Wes Akers

I found the article “An Unselfish Act: Graffiti in Art Education” by Laurie A. Eldridge using the Auraria Library databases.  I am drawn to this article because I noticed similarities between myself and Eldridge.  Like my project, this project is designed as a case study of an art classroom in Phoenix, Arizona.  Although I am not an art teacher like Eldridge (2013), we have both designed an instructional unit around public art, specifically graffiti.  Additionally, Eldridge (2013) and I both teach low-income, predominantly Hispanic students.  

One of my big takeaways from this article involves how Eldridge (2013) designed her graffiti unit.  Eldridge (2013) used Koon Hwee Kan’s (2001) suggestions incorporating graffiti into art education.  This is the second time I have observed a Kan (2001) citation, which has inspired me to find and review the article for an upcoming critique.  Kan (2001) make these recommendations for developing a successful graffiti unit.

1. Age appropriateness
2. Approval of all authorities
3. Consider the community and its interests
4. Involve a decent graffiti writer.

Eldridge (2013) primarily focuses her research around the fourth recommendation by welcoming and observing a graffiti artist, Sentrock, in her classroom as a guest teacher.  With Sentrock’s expertise, Eldridge (2013) set out explore her research questions.

1. What should be taught about graffiti art in schools?
2. Why should it be taught in schools?
3. What inspires Sentrock to create graffiti art and teach about it to students?

These questions connect to my individual case study because these questions yield data related to the affordances of engaging with art, especially as it relates to identity and community.

In addition to the questions, I also intrigued by the data collection methods.  Eldridge (2013) gives a detailed account of her data collections methods.  She identifies the many sources of her data.

1. Anecdotal records of Sentrock teaching methods
2. Interviews with Sentrock – recorded and transcribed
3. Email exchanges with Sentrock
4. Sentrock’s artwork
5. Additional notes made about observations and interviews

Eldridge (2013) then codes the collected data by observing themes using “the constant comparative method of data analysis.”  After coding data, she sorts the coded data into concepts and categories.  Eldridge (2013) used these concepts and categories to make her final, formal observations.    To feel her data was trustworthy, Eldridge (2013) shared it Sentrock and two colleagues.  She also triangulated the data from several sources.  It is very helpful to read how someone in a similar case study collected and qualitatively analyzed data.  I am more curious about the codes Eldridge (2013) uses to categorize data and the themes she used to finalize her findings.  I feel this would help me frame my thinking when I begin this part of my research process.