Educology

Use from the 1950s through the 1970s

The term educology has been in use in the English language since the seminal work in educology by Professor Lowry W. Harding at Ohio State University in the 1950s and Professor Elizabeth Steiner [Maccia] and her husband, Professor George Maccia, at Indiana University in the 1960s. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, John B. Biggs and Rachel Elder coined the term independently of Harding, Steiner and Maccia. Other researchers in the English speaking world who worked on clarifying the implications of the concept of educology in the 1970s and 1980s included James E. Christensen, James E. Fisher, David E. Denton, Diana Buell Hiatt, Charles M. Reigeluth and M. David Merrill, James F. Perry, Marian Reinhart, Edmund C. Short, John Walton, Catherine O. Ameh, Laurie Brady, Berdine F. Nel, Maryann J. Ehle and others.

Developments since the 1980s

In Europe, important work on clarification of the concept of the term educology in the 1980s and 1990s was done by Anton Monshouwer, Theo Oudkerk Pool, Wolfgang Brezinka, Carlos E. Olivera, Nikola Pastuovic and in the 2000s by Birgitta Qvarsell, Kestutis Pukelis and Izabela Savickiene and Sharon Link. Three of the most important recent contributions to educology have been by Theodore W. Frick of Indiana University, Bloomington, Kenneth R. Thompson and James E. Christensen. The International Journal of Educology (initially published in Australia, later in the USA and most recently in Lithuania) commenced publication in 1987, and it continues in electronic form into the present. The IJE has been an important forum for the clarification and extension of educology, with the publication of over 100 refereed articles in educology over a period exceeding 20 years. Some universities have adopted the term for their publications, e.g. the University of Illinois and Indiana University. Other universities have used the concept of educology for institutional organization and curriculum arrangements. Since the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, some universities in the Baltic countries and elsewhere in Europe have established departments and faculties of educology and offer courses and degrees in educology. They include Vilnius University [1] (Lithuania), Siauliai University (Lithuania), Vilnius Pedagogical University (Lithuania), Vytautas Magnus University (Lithuania), Mykolas Romeris University (Lithuania), Kaunas University of Medicine (Lithuania), Klaipėda University (Lithuania), Tallinn University (Estonia), Stockholm University (Sweden), University of Presov (Slovakia) and Comenius University in Bratislava (Slovakia). In addition to academic institutions, some proprietary concerns have adopted the term in either the name of their businesses or in their publications.

Derivation

The term educology derives from the term education and the suffix -logy. The term was coined to dispel the confusion caused by using the term education to name the process of teaching, studying and learning under guidance, and calling knowledge about the educational process by the same name, education.

A range of arguments for the use of the term educology has been developed over the past fifty years and more. Some have argued that the term educology should be used to name only philosophy of education, or only theory of education, or only scientific knowledge about education (science of education) or only knowledge about effective practices in education (praxiological knowledge, also spelled praxeology).

The prevailing and generally accepted argument which has emerged from the discourse among educologists over the last half of the 20th century is that the term educology names the entire fund of knowledge about education including theoretical, philosophical, scientific and praxiological knowledge.

Argument for the term "educology"

Within common usage of the English language and also within special usages (i.e. technical usages) of that language, several terms are used to name the fund of recorded knowledge about education. Included among those terms are pedagogy, andragogy, ethology, Education, Education Studies, Professional Education and psychopedagogy. However, educologists argue that one term performs the job of naming the fund of knowledge about education even better than these seven: educology. Educologists maintain that the term educology suits the job best for three compelling reasons:

1. It names nothing less than the fund of knowledge about education.
2. It names nothing more than the fund of knowledge about education.
3. It prevents conceptual conflation of

Educologists argue that the concept of educology implies the inclusion of the entire fund of recorded propositional knowledge about the entire process, from nascence to senescence. It is not limited only to knowledge about the education of children (pedagogy) or to that of male adults (andragogy). It is not recorded knowledge about processes other than education, such as knowledge about character development (ethology) or a combination of psychological knowledge and knowledge about the practice of teaching (psychopedagogy). The name educology eliminates the ambiguity which is created by naming the process of guided study with the term education and naming the fund of recorded propositional knowledge about that process with the same term education.

Educologists demonstrate the power of the term educology to dispel ambiguity through techniques such as word substitution in sentences. For example, the practice of capitalizing the term education and of adding the term professional to the term education are attempts to remove ambiguity. Educologists argue that the use of these two terms (Education and Professional Education) are not nearly as cogent in dispelling the ambiguity as is the use of the term educology. This can be illustrated with, for example, the sentence,

In their [education] to qualify as primary school teachers, students study some psychology, sociology and [education].

The ambiguity created in the meaning of the sentence can be reduced with some substitutions for the term education.

1. In their [study under guidance] to qualify as primary school teachers, students study some psychology, sociology and [Education].
2. In their [study under guidance] to qualify as primary school teachers, students study some psychology, sociology and [Professional Education].
3. In their [study under guidance] to qualify as primary school teachers, students study some psychology, sociology and [educology].

