Art versus science. These two areas, often described in opposition to one another, are discussed in relation to education in James’ first chapter. In this first talk, James makes the point that psychology and research have a role to play in education, but not at the expense of the teacher’s “art." Psychology and psychological research can be useful to the teacher in situating his or her observations and informing their practice, but James cautions against research in the classroom coming at the expense of their passion for teaching. This gets at the delicate balance between art and science that plays out when you pair education and research. James sees the role of psychology in the classroom as providing another lens through which the student can be examined; “such complete knowledge as this of the pupil, at once intuitive and analytic, is surely the knowledge at which every teacher ought to aim” (p. 5). The intuitive knowledge is the art, and the analytical knowledge is the science. One is not necessarily better than the other, but each can be used to strengthen the perspective gained by the other.
Much of the tension that existed between the balance of research and teaching still exists today. Teachers are overloaded today, just as they were in James’ time, and likely have little time to read about recent research, much less conduct research in their classrooms. James sees the psychology researcher as providing a service to the education profession. This is a call for the teachers to focus on teaching and the researchers to focus on research that will serve the teacher. Some have made the argument that educational psychology research has lost its connections to education and the teachers and schools that it hoped to assist (Anderman, 2011; Patrick, Anderman, Bruening, and Duffin, 2011). James’ charge to educational psychologists is to make the science more applicable to the art. Researchers need to make their research accessible and relevant, while not interfering with the teacher’s process. So what is the right balance of science and the art? How do you implement the scientific/analytical component without losing the intuitiveness and creativity of the teaching process that can play a large part in effective education?
References:
Anderman, E.M. (2011). Educational psychology in the twenty-first century: Challenges for our community. Educational psychologist, 46(3), 185-196.
Patrick, H., Anderman, L.H., Bruening, P.S., and Duffin, L.C. (2011). The role of educational psychology in teacher education: Three challenges for educational psychologists. Educational Psychologist, 46(2), 71-83.
Could it not also be said that teachers constantly research? Assessment is part of their daily fare, and what is assessment, but research? When lessons flop and teachers decide to modify them, are they not acting on results obtained from their own particular flavor of research?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the assessment that occurs in the classroom can (and should) be considered research. As James notes, teachers should be encouraged to be a part of the research process (whether empirical or more informal) if they so desire (p.5). As with most things in life, I think that there is a balance between research and teaching that should be maintained. I liked how James made the point that, if researching is coming at the expense of teaching, that teachers should seek out partnerships and resources that provide them with the research that they need.
ReplyDeleteGood discussion here. I like your phrase "delicate balance," as I think that captures it nicely. Having spent the last two days in classrooms doing research, I find myself asking how much help I can really offer a teacher. Hmm.
ReplyDelete