Pro:

• Most important skill in art history and in fact art history is the only discipline that really teaches it. It is also an important transferable skill: to business, new media, and even politics.
• It is timeless in the discipline, and, in combination with Art Historical Thinking, Critical Thinking, Demonstratable art Historical Knowledge, and Research/Information Literacy form its signature pedagogy.
• The skills I have identified--visual analysis, critical thinking, foundational skills in reading and writing about art, visual literacy, and communication skills--are the foundation for success in the survey course, and in further studies in art history. They are also the most broadly applicable to the future lives and career paths of all students, regardless of what direction they take. Fostering the ability to analyze and respond to visual culture produces more empowered people.
• Visual analysis is the key skill in art historical process. Such analysis helps to create art historical thinking, although it is not the only element. (In my classes with history majors who are art history minors the difference between really understanding how to employ visual analysis and art historical thinking is clear since this is not already part of their disciplinary thought-process or practice.)
• The Visual Analysis, Visual Literacy, Art Historical Thinking, Ability to Engage in Visual and Aesthetic Experience, and Understanding the Artists are helping students acquire knowledge of artists, art movements, etc. so that they can apply the knowledge gained from this course in the outside environment (e.g. looking at an art work in a museum, they can use the knowledge from the class to critically read and analyze that work with an educated eye).
• We focus on and teach students how to describe and analyze specific art works, artists, styles, periods, and movements through such elements as media, form, technique, and iconography.
• What art history does better than any other discipline is teaching students that ability to engage in close-grained looking and analysis, not overlooking the fine details and material conditions and features, doing so to better understand what the object/image or site itself is 'saying' (to use Eugene Wang's term -- emulating Geertz's 'thick description.') This ability to become a more astute critic of visual imagery and information, material objects and environments is not the focus of much of their other training in higher ed. So our role to play here is important.
• Visual Literacy/Analysis is given precedence over specific content (historical knowledge, understanding artists, etc) due to the fact that we have no art history majors, only art majors and non-majors.
• Critical Thinking, communication (including writing since that is not called out), information literacy, visual analysis, diversity--these would be my top five for any Humanities course and they correspond to my department and institution;s Learning Outcomes. My students are art and design majors (sometimes with an Art HIstory minor), but they are always applying and translating what they learn into visual modes.
• Art is above all visual, so the capacity to look and actually see and perceive all the nuances of the art work is the necessary starting point without which none of the other skills could be developed.
• Within my institution, VISUAL ANALYSIS is done at the 100-level of Art Appreciation, which is another popular course for general education requirements. At the 200-level of World Art History, I still constantly provide examples of analysis, but I focus more on content and contextual elements. However, I do agree that, if most institutions do not have an art appreciation class, then World Art History survey will carry the burden of teaching elements of visual analysis. The application of discipline-specific vocabulary I previously indicated can be included in the visual analysis skill. I also believe that the "ability to engage in visual and aesthetic experience" (my previous answer) comes as a consequence of being able to visually analyse art. They can all been seen as facets of visual analysis.
• The informing objective is to register the essential role of the humanities to one's life, and the specific place of the visual arts--and to some extent art history--within that context.

Pro:

• "Critical Thinking" is also related to "Art Historical Thinking," but it is a more transferable way to express many of the similar ideas.
• Important for art majors as my institution does not have an art history major or minor. Thinking critically about art history and theory are thus extremely important.
• It is timeless in the discipline, and, in combination with Art Historical Thinking, Visual Analysis, Demonstratable art Historical Knowledge, and Research/Information Literacy form its signature pedagogy.
• The skills I have identified--visual analysis, critical thinking, foundational skills in reading and writing about art, visual literacy, and communication skills--are the foundation for success in the survey course, and in further studies in art history. They are also the most broadly applicable to the future lives and career paths of all students, regardless of what direction they take. Fostering the ability to analyze and respond to visual culture produces more empowered people.
• Critical thinking is necessary to be a good art historian and is an applicable skill to most every discipline and is an important life-skill.
• Critical Thinking is the learning outcome associated with the course.
• Critical Thinking, communication (including writing since that is not called out), information literacy, visual analysis, diversity--these would be my top five for any Humanities course and they correspond to my department and institution;s Learning Outcomes. My students are art and design majors (sometimes with an Art HIstory minor), but they are always applying and translating what they learn into visual modes.
• It is important that the students realize that art works are the product of specific cultural and historical contexts, they need to match their visual acuity with a capacity to relate the design of the work to the circumstances under which it was created. In order to do so adequately, the students will need to develop critical thinking skills that will allow them to question the reasons behind what they see, establish connections between different historical events or circumstances and specific elements of the design.
• We help students develop a critical understanding of art forms in their historical, philosophical, and cultural context.
• Critical thinking. Agreed, art history is one of the many disciplines that contribute to this skill related to evaluating an issue to form a judgment. My previous answer did not include the evaluative component. No.4, contextualization, looks like a complementary process, necessary for good critical thinking that tries to keep an open mind and to think at complexities when making an evaluation.
• The informing objective is to register the essential role of the humanities to one's life, and the specific place of the visual arts--and to some extent art history--within that context.

Pro:

• Visual Literacy is an oucome that is derived from the combination of visual analysis, art historical thinking and knowledge, and crtical thinking.
• The skills I have identified--visual analysis, critical thinking, foundational skills in reading and writing about art, visual literacy, and communication skills--are the foundation for success in the survey course, and in further studies in art history. They are also the most broadly applicable to the future lives and career paths of all students, regardless of what direction they take. Fostering the ability to analyze and respond to visual culture produces more empowered people.
• The Visual Analysis, Visual Literacy, Art Historical Thinking, Ability to Engage in Visual and Aesthetic Experience, and Understanding the Artists are helping students acquire knowledge of artists, art movements, etc. so that they can apply the knowledge gained from this course in the outside environment (e.g. looking at an art work in a museum, they can use the knowledge from the class to critically read and analyze that work with an educated eye).
• Visual Literacy/Analysis is given precedence over specific content (historical knowledge, understanding artists, etc) due to the fact that we have no art history majors, only art majors and non-majors.
• Since a great part of art history is self-referential, the students do need to get a basic visual literacy of the range of styles worldwide across time. This skill will also build upon the critical thinking, since it is a lot easier to perceive particularities, exceptions, etc. when the student has some other works to compare with.
• The informing objective is to register the essential role of the humanities to one's life, and the specific place of the visual arts--and to some extent art history--within that context.

Pro:

• "Art Historical Thinking" is really a hybrid skills/content category that does some of the first two categories on my list.
• It is timeless in the discipline, and, in combination with Visual Analysis, Critical Thinking, Demonstratable art Historical Knowledge, and Research/Information Literacy form its signature pedagogy.
• Visual analysis is the key skill in art historical process. Such analysis helps to create art historical thinking, although it is not the only element. (In my classes with history majors who are art history minors the difference between really understanding how to employ visual analysis and art historical thinking is clear since this is not already part of their disciplinary thought-process or practice.)
• The Visual Analysis, Visual Literacy, Art Historical Thinking, Ability to Engage in Visual and Aesthetic Experience, and Understanding the Artists are helping students acquire knowledge of artists, art movements, etc. so that they can apply the knowledge gained from this course in the outside environment (e.g. looking at an art work in a museum, they can use the knowledge from the class to critically read and analyze that work with an educated eye).
• It is important that the students realize that art works are the product of specific cultural and historical contexts, they need to matc their visual acuity with a capacity to relate the design of the work to the circumstances under which it was created. In order to do so adequately, the students will need to develop critical thinking skills that will allow them to question the reasons behind what they see, establish connections between different historical events or circumstances and specific elements of the design.
• The informing objective is to register the essential role of the humanities to one's life, and the specific place of the visual arts--and to some extent art history--within that context.

Pro:

• "Demonstrable Art Historical Knowledge Base" is number two because this is the content of the discipline at its most basic.
• It is timeless in the discipline, and, in combination with Art Historical Thinking, Critical Thinking, Visual Analysis, and Research/Information Literacy form its signature pedagogy.
• My choice for number five was more difficult since for non-majors I think coming out of the course with visual literacy skills is particularly important while for students in the survey courses for majors it seem more important that they have an art historical knowledge base of objects, contexts, and concepts, although again, I'm not sure this is specifically a skill.
• At an Art and Design school, the Art History survey (and for us it is a required two semester Western Art History survey, and then there is an optional one semester non-Western Art History survey) is the foundation for all learning, whether a student is an art history major/minor or a studio major. Therefore, these foundational skills are the bases for looking at and understanding works of art throughout history. Students need to understand the "history" of art and its chronological development so that when they reach upper-level art history or studio classes they have a foundation upon which to build. At my school, there is no general education history courses, so the Art History survey must also function as a basic history class, and so we approach art from a historical context. The goals of the courses are for students to be able to identify important styles, art works and artists, and understand the basic chronology of the Western European art historical tradition from prehistory through the present day.
• I agree that an art historical knowledge base is a fundamental requirement, given that the course provides lots of basic facts and information related to the discipline. I previously distributed this skill in different others, because I did not think at it as a skill, but as content received, but it is a good idea to keep it separate. The art history survey will produce a synthesis of visual analysis and basic historical knowledge.
• The informing objective is to register the essential role of the humanities to one's life, and the specific place of the visual arts--and to some extent art history--within that context.

Con:

• Given the vast majority of our students do not seek to become majors, we place less emphasis on knowing an "art historical knowledge base" or "understanding artists" (and in much of art's history the identity of artists is unknown). (I take the latter to mean being able to recognize artists whose work has been deemed by the discipline to be important.)

Pro:

• Tha abilitity to communicatate, orally and in writing, is essential.
• The skills I have identified--visual analysis, critical thinking, foundational skills in reading and writing about art, visual literacy, and communication skills--are the foundation for success in the survey course, and in further studies in art history. They are also the most broadly applicable to the future lives and career paths of all students, regardless of what direction they take. Fostering the ability to analyze and respond to visual culture produces more empowered people.
• Communication skills are extemely important and need to be emphasized across the university.
• Critical Thinking, communication (including writing since that is not called out), information literacy, visual analysis, diversity--these would be my top five for any Humanities course and they correspond to my department and institution;s Learning Outcomes. My students are art and design majors (sometimes with an Art HIstory minor), but they are always applying and translating what they learn into visual modes.

Pro:

• Art majors require this.
• The Visual Analysis, Visual Literacy, Art Historical Thinking, Ability to Engage in Visual and Aesthetic Experience, and Understanding the Artists are helping students acquire knowledge of artists, art movements, etc. so that they can apply the knowledge gained from this course in the outside environment (e.g. looking at an art work in a museum, they can use the knowledge from the class to critically read and analyze that work with an educated eye).
• Part of the goal of the course is to encourage students to have a meaningful experience with art and to continue to engage with art throughout their lives.
• In the end, art is supposed to engage people as an aesthetic experience, which does not necessarily mean that it is beautiful. I am considering here the aesthetic experience in all its aspects including epistemological. I think of art as a vehicle of communication that does so precisely through the aesthetic experience, that is unique and different from other human experiences.

Pro:

• At an Art and Design school, the Art History survey (and for us it is a required two semester Western Art History survey, and then there is an optional one semester non-Western Art History survey) is the foundation for all learning, whether a student is an art history major/minor or a studio major. Therefore, these foundational skills are the bases for looking at and understanding works of art throughout history. Students need to understand the "history" of art and its chronological development so that when they reach upper-level art history or studio classes they have a foundation upon which to build. At my school, there is no general education history courses, so the Art History survey must also function as a basic history class, and so we approach art from a historical context. The goals of the courses are for students to be able to identify important styles, art works and artists, and understand the basic chronology of the Western European art historical tradition from prehistory through the present day.

Pro:

• It is timeless in the discipline, and, in combination with Art Historical Thinking, Critical Thinking, Demonstratable art Historical Knowledge, and Visual Analysis form its signature pedagogy.
• Critical Thinking, communication (including writing since that is not called out), information literacy, visual analysis, diversity--these would be my top five for any Humanities course and they correspond to my department and institution;s Learning Outcomes. My students are art and design majors (sometimes with an Art HIstory minor), but they are always applying and translating what they learn into visual modes.

Pro:

• Awareness and diversity of both Western and Non-Western cultures (and even Western urban and rural cultures) within which artists work is important.
• Introductory surveys are tasked with introducing students to art from around the world (at least ours here is, we have a secondary class called "European Visual Tradition" that traces the development of "Western" art.) Because of this, it is an opportunity to compel them to think about diverse perspectives, ways of being, world-views, practices, values and beliefs. Hence I rank Diversity and Cultural Understanding particularly high, and feel these to be urgent as ours is increasingly a world of conflict and antagonism between groups and cultures. This to me is more important than more focused skill-based learning -- which can and does happen in our classes.

Con:

• Along with "diversity" as an option, this skill seems redundant

Pro:

• I'm not sure I consider diversity a skill, per say, but helping students gain knowledge of power constructions, different cultures, and social groups is imperative to create empathy and understanding broadly and to expand students' world view. I think of cultural awareness as being intrinsically tied to this and that's why I moved it lower since it seemed redundant.
• Introductory surveys are tasked with introducing students to art from around the world (at least ours here is, we have a secondary class called "European Visual Tradition" that traces the development of "Western" art.) Because of this, it is an opportunity to compel them to think about diverse perspectives, ways of being, world-views, practices, values and beliefs. Hence I rank Diversity and Cultural Understanding particularly high, and feel these to be urgent as ours is increasingly a world of conflict and antagonism between groups and cultures. This to me is more important than more focused skill-based learning -- which can and does happen in our classes.
• Critical Thinking, communication (including writing since that is not called out), information literacy, visual analysis, diversity--these would be my top five for any Humanities course and they correspond to my department and institution;s Learning Outcomes. My students are art and design majors (sometimes with an Art History minor), but they are always applying and translating what they learn into visual modes.
• Diversity: to me this is not limited to non-Western cultures, but it includes an understanding of complexities by learning about something different than ourselves. I acknowledge this is not the view of the majority of the survey respondents, but I still believe that Millennial students view the many situations presented by the survey as remote from their own experience, even when dealing with Western art (which seems the focus of the majority of the surveys). Raised during an epochal change, Millennials are used to immediately access any kinds of information on the Internet; even the concept that in the past factors like gender and social class provided different access to information and therefore shaped art differently is a new concept to them. Not to mention different values in ancient cultures.

Pro:

• The skills I have identified--visual analysis, critical thinking, foundational skills in reading and writing about art, visual literacy, and communication skills--are the foundation for success in the survey course, and in further studies in art history. They are also the most broadly applicable to the future lives and career paths of all students, regardless of what direction they take. Fostering the ability to analyze and respond to visual culture produces more empowered people.
• Written communication--could be filed under communication but it is important for students to be able to write (in a variety of modes) relevance of the material to the person/field of study. I put relevance in the 'other' category, but that is critical to any non-art history major. It is easily accomplished and often overlooked, but without establishing the relevance of the material to their lives in some kind of concrete way, course information--from any discipline--is not retained.
• And teach the fundamentals of writing about works of art and architecture.