Educologists argue that each of the term substitutions reduces the ambiguity progressively. The third term substitution, educology for education, reduces the ambiguity altogether, removes the anomalies in conventions for capitalization and conforms with the convention for naming funds of knowledge with the suffix -logy: for example, psychology from psyche (mind) plus -logy (knowledge about); sociology from society plus –logy (knowledge about); educology from education plus –logy (knowledge about).

Educologists maintain that there are at least three compelling reasons for creating new terms in discourse about the educational process.

1. A new term is indicated when a new meaning arises for which there is no satisfactory existing term.
2. It is indicated when a meaning is misnamed by current usage.
3. A new term is called for when current usage is ambiguous.

Educologists conclude that the case for the term educology is supported by all three reasons. The term education functions ambiguously to name the process and also to name warranted assertions about the process. To educologists, it is a misnomer to name warranted assertions about the educational process with the term education. It is like using the term animals to name zoology. It is a category mistake. The term educology names a new meaning for which there is no satisfactory existing term. It names, and only names, and names nothing more than, nor less than, knowledge about education.

Educational discourse and educological discourse

Educologists recognize that there is discourse in education and discourse about education. Discourse in education occurs in the form of talk and writing within the educational process. Discourse in education is one of many phenomena within the educational process. Discourse about education, when it is sound, well founded and warranted, is educology. These two categories of discourse are illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1: Example of educational discourse and educological discourse

Study, education, and educology

From an educological perspective, the process of education is a process of teaching and studying some content within some setting with the intention that something worthwhile and valuable will be learned. Again, from an educological perspective, studying is the set of activities one undertakes to learn something.

Study can be done independently, outside of the educational process, without the guidance of a teacher. And it can be undertaken under the guidance of a teacher, within the educational process. Education is a process about which one can conduct inquiry and research. Educology is the fund of knowledge which is produced from well disciplined and successful inquiry and research about the process.

Educology is not the study of education because educology is not an activity. Study is an activity. It is the activity of undertaking to extend one's range of knowing. One can study educology, i.e. undertake activities to learn knowledge about education with a view to extending one's range of knowing about education. But the activity of studying about education is not the fund of knowledge about education.

The study of education (i.e. undertaking study about the educational process), if conducted as serious, well disciplined inquiry and research, can produce educology.

The study of educology (i.e. undertaking study about the fund of knowledge about education), conducted independently or conducted under the guidance of a teacher, can lead a student to learn about education and develop an understanding of education.

Disciplines requisite for producing educology

Educology is a fund of knowledge, not a discipline. But educologists use a set of disciplines to produce educology. The set of disciplines requisite for producing educology includes the sets of techniques and rules which are necessary for conducting at least three categories of inquiry and research:

1. analytic inquiry and research, which requires the use of the principle of necessity reasoning,
2. normative inquiry and research, which requires the use of the principle of normative reasoning, and
3. empirical inquiry and research (including experimental and non-experimental research), which requires the use of the principle of observation (including extrospection and introspection).

Educologists use the term process of inquiry to mean the same as the process of asking questions, formulating answers to those questions and presenting necessary and sufficient evidence to warrant that the answers which are formulated are necessarily true, in the case of analytic educological facts, or very highly probably true, in the case of empirical educological facts, or are valid, sound and fruitful, in the case of educological explanatory theories and educological justificatory arguments.

The educological perspective

The educological perspective is inclusive of the following perspectives in discourse about the educational process or about aspects of the educational process:

1. the scientific perspective (characterizing what is);
2. the praxiological perspective (characterizing what is effective);
3. the historical perspective (characterizing what has been);
4. the jurisprudential perspective (characterizing what is legally allowed, prohibited and required);
5. the analytic philosophical perspective (characterizing meanings of terms and sentences);
6. the normative philosophical perspective (characterizing what is good, desirable, ethical and sound).

Educologists use one, or a selection and sometimes all of these perspectives in their inquiry. For example, in conducting inquiry about secondary education, educologists typically address the questions of:

1. What is secondary education? (an analytic philosophical educological question)
2. What is good secondary education? (a normative philosophical educological question)
3. What are current and prevailing practices and states of affairs in secondary education? (a scientific educological question)
4. What are effective practices which achieve desired results in secondary education? (a praxiological educological question)
5. What have been past practices and states of affairs in secondary education? (a historical educological question)
6. What laws, rules and regulations govern secondary education? (a jurisprudential educological question)

Well founded and warranted answers to these questions are all part of the educology of secondary education.

Education as the dependent variable

In contrast to other viewpoints (in the sense of arrangements of discourse, e.g. sociology, anthropology, psychology), the educological perspective treats the educational process as the dependent variable, and it is used to conduct research and inquiry about the effects of other factors, such as social settings, economic activity and political attitudes, upon the educational process.

