What Is a Paradigm? or The Lens We Don’t See
Education often presents itself as rational. Evidence-based. Always improving. But under every method, every model, there’s something deeper: the assumptions we rarely question.
These assumptions tell us what a “good student” is, what a “successful teacher” does, what kind of knowledge counts—and what kind doesn’t. They shape everything, but remain invisible.
That’s what philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn called a paradigm: a shared framework that defines what a field is trying to do. Paradigms tell us what questions are legitimate, what answers make sense, and what success looks like.
They don’t just show us the world—they filter it.
A man is searching for his keys under a streetlamp.
A passerby asks, “Is this where you lost them?”
He replies, “No, but the light’s better here.”
That’s what paradigms do. They light up part of the landscape—and leave the rest in darkness. The danger isn’t working under the lamppost. The danger is forgetting that the lamppost is there.
Kuhn in Plain Language
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn argued that science doesn’t progress linearly. Most of the time, it operates within a settled framework: a paradigm. Scientists aren’t testing the foundations—they’re solving puzzles within them. This is what Kuhn called normal science.
Eventually, anomalies emerge—problems the paradigm can’t resolve. When the gap between the model and the world becomes too wide, a paradigm shift can occur. The field reorganizes itself around a new set of assumptions. What counts as a valid method, a good question, or even a fact—can change overnight.
Kuhn’s key insight was this: paradigms don’t reveal the truth. They structure what we can even think about.
What Paradigms Actually Do
Paradigms aren’t just intellectual tools. They are systems of permission and omission.
- They focus attention on certain questions
- They define what kinds of methods and results are legitimate
- They create a sense of order and coherence
- They push other perspectives out of view
Paradigms feel neutral. But they’re not. What looks like “standard practice” often reflects a structure of values—about learning, authority, and what kind of knowledge is worth having.
Two Educational Paradigms (And What They Miss)
🏫 Traditional Teaching Paradigm
- A good teacher delivers content clearly and confidently
- Students succeed by absorbing, imitating, and performing
- Learning is measured through recall and test performance
- Authority is centralized: the teacher models excellence, the student imitates it
This paradigm values structure, clarity, and authority. It assumes knowledge flows one way—from teacher to student—and success is determined by how well that transfer goes.
🎓 Student-Active Learning Paradigm
- A good student is visibly engaged: participating, solving tasks, contributing in class
- Teachers shift from lecturers to facilitators or guides
- Learning happens through activity—discussions, exercises, group work, quizzes
- But goals and standards are still externally set
At first glance, this feels more democratic. Students talk more. They interact more. The classroom seems less hierarchical.
But the agency here is often incidental, not intentional. Discussions, for example, are powerful democratic tools. But they’re rarely included for those reasons—they’re included because they improve performance. The paradigm still centers measurable outcomes, not autonomy.
It’s a performance model, just with more interaction. Students are asked to be active—but not to question the game.
What Both Paradigms Leave Out
In both models, success is defined externally. Students operate inside a structure they didn’t design. Even when collaborative tools are used, it’s often because they “work”—not because they support self-authorship.
What’s missing is intention—and a framework that treats students not just as performers, but as people capable of building their own learning lives.
Why Democratic Education Needs a Paradigm
Democratic education doesn’t just adjust the method. It redefines the purpose.
It asks:
- What if learning was a space for shared meaning-making?
- What if we treated students as citizens—not future citizens, but current ones?
- What if the process mattered as much as the result?
Right now, democratic education exists as scattered practices and philosophies. But without a paradigm—a shared frame—it remains hard to grow, research, or support systematically.
A paradigm wouldn’t mean locking in a single model. It would mean creating a lens we can use to build something coherent together.