Exactly, Colin.  And taking it one step further, it also has to do with what we believe schooling (as opposed to learning or education) is for.  I work with teachers whose belief is that schooling is for creating employability, teachers whose belief is that schooling is for building a moral value base, teachers whose belief is that schooling is for facilitating independent learning, and teachers whose belief is that schooling is for babysitting. These teachers are making VERY different decisions about their instruction.  My first task in any PD effort is to have my teachers clarify what they believe the purpose of Children Attending School really is.  The answers can be very surprising, and I cannot tell you how often these teachers find their core beliefs are not what they originally report.

Dear Anthony,

I prefer to refer you to Eliot Eisner's discussion on curriculum ideologies in the book titled "The Educational Imagination."

I am well acquainted with the ways in which one's paradigm orientation impacts their understanding of, as well as use of (and acceptance of) different types of information as data.  The classic quantitative/qualitative divide falls into that situation.  I can make a few guesses as to how that process might impact decision making related to instruction.  But I suspect I need to know more about what you consider to be the relevant paradigms informing instructional orientation to have anything meaningful to share.

Dear Anthony,

In my experience, there is definitely connect between paradigm and understanding. I request you to share the context which triggered this question

Regards

Geetha

Hi Geetha

The context is obviously education. These notions are extensively used but sometimes erroneously interchanged. Th e question has been posed in the context of education. Thanks

Elliot W. Eisner's book the Educational Imagination has a chapter on curriculum ideologies that is useful source on this question. Also see Michael S. Schiro's text Curriculum Theory (Sage), which is organized around 4 primary curriculum ideologies. Also see Joel Spring's book How Educational Ideologies Are Shaping Global Society

Tony,

If I am understanding the question right, aims goals and objectives are used in most instances as if there is concensus of what these should be. I don't think so making your big question very relevant. This has been the position of curriculum theorist like Michael Apple (I would recommend his book Official knowledge (2000) that the question of what education should aim for is  hugely contested. Depending on the idiological paradigm of a person/group, he would define aims, goals and objectives differently. For instance a social efficiencist aims for children to fit society' labor enterprise and so their goal would be for schools to equip students with employable skills. Hence the curricular objectives would emphasize specialized psychomotor skills, following procedure, punctuality etc. A social reconstructionist hopes for the opposite of these because their aim is to change society. Theeir goal here would be encouraging activism, social justice, resistance and critical thinking.

One more useful resource is Herbert Kliebard's (2004) The struggle for the American curriculum. 

Sorry for being wordy here but I hope it helps!

Best wishes!

Athony,

I am assuming that by one's pragmatic orientation in education you are referring to pragmatism's epistemology and the methodologies used in teaching a pragmatic curriculum. Furthermore, depending on one's view of pragmatisms epistemology and methodologies what would the effect be on curricular discourse and explain the difference. Yes, let me explain; 

Pragmatism's claim we live in a model(s), and humans through habit solve real world problem in construct knowledge, (where do these models originate? pragmatism never answers) C.S. Peirce claimed "knowledge is habit" and J. Dewey another pragmatist stated that "know with you habits not your conscious" therefore, knowledge is based on representations by models we don't know the point of origin is for the purpose on problem solving.

Pragmatism's educational system is be based in active learning as a way of forming good habits in order to "keep up" with continuing model changes. Students will be taught good habits in the scientific method and through trial and error and action creates knowledge. The school itself acts as a processing plant for L2 learners Otieva describes, "pragmatic oriented process is based on assimilation and adaptation through improving their mastery of discursive strategies.

My view of epistemology I can assure you is very different than pragmatism's and from this nonagreement my educational aim differs;from teaching good habits-real world problem solving-by the scienific method-through trial and error- gathering emperical evedence-combinding with old knowledge-in creating new representational knowledge of an external world existing beyond the point of origin of models which as Peirce argues means nothing.

I have a very different orientation which is based in my philosophy of humanity as interdependency-interconnectivity-equiety before equality-one race the human race-lone culture with many differences but the human culture-love of humanity (in the Frommian sense)-and love of and for mother earth.

