Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship over time between paradigm shifts and teaching methods. Paradigms offer a view of the world. They create values by defining what is important, legitimate and reasonable. New paradigms unseat existing paradigms by persuasion. The old and new paradigms co-exist as long as the values associated with the old paradigm are viable. Toffler, Naisbitt and Corbin associated three paradigms with the U.S. economy. These economic paradigms--Agricultural, Industrial and Informational--were accompanied by a shift in values that led to four general paradigms--Self-Assuredness, Social Activist, Knowledge and Lifestyle. This concept, that paradigms are the cornerstone of our value system, has implications for education. An instructor aware of his students' world-view can better tailor his teaching methods to meet the needs of his students. The important point is that changing paradigms yield changing values, yield different views of what is important in teaching/learning, and yield different recommendations for teaching methods. The methodology of this study was a two phase process based on journal articles. First, a descriptive analysis examined the relative importance of Bruce Joyce's four families of teaching models, on a year-by-year basis, since 1950. Second, a content analysis tested the rationales for these families of teaching models against the four general paradigms. The major finding of this study was that the time frames of Joyce's families of teaching models closely reflected the time frames of the general paradigms. Moreover, writers who advocated each teaching model justified its use primarily in terms of the matching paradigm. The conclusion drawn from this study is that the congruency of paradigms and families of teaching models allows us the luxury of facilitating appropriate and effective learning experiences. The key to the effective use of this knowledge lies in the understanding of paradigms and paradigm shifts.