Treating education qua education, the educological perspective conceives of education as a system made up of the elements of teacher, student, content and setting, all standing in relation to each other. The educological perspectives analyzes the relations among these four elements. For example, it examines what set of relations does

1. the setting (physical, social, cultural) have to teachers, students and content,
2. a teacher (or set of teachers) have to students, content and setting,
3. a student (or set of students) have to teachers, content and setting,
4. content have to teachers, students and setting.

All other educological questions derive from this basic set of four questions.

Of course, regardless of what questions are asked about a field or how a field of phenomena is described or characterized, that field remains unchanged. Spoken or written discourse about the way a plant uses sunlight, water and soil to grow does not affect the plant in its use of those things. We can use spoken or written discourse, however, to take effective action in relation to a plant to influence its growth.

And so it is with the different arrangements of discourse (or viewpoints) about the educational process. None of the arrangements (sociology, anthropology, psychology, educology, etc.) changes the form and function of the educational process. All can be used to take some kind of action in relation to the educational process to achieve some intended outcome or desired goal, aim, objective or state of affairs.

The domain of educology

The domain or territory of educology is the set of all phenomena within the educational process. Inquiry and research from an educological perspective is undertaken about this set of phenomena with the intention of producing warranted assertions, or knowledge, about education. Part of the domain or territory of educology is represented in the following table.

Table 2: Categories of phenomena within the educational process for educological inquiry

Logic, techniques and products of educological inquiry

The relationship between educological inquiry and educology is the relationship between a process and its product. Educological inquiry uses a logic of inquiry and a set of techniques of inquiry to produce a set of products of inquiry.

Logic of inquiry. The set of disciplines which is used in the verification of statements (i.e. the warranting of assertions) is the logic of an inquiry. At least three principles of verification are used in educological inquiry.

1. Principle of necessity reasoning. There is the principle of necessity reasoning, in which the logic requires that a statement be judged true (i.e. warranted) when it is necessarily implied by a set of true statements. The principle of necessity reasoning is the same as the principle of deduction.
2. Principle of normative reasoning. There is the principle of normative reasoning, which is used to produce evaluations and prescriptions (and justifications of evaluations and prescriptions). Evaluations are statements of the form, "X is good." Prescriptions are statements of the form, "Person A ought to do X." Justification is a set of reasons organized into an argument which verifies, validates and vindicates evaluations and/or prescriptions. Evaluations and prescriptions are judged to be true when they are consistent with a set of norms to which all persons can rationally adhere if they were in the same set of circumstances.
3. Principle of observation. There is the principle of observation, in which the logic requires that a statement be judged true (i.e. an assertion be affirmed as warranted) if it is consistent with necessary and sufficient observable evidence (i.e. evidence which can be accessed by extrospection and/or introspection).

Techniques of inquiry. The actual behaviors performed and the procedures followed in adducing evidence to verify a statement (warrant an assertion) are the techniques of an inquiry. Examples include conducting surveys, experimentation, drawing analogies, running simulations, locating documents, taking notes, classifying objects, defining terms, clarifying concepts, etc.

Products of inquiry. The product of successful inquiry about the educational process is educology. Educology is the set of warranted assertions (i.e. statements which are judged to be true) about some aspect of the process of teaching, studying and guided intentional learning. The set can be classified into at least three categories, viz. analytic, normative and empirical knowledge.

Discipline for forming educology. The logic and techniques for conducting inquiry about the educational process constitute the discipline requisite for conducting sound and productive educological research and inquiry, including retro-search, re-search and neo-search. The product of sound, well disciplined and fruitful educological inquiry is educology. (See Table 3.)

Table 3: The discipline requisite for producing educology

Critical categories for arrangement of educology into subfunds

From an educological point of view, three categories which are critical for the arrangement of the product of educological inquiry and research are: (1) the phenomena about which inquiry is conducted; (2) the purpose of the inquiry and (3) subfunds of educology.

Phenomena of inquiry. The something which is investigated in the act of research (including retro-search, re-search and neo-search) is the set of phenomena being inquired about, or the phenomena of inquiry, or the object of knowledge. Phenomena in the educational process can be classified into many categories. Seven of the critical categories are:

1. implications of educational discourse (discourse within education),
2. worthwhile policies, practices, goals and states of affairs for and within education,
3. education in past times and ages,
4. existing educational phenomena,
5. effective educational practices,
6. effective administration, leadership and governance practices for education
7. legal language which guides and regulates education.

Purpose of inquiry. The intended outcome of an inquiry is its purpose. At least seven purposes of inquiry can be distinguished: (1) characterization, (2) description, (3) explanation, (4) prediction, (5) prescription, (6) evaluation and (7) justification.. Characterization is a set of statements which identifies the essential properties which distinguish one category of phenomena from another. Description is a set of statements which elucidates and represents a state of affairs as it exists. Explanation is a set of statements which provides reasons for why a state of affairs is as it is. Prediction is a set of statements which foretells how a state of affairs will be. Prescription is a set of statements which tells what, how and when to do something in order to achieve a desired state of affairs. Evaluation is a set of statements which reports that a state of affairs is good (or bad) or relatively better (or worse). Justification is a set of statements which presents a coherent argument about why a course of action ought to be taken (or not be taken) and/or why a state of affairs is good (or bad), better (or worse), ethical (or inethical), valuable (or worthless).

