Pro:

• Visual analysis remains paramount for me as a threshold concept - a skill necessary to the profession of art historian and one in which marks the discipline.
• I would privilege "analysis" over "literacy" as it implies there's more cognitive work being done by the student.

Pro:

• Supports "visual analysis" and "art historical thinking."
• Students need to learn to think critically
• As in earlier iterations, refining students' visual acuity and critical thinking remain primary objectives. These goals are enhanced by historical awareness and cultural contexts. The other categories augment the means to achieve principal goals.

Con:

• Critical thinking is a great skill to hone, but to me it requires the student to have accumulated knowledge beyond the basics of a survey, in order to formulate judgments, to be able to examine assumptions and to distinguish between weak and strong arguments. I would ascribe this skill more to more focused, upper-level courses, so this is why in my list it is a little lower than the average.

Pro:

• Art historical thinking is the primary goal, bit more generalized.
• Art Historical thinking is still among the top five skills because thinking historically about art requires a mind set different from that needed for history of literature, or philosophy, for example.

Con:

• I believe I do not understand what "art history thinking" is? I do not think that non-majors will be able to learn to think like a PhD in one course. Or perhaps is this intended as a variant of CONTEXTUALIZATION?

General Observation

• As this survey goes forward into the art history community, It might be important to parse out what participants understood art historical thinking to be.

Pro:

• I decided to rank visual literacy higher this time. Imagery is ubiquitous and understanding the visual is a type of literacy that most people will not consider unless they take a course within our discipline.
• As in earlier iterations, refining students' visual acuity and critical thinking remain primary objectives. These goals are enhanced by historical awareness and cultural contexts. The other categories augment the means to achieve principal goals.

Con:

• I rank Visual Literacy very low (# 20) because I don't know how that is defined here and I am suspicious of that term.

Pro:

• they need to be able to communicate their thinking both orally and in writing.

Pro:

Con:

• The biggest discrepancy was on Demonstrable Art Historical knowledge -- in an era of quick internet access, I honestly don't think that demonstrable knowledge is nearly as important as the ability to find information and communicate it effectively.

Pro:

Con:

• This should not be a universal goal of the art history course as in my view students need actual objects, unavailable at many institutions, to have this experience. Also, this is an art history survey course not an appreciation course.

Pro:

• I break away from the group when I place a high emphasis on "cultural awareness" and "diversity." I think as art historians we are particularly poised to advance global understanding. By this I mean more critical thinking about what "culture" even means, how it's produced, what constitutes art in a world of difference shaped by historical forces like colonialism and contemporary ones like globalization.

Pro:

• I break away from the group when I place a high emphasis on "cultural awareness" and "diversity." I think as art historians we are particularly poised to advance global understanding. By this I mean more critical thinking about what "culture" even means, how it's produced, what constitutes art in a world of difference shaped by historical forces like colonialism and contemporary ones like globalization.
• I am surprised that "diversity" was not considered one of the primary course outcomes, especially given that the demographics indicate that most of the students are non-majors and are fulfilling general education requirements. I wonder what are those requirements, if not diversity? When students learn about other cultures or ancient cultures, they learn about customs that are very different than their own. To me, this course outcome is still a major one.

Con:

• I agree that diversity is not a skill, and it also overlaps with cultural awareness.

Pro:

Con:

• Abstract reasoning and independence are ranked lower not because they aren't important but because that is a skill developed in upper division courses.

Pro:

• this is definitely a skill typical of art/history methodologies. While non art majors taking one course may not have the sophistication to think like art historians, however the capacity to analyze a particular situation within a context and understand complexities is a portable skill regularly honed by the art history discipline.

• I really like the newly added (OTHER) Contextualization skill, but as I thought about it, it seems that this is encompassed within Art Historical Thinking, which is a rather broad and undefined skill
• Perhaps Art Historical Thinking is this intended as a variant of CONTEXTUALIZATION?
• Contextualization also seems to overlap with historical thinking.

Pro:

• the students see complexities, the unknown, and have questions. It is the beginning of the research process.
• Some of my rankings shifted a bit to include the addition of "other" skills, namely curiosity. This is very important, but not often present enough in the classroom.

Pro:

Con:

• Abstract reasoning and independence are ranked lower not because they aren't important but because that is a skill developed in upper division courses.

• The newly added categories could really be subsumed into some that already exist. "Foundational Skills in Reading and Writing" are very important in my view, but I ranked them at 18 since I feel they really could be considered under "Communication Skills."
• I ranked being able to ENGAGE in visual and aesthetic experience, with concentration, cultural awareness, contextualization and problem solving, #4, #5, #6, #7 and #8 before ranking specific Art History skills starting with Visual Analysis #9.
• I find that Foundation skills and communications are actually very similar skills, so I group them together.
• I agree that diversity is not a skill, and it also overlaps with cultural awareness.
• As in earlier iterations, refining students' visual acuity and critical thinking remain primary objectives. These goals are enhanced by historical awareness and cultural contexts. The other categories augment the means to achieve principal goals.
• My course has a learning outcome of critical thinking attached to it, and I believe that visual literacy and visual analysis are closely related skills.

• I kept the same ranking as in the second round, but my rankings in that round were usually very close to the group average--one or two points off.
• My ranking concurs with the group that visual analysis and critical thinking should be privileged as learning outcomes.
• My ranking is in line with the participant pool.
• I changed a few numbers, but only in minor adjustments. Nothing moved radically up or down in the list. My top responses, for the most part, coincided with the top responses in the study, although not necessarily in the same order.
• My top three selections--visual analysis, critical thinking, and visual literacy--remain unchanged. i continue to consider them the most important skills in any art history course. As they were ranked the top three by all participants (albeit in slightly different order) I am not alone in this thinking.

• I break away from the group when I place a high emphasis on "cultural awareness" and "diversity." I think as art historians we are particularly poised to advance global understanding. By this I mean more critical thinking about what "culture" even means, how it's produced, what constitutes art in a world of difference shaped by historical forces like colonialism and contemporary ones like globalization.
• The biggest discrepancy was on Demonstrable Art Historical knowledge -- in an era of quick internet access, I honestly don't think that demonstrable knowledge is nearly as important as the ability to find information and communicate it effectively.

