How ought a department or school of education orient itself intellectually tofoster the productive study of educational processes and institutions? This vexing question has been addressed by two fundamentally different approaches to staffing: (a) using generalists who have previously been practitioners, or (b) using specialists thoroughly grounded in one of the humanistic or social scientific disciplines. Ishall characterize thefirst alternative as the craft-based model and the second alternative as the discipline-based model. The purpose of this article is to review and critique the weaknesses of both approaches to educational inquiry and to propose a third alternative: the disciplined study of the problems of practice. Practice-based inquiry has the potential to be synthetic, context-sensitive, and normative as well as empirical. While much discussion focuses on the study of teaching, I intend this analysis to include administration also.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arnstine, D. (1975). Apprenticeship as the miseducation of teachers. Philosophy of Education: Proceedings, 31, 113-123.
2.
Atkin, J. M. (1973). Practice oriented inquiry: A "third approach" to research in education. Educational Researcher, 2(7), 3-4.
3.
Atkin, J. M. (1983). American graduate schools of education: A view from abroad [Review of American graduate schools of education by H. Judge]. Oxford Review of Education, 9, 63-69.
4.
Blumberg, A. (1984). The craft of school administration and some other rambling thoughts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(4), 24-40.
5.
Bode, B. (1927). Modern educational theories.New York: Macmillan.
6.
Borrowman, M. L. (1956). The liberal and technical in teacher education.New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
7.
Boyan, N. J. (1981). Follow the leader: Commentary on research on educational administration. Educational Researcher,10(2), 6-13.
8.
Bridges, E. M. (1982). Research on the school administrator: The state of the art, 1967-1980. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 12-33.
9.
Broudy, H. S. (I956). Teaching-Craft or profession?Educational Forum, 20, 175-184.
10.
Broudy, H. S. (1976). The search for a science of education. Phi Delta Kappan, 58, 104-111.
11.
Carr, W. , & Kemmis, S. (1983). Becoming critical: Knowing through action research.Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
12.
Cazden, C. B. (1983). Can ethnographic research go beyond the statusquo?Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 14, 33-41.
13.
Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116-127.
14.
Cubberley, E. P. (1916). Public school administration.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
15.
Decker, S. (1969). An empty spoon.New York: Harper & Row.
16.
Floden, R. E. (1981). The logic of information-processing psychology in education. In D. C. Berliner (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 9, pp. 75-109). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
17.
Gage, N. L. (1978). The scientific basis of the art of teaching.New York: Teachers College Press.
18.
Gage, N. L. (1985). Hard gains in the soft sciences: The case ofpedagogy.Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
19.
Ganders, H. S. (1936). Dual-professorships. Educational Record, 17, 566-570.
20.
Garrison, J. W. , & Macmillan, C.J.B. (1984). A philosophical critique of process-product research on teaching. Educational Theory, 34, 255-274.
21.
Gifford, B. R. (1984). Prestige and education: The missing link in school reform. The Review of Education, 10, 186-198.
22.
Gowin, D. B. (1972). Is educational research distinctive? In L. G. Thomas (Ed.), Philosophical Redirection of Educational Research (71st yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I) (pp. 9-25). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Gowin, D. B. (1981) Educating.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
24.
Greenfield, T. B. (1980). The man who comes back through the door in the wall: Discovering truth, discovering self, discovering organizations. Educational Administration Quarterly, 16(3), 26-59.
25.
Griffiths, D. E. (1959). Administrative theory.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
26.
Harper, C. A. (I 939). A century ofpublic teacher education.Washington, DC: American Association of Teachers Colleges.
27.
Hawkins, D. (1973). What it means to teach. Teachers College Record, 75, 7-16.
28.
Holmes Group Executive Board . (1986). Tomorrow's teachers: A report of the Holmes Group.East Lansing, MI: The Holmes Group.
29.
Howsam, R. B. , Corrigan, D. C., Denemark, G. W., & Nash, R. J. (1976). Educating a profession.Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
30.
Judd, C. H. (1930). The school of education. In R. A. Kent (Ed.), Higher Education in America (pp. 157-191). Boston: Ginn.
31.
Kemmis, S. , & Grotelueschen, A. (1977). What is "educational" about educational research?Journal of Educational Research, 71, 48-52.
32.
Kleinfeld, J. (1984). Some of my best friends are anthropologists. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 15, 180-184.
33.
Kleinfeld, J. , McDiarmid, G. W., Grubis, S., & Parrett, W. (1983). Doing research on effective cross-cultural teaching: The teacher tale. Peabody Journal of Education,61(1), 86-108.
34.
Kliebard, H. M. (1972). Metaphorical roots of curriculum design. Teachers College Record, 73, 403-404.
35.
Kohl, H. (1976). On teaching.New York: Schocken Books.
36.
Lillard, P. P. (1980). Children learning.New York: Schocken Books.
37.
McCarthy, M. M. (1986). Research in educational administration: Promising signs forthe future. Educational Administration Quarterly, 22(3), 3-20.
38.
Nystrom, N. J. , King, J. A., & Wimpelberg, R. K. (1984). Teacher education in private colleges and universities: Scholarship and teaching. Journal of Teaching Education, 35(4), 42-45.
39.
Peters, R. S. (1977). Education and the education of teachers (chap. 9). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
40.
Popkewitz, T. S.(1984). Paradigm and ideology in educational research.London: Falmer Press.
41.
Randolph, E. D. (1924). The professional treatment of subject-matter.Baltimore: Warwick and York.
42.
Schaefer, R. J. (n.d.). Organization for the study ofprofessionaleducation at Washington University. Unpublished manuscript, Washington University.
43.
Schaefer, R. J. (1970). Teacher education in the United States. In A. Yates (Ed.), Current problems of teacher education (pp. 156-185). Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO Institute for Education.
44.
Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. School Review, 81, 501-522.
45.
Schwab, J. J. (1983). The practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry, 13, 239-265.
46.
Soltis, J. F. (1984). On the nature of educational research. Educational Researcher,13(10), 5-10.
47.
Thorndike, E. L. (1912). The measurement of educational products. School Review, 20, 289-299.
48.
Thorndike, E. L. (1923). Educational psychology: Briefer course.New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
49.
Tom, A. R. (1984b, April). Curriculum theory and personal responsibility. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
50.
Tom, A. R. (1984b). Teaching as a moral craft.New York: Longman.
