Educology

An Article in Philosophy of Educology

International Journal of Educology, 2005, Vol. 19. No. 1
An Issue Publishing Chapters in the Book--Perspective on Education as Educology
7

META-THEORY OF EDUCATION:

EUROPEAN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM AN EMPIRICAL-ANALYTICAL

POINT OF VIEW

Wolfgang Brezinka

* * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * *

INTRODUCTION

In the world there exists education, as well as systems of sentences about

education. Education is a kind of action, or praxis. A system of sentences, in which

education is spoken or written about, is a theory of education (or educational theory) in

the broadest sense of the word……………………………………………………………...

8

META-THEORY OF EDUCATION

‘theory’. Its main subject or content is education. There are many theories of education in

which knowledge of education is expressed. They are differentiated from one another

according to their purpose, area of validity, and quality. In the Western world the term

‘pedagogy’ has been used since the 18th century for the phenomenon educational theory’

The educational theories (pedagogy, educology) can be made the object of

descriptive, critical, and normative investigations. There is also an epistemological theory

one calls educational theories ‘pedagogy’ or ‘educology’ , one can also call the metatheory

of education ‘meta-pedagogy’ or ‘meta-educology’. It centers on analytical-critical

(or epistemological) philosophy of pedagogical (or educological) knowledge.

In this chapter, 1 would like to report on the most important contributions to the

meta-theory of education made by some of the leading European educational theorists

who have adopted the empirical-analytical approach to educational theory. I begin with

the concept of education (1), briefly sketch the traditional, practical theories of education

(2), as well as the criticism which has been made of them, stemming from the ideal of the

empirical sciences (3), and treat then the meta-theoretical views which Willmann,

Durkheim, and Lochner have expressed on the differentiation of educational theories (4).

I conclude by making my own suggestion which is derived in part from the works of

these authors (5) and report on the present state of the discussion (6).

THE CONCEPT OF EDUCATION

Among the many actions which human beings take are those which are called

‘educating’. They appear in all societies that are known to us. The concept of education

refers to actions by which human beings try to improve permanently the structure of the

mental dispositions of other human beings in some respect, or to preserve those

components judged valuable or to prevent the development of dispositions regarded as

concept of education however is broader than the concept of instruction. It includes not

only the educational actions of the teacher and other professional educators, but also

those of fathers, mothers, and other persons who only occasionally educate. The

institutionalized education, which is performed by teachers in schools, is only a small

part of all the educational actions which occur in the world.

Educational action is always a means to an end. It takes place for a purpose. It only

comes about because the acting person believes that his action is an appropriate means

for achieving what he wants: the formation, the preservation or strengthening of the

mental dispositions………………………………………………………………………….

9

META-THEORY OF EDUCATION

in the educand which have been established as the educational goal. For this reason,

thought is a prerequisite of education.

Whoever educates depends on knowledge. He needs: (1) knowledge of the goals

(such as virtues, knowledge, belief systems, and abilities in the educand) which he wants

to achieve; (2) knowledge of the personality, living conditions, and the situation of the

educand; (3) knowledge of the available means which appear to be appropriate, under the

given conditions, for the achievement of the established goals.

This knowledge stems primarily from the traditions of the society to which the

educator and his educands belong. It contains normative convictions about the duties of

the human being and the meaning of his life as well as empirical hypotheses about his

nature, his particular conditions and about possibilities of influencing him. This mixture

of normative convictions and the results of one’s own experiences as well as those of

others, interpretations of situations, and educational-technological suppositions is the

oldest form of a theory of education.

PRACTICAL THEORIES OF EDUCATION

The first educational theories were devised in order to guide the educator in his

educational actions. They contain recommendations, rules, instructions or norms for

educational action. They are instructions for the art of education. They are practical

theories, not scientific theories.

The difference between practical theory and scientific theory has been in use over

since Aristotle. According to him the theoretical sciences are those which are desirable

for themselves and for the sake of knowledge,” and the causes of phenomena are to be

examined. In contrast, the purpose of a practical theory is to provide guidance for action,

for praxis. In a scientific theory one attempts to describe and explain what is and what

has been. In a practical theory one tries to express what should be, what should be done

and what not. It contains value judgments and norms as essential elements. According to

Hirst, “scientific theory and educational theory are as different logically as judgments of

The practical theories of education have been devised above all for the education

of the educators. Most of them apply to teachers, private tutors, and catechists, but also to

parents . They are attempts to summarize the knowledge that educators need in order to

educate in the given social-cultural conditions. Depending on the given educational goals

and the personality traits of the educands, practical theories of education which can he

for the education of princes, another for the education of Catholic priests; one kind for the

education of future scholars, another for working class children; one for the education

of……………………………………………………………………………………………

10

girls, another for toys.