Some describe the importance of meeting the needs of their particular institutional context:

• The choice is heavily dependent on pre-determined course outcomes set by our institution and Education
• The student demographic at my institution is art and design students, therefore learning to read, speak, write about art is key to their education, and will transfer to their own work in writing their thesis and presenting their art. Additionally, research skills are very important.
• I teach art and design students who make visual works so my concern is how they are going to apply/critique art history information in relation to their works and visual culture in general. Critical thinking, information literacy, written/oral communication and cultural awareness are more critical to them than specific historical art history information.
• Our institution is a research university, that has both, a college of Arts and Sciences and an Art School. We have thus two different constituencies of students. The Art School has its own art history classes, which are oriented more towards art appreciation and contemporary examples, than history of art proper. By art appreciation I understand, perhaps, something different from what you seem to consider in the survey data. Art appreciation is like art criticism, based on analysis of the art work without putting it in a wider cultural, historical, etc. context. However, I teach in the College of Arts and Sciences and we treat art history as a humanistic discipline. This means that we should pursue general learning objectives of a liberal arts education, such as critical thinking, cultural awareness (and that is why I bumped it higher in the ranking) and historical thinking. There are other skills in the list such as problem solving, abstract reasoning, research, concentration, independence, technology, that are also important but that had been relegated to lower positions in the ranking so that I could put at the top the skills that are exclusive to art history, such as visual analysis and the ability to Engage in Visual and Aesthetic Experience. I believe the latter is only achievable by fostering both the skill of visual analysis and critical thinking.

Others described how they considered the skills and questions more broadly:

• I thought hard about college students and our students in general, and ranked skills according to what they would need to succeed in all their college courses, first, and then the skills they would need for an art history course.

Several participants found the skills provided by the group to be vague and poorly defined.

• I believe I do not understand what "art history thinking" is? I do not think that non-majors will be able to learn to think like a PhD in one course. Or perhaps is this intended as a variant of CONTEXTUALIZATION? No. 4 ("demonstrable art-historical knowledge) and 7 (demonstrated historical knowledge) are very similar, and I wonder if the outcome has been doubled? I would assume art history teaches some historical context as well.

• Some of my rankings shifted a bit to include the addition of "other" skills
• I changed a few numbers, but only in minor adjustments. Nothing moved radically up or down in the list.
• My top skill, Visual Analysis, has remained unchanged and is consistent with the rest of the group, for the same reasons stated before by me and others. I have, however, changed my ranking for other skills. Our institution is a research university, that has both, a college of Arts and Sciences and an Art School. We have thus two different constituencies of students. The Art School has its own art history classes, which are oriented more towards art appreciation and contemporary examples, than history of art proper. By art appreciation I understand, perhaps, something different from what you seem to consider in the survey data. Art appreciation is like art criticism, based on analysis of the art work without putting it in a wider cultural, historical, etc. context. However, I teach in the College of Arts and Sciences and we treat art history as a humanistic discipline. This means that we should pursue general learning objectives of a liberal arts education, such as critical thinking, cultural awareness (and that is why I bumped it higher in the ranking) and historical thinking. There are other skills in the list such as problem solving, abstract reasoning, research, concentration, independence, technology, that are also important but that had been relegated to lower positions in the ranking so that I could put at the top the skills that are exclusive to art history, such as visual analysis and the ability to Engage in Visual and Aesthetic Experience. I believe the latter is only achievable by fostering both the skill of visual analysis and critical thinking. Art Historical thinking is still among the top five skills because thinking historically about art requires a mind set different from that needed for history of literature, or philosophy, for example. I find that Foundation skills and communications are actually very similar skills, so I group them together. I agree that diversity is not a skill, and it also overlaps with cultural awareness. Contextualization also seems to overlap with historical thinking.

Pro:

Pro:

• I consider the formal vocabulary of art to be extremely important in terms of content--learning and being able to use the vocabulary of art is critical to success in this discipline.

Pro:

• I ranked visual analysis higher than in the previous survey. Before I was categorizing it as a skill rather than content but am now considering it as one component of the content within the course as well as a skill, which is the reason for this change. The same rationale applies to the higher ranking of critical thinking.
• Once again, honing visual analysis and critical thinking remain primary. Establishing various contexts further these objectives regardless of acknowledging or refuting dominant canons.

Pro:

• I'm not sure why critical thinking was so low on list in the last round, but it needed to be moved up.
• Once again, honing visual analysis and critical thinking remain primary. Establishing various contexts further these objectives regardless of acknowledging or refuting dominant canons.
• I ranked visual analysis higher than in the previous survey. Before I was categorizing it as a skill rather than content but am now considering it as one component of the content within the course as well as a skill, which is the reason for this change. The same rationale applies to the higher ranking of critical thinking.

Pro:

• Since I teach in a liberal arts environment, the awareness of cultural diversity is paramount and that is why I have put World Visual Culture at the top, while the group has in position 4. This content will be applicable to a general survey of art only, not more specific surveys.

Con:

• I did not rank world visual culture highly because in my experience, incorporating non-western content into the survey course results in at best a cursory and superficial glance at these very rich traditions.

Pro:

Con:

• I ranked understanding the discipline low because I think that is best learned in upper division classes.

Pro:

• As for writing, I am of the opinion that writing is at the core of fostering meaningful and critical thinking in any discipline, and should be at the core of any humanities course.

Pro:

• Essential to the survey.
• I may differ from some of the art historians teaching thematically and from some non-Western art historians, when I rank the 'linear development' and the 'canon' pretty high. I believe it is just a question of the particular approach adopted (thematic vs. non-thematic) and by the type of focus (Western-centered or non-Western).

Con:

• I ranked "Linear Development of Art History" and "The Artistic Canon" dead last here and I would actually omit them from the list entirely if that were an option. My class has not been structured to do this in over a decade. To teach art from across the globe responsibly, with "non-western" art not marginalized or othered, the teleological narrative of art's progress which is inherently western in perspective cannot be the main framing device for the course. Teaching a 'canon' often means long lists of "important" works of art most of which come from western civilization and students come to know through rote memorization of titles and dates demonstrated in exam identifications. This type of teaching is ineffective and uninspiring.
• I ranked the Artistic Canon and the Linear Development of Art History low because educational research indicates this lower level learning (Bloom's Taxonomy) is not the way students learn these days.

