Pedagogical Reform as Paradigm Shifts in Secondary Education

ABSTRACTThe current New Senior Secondary curriculum was implemented in Hong Kong in 2009. This educational reform promotes a paradigm shift in learning and teaching strategies, with the ultimate goal to prepare secondary school students for meeting the changing needs of the workplace and for lifelong learning. This paper reports empirical findings by investigating the impact of such a paradigm shift in education on student learning through comparing the perceptions of different stakeholders (i.e., school heads, teachers and students). The data were collected from a self-reported questionnaire, involving 91 secondary schools, 1,439 school heads, Key Learning Areas coordinators/panels heads, Secondary 6 teachers, and 4614 Secondary 6 students. Key findings are: (1) seven dimensions of student learning were identified (in terms of generic skills, personal growth and well-being, values and attitudes) and these are regarded as the important paradigm shift in the secondary education curriculum; (2) school heads were more optimistic than Key Learning Areas coordinators/panel heads and frontline teachers about the performance of Secondary 6 students; and (3) Secondary 6 students had a more positive outlook than their teachers regarding world views, pluralistic views, communication skills, critical thinking and creativity. Implications and recommendations are discussed.

PurposeThis paper aims to report empirical research investigating how school‐based management (SBM) and paradigm shift (PS) in education are closely related to teachers' student‐centered teaching and students' active learning in a sample of Hong Kong secondary schools.Design/methodology/approachIt is a cross‐sectional survey research involving 31 secondary schools, 1,119 teachers and 7,063 students with seven sets of questionnaires: three for students, three for teachers and one for principals.FindingsThe results of analysis indicate the following findings. The greater tendency towards SBM of a school associates with the greater extent of PS from the site‐bounded paradigm towards the triplization paradigm in education. Both the measures of SBM and PS in education are closed related to teachers' student‐centered teaching (in terms of facilitating student learning, facilitating student thinking and facilitating student self‐reflection and assessment) and students' active learning (in terms of positive learning attitudes, application of various learning methods, learning effectiveness, multiple thinking in learning and satisfaction in learning). The profiles of “high SBM and high‐PS” schools are much more preferable than “low SBM and low‐PS” schools in terms of various measures of teachers' teaching and students' learning.Originality/valueEven though SBM and PS in education are strongly emphasized in ongoing educational reforms in different parts of the world, there is lack of empirical study to show how they are related to teachers' teaching and students' learning in practice. The findings of the research contribute to filling this research gap and advancing theoretical and practical understanding in such a frontier area.

The transformation happening in the Industry 4.0 and Society 5.0 era has thrown a huge challenge before the education system across the world and has given a wake-up call to introspect and align with the changes. Both industry and society have seen a few stages of development, but education is yet to compete with both. This book chapter focuses on studying the growth from Industrial Revolution 1 to 4 and the societal transformation 1 to 5 and also how remote education and its influence can advance the quality of higher education in order to match the expectations. The paradigm shift in education started by moving from only an industry focus to including an informational focus, but now, the need is to also include the society focus. Though distance learning was seen as a compulsion, initially, the benefits were then well-perceived and accepted among the stakeholders. There is a great need to align future-ready 21st-century higher education with the specifications of Industry 4.0 and requirements of Society 5.0 through blended learning. This chapter will assist the academicians and education policymakers in creating an industry-relevant and society-centric curriculum and pedagogy for students who are going to work in a smart epoch of Society 5.0 and industry 4.0. The best practices by the Japanese government prove that this will be the best solution for the society and country in the future. The influence of distance learning had accelerated the higher education system to survive and lead in Society 5.0 which is super-smart, human-centered, and with the power of Industry 4.0.

The purpose of this workshop is two-fold: (i) to share with the workshop participants the basic concept of what e-Portfolio is from the viewpoints of students as well as their guardians, professors, and the school boards. Here the dissemination of e-Portfolio in education is the key. While introducing various aspects of this powerful educational tool, showcases are given so that the participants familiarize themselves with what e-Portfolio can do in education. (ii) to discuss the potential of e-Portfolio as the drive to cause a paradigm shift in the entire education ranging from K-12 through the graduate school.