In addition to those specific educational theories, practical theories of education of

the factors which influence education in general. They involve the educational goals

which are supposed to be valid for all educands, as well as the personality and

development of educands in general, and the means which are available to the educators.

Both kinds of practical theories of education, the specific and the general, have in

common a practical purpose. They offer a normative orientation about educational goals

and means. The norms which concern educational goals are taken from the religion, the

stem from psychological knowledge. Corresponding to its practical purpose, the language

in practical theories of education is used not only descriptively, but also prescriptively

and emotively. By means of practical theories of education one attempts not only to

inform, but also to inspire educators to educational actions which correspond to the ruling

belief systems and moral norms.

Since value judgments and moral norms it the greatest importance for the

normative orientation of both the educators and educands, pedagogy in 19th century

academic circles was primarily associated with practical philosophy or ethics. The

earliest academic form of pedagogy was a body of knowledge on the art of educating

joined to ethics. However, it was clear from the beginning that ethics could only offer

empirical knowledge about the means was dependent on psychology. But since

psychology was also regarded then as a philosophical discipline, it is understandable that

pedagogy was considered as a branch of philosophy. As a practical theory of education it

remained a mixture of evaluative, normative, and empirical sentences which were taken

partly from ethics (and metaphysics), and partly from psychology and historiography.

CRITIQUE OF PEDAGOGY ACCORDING TO THE

IDEAL OF THE EMPIRICAL SCIENCES

As early as 1806 Herbart recognized that pedagogy, as a practical theory of

education, was not a science in the strict sense of the word. In contrast to the traditional

pedagogy, he developed the ideal of a scientific theory of education and called it

“psychological pedagogy.”

it makes every bad action and its effect just as understandable as the good.

Since it actually ignores the difference between right and wrong everyone

11

META-THEORY OF EDUCATION

However Herbart could not create this scientific theory of education himself because in

his day the kind of psychology, on which it must be based, did not exist.

In the 19th century practical theories of education were regarded almost

universally as the only kind of educational theory that is possible. Even today there are

educational theorists who support that view. Since pedagogy gradually reached, within

the framework of teacher education, the rank of an academic discipline, one got used to

have thoroughly thought about its epistemological foundations, its limits, and its uses.

Nevertheless, there has not been a lack of educational theorists who have

recognized, and publicly criticized, the scientific inadequacies of the practical pedagogy.

In 1882, the Austrian Otto Willmann designated “popular reasoning . . . as its main

In 1888 the German Wilhelm Dilthey criticized its “noble popularity, which is the sign of

improper science.” It is characterized by an over-emphasis on educational goals in which

“the most beautiful flowers from the field of moral life, happiness, perfection, ethical

In 1911 the Frenchman Emile Durkheim asserted that “pedagogy has too often

that there has “in reality . . . never . . . been a scientific pedagogy.” There is “something

very indefinite, hardly anything clearly intelligible which can be understood in it. One

could say that up to now it has only been the reflection of a science which must first

In 1928 the German Aloys Pischer attacked German pedagogy for being “more a

collection of creative ideas than knowledge of facts;” and of “remaining in essence . . .

In 1966 the Englishman R.S. Peters characterized the state of educational theory as

referred to as educational theory is much more appropriately described as folklore than as

Brauner came to the following conclusions:

With but rare exceptions, the bulk of what is written about education fails

in substance, form, and vocabulary. It fails as scientific interpretation,

communication, and as guidance for instruction. In substance, what begins as if

it were inquiry into………………………………………………………………….

12

META-THEORY OF EDUCATION

For about one hundred years pedagogy has been criticized by educational

theorists in many countries, but this criticism has had little effect. It is true that since the

beginning of the 20th century, also, scientific theories of education have been propagated,

in addition to the practical theories of education, and attempts have been made to realize

under the name “descriptive pedagogy,” and it seems to be widely realized in modern

educational psychology. But the task of theoretical integration of the results of empirical

educational research into an “empirical science of education” is still far from being

solved. It is even debated whether this task can ever be achieved or whether the empirical

knowledge of educational phenomena for ever remain spread among several empirical

of education in the academic teacher education courses in all countries of the world. That

it has occasionally been called “scientific pedagogy” or “science of education” for

Criticism of this kind of pedagogy is possible from various points of view. One

can use as standards norms such as scientific method, proximity to reality, normative

content, usefulness for the educational practitioner, or simplicity and clearness. Most of

the critics who have been quoted here, have based their criticism on the ideal of the

empirical sciences. Pedagogy as ~ practical theory of education is without question far

from this ideal. The defenders of the practical theory of education object that the ideal of

the empirical sciences is not suited to pedagogy because pedagogy is not an empirical

character is meant.

