THEORISING EDUCATION: A TRANSATLANTIC PERSPECTIVE Gert Biesta University of Oulu Seminar May 2009 aims: (1) to gain an understanding of the roles of theory in educational research and practice; (2) to get a sense of different traditions of theorising (particularly Continental and North American); (3) to gain an understanding of recent developments in educational theorising and the problems they try to address session 1: theorising education session 2: pragmatism session 3: from modern to postmodern session 4: the weakness of education

SESSION 1: THEORISING EDUCATION What’s the point of educational theory? The point of educational theory is to theorise education! [1] What is the object of our theorising? (How can we identify processes and practices as ‘education’?) [2] What kind of theories are appropriate for theorising such processes and practices? [3] What is the purpose of theorising in education? [4] Who is the audience for theorising? [5] Who should be involved in theorising?

[1] What is the object of our theorising? Education! How can we identify processes/practices as education? Is education ‘what happens in schools’? Not everything that happens in schools is education(al). Not everything that is education(al) happens in schools. Is education about human development? Not in general; maybe about ‘facilitated development’ (e.g., the ‘development’ of writing skills, of critical thinking, of moral reasoning) Is education about (human) learning? Not in general, but only when ‘framed’ educationally ↓ What is an educational ‘framing’?

education as activity is intentional and purposeful ↓ education as a teleological activity (telos = aim) education is an intervention education requires interaction education: intervention, interaction and purpose the distinction between learning and education ↓ learning: ‘any more or less durable change that is not the result of maturation’ education: intentional intervention aimed at effecting desirable change (e.g., teaching)

What is education for? 3 formal functions/purposes of education (Biesta 2009) ↓ qualification (knowledge, skills, understanding) socialisation (insertion into ‘orders’) individuation/subjectification (orientation towards human freedom) qualification subjectificationsocialisation

qualification and socialisation ↓ the question of instruction ‘Didaktik’: the study of the contents and methods of teaching ‘Pädagogik’: a concern for individuation/subjectification ↓ this is a genuine educational interest: it is the interest that constitutes education as an academic discipline (according to German ‘Geisteswissenschaftliche Pädagogik’ and certain, modern traditions of ‘Bildung’) A key question: Is education only educational if it has an orientation towards the freedom of the child/student? Is education therefore by definition a normative discipline? Or is education normatively ‘empty’ – i.e., can it ‘serve’ any aim/purpose? (see, e.g., education versus indoctrination) ↓ 2 constructions of the field/discipline

[2] What kind of theories are appropriate for theorising education? theorising education thus requires an understanding of how interventions impact interactionally on the three domains Does this require educational forms of theorising or can it (only) be done through theories from other disciplines? the Anglo-American construction: ‘education’ is the interdisciplinary study of educational processes and practice ↓ psychology, sociology, history and philosophy of education psychology asks psychological questions sociology asks sociological questions history asks historical questions philosophy asks philosophical questions ↓ Who asks the educational question(s)?

the Continental construction: education as a discipline with an interest in individuation/subjectification/freedom ↓ a place for other disciplines, but as auxiliary, e.g., the study of the development of writing starts with the educational decision that it is desirable to acquire writing skills; only then can we apply psychology to study the acquisition of such skills the Continental construction sees education as a normative academic discipline:,a discipline characterised by a certain interest (just as medicine, constituted by an interest in health) ↓ this constitutes a particular ‘object’ for research the Anglo-American construction runs the risk of having to ‘accept’ any determination of the purpose of education (including indoctrination) and having to accept any definition of the phenomenon of education

[3] What are the purposes of theorising in education? ↓ [a] for educational research 3 aims of educational research: - explanation - understanding - emancipation 3 different roles for theory: explanation: to theorise underlying (causal) connections between phenomena that correlate understanding: deepening and broadening everyday interpretation (theorising why people are saying what they are saying) emancipation: tp theorise how hidden power structures influence and distort experiences and interpretations (in order to bring about emancipation/freedom)

the function of theorising is to ‘add plausibility’ - underlying processes - ‘deeper’ understanding - underlying power structures but: whose plausibility? and: What is implied in the assumption that we (researchers) can see deeper, better, less distorted? [b] theorising for educational practice ↓ (re)description: seeing things differently [‘distribution of the sensible’] ‘gestures’ of theorising (and research): - making the strange familiar - making the familiar strange (so that we can think again)

[4] Who is the audience for theorising? education as a practical discipline: of practice and for practice How does theory feed into practice? This requires a theory of professional action e.g., the situated application of scientific truths e.g., situated intelligent problem solving e.g., situated wisdom Key-question is whether there is a place for the teleological character of educational practice in the theory of professional action we use. (a major problem in the idea of evidence-based practice; Biesta 2007) theory as recipe versus theory as tool

[5] Who should be involved in theorising? educational practice is itself theorised (proto-theories; theories of practice; folk theories; everyday theories → e.g, what do teachers say they are doing) educational theory as the practice of articulation, clarification and (critical) redescription ↓ theory as hermeneutics theory as critique theory as impetus for thinking/seeing/doing differently DISCUSSION