INTRODUCTION

Curriculum evaluation is a very important part of education. In evaluating the curriculum there are different
models which can be used. For example, Tyler’s model, this is based upon the evaluation of pre -specified goals
and objectives in terms of whether they have or have not been achieved. Stake’s model which depends upon the
collection of informal data as well as data formerly collected from tests. This presentation will be based on
Eisner’s connoisseurship model which is a qualitative approach to evaluation by his concepts of educational
connoisseurship and educational criticism. In the presentation the writer will define the terms, curriculum
evaluation, qualitative evaluation, connoisseurship and criticism. The presentation will also go on to discuss
Eisner’s connoisseurship model of evaluation while showing its implications in evaluating the Early Childhood
Education (ECE) curriculum. Then state model’s strengths and weaknesses, and conclude with a summary of
what was addressed in the presentation.

DEFINITION OF TERMS
In relation to curriculum, evaluation is the process of making value judgments about the merit or worth of a part
or the whole of a curriculum. The nature of a curriculum evaluation often depends on its audience and purpose.
The potential audiences include policy makers and other stakeholders, that is, administrators, teachers, students,
parents and communities. Marsh and Stafford (1992) see curriculum evaluation as an expression of worth and
merit, placing value on a wide range of planning and implementation activities undertaken by the teacher,
students, parents and other staff members. In other words curriculum evaluation is scrutinizing the achievements
of a particular curriculum, judging whether it is worth using by looking at its overall output.

Eisner advocated for the qualitative evaluation method. According to Patton (2002) the qualitative method uses a
naturalistic approach to understand phenomena in context specific settings, such as the real world setting where
the evaluator does not attempt to manipulate the phenomenon of interest. In other words, qualitative evaluation
findings are not arrived at by any means of statistical procedures or other means of quantification though they can
be used alongside quantitative data. Qualitative data is collected by observation, interviews and documentation.
Qualitative methods reveal the whole story of a program, giving in-depth information collected from the
participants.

1
Eisner (1976) describes connoisseurship as being well informed in a certain area, being able to discriminate the
subtleties in a domain, that is, the art of appreciation. The ability to appreciate what one encounters, having an
awareness and an understanding of what one has experienced. Such awareness provides the basis for judgment.
Eisner in Kellaghan and Stufflebeam (2003) further explains that, connoisseurship is rooted in the arts. It has little
to do with measured variables, with factor analysis, with multivariate analysis, or the array of statistical
procedures used to ‘real’ educational evaluation. In other words, connoisseurship is a critically important ability
in any educational evaluation that attempts to discern what is subtle but significant in a situation, what an array of
qualities unfolding over time signifies, that is to say, what they mean. In this sense every perception of any aspect
of classroom life, it is an effort to literally “make sense” of what one is attending to.

Criticism can be approached as the process of enabling others to see the qualities of something. As Eisner
(1998:6) puts it, ‘effective criticism functions as the midwife to perception. It helps it come into being, then later
refines it and helps it to become more acute’. Thus, connoisseurship provides criticism with its subject matter.
Connoisseurship is private, but criticism is public. Connoisseurs simply need to appreciate what they encounter.
Critics, however, must render these qualities vivid by the artful use of critical disclosure. If connoisseurship is the
art of appreciation, criticism is the art of disclosure.

BACKGROUND
Elliot Eisner was born in Chicago, Illinois on March 10, 1933 to a family of Russian Jewish immigrants. At the
age of twelve and for the next five years, the young Eisner was employed at a shoe store where he learned so
many things about shoes, how to recognize quality from ordinary. In Powell etal (1985)’s views, Eisner became
what one might term, the connoisseur of shoes, knowing what to look for, being able to recognize quality when he
saw it and could give reasons for his judgment. This noticing ability, the ability to recognize differences that are
subtle but significant in a particular qualitative display, is a pervasive feature of those who exercise
connoisseurship in a particular domain. As Eisner was an art expert he believed that the same concept of
connoisseurship used in art could also work in educational evaluation. By emphasizing that teaching requires
artistic skills, Eisner stated that education is a cultural art and this is a process differing from individual to
individual or from one environment to another. From these humble and yet significant beginnings Elliot Eisner
became a professor of art and education at Stanford University, and a leading theorist in the field of art and
curriculum design. His work was also influenced by John Dewey. He sadly died of Parkinson’s disease on the 10th
of January 2014.

