Research on the Teaching Evaluation System of Art Courses

Lijun Shi

1,2

Universiti Putra Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Yunnan College of Business Management, Kunming, China

Keywords: Art Majors, Curriculum Teaching, Evaluation System.

Abstract: Aiming at the characteristics of solid subjectivity in the evaluation of student performance of art course

teaching, this study introduces the concept of a quantitative assessment of art courses, decomposes

evaluation indexes, incorporates learning process evaluation and teaching results assessment into the

complete assessment and evaluation system, constructs the design model of teaching evaluation system of

art courses to analyze the case; evaluates the teaching effect of methods through the analysis of the

achievement of course objectives, to promote teaching activities and promote the cultivation of applied

talents.

1 INTRODUCTION

Art majors have the characteristics of solid

application and practice. The course teaching

evaluation has a significant role in the construction

of the curriculum system of art design majors, which

serves as an essential link to measure the teaching

results of the course. Teachers should grasp the

traditional classroom teaching class and the practical

teaching with the project-based carrier in the course

evaluation to promote the healthy, rational, and

sustainable development of art design majors and

improve its role in the new The position of

innovative composite talents training quality (Song

2010). As an essential part of course teaching, the

course evaluation system supervises teaching and

learning, improves the overall quality of classroom

teaching in continuous evaluation and correction,

and achieves the effect of mutual promotion of

education and evaluation. The school academic

affairs office or the corresponding teaching

management department can use the assessment to

understand the teaching situation of teachers and

students and then carry out the evaluation of the

teaching effect and reasonably propose the

personnel training program (Jiang 2015).

2 THE CURRENT SITUATION

AND PROBLEMS OF THE

CURRENT ART COURSE

EVALUATION SYSTEM

2.1 Single Form of Examination

Method

The traditional way of examination is usually

conducted by submitting works at the end of the

period, which is a single form of analysis. Artistic

creation takes a certain amount of time to take

shape. The progress of artistic level is a gradual

process; not a single score can indicate the level of

learning, and the artwork itself has no uniform

answer and is difficult to quantify (Long 2009).

Therefore, the assessment form of scoring based on

a single work is too homogeneous.

2.2 Focus on Results, Not Process

The traditional teaching course evaluation is through

the final works provided by students and scored.

This way can't reflect the students' design level and

can't make a comprehensive judgment on the

students' progress and complete quality

improvement. Therefore, this evaluation method is

not exhaustive, and art and design majors emphasize

the process of learning, which needs to be advanced

gradually. Teachers should train and exercise

Shi, L.

Research on the Teaching Evaluation System of Art Courses.

DOI: 10.5220/0011897400003613

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on New Media Development and Modernized Education (NMDME 2022), pages 20-25

ISBN: 978-989-758-630-9

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

students in a targeted manner according to their

foundation and characteristics and make a

comprehensive evaluation of student's learning in

the learning process to see their progress and

improvement to evaluate their learning objectively.

Therefore, we should focus on the overall

assessment of student's learning process and include

students' learning, progress, and development and

students' attitude, ability, and character in the

general evaluation.

2.3 Teacher Evaluation, Single

Evaluation Subject

Teachers usually give corresponding evaluation

scores to students' assignments or works in

traditional art teaching evaluation. Such unilateral

evaluation is often too subjective. Teachers'

preferences and impressions of students will affect

the evaluation results, and even teachers' moods at

the time of assessment will involve the evaluation

scores. Moreover, each teacher's learning

experience, knowledge background, mastery of the

profession, and understanding of design will be

different, and their knowledge of the same work will

be further. Therefore, relying solely on the class

teacher as the subject of evaluation is too

homogeneous. When teachers encounter two similar

or similar results, they often hesitate and are likely

to intervene in the end to give emotional scores.

Such teachers' subjective judgment will inevitably

become the primary criterion for evaluating students'

performance, resulting in the evaluation results

relying too much on the teacher's subjectivity in

charge of the class.

3 IDEAS FOR THE STUDY OF

THE COURSE EVALUATION

SYSTEM

According to the teaching process and results and

the characteristics of the subject curriculum system,

we put the leading focus indicators of art and design

on teaching system setting, the content of teaching

goal setting, teaching effect and course teaching

management, and innovation of teaching results.