Subfunds of educology. An arrangement of educological assertions in relation to a nominated set of purposes and a specified set of features within the educational process constitutes a subfund of educology. At least seven major subfunds of educology can be distinguished. They include

1. analytic philosophical educology
2. normative philosophical educology
3. historical educology
4. scientific educology
5. praxiological educology
6. political praxiological educology
7. jurisprudential educology

Other arrangements, of course, are possible. Examples include the

1. educology of gender equity
2. educology of moral judgment
3. educology of motivation
4. educology of play
5. educology of social class
6. educology of social justice
7. educology of women

These other arrangements typically include (1) analytic philosophical, (2) normative philosophical, (3) historical, (4) scientific, (5) praxiological, (6) political praxiological and (7) jurisprudential educology within them. For example, the educology of women implies all seven subfunds. (See Table 4.)

Table 4: Critical categories for arranging educology into subfunds of educology

Four meanings of the term philosophy of education

At least four meanings of the term philosophy of education can be distinguished:

1. analytic philosophy of education, or the fund of knowledge about meanings of concepts and propositions in educational discourse, or discourse within the educational process (this subfund of educology is analytic philosophical educology);
2. normative philosophy of education, or the fund of knowledge about worthwhile states of affairs in the educational process (this subfund of educology is normative philosophical educology);
3. analytic philosophy of educology, or the fund of knowledge about the meanings of concepts and propositions in educological language, or language about education;
4. normative philosophy of educology, or the fund of knowledge about worthwhile states of affairs in educology (in discourse about education).

The first two are subfunds of educology. The third and fourth are knowledge about educology, not about education. Therefore, they are meta-educology, or knowledge about knowledge about education.

Analytic philosophy of education (or analytic philosophical educology) is an arrangement of warranted assertions which describes and characterizes the necessary implications of concepts and propositions used in discourse within the process of education. The theorizing of James Gribble, George F. Kneller, John B. Magee, Gilbert Ryle, Israel Scheffler and B. Othanel Smith, for example, exemplifies analytic philosophy of education, or analytic philosophical educology.

Relevant to the explication of philosophy of education is the concept of language of education. The term functions ambiguously. It can mean (1) language or discourse which occurs within the process of teaching and studying, and it can also mean (2) language or discourse which is about the process of teaching and studying. In its first sense, language of education means language in education. In its second sense, it means language about education. These two senses can be distinguished by subscripts:

1. [language of education]₁ is language in education;
2. [language of education]₂ is language about education.

What people say while engaged in the role of teaching or in the role of studying under guidance are examples of [language of education]₁ or language in education. Educology is [language of education]₂ or language about education. Educology is only that language or discourse about education which is warranted with evidence. Obviously not all discourse (or assertions) about education is warranted with evidence.

Normative philosophical educology is the same as normative knowledge about education or normative philosophy of education. This arrangement of educology again requires the use of the three disciplines (analytic, normative, empirical). Questions of what is desirable and undesirable for and in the educational process (normative questions) lead on to questions of meaning (analytic questions) and questions of the actual consequences of actions or practices (empirical questions). To settle normative questions competently, one must also be able to settle questions of meaning and questions of actual consequences.

Normative philosophical educology addresses questions such as,

1. Is an inquiry approach to the teaching of natural sciences an intrinsically better one than an expository approach?
2. Should understanding, acceptance and appreciation of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual and transgender human beings be taught in schools?

Normative philosophy of education (or normative philosophical educology) describes and characterizes that which has worth in education. The theorizing of Ernest Bayles, John Dewey and John Butler, for example, exemplifies normative philosophy of education, or normative philosophical educology.

Normative philosophical educology is part of educology. It is a subfund of educology. Its focus is upon desirable and undesirable or relatively desirable and undesirable states of affairs, relationships, entities, practices, situations and the like within the educational process (and for the educational process).

Normative philosophical educology is closely related to philosophy of education, but it is not identical with it. Often the term philosophy of education is used without distinguishing between normative and analytic philosophy. This usage conflates different arrangements of knowledge.

Philosophy of educology. Given the distinction between two senses of language of education, a third meaning of philosophy of education is possible to distinguish. Language about education can be an object of inquiry, or something about which inquiry can be conducted. It can be analyzed, and true statements about it can be produced. This set of true statements, or warranted assertions, constitutes a fund of knowledge. That fund includes the logic, epistemology, ethics and praxiology of making warranted assertions about the educational process. The fund includes that which is named by the term research methods or research methodologies, because research methodologies about the educational process are included in the praxiology of educology (vs. the praxiology of education).