Pro:

• I may differ from some of the art historians teaching thematically and from some non-Western art historians, when I rank the 'linear development' and the 'canon' pretty high. I believe it is just a question of the particular approach adopted (thematic vs. non-thematic) and by the type of focus (Western-centered or non-Western).

• I ranked the Artistic Canon and the Linear Development of Art History low because educational research indicates this lower level learning (Bloom's Taxonomy) is not the way students learn these days.
• I ranked "Linear Development of Art History" and "The Artistic Canon" dead last here and I would actually omit them from the list entirely if that were an option. My class has not been structured to do this in over a decade. To teach art from across the globe responsibly, with "non-western" art not marginalized or othered, the teleological narrative of art's progress which is inherently western in perspective cannot be the main framing device for the course. Teaching a 'canon' often means long lists of "important" works of art most of which come from western civilization and students come to know through rote memorization of titles and dates demonstrated in exam identifications. This type of teaching is ineffective and uninspiring.

Pro:

• Prioritizing a critical approach to art history as a discipline is, I believe, a more effective means of addressing the ethical issues surrounding the prioritization of western content in the survey.

• I'm also not sure why critical historical research was ranked so high.

Pro:

• Prioritizing a critical approach to art history as a discipline is, I believe, a more effective means of addressing the ethical issues surrounding the prioritization of western content in the survey... Ethical decision making and the ethics of what has happened in the past is likely going to come up when dealing with the other elements of content in this course; to gloss over it and not address the ethical issues is, well, unethical and a waste of an opportunity for deeper learning.

• I ranked visual analysis higher than in the previous survey. Before I was categorizing it as a skill rather than content but am now considering it as one component of the content within the course as well as a skill, which is the reason for this change. The same rationale applies to the higher ranking of critical thinking.
• Again, I am unclear about what Visual Literacy means, so I ranked it lowest.
• The items on the list that are skills and not content I ranked lower. Many of my score are very similar to the group, but there are outliers in the areas that I consider skills, like "Visual Literacy."
• Partly confusing is the designation of content here. Critical thinking, communication, group work, etc. are skills, not content. I think the information of any course is important.
• My ranking is pretty comparable for general outcomes. The highest rankings earn consensus, with the exception of "critical thinking skills" for the reasons previously stated, that it is a higher-thinking order that, if exercised within a discipline, needs a good knowledge base of that discipline - in my opinion.
• 8 Re-reading this list of contents I am a bit confused since many seem to be skills or learning outcomes rather than contents. The only way I can understand this is by assuming that those contents (i.e. visual literacy, critical thinking) are contents that would foster such skills. But that still leaves out which content does one need in order to achieve that learning outcome.

• For course skills, I ranked Critical Thinking #1, Writing #2 and #3 Historical Contextual/Thematic Knowledge. I think an understanding of world visual culture and possessing the vocabulary of visual analysis to communicate #7 those ideas is of secondary importance. Finally I want students to be able to apply their knowledge and to be able to conduct critical research, ethically, #8, #9, and #10

• Since I teach in a liberal arts environment, the awareness of cultural diversity is paramount and that is why I have put World Visual Culture at the top, while the group has in position 4.
• Compared to other participants my ranking of historical contextual/thematic knowledge is low, which may be the result of the fact that I teach a small number of art majors (no art history majors at all) and many non-majors, so there is a greater emphasis on skills than content.
• At my institution, and art and design school, the survey is a foundational course for ALL other courses, including art history and studio courses. Students must understand the timeline/linear development of art history, the historical context, etc.
• The rationale for the content outcomes is heavily dependent on pre-determined course competencies, selected system-wide textbook, as well as IE assessment.

• My top choices are generally in agreement with the participant pool, not always the same priorities, but in the same range.
• my ranking is in line with the participant pool
• My ranking is pretty comparable for general outcomes. The highest rankings earn consensus, with the exception of "critical thinking skills" for the reasons previously stated, that it is a higher-thinking order that, if exercised within a discipline, needs a good knowledge base of that discipline - in my opinion.

• The only content based outlier is the Artistic Canon, which is essential to the survey.
• I may differ from some of the art historians teaching thematically and from some non-Western art historians, when I rank the 'linear development' and the 'canon' pretty high. I believe it is just a question of the particular approach adopted (thematic vs. non-thematic) and by the type of focus (Western-centered or non-Western).

Pro:

• The basic premise behind my ranking is the best technique for reaching students in the 35 and under class is a lecture discussion hybrid. The content and skills are inherently interdisciplinary and therefore I have placed interdisciplinary instruction third.
• Secondary and tertiary strategies based on discussion and guided questions can often deepen the awareness of key themes, critical concepts, and even alternatives (not pursued). The other methods enumerated do this less pointedly.
• Class discussions are a part of the lecture method, as students drive the discussion in class.

Pro:

• I have changed the position of the Guided Questions, putting it in a higher one. I have realize that I always include those at the beginning of any new problem we are confronting. I also often print them out and give them to the students so that they can keep them in mind all through the class, and so that we can look at them at try to answer in the different art works we examine.
• Secondary and tertiary strategies based on discussion and guided questions can often deepen the awareness of key themes, critical concepts, and even alternatives (not pursued). The other methods enumerated do this less pointedly.

• I agree that an opening question is a great way in to flip during lecture, like after showing a brief video used as a starting point to open a wider discourse. However, as a class opener, I wonder about its efficacy - besides capturing attention - unless the question ties with previous materials.

• My new and corrected order is generally close to the average, except in "Guiding Questions." I find these useful and do a version of them for exams, but do not for class meetings.

Pro:

• At this time lecture is the best method to deliver the amount of material required in a short time.
• The basic premise behind my ranking is the best technique for reaching students in the 35 and under class is a lecture discussion hybrid. The content and skills are inherently interdisciplinary and therefore I have placed interdisciplinary instruction third.
• Carefully prepared and often passionately delivered lectures are frequently the best means by which to inform and excite students regarding new material and means of contextualizing it.

Neutral:

• The Lecture is sometimes necessary, so I ranked it #10

Pro:

• The top 3 responses of the participant pool are all techniques that have been proven to be inadequate for developing deep and critical learning, as well as severely disadvantageous for the most vulnerable sections of the higher ed student population -- first generation students, lower income students, and students with disabilities.