3.1 Evaluation Setting of Teaching

Goal Concerns Professional

Courses

The focus is first to observe whether the course

teaching objectives are clear, whether the design of

its course teaching objectives can support the

objectives of talent training, and the relevance of the

course teaching objectives and talent training.

3.2 Assessment Design of Teaching

System Concerns for Major Art

Courses

The problems of the course teaching system include

the conditions of course teaching resources, teaching

content setting, teaching methods, and assessment

and evaluation methods (Lv 2017). The course

teaching content framework is clear, the module

objectives are clear, the modules are closely

connected, and they are properly set up with the

previous and subsequent courses. The latest research

results of professional development and professional

development requirements can be introduced into

the teaching design in time. The practical teaching

content system of art design practice teaching is also

an aspect of the mandatory assessment of the

curriculum teaching system setting. This module

should reflect the results and skip the process of

student participation (Xu 2009).

3.3 Course Teaching Management and

Evaluation Design of Teaching

Effectiveness Observation Points

The observation points of course teaching

management and teaching effectiveness include

course management, evaluation of teaching

effectiveness, and teaching file management. The

observation of course management is refined to

whether there is a detailed plan for course

management and whether diverse methods can be

adapted to monitor the process and achieve excellent

quality, not only limited to classroom teaching

management. The evaluation of teaching effect

includes student evaluation, process evaluation, and

course result evaluation. Art and design courses will

directly produce some visual teaching results,

mainly from two aspects of the assessment: the

course teaching results based on the organization,

planning, counseling students to participate in the

corresponding professional competitions students

won high-level awards and the promotion of the

Research on the Teaching Evaluation System of Art Courses

course exhibition and other professional media

reports (Li 2018).

3.4 Establishment and Observation of

Art and Design Course Evaluation

Observation Index System

To establish a curriculum evaluation system, we

must first memorize the thinking of evaluating the

observation indicators. Secondly, we must also

consider the load-bearing and connection of the

evaluation and evaluation indicators. We have

assigned weights to each hand: the importance of the

teaching goal design is 10%, and the importance of

the curriculum teaching system design. 50%,

teaching management and teaching effect weight

20%, teaching achievement characteristic item

weight 20%. The implementation of the observation

of the curriculum evaluation system must also have

evaluation committees with a reasonable structure.

We choose a high-level, cross-border diverse team in

terms of committee composition. This evaluation

system promotes curriculum construction in art and

design curriculum construction and teaching and

establishes its unique brand effect (Bi 2016).

4 DESIGN MODEL OF

TEACHING EVALUATION

SYSTEM FOR ART COURSES

4.1 Art Course Teaching Evaluation

Methods

Evaluation of course goal attainment can be based

on a comprehensive evaluation method according to

the characteristics of the course, which can be based

on both direct evaluation and indirect evaluation

(Yao, 2015). Direct evaluation methods include, but

are not limited to, standardized exams,

non-standardized exams, midterm exams, process

assessments, learning portfolios, and other methods.

Indirect evaluation methods include, but are not

limited to, self-evaluation, student evaluation, peer

evaluation, a supervisory evaluation, interviews,

questionnaires, and feedback from students on

achievement evaluation at the end of the semester

(Zhao 2014).

The indirect evaluation process can collect

students' opinions and suggestions on the course in

the form of midterm talks and faculty talks; use

multiple evaluation methods such as supervisory

evaluation + peer evaluation + student evaluation +

self-evaluation to monitor and evaluate the course

teaching; conduct a questionnaire survey on the

achievement of course objectives at the end of the

course to give feedback on students' evaluation of

course achievement.

4.2 The Weight Distribution of

Teaching Evaluation of Art

Courses

A combination of direct and indirect assessment can

be used, with immediate evaluation accounting for

70-100% and indirect evaluation accounting for

0-30%, and the proportion can be adjusted

appropriately according to the characteristics of the

course.

4.3 Separate Use of Direct Evaluation

The direct evaluation of the achievement of course

objectives should include at least two categories of

process assessment and standard tests. Process

assessment includes but is not limited to course

attendance, extra-curricular assignments, practical

training, classroom performance, group cooperative

learning effects, course mini-papers, etc.; standard

tests are conducted according to the assessment

methods specified in the course syllabus, such as

final exam results, midterm exams, unit tests,

reading reports, lab reports, etc.

