Tatang M. Amirin; 4 Februari 2011; 6 Februari 2011
Apakah ilmu pendidikan itu? Adakah ilmu yang dinamakan ilmu pendidikan itu? Dengan kata lain, apakah ilmu pendidikan itu benar-benar ilmu? Ini tidak mudah menjawabnya. Itu masih lumayan, karena kita bicara bahasa Indonesia. Dalam bahasa Indonesia pendidikan itu berbeda dari ilmu pendidikan. Dalam bahasa Inggris, pendidikan dan ilmu pendidikan itu sama saja: education.
Education and Educology
Seperti telah disebutkan, education itu dalam bahasa Inggris mengandung dua makna sekaligus, sebagai proses atau kegiatan didik-mendidik dan sebagai ilmu yang mengkaji proses atau kegiatan didik-mendidik itu. Agar tampak beda, ada yang menambahkan kata ilmu (science) ke dalam education untuk menyebut ilmu pendidikan. Jadilah namanya educational science. Tapi, itu kurang bagus, katanya. Lalu dicarilah istilah yang lazim digunakan untuk menyebut ilmu. Tertemukanlah istilah educology: education plus logy (logos), seperti anthropos plus logos (logy) menjadi anthropology.
Nah, bagian pertama ini akan mencoba membicarakan edukologi itu. Sementara dinukilkan dulu dari Wikipedia.
The term educology means the fund of knowledge about the educational process. Educology consists of discourse about education. The discourse is made up of warranted assertions, valid explanatory theories and sound justificatory arguments about the educational process. This conception of educology derives from the common usage of the term by educologists in articles, journals and books published since the 1950s.
1. Use from the 1950s through the 1970s
The term educology has been in use in the English language since the seminal work in educology by Professor Lowry W. Harding at Ohio State University in the 1950s and Professor Elizabeth Steiner [Maccia] and her husband, Professor George Maccia, at Indiana University in the 1960s. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, John B. Biggs and Rachel Elder  coined the term independently of Harding, Steiner and Maccia. Other researchers in the English speaking world who worked on clarifying the implications of the concept of educology in the 1970s and 1980s included James E. Christensen, James E. Fisher, David E. Denton, Diana Buell Hiatt, Charles M. Reigeluth and M. David Merrill, James F. Perry, Marian Reinhart, Edmund C. Short, John Walton, Catherine O. Ameh, Laurie Brady, Berdine F. Nel, Maryann J. Ehle and others.
2. Developments since the 1980s
In Europe, important work on clarification of the concept of the term educology in the 1980s and 1990s was done by Anton Monshouwer, Theo Oudkerk Pool, Wolfgang Brezinka, Nikola Pastuovic and in the 2000s by Birgitta Qvarsell, Kestutis Pukelis and Izabela Savickiene, among many others. The International Journal of Educology (initially published in Australia and later in the USA) commenced publication in 1987, and it continues in electronic form into the present. The IJE has been an important forum for the clarification and extension of educology, with the publication of over 100 refereed articles in educology over a period exceeding 20 years. Some universities have adopted the term for their publications. Other universities have used the concept of educology for institutional organization and curriculum arrangements. Since the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, some universities in the Baltic countries and elsewhere in Europe have established departments and faculties of educology and offer courses and degrees in educology. They include Siauliai University (Lithuania), Vilnius Pedagogical University (Lithuania), Vytautas Magnus University (Lithuania), Mykolas Romeris University (Lithuania), Kaunas University of Medicine (Lithuania), Tallinn University (Estonia), Stockholm University (Sweden), University of Presov (Slovakia) and Comenius University in Bratislava (Slovakia). In addition to academic institutions, some proprietary concerns have adopted the term in either the name of their businesses or in their publications.
The term educology derives from the term education and the suffix -logy. The term was coined to dispel the confusion caused by using the term education to name the process of teaching, studying and learning under guidance, and calling knowledge about the educational process by the same name, education.
A range of arguments for the use of the term educology has been developed over the past fifty years and more. Some have argued that the term educology should be used to name only philosophy of education, or only theory of education, or only scientific knowledge about education (science of education) or only knowledge about effective practices in education (praxiological knowledge, also spelled praxeology).
The prevailing and generally accepted argument which has emerged out of the discourse among educologists over the last half of the 20th century is that the term educology names the entire fund of knowledge about education including theoretical, philosophical, scientific and praxiological knowledge.