In recent decades a vast amount has been written to justify or criticize pedagogy

as a practical theory of education. The meta-theoretical debate about the scientific

character of pedagogy has already cost the educational theorists too much energy which

could have been used more effectively for the solution of factual problems in their subject

area. On the other hand, one can not abandon the attempt to clarify the epistemological

foundations, since the decision for one or the other foundation is also a decision about the

purpose of an educational theory, ………………………………………………………….

13

META-THEORY OF EDUCATION

the methods and thereby at least partly, and indirectly, about the contents.

For a long time the discussion about the scientific character of pedagogy saw no

tended to see its own view as insight into the essence of pedagogy, it fought against

deviations from its own interpretations as if they were heresy. Some philosophers of

education branded those educational theorists who favored an empirical science of

education as immoral ‘scientists.’ On the other hand, some educational scientists

ridiculed the supporters of practical theories of education as unscientific moralists. In so

far as these fruitless epistemological arguments are not purely battles for power, prestige,

and influence, the most important causes center on misunderstandings. One has

education and that educational theories of various kinds do not necessarily exclude one

another, but rather can supplement each other.

Only within the framework of an analytical—epistemological philosophy of

educational theories (or a meta-theory of education) has it been possible to soften the

intensity of the debate among the supporters of the various concepts of pedagogy. The

first and most important step consisted of differentiating among the various classes of

systems of pedagogical sentences.

EARLY PROPOSITIONS FOR DISTINCTIONS

AMONG EDUCATIONAL THEORIES

Herbart (1776-1841) already recognized that the usual, practical pedagogy is not

thoughts about the “second half,” that is, about psychological pedagogy’ as a scientific

theory of education.

As far as I can tell, Otto Willmann (1839-1920) was the first educational theorists

to differentiate clearly between scientific and practical theories of education; he did so in

pedagogy are based on the difference between the theoretical and practical view of the

process named ‘education’. Willmann brought this difference in relation to the difference

between laws and rules. The laws are statements about what is; rules proscribe what

cultural facts. It ‘doesn’t regulate, nor give instructions, but simply explains; it is

concerned with that which is; it explains education as facts from its societal

and………………………………………………………………………………………….

14

META-THEORY OF EDUCATION

action or precepts which, as a matter of principle, are not derivable from scientific

knowledge. The practical pedagogy is normative, ‘demanding” or ‘regulative. Its style is

“the imperative.” It ‘stipulates what should happen, of course under certain given

relationships, because that can not be determined in general and absolutely.” It “is not

universal, but rather peculiar to a specific area,” a ‘specific society,” and tied to a definite

historical situation. The validity of its sentences is limited by time and place.

Among the “educational doctrines” there exist great differences in content. They

can be pursued more or less comprehensively, more or less thoroughly. They range “from

the instruction that something is to be done in a particular way, to an idealistic proposal

for a better education.” They are tied to the existing ethos of a particular society at a

addressees. That does not however exclude the possibility that an educational doctrine

motion some improvements. Indeed Willmann recalls that the pedagogical reflection is

usually “called forth by the practical drive to improve the existing educational habits and

educational institutions, if not to replace them completely, and in that sense . . . is

Although Willmann was convinced that “pedagogy can only be treated

scientifically asa part of the social sciences,” he considered practical pedagogy to be

justified, indeed indispensable. He had no intention of proposing its elimination and its

replacement by the science of education. He only opposed the confusion of practical

pedagogy with scientific pedagogy. Willmann, Durkheim, and Lochner only attacked the

claim that practical pedagogy was already the science of education, which did not yet

exist but was to be created by applying scientific methods to problems of education.

