Terry S. Toney

Kuhn, T.S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago.

I cannot fault the reasoning behind Thomas Kuhn's book- The Structure of Scientific Revolution. It is easy to see how paradigms structure scientific and even social activities. It is also easy to extrapolate how they have the such an unseen, but enormous ability to blind us and lead us without our knowledge away from explorations and discoveries. Historical data that Kuhn offers in his book seems to back this idea up. In what I call pre-scientific history there were always several schools of thought on even the most basic scientific inquiries, with each school exploring and making inferences that they felt were valid and logical. This division of thought would continue until one school of thought became overwhelmingly more popular or more palatable than the others. Eventually the other schools of thought on that particular subject were rendered useless and trite.

This set up the beginning of a paradigm, according to Kuhn. The advent of a paradigm led to a more rigid structuring of that scientific field. Paradigms provided an infrastructure to train other scientists in the way this particular new paradigm worked. Paradigms are attractive because they are mutually exclusive and provide a structure that heretofore was unavailable around which to build and focus scientific knowledge. Even literature can be effected by a paradigm. Paradigms encourage a switch from general literature about a subject to the advent of more formal, scholarly tomes and journals whose audience is not the average man, but someone who was raised and trained in that particular paradigm's structure.

Paradigms may sound like they are bad and should be avoided at all costs, but there are reasons why paradigms are so attractive to people. It is easy to see how the acceptance of a paradigm managed to make, in some situations, scientific study more efficient. A paradigm meant that scientists no longer had to reinvent certain "basic" principles when they desired to study a particular field. These "basics" had already been addressed and the parameters of logic concerning that field of study were already in place. The scientist was then "free" to extend his study into more advanced areas. Areas that already matched the stated dynamics of the paradigm of his field of interest. Indeed, according to Kuhn's book, the acquisition of a paradigm and it's related structure could be considered a "sign of maturity" in any given scientific field.

As a future educational technology professional, the idea of a paradigm that Kuhn expounded on are of particular interest to me. In my opinion, there is no paradigm more enduring or strictly adhered to as the paradigms of American elementary and secondary education. Technology in the classroom , depending upon the proponent questioned, can be either an exciting new addition to the educational arsenal or a threat to the basic premises of education as we perceive it.

As a futurist, I feel that technology should be viewed as a natural extension of the textbook, pencil and spiral bound notebook. It should at once be both stimulating and common. It should be viewed to student, parent, administrator and teacher alike as a necessary classroom tool in the same way the blackboard or a desk is viewed.

Unfortunately, I must admit that educational technology usage is not seen as a natural and logical extension in current curricula. Nationwide there is an under utilization of technology in the classroom. Why is this happening? Why is there, for want of a better analogy, a sort of passive-aggressive defensiveness concerning technology usage in the classroom ?

Perhaps the answer lies in Thomas Kuhn's definition of a paradigm and it's role in governing and structuring thought. The enduring educational paradigms that have been in place for more than a hundred years now are not difficult to identify but they are difficult to overcome. Revolutions to established paradigms are always difficult, but to reform education, to revolutionize those paradigms that have been in place for so long have proven to be almost impossible to accomplish in the past.

I cannot imagine anywhere in our society that paradigms are so entrenched and enduring as the ones that are in our educational system. The educational paradigm is perhaps so firmly entrenched in the minds of both teachers, administrators and the public because the influence of educational paradigms are begun much earlier than most other paradigms. Paradigms normally become entrenched in a person's or group's mind near or at adulthood, when they begin formal study in a particular field. This is not true of educational paradigms.

Whenever a kindergartner enters his classroom for the first time, he is exposed and begins to absorb the paradigms that education is famous for. He must learn to sit and concentrate for long periods of time and even social time is structured to enhance his attention level and his conformity to classroom rules and behavior. Students are indoctrinated to the educational paradigm at the tender ages of five or six years of age. Their exposure to the idea that education should be based. upon being seated quietly and working endlessly with pencil, paper or crayon to prove mastery of concepts becomes entrenched in their psyches at an exceptionally early age.

The parameters of educational paradigms are strict, in certain cases unyielding and can be easily identified by anyone who has spent any time in a classroom. For other specialties, the indoctrination to a paradigm comes later and although it undoubtably can be extremely influencing on the paradigm members, none have the years of emphasis and exposure that an educational paradigm has over its members.

