Empirical pedagogy

Under Empirical education or empirical Education means a direction within the scientific education or Education. The aim is to make exact prognoses of upbringing and educational processes and effective technologies for their change. Pedagogical theories and practices are checked using analytical and empirical methods and on the basis of epistemological criteria such as objectivity , validity and reliability . Norms and values should not play a role in this evaluation process.

Origin and development of empirical pedagogy

Beginnings in Germany until 1945

The empirical pedagogy essentially has its beginnings in the "experimental pedagogy", which is strongly oriented towards psychology, which arose around the turn of the century, but which at no time was able to overcome its niche existence. Wilhelm August Lay (1862–1926) and Ernst Meumann (1862–1915) are considered to be its founders and pioneers . The main characteristics of this early empirical research in the educational field were:

Experimental testing of hypotheses;
Use of systematic observations;
Statistical evaluation of what has been established.

The direct effect of the new approach on educational science and on pedagogical practice was, however, rather small. Her successors gained much greater influence (and reputation ) during their lifetime: Aloys Fischer from Munich and Peter Petersen from Jena (together with his wife Else Müller-Petersen). Both Fischer and Petersen were familiar with Lay's and Meumann's experiments and saw the possibilities and opportunities that lay in their approach. Her own work in the field of empiricism - Fischer is considered to be the creator of "descriptive pedagogy", Petersen founded "pedagogical factual research" together with Else Müller-Petersen - were methodologically well thought-out, but from today's perspective still inadequate. The '' results '' of their scientific work were also rather poor. Nevertheless, a big step was taken on the way to empirical-pedagogical research, as their concepts gave an important indication of what an empirically supported foundation of pedagogy might look like.

Federal Republic after 1945

National Socialism and the Second World War halted development. It only continued after 1945. Since the mid-1950s, however, an increasingly intensive process of scientification led to an increase in the number of empirical papers and pushed forward the long overdue empirical foundation of pedagogy (based on the model of empirical neighboring disciplines such as sociology and psychology ).

Arbitrariness and arbitrariness, speculation and irrationality, which were especially criticized in the humanities (not always rightly), should be overcome. In their place, they wanted to create a rational research practice that was committed to scientific analysis.

The "University for International Educational Research" founded in 1951 in Frankfurt was of great importance. The 1964 in the German Institute for International Educational Research (DIPF) and 2018 in DIPF | The institution renamed the Leibniz Institute for Educational Research and Educational Information was instrumental in the boom in empirical research in the 1950s and 1960s. A large part of the pioneers of empirical-educational research in early post-war Germany worked at this institution, including Erich Hylla , Eugen Lemberg , Walter Schultze and, in particular, Heinrich Roth .

The lecture given by Roth in July 1962 on the "Realistic Turn in Educational Research" had a signal effect for educational science. Formulated on the occasion of the assumption of the chair for pedagogy of the recently deceased Erich Less in Göttingen, and understood partly as a statement, partly as a proclamation, it was the beginning of an unusually rapid development of empirical research and the slow end of the hitherto overpowering humanities pedagogy . More cautious researchers like Roth were initially concerned with supplementing the conventional methodological processes of educational science, in particular the hermeneutic, text-analytical methods, with methods of empirical research. Others were more radical and openly articulated their aversion to the humanities method as a whole. They demanded nothing less than the overcoming of all not empirical in their sense, e.g. B. interpretative-hermeneutic procedures. The representatives of the new, scientific conception of science were self-confident - especially with regard to the efficiency of their research methods.

New “empirical turn” from around 2000

There has been talk of an empirical turnaround in educational science since around 2000, this time spurred on by large, cross-country educational analyzes such as the PISA studies . The Konstanz resolution of 1997 is noteworthy at this time . The empirical turnaround is directed against the long prevailing " critical educational science", which has often inherited the humanities and which agrees that the performance of an educational system cannot be measured. The dispute is also about the sustainability of educational standards as predetermined goals of education with measurable results (cf. Herzog 2013; Dammer 2015). The teaching-learning research is based primarily on empirical results , in which the teaching staff, the student body, the teaching methods and the teaching climate are analyzed for their requirements and effects. Representatives are e.g. B. Andreas Helmke and Sigrid Blömeke .

Starting point and destination

The starting point of empirical pedagogy, or empirical-analytical educational science, as it is also called, is, as in the case of humanities pedagogy, the educational reality. However, this is not viewed as a context of meaning, but as a "universe of causal and functional dependencies" (Keckeisen). It should be explained comprehensively and in an intersubjectively understandable way. At least according to its claim, empirical-analytical research wants to describe, explain and help solve all those educational phenomena or pedagogical problems that appear to be in need of description, explanation and solution. Even the most subtle connections should be able to be researched with the help of empirical studies. The phenomena of sociological, psychological or similar nature connected with the facts of education are always taken into account. They experience the same access - namely through empirical methods - and as objects of investigation are indistinguishable from other phenomena. In this respect, one can no longer speak of a “relative independence” of pedagogy. Three areas of responsibility can be distinguished:

Empirical-analytical educational science can provide comprehensive explanations for educational phenomena and reliable prognoses about future developments (e.g. it can examine the effect of multimedia teaching methods or the development of certain personality traits depending on the chosen educational style).
It can provide information about end-means relationships and provide suitable means to achieve certain ends ("Which means do I have to choose if I want to achieve this or that end?")
They can gain knowledge about possible goals and norms of education, check their consistency with other goals / norms and carry out impact assessments; ie answer the question about the consequences of this or that goal and their significance with regard to overarching goals or criteria. If necessary, it can propose objectives to improve practice.