In common usage discourse about education, the logic and epistemology of forming warranted assertions about the educational process is called philosophy of education, because in common usage, the term education names (1) the teaching and studying process and (2) knowledge about that process. But a name which more adequately characterizes the fund is the term philosophy of educology. The substitution of the term educology for the term education in the name philosophy of education (making it philosophy of educology) clarifies the point that the object of knowledge (i.e. that which the knowledge describes, characterizes and explains) is language (discourse) about education. Philosophy of educology includes analytic philosophy of educology and normative philosophy of educology.

Educology and meta-educology

In addition to educological inquiry and subfunds of educology, there is meta-educological inquiry and meta-educology. There is language (or discourse) within the educational process (what teachers say to students and vice versa) and language (or discourse) about the educational process (what is said about teachers and students). There can be warranted assertions about the educational process, i.e. verified statements about teachers and students. There can also be warranted assertions about what is said about teachers and students, i.e. verified statements about statements about the educational process. Warranted assertions about the educational process are educology. Warranted assertions about statements about the educational process are meta-educology. The statement,

Compulsory schooling is a requirement which all contemporary nations have stipulated in law

is an example of educology. In contrast, the statement,

The statement, "Compulsory school is a requirement which all contemporary nations have stipulated in law," requires verification by examining the statutes of every nation

is an example of meta-educology. It is a warranted assertion about a statement about education.

Meta-educological inquiry. Meta-educological inquiry includes asking and answering questions (with the necessary and sufficient evidence) about (1) the necessary implications, (2) the value and worth and (3) the attribution and provenance of discourse about the educational process. Thus, at least three categories of meta-educological inquiry can be distinguished: (1) analytic, (2) normative and (3) empirical.

Analytic meta-educological inquiry requires the use of the principle of necessity reasoning as its logic of inquiry. It produces warranted analytic meta-statements as its product of inquiry. Its techniques of inquiry include concept isolation, propositional isolation, concept analysis, propositional analysis, definition (including classificatory, synonymy, equivalent expression definition), identification of definition functions (including reportive, stipulative, programmatic functions), explication, model case, contrary case, borderline case, invented case, related concept, unrelated concept, term substitution, subscripts, invented terms, social context technique, result in language technique, practical results technique. Its phenomena of inquiry (phenomena about which inquiry is conducted) are all of the sets of discourse about the educational process. Its purpose of inquiry is description and explanation of the implications of all discourse about the educational process. The statement,

The statement, "Individualization is instruction that is adapted to individual needs . . .," is an analytic statement verifiable by the principle of necessity reasoning.

is an example of an analytic meta-educological statement.

Normative meta-educological inquiry requires the use of the principle of normative reasoning as its logic of inquiry. It produces warranted normative meta-statements (evaluations and prescriptions) as its product of inquiry. Its techniques of inquiry include value clarification, value validation, value vindication and rational value choice. Its phenomena of inquiry (phenomena about which inquiry is conducted) are intrinsically and extrinsically good and bad states of affairs for and within discourse about the educational process. Its purpose of inquiry is description, explanation, prediction, prescription and justification of intrinsically and extrinsically good states of affairs for and within discourse about the educational process. The statement,

The statement, "Individualization is instruction that is adapted to individual needs . . .," is a good statement for beginning inquiry about individualization of instruction in the educational process.

is an example of a normative meta-educological statement.

Empirical meta-educological inquiry requires the use of the principle of observation (extrospection) as its logic of inquiry. It produces warranted empirical meta-statements as its product of inquiry. Its techniques of inquiry include location of recorded texts, authentication of recorded texts and citation of recorded texts. Its phenomena of inquiry (phenomena about which inquiry is conducted) is extant recorded statements (i.e. texts in articles, journals, papers, books, etc.) about the educational process. Its purpose of inquiry is description, attribution and provenance of extant discourse about the educational process. The statement,

The statement, "Individualization is instruction that is adapted to individual needs . . .," is found on p. 272 of The Teacher's Handbook (Dwight W. Allen & Eli Seifman, Eds., 1971).

is an example of an empirical meta-educological statement.

Not a subfund of educology. Meta-educology does not constitute a subfund of educology. Educology is its phenomena of inquiry, just as education is the phenomena of inquiry for educology. Educology is the set of phenomena about which meta-educological research inquires. Education is the set of phenomena about which educological research inquires. See Table 5.

Table 5: Critical categories for forming analytic, normative and empirical meta-educology

Responsibilities of educological researchers

It is the responsibility of educological researchers to be expert in both educological inquiry and meta-educological inquiry. Both activities are required in the task of competently making warranted assertions about the educational process. It is the educological researcher's responsibility to identify significant problems about the educational process and to solve those problems. It is also the educological researcher's obligation to clarify:

1. What kind of problem is being posed to solve, i.e. what logic of inquiry does the problem require?
2. What product of inquiry does the problem imply?
3. What techniques of inquiry does it indicate?
4. Which phenomena of inquiry demand its focus?
5. What purpose of inquiry does the problem serve?

