| |
Kemmis et
al present three or four (see below) paradigms, which they say are for
thinking about the key ways in which 'curriculum task' can be conceived
of by educational software developers (computer assisted learning developers
as they referred to them).
The three
or four paradigms are:
- The
Instructional Paradigm
- based on Skinerian/behaviourist theory and epitomised by drill-and-practice
programs.
- The
Revelatory Paradigm
- based on theorists such as Bruner (and Ausubel) and including simulation
and some data-handling programs.
- The
Conjectural Paradigm
- based on constructivist theories (Piaget, Popper, Papert) and including
"modelling and Artificial Intelligence packages and for computer
science applications" (Kemmis
et al 1977 p26)
- The
Emancipatory Paradigm
- is qualitatively different to the first three paradigms in that (a)
it cuts across them rather than being discrete and (b) it deals with
the degree to which student 'labour' is authentic rather than inauthentic.
|
| |
The
framework as a whole
Kemmis
et al identify that the Educational Paradigms for CAL that they present
are inventions that are designed to help people to see how computer assisted
learning (CAL) maps onto educational theory and practice. Their framework
consists of three paradigms, which by definition should be mutually exclusive
(otherwise they cannot be paradigms). They then present a fourth paradigm,
which they acknowledge is not really a paradigm at all in that it can
be superimposed upon their first three paradigms.
They seem
to suggest that the focus of their framework is to provide ways of thinking
about 'the curriculum tasks' that CAL developers face. This implies that
the framework is directed towards categorising software. However, Kemmis
et al explicitly state that the way in which computers are used (ie software
is embedded/implemented) in a learning context can undermine the intentions
of the developer. They provides examples to illustrate this point for
each of their paradigms. Two other problems that they identify with using
computers to support learning are:
- the amount
of effort that students may have to spend in learning how to use a program
('tool') in order to use it to support their learning;
- the danger
that students' thinking about a problem may be limited by the way in
which it is presented/framed within the software.
The
Instructional Paradigm
"In general, the instructional paradigm involves the belief that the knowledge
students need to acquire can be specified in language and learned by the
transmission and reception of verbal messages." (Kemmis
et al 1977 p24)
- Key
concept: Mastery
of content.
- Relevant
theory/theorists: Skinerian
theory.
- Curriculum
emphasis: Subject
matter as the object of learning.
- Educational
means: Rationalisation
of instruction, especially in terms of sequencing, presentation and
feedback reinforcement.
- Role
of the computer: Presentation
of content, task prescription, student motivation through fast feedback.
- Assumptions:
Conventional
body of subject matter with articulated structure; articulated hierachy
of tasks, behaviouristic learning theory.
- Idealisation/Caricature:
At
best, the computer is seen as a patient tutor; at worst it is seen as
a page turner.
- Software
'types': Drill-and-practice.
(Adapted
from Kemmis et al
1977 p25)
The
Revelatory Paradigm
"Typically the view of learning emphasises closing the gap between the
structure of the student's knowledge and the structure of the discipline
he is trying to master." (Kemmis
et al 1977 p25)
- Key
concept: Discovery,
intuition, getting a 'feel' for ideas in the field, etc..
- Relevant
theory/theorists: Bruner
(the spiral curriculum) and perhaps Ausubel (subsumption theory).
- Curriculum
emphasis: The
student as the subject of education.
- Educational
means: Provision
of opportunities for discovery and vicarious experience.
- Role
of the computer: Simulation
or information-handling.
- Assumptions:
(Hidden)
model of significant concepts and knowledge structure; theory of learning
by discovery.
- Idealisation/Caricature:
At
best, the computer is seen as creating a rich learning environment at
worst it makes a 'black box' of the significant learnings.
- Software
'types': Simulation
and some kinds of data-handling programs.
(Adapted
from Kemmis et al
1977 p26)
The
Conjectural Paradigm
"People who operate within this paradigm tend towards the view that knowledge
is created through experience and evolves as a psychological and social
process." (Kemmis
et al 1977 p26)
- Key
concept: Articulation
and manipulation of ideas and hypothesis-testing.
- Relevant
theory/theorists: Piaget,
Popper, Papert.
- Curriculum
emphasis: Understanding,
'active' knowledge.
- Educational
means: Manipulation
of student inputs, finding metaphors and model building.
- Role
of the computer: Manipulable
space/field/'scratch pad'/language, for creating or articulating models,
programs, plans or conceptual structures.
- Assumptions:
Problem-oriented
theory of knowledge, general conginitive theory.
- Idealisation/Caricature:
At
best, the computer is seen as a tool or educational medium (in the sense
of milieu, not 'communications medium'); at worst, as an expensive toy.
- Software
'types': Modelling,
Artificial Intelligence packages and computer science applications.
(Adapted
from Kemmis et al
1977 p27)
The
Emancipatory Paradigm
(or 'Learning, Labour and Emancipation - a fourth paradigm?')
Kemmis
et al identify that you can think of students' work as 'labour' and can
look at how CAL can reduce their effort (ie how it can be used as a labour
saving device). In doing this you need to identify what counts as authentic
labour (ie valued learning) and what counts as inauthentic labour (ie
effort that is expended on activities which may be necessary in order
to engage with authentic labour, but are not of educational value in their
own right). They claim that CAL can enhance authentic labour and/or reduce
inauthentic labour and state that the first three paradigms "are generally
compatible with the idea of enhancing the authenticity of student labour."
(Kemmis et al 1977
p28)
- Key
concept:
the notion of reducing the inauthenticity of student labour.
- Curriculum
emphasis and Educational means:
derived from the primary paradigm with which it is associated - for
it never appears in isolation except as 'an impulse to curriculum reform'.
- Role
of the computer:
calculation, graph-plotting, tabulation or other information handling.
(Adapted
from Kemmis et al
1977 p29)
|
| |
It is important
to bear in mind that this framework was developed in the late 1970s and
that the field of educational technology has moved on considerably since
then. However, the focus of the framework on underpinning learning theory
insulates it to some degree from this rapid rate of technologoical change.
My prime
reservation about this framework is the degree to which it helps us in
practice. I think it is too loosely defined to enable useful comparison
of the educational practice surrounding computer use across contexts.
For example, there seems to me to be significant overlap between the definitions
of the Conjectural and Revelatory Paradigms. In addition, and despite
the fact that Kemmis et al specifically acknowledge that this is a problem,
their framework attempts to define roles that certain types of software
fit into without taking into account the actual practice surrounding that
software's use. In essence their framework appears to deal with the idealised
view (or perhaps just the software developer's view) of how the software
will be used. This ignores too much of the picture if one is interested
in looking at the impact of computer use on educational practice.
It would
be interesting to hear your views on and/or
experiences of using Kemmis et al's Educational Paradigms for CAL (or
on my reporting of it) - why not email
me (PeterT@meD8.info)?
|
Frameworks 