Is Teaching an Art, or a Science?

Edutopia Magazine, the brainchild of Star Wars founder George Lucas, has published this question in their Sage Advice feature and asked for feedback. I instinctively started to wave my hand the way I did in elementary school because I KNEW the answer to this question. But Edutopia’s requirement that the submitted answer be no more than 100 words was simply impossible to meet. So, here is the complete answer.

Actually, this exact question has hounded me for years. From my early days in graduate school to my eventually promotion to the position of program director in a masters in education program, the issue of whether the study of education was a science or art has been something I have thought about a great deal.

I think it must have been in an undergraduate philosophy of science course where I heard this first discussed. Prof. Frank Slade loved the word “polemic,” used it often and frequently engaged in polemics. I’m not sure if he specifically addressed the issue of whether “teaching” was an art or science, or the profession of education for that matter though I am sure he would have relished the opportunity. Since like many of my fellow students, I was a psychology major, a fairly popular major at the time, the question asked was probably in reference to the defense of psychology as a science. For many reasons, Slade’s rhetoric on the subject would likely have netted the same result had he been asked about the field of education.

As I recall, Slade suggested that in the case of psychology, the answer was that it was neither an art nor a science, but rather that psychology, or the practice thereof, was unequivocally a “craft.” He further suggested that those engaged in the practice of this craft to be neither scientists nor artists but rather craftsmen or -- and I remember this part distinctly – they were to be considered artisans.

I recall seeing a sly grin on his face at the time. I think he took some pleasure in the opportunity to kick psychology out of the realm of science. I suspect he would have taken greater pleasure kicking the field of education into the same bucket.

Clearly, then and now, psychologists believed themselves to be scientists. After all, the definition in most psychology textbooks state it to be “the science of the mind and behavior.” But not in Prof. Slade’s world. No, the practice of psychology was merely craft, an activity which, as he defined it, took some elements from both science and art, and practiced by people who could be considered neither artist nor scientist.

I remember being a bit annoyed by Slade’s arrogance and obvious disdain for my chosen profession, but I permanently recorded his observations as I knew he was clearly the most erudite of all of my professors including those in the psychology department.

So, I think the answer to this current question is exactly the same. I have come to believe education is a craft, practiced by people who are craftsmen or artisans; it is neither an art, nor a science.

I guess there are those who might suggest that my current demotion of the “science of education” is an example of defensiveness and projection. Be that as it may, the practice of psychology -- at least my practice of psychology for about 15 years -- clearly fit the definition of craft. It turned out, Professor Slade was correct. For while I certainly used some science in my practice, I did occasional use some techniques that could be best construed as “creative.”

And, I now, like Martha Stewart, actually see that as a good thing.

As the years have gone on, there has been nothing presented to me to convince me education is anything but a craft. For many years, I have suggested to many colleagues that persons entering the field of education should be trained like the craftsmen of old. There should be a bona fide apprenticeship program, journeyman acquisition and ultimately the achievement of “master level” status --not based upon the accumulation of credit as in the case of psychology’s attainment of the terminal doctoral degree nor in the accumulation of experience and “tenure” as is the case of education. No, to achieve the “master” status in your craft, you need to demonstrate mastery – through evidence of student learning and pedagogical prowess.

I also believe we should completely rethink the recruitment, training, development and retention of individuals in the teaching profession. Blow the doors off the entire system and start all over again by building a system that recognizes that this is a craft and one that embraces and acknowledges mastery.

In a review of the 2004 book The Body of the Artisan Art and Experience in the Scientific Revolution by Pamela H. Smith, reviewer Simon Werrett of Science Magazine states, “Smith explores the synergy among art, craft, and science in the 16th and early 17th centuries to build an argument that in its early stages modern science owed much to the skills and knowledge of artisans and artists.” By this it is suggested some of our “pure” science came about through a deliberate and protracted period of development beginning with art and ultimately bubbling through a period of craft.

So, to answer Edutopia Magazine’s question, teaching is not an art, nor is it a science. Perhaps someday the practice of education, like that of psychology, will become a science (or at least more scientific), but clearly it is not there yet.

Though education clearly out-dates psychology in human history, its maturity toward science has been retarded by a lack of serious reflection and active discourse by those who practice it.

I’ll be interested in seeing the responses to Edutopia’s challenge for “sage advice.” Perhaps we can start that discourse right here.

~John Brandt