Learning Paradigms in e-Society

Abstract

Learning, defined both as the cognitive process of acquiring knowledge, and as the knowledge received by instruction, depends on the environment. Our world, analyzed as an educational environment, evolved from a natural native stage to a scientific technological based phase. Educative system, developed as a public service, including formal, non-formal and informal education, originated its foundations on the textbook, and at present, teacher preparation is based on the same technique. This article is designed as a conceptual basis analyze of learning in a scientific environment, in order to synthesize the interdependencies between the cognitive process of acquiring knowledge and the methods applied in knowledge conversion.Keywords: Scientific Research, Higher Education, Learning Infrastructure, Deskwork, Fieldwork1 IntroductionScientific research is the methodological investigation of a scientific subject of a par- ticular domain for the purpose of adding to knowledge. Learning can be analyzed as the specific process of knowledge growth. Scien- tific research results are saved in technology while individual learning is integrated in ex- perience. The scientific progress is based on the equilibrium between experience and technology. This is why we can define the paradigm of learning as a function of tech- nology applied in scientific research. In [1], the author reviews Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and high- lights the two different senses of paradigm: exemplar and disciplinary matrix. The first sense is used to refer to the particular, con- crete achievement that defines by example the course of all subsequent research in a sci- entific discipline while the second one is an entire theoretical, methodological, and evalu- ative framework within which scientists con- duct their research. In [2], another author re- views the two key ideas of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the pattern of scien- tific change and the paradigms, which to- gether can be thought of as analogous to a scientific theory: the first identifies and de- scribes a pattern, and the second provides an explanation for the pattern. Another author [3] analyses the basic concepts of the Kuhn's work: normal scientific research, which is conducted under a paradigm, or disciplinary matrix and revolutionary science, as the pro- cess by which one paradigm is replaced by another. The author lists the four elements of a disciplinary matrix: symbolic generaliza- tions, metaphysical presumptions, values, and exemplars; then he assumes that a model is a kind of symbolic generalization, and that the goals of research come under the heading of 'values'. In his approach, normal science is about the construction of new models or the improvement of old ones, whereas para- digm change or revolutionary science is about theory change. At the time of publica- tion, Kuhn introduced the new and contro- versial idea that scientists do not see anoma- lies, or even crises, as testing the paradigm itself. The same author mentions that for Kuhn, '...science students accept theories on the authority of teacher and text, not because of evidence'.The three references related above reflects, first, the existence of a meta-language and of an object language in scientific research ac- tivities, and the possibility to use the same term in the group of the working terms and in the group of the scientific field's group, and second, the double function for the working terms: the descriptive one and the explanato- ry one. The first characteristic lead to the sit- uation of creating or explaining a paradox, while the second characteristic lead to the possibility of creating a pedagogical envi- ronment in order to know, to understand and to apply. Technological innovation in a digi- tal environment depends on the pattern of educational change in the pedagogical envi- ronment, while this is an application of a technological infrastructure. …