The second pioneer in this area was Emile Durlcheim (1858-1917). In an article

entitled “The Nature and Methods of Pedagogy” which appeared in 1911 he stated that

one can think about education with different intentions, namely scientific or practical. In

the former one tries to describe and explain what is or what has been. The result of those

attempts are scientific theories. In the latter one tries to determine what should be done.

contemporary, practical actions, but rather with rules for future action. The results of this

15

META-THEORY OF EDUCATION

The “practical theories” have their place between “art” (in the sense of “the

exercise of an ability” or “praxis”) and science. They come into existence when “one

reflects on the processes of action which are thus employed, not to understand and

explain them, but to appreciate what they are worth; if they are what they should be, if it

is not useful to modify them, and in what way, and even more, to replace them

completely with new procedures)’ We are confronted there with a combination of

thoughts whose purpose is to orient actors. ‘Practical theories” are ‘programs of action.”

“Pedagogy” is seen by Durkheim as a “practical theory of this kind. ‘It does not study

systems of education scientifically, but it reflects on them in order to provide the activity

of the educator with ideas to guide it.” Its purpose is to direct the behavior of the educator.

In the “science of education,” on the other hand, educational phenomena are

investigated as “social facts. Its main problem, according to Durkheim, is the origin and

functioning of educational -systems. It tries to observe educational systems as elements

of social systems and to describe, compare, and discover typical manifestations which

correspond to the various kinds of societies. The description and classification of the

“types of education” should be followed by the causal-analytic examination:

we would have to explain them, that is to say, to seek out the conditions on

which the characteristic traits of each of them depended, and how they have

emerged from one another. One would thus obtain the laws which govern

the evolution of systems of education.

The science of education aims therefore at the description of contemporary or past

educational phenomena and at the discovery of their causes and effects. Durkheim knew

that a science of education of this kind scarcely existed in his day, but had to be created

first, according to his program, with psychological and sociological research methods.

For decades the meta-theoretical views of Willmann and Durkheim were paid very little

attention. In Willmann’s case the reason was that he had never published them, because

he himself had rejected them, as a consequence of the experience or religious conversion,

after a short period of critical, empirical-analytical creativity. He then adopted the view

that pedagogy is a mixed, normative-descriptive discipline. In the end, he considered

Durkheim’s case the very small effect of his views can presumably be attributed to the

fact that he dealt with our subject solely in a short, relatively unknown article in a

handbook, and was otherwise almost only distinguished as a sociologist.

Working independently of both these forerunners, the German educational theorist

Rudolf Lochner (1895-1978) published meta-theoretical considerations of the same kind

which are much more detailed. In his……………………………………………………...

16

META-THEORY OF EDUCATION

main work, published in 1963, he combines a historiography of the epistemological

principles in German pedagogy from the 18th century to 1960 with a systematic

representation of the different structures of the “science of education’ and ‘educational

is consistently treated as an empirical science.

Its subject area is the educational events in the life of the individual and

society, its course of development, its results, and effects. [Its purpose) is

not to influence an educational action, but rather . . . to recognize existing

Lochner tried to observe, describe, and classify those phenomena which one meets

in educational situations, the results of which he called the “phenomenology of

education.” However, in his systematic studies he did not surpass an interesting

categorization of our everyday knowledge of education. He never tried to gain knowledge

about the law-like relationships among the phenomena, which can be used for

explanation, for prediction, and for the solution of educational-technical problems. The

epistemological framework for this kind of investigation is however available in his

Educational doctrine is based on the sciences, among them the science of

education; its task is to state what ought to be, to present goalc and

advice, recommendations or norms, how a subject area . . … is to be organized, mastered,

and improved.” “Doctrine makes demands on the establishment of norms.” Its norms

prescribe actions, and the way they should be executed; but they also serve as a “standard

An educational doctrine portrays ‘how education should be done, how an educator

should behave, and what he should consider, when he strives to achieve educational

effects. Educational doctrine is concerned with goals and norms and . . their clear

formulation. Its tendency is not research, but rather assistance for practical action.’ It

“seeks to influence educational praxis, as it occurs in groups, that is, to give advice for its

Lochner was the first to present a thorough analysis of the epistemological

structure of the practical theories of education. He showed their non-scientific character

as well as the possibility and necessity……………………………………………………

17

META-THEORY OF EDUCATION

of formulating them in close connection with science. However he neglected the

philosophy of education in his meta-theory. He especially underestimated the importance

German pedagogy has been understood and pursued as normative-philosophical

pedagogy in the tradition of practical philosophy. Since Lochner had to battle during his

life against the prejudices of the supporters of this point of view, and for the recognition

of his program of an empirical science of education, he emphasized more strongly the

importance of the science of education rather than the indispensability of the philosophy

of education as its supplement.

NEW PROPOSALS

In the last few years, doubt about the scientific character of pedagogy and its utility

in educational practice has intensified.