This translates to differances in every possible notion of a pragmaticeducation and my arguements in curriculum discourse.

In solidarity

Douglas

Douglas,

Sorry but the question is not on pragmatic orientation but rather on paradigmatic orientation. Thanks 

I may be unaware of some definion of paradigmatic orientation here but I am taking it at face value, ie the general meaning of the words rather than some strict academic meaning. If I am wrong, please forgive me.

The relationship between paradigmatic orientation and the other mentioned aspects of discourse is profound. How can it not be? I work a lot in the field of student discipline and here the impact of paradigmatic orientation on linguistics and other aspects of discourse is very clear. Those who come from a belief system where students are 'naughty' and need behaviour modification, talk and construct meaning one way, while thoe (like me) who believe that behaviour is functional and therefore students can be helped to reframe their behaviours, speak, think and construct meaning entirely differently.

In curriculum in Queensland Australia, the last science syllabus was based on a set of beliefs about constructivism and humanism (I was one of th writers) and the syllabus contained language that reflected that. Also the syllabus structure itself was reflective of the beliefs. Our current syllabus, while purporting to be based on similar beliefs, contains language that hints more at compliance and control which is evident in the very structure of the syllabus.

Anthony,

I do apologise for my misreading of  the word paradigmatic and substituded pragmatism.

However, I would like to point out pragmatism is a paradigm (see Morgan, L. D. 2014 Pragmatism as a Paradigm in Social Science  2014). Also articles by Johnson, Gage and Chamaz..

Critical Theory as well (see Dash, K. N. 2005, Module; Selection of Research Paradigm and Methodology) Also articles by Guba, Kincheloe, and Denzin.

I belive by using, as an example pragmatism, as a paradigm example and my use of Critical Theory (while not being mentioned) as my orientation demonstrates how the difference in your listed terms.

Again apologises to all who read my first responce

Douglas

Anthony,

I am assuming that by one's paradigmatic orientation (I will use pragmatism as an  example of a paradigm) in education you are referring to the pragmatisms epistemology and the methodologies used in teaching from a pragmatic curriculum. Furthermore, depending on one's view of pragmatisms epistemology and methodologies what would the effect be on curricular discourse and explain the differences in your listed terms. Yes, let me explain;

In the paradigm of pragmatism the knowledge claim is we live in a model(s), and humans through habit solve real world problem in constructing knowledge, (where do these models originate? pragmatism never answers) C.S. Peirce claimed "knowledge is habit" and J. Dewey another pragmatist stated that "know with you habits not your conscious" therefore, knowledge is based on representations by models we don't know the point of origin is for the purpose on problem solving.

Pragmatism's educational system is be based in active learning as a way of forming good habits in order to "keep up" with continuing model changes. Students will be taught good habits in the scientific method and through trial and error and action creates pragmatisms representational knowledge. The school itself acts as a processing plant for L2 learners. Otieva describes, "pragmatic oriented process is based on assimilation and adaptation through improving their mastery of discursive strategies.

I can assure you my  epistemology is very different than pragmatism's and from this nonagreement my educational aim differs; from teaching good habits-real world problem solving-by the scientific method-through trial and error- gathering empirical-evidence-combining with old knowledge-in creating new representational knowledge of an external world existing beyond the point of origin of models which as Peirce argues means nothing.

The paradigm of Critical Theories view on an epistemology  is through hermeneutics to creates new knowledge of one place in both the natural world and in the social hierarchy. Teachers would be using a critical social justice emanciptory curriculum aimed at educatiing for a critical consciousness and love of humanity in the Frommian sense of love.  

This translates to differences in every possible notion of education in the paradigm of pragmatic education and my arguments agents in curriculum discourse.

In solidarity

Douglas

I believe that the knowledges was constructed by every one based on his/her experiences  through  learning processed, So The experience itself will form the concept, the formulation of views to create ideas. The orientation of one's in term of educational paradigma will be created and influence the goals

Here is a practical example of different educational paradigms:

Traditional college students conceptualize that they are learning in order to apply the knowledge in the future.  Non-traditional learners (older people returning to school) are learning in order to apply the knowledge immediately.