4. Argument for the term “educology”
Within common usage of the English language and also within special usages (i.e. technical usages) of that language, several terms are used to name the fund of recorded knowledge about education. Included among those terms are pedagogy, andragogy, ethology, Education, Professional Education and psychopedagogy. However, educologists argue that one term performs the job of naming the fund of knowledge about education even better than these six: educology. Educologists maintain that the term educology suits the job best for three compelling reasons:
1. It names nothing less than the fund of knowledge about education.
2. It names nothing more than the fund of knowledge about education.
3. It prevents conceptual conflation of
(a) the educational process with
(b) recorded propositional knowledge about that process.
Educologists argue that the concept of educology implies the inclusion of the entire fund of recorded propositional knowledge about the entire process, from nascence to senescence. It is not limited only to knowledge about the education of children (pedagogy) or to that of male adults (andragogy). It is not recorded knowledge about processes other than education, such as knowledge about character development (ethology) or a combination of psychological knowledge and the practice of teaching (psychopedagogy). The name educology eliminates the ambiguity which is created by naming the process of guided study with the term education and naming the fund of recorded propositional knowledge about that process with the same term education.
Educologists demonstrate the power of the term educology to dispel ambiguity through techniques such as word substitution in sentences. For example, the practice of capitalizing the term education and of adding the term professional to the term education are attempts to remove ambiguity. Educologists argue that the use of these two terms (Education and Professional Education) are not nearly as cogent in dispelling the ambiguity as is the use of the term educology. This can be illustrated with, for example, the sentence,
In their [education] to qualify as primary school teachers, students study some psychology, sociology and [education].
The ambiguity created in the meaning of the sentence can be reduced with some substitutions of the second term education.
1. In their [study under guidance] to qualify as primary school teachers, students study some psychology, sociology and [Education].
2. In their [study under guidance] to qualify as primary school teachers, students study some psychology, sociology and [Professional Education].
3. In their [study under guidance] to qualify as primary school teachers, students study some psychology, sociology and [educology].
Educologists argue that each of the term substitutions reduces the ambiguity progressively. The third term substitution, educology for education, reduces the ambiguity altogether, removes the anomalies in conventions for capitalization and conforms with the convention for naming funds of knowledge with the suffix -logy: for example, psychology from psyche (mind) plus -logy (knowledge about); sociology from society plus –logy (knowledge about); educology from education plus –logy (knowledge about).
Educologists maintain that there are at least three compelling reasons for creating new terms in discourse about the educational process.
1. A new term is indicated when a new meaning arises for which there is no satisfactory existing term.
2. It is indicated when a meaning is misnamed by current usage.
3. A new term is called for when current usage is ambiguous.
Educologists conclude that the case for the term educology is supported by all three reasons. The term education functions ambiguously to name the process and also to name warranted assertions about the process. To educologists, it is a misnomer to name warranted assertions about the educational process with the term education. It is like using the term animals to name zoology. It is a category mistake. The term educology names a new meaning for which there is no satisfactory existing term. It names, and only names, and names nothing more than, nor less than, knowledge about education.
4. Educational discourse and educological discourse
Educologists recognize that there is discourse in education and discourse about education. Discourse in education occurs in the form of talk and writing within the educational process. Discourse in education is one of many phenomena within the educational process. Discourse about education, when it is sound, well founded and warranted, is educology. These two categories of discourse are illustrated in Table 1.
|Example of Discourse in Education (Educational Discourse)||Example of Discourse about Education (Educological Discourse)|
|The scenario is that Mark is a single parent who lives in Los Angeles. He works as an insurance adjuster. He has one child, a daughter, Bronwyn, who is just over two years old. Here is a conversation between them.||This is an educological analysis of the conversation between Mark and Bronwyn.|
||From an educological viewpoint, the conversation between Bronwyn and Mark is typical of the educational process. The episode has all of the distinguishing characteristics of an educational event or episode.
1. Bronwyn is playing the role of student.
2. Mark is playing the role of teacher.
4. The setting is the physical milieu of the home, the social milieu of the single parent family, and the cultural milieu of urban America.
5. The teaching methods which Mark uses include modeling, asking questions and giving directives. Bronwyn’s sentences are much shorter than Mark’s – one, two or three words. Mark extends the sentences and puts in all of the words required for correct grammatical, syntactical and semantic use of the language. This provides a model for Bronwyn to imitate, reduce, reconstruct and transform into new sentences.
