Educology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The term educology means the fund of knowledge about the educational process.[1] 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.[2]

Use from the 1950s through the 1970s[edit]

The term educology has been in use in the English language since the seminal work in educology by Professor Lowry W. Harding[3] at Ohio State University in the 1950s and Professor Elizabeth Steiner [Maccia][4] and her husband, Professor George Maccia,[5] at Indiana University in the 1960s. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, John B. Biggs[6] and Rachel Elder [7] 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,[8] James E. Fisher,[9] David E. Denton,[10] Diana Buell Hiatt,[11] Charles M. Reigeluth and M. David Merrill,[12] James F. Perry,[13] Marian Reinhart,[14] Edmund C. Short,[15] John Walton,[16] Catherine O. Ameh,[17] Laurie Brady,[18] Berdine F. Nel,[19] Maryann J. Ehle[20] and others.[21]

Developments since the 1980s[edit]

In Europe, important work on clarification of the concept of the term educology in the 1980s and 1990s was done by Anton Monshouwer,[22] Theo Oudkerk Pool,[23] Wolfgang Brezinka,[24] Carlos E. Olivera,[25] Nikola Pastuovic[26] and in the 2000s by Birgitta Qvarsell,[27] Kestutis Pukelis and Izabela Savickiene[28] and Sharon Link.[29] Two of the most important recent contributions to educology have been by Theodore E. Frick of Indiana University, Bloomington[30] and James E. Christensen.[31] 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.[32] 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, e.g. the University of Illinois[33] and Indiana University.[34] 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 Vilnius University [1] (Lithuania), Siauliai University (Lithuania), Vilnius Pedagogical University (Lithuania), Vytautas Magnus University (Lithuania), Mykolas Romeris University (Lithuania), Kaunas University of Medicine (Lithuania), Klaipėda University (Lithuania), Tallinn University (Estonia), Stockholm University (Sweden), University of Presov (Slovakia)[35] and Comenius University in Bratislava (Slovakia).[36] In addition to academic institutions, some proprietary concerns have adopted the term in either the name of their businesses or in their publications.[37]

Derivation[edit]

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.[38]

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,[39] or only scientific knowledge about education (science of education)[40] or only knowledge about effective practices in education (praxiological knowledge, also spelled praxeology).[41][42]

The prevailing and generally accepted argument which has emerged from 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.[2]

Argument for the term "educology"[edit]

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,[43] ethology,[44] Education, Education Studies, Professional Education and psychopedagogy.[45] However, educologists argue that one term performs the job of naming the fund of knowledge about education even better than these seven: educology.[46][47][48] 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)[49] or to that of male adults (andragogy). It is not recorded knowledge about processes other than education, such as knowledge about character development (ethology)[50] or a combination of psychological knowledge and knowledge about 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 for the 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.[2]

Educational discourse and educological discourse[edit]

Educologists recognize that there is discourse in education and discourse about education.[51] 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.
  • Bronwyn: Cat! Cat!
  • Mark: Did you see the cat? Daddy doesn't see the cat. Where is it?
  • Bronwyn: Cat gone. All gone.
  • Mark: Daddy doesn't see the cat. Did the cat go away?
  • Bronwyn: See cat!
  • Mark: Where did the cat go? Drink your juice now.
  • Bronwyn: Juice!
  • Mark: That's right, drink your juice.
  • Bronwyn: Drink? Cat! Cat!
  • Mark: Finish your juice.
  • Bronwyn: Finish. Juice all gone.
  • Mark: Good. You've finished your juice. Your juice is all gone.
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.
  3. The content which Bronwyn is studying under guidance and Mark is teaching is the syntax (order), semantics (meaning) and grammar (inflections) of the English language.
  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.[52]

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

Study, education, and educology[edit]

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.[53]

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.[54]

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.[55] But the activity of studying about education is not the fund of knowledge about education.

The study of education (i.e. undertaking study about the educational process), if conducted as serious, well disciplined inquiry and research, can produce educology.

The study of educology (i.e. undertaking study about 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.[56]

Disciplines requisite for producing educology[edit]

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:[51]

  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,[57] and
  3. empirical inquiry and research (including experimental and non-experimental research), which requires the use of the principle of observation (including extrospection and introspection).

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.[51]

The educological perspective[edit]

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.[58]

Education as the dependent variable[edit]

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.[59]

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.[59]

The domain of educology[edit]

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.[60]

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:

Conducted in schools, academies, colleges, institutes & universities with written lesson plans, instructional programs, syllabii, curricula, assessments or certifications of achievement, licensed teachers, enrolled students, principals, superintendents, boards of trustees or governors

  1. Early childhood
  2. Primary
  3. Secondary
  4. Adult, further, tertiary
  1. Teacher
  2. Student
  3. Content
  4. Milieu
  1. Intentions
  2. Strategies
  3. Methods
  4. Styles
  5. Resources
  6. Language
  7. Curriculum
  1. Teaching
  2. Studying
  3. Learning
  1. Human development
  2. Socialization
  3. Enculturation
  4. Counseling
Unofficial education:

Conducted outside of schools, academies, colleges, institutes & universities and without written lesson plans, instructional programs, syllabii, curricula, assessments or certifications of achievement, licensed teachers, enrolled students, principals, superintendents, boards of trustees or governors

  1. Early childhood
  2. Middle childhood
  3. Adolescence
  4. Early adulthood
  5. Middle adulthood
  6. Senescence
  1. Teacher
  2. Student
  3. Content
  4. Milieu
  1. Intentions
  2. Strategies
  3. Methods
  4. Styles
  5. Resources
  6. Language
  7. Curriculum
  1. Teaching
  2. Studying
  3. Learning
  1. Human development
  2. Socialization
  3. Enculturation
  4. Counseling

Table 2: Categories of phenomena within the educational process for educological inquiry

Logic, techniques and products of educological inquiry[edit]

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.[2]

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.[57]
  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.[61] The product of sound, well disciplined and fruitful educological inquiry is educology.[2] (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

Critical categories for arrangement of educology into subfunds[edit]

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.[2]

Phenomena of inquiry. The something which is investigated in the act of research (including retro-search, re-search and neo-search)[61] 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. Seven of the critical categories are:

  1. implications of educational discourse (discourse within education),
  2. worthwhile policies, practices, goals and states of affairs for and within education,
  3. education in past times and ages,
  4. existing educational phenomena,
  5. effective educational practices,
  6. effective administration, leadership and governance practices for education
  7. legal language which guides and regulates 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. At least seven major subfunds of educology can be distinguished. They 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 gender equity
  2. educology of moral judgment
  3. educology of motivation
  4. educology of play
  5. educology of social class
  6. educology of social justice
  7. educology of women

These other arrangements typically include (1) analytic philosophical, (2) normative philosophical, (3) historical, (4) scientific, (5) praxiological, (6) political praxiological and (7) jurisprudential educology within them. For example, the educology of women implies all seven 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

Four meanings of the term philosophy of education[edit]

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.[62]

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 James Gribble, George F. Kneller, John B. Magee, Gilbert Ryle, Israel Scheffler and B. Othanel Smith, for example, exemplifies analytic philosophy of education, or analytic philosophical educology.[63]

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.[51]

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.[64]

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.[51]

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, because research methodologies about the educational process are included in the praxiology of educology (vs. the praxiology of education).[2][65]

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.[51]

Educology and meta-educology[edit]

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.[2] 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 asking and answering questions (with the necessary and sufficient evidence) about (1) the necessary implications, (2) the value and worth and (3) the attribution and provenance of discourse about the educational process. Thus, at least three categories of meta-educological inquiry can be distinguished: (1) analytic, (2) normative and (3) empirical.[51]

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, borderline case, invented case, related concept, unrelated concept, term substitution, subscripts, invented terms, social context technique, result in language technique, practical results technique.[51] 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.[51] The statement,

The statement, "Individualization is instruction that is adapted to individual needs . . .," is an analytic statement verifiable by the principle of necessity reasoning.

is an example of an analytic meta-educological statement.

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.[66] 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.[51] The statement,

The statement, "Individualization is instruction that is adapted to individual needs . . .," is a good statement for beginning inquiry about individualization of instruction in the educational process.

is an example of a normative meta-educological statement.

Empirical meta-educological inquiry requires the use of the principle of observation (extrospection) as its logic of inquiry. It produces warranted empirical meta-statements as its product of inquiry. Its techniques of inquiry include location of recorded texts, authentication of recorded texts and citation of recorded texts. Its phenomena of inquiry (phenomena about which inquiry is conducted) is extant recorded statements (i.e. texts in articles, journals, papers, books, etc.) about the educational process. Its purpose of inquiry is description, attribution and provenance of extant discourse about the educational process. The statement,

The statement, "Individualization is instruction that is adapted to individual needs . . .," is found on p. 272 of The Teacher's Handbook (Dwight W. Allen & Eli Seifman, Eds., 1971).

is an example of an empirical meta-educological statement.

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 Category details for empirical meta-educology
Kind of inquiry Analytic meta-educological inquiry Normative meta-educological inquiry Empirical meta-educological inquiry
Logic of inquiry Principle of deduction (necessity reasoning) Principle of evaluation (evaluative reasoning) Principle of observation (extrospection)
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) Warranted empirical meta-assertions (verified empirical meta-statements or empirical 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, value vindication, rational value choice Location, authentication & citation of recorded texts consisting of educological statements
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 Recorded text containing statements 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 Description, attribution and provenance of recorded statements about the educational process
Product of inquiry Analytic meta-educology Normative meta-educology Empirical meta-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 None (not a part of educology): empirical 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

Responsibilities of educological researchers[edit]

It is the responsibility of educological researchers to be expert in both educological inquiry and meta-educological inquiry.[51] 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 does the problem require?
  2. What product of inquiry does the problem imply?
  3. What techniques of inquiry does it indicate?
  4. Which phenomena of inquiry demand its focus?
  5. What purpose of inquiry does the problem serve?

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 educational process. See Table 6.

