Models and Paradigms in Kuhn and Halloun

Abstract

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.