To ask and answer these five questions is to undertake meta-educological research. If the educological researcher omits these questions, the researcher risks derailment at the very beginning of the inquiry. Much work can be wasted and invalid results perpetrated if an analytic question is mistaken for an empirical one, or an empirical one, for a normative one. Each kind of question implies its appropriate logic, product, techniques, phenomena and purpose of inquiry. Analytic questions must be treated as analytic questions for the results to be valid, and so it is for normative and empirical questions. This is why educological researchers, in order to do their job properly and correctly, must be able to undertake expert meta-inquiry at the second level of discourse, i.e. at the level of warranted assertions about statements about the educational process. See Table 6.

Table 6: Education, educology and meta-educology and corresponding levels of discourse

Knowledge about education vs. knowing about education

Educologists distinguish between knowledge about education and knowing about education. Knowledge is recorded warranted assertions. Knowing is the learned ability to perform consciously, purposefully, intelligently and adequately in relation to some state of affairs.

Educological knowledge. Educology is one among many funds of knowledge. It is the fund of recorded warranted assertions about the educational process. It is located in the discourse of books or any other medium suitable for recording statements, e.g. magnetic tape, microfilm, microfiche, computer memory, CDs, DVDs. Recorded propositional knowledge about the educational process is related to knowing about the educational process, but it is quite distinct from it as well.

Educological knowing. From an educological viewpoint, knowing is an ability which is realized (vs. potential). It is learned (vs. being inherited or being instinctual). It is an ability to perform with some intention (i.e. it is a purposeful performance). It is done in relation to some state of affairs. And the ability takes some form, or is manifested in some way (at least five forms of knowing can be distinguished). An example of knowing is that of knowing about education. Knowing about education is educological knowing. It is the learned ability to perform adequately with intention or purpose in relation to the educational process. Knowing is located within the function of people. It is their cognitive function in relation to the educational process. People can know, but not be demonstrating that knowing at any one instant. An instance of demonstrated knowing is an exemplification of knowing. For example, a woman sitting on a bus one morning may be able to ice skate. While she is not ice skating at that moment, she still knows how to ice skate. When she actually ice skates later that afternoon, she is providing an exemplification of her knowing how to ice skate. When she teaches her students that afternoon how to execute a three-point turn, her demonstration of the three-turn is an exemplification of knowing how to do a three-turn organized for purposes of teaching and guided study. As students, people can study the recorded propositions in educology and exemplifications of educological knowing (live or recorded in some medium - sound, photographs, film, DVD, etc.) in order to extend their educological knowing. In doing so, they extend their cognitive function in relation to the educational process. Through their study, they might improve their function with respect to their conduct as teachers, students, counselors, coaches, trainers, mentors, curriculum developers, educational administrators and managers, or educological researchers (including retro-researchers, re-searchers and neo-searchers).

Extension of knowing from studying educology. As students, through their study of educology and exemplifications of educological knowing (knowing-that-one, knowing-that, knowing-how and knowing-to), people can extend their ability to speak purposefully and adequately about education or to speak purposefully and adequately while engaging within the process of education as a teacher, student, counselor, curriculum developer, administrator or manager. They might extend their ability to think to themselves, silently, about education, to write soundly about education, or to draw supportable and warranted inferences about education. Studying educology and representations of educological knowing, under guidance or independently, is a means by which one can extend one's ability to recall educational states of affairs, anticipate educational moments, create educational occasions, or discern educational transactions.

Transience of knowing vs. permanence of knowledge. It is the nature of human beings that we are mortal. We all die, and our knowing dies with us. But educology and recorded exemplifications of educological knowing do not die. While a person's cognitive function ceases with that person, recorded propositions about education remain in the recorded media, and recorded exemplifications of educological knowing also remain in the recorded media. Each person who comes anew as a student to the fund of educology and the recorded exemplifications of educological knowing has the opportunity to extend her or his educological knowing. In addition, new generations, through successful educological research (retro-search, re-search, neo-search) have the opportunity to contribute to the revision and extension of the fund of warranted assertions which constitutes educology.

The range of educological knowing

Educologists distinguish at least four kinds of educological knowing. Each of the kinds may be manifested in at least five forms and at three levels. The four kinds are knowing-that-one, knowing-that, knowing-how and knowing-to. The five forms are linguistic, physical, physiological, imaginal and emotional. The three levels are preconventional, conventional and postconventional. The four kinds of knowing are distinguishable with respect to the object or states of affairs in relation to which the knowing is performed. The five forms of knowing are distinguishable with respect to the manner in which the knowing is manifested. The three levels of knowing are distinguishable with respect to the degree of expertise with which the knowing is performed.

Range of knowing. The combination of kinds, forms and levels of knowing constitutes a range of knowing. A range of knowing may vary from narrowly restricted to widely extended. It is possible for a person to develop knowing-that-one without knowing-how or knowing-that without knowng-to. It is possible for a person to develop, for example, knowing-how at a conventional level in a linguistic form, but not in a physical form. A wide or extensive range of knowing constitutes understanding.