6. Bronwyn’s study methods include imitation, practice, reduction, reconstruction and transformation.
7. Mark’s teaching style is fatherly, caring and supportive.
8. Bronwyn’s study style is natural, unselfconscious and spontaneous.
The Activities of Teaching. Mark does his teaching as a matter of course, without being selfconscious of his teaching. Educologically, this is significant because it illustrates that it is possible to act intentionally without being fully selfconscious the whole time of the intentionality. This occurs especially when the intentional action has become integrated into a person’s patterns of conduct and thought in the form of habits.
The Activities of Studying. The same is true of Bronwyn’s studying under guidance. Intentional, unselfconscious performances are what Bronwyn and Mark are undertaking with each other in the studying and teaching of language.
Methods and Intentions in Teaching. It is part of Mark’s set of habits to expand what Bronwyn says into full, syntactically, grammatically and semantically correct sentences. His intention is to help Bronwyn to develop her ability to make such sentences, even though he may not be selfconscious of his intentionality because it has become habit.
Methods and Intentions in Studying. In turn, Bronwyn accepts his guidance and uses it, sometimes unselfconsciously and sometimes consciously, to signify meaning with her words. All of the elements for an educational transaction are present: teacher, student, content and setting, including physical, social and cultural.
Unofficial vs. Official Education. Mark and Bronwyn are engaged in unofficial (vs. official) education. There is no written lesson plan, instructional program, syllabus, curriculum, assessment or certification of achievement. There are no licensed teachers, principals or superintendents. The conversation is an unofficial educational episode involving a parent and child.
Table 1: Example of Educational Discourse and Educological Discourse
5. Study, education, and educology
From an educological perspective, the process of education is a process of teaching and studying some content within some setting with the intention that something worthwhile and valuable will be learned. Again, from an educological perspective, studying is the set of activities one undertakes to learn something.
Study can be done independently, outside of the educational process, without the guidance of a teacher. And it can be undertaken under the guidance of a teacher, within the educational process. Education is a process about which one can conduct inquiry and research. Educology is the fund of knowledge which is produced from well disciplined and successful inquiry and research about the process.
Educology is not the study of education because educology is not an activity. Study is. One can study educology, i.e. undertake activities to learn knowledge about education. But the activity of studying about education is not the fund of knowledge about education.
The study of education, if conducted as serious, well disciplined inquiry and research, can produce educology.
The study of educology (the fund of knowledge about education), conducted independently or conducted under the guidance of a teacher, can lead a student to learn about education and develop an understanding of education.
6. Disciplines requisite for producing educology
Educology is a fund of knowledge, not a discipline. But educologists use a set of disciplines to produce educology. The set of disciplines requisite for producing educology includes the sets of techniques and rules which are necessary for conducting at least three categories of inquiry and research:
1. analytic inquiry and research, which requires the use of the principle of necessity reasoning,
2. normative inquiry and research, which requires the use of the principle of normative or evaluative reasoning, and
Educologists use the term process of inquiry to mean the same as the process of asking questions, formulating answers to those questions and presenting necessary and sufficient evidence to warrant that the answers which are formulated are necessarily true, in the case of analytic educological facts, or very highly probably true, in the case of empirical educological facts, or are valid, sound and fruitful, in the case of educological explanatory theories and educological justificatory arguments.
7. The educological perspective
The educological perspective is inclusive of the following perspectives in discourse about the educational process or about aspects of the educational process:
1. the scientific perspective (characterizing what is);
2. the praxiological perspective (characterizing what is effective);
3. the historical perspective (characterizing what has been);
4. the jurisprudential perspective (characterizing what is legally allowed, prohibited and required);
5. the analytic philosophical perspective (characterizing meanings of terms and sentences);
6. the normative philosophical perspective (characterizing what is good, desirable, ethical and sound).
Educologists use one, or a selection and sometimes all of these perspectives in their inquiry. For example, in conducting inquiry about secondary education, educologists typically address the questions of:
1. What is secondary education? (an analytic philosophical educological question)
2. What is good secondary education? (a normative philosophical educological question)
3. What are current and prevailing practices and states of affairs in secondary education? (a scientific educological question)
4. What are effective practices which achieve desired results in secondary education? (a praxiological educological question)
5. What have been past practices and states of affairs in secondary education? (a historical educological question)
6. What laws, rules and regulations govern secondary education? (a jurisprudential educological question)
Well founded and warranted answers to these questions are all part of the educology of secondary education.