Pro:

• I stick to my choice of less is more for the top technique. Someone has argued that this reinforces the canon, which does not have to be necessarily so. As I argued before, I have been doing this for many, many years and the students consistently praise the approach because, in their own words, it allows the to really understand the art work. I am more interested in art as a phenomenon of the human experience, rather than as a series of products created by humans.
• I ranked 'less is more' first as I think this needs to be underscored. This type of approach gives instructors and students the space and time to engage in the active learning that a combination of discussion, guiding questions, lecture, art lab activities, on site visits, etc. can foster..
• I ranked less-is-more higher this time because this is how I've set up the course so we can dive deeper into a work and consider it from different viewpoints or ask different questions of it and model "doing art history" better.

Pro:

• The top 3 responses of the participant pool are all techniques that have been proven to be inadequate for developing deep and critical learning, as well as severely disadvantageous for the most vulnerable sections of the higher ed student population -- first generation students, lower income students, and students with disabilities.

• While two of my top three were in the top three of all participants, my first choice was 6 overall. Student-driven instruction is easier to manage when the course emphasizes developing skills over mastering specific content, and that may be a reason for the difference.
• I wonder if student-driven instructional techniques may work better with online course design, where the faculty's time is more likely focused on feedback than on lesson plan.

Pro:

• The top 3 responses of the participant pool are all techniques that have been proven to be inadequate for developing deep and critical learning, as well as severely disadvantageous for the most vulnerable sections of the higher ed student population -- first generation students, lower income students, and students with disabilities.

Con:

• Another method that I rank lower than the average is "Experiental Learning" because in theory it sounds good, but in practice I have found it rarely works except in upper-level courses.

Pro:

• The basic premise behind my ranking is the best technique for reaching students in the 35 and under class is a lecture discussion hybrid. The content and skills are inherently interdisciplinary and therefore I have placed interdisciplinary instruction third... I ranked "InterdisciplinaryInstruction" much higher that the average as I think art history is at its basis the intersection of humantistic disciplines.
• The rest of my ranking remains the same. The biggest discrepancy with the group is the interdisciplinarity of the classes, which is very important for me, and not so much for the group. I guess this comes from my less is more approach, which actually allows me to go in many different directions in the analysis of a work of art. I frankly do not know how art history, from a point of view of the humanities, and a historical human product, can be explained or interrogated with critical skills if the students do not have some basic information about the history, ideology, values, culture, etc. of the time.

• I positioned "interdisciplinary instruction" lower as I'm not entirely sure what this means (and isn't art history by definition always and already interdisciplinary -- art and history?)

Con:

• Multi-modal dropped down because I was interpreting it as including video clips and bringing in examples of types of work and techniques but from some of the responses it looks like most colleagues understand it as bringing in games, debates, and other active learning techniques.

Neutral:

• Role-play: it needs to be done properly, otherwise it may risk to become trivial. And perhaps it works better with some groups of students - more extroverted - than others.

• I am currently experimenting with other methods but do not have enough experience to comment fully on other approaches. I do get students to the museum, but we have a small museum near the college, and I cannot require students to attend a bus trip to Chicago because it goes outside the required class time.
• some of the responses near the bottom shifted a bit (these are mostly techniques that I do not ever use in a large classroom).
• My class still follows a relatively traditional F2F lecture format, with Socratic Q&A and class discussion. We live in a community without close access to museums (a field trip is offered every term to a major museum in the Midwest, but it's not required)
• The basic premise behind my ranking is the best technique for reaching students in the 35 and under class is a lecture discussion hybrid.
• I teach in a liberal arts environment and our focus is to treat art history as a humanistic discipline, although we also dabble in the social sciences.

• Class discussions are a part of the lecture method, as students drive the discussion in class.
• The content and skills are inherently interdisciplinary and therefore I have placed interdisciplinary instruction third. I have ordered all the other techniques to support these.
• I ranked the pedagogical activities according to how I use them most effectively. I teach in a flipped classroom so group work, discussions, role playing, debates, activities of many kinds in which students apply what they have read (readings and online lectures) are my preference and have consistently been identified by students in evaluations and critical reflections as most effective for learning.

• My new and corrected order is generally close to the average, except in "Guiding Questions."
• I am mostly in line with the participant pool
• Given the popularity of guiding questions as the #1 response I will have to consider this more strongly.

• My ranking is dramatically different from the average ranking by the participant pool. This indicates to me that the field of art history is still, as a whole, woefully behind in understanding and implementing the knowledge gained through research into how learning occurs and what instructional techniques best facilitate learning.
• The rest of my ranking remains the same. The biggest discrepancy with the group is the interdisciplinarity of the classes, which is very important for me, and not so much for the group. I guess this comes from my less is more approach, which actually allows me to go in many different directions in the analysis of a work of art. I frankly do not know how art history, from a point of view of the humanities, and a historical human product, can be explained or interrogated with critical skills if the students do not have some basic information about the history, ideology, values, culture, etc. of the time.

• I stick to my choice of less is more for the top technique. Someone has argued that this reinforces the canon, which does not have to be necessarily so. As I argued before, I have been doing this for many, many years and the students consistently praise the approach because, in their own words, it allows the to really understand the art work. I am more interested in art as a phenomenon of the human experience, rather than as a series of products created by humans.
• I ranked less-is-more higher this time because this is how I've set up the course so we can dive deeper into a work and consider it from different viewpoints or ask different questions of it and model "doing art history" better.
• My new and corrected order is generally close to the average, except in "Guiding Questions." I find these useful and do a version of them for exams, but do not for class meetings. Another method that I rank lower than the average is "Experiental Learning" because in theory it sounds good, but in practice I have found it rarely works except in upper-level courses.
• I ranked the pedagogical activities according to how I use them most effectively. I teach in a flipped classroom so group work, discussions, role playing, debates, activities of many kinds in which students apply what they have read (readings and online lectures) are my preference and have consistently been identified by students in evaluations and critical reflections as most effective for learning.