Level of discourse Distinguishing characteristics of the level
Level 2 discourse

(discourse about educology)

Fund of knowledge: meta-educology (warranted assertions about statements about the educational process)
Level 1 discourse

(discourse about education)

Fund of knowledge: educology (warranted assertions about the educational process)
Level 0

(no discourse)

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

Knowledge about education vs. knowing about education[edit]

Educologists distinguish between knowledge about education and knowing about education.[2] Knowledge is warranted assertions. Knowing is the learned ability to perform adequately in relation to some purpose and some state of affairs.

Educological knowledge. Educology is an example of knowledge. It is a fund of recorded warranted assertions about the educational process. It is located in the discourse of books or any other medium suitable for recording statements, e.g. magnetic tape, microfilm, microfiche, computer memory, CDs, DVDs. Recorded propositional knowledge about the educational process is related to knowing about the educational process, but it is quite distinct from it as well.[2]

Educological knowing. From an educological viewpoint, knowing is an ability which is realized (vs. potential). It is learned (vs. being inherited or being instinctual). It is an ability to perform with some intention (i.e. it is a purposeful performance). It is done in relation to some state of affairs. And the ability takes some form, or is manifested in some way (at least six forms of knowing can be distinguished). An example of knowing is that of knowing about education. Knowing about education is educological knowing. It is the learned ability to perform adequately with intention or purpose in relation to the educational process. Knowing is located within the function of people. It is their cognitive function in relation to the educational process. As students, people can study the recorded propositions in educology in order to extend their educological knowing. In doing so, they extend their cognitive function in relation to the educational process. Through their study, they might improve their function with respect to their conduct as teachers, students, counselors, coaches, trainers, mentors, curriculum developers, educational administrators and managers, or educological researchers (including retro-researchers, re-searchers and neo-searchers).[2]

Extension of knowing from studying educology. As students, through their study of educology, people can extend their ability to speak purposefully and adequately about education or to speak purposefully and adequately while engaging within the process of education as a teacher, student, counselor, curriculum developer, administrator or manager. They might extend their ability to think to themselves, silently, about education, to write soundly about education, or to draw supportable and warranted inferences about education. Studying educology, under guidance or independently, is a means by which one can extend one's ability to recall educational states of affairs, anticipate educational moments, create educational occasions, or discern educational transactions.[2]

Transience of knowing vs. permanence of knowledge. It is the nature of human beings that we are mortal. We all die, and our knowing dies with us. But educology does not die. While a person's cognitive function ceases with that person, recorded propositions about education remain in the recorded media. Each person who comes anew as a student to the fund of educology has the opportunity to extend her or his educological knowing. In addition, new generations, through successful educological research (retro-search, re-search, neo-search) have the opportunity to contribute to the revision and extension of the fund of warranted assertions which constitutes educology.[2]

The range of educological knowing[edit]

Educologists distinguish at least three kinds of educological knowing. Each of the kinds may be manifested in at least six forms and at three levels. The three kinds are qualitative, quantitative and procedural knowing.[67] The six forms are linguistic, physical, physiological, imaginal, emotional and conative. The three levels are preconventional, conventional and postconventional.[68] The three kinds of knowing are distinguishable with respect to the object or states of affairs in relation to which the knowing is performed. The six forms of knowing are distinguishable with respect to the manner in which the knowing is manifested. The three levels of knowing are distinguishable with respect to the degree of expertise with which the knowing is performed.

Range of knowing. The combination of kinds, forms and levels of knowing constitutes a range of knowing. A range of knowing may vary from narrowly restricted to widely extended. It is possible for a person to develop qualitative knowing without procedural or quantitative knowing. It is possible for a person to develop, for example, procedural knowing at a conventional level in a linguistic form, but not in a physical form. A wide or extensive range of knowing constitutes understanding.

Levels of knowing Kinds of knowing Forms of knowing

(ways in which knowing is manifested)

Third level: postconventional knowing
  1. Qualitative knowing
  2. Quantitative knowing
  3. Performative knowing
  1. Linguistic
  2. Emotional
  3. Imaginal
  4. Physical
  5. Physiological
  6. Conative
Second level: conventional knowing
  1. Qualitative knowing
  2. Quantitative knowing
  3. Performative knowing
  1. Linguistic
  2. Emotional
  3. Imaginal
  4. Physical
  5. Physiological
  6. Conative
First level: preconventional knowing
  1. Qualitative knowing
  2. Quantitative knowing
  3. Performative knowing
  1. Linguistic
  2. Emotional
  3. Imaginal
  4. Physical
  5. Physiological
  6. Conative

Table 7: Range of knowing as combinations of levels, kinds and forms of knowing

Qualitative knowing. Qualitative knowing about education is the ability to perform adequately in relation to unique states of affairs within education. A teacher recognizes, is acquainted with and appreciates Michael's moods, motivations, aspirations and capabilities, not as an adolescent or a middle class child or a student in his 9th year of school, but as Michael, in all of his uniqueness. This is an example of a teacher's qualitative knowing. The teacher might be able to manifest this qualitative knowing of Michael in talking with Michael (linguistic knowing), in anticipating Michael's behavior (imaginal knowing), in making gestures to which Michael will respond positively (physical knowing), in having a certain set of purposes in mind for Michael (conative knowing). Qualitative knowing of education gives the knower (e.g. teacher, student, counselor, administrator, manager, curriculum developer, researcher) sensitivity for the educational process and for features within the process so that significant and important aspects of the process can be discerned and appreciated by the knower.