7. Education as the dependent variable
In contrast to other viewpoints (in the sense of arrangements of discourse, e.g. sociology, anthropology, psychology), the educological perspective treats the educational process as the dependent variable, and it is used to conduct research and inquiry about the effects of other factors, such as social settings, economic activity and political attitudes, upon the educational process.
Of course, regardless of how a field of phenomena is described or characterized, that field remains unchanged. Spoken or written discourse about the way a plant uses sunlight, water and soil to grow does not affect the plant in its use of those things. We can use spoken or written discourse, however, to take effective action in relation to a plant to influence its growth.
And so it is with the different arrangements of discourse (or viewpoints) about the educational process. None of the arrangements (sociology, anthropology, psychology, educology, etc.) changes the form and function of the educational process. All can be used to take some kind of action in relation to the educational process to achieve some intended outcome or desired goal, aim, objective or state of affairs.
8. The domain of educology
The domain or territory of educology is the set of all phenomena within the educational process. Inquiry and research from an educological perspective is undertaken about this set of phenomena with the intention of producing warranted assertions, or knowledge, about education. Part of the domain or territory of educology is represented in the following table.
|Educational Process||Levels of the Educational Process||Basic Components of Education||Derivative Components of Education||Basic Processes in Education||Processes Closely Related to Education|
|Official Education||1. Early Childhood
4. Adult, Further, Tertiary
|1. Human Development
|Unofficial Education||1. Early Childhood
2. Middle Childhood
4. Early Adulthood
5. Middle Adulthood
|1. Human Development
Table 2: Categories of Phenomena within the Educational Process for Educological Inquiry
8. Logic, techniques and products of educological inquiry
The relationship between educological inquiry and educology is the relationship between a process and its product. Educological inquiry uses a logic of inquiry and a set of techniques of inquiry to produce a set of products of inquiry.
Logic of inquiry. The set of disciplines which is used in the verification of statements (i.e. the warranting of assertions) is the logic of an inquiry. At least three principles of verification are used in educological inquiry.
1. Principle of necessity reasoning. There is the principle of necessity reasoning, in which the logic requires that a statement be judged true (i.e. warranted) when it is necessarily implied by a set of premises (i.e. a set of preceding statements). The principle of necessity reasoning is the same as the principle of deduction.
2. Principle of evaluative reasoning. There is the principle of evaluative reasoning, in which the logic requires that a statement be judged true when it is necessarily implied by a set of criteria (i.e. standards or rules or both). In addition, those criteria must be consistent with a set of values or norms to which all persons can reasonably adhere if they were in the same set of circumstances. The principle of evaluative reasoning is the same as the principle of evaluation or the principle of normative reasoning.
3. Principle of observation. In addition to deduction and evaluation, there is the principle of observation, in which the logic requires that a statement be judged true (i.e. an assertion be affirmed as warranted) if it is consistent with observable evidence (i.e. evidence which can be adduced by extrospection and/or introspection).
Techniques of inquiry. The actual behaviors performed and the procedures followed in adducing evidence to verify a statement (warrant an assertion) are the techniques of an inquiry. Examples include conducting surveys, experimentation, drawing analogies, running simulations, locating documents, taking notes, classifying objects, defining terms, clarifying concepts, etc.
Products of inquiry. The product of successful inquiry about the educational process is educology. Educology is the set of warranted assertions (i.e. statements which are judged to be true) about some aspect of the process of teaching, studying and guided intentional learning. The set can be classified into at least three categories, viz. analytic, normative and empirical knowledge.
Discipline for forming educology. The logic and techniques for conducting inquiry about the educational process constitute the discipline requisite for conducting sound and productive educological research and inquiry, including retro-search, re-search and neo-search. The product of sound, well disciplined and fruitful educological inquiry is educology. (See Table 3.)
