Advertisement

TechTrends

, Volume 63, Issue 5, pp 631–641 | Cite as

Navigating Paradigms in Educational Technology

  • Royce KimmonsEmail author
  • Kevin Johnstun
Original Paper

Abstract

Paradigmatic pluralism in educational technology is a largely unaddressed reality, and we have heretofore not provided guidance to professionals on how to navigate it. Pushing back against mainstream views of scientific progress (e.g., linear, progressive), we must recognize the processes by which paradigms are born, adopted, and rejected and that paradigmatic pluralism reflects deep-seated diversity of ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions among our professionals. As a result, our professionals must develop strategies to navigate pluralism, which will be determined by their stance on at least two core issues: (1) Monism vs. Pluralism and (2) Commensurability vs. Incommensurability. We propose that our stances on these issues organize us into four navigation techniques: Specialists, Evangelists, Opportunists, and Multihyphenates. Each technique has benefits and limitations, but we argue that the Multihyphenate technique is the most valuable for the field insofar as it values pluralism, demands rigor, and embraces the contradicting realities that pluralism implies.

Keywords

Paradigms Methodological pluralism Incommensurability Mixed methods 

Notes

References

  1. Ayers, W., Quinn, T. M., & Stovall, D. (2009). Handbook of social justice in education.New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernstein, R. J. (1989). Pragmatism, pluralism and the healing of wounds. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 63(3), 5–18.Google Scholar
  3. Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Center for Innovative Research in Cyber Learning. (2019). “Call for papers: Learning in and for collective social action.” Retrieved from https://circlcenter.org/jls-special-issue-learning-in-and-for-collective-social-action/. Accessed 20 June 2019
  5. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluation quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.Google Scholar
  6. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Education, equity, and the right to learn. In J. I. Goodlad & T. J. McMannon (Eds.), The public purpose of education and schooling. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Darwin, C. (1859). The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  8. Daston, L. (2016). History of science without Structure. In R. J. Richards & L. Daston (Eds.), Kuhn's 'Structure of scientific revolutions' at fifty : Reflections on a science classic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Farrell, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2018). Computational modeling of cognition and behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Feyerabend, P. K. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  12. Galison, P. (2016). Practice all the way down. In R. J. Richards & L. Daston (Eds.), Kuhn's 'Structure of scientific revolutions' at fifty : Reflections on a science classic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Goodlad, J. I., Mantle-Bromley, C., & Goodlad, S. J. (2004). Education for everyone: Agenda for education in a democracy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  14. Hacking, I. (2016). Paradigms. In R. J. Richards & L. Daston (Eds.), Kuhn's 'Structure of scientific revolutions' at fifty : Reflections on a science classic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kimmons, R., & Hall, C. (2016). Emerging technology integration models. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applications. Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kimmons, R., & Hall, C. (2017). How useful are our models? Pre-service and practicing teacher evaluations of technology integration models. Tech Trends, 62, 29–36.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-017-0227-8.
  18. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lakatos, I. (1978). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos, J. Worrall, & G. Currie (Eds.), The methodology of scientific research programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marsden, G. M. (1997). The outrageous idea of Christian scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mclaren, P., & Farahmandpur, R. (2002). Breaking signifying chains: A Marxist position on postmodernism. In D. Hill, P. McLaren, M. Cole, & G. Rikowski (Eds.), Marxism against postmodernism in educational theory. Oxford: Lexington.Google Scholar
  22. McLaren, P., Hill, D., Cole, M., & Rikowski, G. (2002). Postmodernism adieu: Toward a politics of human resistance. In D. Hill, P. McLaren, M. Cole, & G. Rikowski (Eds.), Marxism against postmodernism in educational theory. Oxford: Lexington.Google Scholar
  23. Mertens, D. M. (2004). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Rieber, L. (1998). The proper way to become an instructional technologist. In R. E. West (Ed.), Foundations of learning and instructional design technology. EdTech Books Retrieved from http://edtechbooks.org/lidtfoundations/proper_way. Accessed 20 June 2019
  25. Schwartz, J. E. (1997). Christians teaching in the public schools: What are some options? Christian Scholars Review, 26, 293–305.Google Scholar
  26. Soder, R. (1997). Democracy: Do we really want it? In J. I. Goodlad & T. J. McMannon (Eds.), The public purpose of education and schooling. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  27. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012). Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 166–189.Google Scholar
  29. Willingham, D. T. (2012). When can you trust the experts?: How to tell good science from bad in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.Google Scholar
  30. Willingham, D. (2019). Politics’ uneasy bedfellow. Daniel Willingham – Science & Education Retrieved from http://www.danielwillingham.com/daniel-willingham-science-and-education-blog/politics-uneasy-bedfellow. Accessed 20 June 2019
  31. Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: Interpretive and critical approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wise, M. N. (2016). A smoker’s paradigm. In R. J. Richards & L. Daston (Eds.), Kuhn's 'Structure of scientific revolutions' at fifty : Reflections on a science classic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Yanchar, S., & Williams, D. (2006). Reconsidering the compatibility thesis and eclecticism: Five proposed guidelines for method use. Educational Researcher, 35(9), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations