What is the purpose of this article?
In Blanken‐Webb, J. (February 2014). The Difference Differentiation Makes: Extending Eisner's Account, the author describes how learning in the arts contributes to the creation of mind. Blanken-Webb discusses the acts of meaning making and one’s “foundation of self-in-relation-to-world, thus facilitating an educational unfolding that is much deeper than we typically recognize.” (pg 55). This deepened understanding allows individuals to make connections to content in and out of the arts and encourages reflection, deeper thinking, and self-discovery. In Blanken-Webb’s connection to differentiation, the author compares different ideas of the subject and makes connections and expansions on the definitions. “We can see this idea reflected in Eisner’s account of differentiation. Put simply, to differentiate means to distinguish, to make or render different,2 and Eisner’s account focuses on sensory differentiation, a significant process in which children learn to make distinctions based on the various sensory qualities they experience within their environment.” (pg 57)
What are the parameters for finding the relevant research cited in this article?
Throughout the article, the two most important cited references are Eisner’s conception of mind and the psychoanalytic theory of D. W. Winnicott. These references are crucial to the article as they are expanded upon by Blanken-Webb’s research and theories. Specific information on these scholars’ background and theories are described in the article and referenced often.
Do the parameters for the literature review make sense? Are there flaws? What was included/excluded? To what effect? What questions guided the search for relevant literature?
The article’s connection to the literature makes sense as it is extending the theories of Eisner and Winnicott. Blanken-Webb dives into these theories and adds additional understanding to the content. The author regards these scholars highly, but believes there to be even more unwritten benefits to their theories in self-understanding and one’s connection to the world through the arts.
What is the author seeking to answer? What are the research questions?
Why are they asking these questions?
The author seems to be expanding understanding and connection to previously explored concepts, rather than seeking an answer to something. Blanken-Webb’s research is more focused on the importance of “self-in-relation-to-world” and its benefits to the human mind, where they feel that Eisner may not have fully explored the importance of it in the past.
What argument is the author making?
“Thus, I will show that there is even more to be said about the value of aesthetic education underlying Eisner’s insights regarding the arts’ capacity to develop the mind. As such, my goal in this essay is to extend Eisner’s account, providing a deeper appreciation for aesthetic experience itself by drawing out the developmental foundation upon which such experience not only relies, but continues to function in the present day. I will establish that meaning making is fundamentally an act of self-in-relation-to-world and is therefore, first and foremost, an act of self and, secondarily, a doing of mind.” (pg 56).
Who are the participants in the research? How were they recruited? Does the sample size make sense? Why or why not? What theoretical framework does the author use? How do you know? Does the framework match the research questions? In other words, is there congruence?
In order to expand upon Eisner’s research, Blanken-Webb uses Eisner’s research and fills in the blanks that she sees in Eisner’s conclusions. “In order to demonstrate how this idea extends and deepens Eisner’s account, I turn to an example he uses to illustrate the trajectory that connects the development of a four-week-old infant to that of a forty-year-old:” (pg 58). As this article is meant to expand understanding of previously assessed and discussed theories, this method of analysis makes sense. I do think that Blanken-Webb could have benefitted from doing her own research in order to create new opportunities of comparison, but if her goal was just to entirely build off of previous understandings, I can see the argument for not recreating experiments.
What assumptions undergird the writing & research?
The fact that this article is written based off of previous research by another scholar means that Blanken-Webb is very limited in her further exploration of the topic of differentiation in art education. She is able to build off of previous research and theories nicely, but is not allowing for much new learning and discovery. Perhaps if she did some experimentation of her own, she may have come to different theories that could have led her to different conclusions.
Can you tell what this author values? For example, What are the author’s beliefs or assumptions about what “counts” as learning, good research, &/or knowledge?
“This discussion establishes that what constitutes meaningful experience is a self-in-relation-to-world and that the process through which this developmental achievement is realized has fundamental significance that persists throughout life in the form of aesthetic experience. This insight has bearing on the conception of aesthetic education itself, as it connects the doings of representation to a capacity for creativity and selfhood that is laid down in early life. Accordingly, through this analysis we see the emergence of a view of aesthetic education as an extension of the process of psychological differentiation.”(pg 74) Blanken-Webb’s values lie heavily in self-actualization and our human desire to find meaning. The author focuses on deeper understanding of aesthetic education as she believes that it not only enables students to have multiple forms of representation and meaning, but that it also creates opportunities for “the continual refinement of self-in-relation-to-world.” (pg 74). Blanken-Webb also has a great appreciation for the findings and theories of Eisner conception of mind and the psychoanalytic theory of D. W. Winnicott.
What are considered to be “valid” measures? Whose perspectives are represented? How is effectiveness defined? What are the consequences of this research? For whom? How does the author explain their findings? How is data used to construct the argument? How do ideas connect?
Blanken-Webb seems to go off of the assumption that almost all of Eisner’s and Winnicott’s findings are valid, but that there is more to explore. The author rarely disagrees entirely with their theories, but instead sheds new light on the research. Due to the fact that Eisner’s and Winnicott’s research has been heavily reviewed, I believe that Blanken-Webb’s expansion of their theories are within reason and only add to the conversation of their research.
What issues of power and authority are involved? What is negotiable/non-negotiable? Whose interests are served?
The author believes that the work of Eisner’s and Winnicott’s are valid and important, but adds onto their findings with their own theories and combines the theories together to create something new. I believe that the article is an interesting look at different theories and how they work together.
Does the Discussion of the findings make sense? What questions do you have about the implications? What gaps do you identify? Findings, areas for further research, methodological, theoretical lens, implications?
Overall, the discussion and findings make sense throughout the article. Taking two theories and studies and combining them to further their ideas is an interesting idea. I enjoyed reading Blanken-Webb’s analysis of the studies and her furthering of the findings. I again believe that Blanken-Webb doing studies of her own would help to further her thoughts and theories.
References:
Blanken‐Webb, J. (February 2014). The Difference Differentiation Makes: Extending Eisner's Account. Educational Theory , Feb2014, Vol. 64 Issue 1, p55-74, 20p.
Comments