5 DESIGN MODEL AND A CASE

OF TEACHING EVALUATION

SYSTEM OF ART COURSES

5.1 Course Objective Weighting

The calculation method of target weights should be

combined with the support relationship of course

objectives to graduation requirements. If the course

objectives play a strong support role to the

achievement of the corresponding graduation

requirements, make its support intensity value 1.0; if

the course objectives play a medium support role,

make its support intensity value 0.5; if the course

objectives play a weak support role, make its

support intensity value 0.2. After normalization, the

weight of each course objective is obtained, which

indicates the importance of each course objective to

the achievement of graduation requirements and is

used to calculate the overall achievement value of

the course for the evaluation of graduation

NMDME 2022 - The International Conference on New Media Development and Modernized Education

requirements. Suppose there are 3-course objectives

in a system, and the weight of each course objective

is M1, M2, and M3.

5.2 Calculation of the Degree of

Achievement of Course Objectives

The course objectives are designed with a full score

of 100, and the expectations of all items in the

assessment session are 100. Assuming that the final

work in course objective one accounts for 60%, the

average student score is A1; the midterm work

accounts for 10%, the average student score is A2;

the stage test accounts for 20%, and the average

student score is A3; the written work accounts for

10%, the average student score is A4, then the

achievement of course objective 1 is

%10%20%10%60

43211

×+×+×+×= AAAAH

Assuming that 20% of the final work in Course

Objective 2, the average student score is B1, 10% of

the midterm work, the average student score is B2,

10% of the stage tests, the average student score is

B3, 50% of the group work, the average student

score is B4, and 10% of the classroom performance,

the average student score is B5, then the

achievement of course objective 2 is

21 234 5

20% 10% 10% 50% 10%HB B B B B=× +× +× +× +×

Assuming that 10% of the classroom performance in

Course Objective 3, the average student score is C1,

60% of the course papers, the average student score

is C2, and 30% of the group learning, the average

student score is C3, then the achievement of Course

Objective 3 is

%30%60%10

3213

×+×+×= CCCH

Total goal achievement:

332211

HMHMHMH ×+×+×=

A course goal attainment score above 60

indicates that the course goal was effectively

achieved.

5.3 Case Study of Teaching Evaluation

of Art Courses

A. Examples of major art courses

According to the condition of a school art major

to confer a degree, the goal achievement standard

was determined to be 60 or more, and the

comparison of the results of the goal achievement

evaluation and the actual score of course

achievement with the standard value of each course

of the established assessment system is shown in

Figure 1 below. To further analyze the students'

learning achievement, the results of the course goal

1 achievement distribution chart are shown in Figure

2 below, the results of the course goal 2 achievement

distribution chart are shown in Figure 3 below, and

the results of the course goal 3 achievement

distribution chart are shown in Figure 4 below.

Figure 1 achievement degree of curriculum objectives

Figure 2 distribution of students' achievement of course

objective 1 in art design class

Figure 3 distribution of students' achievement of course

objective 2 in art design class

68,90

76,61

91,03

0,00

20,00

40,00

60,00

80,00

100,00

course

objective 1

course

objective 2

course

objective 3

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

80,00

90,00

100,00

0 4 8 121620242832

SERIAL NUMBER

COURSE OBJECTIVE 1

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

80,00

90,00

100,00

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

SERIAL NUMBER

COURSE OBJECTIVE 2

Research on the Teaching Evaluation System of Art Courses

Figure 4 distribution of students' achievement of course

objective 3 in art design class

Course Objective 1 corresponds to the

Knowledge Objective, with an achievement level of

69.90; the standard value was achieved, and it was

basically achieved. Course Objective 2 corresponds

to the Competency Objective, with an achievement

level of 77.61. The achievement level is higher than

the standard value, and the course objectives are

better achieved. Course objective 3 corresponds to

the quality objective, with an attainment rating of

91.09, higher than the standard value, and better

achieves the course objectives. The distribution of

individual evaluations reflects that most students

could complete the standard. For course objective 3,

all students met the middle, and students were

usually actively involved in their studies.