Pro:

• Awareness and diversity of both Western and Non-Western cultures (and even Western urban and rural cultures) within which artists work is important.
• The Visual Analysis, Visual Literacy, Art Historical Thinking, Ability to Engage in Visual and Aesthetic Experience, and Understanding the Artists are helping students acquire knowledge of artists, art movements, etc. so that they can apply the knowledge gained from this course in the outside environment (e.g. looking at an art work in a museum, they can use the knowledge from the class to critically read and analyze that work with an educated eye).

Con:

• Given the vast majority of our students do not seek to become majors, we place less emphasis on knowing an "art historical knowledge base" or "understanding artists" (and in much of art's history the identity of artists is unknown). (I take the latter to mean being able to recognize artists whose work has been deemed by the discipline to be important.)

Pro:

• fostering/encouraging or developing CURIOSITY -- nurturing fascination and an awareness of what one does not know. This is more of an overarching learning outcome which some of the above might fit into (engaging in an aesthetic experience, problem solving, independence. I stand by my answer in the initial survey round. I often hear from students about how much they end up being drawn to, love, and are fascinated with the material we cover. We should not underestimate the significance of fascination and curiosity. Curiosity is the absolute prerequisite for life-long learning and a world-view that keeps one open to new ideas, material and perspectives.
  I will still advocate that Curiosity be added to this list. It is the broad and first event that happens that then serves as the catalyst for all else on this list. Teaching students to be receptive to and fascinated by the diverse things, images and spaces human beings who've lived on this planet before and with them have made! This receptivity and eagerness to learn more will lead to better acquisition of everything else on this list and, educational achievement that extends that will extend long after they graduate from college.

Pro:

• Contextualization skills and understanding complexities: beyond art history knowledge base, develop a keen understanding that any situation is placed within a context and such context and resulting complexities should be taken into consideration. It is a powerful skill.
  I keep contextualization as a separate skill. When teaching the survey and through assignments, there are many opportunities for students to learn that things are more complicated than a linear sequence of styles and periods, some occur at the same time, some overlap, etc. Additionally, art stems from a much broader context of the society of the time, its technology, its value system, the events occurring at that time, etc. I believe the survey provides opportunities to understand that situations are more complex than what is visible at the surface level and that trying to build the context of a situation requires increasing knowledge combined with an open mind. This contextualization skill may look pretty similar to "Art Historical Thinking", indicated by the majority of respondents, if this skill is interpreted very broadly as a 'portable' professional skill. However, if we interpret "Art Historical Thinking" more narrowly and deeply as a discipline-specific skill (=having all the tools and mindset to work as a professional art historian), I would not agree that students will learn art historical thinking within one basic art history course. However, I do understand that students from history or art history majors within strong liberal arts programs will probably hone that skill at a higher level than students from the visual arts with no art history emphasis, so within this context it may make sense. However, in my opinion one survey course alone cannot achieve this level of discipline thinking, unless students have already achieved that level through a combination of other courses and show that in the survey course.

• I read the list above as comprising more than skills. There are skills and content mixed in the list. For instance, "Demonstrable Art Historical Knowledge Base" is not a skill but rather content. I adjusted my ranking based on the list provided and listed the outcomes I see as most important regardless of whether it is a skill or content.
• Though important for art and art history majors, I am not sure that "demonstrable art historical knowledge base" is a skill.

• These skill are ranked in order of importance for my institution's specific student population
• There are some items that I ranked relatively low that I think are very important and would have ranked higher given different circumstances. In particular communication and research information literacy should, ideally, have higher rankings. Because of the large size of the survey class I teach and the fact that there are no recitation sections or TAs, it is difficult to integrate meaningful written communication assignments or introductory research projects. I know students in my sophomore, junior, and senior courses, plus graduate students, must have these skills and so apportion that time to them.
• Given the vast majority of our students do not seek to become majors, we place less emphasis on knowing an "art historical knowledge base" or "understanding artists" (and in much of art's history the identity of artists is unknown). (I take the latter to mean being able to recognize artists whose work has been deemed by the discipline to be important.)
• The rationale for the top five skills is based on our institutional determined course competencies and meeting those when developing the art history curriculum.
• These are driven by General Education learning outcomes.
• At an Art and Design school, the Art History survey (and for us it is a required two semester Western Art History survey, and then there is an optional one semester non-Western Art History survey) is the foundation for all learning, whether a student is an art history major/minor or a studio major. Therefore, these foundational skills are the bases for looking at and understanding works of art throughout history. Students need to understand the "history" of art and its chronological development so that when they reach upper-level art history or studio classes they have a foundation upon which to build. At my school, there is no general education history courses, so the Art History survey must also function as a basic history class, and so we approach art from a historical context. The goals of the courses are for students to be able to identify important styles, art works and artists, and understand the basic chronology of the Western European art historical tradition from prehistory through the present day. We focus on and teach students how to describe and analyze specific art works, artists, styles, periods, and movements through such elements as media, form, technique, and iconography. We help students develop a critical understanding of art forms in their historical, philosophical, and cultural context. And teach the fundamentals of writing about works of art and architecture.

• Several participants describe the necessity of combining skills as dependent on each other in the design of outcomes for this course for instance:
• Visual analysis is the key skill in art historical process. Such analysis helps to create art historical thinking, although it is not the only element. (In my classes with history majors who are art history minors the difference between really understanding how to employ visual analysis and art historical thinking is clear since this is not already part of their disciplinary thought-process or practice.)

Pro:

• The objective is to encourage critical looking, thinking, and integration within some broader framework: historical, thematic, or otherwise.
• Historical Context (I don't approach the survey thematically, but do follow a chronological approach) - The chronological approach to the art history survey allows students to understand the visual information and not only connect it to a cultural context, but see the development of art through culture. My students are creating art, and are interested in how artists in the past respond to their historical context. They then take this information and apply it to their own art.
• Being able to place works within the historical/social/religious context is necessary to understand the role of art in our lives, and students should also be able to understand the artistic canon.
• historical contextualization was ranked second, learning about the context of those particular works we choose to feature in a given iteration of the course and formulate a basis for art historical method and terminology (even here, though 'learning' outcomes are merging with 'content' outcomes).
• I think the most important content is gaining an art historical foundation, formal vocabulary, and be able to understand that art is made within various historical contexts, and to be able to think thematically about western and non-western visual cultures.
• The ability to read about art (i.e., art historical writing appropriate for a freshman-level course) and historical/contextual knowledge are the most important skills to develop in the interest of further studies in art history.
• I have always found the test of art historical literacy to be whether, by the end of the course, a student can successfully identity an unknown work by making a connection to another work they have seen. This connection, which is different from identification, serves to trigger in memory not facts but associations that stay with the student long after the course is completed. In order to complete this test successfully, students need a baseline of knowledge, context, vocabulary specific to the discipline and based on close-looking.
• More than learning the Canon of Art History it is essential that our student learn Historical or Thematic Context.

Pro:

• Foundation Art Historical / Formal Vocabulary - students practice writing creatively and critically across the curriculum, and in art history in order for students to writing about works (and in turn write about their own work), they need to organize complex information into a coherent argument, choose appropriate language using an art historical vocabulary, and understand primary/secondary sources
• Learning and being able to use the vocabulary of art is critical to Visual Analysis and Literacy.
• I think the most important content is gaining an art historical foundation, formal vocabulary, and be able to understand that art is made within various historical contexts, and to be able to think thematically about western and non-western visual cultures.
• The ability to read about art (i.e., art historical writing appropriate for a freshman-level course) and historical/contextual knowledge are the most important skills to develop in the interest of further studies in art history.
• I have always found the test of art historical literacy to be whether, by the end of the course, a student can successfully identity an unknown work by making a connection to another work they have seen. This connection, which is different from identification, serves to trigger in memory not facts but associations that stay with the student long after the course is completed. In order to complete this test successfully, students need a baseline of knowledge, context, vocabulary specific to the discipline and based on close-looking.

Pro:

• The objective is to encourage critical looking, thinking, and integration within some broader framework: historical, thematic, or otherwise.
• Visual Analysis - the ability to identify, analyze and evaluate major works in the history of art is the foundation for all art historical inquiry. Students need to be able to recognize basic methods and materials, develop a vocabulary, and refine critical analysis skills by comparing works across time and cultures. My students are VISUAL students, so the best place to start for them is visual analysis, a skill that they will use in all classes across the college. By teaching them to visually analyze a work, they then have the tools to move beyond visual analysis and begin to apply interpretation, theory and other methods in thinking about a work of art.
• I have always found the test of art historical literacy to be whether, by the end of the course, a student can successfully identity an unknown work by making a connection to another work they have seen. This connection, which is different from identification, serves to trigger in memory not facts but associations that stay with the student long after the course is completed. In order to complete this test successfully, students need a baseline of knowledge, context, vocabulary specific to the discipline and based on close-looking.

Con:

• I find some of the categories problematic. Critical thinking is not content; it is a skill or a competency, as is communication and visual analysis, visual literacy, problem solving.
• The items I ranked as 11-14 are important but seem to be skills versus content and that is why they are lower in this particular scale.

Pro:

• The objective is to encourage critical looking, thinking, and integration within some broader framework: historical, thematic, or otherwise.
• Critical Thinking and Writing are major content goals.

Con:

• I really don't think some of these qualify as "Content" --i.e. critical thinking
• I find some of the categories problematic. Critical thinking is not content; it is a skill or a competency, as is communication and visual analysis, visual literacy, problem solving.
• The items I ranked as 11-14 are important but seem to be skills versus content and that is why they are lower in this particular scale.

Pro:

• Given our prioritization of global content and the urgency of using this course as a means to think about diversity, "World Visual Culture" was ranked first.
• I think the most important content is gaining an art historical foundation, formal vocabulary, and be able to understand that art is made within various historical contexts, and to be able to think thematically about western and non-western visual cultures.
• I have always found the test of art historical literacy to be whether, by the end of the course, a student can successfully identity an unknown work by making a connection to another work they have seen. This connection, which is different from identification, serves to trigger in memory not facts but associations that stay with the student long after the course is completed. In order to complete this test successfully, students need a baseline of knowledge, context, vocabulary specific to the discipline and based on close-looking.
• World Culture and Application of art historical problems are also goals for our artist students. With a foundation in art history and theory they will be able ego place themselves and their work in context. This can be supported with group work and critical historical research to understand their role as artists as well as the discipline of art history.

Pro:

• The objective is to encourage critical looking, thinking, and integration within some broader framework: historical, thematic, or otherwise.

Con:

• I find some of the categories problematic. Critical thinking is not content; it is a skill or a competency, as is communication and visual analysis, visual literacy, problem solving.
• The items I ranked as 11-14 are important but seem to be skills versus content and that is why they are lower in this particular scale.

Pro:

• It is necessary that students also learn that knowledge is made and so it is important to help them understand how one does art history.
• World Culture and Application of art historical problems are also goals for our artist students. With a foundation in art history and theory they will be able ego place themselves and their work in context. This can be supported with group work and critical historical research to understand their role as artists as well as the discipline of art history.

Con:

• I find some of the categories problematic. Critical thinking is not content; it is a skill or a competency, as is communication and visual analysis, visual literacy, problem solving.

Pro:

• The objective is to encourage critical looking, thinking, and integration within some broader framework: historical, thematic, or otherwise.
• For the non-majors course it is critical that students understand art history is a discipline and how it intersects with their world, the field's historiography, and its basic processes in order to move past dismissing it or being shocked that it requires more thought and effort than they anticipated.
• I have always found the test of art historical literacy to be whether, by the end of the course, a student can successfully identity an unknown work by making a connection to another work they have seen. This connection, which is different from identification, serves to trigger in memory not facts but associations that stay with the student long after the course is completed. In order to complete this test successfully, students need a baseline of knowledge, context, vocabulary specific to the discipline and based on close-looking.

Con:

• While I believe in the importance teaching critical art historical writing, I do not believe this is appropriate for a survey-level course.
• Critical Thinking and Writing are major content goals.

Pro:

• The artistic canon is important to students in an art and design school, because they must know the basic history of art history and the major monuments in the history of art. They are creating art and writing/taking about their art, and in order to do so they need to know what is influencing them, or if what they are doing has been done before. They do not come to art school with a knowledge of the history of art.
• The artistic canon is necessary to relate works of art to eachother to understand concepts of continuity, tranformation, and innovation.
• More than learning the Canon of Art History it is essential that our student learn Historical or Thematic Context.

Pro:

• Linear Development of Art History - Interpreting art as an expression of cultural/historical circumstances allows students to integrate factual information about specific cultures into broader concepts, assess the role of an object in relation to the cultural context, and compare circumstances and processes across cultures. Only by following a linear development does this make sense to students. I have tried the thematic approach and students have no context, which they want. At my institution since we do not have a general education history course, the Art History survey course follows a historical chronological approach and looks at art and a produce of history.

Con:

• The Linear Development of art history is not as important as contextual and thematic understanding.

Pro:

Con:

• I find some of the categories problematic. Critical thinking is not content; it is a skill or a competency, as is communication and visual analysis, visual literacy, problem solving.
• Communication is also key to our classes -- giving our students to become interlocutors and participants in the discourse of art history, engaging in the conversation by providing their own, informed perspectives on the material, and often doing so through listening to others in collaborative groups. This happens consistently in our courses.

Pro:

• I added Ethics, although I hadn't initially considered this, but any discussion of art history often leads to a discussion of canonization and colonialist collecting practices. Hence acknowledging the traditional power operations on which the discipline is founded is very important.
• Ethics is content explored in out Art Theory courses.

• Content seems less problematic to respond to than skills. I notice that "critical thinking" appears as both skill (previous page) and content (this page), and this is interesting: should it be in both areas?
• I really don't think some of these qualify as "Content" --i.e. critical thinking
• I find some of the categories problematic. Critical thinking is not content; it is a skill or a competency, as is communication and visual analysis, visual literacy, problem solving.
• Perhaps we might endeavor to clarify the difference between learning outcomes and content outcomes as there seems to be overlap between these two (visual analysis, critical thinking)? I was unsure how to answer this question for round 1 and was perhaps thinking too literally about 'content' (thinking about which works of art or cultures 'to cover'). I now see a more useful way of thinking about content given the categories above.
• The items I ranked as 11-14 are important but seem to be skills versus content and that is why they are lower in this particular scale.
• I don't know what is meant by Visual Literacy here so I marked it 12.
• Again, the list mixes skills and content. For example, on a list of purported content, we find "Critical Thinking." In fact, the top four on my list are the only content categories on the list.

• Rank of content outcomes is driven by General Education learning outcomes.
• The rationale for the top five content areas is based on our institutional determined course competencies and meeting those when developing the art history curriculum.