Quantitative knowing. Quantitative knowing about education is the ability to perform adequately in relation to states of affairs within education as members of categories. A teacher can, for example, classify Michael's behavior as typical of 15 year olds. The teacher can categorize Michael's capabilities as characteristic of middle level achievers and relate his aspirations and motivations to what one might expect of middle class adolescents. The teacher might manifest this quantitative knowing in writing a report (linquistic knowing), in having a feeling of familiarity and towards Michael's behavior as typical of boys of his age (an emotional knowing), in imagining how Michael will resemble his mates in a year's time (imaginal knowing), in making gestures and managing body language towards boys of Michael's kind (physical knowing) and in forming intentions and purposes for instruction appropriate to Michael as a member of the category of male adolescents (conative knowing). Quantitative knowing gives the knower adequacy and power with respect to theory (i.e. quantitative knowing gives theoretical adequacy). The knower with quantitative knowing about education can describe and explain (i.e. theorize) about the educational process in terms of categories and classifications of features or aspects of the educational process. The knower can do this, if she or he has quantitative knowing, with necessary and sufficient evidence and sound inferences.

Procedural knowing. Procedural knowing is the ability to use a set of procedures to achieve an intended result. A teacher, for example, starts class by having the children line up outside the classroom, enter the classroom in single file and take their seats as assigned seats. The teacher has learned that this set of procedures achieves an orderly entry into the room and focuses the attention of pupils upon what is to happen next in the lesson. In this example, this teacher is manifesting procedural knowing. When the teacher is giving directions, the procedural knowing is being manifested as linguistic procedural knowing. It can be manifested in gestures and body language (physical knowing), in feelings (emotional knowing), in anticipation (imaginal knowing) and in purposes and intentions (conative knowing). Procedural knowing is the basis for effective action within the educational process.

Other possibilities of knowing. While the examples just given of qualitative, quantitative and procedural knowing were ones in which a teacher manifested the three kinds and six forms of knowing, other players in the educational process are capable of learning these kinds and forms of knowing about education. These include students, counselors, coaches, mentors, administrators, managers, curriculum specialists and any one interested in knowing about education from a professional viewpoint or from the viewpoint of extending one's liberal education. One can develop educological knowing as a liberal study as well as a professionial study.

Levels of knowing. At least three levels of knowing are possible (preconventional, conventional and postconventional). The three levels relate to the distinctions of beginner, intermediate, expert and expert innovator. One who has preconventional knowing is just at the beginning of learning some kind and form of knowing about education. The person has not yet achieved the conventions for a set of knowing. At the conventional level, the person has learned the conventions, and the level includes both intermediate and expert performances. The postconventional level is being manifested when the knower is creating innovations which have not yet beome conventions. Innovative expert performers within the educational process and researchers who are engaged in neo-search about the educational process, if successful, are performing at the postconventional level of knowing. They are setting new standards or conventions of knowing about education.

Educological understanding[edit]

From an educological viewpoint, understanding is the realized ability to perform intelligently and in a well informed way to resolve challenges, solve problems and achieve desired results within some state of affairs.[69] Educological understanding is an understanding of states of affairs within the educational process. More specifically, educological understanding is the realized ability to perform intelligently and in a well informed way to resolve challenges, solve problems and achieve desired results for and within the educational process. Educological understanding relates to educological knowing in that educological understanding is the achievement of some range of educological knowing at the conventional and post-conventional levels. A wide or extensive range of educological knowing at the conventional and post-conventional levels constitutes educological understanding.

The way to rational constructive action in education[edit]

Within matters educational, experience is highly prized. While it is true that experience within the educational process is important for developing educological understanding, educologists maintain that experience alone is insufficient.[2] All of us experience disease, but this does not qualify us as medical practitioners. We occupy space and exist in time, but this experience does not transform us into physicists. So it is with educological knowing. In order to develop educological understanding, one must engage in experiences with an educological perspective so that the significant and important features of the experience may be discerned, reflected upon, evaluated and appreciated educologically. In order to develop a range of knowing about education, one must, as a student, study educology in addition to having experience within the educational process. Rational constructive action within the educational process requires educological understanding. Without understanding, naive uninformed action can be taken, but not rational, well informed action. If naive uninformed action is constructive, it will be by accident, not by educological knowing. The way to rational constructive action within the educational process is through coming to know as much as one can about education from an educological perspective. Educological knowing requires study of educology, i.e. the reading and comprehension, reflection upon and intelligent action in relation to warranted assertions about the educational process. It is educology which provides concepts, propositions, facts and theory about education and cognitive structure for reasoning about education and for taking rational constructive action in and for education.

