Mapping the educational paradigm shift...
In 1995, Robert B. Barr and John Tagg described what they felt was a paradigm shift happening in universities; a shift from what they called the instruction paradigm to the learning paradigm (Change Magazine. Vol. 27. No. 6). However, in the 11 years since that article, the learning paradigm still seems to be forever "stuck on the horizon." Postsecondary instructors who buy into student centered learning are still "radicals" on campus in many locations. Were Barr and Tagg wrong?
Yes and no. Yes, Barr and Tagg were correct in that some instructors were beginning to understand instructional methods in a different way. But in terms of this meaning the dawn of a new age in higher education, Barr and Tagg were not correct. In fact, the "learning paradigm" is not a new idea at all. The concepts they list with their "learning paradigm" go back to such educational theorists such as Dewey, Freire, and even Rousseau. What is most premature, however, is the usage of the term "paradigm." What Barr and Tagg were describing was/is a framework of teaching philosophies, not a "paradigm."
If we want to talk about paradigms in the strict sense of the word, we have to return to what Thomas Kuhn meant when he wrote The Structures of Scientific Revolution.
A paradigm shift is described as not just a new way of doing things, but a totally new worldview that has been forced by an accumulation of anomalies that have thrown the traditional structure of knowledge into crisis.
As it stands, the theoretical foundations of higher education have not been thrown into question to the extent that it would warrant or even evidence a paradigm shift.
If we are to follow what Kuhn described as a paradigm shift, we would go through these phases:
1. The emergence of anomalies. The sorts of things that cannot be explained or fixed using the old system. Currently, most of the problems seen by instructors in universities are understood and resolved using the existing norms. For instance, in the 1990s English departments faced a crisis brought on by post-modernism...that was...what to teach? The solution that saved many programs and indeed the discipline as a whole was to "teach the conflicts." In this example, the problem was dealt with by simply changing the content provided in a class. Instructors still taught the same way. The only thing that had changed was the lecture notes they used.
2. After a buildup of significant anomalies, the discipline is thrown into a crisis. While universities are certainly facing an external crisis, this does not seem to qualify as a crisis that would imply a paradigm shift was inevitable. What would need to happen would be an internal crisis. That is, a crisis that was not caused by external factors such as funding being cut but rather a crisis that was brought on by deep divisions amongst those within academia over what their mission is and how to best do it.
3. of course, if the anomalies are rejected by enough people, a new paradigm is formed which is then placed on the intellectual battlefield with the leftovers from the old paradigm.
In mapping the educational paradigm, if it even exists, we still seem to be stuck at stage 1. There are problems, but few seem to be able to agree on exactly what they are and even fewer (excluding myself, of course) see the solution as a wholesale change from how things were done before. The solution currently is to still try to fix things using the tools we already have. While I would agree that there are debates over how to teach, they have not reached the magnitude needed to constitute a true intellectual "battle" over what is really going on.
The anomalies exist presently (such as the evidence that lectures are woefully inadequate at producing learning) but are not seen through the revolutionary lens. People read that lectures are ineffective, and consequently go out to find ways to make their lectures more effective. The true educational revolutionary would see this and instead of trying to improve the lecture, simply do away with it.
This is a minor thing, though. A true educational paradigm shift would have to happen top down and involve a deep and meaningful realignment of educational theories and philosophies when it comes to postsecondary education. This, as far as I can see, has not happened and is not close to happening.
I don't mean to be gloomy, but I don't think we should be so naive when we talk of changing education. It can happen, but it needs to be nudged a little stronger than it is being nudged right now. It is not enough just to teach in a different way, you have to fight for that belief that caused you to change your methods in the first place.