• I am currently experimenting with other methods but do not have enough experience to comment fully on other approaches. I do get students to the museum, but we have a small museum near the college, and I cannot require students to attend a bus trip to Chicago because it goes outside the required class time.
• I positioned "interdisciplinary instruction" lower as I'm not entirely sure what this means (and isn't art history by definition always and already interdisciplinary -- art and history?)
• I ranked "multi-modal" and "role playing" lower not because I don't see value in them but because I do not use them as much as others on the list.
• I don't know what the Less is More Approach is

Pro:

• Compare/contrast work is always oral.
• A comparison essay/journals/etc. are all projects that require looking at art and writing about art and this is very important.
• Analytical skills are furthered through comparative papers and research essays.
• I was not surprised that my top two rankings--comparison essay and analysis of a personally viewable object--were ranked high on this list.

Pro:

• Compelling a student to provide a sustained analysis of a work of art that they can visit in person should, I believe, be stressed in any introductory art history course.
• I believe the most important thing is to get students to SEE works of out outside the classroom. Whether this is at a museum or exhibition/gallery, I create assignments that ask students to write about works they encounter and relate those works to art history works they learn about in class.
• A principal goal is to encourage the students--as individuals--to engage deeply and authentically with works of arts.
• I was not surprised that my top two rankings--comparison essay and analysis of a personally viewable object--were ranked high on this list.

• I usually assign 'personally viewable artifacts' for art appreciation classes, where students can analyze space and color within contemporary artifacts. This exercise may be impossible for some surveys, like if you have the ancient survey and a contemporary art museum.
• I disagree with the group about the analysis of a personally viewable artistic artifact not because I do not think that it is a valuable assessment tool. I think it is terrific, but unfortunately, given the periods I teach and the location of my institution, it is an impossibility; there is no chance for the students to do so.

• "analysis of a Personally Viewable Artifact" I put at 9 whereas it received a 1 in the survey. This is very important, but impractical for my teaching situation. If I had a campus museum or one students could visit with public transportation, I would place it much higher.

Pro:

• A comparison essay/journals/etc. are all projects that require looking at art and writing about art and this is very important.
• My students write every week which often includes some kind of research.
• I am a huge fan of writing and students these days write blogs, thus it's #1 ranking.

Pro:

• A comparison essay/journals/etc. are all projects that require looking at art and writing about art and this is very important.
• And because I am a fan of writing I rank the Critical Analysis Essay #3.
• Analytical skills are furthered through comparative papers and research essays.

• The major difference was the weight I gave to critical analysis essays and research projects. I find that these are just too pat of assignments and too easy to plagiarize, and that they really don't provide much substance or learning.

Pro:

• This is really difficult. I wanted to rank note taking high, but that would indicate taking notes on a lecture and I am no fan of the lecture. Still, students need to learn to take notes on their reading for their won thinking and research, yet it ended up #10. It should probably be #1.
• A principal goal is to encourage the students--as individuals--to engage deeply and authentically with works of arts. Note-taking does this well as it educates the student to select critically important material "to note" from those aspects of secondary consequence.

Con:

• I like the group research project (ranked #2), but it has so many flaws depending on the dynamics of the student population.
• The major difference was the weight I gave to critical analysis essays and research projects. I find that these are just too pat of assignments and too easy to plagiarize, and that they really don't provide much substance or learning.

Pro:

• Role playing (simulations) have proven to be the most effective for my students because they involve reading, research, argument, interpretation and require students to take a stand and defend it or change their mind and defend it, all of which helps with critical thinking.
• By contrast, the role playing games, which I weighted more heavily than the participant pool, provide an outlet for accomplishing such learning, writing, and research, but also are engaging as well as very difficult to plagiarize, because they must take into account very specific aspects of how the game is played in that particular class.

• I also put "Art History Games" at 11, where as the average was 7. I feel this is too entertainment focused.
• Art history games/role playing is a little lower in this third round because while I think there are some excellent games and would really like to bring some into the classroom, it just seems overwhelming to try with a 100+ -person class and one facilitator.
• The bottom-ranked assessment items all refer to role-play or game (see my previous answer to question no.10). I believe it may depend from instructors to instructors, and from class to online course delivery.

Pro:

• I have ranked the "scavenger hunt" higher than most of my colleagues. This is been an important assignment as it gets students into the new art museum, a scary place for the majority who have never been to any museum. The targeted questions guide them through all the exhibits and make them look at a variety of styles, media, and content so they learn how to have visual and aesthetic experiences and become comfortable looking at art outside of the classroom. They learn to: make connections between things we've learned in class about gothic art and contemporary work, identify and apply art historical terminology to real works, explain differences among similar works through key visual aspects, consider the impact of a patron on the subject, stop and look at non-western work and describe what they are seeing in the abstract forms, discuss cultural meaning in works that at first glance might appear simplistic.

• The bottom-ranked assessment items all refer to role-play or game (see my previous answer to question no.10). I believe it may depend from instructors to instructors, and from class to online course delivery.

Pro:

• I also diverge in my high position for creative re-interpretation. Reading the cons argued by some, I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding about the possibilities of this assessment. I use it a lot for art students that have problems articulating their thoughts in words, but can express the most complex ideas in visual form. If we truly believe that art is not just an excellent means of communication, but a very special one indeed, then we have to accept its use in the classroom. The way I do it varies quite a bit. One example is giving them a couple of articles with different views about an issue. Students can write a discussion of both positions, side with one, and argue why, or create an artwork that addresses the issues in the articles and explain why they designed it like this. It is quite amazing to see how students that are always struggling to articulate their ideas in discussions and essays, become so eloquent when they are talking about the choices in their own works. And those choices are related to what they thought about the content of the articles. Another way I use this creative framework is with pretend situations: imagine you are the architects of this and that church and you are trying to convince the king that your design is the best to promote his image as a powerful Christian emperor. They write a dialogue about it, in which they actually use their critical skills, for there is no right answer but only sound arguments. It results in more focused and reflective papers than just asking them to write an essay comparing how both work as representations of the ideology of the king.
• I was surprised that creative re-interpretation was ranked so much lower by all participants. For me this has been a productive and profitable type of assignment, and promotes the expression of critical and creative thinking.

• I don't like the idea of creative re-interpretation at all! Not without learning how to think Critically first.