There is almost no other science in which unscientific chatter, one-sided

are clarified. For this reason the illusion must be given up that everything which is called

‘pedagogy’ (‘educology’) is also scientific. One needs the courage to test pedagogical

systems of sentences on the basis of the methodological rules of science and to

differentiate between their purposes and their values.

Only when it is clear to which norms educational theories should correspond, can

one decide why existing educational theories are inappropriate and how better

educational theories can be construed. The quality of pedagogical theories depends to a

great extent on what kind of meta-theoretical (or epistemological) norms are recognized

by educational theorists and how these norms are followed. Their meta-theoretical views

influence the level of training of the educational professions and thereby the quality of

educational practice. This influence is exerted in the intermediary of educational theory,

as it is transmitted in pedagogical writings and lectures.

Thanks to the meta-pedagogical (or meta-educological) preparatory work

accomplished by Willmann, Durkheim, Lochner, and many others, it is nowadays no

longer very difficult to recognize the deficiencies of the traditional academic pedagogy.

scientific theory. This has led to a blurred collective discipline which neither satisfies the

methodological demands of a science, nor is it as usable for the educator as one would

expect from a practical theory of education.

On the other hand, both tasks must be achieved. We need an empirical science of

education just as urgently as we need practical theories of……………………………….

18

META-THEORY OF EDUCATION

education for the educator, practical theories are no substitute for scientific theories, but

likewise scientific theories can not fulfill those purposes which practical theories must

fulfill. Since it is a question of various kinds of theories, I have suggested that pedagogy

no longer be considered as an inadequate unitary discipline with the twofold normativeempirical

(or practical-scientific) task. I propose that its concerns be divided in three

classes of educational theory (or classes of pedagogical knowledge): the science of

into three classes is based on those three points of view which up to now have been held

towards the problems of education: the scientific, the philosophical, and the practical. I

A. SCIENCE OF EDUCATION

It is the task of the science of education to achieve scientific knowledge about the area of

action called education. First it is necessary to describe and classify, as exactly as

possible, contemporary and past educational phenomena as a sort of the social-cultural

situations or “fields.” Educational activities can, however, only be understood within the

framework of the end-means relationship. They are means in order to achieve ends.

Therefore it is not sufficient to examine only the means, separated from the ends. Instead,

the educational end-means relationship must be seen in its entirety as the central subject

of the science of education. Its main problem is to research the conditions for the achievement

of educational goals (or ends). It is not a science which only describes facts, but

rather a teological-causal-analytical science.

The attribute ”teological” means that one must begin with the goals (ends or purposes)

which are desired, and which one tries to realize through education. The attribute “causalanalytical”

means that causal relationships must be investigated in order to find

possibilities for intervention by educational actions. One looks for the conditions from

which it depends, that men acquire the kind of personality (a body of psychic

dispositions) which more or less corresponds to the established ideals. Then, one asks

whether and how these conditions can be produced. The educational scientists can not

limit themselves to a description of educational actions and institutions. They rather

should relate these actions and institutions to the given purposes and situation of the educands

in order to test whether they are actually the appropriate means, or whether they

perhaps produce entirely different effects from those which are desired. When means

prove to be inappropriate, one must look for the causes. Then other means should be

looked for which might be more appropriate under the given circumstances. The causes

of success and failure of education is the most important topic of the science of

education.

These problems can only be solved when it is possible to discover laws to which the

individual phenomena in the psychic and social-cultural…………………………………

19

META-THEORY OF EDUCATION

reality follow. In the ideal case a scientific theory of education is a system of such

hypothetical laws which are logically tied together and more or less confirmed. It is a

prerequisite for explanations, predictions, and the solution of technical problems.

In order to achieve this goal, the scientific method must be employed. Simply

expressed, it consists of asking questions on the basis of available knowledge about a

problem area and proposing temporary assumptions (hypotheses) as answers. These

hypotheses are then tested according to their correspondence with the facts and their

logical connection to the other hypotheses of the theory which have been relatively well

confirmed. With regard to methodology there is no significant difference between the

science of education and other empirical social-cultural or human sciences.

B. PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION

Since the word ‘philosophy’ has many meanings, the expression ‘philosophy of

education’ can also have various meanings. Depending on the problem which is being

treated, one can differentiate between epistemological philosophy (German:

answers to questions of values and norms which arise in educational planning and action.

Its task is to provide educators and politicians responsible for education with the

evaluative and normative orientation which can not be accomplished within the empirical

science of education.