Table 7: Range of knowing as combinations of levels, kinds and forms of knowing

Knowing-that-one. Knowing-that-one about education is the ability to perform adequately in relation to unique states of affairs within education. A teacher recognizes, is acquainted with and appreciates Michael's moods, motivations, aspirations and capabilities, not as an adolescent or a middle class child or a student in his 9th year of school, but as Michael, in all of his uniqueness. This is an example of a teacher's knowing-that-one. The teacher might be able to manifest this knowing-that-one of Michael in talking with Michael (linguistic knowing), in anticipating Michael's behavior (imaginal knowing), in making gestures to which Michael will respond positively (physical knowing). Knowing-that-one of education gives the knower (e.g. teacher, student, counselor, administrator, manager, curriculum developer, researcher) sensitivity for the educational process and for features within the process so that significant and important aspects of the process can be discerned and appreciated by the knower.

Knowing-that. Knowing-that about education is the ability to perform adequately in relation to states of affairs within education as members of categories. A teacher can, for example, classify Michael's behavior as typical of 15-year-olds. The teacher can categorize Michael's capabilities as characteristic of middle level achievers and relate his aspirations and motivations to what one might expect of middle class adolescents. The teacher might manifest this knowing-that in writing a report (linguistic knowing), in having a feeling of familiarity and towards Michael's behavior as typical of boys of his age (an emotional knowing), in imagining how Michael will resemble his mates in a year's time (imaginal knowing), in making gestures and managing body language towards boys of Michael's kind (physical knowing). Knowing-that gives the knower adequacy and power with respect to theory (i.e. knowing-that gives theoretical adequacy). The knower with knowing-that about education can describe and explain (i.e. theorize) about the educational process in terms of categories, classifications and relationships of features or aspects of the educational process. The knower can do this, if she or he has knowing-that, with necessary and sufficient evidence and sound inferences.

Knowing-how. Knowing-how is the ability to use a set of procedures to achieve an intended result. A teacher, for example, starts class by having the children line up outside the classroom, enter the classroom in single file and take their seats as assigned seats. The teacher has learned that this set of procedures achieves an orderly entry into the room and focuses the attention of pupils upon what is to happen next in the lesson. In this example, this teacher is manifesting knowing-how. When the teacher is giving directions, the knowing-how is being manifested as linguistic knowing-how. It can be manifested in gestures and body language (physical knowing), in feelings (emotional knowing), in anticipation (imaginal knowing). Knowing-how is the basis for effective action within the educational process.

Knowing-to. Knowing-to is the realized ability to exercise conscious intention, will and choice in a rational way that is consistent with a set of freely and rationally chosen norms (i.e. standards and/or rules). A synonym for knowing-to is conative knowing. Conative knowing is a state of knowing-to, as distinct from knowing-that-one, knowing-that or knowing-how. Individuals have achieved a state of knowing-to when they can say (and mean and justify it), "I am willing to do that." That state of willingness, or knowing-to, is the same as conative knowing. Conative knowing is the ability to choose rational courses of action which are consistent with standards and rules by which to regulate, control and direct one's self. Conative knowing is the basis for living a rational, principled life. Conative knowing gives us the ability to set goals and make plans in relation to criteria and to make choices consistent with chosen plans and goals. Conative knowing, or knowing-to, is the realized ability to consciously and thoughtfully live consistently by a set of standards and rules. An example of knowing-to is a teacher consciously choosing to treat each and every student respectfully, courteously and fairly.

Other possibilities of knowing. While the examples just given of knowing-that-one, knowing-that, knowing-how and knowing-to were ones in which a teacher manifested the four kinds and five forms of knowing, other players in the educational process are capable of learning these kinds and forms of knowing about education. These include students, counselors, coaches, mentors, administrators, managers, curriculum specialists and any one interested in knowing about education from a professional viewpoint or from the viewpoint of extending one's liberal education. One can develop educological knowing as a liberal study as well as a professional study.

Levels of knowing. At least three levels of knowing are possible (preconventional, conventional and postconventional). The three levels relate to the distinctions of beginner, intermediate, expert and expert innovator. One who has preconventional knowing is just at the beginning of learning some kind and form of knowing about education. The person has not yet achieved the conventions for a set of knowing. At the conventional level, the person has learned the conventions, and the level includes both intermediate and expert performances. The postconventional level is being manifested when the knower is creating innovations which have not yet become conventions. Innovative expert performers within the educational process and researchers who are engaged in neo-search about the educational process, if successful, are performing at the postconventional level of knowing. They are setting new standards or conventions of knowing about education.

Educological understanding

From an educological viewpoint, understanding is the realized ability to perform consciously, purposefully, intelligently and in a well informed way to resolve challenges, solve problems and achieve desired results within some state of affairs. Educological understanding is an understanding of states of affairs within the educational process. More specifically, educological understanding is the realized ability to perform consciously, purposefully, intelligently and in a well informed way to resolve challenges, solve problems and achieve desired results for and within the educational process. Educological understanding relates to educological knowing in that educological understanding is the achievement of some range of educological knowing at the conventional and post-conventional levels. A wide or extensive range of educological knowing at the conventional and post-conventional levels constitutes educological understanding.