Practicality:

• "analysis of a Personally Viewable Artifact" I put at 9 whereas it received a 1 in the survey. This is very important, but impractical for my teaching situation. If I had a campus museum or one students could visit with public transportation, I would place it much higher.

• In my classes, depending on class size, I have traditionally leaned on a combination of those assessments that I ranked between 1 and 8 (with 8 being the one I would require less often, 1 being the one I would almost always require as central to the course).

• My answers are similar to the participant pool
• My responses did not differ that much from the participant pool.
• I have not changed my rankings. Again, my rankings are fairly close to the average, except in two instances.

• The major difference was the weight I gave to critical analysis essays and research projects. I find that these are just too pat of assignments and too easy to plagiarize, and that they really don't provide much substance or learning.
• I was surprised that creative re-interpretation was ranked so much lower by all participants. For me this has been a productive and profitable type of assignment, and promotes the expression of critical and creative thinking.

• Ranking focuses mainly on the predominant modes of assessment in my course (exam questions and term paper)
• I have never practice 10 and 11 so I do not know how good they are. I am not sure even how I could do that in my courses.
• My ranking remains essentially unchanged, but it is based on my own experience.
• In my classes, depending on class size, I have traditionally leaned on a combination of those assessments that I ranked between 1 and 8 (with 8 being the one I would require less often, 1 being the one I would almost always require as central to the course). I do not think those ranked higher than 8 are as effective in achieving my learning outcomes and do not assign/use these.
• I do not give exams and any quizzes are group projects so I place very little emphasis on those kinds of activities.

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 8 (+5)
• Useful: 5 (+1)
• Neutral: 1 (-1)
• Not Useful: 1 (+1)
• Detrimental: 0
• Not Applicable: 2 (-4)

• I find the dialogic approach taken by Smarthistory (now Khan Academy) to be a better means of 'introducing' the work to the student before we look at it and discuss it more fully in class than textbook summations. It also models the type of back and forth I am seeking in a classroom that gives as much emphasis to discussion as lecture.
• Very useful, lots of options if you include databases which allow faculty to customize the course and encourages students to research in them.
• There are now some excellent sources available and I'm moving my course in this direction.
• I have changed my answer from round 2. Then I did not know what it was meant by this, but after reading the answers by the group, now I understand. Yes, I find Smarthistory, youtube videos, etc. EXTREMELY useful.
• Glad to see that others feel strongly about their value as well.
• I provide links on Blackboard to Khan Academy and other useful websites related to course material.

• I need to investigate some of the resources mentioned and try to find some which work in my class. I've had some success but on a limited basis.
• Agreed with useful / very useful. I use open educational resources, like brief videos, as a way to flip the class, stimulate discussions and engage students. However, I agree that this should not be a substitute for a well-structured textbook.

• Same as round two. I agree again with most of the posts from round two, but again stress these resources should be supplements to a textbook.
• Do not use

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 8 (+1)
• Useful: 4 (-1)
• Neutral: 2 (-1)
• Not Useful: 0 (-1)
• Detrimental: 0
• Not Applicable: 0

• Students are accustomed to learning visually, plus they can rewatch at their own leisure...am assuming that movies/multimedia is not being substituted in class for active learning. Short films/clips/media that can be shown in class and then be the kickoff for discussion/activities are great.
• Films, TED Talks, You Tube Videos hold great interest and are motivating for students.
• Indispensable for helping students understand architecture and certain monuments/art that engage space. Can provide a cogent explanation of a concept that I can model and we can discuss and work through together in class. Object narratives often engage students.
• What I like most about videos is that they allow the students to hear the information, instead of reading it, while looking at the art work. Multimedia is a must for architecture, especially the interactive plans, 360 views, etc. I agree with all the comments made by the other people in the survey.
• A useful format within the classroom; provides a mental "break" from the students listening to and responding to their instructor; helpful tool for providing contextual information
• agree that short (not feature-length) movies and video clips can be very effective.
• I sometimes show part of a film in class, but never take up 60 minutes of class time with a video. If there is a video I want students to watch, I make it an assignment with questions they must answer.
• Helps students visualize concepts

• Again, a great supplement, but never the core of the course. I changed my rating, because implied in most of the comments from round two is that instructors would never make it the heart of the course. With this understood, I think multi-media is useful.
• Can be effective, but one should use these sparingly. I believe that watching movies/films (in the way that students tend to approach them) can encourage passive, less critical thinking, as opposed to grappling with critical texts or primary sources that are often difficult to understand.

• Use infrequently and only in sections

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 5 (+3)
• Useful: 3 (-3)
• Neutral: 3 (+1)
• Not Useful: 1 (+1)
• Detrimental: 0 (-2)
• Not Applicable: 2 (-2)

• Essential! We must demonstrate to students that our discipline is as much about asking questions, NOT knowing, putting forth interpretations that are situated and partial. (Hence I lean on the term 'various' here.)
• I do this a lot, and students love to learn that people have changed their views about art works. It helps them to understand that our responses are culturally conditioned. I generally do this not with second literature but primary sources.
• Most helpful, especially to introduce various critical theories or perspectives

• Articles rather than books for most lower division intro courses; historiography can be a bit overwhelming or students. I often write short essays or lectures for them on this.
• These texts need to be used in conjunction with a text book.
• This is probably more useful for slightly more advanced students but does help demonstrate that there is no one way but often many ways to analyze objects.
• I agree that this could be very useful IF an anthology of brief and focused texts existed: however, I am firm that given the abundant material to cover already in this course, this approach is more effective in upper-level classes, which are more focused and therefore can be shaped by the instructor.
• If used, these would need to be place in context and explained to students in a survey course.

• I think that these are more helpful in upper-level courses.
• Absolutely essential in advanced art history classes; can be cumbersome for survey courses where we are trying to cover multiple centuries of art works in a short amount of time.