So here are two groups that clearly have different educational goals and objectives that will affect their discourse.

There is much more to this question than just one’s belief’s regarding teaching, learning, and instruction. A paradigm must first be developed based on the child’s needs. Personal beliefs should not come into play here. All educational goals, aims, and objectives are to be based on how a child learns and then it is the educational practitioners duty to impart to the child the form of instruction needed for that child to learn

Hello 

I am sorry but I am confused. How does one develope a paradigm based on the childs needs free from personal beliefs? How is that possable?

Douglas  

Yes, Douglas. What we believe a child needs will depend on the values that we hold and apply. Education is a value driven enterprise and debates about how it should operate  are often primarily debates about values, even when changes in  methods  are being advocated .

In fact, the paradigm we hold might even depend on out values. Forms of constructivism hold that people are essentially meaning makers with intentions and this contrasts with more mechanical approaches such as, say behaviourism. For myself, constructive approaches are more in line with my educational values than behaviourist or even information processing approaches to human beings. How we think about human beings does matter, not only in education, but in social science generally. Different paradigms treat the nature of being human in different ways. And, Debbie, forms of instruction will, therefore, ultimately depend on beliefs about what being human is.

Exactly, Colin.  And taking it one step further, it also has to do with what we believe schooling (as opposed to learning or education) is for.  I work with teachers whose belief is that schooling is for creating employability, teachers whose belief is that schooling is for building a moral value base, teachers whose belief is that schooling is for facilitating independent learning, and teachers whose belief is that schooling is for babysitting. These teachers are making VERY different decisions about their instruction.  My first task in any PD effort is to have my teachers clarify what they believe the purpose of Children Attending School really is.  The answers can be very surprising, and I cannot tell you how often these teachers find their core beliefs are not what they originally report.

I am sorry; perhaps I am reading more into the question than is needed and forgive me if I am, or perhaps I am not making my understanding of the question clear.

It is my belief that one can not go by what others have given a name to in order to use as a basis for instructing children. My personal belief is that educational practitioners are to provide children with a service, with that service being what is determined as to what  it is that the child needs to learn. For example; most people understand that children need to learn the basics when beginning school, thus making it a 'need' that the child has, therefore, making the educational practitioner one whom must service the need to the child. So; if you are asking what each individual 'believes' is needed when aims, goals, and objectives are to be met then I again state: Personal bias should not come into play. It is what the child is needing to learn that should institute what the goals, objectives, and aims become. How can one give a specific theory of learning as a means of setting goals, objectives and aims? How does that pertain to what and  how the child learns? Is instructing and practicing education not about the child and/or what the child needs to learn, or is about what is believes as to  what theory is the closet definition to how children learn?

To make this easier for one to understand; let me explain. I believe  that all children should be instructed using the Bible as the means of learning first and foremost. However; my belief can not play into what the child has to learn in the educational process, as (as much as I love my Bible) the Word does not instruct in academics, only morals and ethics. Therefore; this is just one way that personal beliefs cannot come into play when instructing children, and I am sure that there are several more examples that could be given; however, I do not feel that it is imperative to do so. I hope that this helps in reading my response to this question.

I hope we did not appear to be disparaging Debbie. That is certainly not my intention and the purpose of debate is to exchange understandings of the question.

I think everyone would agree that children need to learn the basics of literacy and numeracy. The problem is that the shift from agreed need to agreed paradigm for meeting that need is not so straight forward. Do we sit our children in rows and drill them in spelling and multiplication tables; do we try to engage them with the wonders of language and numeracy; do we teach them in groups or individually; do we think of them in terms of empty vessels to be filled or as meaning making individuals who, even at ages of 4 or 5 are capable of advanced thinking; and so on.? All of these are positions that are or have been  advocated, or at least implied, in teaching methods. So, yes the aims may be shared, at least for the basics you point to, but the ways of meeting those aims will depend on the paradigm, and the view of being human, that lies behind it.

