Revisiting the Paradigms of Instructional Technology

In this paper I revisit a previously-published analysis of paradigm shifts within research on instructional technology (IT). Following Kuhn, I will use the term ‘paradigm’ to denote an actual scientific achievement. Used in this way, a particular experiment or research study must meet two criteria to qualify as a paradigm: it must be novel, that is it must be demonstratively different from those that came before and it must be sufficiently open-ended to provide a basis for further work. In the original analysis, I identified four paradigms operating in IT research (i.e., CAI, ITS, Logo-as-Latin, CSCL). I re-evaluate the evidence for each of these putative paradigms and attempt to sharpen the original analysis. In so doing, I focus in particular on the CSCL paradigm and assess its status as an emerging paradigm. Conducting a Kuhnian analysis of IT research is useful for at least two reasons. First, it provides a means of rationalizing and lending order to the vast range of activities that fall into this broad area of research. Second, such an analysis provides an opportunity for reflection—reflection on where the field has been and where the field might be going.