Educational science in this strict sense aims at "nomological", ie legal knowledge of the educational reality. This is achieved by setting up general, as simple as possible, true laws (nomological hypotheses) or with systems of such laws: with theories. The fact that we are dealing with “meaningful” objects of high complexity in educational phenomena prevents them from being described in terms of simple, lawful relationships. Rather, the description takes the form of “patterns” that occur with a certain probability under given conditions. The precision of the “laws” we are talking about here must not be equated with that of natural laws. Natural laws do not allow exceptions, their counterparts in the educational field do. Because of the complexity of the facts, all relevant boundary conditions can never be recorded here. Therefore, strictly speaking, expressions such as “regularity” or “explanation of the principle” are more appropriate than “law” or “legality”. Unmistakable in empirical-analytical educational science is the abstraction from the "practical" dimension of its subject. '' Information '' - obtained from a critical distance from practice - is in the foreground: informing, in order to implement the most (purposeful) rational action and planning possible in practice, in order to achieve the highest possible degree of rational clarification of the conditions and the predictable consequences to achieve certain decisions. According to this understanding, practice primarily means the technical application of what is laid down in theory. The notion of the “dignity of practice” is abandoned (cf. on the criticism the articles in Terhart 2014 and Brügelmann 2015).

Empirical procedures and freedom of judgment

The access to the facts takes place through '' explaining '' instead of '' understanding '' meaning (as is well known, one of the central concepts of humanities education). What is considered are not the contexts of meaning immanent in the reality of education, which are to be understood as a “total”, but rather individual elements of reality that should be explained as comprehensively as possible (with the help of other elements). Hermeneutics '' as a separate method of investigation '' is rejected. With regard to the methods of investigation of empirical science, a relatively wide variety can be registered. The earlier investigations were usually descriptive - and only analytical on the surface -, furthermore mostly quantitative - and rarely qualitative. In the past three decades, however, quantitative methods of analysis have been pushed back in favor of qualitative methods, and there has also been a tendency towards complex methods of analysis that combine different methods. The methods that were widespread in the early days of educational empiricism are still part of the indispensable standard repertoire today - partly in an improved form:

Questionnaires and (standardized) interviews
structured surveys
Testing
Observational studies (including tape and video recordings)
educational trials or experiments
statistical surveys (e.g. on the social origin of students)
prognostic calculation (e.g. the number of births or the development of the number of students), etc.

A characteristic of empirical-analytical educational science is its claim to conduct research that is '' free of value judgments ''. Scientific explanations - so the demand - should be limited to the presentation of the consequences and implications of facts. Questions about values and norms and educational target questions are systematically excluded from the research process. For normative (prescriptive) statements (such as, for example, should-be regulations) do not belong in the field of science, according to the representatives of the empirical direction. Only descriptive statements, ie statements that inform about reality, are scientific statements. As a consequence, this naturally means for this epistemological model that the `` decisions '' associated with the choice of goals and means are also (in practice) viewed as non-scientific. '' Which '' aims the education should pursue (e.g. maturity), which means should be used (e.g. a certain teaching method) and which principles are relevant (e.g. "no coercion"), is `` scientifically not answerable '' according to this view. In the empirical research of the 1980s and 1990s (and with the triumphant advance of computer-aided data evaluation and analysis), there is an increased occurrence of relatively young processes that go beyond the limits of classical empirical research. The combination of conventional methods and the development of new, sometimes transverse to them, procedures were seen as a possible way out of the narrow space of strictly empirical research. In particular, so-called “qualitative research” gained (and is still growing) in importance. Examples of such qualitative methods of data collection are:

participatory (structured or unstructured) observation
qualitative, especially “narrative” interviews and in-depth interviews
Analysis of all kinds of documents (e.g. biographical material)
Lifeworld analysis (analysis of interaction, legitimation and (self) interpretation patterns)

Individual evidence

↑ Gudjons, Herbert: Basic pedagogical knowledge. 10th updated edition. Bad Heilbrunn 2008
↑ Roth, Heinrich: The realistic turn in educational research. In: Becker, H./Blochmann, E./Bollnow, OF / Heimpel, E./Wagenschein, M. (ed.): New collection. Göttingen papers for culture and education. 2nd year Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962.

literature

Hans Brügelmann : Measured schools - standardized students . Weinheim / Basel 2015.
Karl-Heinz Dammer: Measured educational research . Baltmannsweiler 2015.
Herbert Gudjons : Basic pedagogical knowledge. Overview - Compendium - Study book. 4th, revised and expanded edition. Bad Heilbrunn 1995.
Walter Herzog: educational standards. A critical introduction. Stuttgart 2013.
Volker Ladenthin : Pedagogical empiricism from an educational philosophy perspective. In: Jörg-Dieter Gauger ; Josef Kraus (teacher) (ed.): Empirical educational research. Necessity and risk. St. Augustin-Berlin, 2010; Pp. 85-102
Helmut Lehner: Introduction to empirical-analytical educational science. Concept of science, tasks and problems of value judgment. Bad Heilbrunn 1994.
Ewald Terhart (Ed.): The Hattie study in discussion . Seelze 2014.
Empirical pedagogy. Journal for the theory and practice of educational research , Verlag empirische Pädagogik, Landau [1]

Web links

[1] Gudjons, Herbert: Basic pedagogical knowledge. 10th updated edition. Bad Heilbrunn 2008

[2] Roth, Heinrich: The realistic turn in educational research. In: Becker, H./Blochmann, E./Bollnow, OF / Heimpel, E./Wagenschein, M. (ed.): New collection. Göttingen papers for culture and education. 2nd year Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962.