Models and Paradigms in Kuhn and Halloun |
| |
| Authors: | Paul Joseph Wendel |
| |
| Institution: | (1) Curriculum & Instruction, Kent State University, 410 White Hall, Kent, OH 44242, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | In Modeling Theory in Science Education, Halloun (2004) adopts the word ‘paradigm’, but his use of the term is radically different from that of Kuhn. In this paper,
I explore some of the differences between Kuhn’s paradigms and Halloun’s paradigms. Where Kuhn’s paradigms are public, community-defining
exemplars of practice, Halloun’s paradigms are private, individualized ways of thinking. Where Kuhn writes of the paradigm
shift as a revolutionary, vision-altering conversion experience, Halloun writes of a gradual evolution from one way of thinking
to another and an easy back-and-forth switch between paradigms. Since Kuhn’s paradigms are self-enclosed and incommensurable,
there is no objective standard by which one paradigm can be shown to be superior to the other. But Halloun uses ‘viability’
as a standard for paradigm choice. Underlying all of this is the more basic question of whether the history of science is
an appropriate metaphor for student progress in the classroom. I conclude with some brief thoughts on this question. |
| |
| Keywords: | paradigm Kuhn Science Education Research modeling models |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ |
|
