Edited by Nathan Lomax, Wednesday, 4 Feb 2015, 19:36
Note the three reasons given for why natural science cannot be applied to understanding the social world and human behaviour. How do you view these criticisms? Are they ontological, epistemological or methodological in nature?
The antinaturalist critique:
1.' First, because human affairs, including teaching and learning, are inextricably involved with the intentions, goals and purposes that give them meaning.'
This seems to be related to the way we interpret meaning or see the world so could be said to be an ontological criticism.
2. 'Second, a science is involved with direct, one way causal links. There are no such 'billiard ball' causal reactions between teacher behaviour and student learning'
This criticism seems to deal with how teacher behaviour and student learning is monitored, recorded or measured, so could relate to methodology.
3. 'Third, scientific methods can be applied only to phenomena that are stable and uniform in a way that is obviously untrue of the human world of teaching and learning.'
How we measure teaching and learning could relate to the way that knowledge is acquired (epistemology).
'how we judge the effectiveness of support or determine the nature of a learning problem is necessarily related to what we understand to be successful learning'.
(Action 2.4: Theory – practice links – epistemological implications)
Now consider the intepretivist critique and note similarities and differences between the two.
The interpretivist critique links to the first point made by Gage (1989) above, i.e. what gives our actions meaning? Positivists measure results or reactions; interpretivists focus on the reason for the result or action, or the effect that the subject's own conception of reality has on their actions. In other words, there is a need to consider teachers' and students' interpretations of reality. This seems to be an ontological criticism as it relates to how we see the world and how individuals' interpretations can differ e.g. between two classrooms and on different days.
As in the antinaturalist argument, interpretivists reject the idea that 'linear models' should be used to measure constant behavioural uniformity. This reflects the difficulty of observing teacher and student behaviour scientifically, as there are too many variables involved. Every teacher has different ways of delivering learning and no two classes are alike, so 'causal relations' should not be made. This relates to how data are collected and can therefore be assumed to be a methodological critique.
How do the interpretivist and antinaturalist critiques differ?
Antinaturalism and interpretivism both suggest that scientific methods can only be applied to phenomena that are 'stable and uniform across time, space and context' (Gage 1989) and that we should not use them to try to understand teaching and learning.
Interpretivism highlights the importance of:
'differentiating between the nature of the phenomena investigated by the natural sciences and the nature of those studied by historians, social scientists and educational researchers.'
The interpretivist critique suggests that 'conditions of meaning' (p.154) held by students and teachers should be used to measure differences in student performance and morale. This seems to be less of an abject rejection of positivist techniques than the antinaturalist position, as it suggests that differences in student learning can still be measured by observing 'radically local differences in organisation.'Perhaps the only difference between the two is that interpretivism examines local contexts to explain differences in student achievement and antipositivism does not mention this.
According to the study guide:
'the interpretivist epistemological perspective denies that symbols carry meaning; rather, symbols are interpreted and meanings, as a consequence, are multiple.'
Perhaps the antinaturalist perspective assumes that symbols carry meaning as it suggests reference to 'historians, moral philosophers, novelists, artists and literary critics.' for insight.
I am confused!
Critical theorist:
Criticism of the obsession with measuring 'efficiency' and the need to look at 'The role of schools in defining social reality' could relate to epistemology:
Action 2.9: Alternative paradigms
The antinaturalist critique:
1.' First, because human affairs, including teaching and learning, are inextricably involved with the intentions, goals and purposes that give them meaning.'
This seems to be related to the way we interpret meaning or see the world so could be said to be an ontological criticism.
2. 'Second, a science is involved with direct, one way causal links. There are no such 'billiard ball' causal reactions between teacher behaviour and student learning'
This criticism seems to deal with how teacher behaviour and student learning is monitored, recorded or measured, so could relate to methodology.
3. 'Third, scientific methods can be applied only to phenomena that are stable and uniform in a way that is obviously untrue of the human world of teaching and learning.'
How we measure teaching and learning could relate to the way that knowledge is acquired (epistemology).
'how we judge the effectiveness of support or determine the nature of a learning problem is necessarily related to what we understand to be successful learning'.
(Action 2.4: Theory – practice links – epistemological implications)
https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=480525§ion=4.3
Now consider the intepretivist critique and note similarities and differences between the two.
The interpretivist critique links to the first point made by Gage (1989) above, i.e. what gives our actions meaning? Positivists measure results or reactions; interpretivists focus on the reason for the result or action, or the effect that the subject's own conception of reality has on their actions. In other words, there is a need to consider teachers' and students' interpretations of reality. This seems to be an ontological criticism as it relates to how we see the world and how individuals' interpretations can differ e.g. between two classrooms and on different days.
As in the antinaturalist argument, interpretivists reject the idea that 'linear models' should be used to measure constant behavioural uniformity. This reflects the difficulty of observing teacher and student behaviour scientifically, as there are too many variables involved. Every teacher has different ways of delivering learning and no two classes are alike, so 'causal relations' should not be made. This relates to how data are collected and can therefore be assumed to be a methodological critique.
How do the interpretivist and antinaturalist critiques differ?
Antinaturalism and interpretivism both suggest that scientific methods can only be applied to phenomena that are 'stable and uniform across time, space and context' (Gage 1989) and that we should not use them to try to understand teaching and learning.
Interpretivism highlights the importance of:
'differentiating between the nature of the phenomena investigated by the natural sciences and the nature of those studied by historians, social scientists and educational researchers.'
(The Open University 2014)
https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=480525§ion=6.1
Critical theorist:
Criticism of the obsession with measuring 'efficiency' and the need to look at 'The role of schools in defining social reality' could relate to epistemology: