The Reasons for Gaining and Losing the Popularity of a Paradigm in Constructivism: Why? and How?



Kuhn, paradigm, paradigmatic change, constructivism, paradigm shif, paradigmatic lose


In the context of paradigmatic transformations, different approaches have periodically dominated in the field of educational sciences, as happened in other fields. There are views related to which the scientific paradigms are rising rapidly and falling slowly. The purpose of this study is to investigate why? and how? paradigms gain and lose their popularity. Constructivism studied as a basic paradigm in this study. In Turkey, MoNE changed the primary and secondary school curriculum based on constructivism approach which was a new concept for teachers and researchers. Within this change an increases research happened about constructivism. Because of the increase and popularity of the constructivism the researchers of this article decided to analyze this change in a paradigmatic change. The researchers collected data from researchers who studied and experienced the constructivist approach in their papers. So, this study used phenomenological approach to why, what, and how participants experienced the constructivism. The study reached the findings that the reasons why scientists start to conduct a research were "intellectual curiosity, faddism, external history, belief and authority"; the reasons of maintaining a study based on a specific approach were "development and belief”, and the reasons of not continuing their study were explained as "dullness, hobbies and belief". Consequently, an approach in Turkey does not show a rapid rise and then a slow decrease, contrary to what is expressed theoretically; it can be said that it shows a very rapid uptrend and a very strong downward trend.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Erdal Bay

Full Professor
Faculty of Social Science
Gaziantep İslam, Science and Technology
ORCID: 0000-0002-4452-9067

Mehmet Başaran

Asstistant Professor
Education Faculty
Gaziantep University
ORCID: 0000-0003-1871-520X

Bülent Döş

Associate Professor
Education Faculty
Gaziantep University
ORCID: 0000-0002-8000-9595


Ball, Philip. How Curiosity- Science has been interested in everything. Çev: Berna Günen. Kolektif yayın. 2014.

Bay, Erdal, et. al. “4+4+4 modelinin paydaşlar bağlamında değerlendirilmesi: Aktif katılım mı? Pasif direniş mi”? Eğitim ve Toplum. 2, (5) (2013): 34-55.

Behara, Ravi & Davis, Mark M. “Navigating disruptive innovation in undergraduate business education.” Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education. 13(3), (2015): 305-326.

Blessinger, Patrick, Reshef, Shai, & Sengupta Enakshi. “The shifting paradigm of higher education”, university world news. 2018. Retrieved from y=20181003100607371.

Bornholdt, Stefan, Jensen, Mogens H. & Sneppen, Kim. Emergence and Decline of Scientific Paradigms Physical Review Letters (Phys. Rev. Lett.) 106, (2011) 058701

Christensen, Clayton M. The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 1997.

Chron. “What Is Inductive Content Analysis?” 2021. Retrieved from /inductive-content-analysis-24666.html.

Denktaş, Abdurrahman. “Thomas Kuhn's understanding of science.” Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi,3(1)(2015):25-32.

Donsbach, Wolfgang. “The identity of communication research.” Journal of Communication, 56(3) (2006): 437–448. 2466.2006.00294.x.

Fraenkel, Jack R., Wallen, Norman E. & Hyun, Helen. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (8th edt.). New York: McGram-Hill Companies. 2012.

Fosnot, Catherine Twomey & Perry, Stewart Randall. “Constructivist: A psychological theory of learning.” Constructivism: Theory, Perspective and Practice. Ed. C. T. Fosnot. New York: Teacher College Press. 1996. 8-13.

Glynn, Shawn M., Yeany, Russell. H. & Britton, Bruce K. “A constructive view of learning science.” The Psychology of Learning Science Hilldale, Ed. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1991. 3-19.

Gray, Kurt & Wegner, Daniel M. “Six guidelines for interesting research.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(5) (2013): 549–553.

Grey, Chris. “Organizing studies: Publications, politics and polemic.” Organization Studies, 31(6) (2010): 677– 694.

Hairston, Maxine. “The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of writing.” College Composition and Communication, 33(1) (1982): 76-88.

Hallinger, Philip. “Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership.” Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3) (2003): 329-352.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Stcructure of Scientific Revolutions (Bilimsel devrimlerin yapısı) .Çev: Nilüfer Kuyaş. Alan Yayıcılık. 1970.

Lehnert, Wendy G. “Paradigmatic issues in cognitive science.” In W. Kintsh, J. Miller, & P. Polson (Eds.), Methods and tactics in cognitive science (pp. 21– 49). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 2018.

Mbatha, Blessing. “A paradigm shift: Adoption of disruptive learning innovations in an ODL environment: The case of the University of South Africa.” The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(3) (2015) 218- 232

Miles Matthew B. & Huberman A. Michael. Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. 1994.

Orakci, Şenol, Durnali, Mehmet & Ozkan, Orhan. “Curriculum reforms in Turkey”. In O. Karnauhkova & B. Christiansen (Eds). Economic and Geopolitical Perspectives of the commonwealth of independent states and Eurasia (pp. 225-251). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. 2018.

Popper, Karl. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge. 1992.

Regear, Glenn & Norman, Geoffrey R. “Issues in cognitive psychology: Implications for professional education.” Academic Medicine, 71(9) (1996): 988- 1001. 00015.

Rogers, Everett M. “Diffusion of Innovations” (4th Eds.) ACM The Free Press (Sept. 2001). New York,(1995): 15-23.

Schwartz, Stephan. “A. Kuhn, Consciousness, and Paradigms” Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, 14(4) (2018): 254-261.

Şentürk, Cihad & Aydoğmuş, Mevlüt. “Comparison of Turkish elementary school science curriculum: 2005-2013-2017.” International Journal of Modern Education Studies, 1(1), (2017): 46-57.

Tekeli, İlhan. “Yükseköğretim’de yeniden düzenleme arayışlarının nasıl temellendirilebileceği üzerine” (On how to search for reorganization in higher education). Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, 2, (2012): 6- 10.

Tellis, Gerard. J. “Interesting and impactful research: On phenomena, theory, and writing.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(1) (2017): 1–6.

Turner III, Daniel W. “Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investigators.” The qualitative report, 15(3) (2010): 754.

Walker, Thomas C. “The perils of paradigm mentalities: revisiting Kuhn, Lakatos, and Popper,” Perspectives on Politics 8 (2) (2010): 433-451.

Wing-Mui SO, Winnie. “Constructivist teaching in primary science.” Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 3 (1) (2002): 1-33.

Additional Files



How to Cite

Bay, E., Başaran, M., & Döş, B. (2021). The Reasons for Gaining and Losing the Popularity of a Paradigm in Constructivism: Why? and How?. Psycho-Educational Research Reviews, 10(1), 8–24. Retrieved from