Is it any wonder then that educational paradigms are so entrenched in the hearts and minds of administrators, teachers and even parents and students? Most people would be at a loss to describe the typical day or type of work of a practicing physicist, but ask anyone what a "typical" teacher's day is like and their replies probably would be alarmingly similar. Kuhn mentions in his book that a paradigm restricts free thinking and exploration. I feel that this unprecedented early and enduring exposure to what Kuhn calls a paradigm restricts the types and frequency of "educational revolutions" to a much higher degree than in any other specialty or field of study.

When an existing paradigm breaks down, Kuhn calls this a "revolution". These "revolutions" occur because there is a sufficiently large number of followers who feel comfortable enough to switch from the accepted paradigm to the new idea or in Kuhn's vocabulary, the new paradigm. This is one of the ideas that Kuhn espouses that gives me hope concerning the future of American elementary and secondary education.

Kuhn states in Part Three of his book that in the development of a natural science, when a group first produces a synthesis that is more attractive to the next generation's practitioners, older schools of thought eventually disappear. Anyone who has spent time in any teacher's lounge will agree with this. Many older teachers, inflexible in their advanced years in education and well padded and insulated within their educational paradigms, refuse to support or fully utilize technology in the classroom. Imagine the high school English teacher who feels that a student who completes a rough draft for an essay on a computer, rather than with pencil and paper, is "cheating".

This is somewhat a touchy point for me, since with fifteen years of teaching experience, I am now considered one of the "older" teachers. Even I find myself seeking comfort in the strictures and guidelines of our educational paradigms more often than when I was younger. It is a constant struggle to think "outside the box". I find Kuhn's analogy of how new paradigms take over encouraging though. Universities and colleges are doing their part to prepare new teachers to utilize technology as just another weapon in their arsenal against illiteracy. When it is accepted in that way, rather than simply a new strategy that is being pushed along to "redesign" education, there is a much better chance that technology will truly become a "revolution" in the classroom.

Throughout the years, there has been much hype placed on "reinventing", "redesigning" "reforming" and "revolutionizing" education in America. None of it, to my knowledge, ever seemed to work very well. I think Kuhn hinted at why educational reform has never worked. Kuhn stated early in his book that "scientific revolutions" are seldom an increment or an adjustment to an already accepted practice. A revolution intrinsically means that prior facts and pedagogy must be completely reexamined and reconstructed. This is by nature a long, complex task and rarely if ever completed by one person or group in a short period of time. Ideally, a revolution's starting point and even ending point, as I understand it, should be difficult to determine.

In education, quick fixes to perceived flaws have always been the norm. One person or a group suddenly vocalize a new technique or curricula. It is then hailed immediately as a savior to all of education's woes and the idea is snatched up at the highest levels and shoved willy-nilly into classrooms across the nation. In a few years, another new pedagogy is hailed as an answer and the process begins anew. Since these "new" ideas are actually nothing but incremental changes and adjustments to already perceived paradigms, no educational reform or revolution has actually ever occurred. There is little doubt that hastily mandated teaching techniques do not work. Educational revolutions have not occurred, just minor shifts in the educational paradigms.

I think technology in the classroom will eventually be hailed as a true educational reform. Technology coordinators are spending vast amounts of time and vast amounts of federal dollars to place technology in the classroom. Colleges and universities are providing instruction in teacher education classes on the benefits and pitfalls of classroom technology. Ideas and thoughts are changing slowly. Certainly, younger teaching practitioners are finding ways to use classroom technology efficiently, while the older teachers who are uncomfortable with the new paradigm shifts still sit in the teacher's lounge and count the days until retirement.

But perhaps the most telling and persuasive argument I can offer for suggesting that technology in the classroom is truly starting a revolution harks back to that kindergartner I mentioned previously. His early indoctrination to the influences of the educational paradigm is still occurring, however, now, along with the sitting still, completing worksheets and learning his alphabet, he can look forward to a classroom with Internet hookups, virtual field trips and the use of technology that is as integrated and useful as a pencil or crayon. This encourages me that we are truly revolutionizing education with the use of technology. It is both gratifying and terrifying to be at the edge of an educational paradigm shift but as an Educational Technology student planning on assuming a leadership role in the near future, as uncomfortable as it feels, this is exactly where I need to be.

Although I cannot honestly say that I enjoyed reading Kuhn, I can honestly say that until reading his works, I had never been able to pinpoint why so-called educational reforms always seemed fail in the long run. Kuhn's explanation of paradigms and their influence on our culture helped me focus in on specific reasons why education in particular is so very resistant to change. It also helped me realize why past "educational reform measures" were never really reform measures at all and as such, were doomed to failure at the very onset.