Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
TechTrends
Published in: TechTrends 5/2019

04-07-2019 | Original Paper

Navigating Paradigms in Educational Technology

Authors: Royce Kimmons, Kevin Johnstun

Published in: TechTrends | Issue 5/2019

Login to get access

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

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.
previous article Digital Transformation Challenges: a Case Study Regarding the MOOC Development and Operations at Higher Education Institutions in China
Literature
Ayers, W., Quinn, T. M., & Stovall, D. (2009). Handbook of social justice in education.New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRef
Bernstein, R. J. (1989). Pragmatism, pluralism and the healing of wounds. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 63(3), 5–18.
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.CrossRef
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluation quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
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.
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.
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.
Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRef
Farrell, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2018). Computational modeling of cognition and behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Feyerabend, P. K. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London: Verso.
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.
Goodlad, J. I., Mantle-Bromley, C., & Goodlad, S. J. (2004). Education for everyone: Agenda for education in a democracy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.CrossRef
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.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Marsden, G. M. (1997). The outrageous idea of Christian scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
Mertens, D. M. (2004). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Schwartz, J. E. (1997). Christians teaching in the public schools: What are some options? Christian Scholars Review, 26, 293–305.
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.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
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.
Willingham, D. T. (2012). When can you trust the experts?: How to tell good science from bad in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.
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.
Yanchar, S., & Williams, D. (2006). Reconsidering the compatibility thesis and eclecticism: Five proposed guidelines for method use. Educational Researcher, 35(9), 3–12.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Navigating Paradigms in Educational Technology
Authors
Royce Kimmons
Kevin Johnstun
Publication date
04-07-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
TechTrends / Issue 5/2019
Print ISSN: 8756-3894
Electronic ISSN: 1559-7075
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00407-0

Other articles of this Issue 5/2019

TechTrends 5/2019 Go to the issue

Column: Editor’s Notes

Introducing the September 2019 Issue

Original Paper

Patterns in Faculty Learning Management System Use

Column: ICT International

Learning, Design, and Technology in South Korea: a Report on the AECT- Korean Society for Educational Technology (KSET) Panel Discussion

Original Paper

Impact of Bridging Strategy and Feeling of Knowing Judgments on Reading Comprehension Using COMPRENDE: an Educational Technology

Original Paper

Comparing Instructional Event Sequences in Audio Podcasts with Low Versus High User Satisfaction

Correction

Correction to: Is the Maker Movement Inclusive of ANYONE?: Three Accessibility Considerations to Invite Blind Makers to the Making World

Premium Partner

    Image Credits