Uses of educology[edit]

Liberal and professional education. Educologists argue that educology has uses in the curriculum of liberal education as well as 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, ethical and accountable practitioner, e.g. a teacher, counsellor or mentor, within the educational process.[59] 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.[2]

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.[70]

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.[70]

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.[70]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Fisher, James E (2001). "Contributing Paper 1.1 in History and Philosophy of Educology, Part I (A paper used as the basis for a series of seven lectures to faculty and doctoral students in educology at Vytautas Magnus University (VMU) in December, 2001)". Pedagogika (Kaunus, Lithuania: Vytauto Didziojo universiteto leidykla). ISSN 1392-0340. 
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o See:
  3. ^ Lowry Harding published four works in educology. They have a light hearted tone, but there is a serious underlying message about the necessity to clarify the distinction between the educational process and knowledge about that process:
    • Harding, Lowry W, ed. (1951). Anthology in Educology. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm C Brown, Co. 
    • Harding, Lowry W, ed. (1956). Essays in Educology. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm C Brown, Co. 
    • Harding, Lowry W, ed. (1964). More Essays in Educology. Columbus, Ohio: Association for the Study of Educology. 
    • Harding, Lowry W, ed. (1965). Educology: The Fourth Collection. Columbus, Ohio: Association for the Study of Educology. 
  4. ^ Elizabeth Steiner Maccia published under the names of Elizabeth Steiner and Elizabeth Steiner Maccia:
    • Maccia, Elizabeth Steiner (1964). "Logic of Education and of Educatology: Dimensions of Philosophy of Education". Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Philosophy of Education Society (Lawrence, Kansas: Philosophy of Education Society). ISSN 8756-6575. 
    • Maccia, Elizabeth Steiner (Sep 1970). "Towards Educational Theorizing without Mistake". Studies in Philosophy and Education 7 (2): 154–157. doi:10.1007/bf00372558. ISSN 0039-3746. 
    • Steiner [Maccia], Elizabeth (1972). "The Non-Identity of Philosophy and Theory of Education". In Rich, John Martin. Readings in the Philosophy of Education, Second Edition. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-534-00204-6. 
    • Steiner, Elizabeth (1977). "Educology: Its Origins and Future, a paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY, 3-8 Apr, 1977". Resources in Education (ERIC: Education Resources Information Center): Accession Numbers ED 141201. 
    • Steiner, Elizabeth (1978). Logical and Conceptual Analytic Techniques for Educational Researchers. Washington, DC: University Press of America. ISBN 0-8191-0406-X. 
    • Steiner, Elizabeth (1981). Educology of the Free. New York: Philosophical Library. ISBN 0-8022-2373-7. 
    • Steiner, Elizabeth (1981). "Chapter 5: Educology: Thirteen Years Later". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 101–120. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
    • Steiner, Elizabeth (1981). "Chapter 4: Logic of Education and of Educatology: Dimensions of Philosophy of Education". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 87–100. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
    • Steiner, Elizabeth (1986). "Chapter 13: Crisis in Educology". In Christensen, James E. Educology 86: Proceedings of a Conference on Educational Research, Inquiry and Development with an Educological Perspective, Canberra, July 10-12, 1986. Sydney: Educology Research Associates. pp. 221–228. ISBN 0-949784-05-2. 
  5. ^ George Maccia made a number of important contributions to the development of educology, including:
  6. ^ Prof. John B. Biggs of Newcastle University (Australia) coined the term educology in 1975 in a paper ("Professional Development or Practice") presented to the Annual Conference of the South Pacific Association for Teacher Education (Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia) (cited in Christensen, James E (1981). "Preface". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. vi. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. ) and used the term again in:
  7. ^ Rachel Elder coined the term educology in the late 1960s and used it in an unpublished paper written for Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development (San Francisco) "Three Educologies" (mimeographed, 1971). She used the term in the sense of ideologies about education in order to stimulate students at the University of California, Berkeley, in the activitist days of the late 1960s to clarify their own ideologies as a basis for action in the task of teaching. Elder's work is cited in Christensen, James E (1981). "Preface". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. vi. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
  8. ^ James Christensen's contributions included:
  9. ^ James E. Fisher's contributions to the development of educology included:
  10. ^ Denton, David E (1981). "Chapter 17: A Renewed Call for a Society of Educologists". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 375–380. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
  11. ^ Hiatt, Diana Buell (1986). "Chapter 7: Curricular Decision Making with an Educological Perspective: Theory into Practice". In Christensen, James E. Educology 86: Proceedings of a Conference on Educational Research, Inquiry and Development with an Educological Perspective, Canberra, July 10-12, 1986. Sydney: Educology Research Associates. pp. 101–112. ISBN 0-949784-05-2. 