And that is before we consider what type of learner our society as it changes requires. There is wide spread argument, for example, that our current educational systems do not meet the needs of the so called knowledge society - or to turn that round, the needs of individuals for participating successfully in such a society. So it is not only our beliefs about being human, but about being human in different societies that affect what is actually done, and to a degree, what we see as the needs of individuals and of society. The whole area is actually very complex and paradigms are important in my view.

Very good question Anthony. The answer is that it is fundamental. Have a look at the literature on the philosophy of education for some particular insights. Within that, consider paradigms from ontological, axiological, epistemological and cosmological perspectives. Also consider where hegemonic power resides in the relationship between teacher and taught. If there is a large power imbalance, the teacher's (or course designer's) position will undoubtedly influence their views about the purpose (goals and objectives) of education more than where the teacher's position is consistent with site of teaching. Good luck!

Colin, I am appreciative of a genuine debate such as this one; and, I am intrigued at your subtleness of persuasion. Ironically, (and quite fortunate for me) I do not get offended easily when one has a difference of opinion  other than that of  myself, or when one understands my point of view as being insignificant and/or elementary.

Never-the-less; I am a bit miffed at how very complicated this subject of instruction has been made to be. In your above reply you state that shifting from the need of the child to learn to the need for the educational practitioner to instruct learning in a way that the child can understand is not a straight forward margin of region.  I am inducting that it is indeed a straight shooting arrow.  The educational goal, the directional aim, and the overall objective is that the child learns to become an acceptable, functional, well educated, and tolerant being in society as a whole. To this, adjudication is criterion.  What I fail to recognize is how it is that education has become so complicated that we (as a concordat one) have combatted ourselves in the era of now, so that the era of future is superseded.  You see; the problem lies not in how one views the learner (empty vessel, blank slate, sophisticated discerner, ect…); moreover, in how the learner views the practitioner and the world around him/her. When one is appreciative of the way the learner is able to comprehend, instruction becomes second nature to that child of happenstance.

When a child enters into any type of learning facility, he/she has already developed a pattern of learning that has set the standard (and the stage if you will) for the way that that child will learn for the lifetime of that child. Alas; thus making your statement of “And that is before we consider what type of learner our society as it changes requires” insensitive to the needs of the child. Our society need not require any type of learner, much more, our learner must require society to conform to their needs. The child is not the problem; the problem lies within the adult needing to be instructed in the way that the child learns and not vice-versa. Therefore; once again, I conclude that the paradigm must be based on the way the child learns (which is the need of the child to learn) and it is the educational practitioner’s position to instruct the child in the way she/he learns.

Thanks Debbie.

I do not want to dominate this question too much - there will be other viewpoints – but you deserve a reply. Can I take the phrase in bold first, as that is, I hope, easily dealt with. Perhaps somewhat carelessly, not 'subtly,' I had in mind the way I have often seen the question phrased in the literature. I was merely intending to point to the issue of education in society. You will note later on that I turned the knowledge society question around because I am at heart uneasy with putting society first. However, I suspect that social theorists will make the question more complex than what society should do for the individual or what society should require of the individual– there probably is a sense in which society shapes individuals and individuals shape society in mutual interactions through their histories. Nevertheless, I think we are both on the side of individual autonomy, empowerment, self- actualization, being authentic and so on. However, that opens us to the request from others to state clearly what we mean by those terms. I am not going to try though.

People might also want clarification of terms, such as ‘acceptable,’ ‘functional’ ‘well educated’, and ‘tolerant’. These seem much harder to define as educational aims than being able to read or write, although again we can probably agree that they are desirable. But let us be content here to acknowledge that how we think about them derives from out background thinking - the paradigm(s) we live by.

