Throughout the (albeit short) history of instructional technology, there have been several paradigm shifts. Timothy Koschmann describes a paradigm as a “compelling set of researchable questions [that] attracts a following of workers intent on pursuing those questions (1996, p. 1). He continues, a paradigm “supplies its practitioners with a set of topics, tools, methodologies, and premises.” Paradigms are never fixed—they evolve, transform, and extend through time. New paradigms are discovered and replace or coexist with older paradigms. These paradigms provide the tools and methodologies for communities of practitioners to research and use instructional technology—they have been essential in the development of instructional technology as a field of study and practice.
Koschmann describes four such paradigms: CAI, ITS, Logo-as-Latin, and CSCL, of which I will go into greater detail later. It is important to note the way in which these paradigms have evolved throughout the history of instructional technology. With an understanding of the evolution of these paradigms, one is better prepared to identify other such shifts in the future of the field—the most recent being TPACK.
Koschmann begins his analysis of paradigm shifts with the invention of the computer. The invention of the computer marks a significant shift in instructional technology—before, the field consisted of film, radio, and television; the invention of the computer brought forth extensive use of computer-based technologies in education.
Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI) was among the first of the influential instructional technology paradigms to be developed. CAI marks a paradigm in which the development of courseware building tools made it possible for individuals with backgrounds in teaching, but little experience in programming, could develop computer-based teaching aids. Koschmann describes the applications developed under this paradigm as “straight forward and practical instructional tools designed around the identified needs of the classroom” (p. 5). CAI follows a behaviorist model, identifying learning as the passive transfer of information from teacher (or application) to learner. Koschmann claims that CAI applications “utilize a strategy of identifying a specific set of learning goals, decomposing these goals into a set of simpler component tasks, and, finally, developing a sequence of activities designed to eventually lead to the achievement of the original learning objective” (p. 5). Although one of the oldest paradigms, CAI is still commonly practiced in the field of instructional technology.
Next, Koschmann identifies a shift in instructional technology as practitioners and researchers in the field of artificial intelligence migrated towards education. The Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) paradigm “is founded on the proposition that education could be globally improved by providing every student with a personal (albeit machine-based) tutor” (p. 7). CAI and ITS are similar in that they focus on the transfer of knowledge from the application to the student, but ITS emphasizes the interactivity involved. The design of intelligent tutoring systems is measured by the degree to which the application resembles interactions between a student and real tutor.
The Logo-as-Latin paradigm then emerged from the belief that knowledge is acquired through “a process of subjective construction on the part of the experiencing organism rather than a discovering of ontological reality” (p. 9). This paradigm is constructivist in nature, emphasizing the connection between prior knowledge and potential knowledge of students, and learning occurs best through student inquiry and discovery. This paradigm marks a shift in that instead of the application teaching the student, the student “teaches” the application as it is executed. The development of a program called “Logo” marked this shift, a powerful programming language in which young children learn to program, through trial and error and relying on previous knowledge.
Finally, Koschmann describes a new paradigm, termed Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL). CSCL focuses on the “use of technology as a meditational tool within collaborative methods of instruction” (p. 2). This paradigm is radically different in that it focuses on the social nature of learning and the importance of peer interaction for cognitive development (p. 13). This paradigm places a strong emphasis on the context (both social and material) within which learning occurs (p. 14). It has produced applications for use both within classrooms and across classrooms, to be used both synchronously and asynchronously (p. 16).
The latest paradigm shift that we studied is called TPACK, or “technological pedagogical content knowledge.” This paradigm describes the complex role between the main components of a learning environment: technology, pedagogy, and content. It was developed as an answer to a problem that was evident in education: technology was not properly being integrated into the classroom so as to complement the content, as well as pedagogical methods, of the class. TPACK fosters an exploration of “the connections, interactions, affordances, and constraints between and among content, pedagogy, and technology” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1025). This paradigm is radically different in that it does not simply focus on integrating a certain technology into learning (such as a computer-based application), nor does it focus on one specific pedagogical method (for example, the relationship between tutor and student, or collaborative learning model). It strives to analyze various combinations of technology, pedagogy, and content so as to produce the best fit for a particular classroom. As such, the research in TPACK largely consists of case studies, meaning that research in TPACK is context-specific.
References
Koschmann, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology. CSCL: Theory and Practice of an Emerging Paradigm. 1–23.
Mishra, P. & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record. 208(6): 1017-1054.