  12. ^ Reigeluth, Charles M; Merrill, M David (1981). "Chapter 10: Instructional Science and Technology: Their Context within Educology and Some Ideas for Their Future Development". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 223–250. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
  13. ^ James F. Perry focused on praxiological educology and argued that it is one of the subfunds of educology:
    • Perry, James F (1981). "Chapter 9: Praxiology of Education as a Branch of Educology". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 213–222. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
    • Perry, James F (1986). "Chapter 11: What Works for What, and Why: Praxiology of Education". In Christensen, James E. Educology 86: Proceedings of a Conference on Educational Research, Inquiry and Development with an Educological Perspective, Canberra, July 10-12, 1986. Sydney: Educology Research Associates. pp. 163–182. ISBN 0-949784-05-2. 
  14. ^ Fisher, James E; Reinhart, Marian (1981). "Chapter 14: Educology and the Teaching of Mathematics". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 328–340. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
  15. ^ Short, Edmund C (1981). "Chapter 16: Analysis of Educology and Educological Inquiry". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 351–374. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
  16. ^ Walton, John (1981). "Chapter 15: Educology: An Academic Discipline". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 341–350. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
  17. ^ Catherine O. Ameh has published under the names of C.O. Ameh and her married name, C.O. Anegbe:
  18. ^ Laurie Brady's contributions to the development of educology included:
  19. ^ Nel, Berdine F (1980). From Fundamental Pedagogics to Educology: A Solution or a Substitution. Durban, Natal: South African Association for Advancement of Education. ISBN 0-909072-33-7. 
  20. ^ Ehle, Maryann (1986). "Chapter 3: The Educology of Self Perception". In Christensen, James E. Educology 86: Proceedings of a Conference on Educational Research, Inquiry and Development with an Educological Perspective, Canberra, July 10-12, 1986. Sydney: Educology Research Associates. pp. 34–50. ISBN 0-949784-05-2. 
  21. ^ For others who have contributed to the development of educology, see International Journal of Educology, Educology Research Associates, 1987-, ISSN 0818-0563  Check date values in: |date= (help), in which more than 100 articles in educology have been published to date.
  22. ^ See
    • Monshouwer, Anton (1981). "Chapter 3: The Formal Structure of an Emerging Science of Education, Part I: Some Opinions about the Scientific Status of a Science of Education". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 51–86. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
    • Monshouwer, Anton (1981). "Chapter 7: The Formal Structure of an Emerging Science of Education, Part II: The Concept of Science". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 159–196. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
  23. ^ Pool, Theo Oudkerk (1986). "Chapter 12: Teacher Education in an Educological Perspective". In Christensen, James E. Educology 86: Proceedings of a Conference on Educational Research, Inquiry and Development with an Educological Perspective, Canberra, July 10-12, 1986. Sydney: Educology Research Associates. pp. 182–220. ISBN 0-949784-05-2. 
  24. ^ Of Wolfgang Brezinka's many publications, two of the most important ones in English are:
    • Brezinka, Wolfgang (1981). "Chapter 1: Meta-Theory of Education: European Contributions from an Empirical-Analytic Point of View". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 7–26. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
    • Brezinka, Wolfgang (Translated from the German by James Stuart Brice and Raoul Eshelman) (1992). Philosophy of Educational Knowledge: An Introduction to the Foundations of Science of Education, Philosophy of Education and Practical Pedagogics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 0-7923-1522-7. 
  25. ^ Olivera, Carlos E. (1988). "Comparative Education: Towards a Basic Theory". Prospects (UNESCO) 18 (2): 167–185. ISSN 0033-1538. 
  26. ^ Pastuovic, Nikola (1995). "The Science(s) of Adult Education". International Journal of Lifelong Education (Routledge Taylor & Francis Group) 14 (4): 273–291. doi:10.1080/0260137950140402. ISSN 0260-1370. 
  27. ^ Qvarsell, Birgitta (2003). "Cultures as a Construction for Educational Research". In Qvarsell, Birgitta; Wulf, Christoph. Culture and Education. European Studies in Education. Volume 16. Munster, Germany: Waxman. pp. 13–24. ISBN 3-8309-1227-7. 
  28. ^ Pukelis, Kestutis; Savickiene, Izabela (2005). "The Challenge of Establishing a Common Set of Terms for Discourse, Inquiry, and Research in Educational Science: An Analytically Oriented Philosophy of Educology". International Journal of Educology (Educology Research Associates). Lithuanian Special Issue: 14–27. ISSN 0818-0563. 
  29. ^ Link, Sharon (2008). Educology. EBSCO Research Starters, EBSCO Publishing Inc. 
  30. ^ Frick, Theodore E (2012). The Theory of Totally Integrated Education: TIE. A Monograph in Four Parts. Bloomington: Department of Instructional Systems Technology School of Education, Indiana University. 
  31. ^ See
  32. ^ See International Journal of Educology, Educology Research Associates, 1987-, ISSN 0818-0563  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  33. ^ For example the College of Education of the University of Illinois at Chicago commenced a newsletter named Educology in 2009; see http://education.uic.edu/newsletter/20090401/
  34. ^ The School of Education of Indiana University (Bloomington) maintains an educology website that lists a selection of educological reports, articles, monographs and books. See http://educology.indiana.edu/
  35. ^ See "Slovakia Cultural Profile" at http://www.slovakia.culturalprofiles.net/?id=4116
