Construction of a Collaborative Evaluation System for the Foundation Course Cluster in Higher Vocational Art and Design: Research and Practice

Abstract

Addressing the practical problems of changing student demographics in art and design programs at higher vocational colleges and the absence of evaluation standards for foundation courses, this study takes the four teaching and research offices and nine programs of the School of Art and Design at Guangdong Asia Television Performing Arts Vocational College as its field of practice and integrates literature research, the Delphi method, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), action research, and case analysis. On this basis it constructs a collaborative evaluation system for the art and design foundation course cluster that covers four dimensions—knowledge and skills, creative thinking, practical ability, and teamwork—spans three tiers—baseline, attainment, and developmental—and embeds aesthetic education standards differentially according to the needs of each program. The study proposes a “tiering plus baseline” mechanism that adapts evaluation to non-art-track students, a “3+1” classroom evaluation and course exhibition review mechanism that combines multiple evaluators with varied methods, and a teaching closed loop of “evaluation–feedback–improvement”. Practice across one complete teaching cycle shows that the system alleviates such problems as duplicated and disconnected content across foundation courses, arbitrary and subjective grading, and the decoupling of evaluation results from teaching improvement. It thus provides an operational institutional tool for improving the teaching quality of design foundation courses for students with weak foundations and those from non-art tracks.

Introduction

The research focuses on developing a Collaborative Evaluation System for Art and Design Foundation Courses in Higher Vocational Colleges. The main aim is to improve the fairness, accuracy, and effectiveness of student evaluation by considering different levels of students' artistic knowledge, practical abilities, creativity, and professional development.

In recent years, higher vocational colleges have experienced changes in student backgrounds. Some students enter art and design programs with professional art training, while others come from non-art backgrounds and have little or no previous experience in drawing, colour theory, and design composition.

Traditional evaluation systems use the same standards for all students, which may disadvantage beginners or fail to recognize the achievements of students with stronger artistic foundations. Therefore, the study proposes a collaborative and flexible evaluation system that considers students' starting abilities, learning progress, and professional requirements.

Problem Statement

Art and design foundation courses face difficulties in evaluating students because artistic work is often subjective and does not always have a single correct answer.

The main problems include:

• Different levels of artistic knowledge among students.

• Lack of flexibility in traditional evaluation methods.

• Difficulty evaluating creativity and aesthetic understanding.

• Insufficient recognition of individual student improvement.

• Limited collaboration between teachers, students, and industry experts.

Therefore, there is a need for an evaluation system that maintains professional standards while recognizing individual learning progress and differences in student backgrounds.

Research Approach and Methods

The study focuses on foundation courses across nine programs under four teaching and research offices:

1. Clothing Design.

2. Animation.

3. Visual Communication.

4. Interior Design.

The research follows a systematic approach involving:

• Literature Review: Studying existing research on educational evaluation and art and design teaching.

• Delphi Method: Collecting expert opinions through two rounds of consultation.

• Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP): Determining the importance and weights of evaluation indicators.

• Action Research: Testing and improving the evaluation system through classroom practices.

• Case Studies: Examining selected courses and collaborative exhibitions.

• Questionnaires and Interviews: Collecting feedback from students, graduates, and employers.

Theoretical Foundations

The proposed evaluation system is based on four major theories:

1. CIPP Evaluation Model: Evaluates context, input, process, and product to improve educational quality.

2. Outcome-Based Education (OBE): Focuses on expected learning outcomes and measurable student competencies.

3. Symbiosis Theory and Collaborative Innovation: Encourages cooperation among teachers, students, and industry experts.

4. Field Theory: Considers the relationships between teaching, learning, and supporting educational environments.

These theories support a comprehensive evaluation approach that focuses on continuous improvement rather than simply assigning marks.

Design Principles of the System

The proposed system follows four important principles:

• Tiered Evaluation: Students are classified according to their initial artistic abilities.

• Professional Adaptation: Evaluation standards are adjusted according to the requirements of different design programs.

• Multiple Evaluators: Teachers, students, industry experts, and exhibition reviewers participate in evaluation.

• Continuous Improvement: Evaluation results are used to improve teaching methods, course content, and learning outcomes.

Proposed Evaluation System: Four-Dimension, Three-Tier Model

The research introduces a collaborative evaluation framework consisting of four major evaluation dimensions and three performance levels.

Four evaluation dimensions:

1. Knowledge and Skills: Evaluates drawing, modelling, colour theory, composition principles, and software knowledge.

2. Creative Thinking: Measures idea generation, creativity, cultural expression, and problem-solving abilities.

3. Practical Ability: Evaluates project completion, practical application, craftsmanship, and participation in competitions.

4. Teamwork: Measures communication, collaboration, professional attitude, and contribution to group projects.

Three evaluation levels:

• Baseline Level: Represents the minimum requirements necessary to pass a course.

• Attainment Level: Represents the expected competencies defined in the educational curriculum.

• Developmental Level: Recognizes outstanding achievements, creative projects, competition awards, and cross-disciplinary collaboration.

Evaluation Indicator Weights

The study assigns weights to 12 evaluation indicators.

These weights indicate that practical ability and creative thinking are important components of art and design education.