Elvira Panaiotidi has delivered a very useful and appealing paper on the topic of how the music education community decides it is time to change the way it thinks and acts. Her primary focus is whether the concept of proposed by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions reasonably explains how change occurs in music education theory and practice and, if not, whether it can be modified so that it does. Following Peter Abbs' account of paradigm shifts in arts education, she proposes that paradigm shifts occur when methods of inquiry change even if what is being analyzed does not change. More specifically, paradigm shifts involve gradual transformations such that certain principles and terminology are carried over from the previous paradigm to the new one, and change at a slower rate than the methodologies adopted to make sense of them. Such discrepancy creates the kind of communicative discord she alludes to in her introduction: the aesthetic/praxial debate. Her further analysis of Abbs' argument leads her to conclude that the paradigm shifts he describes in arts education are different in kind from those intended by Kuhn. They apparently lack conceptual modification, or conversion experience, and seem motivated by the need for increasingly comprehensive explanations of artistic behavior and thinking. Panaiotidi's synopsis of Kuhn's original criteria for paradigms reminded me

Response to Elvira Panaiotidi, “The Nature of Paradigms and Paradigm Shifts in Music Education” Carlos Xavier Rodriguez Elvira Panaiotidi has delivered a very useful and appealing paper on the topic of how the music education community decides it is time to change the way it thinks and acts. Her primary focus is whether the concept of "paradigms" proposed by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions reasonably explains how change occurs in music education theory and practice and, if not, whether it can be modified so that it does. Following Peter Abbs' account of paradigm shifts in arts education, she proposes that paradigm shifts occur when methods of inquiry change even if what is being analyzed does not change. More specifically, paradigm shifts involve gradual transformations such that certain principles and terminology are carried over from the previous paradigm to the new one, and change at a slower rate than the methodologies adopted to make sense of them. Such discrepancy creates the kind of communicative discord she alludes to in her introduction: the aesthetic/praxial debate. Her further analysis of Abbs' argument leads her to conclude that the paradigm shifts he describes in arts education are different in kind from those intended by Kuhn. They apparently lack conceptual modification, or "conversion experience," and seem motivated by the need for increasingly comprehensive explanations of artistic behavior and thinking. Panaiotidi's synopsis of Kuhn's original criteria for paradigms reminded me [End Page 108] that his Structure of Scientific Revolutions as my first college textbook, exerted a powerful influence on me by its power to explain how humans formulate and react to new and better ideas. Panaiotidi seems to share this feeling, and scrutinizes Kuhn's original intention to use paradigms as a way of delineating the natural sciences from the humanities. Kuhn himself cautioned that his characterization of change and progress in science is not readily applicable to the arts and, more importantly, that interpretive frameworks for understanding art are not paradigms because paradigms are not theories, a distinction he echoed throughout his career. I argue that Kuhn would not consider the aesthetic and praxial approaches to music education paradigms at all; rather they are more a search for "a more inclusive theory" as Panaiotidi states. However, the ready applicability of Kuhn's criteria for paradigms to the work of music education philosophers is apparent. Their writings have been "sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity." They have become associated with new methodological strategies because their writings are "sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to solve." There is, however, quite a difference in the way that science and art communities function. As Ted Gracyk writes in his book, I Wanna Be Me: Rock Music and the Politics of Identity: Where a scientific community singles out one paradigm as the foundation for further research, artistic communities do not. Once Newtonian mechanics was accepted as a scientific paradigm, no other approach to mechanics counted as a rational basis for mechanics. "Unlike art," Kuhn observes, "science destroys its past." The artworld can admire multiple paradigms, representing different periods in art history, without risking incoherence: Picasso's success did not lead museums to put their Rembrandts into storage."1 Perhaps, then, the discord noted by Panaiotidi between "aestheticians" and "praxialists" arises not from a shortcoming of music education theory to provide what she calls "tenacious theoretical footing which could help settle the dispute," but from a too-literal interpretation of Kuhn's original criterion that applies to the natural sciences: new paradigms must necessarily refute those that have preceded them. Indeed, the music education research community has grappled with this very issue in its polarized views of acceptable research practice, which is perhaps more fundamentally a misunderstanding regarding the nature of the sciences versus the nature of the humanities. We in arts education have long admired scientific inquiry for its relative stability, what Kuhn calls a "normal" versus "revolutionary" mode of activity. However, as Panaiotidi explains, "Normal science [End Page 109] is characterized by a broad consensus of the specialists and is not by its nature...

