Educational research had a different orientation till a little over two decades ago when the emphasis was on an objective and scientific approach. The critics of this approach were active much before and were relentless in their pursuit to get educational research out of the close-ended absolutes that a scientific approach implied. Nathaniel L. Gage, who is considered to be the ‘father of modern research on teaching,’ (Sullivan, K., 2008) had been closely associated with educational research and thinking for the last half a century or more. Essentially a modernist, who stood for a scientific approach toward teaching, Gage appreciated the scale of opposition to a complete scientific approach but cautioned that science and objectivity cannot be ignored altogether.
The criticism of and the eventual rejection of the research on the scientific method of teaching was based on a number of factors which collectively came to be known as the Antinaturalist Critique. So severe was the criticism of the research on scientific method of teaching that it was said to be “at best, inconclusive, and at worst, barren” (Gage, N. American Educational Research Association) Other criticism have been no less harsh, even going to the extent of saying that teaching based on such methods would encourage thinking that “can only be implemented in an authoritarian, manipulative, bureaucratic system” (Gage, N. American Educational Research Association).
The Antinaturalist Critique argued that objectives related to human development especially teaching and training cannot be implemented merely on the basis of scientific facts and figures that could be inadequate. A scientific approach is not appropriate for regulating teachers’ relationships with their students as there is a lot more in such relationships that are way beyond the boundaries of what science can possibly cover. The art of teaching and learning must not come under the influence of prediction and control that a scientific method implies; rather, it should rely on insights and observations to regulate the teacher-student relationship.
There were other schools of criticism of the scientific method of teaching led by a group known as the Interpretivists. Their argument is that individual actions are based on their interpretation of a given situation or reality because an individual is perfectly capable of constructing his own reality and act accordingly. This is because individuals differ in their responses to identical scenarios and any scientific approach is likely to overlook such subtle differences.
The other major criticism came from a group known as the Critical Theorists who argued from the social reconstruction point of view. In their opinion, an individual’s social background considerably impacts his ability to impart teaching or absorb learning; all other factors are secondary at best or not worth deliberating upon. They suggest drastic changes in the whole structure of society which they say is grossly unequal for education to be imparted fairly (Hammersley, M. Educational Research and Evidence-based Practice.)
As a result of such multi-pronged attacks on the educational research of the 60s and 70s that focused on a methodical, scientific and objective approach, there has been considerable churning of ideas and approaches such as those that were covered in this review. In the end, the scientific approach lost out against the relentless criticism from different groups of researchers that had turned a new corner since 1989. Research on the scientific approach came to a standstill as scholars lost interest in what increasingly began appearing as a dead end with grants and funding drying up completely. Even journals, that used to publish literature on the subject, stopped doing so and before long this entire area of study became history.
Natheniel Gage, an educational researcher who worked on the scientific approach, also knew its limitations and advocated respect for a rational approach that also took the best of what the scientific approach had to offer. There is no doubt that the scientific approach had its drawbacks, but as Gage had cautioned, research on teaching methodology would remain poorer if the best of what the scientific approach achieved, continue to be ignored. There are no absolutes in this field and it would be an irony if the very forces that struggled against the absolutism of the scientific approach were themselves to conclude that they are untouchable.
References
1. Sullivan, K., 2008. Stanford Report. [online] Available at: <http://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/september10/gage-091008.html>
2. Gage, N. American Educational Research Association [online] Available at: <http://www.bamaed.ua.edu/elpts/644/readings/Xeroxes/Gage.pdf >
3. Hammersley, M. Educational Research and Evidence-based Practice. [online] Available at: <http://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=OwWlv3MPnL8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA151&dq=the+paradigm+wars+and+their+aftermath&ots=ff_PKpcIqP&sig=-2LG1RSgJdjfdLfDYD4n7nlyssU#v=onepage&q=the%20paradigm%20wars%20and%20their%20aftermath&f=false>
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments using using abusive language would be deleted