Ratings (n=13):

• Very Useful: 5
• Useful: 4 (-3)
• Neutral: 0 (-1)
• Not Useful: 2 (+2)
• Detrimental: 0
• Not Applicable: 2 (+2)

• I do believe these are important and admit that I don't use them as much as I should.
• Really good if put into context.
• Excellent for bringing the past to the student and helping them to engage with it at least somewhat more closely on its terms.
• Glad to see others feel strongly on this. Aside from images, I believe that it is imperative that students study primary source texts in the survey.
• Absolutely essential in order to enable students to have access to artists' own voices (and those of their time)

• I agree these are important and need to find ways to incorporate more into my course (without making the reading assignments too heavy).
• Does it mean a XVII century parchment? Cool! Do all instructors have one to share with the class? Or rather, does it mean readings from primary sources' extracts inserted in the survey textbook? While videos are immediately engaging, the use of primary sources needs to be balanced against time constraints
• These texts need to be used in conjunction with a text book.
• Absolutely essential in advanced art history classes; can be cumbersome for survey courses where we are trying to cover multiple centuries of art works in a short amount of time (although I do have them read brief passages of texts such as Vasari's "Lives", Joshua Reynold's "Discourses", Ghiberti's recollection of designing the "Gates of Paradise", and Kandinsky's "Concerning the Spiritual in Art"
• I use some primary source materials in survey, but more so in upper level courses.

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 4 (-2)
• Useful: 3 (-3)
• Neutral: 5 (+3)
• Not Useful: 1 (-1)
• Detrimental: 0
• Not Applicable: 1 (+1)

• Can be helpful depending upon the types of assignments the course supports.
• Many students have never written a research paper before. I take students to a library workshop in order to learn how to research effectively, and provide them with information on how to properly cite sources in a paper.
• I provide links on Blackboard to websites on how to write, research, etc. and we review these in class when discussing writing assignments.

• Include some information for writing assignments
• It is better to have readings that can be posted or web links that another book, but these can be helpful if students actually read them.
• Due to class constraints, I place copies of art methods books in library reserves, in case someone needs to catch up with basic writing skills. I use class time to deal with writing issues in the upper-level, intensive-writing courses.
• Most of this (how to research, information literacy, citations, grammar help) is available to my students online and has been written to address the kind of research/writing they are required to do. I would never use traditional sources on writing for art history since that tends to help students write report type papers.

• For how to do research, a presentation by a librarian on university databases and research sources is best. The traditional 'how to write about a work of art' texts (Barnett, Sayre, etc.) I no longer use. Students HATED reading these.

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 5
• Useful: 4 (-3)
• Neutral: 1
• Not Useful: 3
• Detrimental: 1 (+1)
• Not Applicable: 0

• This is useful for students who want the security of a textbook or need to have the material presented in another format from the lecture and discussion.
• Agreed with useful and very useful. While lectures and discussions provide the big picture and selected works, the textbook is like an encyclopedia, to which students can go back to refine their notes or to clarify some points.
• Concentrated information in one resource; students do not have to "hunt" for other resources and pay more out-ofpocket (a big concern with a demographic of many financially-strapped students, who can easily rent the textbook from the campus bookstore at low cost)
• Traditional texts, especially those prepared in the last several years, have sections that treat techniques of making (or perspective, for instance) well and at a graspable level. This releases the professor from having to do this during lectures. Moreover, these textbook sections can serve as foundational discussions for section leaders.
• I agree that there are problems with traditional textbooks, and that often students do not buy them, but I maintain that they are essential in a lower-level survey course.

• The textbook provides a source for students to access. It is not intended as a source from which I solely teach and try to cover all works, but as a resource.
• No change in view. There are two sorts of criticisms of the textbook; the first is students will not read it, and the second is sets up a normative truth. I accept both of these criticisms, but these can be dealt with by holding students accountable for the readings and pointing out the prejudices of the text. In the end, it is an essential place to start.

• In prior responses, I think I was more inclined to remain "neutral" about the use of the traditional survey textbook but my thinking about this has changed. In teaching an experimental upper-level course this past spring, and in ALL other courses that I teach, a combination of open-sourced educational materials (Heilbrunn Timeline, Smarthistory), excerpts from secondary, more 'focused' textbooks (Oxford, Thames and Hudson, Cambridge series), primary sources, etc. is more effective and gives the instructor greater flexibility.
• The traditional survey textbooks have an approach to art history in which I do not believe anymore. I prefer a thematic approach, not a geographical and linear chronological ones which create artificial divisions.
• Mostly formalist, lots of description, too much information to cover effectively or in depth, way too expensive and there is better information that can address the course and is free.

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 3 (-3)
• Useful: 3 (-1)
• Neutral: 3 (+3)
• Not Useful: 3
• Detrimental: 1 (-1)
• Not Applicable: 1

• This choice is ideal as one can weave in promary sources and other secondary sources, but then one much cut down the number of images and themes one can teach.
• This is useful in exposing students to more in-depth readings about works, or present other viewpoints.
• Supplemental readings are occasionally used but must be provided by instructor.
• Adding primary texts by artists and contemporaneous critics provides students with both primary and secondary voices.
• With technology such as Blackboard it is easy to supplement the textbook with short topical readings.
• I also supplement all textbooks with additional focused readings.

• unless there are weekly graded writing assignments which make students responsible for reading, I doubt that most do the reading...and not many faculty require weekly writing because they have to grade it so I am sure that adding supplemental readings is not generally effective.

• Agreed with CON: too much already to deal with. Focused readings require the instructor to prepare the extensive background needed for understanding. There is simply no time to go so much in depth in a survey course; readings work much better for upper-level classes.
• Since I do not use textbooks, except for the flipped class mentioned above, I do not know how to answer this question. My experience is that students have trouble with supplemental readings, especially articles, since they are too difficult for them. I do give them a couple of articles at least per semester, but they are part of assignments.
• Do not use

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 3 (+2)
• Useful: 2 (-2)
• Neutral: 5 (-1)
• Not Useful: 1 (+1)
• Detrimental: 2 (+1)
• Not Applicable: 1 (-2)

• See above (cultural identity). Students are particularly engaged when thinking about say, NAGPRA, art "collecting" vs. "looting," issues of cultural property, etc.
• This is very important today as so much art deals with ethics. It is also significant considering many of the cultural heritage issues and concerns with museums and gallery systems.
• This issue comes up in my classes primarily in relation to issues of gender, power, sexuality, economics and is a very good way for students to get past the "it's art" stage.
• I found it very useful and so did the students. All students have their own ethic views and feel comfortable arguing them in class and applying them to an art work. In my Greek Art survey I divide the class, half of them reading the Greek official position about the sculptures of the PArthenon, while the other half read the arguments of the British Museum. It results in a very lively discussion that helps them to gain a deeper understanding of art after the times when it was created.