|Kind of Inquiry||Logic of Inquiry||Product of Inquiry||Techniques of Inquiry|
|Analytic Educological Inquiry||Principle of Deduction (Necessity Reasoning)||Warranted Analytic Assertions (Analytic Educology)||Conceptual Analysis, Propositional Analysis, Definition, Explication, Illustration, Model Case, Contrary Case, Borderline Case, Invented Case, Related Concept, Unrelated Concept, Practical Consequences, Term Substitutions, Subscripts, Invented Terms, Statistical Analyses (Analysis of Variance, Correlation, Etc.)|
|Normative Educological Inquiry||Principle of Evaluation (Evaluative Reasoning)||Warranted Normative Assertions (Normative Educology)||Value Clarification, Value Validation, Value Vindication, Rational Value Choice|
|Empirical Educological Inquiry||Principle of Observation (Extrospection and Introspection)||Warranted Empirical Assertions (Empirical Educology)||Survey, Experimentation, Quasi-Experimentation, Analogy, Unobtrusive Measures, Case Studies, Participant Observation, Systematic Observation, Simulations, Ethnographies, Naturalistic Studies|
Table 3: The Discipline Requisite for Producing Educology
9. Critical categories for arrangement of educology into subfunds
From an educological point of view, three categories which are critical for the arrangement of the product of educological inquiry and research are: (1) the phenomena about which inquiry is conducted; (2) the purpose of the inquiry and (3) subfunds of educology.
Phenomena of inquiry. The something which is investigated in the act of research (including retro-search, re-search and neo-search) is the set of phenomena being inquired about, or the phenomena of inquiry, or the object of knowledge. Phenomena in the educational process can be classified into many categories. Five of the critical categories are:
1. existing educational phenomena,
2. effective educational practices,
3. effective administrative, leadership and governance practices for education,
4. worthwhile policies, practices and goals for and within education,
5. implications of educational discourse (discourse within education).
Purpose of inquiry. The intended outcome of an inquiry is its purpose. At least five purposes of inquiry can be distinguished: (1) description, (2) explanation, (3) prediction, (4) prescription and (5) justification. Description is a set of statements which elucidates and characterizes a state of affairs as it exists. Explanation is a set of statements which provides reasons for why a state of affairs is as it is. Prediction is a set of statements which tells how a state of affairs will be. Prescription is a set of statements which tells what, how and when to do something in order to achieve a desired state of affairs. Justification is a set of statements which presents a coherent argument about why a state of affairs is good or bad, better or worse, ethical or inethical, valuable or worthless.
Subfunds of educology. An arrangement of educological assertions in relation to a nominated set of purposes and a specified set of features within the educational process constitutes a subfund of educology. Major subfunds of educology include
1. analytic philosophical educology
2. normative philosophical educology
3. historical educology
4. scientific educology
5. praxiological educology
6. political praxiological educology
7. jurisprudential educology
Other arrangements, of course, are possible. Examples include the
1. educology of moral judgment
2. educology of motivation
3. educology of play
4. educology of social class
5. educology of women
These other arrangements typically include (1) analytic philosophical, (2) normative philosophical, (3) scientific, (4) praxiological, (5) political praxiological and (6) jurisprudential educology within them. For example, the educology of women implies all six subfunds. (See Table 4.)
|Subfund of Educology||Phenomena of Inquiry (Phenomena Inquired About or Object of Inquiry)||Purpose of Inquiry|
|Analytic Philosophical Educology||All Discourse within Education||Description, Explanation, Prediction, Prescription, Justification of Discourse within Education,|
|Normative Philosophical Educology||Intrinsically and Extrinsically Good and Bad States of Affairs for and within Education||Description, Explanation, Prediction, Prescription, Justification of Intrinsically and Extrinsically Good States of Affairs for and within Education|
|Historical Educology||Education of Past Times and Ages||Description, Explanation, Justification of Education in Past Times and Ages|
|Jurisprudential Educology||Legal Discourse which Guides and Regulates Education||Description, Explanation, Prescription and Justification of Legal Discourse which Guides and Regulates Education|
|Scientific Educology||Extant Educational Phenomena||Description, Explanation, Prediction of Educational Phenomena|
|Praxiological Educology||Effective Educational Practices||Description, Explanation, Prediction, Prescription, Justification of Effective Educational Practices|
|Political Praxiological Educology||Effective Administration, Leadership and Governance Practices for Education||Description, Explanation, Prediction, Prescription, Justification of Effective Administration, Leadership and Governance Practices for Education|
Table 4: Critical Categories for Arranging Educology into Subfunds of Educology
10. Four meanings of the term philosophy of education
At least four meanings of the term philosophy of education can be distinguished:
1. analytic philosophy of education, or the fund of knowledge about meanings of concepts and propositions in educational discourse, or discourse within the educational process (this subfund of educology is analytic philosophical educology);
2. normative philosophy of education, or the fund of knowledge about worthwhile states of affairs in the educational process (this subfund of educology is normative philosophical educology);
3. analytic philosophy of educology, or the fund of knowledge about the meanings of concepts and propositions in educological language, or language about education;
4. normative philosophy of educology, or the fund of knowledge about worthwhile states of affairs in educology (in discourse about education).
