本文的主要目的在評介英國學者P. H. Hirst對教育理論及其建構途徑的相關論述，以供教育研究者參考。無論在1960、1970或1980年代，Hirst都認為教育理論的功能在揭示實踐原則以引導教育實務。至於建構途徑，1960與1970年代，強調宜在某種實務範圍內參考相關學科，然後透過審慎判斷以形成實踐原則。然而，到了1980年代卻轉變原先論點，改而主張先透過實務對話檢測實務活動的有效性，以及支撐實務活動的運作教育理論之一致性與合理性。實務對話宜在J. Habermas所主張理想言談情境下，透過交互質問與論辯的方式進行。而若由「實務化的理論工作者」為之，將使學科發揮最大功效。經此過程，可初步形成實踐原則；然尚須經過實務的檢測，因合理性的原則必在合理性的行動之後。其次，本文對Hirst的觀點加以評析。除了揭示其論述在教育理論及其建構途徑相關問題之卓見外，還試著釐清可再補強或值得商榷之處。最後，本文建議研究者可在Hirst的觀點下，反省自身所從事的教育研究或對教育理論建構途徑的看法；並且提醒行動、對話與反省對教育實踐原則之建構而言，甚為重要。而這也意謂行動研究乃建構教育理論的一種可行途徑。

The main purpose of this article is to inquire into P. H. Hirst’s viewpoints concerning “educational theory”. First of all, the author explains contents of Hirst’s discourses in 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. No matter what era, he insists that the main function of educational theory is to guide educational practice. To achieve this end, the theory must illuminate practical principles that could be rationally justified. However, Hirst’s viewpoints about the approach to construct it in 1980s are not the same as those in 1960s and 1970s. In 1960s and 1970s, Hirst suggested that researchers should focus on a particular range of practical activities. By means of disciplines and prudent judgments, justified principles of practice could be constructed. These principles then could be used to guide practical activities. Nevertheless, he changes his thoughts in 1980s and emphasizes the importance of ‘practical discourse’ during the formation and development of educational theory. Practitioners could make use of practical discourse to examine the validity of their own action, and the coherence and rationality of their own ‘operational educational theory.’ Those who take part in practical discourse should try their best to create ‘ideal speech situation’ suggested by Habermas during the process of practical discourse. Through arguments and confrontations on questions such as truth or rightness, practical principles could be developed gradually. If practicising theoreticians play central roles in practical discourses, they will make disciplines function naturally to the construction of educational theory. In spite of this, Hirst notes that there will not be any practical principle that could be named as rational principle if it has never been tested by practice. In the second part of the article, the author tries to evaluate advantages and disadvantages of Hirst’s viewpoints. Finally, the author suggests that those who are interested in educational research may reflect their own viewpoints about educational research and the approach to construct educational theory according to Hirst’s discourses. And, he stresses that activities such as action, reflection and discourse are very important to the construction of educational theory. Therefore, action research is an appropriate way to construct educational theory.