Knowingly or unknowingly the teaching and learning takes place directly or indirectly in different forms (formal, non formal and informal) at different level (primary, secondary and higher education) from ancient to present era. Here the method of teaching and learning knowingly or unknowingly has been changing according to social change. In modern era the teaching and learning takes place with well formulated school environment and it is the primary source to generate skilled human resource. To enhancement of this primary and predominant process it is need of the hour to takeout the paradigm shift in the teaching and learning process.

Striving for sustainability requires a paradigm shift in conceptualization, thinking, research and education, particularly concerning the science-technology-environment-society (STES) interfaces. Consequently, ‘STES literacy’ requires the development of students’ question asking, critical, evaluative system thinking, decision making and problem solving capabilities, in this context, via innovative implementable higher-order cognitive skills (HOCS)-promoting teaching, assessment and learning strategies. The corresponding paradigms shift in science and technology education, such as from algorithmic teaching to HOCS-promoting learning is unavoidable, since it reflects the social pressure, worldwide, towards more accountable socially- and environmentally-responsible sustainable development. Since most of the STES- and, recently STEM (science-technology-engineering-mathematics)-related research in science education has been focused on secondary and tertiary education, it is vital to demonstrate the relevance of this multifaceted research to the science and technology teaching in primary schools. Our longitudinal STES education-related research and curriculum development point to the very little contribution, if any, of the traditional science teaching to “know”, to the development of students’ HOCS capabilities. On the other hand, there appears to be a ‘general agreement’, that the contemporary dominant lower-order cognitive skills (LOCS) teaching and assessment strategies applied in science and technology education are, in fact, restraining the natural curiosity and creativity of primary school (and younger?) pupils/children. Since creative thinking as well as evaluative system thinking, decision making, problem solving and … transfer constitute an integral part of the HOCS conceptual framework, the appropriateness of “HOCS promoting” teaching, and the relevance of science and technology, to elementary education in the STES context, is apparent. Therefore, our overriding guiding purpose was to provide any evidence-based research to the vital LOCS-to-HOCS paradigm shift in STES education. The findings of, and conclusions derived from our longitudinal research on HOCS development within STES-oriented and traditional education, suggest that both—science and technology education (STE) and STES education—are relevant to primary school education. Based on this, what it should take to insure success in this context, is thoroughly discussed.

Online learning via educational Technology tools has been used as a paradigm shift in education to transmit knowledge and promote learners’ engagement in secondary learning environments. The emotional, behavioral and the cognitive facets of engagement play an important role in the learning process and social development. Learner engagement refers to the degree of attention, focus, belief, interest, and emotions that motivate learners successfully to practice higher-level critical thinking skills, and to promote meaningful learning experiences to achieve the course’s learning objectives and progress in their education. In this paper, the technology-implementation learning paradigm is proposed for the purpose of promoting learners’ engagement in online learning. This proposed paradigm is composed of four interacted fundamental dimensions, Attitude dimension, pedagogical dimension, social dimension, and technical dimension (APTS) that lead to engage learners emotionally, behaviorally and cognitively in technology-supported learning environment. Attitude dimension is the intentions and the perspectives to understand, interact and manage emotional skills and abilities needed by technology users for the effective usage of educational technology tools. Pedagogical dimension is the active learning process for cognitive development using pre-defined learning objectives and pedagogical theories to identify learning strategies and assessments to achieve planned educational outcomes. Technical dimension intends to create a computer and media literacy that allow learners and instructors to employ online learning without technical difficulties. Social dimension is to create a technology cooperation where learners are Networking with other learners and willing to share positively their experiences with peers and/or with the teacher to attain their emotional, social and cognitive engagement and keeps them motivated, and even inspired.

The impact of Covid-19 on students and teachers, on courses and programs, and on schools and universities is unparalleled in the history of education. Indeed, many authors have gone as far as to contend that the pandemic resulted in a paradigm shift in education. This chapter explores this contention by first looking at the history of paradigm shifts in education writ large, and then the implication of those shifts on teacher education, in general, and on practicum mentoring, specifically.

A flawed curriculum undermines fundamental human rights to quality education. 'Creation in Pairs' [nature's equal & opposite apriori principle] is the underlying structure [formal ground] of reality. The principle of 'creation in pairs' provides a foundational, verifiable framework for neutral science. So, 'equal & opposite' [creation in pairs] should be the foundational framework [formal ground] of human rights and universal education. Jamir Ahmed Choudhury criticizes the current UN-led global educational framework as anti-natural, anti-Islamic, unscientific, and unconstitutional, proposing a new "Equal & Opposite Apriori Framework of Natural Science" in his book, Apriori Science: Framework & Curriculum. He advocates for a radical paradigm shift in education based on the concepts of "creation in pairs" [nature's equal & opposite apriori paradigm or pre-existing structure of the universe or revealed trinity] and "apriori science" [nature-driven pure science unmixed with human-derived global technology]. In the context of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and International Convention on the Rights of the Child [UN CRC], he argues for an educational system that provides students with unerring, logically consistent, philosophically justifiable, scientifically verifiable, legally valid, and morally sound knowledge, ensuring the fundamental right to quality education is fulfilled without contradictions. Based on nature's equal & opposite apriori principle [creation in pairs], the present study proposes a radical reorientation of the educational system, moving away from current pedagogical methods ['One Global Text & Conspiracy Curriculum' of IBE-UNESCO] toward a model rooted in "apriori science" [nature-driven pure science]. An AI reorientation of Jamir's humanistic philosophy would involve using AI tools not merely for personalized learning but to deconstruct and rebuild educational systems based on verifiable, universal, self-evident truths rather than existing, potentially flawed global ideologies [global frameworks]. An AI-driven reorientation of Jamir's humanistic philosophy would not be about augmenting the existing educational system. It would be a fundamental re-engineering of the curriculum and teaching methods using AI's unique capabilities for analysis and synthesis to build an entirely new educational framework grounded in the "equal and opposite" principles of nature. The study advocates for a paradigm shift in education from the current UN-led global curriculum to one based on "inherent natural laws" to better align with human rights principles. The study argues this change is necessary to fulfil legal frameworks like the UDHR, UN CRC, and various human rights acts, as well as to promote human dignity and ensure quality, fact-based scientific education. This shift is proposed to lead to a more humanistic vision of education and to guarantee a higher quality of learning that promotes respect for human dignity and a clear & distinct understanding of reality [manifest truth].

What is considered the communication revolution of late started about half a century ago at the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) when in 1962, the visionary Dr Licklider and his team started work on making computers interactive

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in secondary social studies education is revolutionizing the way students prepare for their future. By embedding 'Future Ready Practical Life Skills' into the curriculum, educators can effectively address the question, "Why do I have to learn this?" and equip students with the necessary competencies for success in college, careers, and active civic life in an AI-dominant future. This article explores how AI nurtures critical thinking, digital literacy, adaptability, ethical reasoning, and civic engagement -- skills that are crucial not only for navigating advanced technologies but also for dealing with daily life situations. By creating a dynamic and personalized learning experience, AI-driven social studies education fosters vital competencies for students to confidently face challenges and make informed decisions in their personal and civic lives. This paradigm shift in teaching and learning sets students up for success in an AI-shaped future while empowering them to navigate the complexities of daily life.

This article provides a defence of my theoretical analysis of paradigm shift in contemporary religious education, particularly in light of Robert Jackson’s (2015) article published in this journal: ‘Misrepresenting religious education’s past and present in looking forward: Gearon using Kuhn’s concepts of paradigm, paradigm shift and incommensurability’. The core of Jackson’s concerns is my adaptation of Kuhn’s concepts of paradigm, paradigm shift and incommensurability to religious education. Defending in turn my use of these concepts – of paradigm, paradigm shift and incommensurability – I conclude that Jackson’s critique is in and of itself an apt demonstration of the position he seeks to attack. Drawing wider parallels with the methodological ‘paradigm wars’ in the social sciences I argue that the paradigms are why religious education too goes to ‘war’.

The challenges of globalisation have led to the great expansion of higher education in different parts of the world. In this global context, the implications for the development and reform of higher education in the twenty-first century have become a worldwide concern for policy-makers, social leaders, change agents and educators. Aiming to address the concern, this chapter proposes that a paradigm shift in higher education is needed. Tertiary learning must shift from a traditional site-bounded model towards a new model of globalisation, localisation and individualisation to create unlimited opportunities for students to learn and develop world-class competences and contextualised multiple intelligences for lifelong development in the twenty-first century. To facilitate such a paradigm shift, the chapter further presents a conceptual framework to re-define and develop internationalisation as one of the key strategies for transforming higher education, and a four-scenario typology to map out the possible directions for higher education development in the future.