• I believe in liberal arts education, since it produces well-rounded individuals possessing analytical and communication skills. That is, education for life.
• analytical and communication skills in general education courses as well as conveyed more sophisticated content and skills in upperlevel classes.
• I am committed to education in the liberal arts tradition and am inclusive in my methodology and style of teaching. I feel my approach has the ability to transform the way students think about their visual environment. If successful, I have taught them to think for themselves--learning that transcends college.
• I do not adhere to "filling up student brains" with my knowledge, but rather to helping my students construct their own knowledge and making it their own.
• I fundamentally believe that by teaching art history, I grow students into actively analytical citizens of the visual cultures in which they live, training their abilities to respond critically to the myriad ways in which images are deployed daily to sway their thoughts and emotions. While this remains my core goal regardless of the course, I am still trying to work out how best to meet the specific needs of my students now.
• The ability to develop strong visual analysis and critical thinking skills—to “tell me what, how, and why they see”—can be used beyond the student’s experience in my classroom.
• In the past three years, I have emphasized a new goal: to slow down and carefully observe. Recent scholarly and popular articles have posited that, in today’s fast-paced, technology-addicted society, our ability to stop, focus, and concentrate on an art work free from distractions is waning. In my discussions, I often recite the mantra “the more you look, the more you’ll observe. . ."
• I attempt to focus on the acquisition of key skills instead of forcing students to memorize specific artists, works, or dates. Instead, I encourage them to learn key vocabulary and practice "reading" and analyzing works of art, on the premise that these skills will allow them to "read," analyze, and understand any work of art they encounter.
• I want the students to realize of the relevance of art in the human experience by teaching them to see and understand the choices made by the artists.
• The purpose it serves and how they will use it as a discipline to guide them in their careers, as well as simply looking and learning are essential tools to be gleaned from an art history course among the non-traditional applied arts students found at my institution.
• I create learners who are aware enough—conscious enough—to construct meaning from what they see. In my courses, students learn to discern the fundamentals that comprise a work of art; to recognize its historical precedence; to interpret that work based on the religious, political, and historical context; and to transfer this knowledge and these skills to new works.
• I am still rooted in the traditional belief that a survey is a content-intensive course that provides the ground knowledge and skills for students to be successful digging deeper in other upper-level courses.
• Ultimately, I want my students to walk away from my art history courses not just with knowledge of particular artists and works of art, but moreover with an ability to think critically about and communicate insight into history and visual materials.

Visual Arts / Design Majors

• For students majoring in the visual arts, I stress that their future contributions in their field—whether painting, sculpture, or graphic design—is part of a larger dialogue. Their present work contributes to the dialogue with the past. Thus, my art history classes provide the opportunity to understand what came before them. This historical discourse can further inspire and fuel these students, allowing them to borrow or to emulate, to synthesize new formal or iconographic concepts, or to react in their own work. One key goal is to have students to strengthen their “formal eye”, to teach them how to effectively and efficiently look at a painting, sculpture, or building. Teaching students to scrutinize a work of art carefully is comparable to training for a physical activity. By the end of the course, students should feel confident and comfortable analyzing and discussing the physical aspects of a work of art, including medium, composition, color, texture, line, light, space, and perspective.

• One my biggest challenges as well as my biggest successes has been to reach groups of students of divergent levels of interest in and preparation for collegiate courses in art history.
• Institutionally and personally experiencing an identity crisis of sorts about how best to serve (or most inexpensively serve, if I'm being cynical) the student body, the majority of whom are full-time working, first-generation college students who come from resource poor school districts.
• I consider it my responsibility to inspire, challenge, and, more importantly, build relationships with students in a way that acknowledges their cultural, socio-economic, and educational backgrounds.
• Students in my courses encompass a wide spectrum. They major in multiple disciplines; while many are in the studio arts, such as painting or graphic design, others are non-art majors. Some students have prior exposure to the visual arts; some have not. Some students have traveled extensively, some have never left the region. Whether students are studio art majors or soon-to-travel tourists, I want them to leave with a greater understanding and appreciation of the civilizations and cultures that produced our world's art.

• My lecture-discussion approach to teaching has effectively engaged students
• I work to perfect an interactive approach to teaching and to create a supportive atmosphere where all feel comfortable to participate. I make great efforts to know my students' names and interests in order to connect them more effectively with class discussions. My class sessions typically begin with a brief introductory lecture outlining the main historical points of the class. I then engage students in a discussion on how the formal qualities of works of art (composition, line, color, etc.) generate meaning in the context of the culture under consideration. Here I weave in a discussion of readings, particularly primary texts. This method both entices students to learn actively and sharpens their skills of analysis and verbal communication. In fact, by the end of the semester students often help direct discussion by asking important questions of me and their classmates. I designed several innovative techniques to facilitate student interest in art and involvement in my class. I often use historical humor and popular culture. I show, for example, a woodcut caricature of Luther as a Wolf in the Fold (Luther, with the feet of a wolf, pretends to be a pious monk as the devil sings into his ear) to explain Catholic views of the Reformation in my introduction to the Counter-Reformation. I also developed assignments to engage students more completely in their readings. For instance, I ask students to write a brief essay relating their favorite horror movie to the aesthetic category of the sublime after reading excerpts from Edmund Burke's essay on the sublime and the beautiful. Engaging students with actual art works whenever possible is also important to my teaching. Every semester on campus, my World Art 1 class and I study stained glass windows in a local church. In my upper-level courses, I take students to museums in Pittsburgh, Washington, DC, Baltimore, and New York City in part to choose paintings for their paper assignments.
• I encourage engagement with the material that is meaningful to students, while developing visual and critical analysis skills through specific assignments.
• I consider it my responsibility to inspire, challenge, and, more importantly, build relationships with students in a way that acknowledges their cultural, socio-economic, and educational backgrounds. Since learning occurs in an environment of diversity, mutual respect, and academic freedom, my teaching philosophy is grounded precisely on the belief that higher education must remain a shared goal and, more importantly, accessible to all.
• The fundamental component of my teaching strategy is making the visual arts and art history accessible, edifying, and relevant to all students, regardless of their major field of study or interest. My challenge as a teacher is communicating the significance of the material covered in an art history class. For students majoring in the visual arts, I stress that their future contributions in their field - whether painting, sculpture, or graphic design - is part of a larger dialogue. Their present work contributes to the dialogue with the past. Thus, my art history classes provide the opportunity to understand what came before them. This historical discourse can further inspire and fuel these students, allowing them to borrow or to emulate, to synthesize new formal or iconographic concepts, or to react in their own work.
• Generate engagement through a balance of lectures that spark curiosity (and that pose as many questions as they dispense facts and information) and conversation, and collaborative activities that have students doing/acting as well as passively listening.
• In recent years, I have learned from guided mentor class observation to have students keep their laptops in their bags and just have pen and paper, while I handle the technology needed. Hard for an instructor to keep at bay students flipping from class activities and their own Facebook pages, while at the same time focusing on course content: with excessive distractions, they cannot pay attention and we cannot teach. Even if we embrace Facebook to teach, at some point they need to raise their heads and view the art in the screen; basically they need to remain engaged in the classroom environment, if teaching occurs in the classroom. Within this, I apply several strategies that allow to flip the classroom from lecture mode to active learner mode several times throughout the class; I am learning strategies to keep the students' energy levels and focus high for the entire class period.

Interdisciplinary

• My teaching methodology is interdisciplinary and contextual. I present art in relationship to sociopolitical, economic, intellectual, cultural, and gender issues and in upper-level courses assign primary texts that address the production and function of art. I am concerned with approaching art from a variety of perspectives and methodologies and am particularly engaged in exploring the cultural, political, and social contexts of the creation and reception of works of art. I feel this interdisciplinary approach permits students to overcome an often-stated anxiety that art exists above their world. I apply my own interdisciplinary education in literature and history to the study of art. In brief, I try to show how art was created, used, and understood in the time of its creation, and how the meanings that art works generate may change in different contexts.
  
  I found that students benefit greatly from this approach, as they are able to connect my art history classes to other courses and their lives. For example, psychology majors are typically fascinated with the relationship between Surrealism and Freudian psychology, between Abstract Expressionism and Jungian psychology. Biology and physics majors are entranced by Leonardo da Vinci's studies of anatomy and engineering projects.

Lecture/Discussion

• to help foster discussion, I frequently ask the two-part question: "What is this art work doing? Why do I have this response?" In my art history courses, discussing art's formal qualities is balanced by the "history" element of the class. I repeatedly emphasize that an art work is a document that sheds light on other cultures and eras. Thus, our discussions consider the cultural, social, political, philosophical, and/or religious contexts behind the creation of a work of art.
• Generate engagement through a balance of lectures that spark curiosity (and that pose as many questions as they dispense facts and information) and conversation, and collaborative activities that have students doing/acting as well as passively listening.

Linear, Chronological Progression

• My art history classes follow a chronological progression, as I believe that this linear framework allows the student to consider and compare concurrent art movements and recognize how earlier artistic phases influence subsequent generations

Contextualization

• I also encourage my students to consider art as it would have been experienced in its original context, be it a Renaissance altarpiece in a church or a medieval prayer book in the hands of a noble. We will also consider the mindset of the artists as they articulate their style and aesthetic philosophy in visual form

Writing/Research

• I also foster student writing through a variety of exercises. I encourage students in my classes to write a journal, which I call their personal textbook, in which they recopy their notes from class, supplemented by their readings, and insert reproductions of the works for which they are responsible. I found that this “write to learn” technique, which first came to my attention in Writing across the Curriculum Workshop, greatly improves student performance. My tests emphasize writing through a major thematic essay, and students at the introductory level receive a list of questions before the exam. One of these appears on the exam, encouraging students to prepare answers for all the questions. I have continued to improve my object analysis paper assignment for my upper-level courses; I clarified the process of note-taking and required that students turn in a thesis statement and outline early in the semester, which I then help to clarify on an individual basis. In the next step, students submit a draft, which I criticize. Finally, students present a revised analytical argumentative paper. I also use this assignment as an introduction to a research paper, the capstone experience for a thematic major in art history. Students begin with an object analysis, survey the literature on their artists and object, seek primary sources, and develop and argue a thesis from this evidence, positioning a viewpoint within scholarly literature and supporting it with primary evidence.

Constructivist Active Learning Teaching Strategies

• Flipped Classroom
• Paulo Friere active learning models gamification
• Analysis and synthesis are key components of my classroom experience, so that student can actively apply concepts and materials from the course. In classroom discussions, "unknown exercises" promote critical looking, utilizing what they’ve learned to something that they have not seen before in class or their textbook
• collaborative activities that have students doing/acting as well as passively listening.
• Several years ago I began transitioning to a 'flipped' classroom as a result of reading, conferences, writing, teaching a MOOC, working in an art/design college where students are accustomed to 'doing as learning', growing work in assessment, and a lot of conversations about teaching as well as involvement with ArtHistoryTeachingResources. My teaching philosophy is that students should be actively learning, applying, and questioning the material during each class session and that approach limits the amount of time that any instructor can lecture. Most of my lectures are part of weekly homework as a result. Working on assessment means developing learning outcomes for each class, often each week, that are measurable and demonstrable and that has dramatically influenced how I teach and encouraged my progress with a flipped classroom which has been very successful.
• In recent years, I have learned from guided mentor class observation to have students keep their laptops in their bags and just have pen and paper, while I handle the technology needed. Hard for an instructor to keep at bay students flipping from class activities and their own Facebook pages, while at the same time focusing on course content: with excessive distractions, they cannot pay attention and we cannot teach. Even if we embrace Facebook to teach, at some point they need to raise their heads and view the art in the screen; basically they need to remain engaged in the classroom environment, if teaching occurs in the classroom. Within this, I apply several strategies that allow to flip the classroom from lecture mode to active learner mode several times throughout the class; I am learning strategies to keep the students' energy levels and focus high for the entire class period.
• students must feel comfortable in an environment where they can take risks and potentially fail in their initial attempts to reason through art historical material; I implement strategies that demonstrate repeatedly to my students that I trust them and that they can trust one another. More than specific facts or interpretations of works of art, I teach skills of analysis and argumentation that can be transferred to a variety of contexts beyond art history. When students successfully finish my courses, they should feel confident not only that they can speak meaningfully and think for themselves about works of art and historical eras, but also that they have the ability to ask insightful questions and make an effective case based on reliable evidence.

Role Modelling

• I am very much a traditionalist in terms of method. What works I choose to teach and/or focus on might be different, but I rely of modelling art historical approaches, methods, and thinking constantly for my students. I assume that each and every one is an art historian in training, that they will go on to enter the field and make significant contributions. So number one I take my role as teaching them not content, but the practice of the discipline (which just so happens to include necessary content). I am not concerned with facts/dates/information, but in developing their eyes and brains to think like an art historian.
• The pedagogical philosophy is rooted in taking objects seriously and teaching the students both what this means and how to do so themselves.

Artistic significance

• My teaching examines art history broadly, taking an historical approach to the material that emphasizes the sociocultural significance of the visual arts.

• Paulo Friere active learning models gamification
• My approach to teaching has been heavily influenced by my own liberal arts education with a major in art history and literature.
• Constructivist Theory and active active learning teaching strategies (Flipped Classroom) inform my teaching philosophy.
• It has also been impacted through readings in SoTL, and more recently by those becoming more available specifically on art history.
• Some of the most profound influences on my teaching have been Ken Bain and Jose Antonio Bowen.
• 'Conversation' is inspired by Kwame Appiah's use of the term as a means of opening oneself up to understanding, hearing about the perspectives of others not to reach agreement or consensus, but to become more habituated to the diversity of possibilities, ideas, positions. Studying the artistic creations produced by others, often living in radically different times and places, is a keen opportunity to practice this. (While also attempting to understand the original conditions by which the image, artifact or site was crafted -- inspired by the approach of David Summers.) Summers is also central to my thinking about curiosity (or, as he often terms it, wonder). So we aim to really know why things were made to look and function the way they do, but also to understand the situated perspectives of the works' diverse audiences, to accept that single, correct narratives might not be possible.
• I try to let my experience guide me. I aim to focus on works of art that excite me, and ones that have excited students in the past, and to looks at fewer works in greater depth than glancing superficially at lots of pieces.
• The teaching philosophy that guides my instruction is one based on experience and application of what art history can do for a student.

Bloom's Taxonomy

• I am also acutely aware of Bloom's Taxonomy with memorization at the bottom of the pyramid and application and development of theory at the top. I strive for something in the middle of the Pyramid - beyond rote memorization.

Pro:

• Teacher developed questions focus students on required readings and prepares them for significant and meaningful class discussion. Such discussion leads to student learning from each other and to expressing their own ideas specific to teacher designed questions - coming around again to assigned readings.
• Developing art historical thinking begins with modelling, thinking out loud.
• When paired with shorter lectures there are many techniques here that help students learn how to come to a work of art and engage with it intellectually. Guided questions and discussions, as well as short periods for group work, help students engage with objects in ways that are often not intimidating. I still believe there is a place for lecture as students to need a model of ways we think in art history.
• Students compliment my dynamic, enthusiastic lectures, where I often provide information outside of the scope of the textbook readings. I encourage a call-and-response Socratic dialogue in my classroom, which keeps them engaged.
• (3, 8, 4) Students write each week as part of their homework. These questions often in an initial "this is what I know about this issue/object and how I learned that", followed by reading/lecture and sometimes guided research (find one article/chapter that you think will help you understand the issue/object). Students then explain what they learned and how that information changed or influenced what they initially thought. Since this work is done in electronic portfolios, they can go back and annotate their initial work in a different color font. Students usually are also asked to post one question/issue that they think would be good for the class to discuss or know more about and why. I have all this information 24 hours before class so I know what they issues/concerns/questions are.
• I feel like learning happens best when it is student driven.
• Guiding questions are always provided at the beginning of each class period in order to frame the material and give the student a sense of over-arching themes for that day (note: the course is organized chronologically in Western art history, but each class period may have a theme that day). This is the faculty's responsibility to develop and is part of prep time.

