[quoting ID2 paper] Too much of the structure of educational technology is built upon the sand of relativism, rather than the rock of science. When winds of new paradigms blow and the sands of old paradigms shift; then the structure of educational technology slides toward the sea of constructo-babble. We're tired of the shifting sands of new paradigms and realities. We have drawn a line in the sand. We boldly reclaim the discipline of instructional design that is built upon the rock of science.
In reaction to the tone of Dave's remarks, Mike Spector [20 Feb 96] wrote:
I could not help but think about Shelley's Ozymandius.
Wow, I wish I'd said that. At the risk of exposing my homespun education, I only thought of Colonel William Barret Travis, drawing a line in the sand shortly before he and the rest of the folks in the Alamo were massacred. But for those of you who (like me) could use a little brushing-up on Shelley, let's take a look at this gem of a poem (just down-loaded from the WWW).
Ozymandius
by Percy Bysshe Shelley
I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said --"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandius, King of Kings,
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Hats off to you, Mike. Shelley's poem may say much more about instructional design than perhaps you intended.
[quoting Spector, 20 Feb 96] ...it is philosophers of science who can and have provided appropriate frameworks for Dave's position (science as discovery, invention, empirical investigation, etc.). It is epistemologists who have provided the framework for learning theory, and, as Dave quite rightly notes, instructional design is that discipline whose aim is to facilitate learning. And, there are numerous other contributions from philosophy which should not go unnoticed in our discipline. In short, the instructional science community could benefit by cultivating closer ties with serious philosophers of science and others.
I agree wholeheartedly. I'd like to offer a brief summary of Dave's rock hard philosophy of science and some of the alternative paradigms of which he is so obviously tired.
The "Analytic-Empirical-Positivist-Quantitative Paradigm" represents the most established of the paradigms that guide research in education and the social sciences. The "analytic" aspect of this paradigm reflects a belief in a mechanistic, deterministic reality whereby parts can be separated from wholes and cause and effect relationships among parts can be revealed. The "empirical" aspect refers to the goals of inquiry as being the definition, prediction, control, and explanation of physical phenomena as revealed through experience (induction) and experiments (deduction). The "positivist" aspect represents a faith in scientific progress and the perfectibility of mankind. Finally, the "quantitative" aspect stems from a reliance on measuring variables and analyzing the relationships among them with descriptive and inferential statistics.
Subscribers to the "Analytic-Empirical-Positivist-Quantitative Paradigm" believe in a separate, material reality that exists apart from the beliefs of individuals, groups, or societies. Following E. L. Thorndike, they believe that if anything exists, it can be measured. They seek to explain changes in aspects of reality through controlled experimentation. Detachment from the phenomena under study is preferred to maintain objectivity. Mathematical analysis and statistical significance are held in the highest regard. Such is the rock upon which Dave Merrill would build the science of instructional design.
The "constructivist" aspect of the "Constructivist-Hermeneutic-Interpretivist-Qualitative Paradigm" reflects the belief that humans individually and collectively construct reality. The "hermeneutic" aspect of this paradigm has its original meaning in the analysis of religious texts, especially in reference to different scholarly interpretations of the Bible. More recently, hermeneutics has come to mean the analysis of curriculum in the broadest sense and instructional programs and products in a more focused sense, including attempts to expose the values underlying these phenomena (Schubert & Schubert, 1990). The "interpretivist" aspect stresses the need to put analyses in context, presenting the interpretations of many, sometimes competing, groups interested in the outcomes of instruction. The "qualitative" aspect represents the emphasis on the human being as the primary research instrument, rejecting the mathematical modeling of phenomena upon which the quantitative paradigm depends so heavily.
Proponents of the "Constructivist-Hermeneutic-Interpretivist-Qualitative Paradigm" have sharply divergent views about the nature of reality from those of proponents of the quantitative paradigm. They believe that "Truth is a matter of consensus among informed and sophisticated constructors, not correspondence with an objective reality" (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, p. 44). Further, they are concerned with understanding the nature of this constructed reality from multiple perspectives, emphasizing the roles of culture, sex, context, and other factors in the construction of "reality." I suspect they would attribute Dave's faith in "rock of science" as an artifact of his background and culture. With regard to research methodology, they have adopted many anthropological methods of inquiry, especially human observation. Not surprisingly, immersion in the context of a research study is highly preferred over the detachment of the classical laboratory scientist.
Whereas proponents of the quantitative paradigm proclaim their objectivity and believers in the qualitative paradigm revel in their subjectivity, advocates of the "Critical Theory-Neomarxist-Postmodern-Praxis Paradigm" wear the label "social activists" with pride. Critical theorists condemn the "Analytic-Empirical-Positivist-Quantitative Paradigm" as reactionary and the "Constructivist-Hermeneutic-Interpretivist-Qualitative Paradigm" as unengaged. In fact, members of the Neomarxist faction of this paradigm view themselves as the forces of liberation engaged in mortal conflict with the powers of oppression.
