Scheffleriläinen rationaalisuus ja kasvatustodellisuuden monikerroksisuus : Jännitteitä ja ratkaisuja Israel Schefflerin kasvatusfilosofiassa

The study is a philosophical analysis of Israel Scheffler’s philosophy of education, focusing on three crucial conceptions in his philosophy: the conception of rationality, the conception of human nature, and the conception of reality. The interrelations of these three concepts as well as their relations to educational theorizing are analysed and elaborated. A conceptual problem concerning Scheffler’s ideal of rationality derives from Scheffler’s supposition of the strong analogy between science education and moral education in terms of the ideal of rationality. This analogy is argued to be conceptually problematic, since the interconnections of rationality, objectivity, and truth, appear to differ from each other in the realms of ethics and science, given the presuppositions of ontological realism and ethical naturalism, to which Scheffler explicitly subscribes. This study considers two philosophical alternatives for solving this problem. The first alternative relates the analogy to the normative concept of personhood deriving from the teleological understanding of human nature. Nevertheless, this position turns out to be problematic for Scheffler, since he rejects all teleological thinking in his philosophy. The problem can be solved, as it is argued, by limiting Scheffler’s rejection of teleology – in light of his philosophical outlook on the whole – in a manner that allows a modest version of a teleological conception of human nature. The second alternative, based especially on Scheffler’s later contributions, is to suggest that reality is actually more complex and manifold than it appears to be in light of a contemporary naturalist worldview. This idea of plurealism – Scheffler’s synthesis of pluralism and realism – is represented especially in Scheffler’s contributions related to his debate with Nelson Goodman dealing with both constructivism and realism. The idea of plurealism is not only related to the ethics-science-distinction, but is more widely related to the relationship between ontological realism and the incommensurable systems of description in diverse realms of human understanding. The Scheffler-Goodman debate is also analysed in relation to the contemporary constructivism-realism debate in educational philosophy. In terms of educational questions, Scheffler’s plurealism is argued as offering a fruitful perspective. Scheffler’s philosophy of education can be interpreted as searching for solutions to the problems deriving from the tension between the tradition of analytical philosophy and the complexity and multiplicity of educational reality. The complexity of reality combined with the supposition of the limitedness of human knowledge does not lead Scheffler to relativism or particularism, but, in contrast, Schefflerian formulations of rationality and objectivity preserve the possibility for critical inquiry in all realms of educational reality. In light of this study, Scheffler’s philosophy of education provides an exceptional example of combining ontological realism, epistemological fallibilism, and the defence of the ideal of rationality, combined with a wide-ranging understanding of educational reality.

Kemian ylioppilaskokeen tehtävät summatiivisen arvioinnin välineenä

The main purpose of the research was to illustrate chemistry matriculation examination questions as a summative assessment tool, and represent how the questions have evolved over the years. Summative assessment and its various test item classifications, Finnish goal-oriented curriculum model, and Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy of Cognitive Objectives formed the theoretical framework for the research. The research data consisted of 257 chemistry questions from 28 matriculation examinations between 1996 and 2009. The analysed test questions were formulated according to the national upper secondary school chemistry curricula 1994, and 2003. Qualitative approach and theory-driven content analysis method were employed in the research. Peer review was used to guarantee the reliability of the results. The research was guided by the following questions: (a) What kinds of test item formats are used in chemistry matriculation examinations? (b) How the fundamentals of chemistry are included in the chemistry matriculation examination questions? (c) What kinds of cognitive knowledge and skills do the chemistry matriculation examination questions require? The research indicates that summative assessment was used diversely in chemistry matriculation examinations. The tests included various test item formats, and their combinations. The majority of the test questions were constructed-response items that were either verbal, quantitative, or experimental questions, symbol questions, or combinations of the aforementioned. The studied chemistry matriculation examinations seldom included selected-response items that can be either multiple-choice, alternate choice, or matching items. The relative emphasis of the test item formats differed slightly depending on whether the test was a part of an extensive general studies battery of tests in sciences and humanities, or a subject-specific test. The classification framework developed in the research can be applied in chemistry and science education, and also in educational research. Chemistry matriculation examinations are based on the goal-oriented curriculum model, and cover relatively well the fundamentals of chemistry included in the national curriculum. Most of the test questions related to the symbolism of chemical equation, inorganic and organic reaction types and applications, the bonding and spatial structure in organic compounds, and stoichiometry problems. Only a few questions related to electrolysis, polymers, or buffer solutions. None of the test questions related to composites. There were not any significant differences in the emphasis between the tests formulated according to the national curriculum 1994 or 2003. Chemistry matriculation examinations are cognitively demanding. The research shows that the majority of the test questions require higher-order cognitive skills. Most of the questions required analysis of procedural knowledge. The questions that only required remembering or processing metacognitive knowledge, were not included in the research data. The required knowledge and skill level varied slightly between the test questions in the extensive general studies battery of tests in sciences and humanities, and subject-specific tests administered since 2006. The proportion of the Finnish chemistry matriculation examination questions requiring higher-order cognitive knowledge and skills is very large compared to what is discussed in the research literature.