Pro:

• I have chosen discussion first and lecture second, but really I am arguing for a lecture-discussion hybrid teaching technique. This permits important content to be presented and skills to be modeled and then offers the student the opportunity to review this content and practice these skills.
• Teacher developed questions focus students on required readings and prepares them for significant and meaningful class discussion. Such discussion leads to student learning from each other and to expressing their own ideas specific to teacher designed questions - coming around again to assigned readings.
• When paired with shorter lectures there are many techniques here that help students learn how to come to a work of art and engage with it intellectually. Guided questions and discussions, as well as short periods for group work, help students engage with objects in ways that are often not intimidating. I still believe there is a place for lecture as students to need a model of ways we think in art history.
• The first two -- Less is More, and Class Discussion -- are simple and easy to implement, requiring no support or resources. Simply cut the density of 'key works' from your syllabus. This provides a pace to the class that enables deeper and more memorable learning to happen, allows for discussion. We need to hear and be open to the questions, ideas, hypotheses and interpretations that our students offer and help them shape these to become more compelling, convincing and knowledgeable.
• I try and allow student responses to works of art to guide selection of content. I teach a large class in which lecture must play a larger role than in a smaller class where discussion can occur. But I do try and encourage some discussion even in a large class. I am currently attempting to use guiding questions and technology to stimulate greater engagement in the large lecture class, but this is in progress.
• (3, 8, 4) Students write each week as part of their homework. These questions often in an initial "this is what I know about this issue/object and how I learned that", followed by reading/lecture and sometimes guided research (find one article/chapter that you think will help you understand the issue/object). Students then explain what they learned and how that information changed or influenced what they initially thought. Since this work is done in electronic portfolios, they can go back and annotate their initial work in a different color font. Students usually are also asked to post one question/issue that they think would be good for the class to discuss or know more about and why. I have all this information 24 hours before class so I know what they issues/concerns/questions are.
• I find the class discussions very effective for various reasons: it allows me to correct misconceptions, it engages the students in a more effective way, the discussion organizes the material in a way that makes sense to the students, it helps them to articulate their ideas about art and art history.
• In-class discussion is important for students to learning to verbalize their ideas/observations about art
• First three techniques mentioned are best for in class delivery within the classroom limits of an auditorium, which is my current mode of delivery. There are many ways to implement the flipping model and keep the class engaged within these more traditional means.

Con:

• Class discussion has repeatedly been shown in the research to not be highly beneficial to the overall class. A few students always participate, and the rest sit back and let them.
• In a class of 40+ students this is sometimes difficult to manage.

Pro:

• I have chosen discussion first and lecture second, but really I am arguing for a lecture-discussion hybrid teaching technique. This permits important content to be presented and skills to be modeled and then offers the student the opportunity to review this content and practice these skills.
• Developing art historical thinking begins with modelling, thinking out loud.
• When paired with shorter lectures there are many techniques here that help students learn how to come to a work of art and engage with it intellectually. Guided questions and discussions, as well as short periods for group work, help students engage with objects in ways that are often not intimidating. I still believe there is a place for lecture as students to need a model of ways we think in art history.
• Students compliment my dynamic, enthusiastic lectures, where I often provide information outside of the scope of the textbook readings. I encourage a call-and-response Socratic dialogue in my classroom, which keeps them engaged.
• I try and allow student responses to works of art to guide selection of content. I teach a large class in which lecture must play a larger role than in a smaller class where discussion can occur. But I do try and encourage some discussion even in a large class. I am currently attempting to use guiding questions and technology to stimulate greater engagement in the large lecture class, but this is in progress.
• Students who enter into an art history survey courses usually come with no prior knowledge of art history. They do not understand history in general and therefore need to learn a significant amount of foundational knowledge (which includes vocabulary) in order to move into upper-level courses. The support given is time to research and prepare lectures.
• First three techniques mentioned are best for in class delivery within the classroom limits of an auditorium, which is my current mode of delivery. There are many ways to implement the flipping model and keep the class engaged within these more traditional means.
• These strategies accommodate a lecture audience of any size, of strikingly different backgrounds, and of various levels of experience.

Con:

• Modestly speaking, I am a terrific lecturer but I would rather use class time for applying the lecture material rather than writing it down. Lectures, like readings, are content and students often need more time to read and think about content. My job is to teach, not deliver content.
• I haven't seen the bottom three be effective in engaging students.

Pro:

• Developing art historical thinking begins with modelling, thinking out loud.
• The first two -- Less is More, and Class Discussion -- are simple and easy to implement, requiring no support or resources. Simply cut the density of 'key works' from your syllabus. This provides a pace to the class that enables deeper and more memorable learning to happen, allows for discussion
• I prefer to show them few works and go deeper in their analysis. The students generally appreciate this approach because it helps them to better understand the art work, not just in its design, but also in the rationale behind the design. This is specially useful when the art works are not necessarily attractive for the students, either because they are too remote from their experience in time or place, or they would qualify as "uncool" in their mind. Having a deeper understanding also helps them to think critically, something that is impossible if they only learn a superficial analysis of the work of art.
• I feel like learning happens best when it is student driven.
• First three techniques mentioned are best for in class delivery within the classroom limits of an auditorium, which is my current mode of delivery. There are many ways to implement the flipping model and keep the class engaged within these more traditional means.

Con:

• Less is more presents the "Canon" and does not place art history or theory in context or address the needs of artists.
• I don't give exams because they are too often regurgitation of what we tell them so the images I use or they bring in address the issues or questions of the week.

Pro:

• Visits to the campus gallery are essential and happen at least once a semester. I would like to find a way to include a greater number of visits. When possible I schedule museum/gallery visits off-campus but this is a challenge due to time and transportation problems.
• Participatory/student driven (although not necessarily through lecture); museum/gallery field trips; unknown discussions -- these all get students working hands-on with materials and thinking about art history. The more I can put agency into my students' hands, the more they are motivated to learn, and the more they learn.

Pro:

• I try and allow student responses to works of art to guide selection of content. I teach a large class in which lecture must play a larger role than in a smaller class where discussion can occur. But I do try and encourage some discussion even in a large class. I am currently attempting to use guiding questions and technology to stimulate greater engagement in the large lecture class, but this is in progress.
• (6,7) Students come to class and as a group or in smaller groups identify the questions/issues they should discuss that day.
• I feel like learning happens best when it is student driven.
• Participatory/student driven (although not necessarily through lecture); museum/gallery field trips; unknown discussions -- these all get students working hands-on with materials and thinking about art history. The more I can put agency into my students' hands, the more they are motivated to learn, and the more they learn.

Con:

• At the very bottom of my list is "participatory/student driven." Any course needs to address the level of the students basic skills, but students entering a survey course are not required to have any content knowledge and most do not. I also think good professors always respond to student interest and continuous interaction with pupils, but a course cannot be "driven" by students, as they do not know enough to determine the material--that is why they are students. The chronological meta-narrative is essential as a foundation before students can pursue their interests.
• Some techniques are possible in a smaller classroom, but unrealistic for large groups.
• The participatory-driven model is more difficult to do with so many students. I do send out a survey the first day to find out what art, artists, styles, periods, students are interested in and try to take those into account. When possible I also emphasize things that students have responded to in earlier class sessions.
• 'art labs', collaborative work, on-site visits (and most everything else on this list) to happen. In my experience, the #1 issue that derails younger instructors is trying to do to much -- cover too much content -- in a single semester, running at break-neck speed and thus overwhelming students with lots of information that is scattered and superficial. In these environments, one also loses sight of the course's learning objectives.
• Student Driven - because there is an enormous amount of material to cover in the art history survey, it is impossible to make the class totally student driven. First and foremost, students don't know the history of art and therefore cannot direct the content. They have a book, but few actually seem to read it. Within certain periods there is time to slow down and allow students to direct content to a small degree, in that if they seem interested we spend more time and go more in-depth with certain material. But again, with a class of 40+ students, this is sometimes difficult to do. It is much easier in upper-level courses.

Pro:

• Unknown activities prompt an easy way to apply gained knowledge to a work outside of the classroom, and is yet another means of prompting discussion.
• Participatory/student driven (although not necessarily through lecture); museum/gallery field trips; unknown discussions -- these all get students working hands-on with materials and thinking about art history. The more I can put agency into my students' hands, the more they are motivated to learn, and the more they learn.
• These strategies accommodate a lecture audience of any size, of strikingly different backgrounds, and of various levels of experience.

Con:

• Unknown artworks also tests student knowledge of the Canon, unless it is an art critical exercise, of which I am in full support.
• I find that most art/objects in any art history class with the exception of the most canonical (and parodied) are unknown to the students.
• Just not certain that they engage the student in the course materials as well as those ranked towards the top.

Pro:

• Number 3 for me is interdisciplinary instruction because it expands the contextual meaning of the work, offers multiple and even conflicting interpretations of object (read critical thinking skills), and finally engages students with many different interests.
• Since my goal is that students gain a deeper understanding of art works, interdisciplinary instruction is a necessity. The explanation of the reasons behind the choices made by the artists are connected to all branches of humanities: history, politics, literature, philosophy, religion...
• These strategies accommodate a lecture audience of any size, of strikingly different backgrounds, and of various levels of experience.

Con:

• I placed interdisciplinary instruction last because as an art historian my discussions already incorporate the work of other disciplines, so it seemed a bit redundant.
• I haven't seen the bottom three be effective in engaging students.
• Interdisciplinary Instruction - while I think this would be a positive approach, at my institution it is not possible for faculty to fully collaborate. This is driven by a faculty contract which has not address collaborative teaching. On the flip side, I could see collaborating with a history professor in general education, but we do not offer history courses. I do sometimes works with a written rhetoric (freshman writing) professor and try to create writing assignments that cross both classes, but again this is difficult because not every student in my AH survey courses (44+ students) is in a written rhetoric courses (max 20 students).

Pro:

• Third and fourth are very close as our 'art labs' often involve direct engagement with works of art. The experiential or on-site learning is central as it activates the students and thus increases their learning potential, compels them to address the lived material conditions of the things being studied. It also enfranchises them, helps them to develop the skills they need to participate in art history's discourse rather than sit on the side as passive observers.
• These strategies accommodate a lecture audience of any size, of strikingly different backgrounds, and of various levels of experience.

Con:

• Experiential learning sounds intriguing, but I don't understand exactly what this would consist of.
• 'art labs', collaborative work, on-site visits (and most everything else on this list) to happen. In my experience, the #1 issue that derails younger instructors is trying to do to much -- cover too much content -- in a single semester, running at break-neck speed and thus overwhelming students with lots of information that is scattered and superficial. In these environments, one also loses sight of the course's learning objectives.
• Role Playing, Experiential learning and group work are not viable in a large class. I try and incorporate group projects when I have the opportunity to teach a smaller section.

Pro:

• When paired with shorter lectures there are many techniques here that help students learn how to come to a work of art and engage with it intellectually. Guided questions and discussions, as well as short periods for group work, help students engage with objects in ways that are often not intimidating. I still believe there is a place for lecture as students to need a model of ways we think in art history.
• (6,7) Students come to class and as a group or in smaller groups identify the questions/issues they should discuss that day.

Con:

• Some techniques are possible in a smaller classroom, but unrealistic for large groups.
• Role playing/group work has mixed results, mainly due to either reserved/introverted art students and/or apathetic students who "pull down" the momentum of the rest of the group.
• 'art labs', collaborative work, on-site visits (and most everything else on this list) to happen. In my experience, the #1 issue that derails younger instructors is trying to do to much -- cover too much content -- in a single semester, running at break-neck speed and thus overwhelming students with lots of information that is scattered and superficial. In these environments, one also loses sight of the course's learning objectives.
• Role Playing, Experiential learning and group work are not viable in a large class. I try and incorporate group projects when I have the opportunity to teach a smaller section.
• I tried the group work for a while, for long-term homework projects like papers, but it was unsuccessful, as some blamed others for not doing their part or for not showing up at meetings. I am definitely not in favor of substituting content lecture with readiness tests and of dividing the class in groups of 4 to be kept throughout the semester, as some students drop in the middle of the semester. Too many variables, hard to control and I would definitely not release the entire responsibility of course success to students in order to make a course an active-learning one. I successfully use pair share as flipping strategy for brief discussions in class, but I do not believe it qualifies as 'group work', which I think of as a more substantial project to work on.

Pro:

• I find it useful to be able to demonstrate in person (or have another artist demonstrate) how certain works of art are made: for instance, the students understand what a woodblock print is much better if they can watch one be made in front of them.

Con:

• Multi-Modal Engagement is third from the bottom on my list. I do think it is important to engage students in multiple kinds of activities and with different media--slides, video, panoramas, music etc. But this idea is still to entertainment focused. I see many of the above criticisms as applicable here as well.
• Multi-modal: this is the opposite side of the spectrum, where I see the course instructor doing an immense amount of work additional to content to try to make it fun. It obviously depends on what it means. For instance, I have never tried to build games (and have no time to engage that), so I wonder how to do that and how much is their level of effectiveness from those instructors that tried? I believe this is being developed more at an experimental stage, but I am not sure whether it can be engaged by all instructors in this current moment.
• The limit of time, the large size of the lecture course (plus sections), and the variety of student backgrounds make the lowest rank strategies impractical and unworkable.

Pro:

• (2,5,4) I design role playing situations and simulations that they students participate in. These have proven to be the most successful because the students have to discuss among themselves, argue, defend. I step in as a guide if the information needs clarification, to add another complication to the simulation, to interject any needed material. That interjection often is a very short mini-lecture (5 minutes) that gives them information they need to move ahead with the role playing/simulation.
  
  I like to develop simulations which often involve role playing, but generally include some kind of ethical issue and force students to reach some kind of a conclusion or consensus. I also have students make presentations on issues/objects/movements and these presentations are usually collaborative and must involve some kind of media (powerpoints, prezis, videos that the students make). I also have students write reflections about the class session or discuss how successful the specific pedagogical approach was or was not and how it could be improved.

Con:

• Role-Playing could also be at the bottom of the list and actually seems quite silly to me. We still have the problem of students needing to know the content and skills before using them. But this approach, if I am understanding it correctly, also seems to pander in the most ridiculous way to "student Interest" or "the way students learn today." Just because we perceive that student like to play games, doesn't mean life or learning is a game. Students need to be able to sit still, take notes, engage in discussion for at least an hour. These are skills employers require and playing games just doesn't get you there.
• Some techniques are possible in a smaller classroom, but unrealistic for large groups.
• I really like the idea of role playing and hope to get to <> to see if it can be done successfully with one facilitator and 100 or so students but at this time it isn't practical for me to implement.
• Role playing/group work has mixed results, mainly due to either reserved/introverted art students and/or apathetic students who "pull down" the momentum of the rest of the group.
• Role Playing, Experiential learning and group work are not viable in a large class. I try and incorporate group projects when I have the opportunity to teach a smaller section.
• Role Playing - while I am familiar with this method, it does not work in the art history survey. Students do not have the understanding and context to fully engage in a role playing scenerio, and there is no time to successfully engage in a role playing situation. If I were to do this, and do it well, it would take weeks to set it up. This method is more useful in an advanced course.
• I recently tried the role-playing once, and l decided not to try again until I understand this better. Perhaps other instructors can use this technique much better than me. I have some reservations on this, because if not done properly, it can become trivial and not add anything to the understanding of the discipline (ex, when role-playing in front of an artwork can turn into a mockery). It could become one fun moment to re-energize the class, but some students may not want to go up and perform. There are many possible complications, so it really needs to be done properly.
• The limit of time, the large size of the lecture course (plus sections), and the variety of student backgrounds make the lowest rank strategies impractical and unworkable.