The "Critical Theory" aspect of the "Critical Theory-Neomarxist-Postmodern-Praxis Paradigm" relates to a concern "with questions of power, control, and epistemology as social constructions with benefits to some and not to others" (Muffoletto, 1993, p. 4). The "neomarxist" aspect of this paradigm is derived from the liberation education movement led by Paulo Freire (1970) and Ivan Illich (1970). Neomarxist evaluators seek to expose the "hidden curriculum" underlying instructional technology and other educational reforms. The "Postmodern" perspective questions the conception of instructional technology "as neutral or as leading inevitably to progress" (Hlynka & Yeaman, 1992, p. 2). Postmodernists deconstruct the "texts" inherent in the products and programs developed by instructional designers, seeking to reveal contradictions and the exclusion of minority interests. Deconstruction which has its roots in literary analysis is a process of revealing the hidden meanings of texts. (I suspect deconstructionists would find much meaning in Dave's statement that "Students are persons WHO SUBMIT THEMSELVES....") The "praxis" aspect represents a desire to abandon the search for truth as sought by empiricists or understanding as desired by interpretivists in favor of seeking "little truths which are situationally appropriate" (Anderson, 1993, p. 1).
I suspect that few advocates of the "Critical Theory-Neomarxist-Postmodern-Praxis Paradigm" label themselves as "instructional designers." After all, why would proponents of this anti-authoritarian paradigm seek to serve a process that has its roots in systems models developed for large-scale weapons production by the military-industrial complex? Nonetheless, I believe the "critical theory" perspective should be taken seriously because it encourages instructional designers to question again and again the cultural, political, and gender assumptions underlying an instructional product or program. Skepticism and questioning are the basic tenets of this paradigm. For example, Michel Foucault, a major figure in this movement, demands "that we question everything, including law, science, religion, and Western philosophy" (Anderson, 1993, p. 1).
My last "paradigm" within the context of instructional design is not found in any traditional analysis of paradigms for inquiry in education (cf., Schubert & Schubert, 1990; Soltis, 1992). Nonetheless, it is perhaps the most useful of the four paradigmatic orientations described in this message because it is the one approach most capable of handling the complexity that is the hallmark of contemporary society and technology (Casti, 1994; Sedgwick, 1993).
The concept of complexity is exceedingly relevant to the context of instructional design. Sedgwick (1993), in an article titled "The Complexity Problem" maintains that "It is becoming increasing clear that the comfort of a good fit between man and machine is largely absent from the technology of the information age" (p. 96). A similarly pessimistic observation can be made about the fit among teachers, learners, and the instructional programs and products resulting from systematic instructional design. According to Leshin, Pollock, and Reigeluth (1992), the major problem with existing ID models is that "they have totally ignored guidance as to what makes good instruction" (p. 1). Leshin et al. (1992) also maintain that traditional ID models can be followed rigorously and still yield poor instruction.
The "eclectic" aspect of the "Eclectic-Mixed Methods-Pragmatic Paradigm" refers to its openness to borrowing the methods of the other three paradigms to collect information and solve a problem. The "mixed methods" aspect relates to the recognition that multiple perspectives are necessary to "triangulate" or "bracket" information and conclusions regarding complex phenomena. The "pragmatic" aspect reflects the practical orientation that, although ultimate prediction and control may never be achieved in education and training through instructional design or any other approach, things can get better.
Adherents to the "Eclectic-Mixed Methods-Pragmatic Paradigm" rarely concern themselves with ultimate conceptions of reality, preferring to deal with the practical problems that confront them as educators and trainers. They view modes of inquiry as tools to better understanding and more effective problem-solving, and they do not value one tool over another any more than a carpenter would value a hammer over a saw. They recognize that a tool is only meaningful within the context in which it is to be used. Pragmatists accept their interconnectivity with the phenomena they seek to understand and change (Bruce & Rubin, 1992). They also recognize the weaknesses of their tools, and struggle against the odds that either science or creativity will affect decision-making more than politics, ignorance, intuition, habit and prejudice. Finally, they are honest with themselves and their audiences about the tentative and probabilistic nature of the recommendations they make.
So where does this brief review of alternatives paradigms leave us? I hope it provides us with a better basis for understanding that other ways of knowing (constructivist, critical, or pragmatic) are not any more shifting or any less solid than Dave's rock of empiricism. Instead of drawing a line in the sand, I invite Dave and his colleagues to walk a mile in the shoes in the other. Frankly, if instructional design were more successful, I might be tempted to cross Dave's line, but in my constructed reality, I see that the most powerful learning environments of contemporary education and training are not emerging from instructional design per se, but from creative applications of cognitive and social learning theories. We are known best by the fruits of our labor, and I don't think that as instructional designers, we have much to brag about in the face of the almost overwhelming needs of society and the planet. Hence, I join Mike Spector in issuing a "passionate plea for a little more humility with regard to our endeavors."
Anderson, J. (1993, January). Foucault and disciplinary technology. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, New Orleans, LA.
Casti, J.L. (1994). Complexification: Explaining a paradoxical world through the science of surprise. New York: Harper Collins.
Bruce, B., & Rubin, A. (1992). Electronic quills: A situated evaluation of using computers for writing in classrooms. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Hlynka, D., & Yeaman, A.R.J. (1992, September). Postmodern educational technology. ERIC Digest.
Illich, I. (1970). Deschooling society. New York: Harper & Row.
Leshin, C.B., Pollock, J., & Reigeluth, C.M. (1992). Instructional design strategies and tactics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.
Muffoletto, R. (1993, January). Schools and technology in a democratic society: Equity and social justice. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, New Orleans, LA.
Schubert, W.H., & Schubert, A.L. (1990). Alternative paradigms in curriculum inquiry (pp. 157-162). In H.J. Walberg & G.D. Haertel (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of educational evaluation. New York: Pergamon Press.
Sedgwick, J. (1993, March). The complexity problem. The Atlantic, pp. 96-104.
Soltis, J.F. (1992). Inquiry paradigms. In M.C. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (pp. 620-622). New York: Macmillan.