Revisiting the Role of Values in Evidence-based Education

Kathryn E Joyce
{"title":"Revisiting the Role of Values in Evidence-based Education","authors":"Kathryn E Joyce","doi":"10.1093/jopedu/qhae022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Evidence-based practice in education involves basing decisions about what to do on evidence about the relative effectiveness of available interventions (e.g. programmes, products, practices). This paper considers two influential critiques of evidence-based education (EBE) pertaining to its treatment of values. The ‘general critique’ condemns EBE for excluding values from decisions about what to do in education. The ‘specific critique’ condemns EBE for relying on a deterministic view of causality in education which disregards the complex, value-laden nature of educational contexts. I argue that virtually all versions of EBE escape the general critique, including the dominant intervention-centered approach that relies on experimental research to discover ‘what works’, because the predictions EBE aims to support are only one premise in a broader normative argument. Further, intervention-centered EBE can avoid much of the specific values-based critique because it is consistent with a probabilistic, rather than deterministic, understanding of causality. However, I argue that only a context-centered approach to EBE that relies on evidence about the specific target setting from local sources in addition to evidence from theory and mixed methods research can fully address the specific critique by accommodating critics’ descriptive claims about the nature of educational contexts.","PeriodicalId":506406,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophy of Education","volume":"12 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Philosophy of Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jopedu/qhae022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Evidence-based practice in education involves basing decisions about what to do on evidence about the relative effectiveness of available interventions (e.g. programmes, products, practices). This paper considers two influential critiques of evidence-based education (EBE) pertaining to its treatment of values. The ‘general critique’ condemns EBE for excluding values from decisions about what to do in education. The ‘specific critique’ condemns EBE for relying on a deterministic view of causality in education which disregards the complex, value-laden nature of educational contexts. I argue that virtually all versions of EBE escape the general critique, including the dominant intervention-centered approach that relies on experimental research to discover ‘what works’, because the predictions EBE aims to support are only one premise in a broader normative argument. Further, intervention-centered EBE can avoid much of the specific values-based critique because it is consistent with a probabilistic, rather than deterministic, understanding of causality. However, I argue that only a context-centered approach to EBE that relies on evidence about the specific target setting from local sources in addition to evidence from theory and mixed methods research can fully address the specific critique by accommodating critics’ descriptive claims about the nature of educational contexts.
重新审视价值观在循证教育中的作用
循证教育实践是指根据现有干预措施(如计划、产品、实践)相对有效性的证据来决定做什么。本文探讨了对循证教育(EBE)的两种有影响力的批评,涉及其对价值观的处理。一般批评 "谴责循证教育将价值观排除在教育决策之外。具体批判 "谴责循证教育依赖于教育因果关系的决定论观点,忽视了教育环境的复杂性和价值性。我认为,几乎所有版本的《教育经济学》都逃脱了一般性批判,包括以干预为中心、依靠实验研究发现 "什么有效 "的主流方法,因为《教育经济学》旨在支持的预测只是更广泛的规范性论证中的一个前提。此外,以干预为中心的环境教育可以避免许多基于价值观的具体批评,因为它符合对因果关系的概率论而非决定论的理解。然而,我认为,只有以情境为中心的教育经济学方法,除了理论和混合方法研究的证据之外,还依赖于从当地来源获得的关于具体目标环境的证据,才能通过容纳批评者关于教育情境性质的描述性主张,充分解决具体批评。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信