Pro:

• (3, 8, 4) Students write each week as part of their homework. These questions often in an initial "this is what I know about this issue/object and how I learned that", followed by reading/lecture and sometimes guided research (find one article/chapter that you think will help you understand the issue/object). Students then explain what they learned and how that information changed or influenced what they initially thought. Since this work is done in electronic portfolios, they can go back and annotate their initial work in a different color font. Students usually are also asked to post one question/issue that they think would be good for the class to discuss or know more about and why. I have all this information 24 hours before class so I know what they issues/concerns/questions are.

Con:

• My courses are not big enough to necessitate a course blog, though I do utilize Canvas (a web platform for educators) to provide readings, slide presentations (after I have delivered them in class), and sometimes supplementary images, videos, etc. I do not feel that my students possess enough confidence in themselves or their grasp of the material to drive the course content themselves, though I believe this would be an admirable goal to work towards.
• Blogs do not meet my needs. (I use Blackboard as a "hybrid" way of delivering assignments - especially during snow storms!)
• Next semester I am planning to try using a shared Google spreadsheet (real-time course blog) to do collaborative work, although I'm not sure how it will work in a large class.
• Online/hybrid materials are not a component of my face-to-face courses.
• I really think all strategies on this list have much potential to enrich the learning experience. I ranked multi-modal and blogs lower only because I have less experience with them (in the case of the former) or don't use them as often (in the latter.) We do have students post assignments on a blog, but we have not yet engaged in using it as a discussion board that's monitored.
• I have found that the students really do not engage meaningfully with the blogs. They are too busy with other assignments to spend time contributing to it. Perhaps making it part of the grade will work better, but my experience about blogs has not yielded particularly good results. Answers were ill-thought and formulaic, hence "killing" the threads.
• Just not certain that they engage the student in the course materials as well as those ranked towards the top.
• I haven't seen the bottom three be effective in engaging students.
• The limit of time, the large size of the lecture course (plus sections), and the variety of student backgrounds make the lowest rank strategies impractical and unworkable.

• In my view, the most important factor for choosing instructional techniques is class size. I see three basic categories provided in the data: small classes under 35, strange medium size classes of anywhere between 35 and 100, and large classes of 200 or more. My selection is based on the category that I teach and know best--under 35 students. I have taught classes of 50-55 and employed the techniques that I have chosen, but with diminishing returns. Finally, I do not think a medium or large class, regardless of the instruction techniques, can achieve the same quality of outcomes as a small class, provided all are equally well taught.
• Some techniques are possible in a smaller classroom, but unrealistic for large groups.
• One reason I selected these techniques is that I can implement them on my own in a large class.
• What would really help is to have a TA who could assist in my 95-112 person classes.
• I try and allow student responses to works of art to guide selection of content. I teach a large class in which lecture must play a larger role than in a smaller class where discussion can occur. But I do try and encourage some discussion even in a large class. I am currently attempting to use guiding questions and technology to stimulate greater engagement in the large lecture class, but this is in progress.
• Role Playing, Experiential learning and group work are not viable in a large class. I try and incorporate group projects when I have the opportunity to teach a smaller section.
• In-class discussion is important for students to learning to verbalize their ideas/observations about art, although in a class of 40+ students this is sometimes difficult to manage.
• First three techniques mentioned are best for in class delivery within the classroom limits of an auditorium, which is my current mode of delivery. There are many ways to implement the flipping model and keep the class engaged within these more traditional means.
• The limit of time, the large size of the lecture course (plus sections), and the variety of student backgrounds make the lowest rank strategies impractical and unworkable.

• Teacher developed questions focus students on required readings and prepares them for significant and meaningful class discussion. Such discussion leads to student learning from each other and to expressing their own ideas specific to teacher designed questions - coming around again to assigned readings.
• When paired with shorter lectures there are many techniques here that help students learn how to come to a work of art and engage with it intellectually. Guided questions and discussions, as well as short periods for group work, help students engage with objects in ways that are often not intimidating. I still believe there is a place for lecture as students to need a model of ways we think in art history.
• I currently send students to the museum to do assignments on their own but think I might be able to have them do a sort of Art-Lab, as described above, but in peer-review groups.
• Describing the top three is difficult since I regularly incorporate the top six. The course learning outcomes always involve critical thinking, written communication, information literacy, and whatever specific course content is involved. Since I do this for every art history class, that content changes. To best describe how these six are accomplished:
  
  (3, 8, 4) Students write each week as part of their homework. These questions often in an initial "this is what I know about this issue/object and how I learned that", followed by reading/lecture and sometimes guided research (find one article/chapter that you think will help you understand the issue/object). Students then explain what they learned and how that information changed or influenced what they initially thought. Since this work is done in electronic portfolios, they can go back and annotate their initial work in a different color font. Students usually are also asked to post one question/issue that they think would be good for the class to discuss or know more about and why. I have all this information 24 hours before class so I know what they issues/concerns/questions are.
  
  (6,7) Students come to class and as a group or in smaller groups identify the questions/issues they should discuss that day.
  
  (2,5,4) I design role playing situations and simulations that they students participate in. These have proven to be the most successful because the students have to discuss among themselves, argue, defend. I step in as a guide if the information needs clarification, to add another complication to the simulation, to interject any needed material. That interjection often is a very short mini-lecture (5 minutes) that gives them information they need to move ahead with the role playing/simulation.
  
  There is always a summation at the end: what did you learn? what has changed in your thinking about the issue/object?
  
  (2) I like to develop simulations which often involve role playing, but generally include some kind of ethical issue and force students to reach some kind of a conclusion or consensus. I also have students make presentations on issues/objects/movements and these presentations are usually collaborative and must involve some kind of media (powerpoints, prezis, videos that the students make). I also have students write reflections about the class session or discuss how successful the specific pedagogical approach was or was not and how it could be improved.

• I do not feel that my students possess enough confidence in themselves or their grasp of the material to drive the course content themselves, though I believe this would be an admirable goal to work towards.
• The difficulty with an art history course lies in the fact that students are not engaged with the material, any instructional techniques that are used to assist in engaging them serve a valuable purpose.
• The limit of time, the large size of the lecture course (plus sections), and the variety of student backgrounds make the lowest rank strategies impractical and unworkable.

• I really think all strategies on this list have much potential to enrich the learning experience. I ranked multi-modal and blogs lower only because I have less experience with them (in the case of the former) or don't use them as often (in the latter.) We do have students post assignments on a blog, but we have not yet engaged in using it as a discussion board that's monitored.
• I am not familiar with Multi-Modal Engagement.
• I have not tried the other two, so that is why they are at the end of the list.
• I recently tried the role-playing once, and l decided not to try again until I understand this better. Perhaps other instructors can use this technique much better than me. I have some reservations on this, because if not done properly, it can become trivial and not add anything to the understanding of the discipline (ex, when role-playing in front of an artwork can turn into a mockery).

Pro:

• These three require the greatest personal initiative, independent thinking, and flexibility.
• Analysis of a Personally Viewable Artistic Artifact - throughout the art history survey course, students practice analyzing works in class. The only drawback to this is we are looking at digital images that may be many times removed from the original. I always assign a visual analysis paper in survey so that students can go to a museum/gallery and view a work in person. In Survey II student then they write a paper that takes a formal analysis and builds it into a basic research paper, so that they are then prepared to move into upper-level courses. Visual Analysis is the basis for any art historical inquiry where the object is the main focus, and yet few students have really engaged with an object for more than a few minutes (at the most). This assignment gets them to really LOOK at a specific object over time and then practice describing it because translating something from a visual language to a textual language is one of the most vital tasks of the art historian. Most art historians at some point describe fully and accurately their objects of study in order to communicate their ideas about them.
• Critical thinking is best practiced through writing and revision, so my top 3 involve extensive writing activities. Support for successful implementation includes not too large class sizes and good writing center support.
• The analysis of a personally viewable art work is a similarly excellent way to allow students to describe and analyze works using key vocabulary and hypothesizing context. I usually give this type of assignment as part of a gallery assignment.
• Seeing and studying art objects in person is what we do as professional art historians. The practice is important for modeling professional skills and students learn best by doing this work for themselves. At one time I had access to the High Museum of Art in Atlanta and required students to select an object to write about, generally from a special exhibition. At the end of the semester I always gave an extra credit question asking what was their favorite work of art from the course. About 85% of the time it was the one they spent the most time with, saw in person, and wrote about from the museum visit. Besides creating a connection to the work of art, seeing art in person helps students begin to feel comfortable in museums. This is extremely important to cultivate a generation that views museums/galleries/cities as spaces meant for them and art and visual culture as accessible to all people.
• As before, assessments must match the objectives, the assignments. My assignments are active and engaging, thus the assessment must be of the same ilk.

Con:

• Have not addressed 9 much in courses.

Pro:

• Comparison essay: it is absolutely needed, as to me compare-contrast is the major emphasis of the course that engages the context on a deeper level.
• Students practice in class and then demonstrate on exams their ability to take the information they learn about one object and compare it to another object (sometimes of the same time period, or a different culture, or across time). This allows students to take their ability to visual analyze a work and compare objects, but then they go beyond this in thinking about context and why the works looks a particular way.
• Critical thinking is best practiced through writing and revision, so my top 3 involve extensive writing activities. Support for successful implementation includes not too large class sizes and good writing center support.
• The comparison essay is the type of assignment I give most frequently. It develops skills in critical thinking and writing. Students must employ the vocabulary of the visual elements and principles of design, and consider the context of the works. It is a straightforward assignment and can be effectively modeled, so it is typically the first assignment given in the semester.
• They are easy ways to assess acquired knowledge, and easy ways to get students to synthesize ideas and critically compare works of art discussed in class.
• Students need to write more in order to connect ideas and make arguments. I am less interested in facts and dates, but ideas. And these require time and space to develop.
• Second for me is a comparative essay as it requires students to exercise many of the analytical skills required and at the same time develop writing skills. I assign a comparitive essay in the first week after we model the activity in class, grade it as quickly as possible and then include a comparison on the final we had not done in class.

Con:

• Exams, slide id's, comparison essays (either as exams or papers) are predicated on memorization (rapid loss of material following exam) and, in the case of papers, far too subject to formulaic arguments, plagiarism, and regurgitation of course content. Both strike me as remnants of very traditional art history geared for a different student population. Worked then; does not now.

Pro:

• I like the journal because it allows me to check specific skills or knowledge that I think are important for the students, in short manageable answers. Through Blackboard I can give them personalized feedback and ask them to re-write according to my feedback. In other cases, the journals are used to create stages for a larger research project.
• My top three reinforce learning outcomes of critical thinking, written communication, relevancy, and course content. I find that in introductory courses (and in most art colleges even upper art history courses are introductory in that there is no specific scaffolding of content), it is important for students to see the relevance of the course content to their fields and majors. Millennials often learn best though trial and error, group work, game theory and activities that engage them and allow them to find connections between the content and themselves/majors are the most successful learning pedagogies.
• I still believe that writing plays an important role in working through difficult ideas and new material -- a way of thinking in and of itself, that results in a product through which the instructor can then trace this train of thought or the paths used by the student to reason and form conclusions. I am increasingly doubtful that the traditional and formal visual analysis paper is the best way to do this, however. Increasingly, I rely on numerous short pieces of analytical writing that are posted on a blog for all students in the class to see. This generates an archive and conversation, giving evidence to the work that's being done by all in the class, and the public forum gives a heightened accountability as their work will be seen by a broader audience. The tone and writing produced in these assignments is often more engaging.
• As before, assessments must match the objectives, the assignments. My assignments are active and engaging, thus the assessment must be of the same ilk.
• For three I have note taking, as this is a basic skill that allows you to achieve in any class and is also a way to learn, but what I have in mind is an exercise similar to what I think I have ranked as number four is--writing journal or blog. I encourage students in my classes to write a journal, which I call their personal textbook, in which they recopy their notes from class, supplemented by their readings, and insert reproductions of the works for which they are responsible.

Con:

• All three (and several more) diminish the educational enterprise.

Pro:

• These three require the greatest personal initiative, independent thinking, and flexibility.
• I think that this assignment engages students.
• Critical analysis is the best way to assess how the students "think" about art. In order to do it well they need to put in practice their visual analytical skills, their knowledge of the context in which the art work was produced, and invites them to think independently. A bonus: they learn to articulate their ideas and build arguments based on facts.
• I also give students the opportunity to select the work they want to assess from their own local world -- and it need not be 'art' as defined by the institutional frame of a museum. In this way, they are advocating for their image, artifact or site and explaining why it's relevant to themes addressed in the class. When I teach the class to a smaller group, the longer research project in which the student writes on something inherently unfamiliar and "unknown" has been particularly successful as it requires them to muster their nascent skills and engage with an object that's drawn their curiosity. They think not only about the thing itself and its context, but also the process itself -- what it means to encounter and study something that's relatively strange.
• They are easy ways to assess acquired knowledge, and easy ways to get students to synthesize ideas and critically compare works of art discussed in class.
• Students need to write more in order to connect ideas and make arguments. I am less interested in facts and dates, but ideas. And these require time and space to develop.
• As before, assessments must match the objectives, the assignments. My assignments are active and engaging, thus the assessment must be of the same ilk.

Con:

• I have students analyze a single artifact formally, but do not have them take it to the point of critically think about the content that they are engaging with. This would be the next step, and so I have students practice writing visual analysis papers, as they learn to be writers and practice research skills in preparation for a more advanced essay in a 200-400 level course.
• Critical analysis essays are similarly problematic to research / term papers; students don't perceive that they need to produce any critical thinking, even when that is explicitly called for.
• The critical analysis essays as described here are rather lengthy and the grading time for 100 students rather unwieldy. I have had students do short 250-350 critical analysis essays.

Pro:

• My top three reinforce learning outcomes of critical thinking, written communication, relevancy, and course content. I find that in introductory courses (and in most art colleges even upper art history courses are introductory in that there is no specific scaffolding of content), it is important for students to see the relevance of the course content to their fields and majors. Millennials often learn best though trial and error, group work, game theory and activities that engage them and allow them to find connections between the content and themselves/majors are the most successful learning pedagogies.
• I also give students the opportunity to select the work they want to assess from their own local world -- and it need not be 'art' as defined by the institutional frame of a museum. In this way, they are advocating for their image, artifact or site and explaining why it's relevant to themes addressed in the class. When I teach the class to a smaller group, the longer research project in which the student writes on something inherently unfamiliar and "unknown" has been particularly successful as it requires them to muster their nascent skills and engage with an object that's drawn their curiosity. They think not only about the thing itself and its context, but also the process itself -- what it means to encounter and study something that's relatively strange.