Along those lines. How would you define ‘instruction?’ I could be wrong as its use seems to vary from country to country but your use of the word suggests to me a very teacher led process of education – there are those who argue that to use your phrase (which I think derives from a truth -  education has to work with how a child learns, but they may approach learning in different ways - see below,) that ‘the way a child learns’ requires less teacher dominated instruction and more of the teacher playing the role of supporter and mentor. Others might argue for imitation– the teacher models and the student copies that modeling. The arrow does not seem so ‘straight’ when you consider the range of possibilities. You would be right to reply that means matching the method from the range of choices to the particular aims. My only reply to that is that in my many years teaching Biology and General Science, I did not always find that easy.

There are many reasons, not all of them to do with my competence – the nature of the curriculum, expectations of the quality control systems, parents’ expectations, the assessment systems used, etc. You may be right to be miffed at how some of these complicate teaching. Teaching is often a complex balancing act. However, you hit on an important factor – how the learner views the practitioner and the world. I would include in that, how they view themselves, learning, school, what teachers should do, and so on. From a constructivist perspective, we would expect this to be true – one reason why paradigms are important. As the original question suggests, they set expectations and ways of thinking. The patterns of learning that you identify include these and not all of them are well adapted to school or academic life. Students come, certainly to secondary/high school and university with views of all of these. There are various concepts that illuminate these. For example, some see classroom activities as imposed tasks, have a fear of failure and intend merely to cope and take a ‘surface approach”. Others take a ‘deep approach’ with an intention to understand. Others take a ‘strategic approach’ where they intend to get the best grades and do whatever it is that the assessment systems reward (rote memorisation or understanding, for example). (Look up http://www.docs.hss.ed.ac.uk/iad/Learning_teaching/Academic_teaching/Resources/Experience_of_learning/EoLChapter3.pdf for an introduction to the concept of ‘approaches to learning’). Whatever you think of the concepts, the important observation on which they are based is that there are varieties of outcomes in any learning context – not everyone learns the same, develops the same form of understanding, and so on, in the same classroom with the same teacher.

Or for another set of insights into variety of outcomes, using a different language, Dweck’s mastery and performance motivations and how students view intelligence (as being fixed or as can be developed). (For an introduction to this, see https://www4.esu.edu/academics/enrichment_learning/documents/pdf/developing_growth_mindset.pdf - this suggests that education may be partly to blame, but we have the education system we have because of the history of the paradigms that have guided thinking about education). There are many other examples- views of knowledge and concepts of teaching, for instance. Much of the literature considers how to manipulate learning contexts so that students in turn (more often, at least) are manipulated to develop what are seen as being (there is even some controversy around this) the ‘best’ approaches/motivations/beliefs. My own view is that we should  seek  to directly introduce  the concepts to the students (find appropriate ways to make them accessible to them  at different stages/ages in their educational careers) so that they can direct their own learning and, through that, the role their teacher plays in supporting it. I do not agree, therefore, that the patterns the child comes with are set for life (from my perspective, that is pessimistic, not optimistic), or  necessarily well adapted to learning in formal educational contexts - learning outside formal educational contexts may be another matter.

No doubt my position is controversial as well (I can see some objecting that students are not always mature enough, or well educated enough, to know what is best for them and so may still adopt learning patterns that do not really help them), but it comes from the paradigm I apply as it now stands. That paradigm , although informed by research and academic argument, has developed over the years to try and deal with the problems of school teaching, or after retirement problems of supporting teachers and adult students, as I have experienced them. If that means I see education and educational teaching/learning as being complex, so be it.

However, as a final note, I am constantly encouraged by how well education actually works in practice. Visiting teachers' blogs and networks such as Pedagoo.org is generally up lifting. Complex it may be, but students and teachers make classroom learning work well surprisingly often and that is probably due to building positive relationships and teachers striving to find ways to support the particular learning issues of the students  in their local contexts and students responding to that help – our dominant paradigm should support that.

I would like to underscore Mr. Guenther's point that personal beliefs (epistemic, etc.) are fertile ground for your inquiry. 