The first two are subfunds of educology. The third and fourth are knowledge about educology, not about education. Therefore, they are meta-educology, or knowledge about knowledge about education.
Analytic philosophy of education (or analytic philosophical educology) is an arrangement of warranted assertions which describes and characterizes the necessary implications of concepts and propositions used in discourse within the process of education. The theorizing of George F. Kneller, Gilbert Ryle, Israel Scheffler, B. Othanel Smith and James Gribble, for example, exemplifies analytic philosophy of education, or analytic philosophical educology.
Relevant to the explication of philosophy of education is the concept of language of education. The term functions ambiguously. It can mean (1) language or discourse which occurs within the process of teaching and studying, and it can also mean (2) language or discourse which is about the process of teaching and studying. In its first sense, language of education means language in education. In its second sense, it means language about education. These two senses can be distinguished by subscripts:
1. [language of education]1 is language in education;
2. [language of education]2 is language about education.
What people say while engaged in the role of teaching or in the role of studying under guidance are examples of [language of education]1 or language in education. Educology is [language of education]2 or language about education. Educology is only that language or discourse about education which is warranted with evidence. Obviously not all discourse (or assertions) about education is warranted with evidence.
Normative philosophical educology is the same as normative knowledge about education or normative philosophy of education. This arrangement of educology again requires the use of the three disciplines (analytic, normative, empirical). Questions of what is desirable and undesirable for and in the educational process (normative questions) lead on to questions of meaning (analytic questions) and questions of the actual consequences of actions or practices (empirical questions). To settle normative questions competently, one must also be able to settle questions of meaning and questions of actual consequences.
Normative philosophical educology addresses questions such as,
1. Is an inquiry approach to the teaching of natural sciences an intrinsically better one than an expository approach?
2. Should corporal punishment be banished from schools?
Normative philosophy of education (or normative philosophical educology) describes and characterizes that which has worth in education. The theorizing of Ernest Bayles, John Dewey and John Butler, for example, exemplifies normative philosophy of education, or normative philosophical educology.
Normative philosophical educology is part of educology. It is a subfund of educology. Its focus is upon desirable and undesirable or relatively desirable and undesirable states of affairs, relationships, entities, practices, situations and the like within the educational process (and for the educational process).
Normative philosophical educology is closely related to philosophy of education, but it is not identical with it. Often the term philosophy of education is used without distinguishing between normative and analytic philosophy. This usage conflates different arrangements of knowledge.
Philosophy of educology. Given the distinction between two senses of language of education, a third meaning of philosophy of education is possible to distinguish. Language about education can be an object of inquiry, or something about which inquiry can be conducted. It can be analyzed, and true statements about it can be produced. This set of true statements, or warranted assertions, constitutes a fund of knowledge. That fund includes the logic, epistemology, ethics and praxiology of making warranted assertions about the educational process. The fund includes that which is named by the term research methods or research methodologies, for research methodologies about the educational process is included in the praxiology of educology (vs. the praxiology of education).
In common usage discourse about education, the logic and epistemology of forming warranted assertions about the educational process is called philosophy of education, because in common usage, the term education names (1) the teaching and studying process and (2) knowledge about that process. But a name which more adequately characterizes the fund is the term philosophy of educology. The substitution of the term educology for the term education in the name philosophy of education (making it philosophy of educology) clarifies the point that the object of knowledge (i.e. that which the knowledge describes, characterizes and explains) is language (discourse) about education. Philosophy of educology includes analytic philosophy of educology and normative philosophy of educology.
11. Educology and meta-educology
In addition to educological inquiry and subfunds of educology, there is meta-educological inquiry and meta-educology. There is language (or discourse) within the educational process (what teachers say to students and vice versa) and language (or discourse) about the educational process (what is said about teachers and students). There can be warranted assertions about the educational process, i.e. verified statements about teachers and students. There can also be warranted assertions about what is said about teachers and students, i.e. verified statements about statements about the educational process. Warranted assertions about the educational process are educology. Warranted assertions about statements about the educational process are meta-educology. The statement,
Compulsory schooling is a requirement which all contemporary nations have stipulated in law
is an example of educology. In contrast, the statement,
The statement, “Compulsory school is a requirement which all contemporary nations have stipulated in law,” requires verification by examining the statutes of every nation
is an example of meta-educology. It is a warranted assertion about a statement about education.