5.4 Evaluation of the Reasonableness

of the Evaluation Results

The scientific rationality of the evaluation method:

In each aspect of teaching, the process evaluation

mainly adopts the combination of works, stage tests,

group learning, classroom performance, and course

paper, but the rationality of the corresponding

scoring criteria needs further optimization. For the

weight setting of the evaluation indexes, the primary

basis is the judgment of the strength of the course

objectives on the support of the graduation

requirement index points, which will have some

influence on the accuracy of the final evaluation

results. From the scores of different evaluation index

items, we can see that the data of test-based items,

such as stage tests, midterm works, and final works,

are relatively objective. In contrast, the data of

non-test things are supplemented to effectively avoid

emphasizing results over process and a single

evaluation subject so that the evaluation results can

generally reflect the achievement of students' course

objectives. The quantitative evaluation has the

accomplishment of knowledge objectives relatively.

It is easy to evaluate the accomplishment of

knowledge objectives, but it is more difficult to

assess the ability and quality objectives accurately.

From the actual evaluation results, the achievement

of course objective three is high, mainly because the

evaluation data of course objective three comes from

subjective evaluation. The assessment increases the

participation of evaluation scoring. It allows the

whole class to participate in scoring to take the

average result, effectively avoiding the influence of

a single subjective evaluation on the development.

6 CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

In this paper, the art course system is changed from

changing the single examination-based evaluation

form to a flexible and diversified evaluation form to

be integrated into the course teaching and play the

role of testing, regulating, supervising, and

motivating. Through the research on the design

mode of the teaching evaluation system of art

courses, the comprehensive evaluation method is

used to study the achievement of course objectives

according to the characteristics of the classes, which

can be based on direct evaluation and indirect

evaluation. The immediate assessment of course

goal achievement includes process assessment and

standard test. The indirect evaluation process

collects students' opinions and suggestions on the

course in mid-term talks and teachers' lectures; uses

various evaluation and assessment modes to monitor

and evaluate the course teaching to decompose the

evaluation index and quantify the assessment.

The design model of the teaching evaluation

system of art courses adopts the calculation method

of target weights, establishes the consequences of

each assessment factor according to the supportive

relationship of course objectives to graduation

requirements, analyzes the situation of course

attainment from the process assessment and

result-based assessment results, combines the

results, of course, objective attainment evaluation

and the comparison between the actual scores of

course attainment and traditional values, and

comprehensively evaluates the effect, of course,

teaching to promote teaching activities and promote

the cultivation of application-oriented talents.

The evaluation link items of the teaching

evaluation system of art courses are not set in stone,

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

80,00

90,00

100,00

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

SERIAL NUMBER

COURSE OBJECTIVE 3

NMDME 2022 - The International Conference on New Media Development and Modernized Education

and we can increase and decrease the evaluation

links according to the situation and also adjust the

weights according to the characteristics of the

courses as appropriate so that the evaluation results

are closer to the courses.

REFERENCES

Bi Linlin. A brief discussion on the construction of the

evaluation system of the teaching ability of art

teachers [J]. Times Education,2016(03):111+113. (in

Chinese)

Jiang Dayuan. Basic information about the German

education system [J]. Vocational Education Forum:

2005, (07). (in Chinese)

Long Fang. Research on higher vocational project-based

teaching courses [J]. Science and Technology

Information, 2009, (2):23-25. (in Chinese)

Li Wei. Exploration on the reform of teaching base

construction of digital media art majors [J]. New

Course Research (Midterm Journal), 2018(02):

20-21+29. (in Chinese)

Lv Jiangyin. A school-based study on the implementation

and evaluation of teaching and learning of practical

training courses in secondary preschool education--a

case study of preschool education in Shaoxing Art

School [J]. Literature and Education Materials,

2017(15): 239-240. (in Chinese)

Song Kun. Exploration of the reform of assessment

methods of project-based teaching courses [J]. Science

and Technology Information, 2010, (15): 7-9. (in

Chinese)

Xu Hui. Learner-centered teaching - Five key changes to

teaching practice [M]: Zhejiang University Press,

2006: 94. (in Chinese)

Yao Lu. Research on the design of the teaching paradigm

of imaginative thinking and the evaluation system of

its effect in the course of "Modeling Foundation" in

higher education [J]. Curriculum Education Research,

2015(17):243. (in Chinese)

Zhao Meichuan. Constructing a practical teaching

evaluation system for art design majors in independent

colleges [J]. Times Education, 2014(12): 25-26(in

Chinese)

Research on the Teaching Evaluation System of Art Courses