Pajares (1992) surveyed the field of beliefs in educational research in his aptly titled article, Beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Here is a morsel of goodness from that review:

“beliefs are the best indicators of the decisions individuals make throughout their lives (Bandura, 1986; Dewey, 1933; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Rokeach, 1968)."

Thanks James. I intended to acknowledge what I take to be his advice to all of us on this thread when I started my last contribution but it slipped my mind at the end. I hope it is obvious that I agree it is 'fundamental.' 

Thanks for the reference pointers.

The full citation for the Pajares article James refers to can be found at http://rer.sagepub.com/content/62/3/307. There are a host of other articles pointed to on this page on  various aspects of teachers' beliefs for those interested and who have access to them.

Good evening.  I respond to your inquiry from the position of a trained applied social scientist  and constructivist education and life practice transformation specialist. The above shared, my life experience, education and additional professional development experiences prepares me to respond to your inquiry from a faith life practice worldview. 

I begin what I hope you will experience as a reflective and responsive reply in the form of questions.  The first question is, are we as individuals and a human collective the sum of our thoughts?  The second question is, do our thoughts provide the foundation for individual and a collective talk, action interaction, response and or reaction on a second by second basis?  If both A and B hold true then indeed our world view - epistemology directly impacts our conscious and subconscious in ways we seldom acknowledge and for which are held accountable. 

The collective reality regarding this continues to sustain primary focus within most fields of social science and often the natural sciences as well.  Moreover, all of the above historically undergirds what individuals, groups of individuals and humanity as a whole priorities at every level of human existence and engagement. Simply put the individuals, their values and their pursuant behaviors are all directly and indirectly aligned with and facilitated through individual and collective thought(s).  As such in America teaching to a test ensures that most learners within the general population will never be expected to engage in higher order thinking and are typically engaged from a deficit versus asset oriented education and life practice perspective.   

A lot has been said already, but I wanted to add a few pointers to research in to your question. Most of these don't use the term "paradigm", because it's hard to define; instead they opt for terms like perspectives, mental models or beliefs. My personal field of interest is self-regulated learning, so my references are also in that direction.

One way to look at it is by using two dimensions. a) does the teacher believe that the teaching should be focuse on the transfer of knowledge on one end of the spectrum, or that comprehension or the forming of opinion should be the goal; and b) the regulation of the learning process, strong (regulated by teacher), shared, or loose (regulated by learner). In the latter case, the teacher believes learning to be something that is achieved by the learner interacting with the subject. (Oolbekkink-Marchand 2006, https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/4976). In her research you can also find her method of gaining insight into teacher perspectives.

Dignath-van Ewijk and Van der Werf (2012) explored the impact of teacher beliefs about self-regulated learning and found that the succesful implementation of SRL in classrooms are heavily influenced by teachers beliefs. Also, some teachers allow room for students to direct their own learning (constructivist classrooms) while others incorporate strategic instruction as part of their teaching activities.

Lastly, Gert Biesta describes education as having three goals: socialisation (becoming part of society), qualification (learning to become a professional) and subjectification, or becoming an individual. A teacher's perspectives on these goals might heavily influence his or her learning goals, teaching style, etc.

A paradigm is not an individual affair. And not many individuals are aware of the paradigm they share. So the question is about the paradigm itself: Changing paradigm is changing framework. For example, the concept of up and down: they are not the same when you believe that the Earth is flat or when you believe that the Earth is round. 

Whether we call it a paradigm, a world-view, a value/belief system, each of us operates with one, whether or not consciously or subconsciously. We work from a personal set of beliefs that guides us from the creation of the syllabus that tells my students what they will read (I teach composition, world and British literature, plus graduate test preparation for foreign students entering American graduate programs) in addition to guiding my presentation of those texts. With international students in the class, it becomes quickly clear that we are not all operating under the same paradigm.  No matter how much effort we put in to teaching our classes in a bias-free manner, we need to take time to make ourselves consciously aware of our world views and their impact on our classroom behaviors.  In an educational seminar I attended last year, the instructor did a very simple exercise with a set of questions about "time." Every single teacher from pre-school teachers to college educators indicated how important "time" is through their responses to questions about their cell phones, watches, punctuality, etc. Then, the instructor got to the real point of the time references--many other cultures (in this case, chiefly our students from the Middle East) do not view time with the same level of nearly obsessive attention (the expression "time is money" may be common in the West but not everywhere else). Even the notion of linear time differs and definitely creates a different paradigm of expectations, goals, values, purpose of education, and relationships among teachers, students, parents, educational supervisors, etc.