Professionalized Aesthetic Education

The system adapts aesthetic evaluation standards to different professional programs.

• Clothing Design: Focuses on fabric texture, colour combinations, fashion illustration, and clothing aesthetics.

• Animation: Focuses on character design, body proportions, movement, storytelling, and visual expression.

• Visual Communication: Focuses on graphic design, layout, visual communication, and cultural symbols.

• Interior Design: Focuses on spatial composition, materials, lighting, colour, and sustainable design.

This approach ensures that students are evaluated according to the specific requirements of their chosen professional fields.

Tiered Evaluation for Students

The study classifies students into three groups according to their initial artistic abilities:

• Category A: Students with professional art backgrounds.

• Category B: Non-art students with some basic artistic knowledge.

• Category C: Non-art students with little or no artistic background.

The system uses two evaluation methods:

1. Absolute Evaluation: Measures whether students meet the minimum professional requirements.

2. Value-Added Evaluation: Measures improvement by comparing students' current performance with their initial abilities.

This approach ensures that students are not evaluated only on their existing skills but also on their learning progress and development.

Conclusion

This study responds systematically—at the levels of theoretical framework, indicator system, evaluation methods, and feedback mechanism—to the practical problems of art and design programs in higher vocational colleges: the growing number of non-art-track students, and foundation course evaluation standards that are single and disconnected from talent training objectives. It draws three conclusions. First, the logical precondition for collaborative evaluation of the art and design foundation course cluster is the “common competence foundation” of the cluster; only when modeling, color, composition, and aesthetic judgment—these shared foundations—are rendered into indicators can multiple courses share a single evaluation system, and only then can the persistent problem of duplicated and disconnected content between courses be identified and governed through data. Second, the professional character of the evaluation system for non-art-track students is expressed not as a lowering of standards but as “unified baseline, tiered pathways, and demonstrable progress”; value-added evaluation is the key design that reconciles educational equity with the quality of talent training. Third, aesthetic education standards must be operationalized by program: the same aesthetic competence element should have different observation points and judgment requirements in different program directions, otherwise aesthetic education remains a slogan. Future research will deepen in three directions: first, expanding the sample and the observation period to test the stability of indicator weights across more programs and different student intake structures; second, advancing the digitalization of evaluation instruments to achieve automatic collection of process data and visual presentation of evaluation results, making “precise profiling” possible; and third, connecting the foundation course cluster evaluation system with professional course evaluation and with the integrated education requirements of “posts, courses, competitions, and certificates”, and extending it toward an overall quality assurance system for the art and design program cluster, so as to provide transferable practical experience for teaching evaluation reform in art and design foundation courses at comparable higher vocational colleges.

References

[1] CPC Central Committee and State Council. Overall Plan for Deepening the Reform of Education Evaluation in the New Era [Z]. Beijing, 2020. (in Chinese) [2] Ministry of Education, Ministry of Finance. Opinions on Implementing the Plan for Building High-Level Vocational Colleges and Programs with Chinese Characteristics [Z]. Beijing, 2019. (in Chinese) [3] Li Shuang. Research on Practical Education Management of Art and Design Programs in Universities under the OBE Concept [D]. Nanjing: Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2023. (in Chinese) [4] Xu Lili. Research on the Curricular Order of Vocational Education Program Clusters [D]. Chongqing: Southwest University, 2021. (in Chinese) [5] Shang Nana. Research on Strategies for Optimizing the Curriculum System of Higher Vocational Colleges from the Perspective of Program Cluster Development [D]. Tianjin: Tianjin University of Technology and Education, 2025. (in Chinese) [6] Liu Hao, Qi Fen. Research on Building a Collaborative Mechanism for Course Development in High-Level Program Clusters in Higher Vocational Colleges [J]. The Guide of Science and Education, 2024(28): 36–38. (in Chinese) [7] Liu Xiaoyan. Research on the Construction of the Curriculum System for High-Level Program Clusters in Higher Vocational Colleges [J]. Logistics Engineering and Management, 2023, 45(8): 171–175. (in Chinese) [8] Jiang Yi. Research on Blended Teaching of Foundation Courses in Art and Design Programs from a Field Perspective: A Case Study of Teaching Reform in “Composition Foundation” [J]. Journal of Hunan Industry Polytechnic, 2025, 25(2): 100–107. (in Chinese) [9] Yuan Jinge. Exploration of Workshop-Style Teaching Evaluation and Assessment Methods in Higher Vocational Art and Design [J]. Art Appreciation, 2018(29). (in Chinese) [10] Lin Kun. Exploration of Teaching Reform in the “Composition Foundation” Course for Art and Design Programs [J]. Exam Weekly, 2011(50). (in Chinese) [11] Tong Junmin, Shi Zhenping, Zu Yi. Research on the Construction of an Output Performance Evaluation Indicator System for High-Level Program Cluster Development [J]. Vocational Technology, 2024(1). (in Chinese) [12] Chen Chaoqun, Hu Fuxiang. An Empirical Study on Performance Evaluation of the Development of High-Level Vocational Program Clusters with Chinese Characteristics [J]. Contemporary Vocational Education, 2023(4). (in Chinese)

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Zhang Zhiqiang. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.