The End of Educational Sciences: A Critical Essay
Vol.18,No.2-3(2013)
Good and Evil in Education
This critical essay describes three contemporary discourses which threaten the essential principles of educational sciences to such a degree that it is possible to start talking about the end of educational sciences, albeit with a hint of exaggeration. The end of educational sciences is understood to herald a change in educational constants and their replacement with different elements. We understand discourse as a way of perception in a given field at a given time which is mirrored both in language and in the framing of debates in the field. We progressively analyse three discourses (evidence-based discourse, discourse of practical research and technological discourse) and describe in detail the individual concepts and thoughts from which the discourses stem. The essay concludes with a summary of influences of the described discourses and also with showing how the discourses can replace some educational concepts, if the field is not consolidated.
discourse; evidence-based education; research for practise; ICT
A Guide to Education and No Child Left Behind. (2004). Washington: U. S. Department of Education.
Andrews, R., Robinson, A., & Torgerson, C. (2004). Introduction. In R. Andrews (Ed.), The Impact of ICT on Literacy Education (s. 1–33). New York: Routledge Falmer.
Angrist, J., & Lavy, V. (2002). New Evidence on Classroom Computers and Pupil Learning. Economic Journal, 112(482), 735–765.
Ball, S. J. (1993). Education policy, power relations and teachers’ work. British Journal of Educational Studies, 41(2), 106–121. DOI: 10.1080/00071005.1993.9973954
Bassey, M. (2001). A Solution to the Problem of Generalisation in Educational Research: fuzzy prediction. Oxford Review of Education, 27(1), 5–22. DOI: 10.1080/03054980123773
Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational Research: The Hardest Science of All. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X031008018
Biesta, G. (2007). Why ‘‘What Works’’ Won’t Work: Evidence-Based Practice and the Democratic Deficit in Educational Research. Educational Theory, 57(1), 1–22. Clandinin, J. D., & Connelly, M. F. (1998). Stories to Live by: Narrative Understanding of School Reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 28(2), 149–164.
Clayton, T. (1998). Beyond Mystifi cation: Reconnecting World-System Theory for Comparative Education. Comparative Education Review, 42(4), 479–496. DOI: 10.1086/447524
Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technolog y Since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.
Davies, P. (1999). What is Evidence-Based Education? British Journal of Educational Studies, 47(2), 108–121. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8527.00106
Dvořák, D. (2005). Na „důkazech“ založená praxe. Učitelské listy, 13(1), 8.
Edmonds, R. (1981). The Last Obstacle to Equity in Education: Social Class. Theory into Practice, 20(4), 269–272.
Elliott, J. (1978). What is action research? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10(4), 355–357. DOI: 10.1080/0022027780100407
Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Foucault, M. (2002). Archeologie vědění. Praha: Herrmann a synové.
Frideres, J. (1992). Participatory Research: An Illusionary Perspective. In J. Frideres (Ed.), A world of communities: Participatory research perspectives (s. 7–13). North York: Captus University Publications.
Fuchs, T., & Wossmann, L. (2004). Computers and student learning: bivariate and multivariate evidence on the availability and use of computers at home and at school. Brussels Economic Review, 47(3/4), 359–386.
Gage, N. L. (1978). The Scientific Basis of the Art of Teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M.(1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications.
Goktas, Y., Hasancebi, F., Varisoglu, B., Akcay, A., Bayrak, N., Baran, M., & Sozbilir, M. (2012). Trends in Educational Research in Turkey: A Content Analysis. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12(1), 455–459.
Greenwood, D. J. (2002). Action research: Unfulfi lled promises and unmet challenges. Concepts and Transformation, 7(2), 117–140. DOI: 10.1075/cat.7.2.02gre
Gustavsen, B. (2003a). Action research and the problem of the single case. Concepts and Transformation, 8(1), 93–99. DOI: 10.1075/cat.8.1.07gus
Gustavsen, B. (2003b). New forms of knowledge production and the role of action research. Action Research, 1(2), 152–164. DOI: 10.1177/14767503030012003
Hacking, I. (1988). Telepathy: Origins of Randomization in Experimental Design. Isis, A Special Issue on Artifact and Experiment, 79(3), 427–451.
