Studia Kinanthropologica 2008, 9(1):13-17

Conception of PhD study in educational branches: some views of the US experience

Petr Blahuš
Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Fakulta tělesné výchovy a sportu, ČR

Author suggests that the overall conception of doctoral study in educational branches, partly related also to the PhD study in kinanthropology / kinesiology / sport science, should be clearly conceptualized as a preparation of new scientists. Contemporary curricula of Bachelors as well as Masters study create insufficient preliminary background for such an approach. Problems of a similar kind can be found in the educational streams of study also in the USA, nevertheless, competent institutions in the USA are initializing steps and measures, which are supposed to bring a positive change. A fundamental point consists of incorporating a first background of scientific methodology into Bachelors as well as into Masters curricula so that the further PhD study might continue on this preliminary background. The main purpose of this process is seen in reaching the same scientific level of PhD study in educational branches and other disciplines, such as natural sciences etc.

Keywords: education; doctoral study; kinesiology; kinanthropology; sport science; physical education; science teaching; teachers education

Published: March 30, 2008  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Blahuš P. Conception of PhD study in educational branches: some views of the US experience. Studia Kinanthropologica. 2008;9(1):13-17.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. AACN (2001). Indicators of quality in research-focused doctoral programs in nursing. American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN). Available at http://www.aacn.nche.edu/publications/positions/qualityindicators.htm
    2. AERA (2003).American Educational Research Association: Resolution on the essential elements of scientifically-based research. Retrievable from http://www.aera.net/meeting/councilresolution03.htm
    3. Anderson, G. (2002). Reflecting on research for doctoral students in education. Educational Researcher, 31 (7), pp. 22-25. Go to original source...
    4. APA (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Psychological Association (APA), American Educational research Association (AERA), National Council for Measurement in Education (NCME). Washington, DC: APA.
    5. Blahuš, P., et al. (1993). Kinanthropology - a new recognized scientific discipline. Acta Universitatis Carolinae Gymnica, 29 (2),pp. 61-78.
    6. Blahuš, P. (2004a). On the conceptual foundations of "Psychomotricity" as science. Invited plenary lecture on European Congress of Psychomotricity "Psychomotor Identity - Specificity and Diversity", by European Forum of Psychomotricity and Portuguese Association of Psychomotricity. Lisbon, March 31 - April 2, 2004.
    7. Blahuš, P. (2004b). Trends in SEM in behavioral research and possible further formal methods. Conference on Diagnostics of Motoricity, Faculty of Education, Ostrava University, The Czech Republic, November 25-26, 2004.
    8. Blahuš, P. (2005). On methodological aspects of building human movement science: Psychomotricity, and kinanthropology. Acta Universitatis Carolinae Kinanthropologica, 40 (2), 2004, pp. 5-18.
    9. Brannen, J. (Ed.) (1992). Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research. Averbury.
    10. Constas, M. A. (1998). Deciphering postmodern educational research. Educational Researcher, 27 (9), 36-42. Go to original source...
    11. Čelikovský, S. (1974). Metody výzkumu v antropomotorice. [Research methods in anthropomotoricity]. In S. Čelikovský (Ed.), Antropomotorika. Praha: SPN.
    12. Eisenhart, M., & Towne, L. (2003). Contestation and change in national policy on "scientifically based" educational research. Educational Researcher, 32 (7), pp. 31-38. Go to original source...
    13. ESRA (2002). Education sciences reform Act of 2002. US Public Law No. 107-279, retrievable from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/EdSciencesRef/.
    14. Feuer, M. J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31 (8), pp. 4-14. Go to original source...
    15. Hendl, J. (1997). Metodologická triangulace v empirickém výzkumu. Česká kinantropologie (Czech), 1 (2), ss. 75-85. [Methodological triangulation in empirical research.]
    16. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for teaching profession. Educational Researcher, 31 (5), pp. 3-15. Go to original source...
    17. Hyman, S. E. (2003). Neuroscience and the doctorate: The challenges of multidiciplinarity. (Carnegie Essays on the Doctorate). Menlo Park,CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrievable from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/cid
    18. IES (2004). Predoctoral interdisciplinary research training program in the education sciences, CFDA 84.305C. Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences (IES), Washington, DC: U. S.
    19. Labaree, D. (2003). The peculiar problems of preparing educational researchers. Educational Researcher, 32 (4), pp. 13-22. Go to original source...
    20. Mayer, R. E. (2000). What is the place of science in educational research? Educational researcher, 29 (6), pp. 38-39. Go to original source...
    21. Moran, J.D., & Malott, R.W. (2004). Evidence-based educational methods. Elsevier Academic Press. Go to original source...
    22. NCLBA (2001). No child left behind Act of 2001. US Public Law No. 107-110, 107th Congress. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved: http://thomas.loc.gov.
    23. NRC (2002). Scientific research in education. Report by National Research Council (NRC). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
    24. NSF (2004). Graduate research fellowship program, NSF 04-615. National Science Foundation (NSF). Retrievable http://www.nsf.gov.
    25. Pallas, A. (2001). Preparing educational doctoral students for epistemological diversity. Educational Researcher, 30 (5), pp. 6-11. Go to original source...
    26. Report (2003). Report commision training & education EFfPMT. Minimum curriculum PMT Bachelor future plans. Vienna, September 2003, European Forum of Psychomotricity. (Unpublished handout, 19 pp.)
    27. Richardson, V. (2003). Education: The Ph.D. in education. (Carnegie Essays on the Doctorate). Menlo Park,CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Retrievable from http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/cid
    28. Sarason, S. B. (1993). The case for change: Rethinking the preparation of educators. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.
    29. Slife, B. D., & Gantt, E. E. (1999). Methodological pluralism. Journal of clinical Psychology, 55, pp.1453-65. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    30. Sung, N.S. et al. (2003). Educating future scientists. Science 301 (5639), pp. 1485-7. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    31. Thomas, J. R., & Nelson, J. K. (1990). Research methods in physical activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. (And further editions up to 2005)
    32. Thompson, B. (1996). AERA editorial policies regarding statistical significance testing:three suggested reforms. Educational Researcher, 25 (2), pp. 26-30. Go to original source...
    33. Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2003). What Works Clearinghouse study design and implementation device. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
    34. Viadero, D. (2004). The skills gap. Education Week, (January 7). Retrievable from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.sfg?slug=16Train.h23&keywords=skills%20gap
    35. Yanchar, S. C., Gantt, E. E., & Clay, S. L. (2005). On the nature of Critical Methodology. Theory and Psychology,15 (1), pp. 27-50. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content