Paradigms

The concept of paradigm within curriculum studies, shaped by Thomas Kuhn's influential work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, means a unifying theoretical framework of an academic discipline as well as a worldview. Paradigm shift occurs during times of great intellectual transformation as one paradigm is rejected and replaced by another, this usually taking place over a length of time as the original model becomes untenable in view of disciplinary discoveries and societal changes. Identification of paradigms allows scholars to make sense of their fields, to clarify and create new research questions, and to guide their methods and analyses.

In the field of curriculum studies, paradigms comprise assumptions about learning and teaching, the nature of reality, knowledge, intelligence, inquiry, discourse, the naming of problems and approaches to problem solving, and social and political values. Unlike some academic fields that sanction only one paradigm until another one evolves and wins acceptance, several paradigms have existed simultaneously within curriculum studies; thus, although paradigm development may signify a revolutionary change in thinking, a new paradigm may not replace an existing one. Adherents of a particular paradigm have developed their identities as curricular theorists and researchers from its worldview, characterizing their held beliefs and values in contrast to others and creating among themselves discourse communities. Whereas paradigmatic conflicts create deep divisions within the field, they also serve as catalysts for vigorous dialogue, ensuring that no one curricular world-view dominates without critique.

Over time, a number of paradigmatic dichotomies and trichotomies have been articulated and invoked within curriculum studies. Such classifications encompass worldviews demarcated by philosophical orientations, cultural traditions, approaches to inquiry, and to curricular development and enactment. Curriculum theorist William Doll, in A Post-Modern Perspective on Curriculum, delineated three paradigms (premodern, modern, and postmodern) that characterize major differences that serve as a frame of reference for understanding other identified paradigms within the history and contemporary field of curriculum studies.

The premodern paradigm, emanating from ancient Greek philosophy, sets forth an ideal of order, symmetry, balance, and harmony. The conception of a just and ordered society underlying the early forms of this paradigm presents a conservative worldview of static knowledge and societal hierarchy in which individuals know their place in the social order; however, later incarnations focus on democratic principles and visions. In this paradigm, education consists of striving to learn essential and eternal truths and principles for living out how one lives in the world. Elements of the premodern paradigm are represented in the liberal education tradition although, paradoxically, aspects of this paradigm are found in indigenous worldviews that accentuate harmonious relationships, balance, and respect for elders and their [Page 630]knowledge. The goal of curriculum studies in this paradigm is the attainment of balance through offering a course of study that aims to create well-rounded, wise individuals. Moreover, educators are paramount in the process of initiating learners into traditions of knowledge and beliefs.

The modern paradigm, often viewed as the dominant paradigm of 20th-century European American education, emanates from Enlightenment philosophy that emphasizes an individualistic, mechanistic, and progress-driven worldview, control and domination of the environment, competition, and directly perceived reality. This paradigm's themes include efficiency, linearity, rationalism, empiricism, scientific method, measured outcomes, and standardization. Descriptions of the modern paradigm focus on an engineered, goal-driven, and segmented disciplinary curriculum, at times portraying students as raw material shaped into products for the benefit of society and industry. At its zenith in the early 20th century, this paradigm included Franklin Bobbitt's industry-inspired notion of social efficiency and scientific management of curriculum to provide what appropriate education to students according to their social classes and apparent abilities. Later, in the mid-20th century, the curriculum-planning model formulated by Ralph Tyler became the dominant way of viewing the curriculum field. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, this has been expressed as the standardized management paradigm with its emphasis on teaching to meet state and national standards. In this paradigm, the role of educators is to deliver the curriculum and to provide the right experiences so that the prescribed goalscreated by others outside of the classroomare met.

...