Paradigm Regained Article by Cronj´e

Now we are talking about the paradigm again, but it is more focus on the paradigm debate in our instructional/educational/learning technology field--the LS-ISD debate happened in Educational Technology, 2004.

The debate was originated from the discrepancy of ontological and epistemological assumptions of how human acquire knowledge, which eventually resulted in the two distinct research methodologies of understanding and designing integrating technology in teaching and learning. Although sharing the same history in the discipline, researchers who advocate two different paradigms (i.e., objectivism and constructivism) locating themselves in two departments (i.e., Ed-psy and C&I), labeling themselves in two professions (i.e., learning scientist and instructional designer) and publishing their works in different journals for a long time.

Do teaching and learning really could be separated in this absolute way in the real world? Is any of the paradigm superior than the other? Is there any possibility for a "learning event" to include both objectivism and constructivism components. 

I think the questions I raised in the previous paragraph interests many researchers in our field. Cronj´e propose a matrix model, which demonstrate the different degrees of integrations of two paradigms. He argued that instead of analyzing a learning event in "polar extremes on a continuum from externally mediated reality to internal mediated reality" (p.388) or triangular relationship purposed by other researcher, a "two dimensional, four quadrants model" could help researchers and practitioners to understand the relationship between the two paradigms.

I was confused when I read the article.

First, I was thinking of the hierarchy of a paradigm and its influences to the curriculum, teaching and learning. I know it could be a mutual relationship between the forming of the paradigm and the influences of paradigm brought to the classroom practice. Researchers of one paradigm must have different world views and assumptions, at the same time, observe the phenomenon in the field, then form their theory. From another end, the practitioners may be influenced by the fashion brought by the researcher, then change their philosophies and behavior toward curriculum, teaching, and learning. How the practitioners have multiple world views when they are teaching or designing curriculum? Is it possible to believe certain paradigm in some of the elements in a learning event and believe another in other elements. It seems like a chicken-egg-and omelet paradox.

Second, I was questioning about the extreme dichotomy of "objectivism" and "constructivism." It is too simple and arbitrary for me, especially the combination of "cognitivism and behaviorism into a single entry"(p.393) and put the constructivism in another end. Even though Cronj´e design the matrix model to explain the relationship, I still think there are too many possibilities in regards of different paradigms in the middle. For example: I'm interested in the "immersion" quadrant defined by the author, which should be low in objectivism and low in constructivism. Two examples provided by the author (the driver learn he need to alert other drivers before changing lane, and the toddler learn what is bee after he/she got sting) are not very convincing. If I were a constructivist, I would argue that in these two conditions of learning, learners could actually construct their knowledge in their mind. Although the time and the act of knowledge construction may be minimal, the influence made by this construction maybe huge, it really depends on how learners see this learning process.

Finally, I am not really convinced by the descriptions of two case studies which served as roles to modify the matrix model. Those two studies seems weak, and the research process are not transparent for the readers.