  36. ^ See the course catalogues of these universities.
  37. ^ For examples of not-for-profit and for-profit websites that use the term educology, see
  38. ^ The first publications in English to make explicit the distinction between education, the process, and educology, the knowledge about the process, were:
    • Maccia, Elizabeth Steiner (1964). "Logic of Education and of Educatology: Dimensions of Philosophy of Education". Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Philosophy of Education Society (Lawrence, Kansas: Philosophy of Education Society). ISSN 8756-6575. 
    • Steiner [Maccia], Elizabeth (1981). "Chapter 4: Logic of Education and of Educatology: Dimensions of Philosophy of Education". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 87–100. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
    • Maccia, Elizabeth Steiner (Sep 1970). "Towards Educational Theorizing without Mistake". Studies in Philosophy and Education 7 (2): 154–157. doi:10.1007/bf00372558. ISSN 0039-3746. 
    • Steiner [Maccia], Elizabeth (1972). "The Non-Identity of Philosophy and Theory of Education". In Rich, John Martin. Readings in the Philosophy of Education, Second Edition. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-534-00204-6. 
    • Maccia, George (1967). "Science and Science of Education". In Kneller, George F. Foundations of Education, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-49505-0. 
    • Maccia, George (1981). "Chapter 2: The Genesis of Educology". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 27–50. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
  39. ^ Steiner [Maccia], Elizabeth (1972). "The Non-Identity of Philosophy and Theory of Education". In Rich, John Martin. Readings in the Philosophy of Education, Second Edition. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-534-00204-6. 
  40. ^ Jelenc, Zoran (2010). "Educology". Theories and General Learning, Europe, Eureda, A Glossary for Adult Learning in Europe, Terms and Definitions, Library, EAEA (European Association for the Education of Adults. 
  41. ^ A good example of this argument is the work of John Biggs:
    • Biggs, John B (1976). "Educology: Theory of Educational Practice". Contemporary Educational Psychology 1 (3): 274–284. doi:10.1016/0361-476x(76)90034-5. ISSN 0361-476X. 
    • Biggs, John B (1981). "Chapter 8: Educology: The Science of Effective Education". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 197–212. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
  42. ^ Tadeusz Kortabinski has provided a general definition and explanation of praxiology in
    • Kotarbinski, Tadeusz (1962). "Praxiological Sentences and How They Are Proved". In Nagel, Ernest; Suppes, Patrick; Tarski, Alfred (Eds). Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Palo Alto, California : Stanford University Press. Library of Congress Catalog Number 62-9620. pp. 211–223. ISBN 0-444-10491-7. 
    • Kotarbinski (Translated by Olgierd Wojtasiewicz), Tadeusz (1965). Praxiology: An Introduction to the Sciences of Efficient Action. London: Pergamon Press. 
  43. ^ For the argument that andragogy is an appropriate name for knowledge about education, see Malcolm Knowles and K. Patricia Cross:
    • Knowles, Malcolm S. (1970). The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy versus Pedagogy. New York: Association Press. ISBN 0695810561. 
    • Cross, K. Patricia (1981). Adults as Learners: Increasing Participation and Facilitating Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN 0-87589-491-7. 
  44. ^ See John Stuart Mill (1846), A System of Logic, Book VI, Chapter III, Paragraph 4, for the argument for ethology.
  45. ^ Stones, E. (1979). Psychopedagogy: Psychological Theory and the Practice of Teaching. London: Methuen. ISBN 0-416-71340-8. 
  46. ^ The argument for the term educology as an appropriate name for knowledge about education was originally developed by Elizabeth Steiner Maccia: Maccia, Elizabeth Steiner (1964). "Logic of Education and of Educatology: Dimensions of Philosophy of Education". Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Philosophy of Education Society (Lawrence, Kansas: Philosophy of Education Society). ISSN 8756-6575. 
  47. ^ Part of the history of the use of the term educology is recounted in
    • Christensen, James E, ed. (1981). Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
    • Christensen, James E; Fisher, James E (1983). Organization and Colleges of Education: An Educological Perspective. Sydney: Educology Research Associates. ISBN 0-949784-02-8. 
  48. ^ An exhaustive historical analysis of the concept underlying the term educology is presented in Brezinka, Wolfgang (Translated from the German by James Stuart Brice and Raoul Eshelman) (1992). Philosophy of Educational Knowledge: An Introduction to the Foundations of Science of Education, Philosophy of Education and Practical Pedagogics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 0-7923-1522-7. 
  49. ^ The argument for the term educology over the term pedagogy is cogently stated in Steiner, Elizabeth (1981). Educology for the Free. New York: Philosophical Library. ISBN 0802223737. , and it is iterated inChristensen, James E (1981). Curriculum, Education, and Educology. Sydney: Educology Research Associates. ISBN 0-949784-01-X. 
  50. ^ See Steiner, Elizabeth (1981). Educology for the Free. New York: Philosophical Library. ISBN 0802223737. , pp. 50-51, for the full argument for the use of the term educology over ethology.
  51. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Christensen, James E; Fisher, James E (1979). Analytic Philosophy of Education as a Subdiscipline of Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. ISBN 0-8191-0802-2. 
  52. ^ Green, Thomas E (1971). The Activities of Teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. ISBN 0-9658339-5-X. 