Meta-educological inquiry. Meta-educological inquiry includes research about the necessary implications of discourse about the educational process. At least two categories of meta-educological inquiry can be distinguished: (1) analytic and (2) normative.
Analytic meta-educological inquiry requires the use of the principle of deduction (necessity reasoning) as its logic of inquiry. It produces warranted analytic meta-statements as its product of inquiry. Its techniques of inquiry include concept isolation, propositional isolation, concept analysis, propositional analysis, definition (including classificatory, synonymy, equivalent expression definition), identification of definition functions (including reportive, stipulative, programmatic functions), explication, model case, contrary case, boderline case, invented case, related concept, unrelated concept, term substitution, subscripts, invented terms, social context technique, result in language technique, practical results technique. Its phenomena of inquiry (phenomena about which inquiry is conducted) are all of the sets of discourse about the educational process. Its purpose of inquiry is description and explanation of the implications of all discourse about the educational process.
Normative meta-educological inquiry requires the use of the principle of evaluation (evaluative reasoning) as its logic of inquiry. It produces warranted normative meta-statements as its product of inquiry. Its techniques of inquiry include value clarification, value validation, value vindication and rational value choice. Its phenomena of inquiry (phenomena about which inquiry is conducted) are intrinsically and extrinsically good and bad states of affairs for and within discourse about the educational process. Its purpose of inquiry is description, explanation, prediction, prescription and justification of intrinsically and extrinsically good states of affairs for and within discourse about the educational process.
Not a subfund of educology. Meta-educology does not constitute a subfund of educology. Educology is its phenomena of inquiry, just as education is the phenomena of inquiry for educology. Educology is the set of phenomena about which meta-educological research inquires. Education is the set of phenomena about which educological research inquires. See Table 5.
|Critical Category||Category Details for Analytic Meta-Educology||Category Details for Normative Meta-Educology|
|Kind of Inquiry||Analytic Meta-Educological Inquiry||Normative Meta-Educological Inquiry|
|Logic of Inquiry||Principle of Deduction (Necessity Reasoning)||Principle of Evaluation (Evaluative Reasoning)|
|Product of Inquiry||Warranted Analytic Meta-Assertions (Verified Analytic Meta-Statements or Analytic Meta-Educology)||Warranted Normative Meta-Assertions (Verified Normative Meta-Statements or Normative Meta-Educology)|
|Techniques of Inquiry||Concept Isolation, Propositional Isolation, Definition (Classificatory, Synonymy, Equivalent Expression), Definitional Function (Reportive, Stipulative, Programmatic), Explication, Model Case, Contrary Case, Borderline Case, Invented Case, Related Concept, Unrelated Concept, Term Substitution, Subscripts, Invented Terms, Social Context Technique, Results in Language Technique, Practical Results Technique||Value Clarification, Value Validation, ValueVindication, Rational Value Choice|
|Phenomena of Inquiry (Phenomena Inquired about or Object of Inquiry)||All Discourse about the Educational Process||Intrinsically and Extrinsically Good and Bad States of Affairs for and within Discourse about the Educational Process|
|Purpose of Inquiry||Description and Explanation of the Necessary Implications of Discourse about the Educational Process and Justification for the Use of Terms and Categories in Discourse about the Educational Process||Description, Explanation, Prediction, Prescription, Justification of Intrinsically and Extrinsically Good States of Affairs for and within Discourse about the Educational Process|
|Product of Inquiry||Analytic Philosophy of Educology||Normative Philosophy of Educology|
|Subfund of Educology||None (Not a Part of Educology): Analytic Meta-Educology is a Fund of Knowledge at a Second Level of Discourse, above and outside of Educology||None (Not a Part of Educology): Normative Meta-Educology is a Fund of Knowledge at a Second Level of Discourse, above and outside of Educology|
Table 5: Critical Categories for Forming Analytic and Normative Meta-Educology
12. Responsibilities of educological researchers
It is the responsibility of educological researchers to be expert in both educological inquiry and meta-educological inquiry. Both activities are required in the task of competently making warranted assertions about the educational process. It is the educological researcher’s responsibility to identify significant problems about the educational process and to solve those problems. It is also the educological researcher’s obligation to clarify:
