Files in this item
|(no description provided)|
|Title:||A description, analysis, and evaluation of selected measurement instruments in art education with recommendations for test construction and use in schools in Taiwan, R.O.C., and U.S.A|
|Doctoral Committee Chair(s):||Hardiman, George W.|
|Department / Program:||Art Education|
|Degree Granting Institution:||University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign|
Education, Tests and Measurements
|Abstract:||The objectives of this study are threefold: (a) to describe the characteristics of selected measurement instruments that assess aesthetic judgment, knowledge about art, and artistic production; (b) to analyze and evaluate the merits and limitations of each measurement instrument in both theoretical and psychometric aspects, and to compare evidence derived from the review with the objectivist assumption to clarify the nature of art tests; and (c) to make recommendations for the appropriate construction and use of art tests in educational settings in both Taiwan, R.O.C., and the U.S.
A structure for a review model was constructed according to the need of this study. The model involves categories of purpose; content, and constructs; administration; scoring; standardization; validity; reliability; merits; and limitations. The selection of instruments for review is based on three principles: relevance, availability, and completeness. The selection results in eight measurement instruments. Among the instruments, three concerning aesthetic judgment are the Maitland Graves Design Judgment Test; The Meier Art Tests: I, Art Judgment; and The Meier Art Tests: II, Aesthetic Perception. Three other instruments assessing knowledge about art are The Knauber Art Vocabulary Test, The Eisner Art Information Inventory, and Art Vocabulary. The other two instruments measuring artistic production are The Knauber Art Ability Test and The Horn Art Aptitude Inventory.
Based on the findings of the critiques of the eight tests, further discussions dealt with the issues of measurement in aesthetic judgment, knowledge about art, and artistic production, and commented on the objectivist assumption. According to the findings and discussions, recommendations were made for the appropriate construction and use of art tests in schools in both countries.
|Rights Information:||Copyright 1990 Liu, Feng-Jung|
|Date Available in IDEALS:||2011-05-07|
|Identifier in Online Catalog:||AAI9114323|