• While others seemed to place these readings in the same category as other types of supplemental readings I think they are helpful to engage students on current events that connect to art.

• The Art History Survey is not the place to teach ethics
• Agreed: this has no room in an introductory survey - although I slightly touch upon it in the art appreciation class, which is not chronological, not all-encompassing and therefore allows cursory digressions on values.
• We don't get into this in survey to the degree that we would require a reading on ethics.
• Not in use

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 2 (+1)
• Useful: 5
• Neutral: 2 (-2)
• Not Useful: 1
• Detrimental: 2 (+1)
• Not Applicable: 2 (-2)

• I think it's important for students to come away from the class recognizing that the discipline of art history (accompanied by the rise of the museum in the modern era in the west) has, for the most part, come of age and been inherently shaped by imperialism and colonialism and how in the past decades, art historians have heartily debated what art history is, what it should do, what practices it should adopt and how we should think about and talk about work produced by others who come from places, times and cultures different from our own.
• It's a global world and anything people made/make/say has to be contextualized so students must be encouraged to see how one people's art history is not the model for everyone.
• This is important to get students thinking about views that might not be their own or to begin to question their own "natural" assumptions.
• I have changed my answer from round 2 (not useful) after reading what it was interpreted by other participants in the survey. It seems to me similar to TExt providing a Critical Understanding of Various Historical viewpoints, only that restricted to a different or narrower issue.

• If it means additional readings to compare how an artwork has been interpreted through time, this would be great material for a course devoted on art criticism. I believe this would add an additional layer of complexity to an already overwhelming course.

• The art history survey is not the place to teach identity.
• Like with texts on providing a critical understanding of historical viewpoints I think these might be too much for a survey course. It seems that others agree that these kinds of readings might be too advanced or too detailed.
• Not really useful in a survey course, but I would use this in an upper level course.
• Not in use

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 0
• Useful: 5 (+1)
• Neutral: 3
• Not Useful: 3 (+3)
• Detrimental: 0
• Not Applicable: 3 (-6)

• I use textbooks that are arranged thematically and lately I am trying to design my syllabi so that they can follow the arrangement of some of these books.

• if available in pdf form so only the pertinent chapter/s since students hate having to buy a book and not use all of it.
• Can be helpful, but we need to guard against assigning too much readings or required to many books due to cost.

• I don't use textbooks from other disciplines, as students don't seem to access them.
• I wouldn't want students to have to purchase more than one textbook for the course as they are generally very expensive.
• Don't use in the survey

Ratings:

• Very Useful: 1
• Useful: 2 (+2)
• Neutral: 3 (-1)
• Not Useful: 3 (-3)
• Detrimental: 1 (+1)
• Not Applicable: 4 (-1)

• comes with problems since students still have to make a copy and since they all read at the last minute, many never get to the book.
• This is only used for reserving the textbook so that students who don't purchase it can have access to it.
• I agree that students in an introductory course need a reference textbook. I would use additional materials for upper-level courses.
• In this time and age this is not a practical option. I do use PDFs online though, which are almost the equivalent of reserve material.
• Rarely use as I distribute handouts or make available through in-house web various readings
• I agree with the majority of participants that a textbook is helpful in this type of course--it would be difficult to teach a survey effectively without a book.
• I do put book on reserve in the library, but over the past year have found that only a few students ever look at them.

• In general, I agree with the voices of those respondents, who seem to claim that an art history survey course has already a big job to do, and therefore adding anything else can be detrimental to its primary purpose. After all, it is the course that provides the backbone to the upper-level courses.
• I actually have not change my views much so I have nothing else to add. It seems to me though that participants are talking of two different types of surveys: first year intro world surveys, and more specific surveys at upper undergraduate level. This explains, I believe, some of the discrepancies in opinions.

• I have changed my answer from round 2 (not useful) after reading what it was interpreted by other participants in the survey.
• I subscribe my previous opinions and those posed by others.
• Glad to see others feel strongly on this...

Engagement:

• I do this a lot, and students love to learn that people have changed their views about art works.
• Students are particularly engaged when thinking about say, NAGPRA, art "collecting" vs. "looting," issues of cultural property, etc.
• I found it very useful and so did the students. All students have their own ethic views and feel comfortable arguing them in class and applying them to an art work.
• Many students have never written a research paper before. I take students to a library workshop in order to learn how to research effectively, and provide them with information on how to properly cite sources in a paper.

• This is probably more useful for slightly more advanced students...
• I use some primary source materials in survey, but more so in upper level courses.
• Absolutely essential in advanced art history classes; can be cumbersome for survey courses where we are trying to cover multiple centuries of art works in a short amount of time.
• Articles rather than books for most lower division intro courses; historiography can be a bit overwhelming or students. I often write short essays or lectures for them on this.
• I agree that students in an introductory course need a reference textbook. I would use additional materials for upper-level courses.

• I distribute handouts or make available through in-house web various readings
• I do use PDFs online though, which are almost the equivalent of reserve material.
• if available in pdf form so only the pertinent chapter/s since students hate having to buy a book and not use all of it.
• With technology such as Blackboard it is easy to supplement the textbook with short topical readings.

• Concentrated information in one resource; students do not have to "hunt" for other resources and pay more out-ofpocket (a big concern with a demographic of many financially-strapped students, who can easily rent the textbook from the campus bookstore at low cost)
• Can be helpful, but we need to guard against assigning too much readings or required to many books due to cost.
• (Reserve Materials) This is only used for reserving the textbook so that students who don't purchase it can have access to it.
• I wouldn't want students to have to purchase more than one textbook for the course as they are generally very expensive.
• if available in pdf form so only the pertinent chapter/s since students hate having to buy a book and not use all of it.

• Do not use

• Due to class constraints...
• There is simply no time to go so much in depth in a survey course; readings work much better for upper-level classes.
• I agree these are important and need to find ways to incorporate more into my course (without making the reading assignments too heavy).
• Absolutely essential in advanced art history classes; can be cumbersome for survey courses where we are trying to cover multiple centuries of art works in a short amount of time.