1. What kind of problem is being posed to solve, i.e. what logic of inquiry the problem requires?
2. What product of inquiry it implies?
3. What techniques of inquiry it indicates?
4. Which phenomena of inquiry demand its focus?
5. What purpose of inquiry it serves?
To ask and answer these five questions is to undertake meta-educological research. If the educological researcher omits these questions, the researcher risks derailment at the very beginning of the inquiry. Much work can be wasted and invalid results perpetrated if an analytic question is mistaken for an empirical one, or an empirical one, for a normative one. Each kind of question implies its appropriate logic, product, techniques, phenomena and purpose of inquiry. Analytic questions must be treated as analytic questions for the results to be valid, and so it is for normative and empirical questions. This is why educological researchers, in order to do their job properly and correctly, must be able to undertake expert meta-inquiry at the second level of discourse, i.e. at the level of warranted assertions about statements about the eduational process. See Table 6.
|Level of Discourse||Distinguishing Characteristics of the Level|
|Level 2 Discourse||Fund of Knowledge: Meta-Educology (Warranted Assertions about Statements about the Educational Process)|
|Level 1 Discourse||Fund of Knowledge: Educology (Warranted Assertions about the Educational Process)|
|Level 0||Phenomena: Education (The Phenomena of Teaching, Studying and Learning under Guidance Some Content in Some Physical, Social and Cultural Milieu)|
Table 6: Education, Educology and Meta-Educology and Corresponding Levels of Discourse
13. Uses of educology
Liberal and professional education. Educology has uses in the curriculum of liberal education and professional education. Liberal education is undertaken to extend one’s ability to function as a free person with free will within a free and democratic society. Professional education is undertaken to function as an effective professional, e.g. a teacher, counsellor or mentor, within the educational process. Sound educological understanding provides the basis for undertaking rational, constructive action within the educational process and for engaging in sound, well informed discourse about the educational process. Through studying educology, one can develop educological understanding towards several ends, e.g. towards
1. heightened sensitivity for, to and within educational situations,
2. effective participation within educational situations (as teacher, student, counsellor, coach, manager, etc.),
3. articulation of sound theory and justificatory arguments about educational situations and
4. resolution of problems connected with educational situations.
The liberal and professional uses of educology are described, explained and illustrated in a number of educological works.
Naming professional organizations. Another important use of educology is the naming of professional organizations whose purposes are to conduct research, produce knowledge and disseminate knowledge about the educational process. For example, the conflation of (1) object of inquiry with (2) product of inquiry is removed by making the change of name from:
1. the American Educational Research Association to the American Educological Research Association,
2. the Australian Association for Research in Education to the Australian Association for Research in Educology,
3. the Comparative Education Society to Comparative Educology Society and
4. the Society of Professors of Education to the Society of Professors of Educology.
Naming organizational units. Likewise, educology has an important use for naming organizational units whose purpose it is to teach and extend knowledge about the educational process. The use of educology in the naming of organizational units within academies, institutes, colleges and universities dispels conflation of concepts and confusion in discourse about education. For example, the name change from:
1. college of education to college of educology,
2. school of education to school of educology,
3. faculty of education to faculty of educology and
4. department of education to department of educology
removes the conflation of (1) object of inquiry with (2) product of inquiry and makes clear that the purpose of the units is to teach and study knowledge about educational phenomena and extend knowledge about the educational process.
Structuring programs, curricula and courses. Within organizational units of educology (university faculties, colleges, schools, departments) the six critical categories of
1. kind of inquiry
2. logic of inquiry
3. techniques of inquiry
4. phenomena inquired about
5. purpose of inquiry
6. products of inquiry
have important applications for making decisions about
1. course titles and descriptions,
2. curriculum arrangements and
3. organization of academic staff.
Use of these categories reduces the likelihood of category mistakes, nonsensical contradictions and wasteful duplication in educological programs, curricula, courses and organization of staff. The application of the six categories also increases the probability of arrangements of academic staff and curricula which have coherency, clarity and flexibility, without ambiguity or equivocation. The benefits of using the six critical categories include the likelihood of producing an organization which (1) makes sense to those whom it arranges and (2) contributes to cooperative effort towards the worthwhile goal of extending knowledge about education.