Perhaps in a more homogenous educational setting, one may pay less attention to specific paradigms. I am thinking here of Debbi's institution  (and I am not disparaging anyone or any institution) that describes itself as a "Christian academic community"; there may be a more unified paradigm among its educators and students.  Even the students who choose to attend religious-affiliated schools (of any religion) often believe in and/or follow the mandates of that religion, school. Where we all agree on common goals and beliefs, it is often easier to teach and to learn.  Perhaps the classroom situation is not as problematic as it is at a large university with a diverse student body--diverse in ethnic group, sexual orientation, religion, age.  But when different paradigms exist between educator and student or educator and administration, we are bound to have some conflict that is not easily resolved.

Not so long ago in Alabama, there was a serious discussion (and some strong disagreement) among educators about creationism vs. science. The chief question was whether or not "creationism" could be viewed as a "scientific theory" that could and should be taught alongside empirical science, the Big Bang Theory, and  the scientific method that is as old as Francis Bacon.  Empiricism carried the day, but biology texts wound up with a "warning tag" inside the cover that cautioned students about the empirical viewpoints in the text. That disagreement was all about one's paradigm and the transmission of that paradigm to the younger generation.

In 33 years of teaching and working frequently with what we call today "at-risk" youth, I have found it the most difficult, complex, and challenging task--far beyond the complexities of scientific research because educators deal with human beings who at their  youngest ages are not the "tabula rasa" John Locke supposed them to be. Cognitive neuroscience has obliterated that idea. The social indoctrination function of American education does not always work so well with K-12 students and college students from other countries and/or cultures, even those cultures that are native to the U.S. I spent several years teaching first-generation American children, whose conflicts with their parents and grandparents were often the resulting of clashing paradigms. Everything we do--our beliefs about the relationships of parent/child, teacher/child, and so on depend upon our beliefs and values, often shaped without our conscious awareness.  I believe we become better educators when we know our paradigms and can recognize that other people also have paradigms that may be radically different from ours. 

Aysha Bey

I teach Criminal Justice at a Division II University. Before I was a full time professor, I was a cop for 30 years. I obtained my doctorate as a practicing law enforcement officer and administrator. I find myself agreeing with Aysha in both students and professors have different paradigms and that effects their actions or needs. In criminal justice, there is a four way split. Among the professors there are the theorists (who contemplate what should work in theory) and the pracacademics (those who have actually done the job at some point).  In our major there are those students who wish to become law enforcement officers (about 50%) and those who wish to enter other areas of the field (Probation/Parole/Juvenile about 20%, Corrections about 10%, Law School about 10%, and academia about 10 %). This leads to some interesting mixes, especially when you consider that we have a wide range of students in age as well. While most students are traditional college students coming straight from high school, our university has many returning veterans, many current military reservists/guardsmen, and returning adults. This influx of more experienced students adds to the diversity of the classroom and their experiences are a plus to the overall educational atmosphere of our major. The paradigms of those that have done it and those that have thought about are different. The paradigms of those who are older or more experienced and the traditional students are different. The educational goals and paradigms of those planning to become law enforcement officers and those that are not are different. The trick is how to meet the educational needs of them all. This is the point where I find myself in agreement with Cheryl. We can't just teach to the test. We are not training parrots. We hopefully are educating critical thinkers and developing competencies in our students. The wise professor will develop an educational pedagogy or andragogy to incorporate the development of skills that encompass not only competencies, but critical thinking skills as well. Our program is writing intensive and the teaching of research and writing skills at all levels is a must.