Pro:

• These three require the greatest personal initiative, independent thinking, and flexibility.
• Note-taking: this is excellent to keep student focused. I even distribute index cards and have them take bullet points on videos, which become the departure point for discussion and further digging into the day's content.
• Students need to write more in order to connect ideas and make arguments. I am less interested in facts and dates, but ideas. And these require time and space to develop.
• For three I have note taking, as this is a basic skill that allows you to achieve in any class and is also a way to learn, but what I have in mind is an exercise similar to what I think I have ranked as number four is--writing journal or blog. I encourage students in my classes to write a journal, which I call their personal textbook, in which they recopy their notes from class, supplemented by their readings, and insert reproductions of the works for which they are responsible.

Con:

• Our students are largely completely unprepared and inexperienced in effective note taking, and their notes rarely reflect critical, independent analysis; they also give students the illusion of mastery of the material, i.e. if it's in their notes, they must know it, which has repeatedly been proven false in studies.
• Not effective with students learning and retaining of the art history specific materials linked to the course competencies.
• I have never considered note taking as a graded assignment

Pro:

• I agree that multiple choice exams are dictated by circumstances. They range from class size, time management, class composition (non majors), content-driven course. They are less desirable, but more practical and can still work in this content-intensive lower-division class.
• I do give regular exams but have moved away from multi choice and straight image identification. I give short answer exams where students identify a work and then answer a specific questions about that image, or explain what they think is most significant about the work.
• I use multiple choice tests because they are easy to grade and, if carefully thought out, allow me to test their understanding of key concepts and vocabulary. Generally I apply it to knowledge that is necessary to move further in the material of the course.
• They are easy ways to assess acquired knowledge, and easy ways to get students to synthesize ideas and critically compare works of art discussed in class.
• One for me is an exam, but one that includes a section on slide ids where students need to know identifying material and the major part is a thematic essay. Students receive a list of questions before the exam, and one of these appears on the exam, encouraging students to prepare answers for all the questions. These questions require students to weave images from the book into their answer, and the list questions themselves cover all the material for that section of the class. This forces students to master all the content for the class and demonstrate they have mastered all shills except oral communication. I offer to read and criticize answers before the exam, so students have the opportunity for feedback, but the responsibility is theirs.

Con:

• Exams, slide id's, comparison essays (either as exams or papers) are predicated on memorization (rapid loss of material following exam) and, in the case of papers, far too subject to formulaic arguments, plagiarism, and regurgitation of course content. Both strike me as remnants of very traditional art history geared for a different student population. Worked then; does not now.
• I ranked multiple choice/quizzes low. Regardless of how well you attempt to script these, they are exercises in memorization. Individuals you encounter who took an art history class in college usually have one of two responses - they either loved the class and became fascinated by the diversity of works they encounter, or they hated 'art in the dark' and having to memorize all of those names, dates, etc. And so very few actually remember this detail. It might be the most expeditious form of assessment if tasked with teaching a large class, but I don't believe this outweighs the deadening effect to which this method of evaluation can lead.
• Memorization, instead of active engagement, (Bloom's Taxonomy) is not a useful or meaningful assessment of my teaching or of student learning.

Pro:

• I think that this method engages students. It allows studnets to learn from eachother, and I have seen this to be very effective.
• These assignments engage the students in the art history curriculum and subject matter.
• My top three reinforce learning outcomes of critical thinking, written communication, relevancy, and course content. I find that in introductory courses (and in most art colleges even upper art history courses are introductory in that there is no specific scaffolding of content), it is important for students to see the relevance of the course content to their fields and majors. Millennials often learn best though trial and error, group work, game theory and activities that engage them and allow them to find connections between the content and themselves/majors are the most successful learning pedagogies.

Con:

• All three (and several more) diminish the educational enterprise.
• Depending on the type of game designed. Some games described in the feedback look more like flipping strategies. I think at game as something that affects students' engagement with content in a much more deeper way than flipping, but that is also very time-consuming on the side of the instructor as course designer.
• I realize this is the new "thing" in art history, but it just does not work in a large class. Students are not prepared and don't have the background knowledge to engage with the material in an experiential/role playing manner. In order to do this, a significant amount of time would need to be given over from regular class material in order to focus on one game. I have tried something similar to this and found that while a few student engaged with the material, most did not and were not interested in fully participating.
• Group projects and role playing do not work well in large classes.
• I'm also a bit wary of role playing or assignments/activities that verge close to the theatrical as only very particular students are enervated by this type of activity (the extroverts) and many student tend to find the assignment itself forced or overly scripted.
• I am not a fan of edutainment in the classroom.
• For my numbers twelve-Scavenger Hunt, eleven--Art History Games / Role Playing, and ten-Creative Re-Interpretation, I have a common criticism, and that is this seems to me the infantilization of college education. When my daughter was four, I took her preschool class on a trip to a local museum and did a scavenger hunt, and she and her classmates loved it! At twenty now, and a minor in art history at a SUNY school, she laughed hysterically at this idea. I do stress, however, there may be ways to weave the idea of gaming, or role playing into a class, but it would always have to be a very small portion of the class--1% or so.

Pro:

• I think that this method engages students. It allows studnets to learn from eachother, and I have seen this to be very effective.

Con:

• Term papers / research projects are generally useless, or at best time sinks, for professors, because half the students have learned that writing a research paper means copying from the internet, and includes very little critical analysis.
• Not effective with students learning and retaining of the art history specific materials linked to the course competencies.
• In my experience, group research projects do not work well because the students have difficulties finding a suitable time to get together, and some students do most of the work while others just take advantage of the former. Generally, generally students end up dividing the work to be done without ever interacting with each other or discussing the material.
• Group projects and role playing do not work well in large classes.
• In smaller classes and with more advanced students group projects might work better. It is a little easier to assess the contributions of all the members under those circumstances. Low-stakes or no-stakes group work (think, pair, share; short discussions or debates) is fine but not a major research project.
• Group research projects are, I feel, not appropriate for an introductory-level course; I do assign them routinely in advanced courses.

Pro:

• These assignments engage the students in the art history curriculum and subject matter.
• I often give a final assignment which allows students to imagine themselves as an artist and formulate an imaginary work they would create. They must describe the work in detail and compare it to real works. It is a project which can touch upon many different things examined in a survey course, encouraging critical and creative thinking.

Con:

• are we talking about history, or about art-making? I believe that, due to the huge breadth and the unavoidable relative 'superficial' nature of a survey course, creativity can be engaged up to a certain extent, to allow students to learn the process of connecting, interpreting and evaluating, but not to the point of misrepresenting real facts.
• I don't give "research" projects in art history survey. Students struggle with visual analysis and getting a basic understanding of the material, and as freshman are not prepared to do research that connects a work of art to artistic practice, theory, and history while engaging their own personal creative direction. At my college students are very creative and creating works in the many studio classes, so they are already overwhelm with creating works. I have tried something like this, but was disappointed with the results and many students did not feel prepared to take the material to this point.
• Creative projects are intensely problematic for grading/assessment, and are a crap shoot as to whether they create any sort of meaningful, critical, reflective learning on the students' parts. Group projects are in themselves extremely problematic, if only logistically, because they shift students' focus from learning onto whether or not they will be graded fairly.
• Other assessments listed here "creative re-interpretation" are vague--I am not fully sure of the purpose of this type of assessment.
• For non-artists creative reinterpretation is very intimidating, especially when it's for a grade.
• I don't know what "creative reinterpretation" means in an undergraduate context.
• I am not a fan of edutainment in the classroom.
• For my numbers twelve-Scavenger Hunt, eleven--Art History Games / Role Playing, and ten-Creative Re-Interpretation, I have a common criticism, and that is this seems to me the infantilization of college education. When my daughter was four, I took her preschool class on a trip to a local museum and did a scavenger hunt, and she and her classmates loved it! At twenty now, and a minor in art history at a SUNY school, she laughed hysterically at this idea. I do stress, however, there may be ways to weave the idea of gaming, or role playing into a class, but it would always have to be a very small portion of the class--1% or so.

Pro:

• These assignments engage the students in the art history curriculum and subject matter.
• Seeing and studying art objects in person is what we do as professional art historians. The practice is important for modeling professional skills and students learn best by doing this work for themselves. At one time I had access to the High Museum of Art in Atlanta and required students to select an object to write about, generally from a special exhibition. At the end of the semester I always gave an extra credit question asking what was their favorite work of art from the course. About 85% of the time it was the one they spent the most time with, saw in person, and wrote about from the museum visit. Besides creating a connection to the work of art, seeing art in person helps students begin to feel comfortable in museums. This is extremely important to cultivate a generation that views museums/galleries/cities as spaces meant for them and art and visual culture as accessible to all people.

Con:

• All three (and several more) diminish the educational enterprise.
• My knowledge of this technique is very limited at best, so it depends on how the game is created. At the same time, if the exclusive purpose is memorization of artists, artwork titles and dates, I wonder how much class time it takes, and how it aids in helping students to acquire other skills beyond basic factual information. Are we teaching a list of dates to memorize for a test, or are we showing why knowing what happened at some point in time allows us to orient ourselves in epochal changes that affected art, think about those changes, and also making broader comparisons? Basically, is the emphasis of the course on the mere memorization of facts, or is it on understanding of changes and correlations?
• Scavenger hunts can produce largely superficial learning; while useful as in-class activities, they aren't substantial enough for assignments; they can be used nicely to introduce students to material, but not for demonstrating meaningful, engaged learning.
• I have not tried these and doubt that they would be effective or engaging
• I like the concept of the scavenger hunt if it can be directed so that students find images/object/sites that productively or effectively connect to class themes or concepts. I've found that if given too much leeway, simply going out into the world and connecting something in the media or local experience to the course often results in students selecting the first thing they stumble across and making connections that are only thin and tenuous.
• Scavenger hunts, while feasible at colleges that are close to museums, are not possible at my small-town community college.
• I don't have the option of conducting a scavenger hunt, because I presume this is a museum-based activity, and the only resource I have for my students is our small on-campus contemporary art gallery.
• I am not a fan of edutainment in the classroom.
• For my numbers twelve-Scavenger Hunt, eleven--Art History Games / Role Playing, and ten-Creative Re-Interpretation, I have a common criticism, and that is this seems to me the infantilization of college education. When my daughter was four, I took her preschool class on a trip to a local museum and did a scavenger hunt, and she and her classmates loved it! At twenty now, and a minor in art history at a SUNY school, she laughed hysterically at this idea. I do stress, however, there may be ways to weave the idea of gaming, or role playing into a class, but it would always have to be a very small portion of the class--1% or so.

• I agree that multiple choice exams are dictated by circumstances. They range from class size, time management, class composition (non majors), content-driven course. They are less desirable, but more practical and can still work in this content-intensive lower-division class.
• Art History games/role playing - I realize this is the new "thing" in art history, but it just does not work in a large class.
• Support for successful implementation includes not too large class sizes and good writing center support.
• Group projects and role playing do not work well in large classes.
• When I teach the class to a smaller group, the longer research project in which the student writes on something inherently unfamiliar and "unknown" has been particularly successful as it requires them to muster their nascent skills and engage with an object that's drawn their curiosity.
• Multiple Choice Exams: It might be the most expeditious form of assessment if tasked with teaching a large class, but I don't believe this outweighs the deadening effect to which this method of evaluation can lead.
• In smaller classes and with more advanced students group projects might work better.

• I agree that multiple choice exams are dictated by circumstances. They range from class size, time management, class composition (non majors), content-driven course. They are less desirable, but more practical and can still work in this content-intensive lower-division class.
• In Survey II student then they write a paper that takes a formal analysis and builds it into a basic research paper, so that they are then prepared to move into upper-level courses.
• I don't give "research" projects in art history survey. Students struggle with visual analysis and getting a basic understanding of the material, and as freshman are not prepared to do research that connects a work of art to artistic practice, theory, and history while engaging their own personal creative direction. At my college students are very creative and creating works in the many studio classes, so they are already overwhelm with creating works. I have tried something like this, but was disappointed with the results and many students did not feel prepared to take the material to this point.
• I have students practice writing visual analysis papers, as they learn to be writers and practice research skills in preparation for a more advanced essay in a 200-400 level course.
• Students are not prepared and don't have the background knowledge to engage with the material in an experiential/role playing manner.
• Term papers / research projects are generally useless, or at best time sinks, for professors, because half the students have learned that writing a research paper means copying from the internet, and includes very little critical analysis.
• Our students are largely completely unprepared and inexperienced in effective note taking, and their notes rarely reflect critical, independent analysis; they also give students the illusion of mastery of the material, i.e. if it's in their notes, they must know it, which has repeatedly been proven false in studies.
• My top three reinforce learning outcomes of critical thinking, written communication, relevancy, and course content. I find that in introductory courses (and in most art colleges even upper art history courses are introductory in that there is no specific scaffolding of content), it is important for students to see the relevance of the course content to their fields and majors. Millennials often learn best though trial and error, group work, game theory and activities that engage them and allow them to find connections between the content and themselves/majors are the most successful learning pedagogies.
• Group research projects are, I feel, not appropriate for an introductory-level course; I do assign them routinely in advanced courses.

• Note-taking: this is excellent to keep student focused. I even distribute index cards and have them take bullet points on videos, which become the departure point for discussion and further digging into the day's content.
• Games: depending on the type of game designed. Some games described in the feedback look more like flipping strategies. I think at game as something that affects students' engagement with content in a much more deeper way than flipping, but that is also very time-consuming on the side of the instructor as course designer.
• Creative re-interpretation: are we talking about history, or about art-making? I believe that, due to the huge breadth and the unavoidable relative 'superficial' nature of a survey course, creativity can be engaged up to a certain extent, to allow students to learn the process of connecting, interpreting and evaluating, but not to the point of misrepresenting real facts.
• Visual Analysis is the basis for any art historical inquiry where the object is the main focus, and yet few students have really engaged with an object for more than a few minutes (at the most).
• (Games): I have tried something similar to this and found that while a few student engaged with the material, most did not and were not interested in fully participating.
• I think that the top three engage students.
• I have not tried these and doubt that they would be effective or engaging
• These assignments engage the students in the art history curriculum and subject matter.
• This generates an archive and conversation, giving evidence to the work that's being done by all in the class, and the public forum gives a heightened accountability as their work will be seen by a broader audience. The tone and writing produced in these assignments is often more engaging.
• As before, assessments must match the objectives, the assignments. My assignments are active and engaging, thus the assessment must be of the same ilk.

• Games: depending on the type of game designed. Some games described in the feedback look more like flipping strategies. I think at game as something that affects students' engagement with content in a much more deeper way than flipping, but that is also very time-consuming on the side of the instructor as course designer.
• In order to do this, a significant amount of time would need to be given over from regular class material in order to focus on one game.
• Support for successful implementation includes not too large class sizes and good writing center support.
• Term papers / research projects are generally useless, or at best time sinks, for professors, because half the students have learned that writing a research paper means copying from the internet, and includes very little critical analysis.
• I have never used the bottom two that I listed
• Have not addressed 9 much in courses.
• I like the concept of the scavenger hunt if it can be directed so that students find images/object/sites that productively or effectively connect to class themes or concepts. I've found that if given too much leeway, simply going out into the world and connecting something in the media or local experience to the course often results in students selecting the first thing they stumble across and making connections that are only thin and tenuous.
• The critical analysis essays as described here are rather lengthy and the grading time for 100 students rather unwieldy. I have had students do short 250-350 critical analysis essays.

