ELLIOTEISNERBACKGROUND ElliotEisnerisaprofessorofArtandEducationattheStanfordUniversitySchoolofEducation. Hisresearchinterestsincludeartseducation,curriculumreform,qualitativeresearchmethods, amongothers.HegrewupinChicago,andfromanearlyage,hadhismindsetonbecominga professionalartist.Thiswasanambitionthatwassupportedbyhisparents.WhilestudyingArt attheUniversityofChicago,hebeganworkingwithstudentsinUrbanChicagoschool,andhis focusshiftedfromcommercialart,toarteducation.Fromhere,hewentontotoreceivetwo mastersdegreesinArtandEducation,andPhDfromtheUniversityofChicago.Whileobtaining hisdegrees,heworkedasahighschoolartteacher,auniversityartinstructor,andvariousother academicjobsbeforehelandedatStanford,wherehehasbeeneversince. Withhisartbackground,EisnerbecameworriedthatthecurrentmodelofeducationinAmerica wasunbalancedandplacedartonalesserlevelofimportance.Hewasparticularlyworriedthat thecognitiveskillsbehindartwerenotfostered,andwithHowardGardner,developedcognitive theoriesoflearningthatweregroundedinthearts.

AnotheraspectofEisnersviewofeducation,wastheideathateducationitselfisanartistic activity.Fromtheperspectiveofeducationasart,Eisnerarguedthatthiswouldallowusto movebeyondthetechnicalknowhowandinstructivereliance,andinsteadopenourmindsto morecreativewaysofknowingandbeing. Hishistoryofartappreciationandartisticexploration,hisfocusontheartsinschool,andhis viewofeducationasadistinctartledhimtocreatehisviewofevaluation,whichiscenteredon theartisticideasofConnoisseurshipandCriticism. EISNERSMODEL EisnersmodelforeducationalevaluationofConnoisseurshipandCriticismisessentiallya pairingoftwosensibilitiesdrawnfromthearts.Hedrawsfromtheartsintentionallybecausehe believesthatthefeaturesofclassroomlifearenotlikelytobeexplainedorcontrolledby behaviorallaws,(Eisner,1976,p.140)andthatthemajorcontributionofevaluationistobea heightenedawarenessofthequalitiesoflifesothatteachersandstudentscanbecomemore intelligentwithinit,(Eisner,1976,p.140). ThepairingofConnoisseurshipandCriticismforEisnerisessential.Inbroadestterms, ConnoisseurshipisdefinedbyEisner(2002)astheartofappreciation(p.215)howeverheis carefultomakethedistinctionthatappreciationdoesnotexclusivelymeantolikesomething. Rather,itisconsistingofrecognizingandappreciatingthequalitiesofaparticular,(p.215).It isessentiallyaprivateact,notrequiringpublicjudgmentorapublicdescriptionofthose qualities,(p.215)

Criticismisthepublicact.Itistheartofdisclosingthequalitiesofeventsorobjectsthatthe connoisseurshipperceives,(Eisner,2002,p.219).Eisnersuggeststhatonecanbea connoisseurwithoutbeingacriticbutthatcannotengageinauthenticcriticalactivitieswithout beingaconnoisseur,(p.219). EISNERANDCONNOISSEURSHIP Eisnerfrequentlyrelatesconnoisseurshiptowineconnoisseurship(Eisner1976,1998,2002). Henotesthatforthewineconnoisseur,itisnotenoughsimplytobeabletodistinguishbetween aredandawhiteorevenbetweenavarietyofwhites.Beingaconnoisseurmeansbeingable tomakefinegraineddiscriminationsamongcomplexandsubtlequalities,(Eisner,1998,p.63) ofthatwhichweareevaluating. Eisnerdescribesthisabilityasepistemicseeing(Eisner,1998)oracquiringknowledgethrough sight(althoughhegoesontocommentthathemeanssightinamuchbroadersensethat encapsulatesallsensoryexperiences)andgoesontodiscussbothprimaryepistemicseeing, awarenessoftheparticulars,andsecondaryepistemicseeing,awarenessofparticularsaspart ofalargersystemorset(p.68).Onceseen,connoisseurshiprequirestheappropriate applicationofcriteriatotheinstance,(p.70)andwithinthefieldofeducation,suchcriteriaare farmorecomplexthanevaluatingawine. Eisner(1998)identifiesfivedimensionsofeducationalconnoisseurshipthatcontributetowhat hereferstoastheecologyofschooling,(p.72).Eachofthesedimensionscanbothbe examinedfromtheperspectiveofconnoisseurshipandbeusefulasdimensionstobe consideredinagreatereducationalevaluation. TheIntentionalDimension:Theintentionaldimensiondealswithgoalsoraimsthatare formulatedfortheschoolorclassroom,(Eisner,1998,p.73).Thesearethegoalsthatare explicit,publicizedintheheclassroomorcommunity(systemgoals,schoolaims)orinexplicit practicestakingplaceintheclassroom.Theseintentionscanbespecificorgeneralandmay comefromexplicitgoalsoftheteacher,theschooloreventhedistrictorsystem.However, giventhenumberofindividualsorsystemsatplay,itisnotuncommonfortheretobetensions betweentheseintentionsonthosedifferentlevels.Eisner(1998)suggeststhattherearea numberofwaystothinkabouttheseintentionsincludingtowhatextentaretheyachievedandto whatextentaretheyofvalue.(p.74). TheStructuralDimension:Thestructuraldimensionreferstotheorganizationsstructuresof theschoolsuchashowthetimeinaschooldayisbrokenupintochunks,thegradedlevel system,ortheorganizationallayoutoftheschoolorclassroom.AsEisner(1998)suggests, Unlikethetopicsthatstudentsstudy,whichcanchangewithindaysorweeks,theschools organizationalstructureisencountereddailyforyears,(p.74).Assuch,thesestructurescan haveprofoundeffectsonthewaythatlearningandteachingisencountered.Aneducational connoisseurwouldlookathowandtowhatextentthesestructuresachievethegoalsorvirtues

