Models and Paradigms in Kuhn and Halloun

• DOI: 10.1007/s11191-006-9047-5
• Publication Date: 2006-07-18T04:35:54Z
• Authors: Paul Joseph Wendel
• Keywords: Thomas Kuhn; models; Science Education Research; 4. Education; 05 social sciences; Ibrahim Halloun; paradigm; 0503 education; Education

In Modeling Theory in Science Education, Halloun (2004) adopts the word ‘paradigm’, but his use of the term is radically different from that of Kuhn. In this paper, I explore some of the differences between Kuhn’s paradigms and Halloun’s paradigms. Where Kuhn’s paradigms are public, community-defining exemplars of practice, Halloun’s paradigms are private, individualized ways of thinking. Where Kuhn writes of the paradigm shift as a revolutionary, vision-altering conversion experience, Halloun writes of a gradual evolution from one way of thinking to another and an easy back-and-forth switch between paradigms. Since Kuhn’s paradigms are self-enclosed and incommensurable, there is no objective standard by which one paradigm can be shown to be superior to the other. But Halloun uses ‘viability’ as a standard for paradigm choice. Underlying all of this is the more basic question of whether the history of science is an appropriate metaphor for student progress in the classroom. I conclude with some brief thoughts on this question.