The way to rational constructive action in education

Within matters educational, experience is highly prized. While it is true that experience within the educational process is important for developing educological understanding, educologists maintain that experience alone is insufficient. All of us experience disease, but this does not qualify us as medical practitioners. We occupy space and exist in time, but this experience does not transform us into physicists. So it is with educological knowing. In order to develop educological understanding, one must engage in experiences with an educological perspective so that the significant and important features of the experience may be discerned, reflected upon, evaluated and appreciated educologically. In order to develop a range of knowing about education, one must, as a student, study educology and representations of educological knowing in addition to having experience within the educational process. Rational constructive action within the educational process requires educological understanding. Without understanding, naive uninformed action can be taken, but not rational, well informed action. If naive uninformed action is constructive, it will be by accident, not by educological knowing. The way to rational constructive action within the educational process is through coming to know as much as one can about education from an educological perspective. Educological knowing requires study of educology, i.e. the reading and comprehension, reflection upon and intelligent action in relation to warranted assertions about the educational process. It is educology which provides concepts, propositions, facts and theory about education and cognitive structure for reasoning about education and for taking rational constructive action in and for education.

Uses of educology

Liberal and professional education. Educologists argue that educology has uses in the curriculum of liberal education as well as professional education. Liberal education is undertaken to extend one's ability to function as a free person with free will within a free and democratic society. Professional education is undertaken to function as an effective, ethical and accountable practitioner, e.g. a teacher, counsellor or mentor, within the educational process. Sound educological understanding provides the basis for undertaking rational, constructive action within the educational process and for engaging in sound, well informed discourse about the educational process. Through studying educology, one can develop educological understanding towards several ends, e.g. towards

1. heightened sensitivity for, to and within educational situations,
2. effective participation within educational situations (as teacher, student, counsellor, coach, manager, etc.),
3. articulation of sound theory and justificatory arguments about educational situations and
4. resolution of problems connected with educational situations.

The liberal and professional uses of educology are described, explained and illustrated in a number of educological works.

Naming professional organizations. Another important use of educology is the naming of professional organizations whose purposes are to conduct research, produce knowledge and disseminate knowledge about the educational process. For example, the conflation of (1) object of inquiry with (2) product of inquiry is removed by making the change of name from:

1. the American Educational Research Association to the American Educological Research Association,
2. the Australian Association for Research in Education to the Australian Association for Research in Educology,
3. the Comparative Education Society to Comparative Educology Society and
4. the Society of Professors of Education to the Society of Professors of Educology.

Naming organizational units. Likewise, educology has an important use for naming organizational units whose purpose it is to teach and extend knowledge about the educational process. The use of educology in the naming of organizational units within academies, institutes, colleges and universities dispels conflation of concepts and confusion in discourse about education. For example, the name change from:

1. college of education to college of educology,
2. school of education to school of educology,
3. faculty of education to faculty of educology and
4. department of education to department of educology

removes the conflation of (1) object of inquiry with (2) product of inquiry and makes clear that the purpose of the units is to teach and study knowledge about educational phenomena and extend knowledge about the educational process.

Structuring programs, curricula and courses. Within organizational units of educology (university faculties, colleges, schools, departments) the six critical categories of

1. kind of inquiry
2. logic of inquiry
3. techniques of inquiry
4. phenomena inquired about
5. purpose of inquiry
6. products of inquiry

have important applications for making decisions about

1. course titles and descriptions,
2. curriculum arrangements and
3. organization of academic staff.

Use of these categories reduces the likelihood of category mistakes, nonsensical contradictions and wasteful duplication in educological programs, curricula, courses and organization of staff. The application of the six categories also increases the probability of arrangements of academic staff and curricula which have coherency, clarity and flexibility, without ambiguity or equivocation. The benefits of using the six critical categories include the likelihood of producing an organization which (1) makes sense to those whom it arranges and (2) contributes to cooperative effort towards the worthwhile goal of extending knowledge about education.

The role of units of educology. From an educological perspective, the proper role of a unit of educology (i.e. a faculty, school, college, department or division of educology) within a university is to provide a favorable and supportive environment in which

1. educologists may conduct research about the educational process and extend educology,
2. teachers of educology may successfully guide their students in extending their range of educological knowing and understanding,
3. users of educology may consult with educologists about ways and means of resolving issues and meeting challenges in the educational process,
4. meta-educologists may conduct research about discourse about the educational process and extend meta-educology,
5. teachers of meta-educology may successfully guide their students in extending their range of meta-educological knowing and understanding and
6. users of meta-educology may use their meta-educological understanding as educologists in the conduct of their educological research.

Table 8: Key roles in a unit (department, faculty, college, school) of educology