Nowadays, the focus on the utility of the history of education has strongly perturbed the academic researches in the history of education. It demands that the history of education serve directly the history of education as a discipline, to serve directly the reality, and to serve directly politics and policy-making. All of these demands originated in the uncertainty of the research and application of the history of education with the understanding that the history of education is a knowledge based on natural sciences but not a knowledge based on the liberal arts, a type of thinking that originated in the worship of Scientism at the beginning of the 20th Century. This research tries to deny the understanding of the "history of education" based on the simplified explanation of the "Scientism" paradigm and to discuss the "history of education" as an academic research field, including the paradigms that are associated with it. This means that this type of research attempts to separate the understanding of the "history of education" as an academic research field from the field of applied knowledge. It attempts to discuss the different meanings of ″truth″ and ″reality″ embraced in the understanding of ″truth″ （Wahrheit） and answer the question of ″what is the history of education″ as a science （Wissenschaft）. The research indicates that with regard to the question ″what is the history of education,″ the history of education is the historical presentation and historical interpretation based on the historical record of the education in the past that is constructed by the educational historians whose ″noble dream″ is to make the interpretation of the educational history as much as possible close to the educational reality of the past, verified by the historicism doctrine, which will be the unique purpose and mission of educational historical researches. However, when we talk about the verification by the historicism doctrine, it does not mean that the research on the history of education can find the truth of our educational past, nor can we recreate the educational past. It means that the research on the history of education should ensure that what he talked about was the reality or past actuality of education. The professional historian should delve deep into the past world to understand the past of the education, to understand the educational ideas, faiths, and practices in the context of past social circumstances, ideas, thoughts, and structures. All of this was decided by the unique paradigm of the educational history that the history of education was neither a science nor an art. It used the daily languages and patterns of manifestation, or it borrowed concepts from science or the arts to present its own meaning and to construct the mansion of educational history. The value of the history of education cannot be calculated by its ability to serve direct action. It should be the kind of research that is not involved in any practical interests but focuses only on spiritual satisfaction. It asks the researchers in the history of education to perform the research just for pure academic interests; to find out the real questions and values of education in the real historical, cultural, social, political, and economical context; to really understand the historical culture deeply, whether at home or abroad, and to help us understand ourselves and each other.
陈露茜. 教育史是什么？[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2017, 3(6): 134-.
Chen Luxi. What Is the History of Education?. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2017, 3(6): 134-.