Is education science?

Been working on this for a class all this semester and I'm interested in other people's thoughts.
So, do you think education is science? Why do you consider it science or not?
Everyone might have a different view of what education and science is, and that's ok. I'm not interested in debating what they are exactly, just if education meets the standards to be called a science.

I'll post my stance later on.

Well yeah, it furthers human understanding of the world around them. :v

Education is too broad, in my opinion, to be called a science. However, as you said, many people will have many interpretations of this.

I think that the answer to this question, depends on the definition of a science. according to wikipedia:

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

I would say in the definition, no, because i dont think that teaching is systematic.

In my personal definition, i would say that science is anything that helps us understand our world, and thus, i would consider teaching a science.

If you think that say Sociology is a science, then sure. IMO it really depends on how much you really on the statistical indications of standardized tests and grades.

Overall I'm going to say no. While there is some scientific basis and "education theory" that forms the basis of educational methods, far too much is left up to the individual teacher's "style" and there is far too little concrete data upon which to judge different teaching methods. In short, the scientific method does not fully apply.

In my opinion, Education is not a Science. It's a Technology.
Science is research. It is observation and experimentation and the formation of theories and the testing of them. Its purpose is to find out how the universe works.
Technology is the application of science to life. Its purpose is to use the principles discovered by science to perform useful tasks.

Education is an application of psychology and sociology.

Ambiguous word usage.

The term education is indeed too broad. If I were to focus on academia maybe I could talk about education theory and some scientific basis, but no.
And even then, education theory isn't scientific. It's another kind of theory.
I don't think education is science, their object of study can be explained with other sciences that have better tools to do so. Pretty much, what Sapta already said.

In my opinion, Education is not a Science. It's a Technology.
Science is research. It is observation and experimentation and the formation of theories and the testing of them. Its purpose is to find out how the universe works.
Technology is the application of science to life. Its purpose is to use the principles discovered by science to perform useful tasks.

Education is an application of psychology and sociology.

Actually, I would say that research is science, in that the latter is slightly broader than the former, so it shouldn't be the other way round (minor quibble). (scientific) Research is the methodology of science.

Education (as in pedagogy) is, by most conventions (idk what is Socratic wadever), the systematic inculcation of critical thinking skills and areas of knowledge (broad/specific doesn't matter). Its aim is to provide one with the relevant skillsets (thinking and/or practical) and knowledge in particular areas, and with respect to governance, this becomes particularly pertinent for the economy.

The overlap between science and education is, IMO, the systematic nature of learning vs the systematic nature of investigating i.e. defined courses of investigation and exploration. As you might tell, this is a pretty shaky overlap. The other overlapping bit about science and education is that modern science demands education before one can properly embark on any science-related careers. And that half the time when people think/talk about science, it'd be about high school/college/university/wadever science taught in schools.

tl;dr science != education despite modern correlations.

Hadriel

I would say education is not a science. You are not really testing hypotheses or anything. On the other hand research into how to make education may be called a science, in my opinion. Because in that case you are formulating hypotheses and testing them, as per the scientific method.

For the teachers, maybe it could be science, since they can try many methods and approaches to teaching.

For the students? Not really, they are just learning what other people have already researched.

Ambiguous word usage.

I see education as an application of science, therefore not a science.

For the students? Not really, they are just learning what other people have already researched.

Maybe, depending on how you learn or, in other words, the teacher's method.
What about parents? Media? Society in general? Could those be considered education too? And if so, science?


Why consider education as only academia? And even if one considers only academia why have such a narrow view of it? Personal expierence and "standard" public education in most places doesn't mean that's all there is to education.
I don't have enough time to search but I'm sure there are schools that apply John Dewey's theory: "take the scientific method to teaching, so that the kids learns to observe, make hypothesis, draw conclusions..." So that it's them who discover what has been discovered already (when possible).

Maybe, depending on how you learn or, in other words, the teacher's method.

Unless is high level education (College level i would say), is not science. Students aren't discovering or testing new things, they are just rehashing already test and proven stuff 99% of the time. D

I see education as an application of science, therefore not a science.

Science is solely theoretical then and a field like computer science isn't considered a science by your terms?

I would say that education as teaching is merely an application of science. However, the theory that goes into the methods of teaching and which are the most optimal (and etc.), I would argue is a science. It really depends on how you define education as education is such a broad term.

Science is solely theoretical then and a field like computer science isn't considered a science by your terms?

Bad example.
Computer Science does have a (rather large) theoretical subcategory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical...er_science

Bad example.
Computer Science does have a (rather large) theoretical subcategory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical...er_science

It's one of the more "applicative majors" I've seen though, if not the most.

Is theoretical comp sci a big part of comp sci? Asking out of ignorance.

It's one of the more "applicative majors" I've seen though, if not the most.

Is theoretical comp sci a big part of comp sci? Asking out of ignorance.

That's the funny thing. You do theoretical comp sci in school but once you get out of it you tend to do more applicable stuff.

It doesn't mean that science can't have application, science to me is the explanation for things, the knowledge and the application of that knowledge. Science can always be applicable in the real world and it is, it doesn't have to be purely theoretical for it to be science.

Somewhat relevant XKCD:

That's the funny thing. You do theoretical comp sci in school but once you get out of it you tend to do more applicable stuff.

It doesn't mean that science can't have application, science to me is the explanation for things, the knowledge and the application of that knowledge. Science can always be applicable in the real world and it is, it doesn't have to be purely theoretical for it to be science.

My #15 was misunderstood. The tone of the post was me trying to have Baklava clarify his statement by use of an example (although it appears it wasn't a good one).

As for what science and education are, I feel that both are broad terms that are highly open to interpretation. You can attempt interpret it liberally, scientifically, colloquially, and any other shade that might exist. I mean to me it's like piddling over semantics.