theyseek. TheCurricularDimension:Thecurriculardimensionfocusesuponthequalityofthe curriculumcontentandgoalandtheactivitiesemployedtoengagestudentsinit,(Eisner,1998, p.75).Theconnoisseurmightlookathowcurrentthecontentis,howrelevantitistothe discipline,andhowwellitisbeinginterpretedbytheteacherandstudents,(p.75).Ontheother sideofthecoin,Eisner(1998)alsosuggeststhatthecurriculardimensionalsolooksatthehow thecurriculumisbeingengagedwithbythestudentsintermsofhigherorderthinking,engaging tasks,applicability,andrelevancetotheirlives.Arethecurriculumstudiesranked(dothethree rsrankhigherthanartandphysed)andhowisthatrankingcommunicatedthroughgrading practicesorformalevaluations?Arechildrenengagingindividuallywiththecurriculum, cooperatively,orascomplexsystems?Eachoftheseprovideinsightfortheconnoisseurinto thecurriculardimension. ThePedagogicalDimension:Thepedagogicaldimensionisoneofthemostcomplexofthe dimensionsineducationalconnoisseurship.Itlooksathowtheteachermediatesthecurriculum forhisorherstudents.Itisbasedontheideathateachteacherteachesinverydifferentways andeventhesameteacherinadifferentcontextorwithdifferentstudentswilltakeuptheirartin avarietyofwaysandthatcomparisonstoanidealorsingleapproachareunreasonable. Instead,Eisner(1998)suggeststhatifwetakealeaffromtheartsandapplywhatwecanlearn fromthemtothestudyofteaching,wewouldexpectexcellenceinteaching,asinart,tobeof manykinds.Thatiswewouldexpecttofindexcellencerootedindifferentgenresofteaching, (p.78).Eisneralsosuggestedthesamewouldbetrueforgenresofperformancelikelecturing, dialogueordiscussion.Itistheroleoftheconnoisseurtorecognizethepervasivequalitiesof teachingastheyaredisplayedinsomeformandajudgement...ofhowtheteachingmightbe enhanced,(p.79). TheEvaluativeDimension:Theevaluativedimensionlooksatthepracticeswithinaschoolor classroomorsystemforassessmentandevaluation.Anexampleofthisiswhenandhow studentsaretestedoncurricularknowledge.Testingtimes,formats,practicesandprocedures allbecomepartofthisoneaspectofthisdimension.However,evaluationoccurseverywhere: whenteacherslistentochildrenread,whenchildrenhandinwhattheyhavewritten,when studentsrespondstoteachersquestions,andsoforth,(Eisner,1998,p.81).Evaluation practicesinformaboutwhatisimportantandwhatitnotwhatcounts,andwhatisneglected.As aresult,thisdimensionisofcriticalimportanceineducationalconnoisseurship. Eisnerwouldsuggestthattobeaconnoisseurinanyofthese,letaloneallofthesedimensions, requiressignificantexpertiseandadeepunderstandingofavarietyofclassroomcontexts, practices,curriculum,structures,socialandhistoricalcontexts,andintentions.AndasEisner stipulates(2002,p.219),thissignificantexpertiseandunderstandingisessentialpriorto engagingintheeducationalcriticism,theotherhalfofhisdynamicevaluationmodel. EISNERANDCRITICISM