• In-class activities in which students respond to quiz questions that refer to short readings completed before class (open book). The students then break into small groups, compare answers, and expand one another's knowledge of the material; the groups share their findings with the entire class.
• For three I have note taking, as this is a basic skill that allows you to achieve in any class and is also a way to learn, but what I have in mind is an exercise similar to what I think I have ranked as number four is--writing journal or blog. I encourage students in my classes to write a journal, which I call their personal textbook, in which they recopy their notes from class, supplemented by their readings, and insert reproductions of the works for which they are responsible.

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 5
• Useful: 7
• Neutral: 1
• Not Useful: 0
• Detrimental: 0
• Not Applicable: 2

Pro:

• I have added several this semester to another class and was pleased with the results. I will be adding some to my survey the next time I teach it.
• My students have a better understanding of a medieval manuscript parchment folio when I actually bring a 15th century folio in and pass it around, allowing them to hold it. The same for a piece of lapis lazuli, or a woodblock matrix from which woodblock prints are made.
• Important to have students engage with voices/ideas of those who produced art or were compelled to contend with it close to its original moment/context.
• Short excerpts of primary source material can add a lot to a course without adding too much to the reading load.
• It gives authority to some of the material explained in class when they can read the artist himself saying it. Also they are good to help them to derive conclusions about the period, art work in question, etc.
• When coupled with general overviews of periods, works, artists, and/or themes, students can gain significant understanding through analysis of primary sources.
• Especially at this introductory stage, exposure to primary "voices" is essential. The lecturer provides the secondary viewpoint.

Neutral:

• Texts providing a critical understanding of historical view are very useful, but need to be used in conjunction with a textbook.
• Primary sources are important, but one needs to help students get through this material if they are in survey. Primary sources should be introduced, but they become much more important in upper-level courses.
• They do not find much room in my survey, because they deepen an issue but take time. I can see that as very useful in surveys that are more focused on a period (for instance, courses on the Renaissance), and certainly in my upperdivision courses. I use them in rare occasions.

Con:

• Not sure what this would mean in the case of an undergraduate course.

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 7
• Useful: 5
• Neutral: 3
• Not Useful: 1
• Detrimental: 0
• Not Applicable: 0

Pro:

• Video aids are particularly useful in giving students a fuller sense of architectural and site-specific works.
• Websites with 3D panoramas of sites, digitzed medieval manuscripts, and videos can provide a more nuanced, contextualized understanding of the still photos in art history textbooks.
• Useful to provide a fuller understanding at times but overuse of these can create passive classrooms if overused where students become mute spectators. If one uses this material, need to provide means to generate discussion or activity effectively immediately prior to or following the screening (if movie/video).
• Short video clips that demonstrate techniques or allow students to be led visually through an architectural space can be extremely helpful. Documentaries or interviews with artists can be as well--I often show ART 21 clips when discussing contemporary artists.
• Great sources on Youtube (including excellent lectures), MOOCs, films...lots of content that is easily accessible
• Students love it. They like looking at screens, even if they are saying the same than the instructor! Besides, many of them just display the art works all the time, thus avoiding distractions caused by the instructor, or spending all the time reading without ever looking at the art work.
• I sometimes link these to Blackboard or show brief clips in class, but never show an entire movie in class (60 minutes) on a particular topic.
• Online videos are great for flipping the classroom!
• I find that the narratives of historically-based movies can be very compelling and engaging for students; it is imperative to contextualize them and critically analyze the stories they tell.

Neutral:

• I don't think this should ever be the backbone of a survey course. These kinds of sources, however, as a great supplements.
• I have had students watch the Rape of Europa and videos of our own Visiting Artist lecture series, which are about 50 minutes long. After reading a lot of weird responses to the question prompts I discovered through the LMS system that out of about 80 student ONLY one watched the entire thing, about 20 watched 20 minutes and the majority watched it for less than 5 minutes. Short multi-media or videos are great but movie-length are not.

Con:

• Media cannot be lengthy.

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 3
• Useful: 4
• Neutral: 2
• Not Useful: 0
• Detrimental: 0
• Not Applicable: 6

Pro:

• Using Khan Academy and linking to other good resources and videos from my LMS is the most effective and flexible for my classes.
• Smarthistory, Heilbrunn, JSTOR, EBSCO, EBrary...just a few...there are excellent sources for both general and specific art history courses available
• We use Blackboard and I always provide links to a wide variety of educational resources for students to access.
• Students are much more comfortable using online resources than books.

Neutral:

• I do use some things from the Khan Academy Smarthistory and a few of the pod casts from the BBC 100 Objects series. I will probably be adding more of these to my course as I intend to only recommend the textbook rather than require it. These really engage the students who use them. I had one student who got hooked on Smarthistory. But many students do not watch the videos any more than they read the textbook.
• Can be helpful but I do not often use them.

Con:

• I don't think this should ever be the backbone of a survey course. One would need to provide all the basic information that is provided in the book without an overwhelming number of sites. Also the veracity of the material needs to be checked. These kinds of sources, however, work great as a great supplement, like the BBC's history of the world in a 100 objects.
• Not understanding what is meant by "Open Educational Resources"

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 6
• Useful: 6
• Neutral: 2
• Not Useful: 2
• Detrimental: 0
• Not Applicable: 0

Pro:

• Every course that involves writing is a writing course. Depending on what kind of writing instructors want (traditional papers, blogs, reflections, I Search papers...), instructors need to teach students how to do that rather than expect students to know how. That includes what kinds of research sources are acceptable and how to evaluate them.
• I find a style guide to be vital; at the very least, students can't claim ignorance of stylistic conventions, especially with regards to plagiarism and academic dishonesty.
• For our major survey I and II course the professors ask students to add Sylvan Barnett's Writing about Art.
• Some students have never written a college term paper prior to my class. This information makes the process much less intimidating.
• The Writing Center of the University of North Carolina has excellent handouts for specific problems in writing.I often refer my students to them and they like them. They are short and to the point, with clarifying examples.
• For survey, resources on what is a thesis, how to write a formal analysis, how to construct a paragraph are all very useful, and I provide links to all this on Blackboard.

Neutral:

• If a great deal of writing occurs, it may be useful to offer resources on writing. I. however, do not see the survey as the place to teach writing beyond some basic forms, like a comparative essay and note taking.
• I often post a pdf for students that discusses the writing of a comparison paper or an exhibit review. These can be helpful but I find that students often do not read them.
• I place books on reserves, but we cannot deal with that additional material in class, since we have not enough time. This is individual student homework, not mandatory. Useful if students are willing to go the extra mile.

Con:

• Students respond better to learning writing and research skills through working directly with instructor or librarian. No one wants to read about how to write! Peer-review, workshops more effective.
• I have used these in the past, and they haven't produced any better work than just walking through the steps for writing in class myself.

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 5
• Useful: 7
• Neutral: 1
• Not Useful: 3
• Detrimental: 0
• Not Applicable: 0

Pro:

• A textbook provides an introduction to course material, a set of images to interpret, and a meta-narrative.
• I feel traditional survey textbooks are necessary to structure student's introduction to the material.
• I do have students who read it and would feel quite lost without a textbook of some sort. After several disastrous exams this semester, one student raised her grades by about 10 points (out of 50) from earlier exams by taking notes from it and bringing them to class to annotate with lecture/discussion material.
• We use a book that provides a nice mix of artist's biography, formal analysis, and historical/social/religious/functional contexts for the art works covered in the course.
• while traditional survey textbooks usually include far more material than can be covered in a course, they are important for reference. students should be able to read a chapter and understand how certain works correspond to those discussed in the classroom and see other works as complementary or background material.
• While I find it VERY useful and necessary, as it acts as an encyclopedia of sorts for art history, I find that it is also somewhat overwhelming for some students. I do not teach the entire book, but rather selectively pick works to discuss. Students usually keep their books throughout their academic career because as art students they refer to it often.
• Students can go back to review or deepen some of the content and clarify some other.

Neutral:

• I accept the criticism in the responses that one textbook "is too easy to be confused with the account of reality," but for me the class is comprised of the class session, that is the lecture and discussion that go on there. I make this clear and point out problems with the book as well as some of my own prejudices.

Con:

• Many students do not purchase or rent the textbook so that is why it is rated as only useful. We also have a digital database that has images of all the works I require students to know, so they no longer need a book for that purpose.
• If it's the only source used, students will not have to wrestle with more critically difficult secondary source material and primary sources. Due to the density of works covered in these texts, any one work of art is given short shrift. And given we've significantly cut down the number of works we cover in a given semester, purchasing an expensive textbook and only consulting a portion of it generates resentment (rightfully).
• Very descriptive, very expensive, similar information can be acquired at less expense
• I have trouble finding a textbook that will fit with my design of the course.
• By itself, the traditional textbook is antiquated, and few students will use it, even if they are required to and their grade depends upon it. Students are, by and large, not great readers, and even those who are can be challenged by the dryness of the readings in a traditional survey textbook.
• The text books have become ever more searching in both analyses and in providing explanations of artistic processes and contexts.

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 0
• Useful: 4
• Neutral: 3
• Not Useful: 0
• Detrimental: 0
• Not Applicable: 9

Pro:

• I prefer a thematic approach, and this is sometimes provided by other books (Phaidon, Oxford University Press, series)
• Readers combined with good online sources

Neutral:

• again, there can be value in adding a short book to address a specific need (such as wiring art history papers) but these should be limited.
• I provide a book on reserve on art history analysis and methods for students from other majors who have never heard about visual analysis and may need additional guidance. I believe it is checked out once in a while, not that often. At some point, they learn by imitation of analysis techniques used in class.

Con:

• They do not address often the main content of the class.
• I don't see when or where textbooks in other disciplines would be necessary.

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 6
• Useful: 4
• Neutral: 0
• Not Useful: 3
• Detrimental: 2
• Not Applicable: 1

Pro:

• A textbook provides an introduction to course material, a set of images to interpret, and a meta-narrative.
• Textbook instruction works best when supplemented with short readings appropriate for freshmen-level reading. I typically employ news items from the New York Times (on art theft, for example), and one or two short academic articles.
• I do have supplemental readings that students can access through PDFs in our course LMS or that I provide links for if they are online.
• I've found the textbook can provide a quick skeletal framework, though, that students find useful as a foundational support for or supplement to more focused readings that provide a richer discussion of key works, or compel them to wrestle with primary source material.
• supplemental readings would be helpful...textbook information can be found in other sources at far less expense
• I always have supplemental readings! This allows me to go in-depth with a particular idea or have students read primary material. With this in mind, I never expect them to read it and understand it fully, but always work through the readings as a class in order to chunk it out and understand it. This also models for students on how they should read critically.
• Supplemental readings deepen targeted subject areas, especially for section discussions.
• I have my notes available online for students. They use them a lot and take those as reading/test guides.

Neutral:

• I accept the criticism in the responses that one textbook "is too easy to be confused with the account of reality," but for me the class is comprised of the class session, that is the lecture and discussion that go on there. I make this clear and point out problems with the book as well as some of my own prejudices.
• supplementing the textbook with topical readings or primary source material can be very helpful, although it is tough to not make the amount of material too burdensome.

Con:

• Same problem. Supplemental readings are fine, but sometimes the students have difficulty following them.
• Given the breadth of this course, I do not use supplemental readings as I believe we have enough to deal with already, and I do not want them to feel overwhelmed and disoriented.
• Asking students to read the textbook AND extra readings is just setting yourself up for complete refusal.

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 1
• Useful: 4
• Neutral: 6
• Not Useful: 0
• Detrimental: 1
• Not Applicable: 3

Pro:

• Usually discussions of art and ethics are initiated through a short article or essay (see above), but I believe that ethical considerations are central to an undergraduate survey.
• I had my students read two newspaper articles for a written assignment that discussed 3-D printing interventions and cultural destruction. They could also read up on the topic to look for other ethical perspectives.
• Short articles that address ethics in the context of contemporary issues can be a good way to encourage students to think about the role of art in current events.
• They spark lively discussions. Students feel more comfortable talking about their own opinions than facts.

Neutral:

• I have used these types of readings only minimally, when considering the ethics of museum collection and display practices, but they typically generate much engaged discussion and nuance thinking.
• I usually address this in lectures notes or class discussions or role playing.
• I think these could be useful, in the right context. A class which focuses on artistic controversies, for example.

Con:

• This is getting off track for the main goals of the survey.
• This has no place in the 1st year
• I do not use it.

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 2
• Useful: 6
• Neutral: 2
• Not Useful: 0
• Detrimental: 2
• Not Applicable: 4

Pro:

• Such texts may be useful later on in the semester, after students have gained a basic understanding of the malleable nature of the art historical canon, and after they have had practice in reading about art.
• It helps to explain the students the art works in their contexts.
• This helps students understand that there are multiple ways to understand works of art and history.

Neutral:

• Texts providing a critical understanding of historical view are very useful, but need to be used in conjunction with a textbook.
• This seems like a good idea but it is not something I am currently using. I would be interested in learning about short texts that offer different historical or theoretical viewpoints on a single work, in easily accessible language, to demonstrate how interpretation can work.

Con:

• I would use these types of texts more often in an upper level course than in survey.
• I believe this is an advanced approach and I use it for more focused upper-level classes.

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 1
• Useful: 5
• Neutral: 4
• Not Useful: 1
• Detrimental: 1
• Not Applicable: 4

Pro:

• I added some of this through multimedia online sites rather than through readings.
• Relevance is often reinforced by students understanding how art works are reinterpreted, parodied, critiqued, revised, viewed today versus the period of their creation and interpretation.
• As home assignment: term paper. By creating a compare-contrast paper on a theme, students are required to try integrate a few other readings with their textbook.

Neutral:

• I have not made an effort to incorporate readings on this subject into my course
• I can see how this would be useful, but I'm not sure, exactly, what this means.
• I am unfamiliar with these sources

Con:

• This is getting off track for the main goals of the survey.
• This has no place in the 1st year
• I would use these types of texts more often in an upper level course than in survey.
• This would be too complex for a survey course

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 1
• Useful: 0
• Neutral: 4
• Not Useful: 6
• Detrimental: 0
• Not Applicable: 5

Pro:

Neutral:

• I do place the regular course textbook on reserve in both libraries so students who don't purchase the book can still have access to it. Otherwise, I rarely use course reserves but scan chapters or articles and add them to the LMS.
• We don't place texts on library reserve but rather post readings for students on a Blackboard system.

Con:

• There needs to be some introduction to the material before class sessions, and the basic notion of where things are (the maps), the definition of terms, and other basic information.
• First year students need a guidebook given to them.
• I think a selection of course readings in place of a textbook would be useful only for very motivated self-disciplined, and academically prepared student body.
• I do not use a textbook in a more specialized upper-level course, but for a survey course I think it is important to have a source with good quality images, always at hand, and with the consistency in focus, layout, and writing that comes with a textbook.
• requires students to copy at more expense; inevitably ends up being an access problem (too many students trying to get the same material at the same time; fine for grad students who are accustomed to reserve material and tend to copy early)
• The students barely used it.