Hammersley, M. (2001). On ‘Systematic’ Reviews of Research Literatures: A ‘Narrative’ Response to Evans and Benefield. British Educational Research Journal, 27(5), 543–554. DOI: 10.1080/01411920120095726
Hargreaves, D. (1997). In Defence of Evidence-Based Teaching. British Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 405–419. DOI: 10.1080/0141192970230402
Hayes, E. R., & Games, I. A. (2008). Making Computer Games and Design Thinking. A Review of Current Software and Strategies. Games and Culture, 3(3/4), 309–322. DOI: 10.1177/1555412008317312
Heidegger, M. (1955). The question concerning technology. In J. Gray (Ed.), Martin Heidegger: Basic writings (s. 287–317). New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Horvath, A. (1991). The Practice of Theory. In B. Spiecker & R. Straughan (Eds.), Freedom and Indoctrination in Education: international perspectives (s. 51–57). London: Cassell.
House, E. R., Glass, G. V., McLean, L. D., & Walker, D. F. (1978). No Simple Answer: Critique of the Follow Through Evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 48(2), 128–160.
Hsu, Y. C., Ho, H. N. J., Tsai, C. C., Hwang, G. J., Chu, H. C., Wang, C. Y., & Chen, N. S. (2012).
Research Trends in Technology-based Learning from 2000 to 2009: A content Analysis of Publications in Selected Journals. Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), 354–370.
Kafai, Y. B. (1996). Gender Differences in Children’s Constructions of Video Games. In
P. Greenfield & R. Cocking (Eds.), Interacting with Video (s. 39–66). Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Kaščák, O., & Pupala, B. (2012). Škola zlatých golierov. Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství.
Levin, M. (2003). Action research and the research community. Concepts and Transformation, 8(3), 275–280. DOI: 10.1075/cat.8.3.08lev
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in Education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mareš, J. (2009). Edukace založená na důkazech: inspirace pro pedagogický výzkum i školní praxi. Pedagogika, 59(3), 232–258.
Nixon, J. (1987). The Teacher as Researcher: Contradictions and Continuities. Peabody Journal of Education, 64(2), 20–32. DOI: 10.1080/01619568709538549
Nowotny, H. (2000). The Production of Knowledge beyond the Academy and the Market:
A Reply to Dominique Pestre. Science Technology Society, 5(2), 183–194.
OECD (2007). Evidence in Education: Linking Research and Policy. Knowledge Management. OECD Publishing.
Petrusek, M. (2006). Společnosti pozdní doby. Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství.
Popper, K. R. (1997). Logika vědeckého bádání. Praha: OIKOYMENH.
Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Pring, R. (2001). Education as a Moral Practice. Journal of Moral Education, 30(2), 101–112. DOI: 10.1080/03057240120061360
Robinson, V. M. (1993). Current Controversies in Action Research. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(3), 263–290.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Starý, K., Dvořák, D., Greger, D., & Duschinská, K. (2012). Profesní rozvoj učitelů: Podpora učitelů pro zlepšování výsledků žáků. Praha: Karolinum.
Stenhouse, L. (1981). What Counts as Research? British Journal of Educational Studies, 29(2), 103–114. DOI: 10.1080/00071005.1981.9973589
Švaříček, R., & Zounek, J. (2008). E-learning ve vysokoškolské výuce pohledem empirického výzkumu. SPFFBU U 13, 13(1), 101–126.
Tech Tonic: Towards a New Literacy of Technology. (2004). A Critique of Current Technology Education Standards. Dostupné z: http://www.allianceforchildhood.org/sites/allianceforchildhood.org/files/file/pdf/projects/computers/pdf_files/tech_tonic.pdf
Whitehead, J. (1989). Creating a Living Educational Theory from Questions of the Kind, „How Do I Improve My Practice?“ Cambridge Journal of Education, 19(1), 41–52. DOI: 10.1080/0305764890190106
Whitehead, J., & McNiff, J. (2004). Ontological, epistemological and methodological commitments in practitioner-research. Paper presented at the BERA 2004.
Wulf, Ch. (2003). Educational Science. Mnichov, Berlín: Waxmann.
Copyright © 0 Studia paedagogica