According to Frederick Hess, good education research is done by everyone except education schools.
That's a great question. Certainly, there is good evidence that upper-tier economics, political science, sociology, and public policy programs are producing PhDs with quantitative skills and methodological sophistication that dramatically surpass those of earlier generations. This has been the pattern of the social sciences for several decades, and nothing has changed on that score. Whether some programs are emphasizing formal theory or econometric training to the degree that fewer graduates may have an aptitude for or interest in field work is a question some have posed. But I don't know that anyone has any good answers to that.So, if I am reading this right, if I ever want to make a contribution to educational research, I should get a PHD in something other than education.
With regard to doctoral level training in education, I'm in no position to pass judgment on the quality of instruction being offered at the hundreds of institutions offering education doctorates. I can say, however, that the education policy work by young scholars that I find most compelling consistently seems to be produced by young scholars trained in the disciplines. Whether that judgment is a product of my own tastes as a reader, self-selection on the part of doctoral candidates, the quality of preparation, or some other factor, I really can't say.
Disclaimer: Just in case I ever do want to get into an education graduate school and the admissions people do a google and discover this post, I want to say for the record that I only look down on the other education schools... not yours.
Cross Posted at Parentalcation
Just in case I ever do want to get into an education graduate school and the admissions people do a google and discover this post, I want to say for the record that I only look down on the other education schools... not yours.
ReplyDeleteI'm in the same boat!
After all this time I'm seriously thinking about teaching math -- middle school math, God help me.
This whole sight is going to have to go dark.
Except it's probably cached all over creation.
I'll be like that girl from Yale Law School who can't get a job because people wrote dirty things about her.
Except nobody will have written anything remotely sexual about me; my entire problem will be self-inflicted.
I can say, however, that the education policy work by young scholars that I find most compelling consistently seems to be produced by young scholars trained in the disciplines.
ReplyDeleteYou read my mind!
(That happens a lot, I find.)
Ed and I have been talking about "the disciplines."
I'm going to try to get him to write a post about the disciplines.
The disciplines are called disciplines because THEY ARE DISCIPLINES.
Historians have rules of evidence, modes of analyzing documents, modes of evaluating the worth of one document as opposed to another, etc.
They spend years being trained in the disciplines; then they spend years getting good at it.
Meanwhile the fondest wish of ed schools is to erase all distinctions amongst the disciplines and IMPLEMENT interdisciplinary courses in all studies.
This means death to the disciplines. When you move to an interdisciplinary model the big fish eats the little fish; the stronger discipline swallows up the weaker one.
Typically the stronger discipline has been English, so history becomes just one more story the kids are supposed to "relate to." (Of course English literature is also a discipline, so literature shouldn't be taught as a story to "relate to," either.)
In college the most famous example of an interdisciplinary field is cultural studies, which has been a disaster and is seen by scholars to be a disaster. (The wikipedia entry on cultural studies is pretty good for giving you a sense of the field -- and I say this as a wiki skeptic.)
Not only has the work been poor, but precisely because the field is not a discipline the professors working in it are free to turn their work into pure op-eddery.
So: interdisciplinary at the K-12 level means "presentism" and radically reduced content.
Interdisciplinary at the college level means inferior scholarship and culture wars.
The reason Hess says the best work is coming out of the disciplines is:
ReplyDeleteSOCIOLOGY, ECONOMICS, PSYCHOLOGY AND HISTORY ARE DISCIPLINES
not a free for all
You don't see action research in a discipline.
ReplyDeleteI'm a student at Western Governor's University. I just recently wrote a paper based on an article by Bonnie Grossen (U of O) that does a nice job of explaining the types of ed research and why it is not used.
ReplyDeleteWhat Does it Mean to be a Research-Based Profession?
Hi!
ReplyDeleteThanks! I don't think I've seen this before!
So Dickey45, when are they kicking you out of ed school? You obviously weren't briefed on the DI does not exist rule.
ReplyDeleteparentalcation - it is an online program. Plus, it isn't nearly as "constructivism is the only way" as the schools in Oregon. Check out Oregon State University:
ReplyDelete"We, the Elementary Education Faculty, believe that people learn by constructing their own knowledge in relationship with other more knowledgeable people in the context of authentic activity. We believe that knowledge is a social construction, and that knowledge reflects biases, interests, and power that underlie relations between individuals and between groups."
http://oregonstate.edu/education/programs/elementaryEd.html
Well so much for them.
WGU is willing to take my money ($5600 per year). Unfortunately I probably can't get a job because I do DI, I'm one of those "special ed parents", and I can't move :(
What are you interested in teaching?
ReplyDeletek-5. I started toward certification because I was convinced I was going to start a charter. Now that's a ball of wax that is way over my head - they don't want charters in my town and I can't start one without people needing/wanting it. No one knows DI and those that do give it a bad name (including Ed professors in this university small town).
ReplyDelete