• I do not use a textbook in a more specialized upper-level course, but for a survey course I think it is important to have a source with good quality images, always at hand, and with the consistency in focus, layout, and writing that comes with a textbook.
• Library Reserve Material: requires students to copy at more expense; inevitably ends up being an access problem (too many students trying to get the same material at the same time; fine for grad students who are accustomed to reserve material and tend to copy early)
• Library Reserve Material: The students barely used it.
• Noted by several that multimedia length (movie length) needs to be short to maintain engagement. ie: I have had students watch the Rape of Europa and videos of our own Visiting Artist lecture series, which are about 50 minutes long. After reading a lot of weird responses to the question prompts I discovered through the LMS system that out of about 80 student ONLY one watched the entire thing, about 20 watched 20 minutes and the majority watched it for less than 5 minutes. Short multi-media or videos are great but movie-length are not.
• Short excerpts of primary source material can add a lot to a course without adding too much to the reading load.
• I often post a pdf for students that discusses the writing of a comparison paper or an exhibit review. These can be helpful but I find that students often do not read them.

• We don't place texts on library reserve but rather post readings for students on a Blackboard system.

• Library Reserve Material: requires students to copy at more expense; inevitably ends up being an access problem (too many students trying to get the same material at the same time; fine for grad students who are accustomed to reserve material and tend to copy early)

• In several circumstances, participants describe a lack of knowledge of the material. This may make the incorporation of such material difficult without institutional support and professional development.

• 25 students or less
• Class size would be between 20-25
• I am happy teaching a larger-sized class, but anything over 75-80 students requires the instructor to compromise in ways that short-change student learning.
• The course would be capped at 20 students; alternately, sections in the same number could be established, and student work graded by a TA.
• no more than 30 students.
• 24 students
• Current class sizes are too large. I suggest that the ideal class size would be about 25 students. This is large enough that even if there are shy students there would be good discussion. Of course, this presumes that the students are interested (and not just biding their time, waiting to check off a required course) and prepared to participate. A class this size would also make it possible to provide more feedback when grading, and to allow for more gallery visits.
• Class size; 25 or less (so a TA could handle this as discussion)
• It should be in small groups of no more than 10, so that the instructor has a good grip of the strengths and weaknesses of each student and work with them. Also, students feel more comfortable speaking in small classes.
• The size would be between 15-20 Students.
• My ideal class size would be 25 students.
• Ideally, I'd have between 20 and 30 students.
• My ideal class size would be 25 (right now I am at 44). While 44 is manageable, 25 would allow for more personal interaction, more discussion without having some students "hide" in the corner and not speak at all.
• The ideal class size is probably smaller than most survey class sizes, like 20-25. I believe this class size would allow for trying more diverse approaches.
• The class size is immaterial as discussion is reserved to sections.

• Room equipped with a computer, digital projector and excellent audio.
• I would have 2 teaching assistants. I would teach in a computer lab with a projector and screen.
• The course would thus have to be conducted in a place rich in arts institutions, including museums, galleries, and public art; class would be conducted in the presence of and assignments based upon observation of these artworks as often as possible. The remainder of the course would be conducted in a classroom equipped with the necessary audio/visual facilities to present still and moving images (I am deeply skeptical about art history courses delivered online).
• I'd have several high-resolution, flat-screen monitors positioned around the classroom (and connected to the classroom computer) to better show images in class.
• The ideal art history course would be designed to be more interactive for both faculty and students. The use of virtual and augmented reality tools would be most common... The course outcomes would not change and I would appreciate 100% instructional support. The approach to teaching would be more hands on for both faculty and students.
• meet in a classroom beside our museum
• The classroom would have tables and could facilitate group work. Technology would be available for students to work from monitors around the room for group work but with a large one for coming back together as a class.
• But need some assistance from an instructional designer
• My biggest complaint is that the two-semester survey is a fast whirlwind. It would be nice to expand the chronological survey over the scope of four semesters (I taught at another institution that did this). It gives the instructor the opportunity to delve into key issues at greater depth and breadth rather than just a "quick passing footnote" before jumping to the next object.
• Ability for gallery visits
• Institutional support in the form of new-ish and reliable classroom computers and projectors is also essential. It is extremely difficult to teach art history without images, and finding that your classroom technology is not up to the task of showing your powerpoints, videos, or other material can significantly affect the course.
• smart classroom with technology, tables and chairs that are mobile, glass boards Institutional Support: classrooms with technology
• It would be great if we could see in person some of the art works, in museums, field trips, etc. This, of course, will need a lot of institutional support for transportation.
• Institutional support I'm not really sure about. We have a visual resource collection for digital images, we have instruction on how to use Blackboard, so we receive relatively good support for teaching. I would like better equipped rooms with high-quality projects and large screens.
• Among very useful institutional support tools is certainly the class size, the classroom design, the access to instructional technology and to digital images database. I do not take for granted that all the instructors are given all of the above. An active learning or seminar classroom type, with coffee tables and one screen per table, would allow to try different techniques engaging groups, vs. a more traditional lecture style.
• Lectures would be temporally longer in order to accommodate a deeper discussion of selected works of art. The sections would be extended, too, the better to allow student participation and engagement. Hence, the survey courses would be valued at four to five credits, reflecting the time involved.

• Faculty member with a Ph.D. who has no more than a three course load per semester and an active research agenda.

• Prepared to do college-level work: Be able to focus for a little over an hour, take notes, contribute to discussions, and have basic writing skills.
• Range from freshmen to seniors, with a blend of visual arts and non-majors.
• presumes that the students are interested (and not just biding their time, waiting to check off a required course) and prepared to participate.
• I believe a mix of art history majors, visual art student and non-majors would be a great combination, as it allows for sharing of multiple perspectives.

• Seminar/Discussion rather than Lecture (it is an advanced level course rather than introductory although approved for general education requirements so still drew students with little to no art historical knowledge or experience.)
• Lectures would be temporally longer in order to accommodate a deeper discussion of selected works of art. The sections would be extended, too, the better to allow student participation and engagement. Hence, the survey courses would be valued at four to five credits, reflecting the time involved.
• try different techniques engaging groups, vs. a more traditional lecture style. However, I am not sure to which extent a content-intensive class like a survey would benefit from this, which is a great approach in upper-division classes with students that are developing independent learner skills.
• I would lecture very little and have lots of classroom activities that engaged students.
• draw as much as possible from in-person analysis of relevant art objects.
• I would like to create a course (but need some assistance from an instructional designer) that is chronological but also thematic.
• The goals and outcomes of the course would be to train visual analysis skills in students to prepare them to engage fully and critically with the world of images we all occupy.
• Constructivist educational theory based teaching methodology actively engaging students in thematic and contextual art history/theory content.
• Because I believe a focused and instructor-driven structure is necessary for a foundational course, I would rely on a lecture format, albeit one punctuated with the aforementioned visual analysis exercises, guiding questions, and class discussions. I would whenever possible enliven these lectures and discussion by focusing on objects the class beholds in person.
• There will be a lot of discussion, a lot of group work and, hopefully, a lot of connections to what else they are learning. As often as possible, there will be faculty from different disciplines, including studio faculty, joining our class--or we will be visiting them--and they bring their perspectives to the topics. This is important because people trained in different fields bring different ideas and solutions that we agree (trust me, we will disagree), but our shared ideas means that we open up the discussion, entertain new and different interpretations that we would not have been able to do on our own.
• The content would be student-driven, within the parameters of the study of art and related visual culture, rather than arbitrarily imposed geographic and chronological parameters. We would determine the scope of inquiry together as a dialogue between students and professor during the first couple of classes of the semester. I would provide a variety of modules and topics from which the students could choose what they would like to learn and prioritize, with room for them to add in additional activities and topics that they would like to address.
• My approach to teaching this content may change is I had more institutional support with online delivery (which we currently do not offer). I am interested in trying to deliver basic content online through recorded lectures so that students come to class with a better understanding of the art. This would allow for more interaction in the classroom, and possibly more experimentation with assignments. The barrier with this approach is one cannot assume that all students have access to high-speed internet (we are a commuter school) and therefore it may be difficult for some students to participate online. I am also experimenting with blogging and crowd-sourcing information, but so far this has not been successful.
• Lectures would be temporally longer in order to accommodate a deeper discussion of selected works of art. The sections would be extended, too, the better to allow student participation and engagement. Hence, the survey courses would be valued at four to five credits, reflecting the time involved. The class size is immaterial as discussion is reserved to sections. The content would remain mostly the same but would be delivered in greater historical and cultural depth.

• Different for visual arts/art history major than a non-major
• No canon. No march through history chronologically.
• The course outcomes would be the same but the content would be more diverse than what I currently have.
• I am not a fan of the survey textbook: it promotes information gathering rather than thinking. Short, well-written readings modelling art historical methods is my preference.
• Units would begin with a map highlighting three or four places we will "visit" and look at work that is thematically similar but from different places around the globe. From there we would explore the contexts and discuss why works vary in form and material, even though they might express similar content. Of course, we would also learn where those similarities end or diverge. It would also have a looking back and looking forward component. I would probably open with something from today that students can connect with (sometimes works by contemporary artists whose work is based on an earlier work, or a material or technique, or a concept, or an issue, like cultural destruction today to look back at Assyrian art) and use that to go back in time. The looking back component would help to tie traditions together so students can trace styles and concepts throughout time. In the looking back segments we would also sometimes look at an object we've already seen but consider it through another lens so students understand there are different questions to ask and that objects do not have one single and stable meaning through time. We would also have some sessions where we look at a theme we've already covered, such as propaganda, and see how different historical contexts and periods of art historical style render changes from the way we saw propaganda expressed earlier in the course. I would move away from a textbook and use as many open educational and multimedia sources as possible. These would be supplemented with primary source documents and very short articles. Perhaps something like a chapter from Thinking historically and Other Unnatural Acts. The point of this format is to help students learn the importance of visual analysis, content, and contexts, and to become nimble thinkers and make connections that are historically based. It would also negate some of the awkwardness of figuring out where to break sections of western and non-western art and place them on a more even footing. By reiterating certain themes over time another goal is to help students make the leap to applying these concepts to their own life and experiences now and in the future.
• My ideal art history course is an Introduction to Visual Culture which immediately introduces issues that are critical to representation in fine arts, design, and popular culture. Students would investigate the historical practices that have developed to define, maintain, and institutionalize different categories of visual culture and visual producers. In the process they would be looking at a variety of issues and questions, everything from "what is art and who gets to decide that" to changes in how the visual operates in our lives. They would be encouraged to think outside of the box (and we all have boxes), to entertain some new ideas and positions, and to take positions and defend them.
• The content would be student-driven, within the parameters of the study of art and related visual culture, rather than arbitrarily imposed geographic and chronological parameters. We would determine the scope of inquiry together as a dialogue between students and professor during the first couple of classes of the semester. I would provide a variety of modules and topics from which the students could choose what they would like to learn and prioritize, with room for them to add in additional activities and topics that they would like to address.
• The content would not change from what I'm doing now, which is a chronological approach to Western art history from prehistory to the present. This approach provides students with a context and understanding of the development of art history through time, and also allows them to see how nothing is really new, but rather a reinterpretation of art through history.

• One project at least would require making art history - either writing about it, imagining it using technology, or telling it in a creative way.
• Teacher generated questions for student answers in writing (and to hand in before class keeping a copy for themselves) so students are prepared for active class discussion. Write one paper, focus on content and writing. Change the topic from semester to semester based on nearby major art museum programs and exhibitions and student interest, including their own art making.
• I would prefer weekly or semi-weekly engagements with students (rather than one mid-term, one final as this encourages students to lean in only twice during the course). Writing is a requirement, and ought to be nurtured. Reading and well.
• Course readings, assignments, and discussions would be tooled to develop student's abilities to analyze visual phenomena orally and in writing, and to develop foundational abilities in reading art historical reading. The students would demonstrate these skills through their contributions to in-class analysis exercises, discussions, and group work, in short visual analysis papers, and in-class exams that focus primarily upon ability to identify in unknown works visual traits they have observed in other works, and secondarily upon providing didactic and contextual information for works studied in class.
• The assignments included mapping activities (identifying the parts of the world about which students knew least), generating 'webs of significance assignments' (where students provided diagrams that were used to describe their own situated perspectives, sense of identity, culture and history); museum activities where they connected theoretical ideas from class readings to real institutional spaces and objects locally, collaborative teaching assignments where small groups introduced key works and led discussion, 'teaching' major concepts and probing key questions, and an extended and scaffolded research assignment where students devoted their semester to learning about an image, artifact, or site from a part of the world about which they were particularly unfamiliar.
• All students write (with graded drafts), an I Search Paper which encourages critical thinking, information literacy, and written communication...plus, the paper format really develops depth over superficial generalities and helps students make connections between the object/issue and themselves/fields. I teach the content in a flipped classroom with class discussions, role playing, simulations, class presentations and critical reflections.
• This semester I created an online image study guide for the exam and asked students to provide information for each image. This to a total failure as many students just did not participate and those that did provided only the most basic information. The students that are very good students in class chose not to add to the blog (I didn't make it a requirement, but may try it again as a required activity).

• The course goals were to use art history as a means to acquire "global understanding," to think explicitly about cultural difference and be introduced to key critical terms used by the discipline today to contemplate our contemporary moment -- planetarity; cosmopolitanism; contemporaneity; to engage in inquiry using methods employed by art historians; to think critically about the 'art encounter' itself -- why it's significant and how it operates; to become knowledgeable, at an introductory level, as to what "World Art" (and "World Art Studies") means and how it's meaning is debated by current scholars.
Learning Outcomes By the conclusion of the course you will be able to: Identify methodologies and critical strategies and be able to relate them to different interpretations of visual culture. Identify and explain different positions and interpretations about visual culture. (diversity) Identify and explain how different interdisciplinary approaches can influence or change interpretation. Identify and explain how course material intersects with the Liberal Studies themes of creativity, identity, diversity, sustainability or social responsibility. Explain the historical and contemporary construction of artist and designer and the fine art and design fields. (identity, diversity, social responsibility) Explain the significance of the Western canon and be able to identify some postmodern criticisms of the canon. (sustainability, diversity) Explain and explain some key issues in historical and modern 19th century modern and relate them to both visual and textual sources. (diversity) Identify and explain connections in ideas, interpretations, and positions between Liberal Studies and studio courses. (sustainability, creativity) Demonstrate critical thinking and writing skills through assignments that require research and synthesis of information. Identify and demonstrate the ability to locate, evaluate, and critically use library and electronic resources.
• The outcomes will be the same that I have been arguing so far. I will focus on selected art works that illustrate different problems addressed by art, for the reasons explained before: help them to "understand" art in some depth.
• Course outcomes/objectives would be skills-based and related to types of thinking and communication necessary for art historical scholarship.
• Chronological Approach: Outcomes for this approach focus on the basic chronology of the Western art historical tradition and students ability to comprehend, describe and analyze specific art works, artists, styles, periods, and movements through such elements as media, form, technique, and iconography. This approach helps students develop a critical understanding of art forms in their historical, philosophical, and cultural framework, which in turn informs their own art making traditions.