Criticismisessentiallytheprocessofenablingotherstotheseethequalitiesofsomething.As Eisnersays(1998),effectivecriticismfunctionsasthemidwifetoperception.Ithelpsitcome intobeing,thenlaterrefinesitandhelpsittobecomemoreacute.Inaneducationalcontext, thisrelatestothecollectivevalues,experiences,storiesandembodiedhistoriesoftheentire profession.Itisoursharingofknowledge.Itconsistsofthreemajordimensions DescriptiveDimension:ThefirstelementinEisnerscriticismmodelofevaluationisthefirst stepthatanartcriticwouldtakeinevaluatingaworkdescribethecurrentstate.AsEisner explained(1985),thisshouldbesharpindescriptivedetail.Likeinartcriticism,languageand figurativespeechareusedasemphasiswhiledescribingtheaestheticdimensionofthe program.Duringthisprocess,anevaluatormaylookatelementssuchasnumberandtypeof questionsinclass,thediscussiontimeandtheimpressionoftheclassonthestudentswithin. Allofthesecreateageneralaestheticpictureofwhattheprogramlooksandfeelslike. InterpretativeDimension:Inthenextportionoftheevaluation,theevaluatortakestheir descriptionandattemptstounderstandthemeaninganddeepersignificancetotheprogramas awhole.Inthisphase,theevaluatorisdrawingonmultipletheoriesofknowing,various viewpoints,andavarietyofmodelstointerprettheactivitiesintheeducationalenvironment (Koetting,1988).Fromthepointofviewoftheevaluator,inthisdimensionthereshouldbea developedsenseoftheoreticalknowledge,andawideseriesofcriterion. EvaluativeDimension:Thefinaldimensionofeducationalcriticismintheevaluative dimension.Here,thefirsttwodimensionsaremergedintoafinalevaluation,wherethe significanceofthedescriptionandtheeffectsoftheinterpretationareevaluated(Koetting,1988). Aswithconnoisseurship,theprivatepracticeofevaluation,educationalcriticismalsotakeson anevaluativedimension.Duringthisstage,aneducationalcriteriaisnecessarytojudgethe experience,andthisiswheretheexpertiseofconnoisseurbecomesessentialinEisners opiniontotheprocess. Throughthesethreesteps,astrongqualitativeevaluationcanproduceaevaluationthat encompassesandembodiesalargespectrumofpossibilitiesandinterpretations,fromdiverse perspectives. REFERENCES Eisner,E.W.(1976).EducationalConnoisseurshipandCriticism:TheirFormandFunctionsin EducationEvaluation.JournalofAestheticEducation,10(3/4),135150. Eisner,E.W.(1985).TheArtofeducationalevaluation:APersonalview.Philadelphia:The FalmerPress,Taylor&FrancisInc. Eisner,E.W.(1998)Theenlightenedeye:qualitativeinquiryandtheenhancementof

educationalpractice.UpperSaddleRiver,N.J.:Merrill,1998. Eisner,E.W.(2002)Theeducationalimagination:onthedesignandevaluationofschool programs.(3rded.)UpperSaddleRiver,N.J.:PrenticeHall Eisner,ElliotW.(2002)'Whatcaneducationlearnfromtheartsaboutthepracticeof education?',theencyclopediaofinformaleducation,retreivedMay20,2012from: www.infed.org/biblio/eisner_arts_and_the_practice_or_education.htm. Fitzpatrick,J.,Sanders,J.R.,&Worthen,B.R.(2010).ProgramEvaluation:Alternative ApproachesandPracticalGuidelines.UpperSaddleRiver,N.J.:PrenticeHall. Koetting,J.R.(1988).Educationalconnoisseurshipandeducationalcriticism:Pushingbeyond informationandeffectiveness.FifthAnnualOpenForum:TheFoundationalIssuesoftheField (pp.442457).PaperpresentedattheAnnualMeetingoftheAssociationforEducational CommunicationsandTechnology.NewOrleans,LA. LloydZannini,L.P.(1998)'AreviewofElliotEisner'sCognitionandcurriculumreconsidered', GiftedChildQuarterly,42(1),6364.DOI:10.1177/001698629804200108 Smith,M.K.(2005)'ElliotW.Eisner,connoisseurship,criticismandtheartofeducation',the encyclopaediaofinformaleducation,retreivedMay20,2012from: www.infed.org/thinkers/eisner.htm.