In a narrow sense normative problems concern the question: “What should I do?”

In a broader sense they deal also with answers to the preceding and more comprehensive

question: “How should I evaluate?” The establishment of norms is only possible when at

first phenomena are assigned values, or non-values, and an order of precedence for goods

(or values) is established. Giving an evaluative meaning to life, by establishing a highest

purpose (ideal, value, or good), is also part of normative philosophy. In summary, then,

the problems are: giving a meaning to life and evaluating and prescribing norms under

the heading of normative problems.

In the normative philosophy of education first of all problems of evaluation are

discussed. They concern all elements of educational situations, especially of course the

ends and the means. One thinks, for example, of the problem of selection of teaching

subjects from our cultural heritage. Only when value judgments have been made, is the

prescription of norms by a ‘norm-giver” possible.

20

META-THEQRY OF EDUCATION

The tasks of a normative philosophy of education can most easily be classified

according to the end-means model. Following this distinction one can differentiate

educational actions, on the one hand, and material means on the other. The first group is

educators (the teaching of duties). The second subject area, the evaluative theory of the

philosophy of education is not limited to moral norms concerning education, but also

includes value judgments. Resides moral value judgments, also legal, aesthetic, religious,

economic, hygienic, and other values are to be taken into account.

C. PRAXIOLOGY OF EDUCATION

The praxiology of education does not have a scientific purpose, but a practical one.

It has been invented in order to supply educators with a knowledge related to praxis

which they need for rational, educational action. It refers in every case to a specific

social, cultural, institutional, and personal area of educational action. It is proposed from

it consists of normative and descriptive sentences. It ought to be free from scientific and

philosophical accessories which do not directly serve its purpose. In summary, one can

define it as a mixed normative-descriptive system of sentences which is to inform specific

groups of educators living in a specific social-cultural situation about their educational

duties as well as the means available for the execution of their duties. It is also meant to

Practical pedagogy has four tasks: (1) it should offer educators an evaluative

interpretation of the social-cultural situation; (2) it should state the educational goals; (3)

it should provide practical view points, rules, recommendations of instructions for

educational action and the formation of educational institutions; and (4) it should rouse,

encourage, and support the value orientation and the dispositions necessary for morally

valuable educational action (or the professional virtues of the educator). The praxiology

of education has therefore a situation-interpretative, a teleological, a methodological or

technological, and an ethical element. Its contents depend on the cultural situation of a

society and the state of mind of its members. Even when it is designed with a critical and

reformatory intention, it must be related to the existing state of mind and the existing

educational praxis.

From an epistemological view the praxiology of education can also……………..

21

META-THEORY OF EDUCATION

be called ‘practical canonics’, that is, a system of instructions based on science and

dogmatics.

ON THE PRESENT STATE OF THE DISCUSSION

Since 1967 these meta-theoretical proposals have been discussed a great deal in

central and eastern Europe. Objections come primarily from those educational theorists

Accordingly they also reject the ideal refraining from value judgments in the science of

education and believe instead that value judgments, the prescription of norms, and

partisanship in systems of scientific sentences are necessary and appropriate.

Supporters of various religious, philosophical. andpolitical beliefs agree that they

Catholic theorists of education, especially Marxists are opposed to my proposals for

education as the only legitimate system of pedagogical sentences. They brand the

program of a purely empirical science of education as ‘‘positivistic.’’

My proposal for differentiation is also opposed by educational philosophers who

an empirical science of education is superfluous because in their opinion psychology,

They regard empirical knowledge of education peripheral, in comparison with normativephilosophical

phenomenological-hermeneutic view, show more understanding and sympathy for the

ideal of an empirical science of education and for the necessity of demarcating it from the

Finally there are supporters of the program of the empirical science of education

who believe that the praxiology of education is superfluous because all problems can be

scientists, there is also much skepticism with regard to the usefulness of a normative

Discussions of this kind can be useful for the clarification of the existing

epistemological possibilities. It should not be forgotten, however, that meta-theoretical

considerations and decisions as such are not sufficient to produce better theories of

education. The analysis of the epistemological fundamentals has to be followed by

systematic theoretical work. In future days the results of this theoretical research will

show which of the epistemological programs, that rival today, has actually proved

fruitful………………………………………………………………………………………

22

META-THEORY OF EDUCATION

23

META-THEORY OF EDUCATION

24

25

META-THEORY OF EDUCATION

26

META-THEORY OF EDUCATION