2
EISNER’S CONNOISSEURESHIP MODEL
Eisner believed that curriculum evaluation should be qualitative in nature rather than quantitative. In the view of
Robbins (2006), statistical methods of estimating reliability based on correlations are not enough in evaluation,
that is, the use of numbers can provide notions of “accuracy” and “measurement” that only tell part of the story.
What this means is that the connoisseurship model does not base its evaluation on test scores of how the students
have performed, as Eisner believed that it was not a true reflection of the student’s acquired knowledge, for
instance, how can one measure numerically the social development of a child. Dewey in Eisner (1985) explains
that, one of the great fallacies of education is assuming that the student learns only what is being taught at the
time. Students learn many things at the same time and the question that should concern educators is whether the
array of consequences students experience are, on the whole, positive or whether they are problematic. Not doing
well in a structured test does not mean that the student is a failure; the student may be gifted in in other areas like
music, dance or theatre as in Eisner’s view learning is individualistic. Eisner is concerned that certain types of
knowledge like English and Mathematics have been overemphasized, to the detriment of other ways of sharing
experiences such as music, art and theatre. So this implies that subjects like music and art should not be treated as
co- curricular, they should be given the same importance as all the other subjects, catering for individual gifts and
talents.

Eisner (2002) is of the view that, the aim of the education process inside schools is not to finish something, but to
start something. It is not to cover the curriculum but to uncover it. Eisner was following in the footsteps of Dewey
who believed that education is not a preparation for democratic living but it is the direct experience of this way of
living. In other words, Eisner was stating that there are too many set rules and standards when it comes to
quantitative curriculum evaluation which ends up limiting the creativity of the students. Eisner believed that the
curriculum should be evaluated like the arts, through appreciation and criticism. For example, the fact that, the
concern over the years has been on the formulation of behavioral objectives like in Tyler’s objectives model is not
the best way of helping learners learn. For instance, an objective like; by the end of the week pupils should be
able to state their names, surnames, addresses and phone numbers. What if they don’t? Eisner (2010) strongly
argues that objectives are things that are always out of reach, they are future oriented, and when the future
becomes all important it must be achieved at all costs, sacrificing the present in order to achieve it. What this
implies is that there should not be too many boundaries in the ECE learner’s learning environment. The educator
should relevantly structure the learning environment and the leaner should be left to discover knowledge on his
own and the educator should not put too much emphasis on achieving the laid down objectives and thwart the
learner’s discovering of knowledge. This is also in line with Montessori’s absorption theory which states that
children are like sponges, they absorb the knowledge around them, without being taught.

3
According to Ornstein and Hunkins (1993) Eisner points out that the connoisseur or evaluator should be a good
participant observer and have expert opinion, one who has the artistry of appreciation and be a constructive critic
in curriculum issues. In his or her quest, the evaluator will use interviews, observation, videos, pictures, anecdotal
records to note down the observations and portfolios to file the students’ written work. When an evaluator is
doing educational criticism on a program, class or school, firstly he describes what he sees, then interprets and
lastly evaluates. Eisner’s connoisseurship model is developed on three main dimensions reflecting three
qualitative actions, that is, the descriptive, interpretative and evaluative or appraisal dimension. These stages are
identified as Eisner’s art of disclosure; this is where criticism comes into play.

DESCRIPTION
According Eisner in Yuksel (2010), the descriptive dimension of educational criticism is related to describing the
current state of the program, class and school. Eisner explains that the verbal statement should be sharp in the
descriptive dimension. Therefore, like in art criticism, language and figure of speech are used as emphasis in
educational criticism while describing the aesthetic dimensions of the evaluand. Marsh and Stafford (1992) regard
this stage as, “recreating the classroom events”. At this stage the connoisseur has to describe the events in such a
way that the others in the group can have a mental picture and feel of what was taking place in the classroom. The
connoisseur can use films, DVD videos, photographs and audio tapes of both teachers and students in action. The
evaluator describes the tone of the curriculum. So this implies that during the period of observation the teacher
should be as natural as possible so that the connoisseur sees the real picture and the evaluation is not biased.

INTERPRETATION

Eisner (1985) stated that the interpretive dimension of educational criticism is related to the attempt to understand
the meaning and significance of many activities in the social environment. This dimension reveals the expert’s
knowledge of using multiple theories, viewpoints and models while interpreting the activities in that educational
environment, Koetting (1988). In stage two particular aspects of the curriculum may be singled out for further
attention. Having agreed that certain events took place the task is now to explain and interpret why these events
occurred. According to Marsh and Stafford (1992) the interpretation stage provides an understanding of
classroom events, using theories, research and models. This is the point of disclosure where the connoisseur will
be clarifying his or her findings to the group of stakeholders by explaining to them what the pictures and DVDs
show, what the students’ written work portrays, and what he or she gathered during interviews of parents
,students, the teacher and other stakeholders.

