .

[2]  D. K. Beattie Assessment in Art Education , 1998 .

[3]  Deborah L. Smith-Shank,et al.  Gender issues in art education : content, contexts, and strategies , 1998 .

[4]  Mirjam Southwell,et al.  Black Stockings and Pot Pourri: Gender Issues in Design and Technology , 1997 .

[5]  A. Patrick Boy Trouble: Some Problems Resulting from ‘Gendered’ Representation of Glasgow’s Culture in the Education of Women Artists and Designers , 1997 .

[6]  Su Jones Crits—An Examination , 1996 .

[7]  Gloria Moss,et al.  Assessment: Do Males and Females make Judgements in a Self-selecting Fashion? , 1996 .

[8]  Sally Mitchell,et al.  Institutions, Individuals and Talk: The Construction of Identity in Fine Art , 1996 .

[9]  D. Boughton Six Myths of National Curriculum Reforms in Art Education , 1995 .

[10]  J. Steers Art and Design: Assessment and Public Examinations , 1994 .

[11]  D. Schönau Final Examinations in the Visual Arts in the Netherlands , 1994 .

[12]  D. K. Beattie The Mini-Portfolio: Locus of a Successful Performance Examination. , 1994 .

[13]  Tom Anderson,et al.  The International Baccalaureate Model of Content-Based Art Education. , 1994 .

[14]  Dinah Dossor Gender Issues in Tertiary Art Education , 1990 .

[15]  P. Dalton The gendering of art education : modernism, identity and critical feminism , 2001 .

[16]  Nicholas Addison,et al.  Towards a Plural Curriculum in Art & Design , 2000 .

[17]  Nicholas Addison,et al.  Learning to Teach Art and Design in the Secondary School : A Companion to School Experience , 2000 .

[18]  Barry Krueger,et al.  Portfolio Assessment: Possibilities and Pointers for Practice. , 1996 .

[19]  M. O’Hara,et al.  Summary and Implications , 1995 .

[20]  Thomas O. Blank,et al.  Summary and Implications , 1992 .

[21]  W. D. Greer Discipline-Based Art Education: Approaching Art as a Subject of Study , 1984 .