  53. ^ Fisher, James E (1996). "The Domain of Educology". International Journal of Educology (Educology Research Associates) 10 (1): 66–143. ISSN 0818-0563. 
  54. ^ One of the best sources for a clear explication of this distinction is in
    • Brezinka, Wolfgang (1981). "Chapter 1: Meta-Theory of Education: European Contributions from an Empirical-Analytic Point of View". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 7–26. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
    • Brezinka, Wolfgang (Translated from the German by James Stuart Brice and Raoul Eshelman) (1992). Philosophy of Educational Knowledge: An Introduction to the Foundations of Science of Education, Philosophy of Education and Practical Pedagogics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 0-7923-1522-7. 
  55. ^ Christensen, James E (1981). "Chapter 6: Educology and Some Related Concepts". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 121–158. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
  56. ^ Christensen, James E (1987). "Education, Educology and Educological Discourse: Theory and Structure for Education and Constructive Action in Education". International Journal of Educology (Educology Research Associates) 1 (1): 1–32. ISSN 0818-0563. 
  57. ^ a b Taylor, Paul (1961). Normative Discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 
  58. ^ These distinctions are defined, explicated and illustrated in:
    • Christensen, James E; Fisher, James E (1979). Analytic Philosophy of Education as a Subdiscipline of Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 129–147. ISBN 0-8191-0802-2. 
    • Brezinka, Wolfgang (1981). "Chapter 1: Meta-Theory of Education: European Contributions from an Empirical-Analytic Point of View". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 7–26. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
    • Perry, James F (1981). "Chapter 9: Praxiology of Education as a Branch of Educology". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 213–222. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
  59. ^ a b c Steiner, Elizabeth (1981). Educology for the Free. New York: Philosophical Library. ISBN 0802223737. 
  60. ^ See
  61. ^ a b Steiner, Elizabeth (1981). "Chapter 5: Educology: Thirteen Years Later". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 101–120. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8. 
  62. ^ Elizabeth Steiner coined the term meta-educology and explicated its meaning in Steiner, Elizabeth (1972). "The Non-Identity of Philosophy and Theory of Education". In Rich, John Martin. Readings in the Philosophy of Education, Second Edition. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-534-00204-6. 
  63. ^ See
    • Gribble, James (1969). Introduction to Philosophy of Education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 
    • Kneller, George F (1966). Logic and Language of Education. New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-49518-2. 
    • Magee, John B. (1971). Philosophical Analysis in Education. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers. ISBN 9780060441647. 
    • Ryle, Gilbert (1949). The Concept of Mind. New York: Barnes & Noble. ISBN 0-389-00232-1. 
    • Scheffler, Israel (1960). The Language of Education. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas. ISBN 0-398-01656-9. 
    • Smith, B Othanel; Ennis, Robert H (editors) (1961). Language and Concepts in Education. Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally & Company. 
  64. ^ See for example
    • Bayles, Ernest E (1966). Pragmatism in Education. New York: Harper and Row. ISBN 0-06-040894-4. 
    • Dewey, John (1916). Democracy and Education. New York: The Macmillan Company. 
    • Butler, John (1966). Idealism in Education. New York: Harper and Row. 
  65. ^ Steiner, Elizabeth (1978). Logical and Conceptual Analytic Techniques for Educational Researchers. Washington, DC: University Press of America. ISBN 0-8191-0406-X. 
  66. ^ Taylor, Paul W (1961). Normative Discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. ISBN 0-8371-6628-4. 
  67. ^ See
    • Maccia, George (September 1973). "Contributions of Epistemology Towards a Science of Education". A paper presented to the International Congress of International Association for the Advancement of Educational Research (University of Paris). 
    • Maccia, George (September 1973). "Epistemological Considerations of Educational Objectives". A paper presented to the Philosophy of Education Section of the XVth World Congress of Philosophy (Varna, Bulgaria). 
    • Maccia, George (November 1973). "Educological Epistemology". A paper presented to the 1973 Annual Meeting of the Ohio Valley Philosophy of Education Society (Cincinnati, Ohio). 
    • Maccia, George (1992). "Education for Humanity: A Philosophical Educology". International Journal of Educology (Educology Research Associates) 6 (1): 11–18. ISSN 0818-0563. 
    • Maccia, George (1988). "Genetic Epistemology of Intelligent Systems: Propositional, Procedural and Performative Intelligence". A paper presented to Hangzhou University (Hangzhou, China). 
    • Steiner, Elizabeth (1978). Logical and Conceptual Analytic Techniques for Educational Researchers. Washington, DC: University Press of America. ISBN 0-8191-0406-X. 
  68. ^ The concepts of forms of knowing and levels of knowing are treated in more detail in
  69. ^ See
  70. ^ a b c For detailed explanation and exemplification, see:
    • Christensen, James E; Fisher, James E (1983). Organization and Colleges of Education: An Educological Perspective. Sydney: Educology Research Associates. ISBN 0-949784-02-8. 
    • Christensen, James E; Fisher, James E (1981). "Chapter 12: Educology as an Organizational Concept for Schools of Teacher Education, Colleges of Education, and Faculties of Education". In Christensen, James E. Perspectives on Education as Educology. Washington, DC: University Press of America. pp. 263–300. ISBN 0-8191-1394-8.