4
Interpretation is comprised of four aspects, first, the qualities of the classroom, that is, its most characteristic
attributes, for example, the educational critic may observe pupils in the different play areas, where the pupils are
involved in self-directed learning activities. The critic would come up with questions like, what do the play areas
mean to the teacher and students how do the play areas contribute to the student’s view of schooling? Secondly,
the critic looks at the social meaning of the classroom events. Marsh and Stafford (1992) emphasize that here the
social meaning of behavior is more important than a report of what actually happened. In this case the
connoisseur might ask: what types of social relationships do the play areas create? Thirdly, it involves analyzing a
classroom into its various parts and then resynthesizing them to explain their affiliations with each other and how
they operate in a configuration. By developing a configuration, behavior by the student and the teacher is not
portrayed as if it consisted of random and isolated acts; rather these acts are given meaning by disclosing their
relationship to other parts of the scene. The fourth concern relates classroom events to external consideration, that
is, theories, research findings and current trends in education and the community. The role of the educational
critic is to determine which particular theory applies, for example, identifying relationships between students’
needs and behavior in a particular classroom and the theory underlying the teaching approach used. This implies
that the kind of social behavior which the students display is connected to how the teacher treats the students, how
the students treat each other, for example, are the children self-driven or do they wait to be told what to do all the
time, are they able to share freely or do they need to be coerced to share. In this light the teacher needs to be one
who does not give too many instructions but one who can let the students make their own decisions, like choosing
their own play area or realizing for themselves that sharing is good.

APPRAISAL/EVALUATION
The last dimension of educational criticism is evaluation. In this dimension, the educational significance and
effect of the interpreted experiences or activities are evaluated. During this process, there should be some
educational criteria to judge about the experience. This is where value judgments are made and again constitutes
an area in which individuals may perceive themselves as under attack as the evaluator will be putting his or her
teaching skills under a microscope. Marsh and Stafford (1992) call it the appraisal stage, assessing the educational
significance of the classroom events. The evaluator will be critiquing the teaching methods employed by the
teacher and the overall tone of the classroom and thereby giving recommendations to the entire stake holders
according to his or her evaluation. Such recommendations must stem from the evaluation exercise, however,
hopefully in the form of a consensus statement from both performers and evaluators. If there is agreement
throughout all stages it is most likely to lead to success.

5
STRENGTHS
The connoisseurship model caters for the students’ individual preferences and differences, by not being biased
towards the student who is academically gifted only but also to those gifted in the arts. The recommendations
made at the appraisal or evaluation stage will serve to assist the teacher on what strategies to employ to teach his
or her pupils effectively, parents on how to help their children in their education and the curriculum planners on
what changes to make when reviewing the curriculum. Parents, for example, ought to know what the character of
the environment is in the classrooms. Many of the most important lessons that are taught in school are implicit
rather than explicit, covert rather than overt, hidden rather than revealed. An educational connoisseur would make
the characteristics of that environment plain for parents and for others interested in the lessons schools teach. The
connoisseurship model is very ideal for Early Childhood Development (ECD)A and ECDB students as
encourages the educator to wholesomely observe the child and find the best ways of imparting knowledge while
at the same time letting the students discover their abilities during free play and not to emphasize on teacher
directed activities.

WEAKNESSES
Like all other models of evaluation, Eisner’s connoisseurship model is not perfect. Though it may be ideal for the
ECDA and B classes it may prove to be a very big challenge for the formal grades students as quantitative data is
very important in checking the students’ progress. The model can be very cumbersome and strenuous for the
teachers who are already burdened with over enrolment. Moreover to get good connoisseurs can also be a
challenge because it requires great expertise and it can be a very expensive exercise for schools to engage such
expert service. Lastly it can prove to be very uncomfortable for the teacher to have one’s skills put under scrutiny
in the presence of a group of people.

CONCLUSION

In summary Eisner’s connoisseurship model emphasizes on qualitative analysis and uses appreciation and
criticism as its main tools carried out by a connoisseur or evaluator. The evaluation has three stages which are:
description, interpretation and appraisal. Agreement amongst the evaluator, the teacher or teachers and other
stakeholders determines the success of the exercise. Though it has its challenges, the connoisseurship model has
been seen to be a very relevant way of curriculum evaluation especially for the ECDA and B curriculum.

6
REFERENCES

Eisner, E. (1998). The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. New
Jersey: Merrill.

Eisner, E. (2002). The Arts and the Creation of Mind. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Eisner, E. W. (1976). Educational Connoisseurship and Criticism: The Form and Functions in Educational
Evaluation. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.

Eisner, E. W. (1985). The Art of Educational Evaluation: A Personal View. Philadelphia: The Palmer Press.

Eisner, E. W. (2010). Educational Connoisseurship and Criticism: Their Form and Functions in Educational
Evaluation. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Koetting, J. (1998). Educational Connoisseurship and Educational Criticism: Pushing Beyond Information and
Effectiveness. New Orleans: Sage Publications.

Marsh, C. S. (1992). Curriculum Practices and Issues. Roseville: McGraw-Hill.

Ornstein, A. C. (1993). Curriculum: Foundations, Principles and Theory. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. California: SAGE.

Pwell, A. G. (1985). The Shopping Mall High School: Winners and Losers In the Educational Market place.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Robbins J, H. (2006). Connoisseurship, Assessment of Performance and Questions of Reliability. Singapore:

Talented Center Limited.

Yurksel, I. (2010). How to Conduct a Qualitative Program Evaluation in the Light of Eisner's Connoisseurship
and Criticism Model. Turkey: Gaziosmanpasa.

7
8