What is the value of a theoretical framework?

by | Tuesday, March 25, 2014

theory.001

One question that all doctoral students dread (and rightfully so) is “What is your theoretical framework?” Why, they wonder (silently), why do we need a framework?

This question popped up recently in, of all places, Facebook. Pilar Quezzaire, a graduate of our MAET program, posted a question to our overseas FB page as follows:

Busy writing away about technology integration frameworks like TPACK, and I’ve been asked to come up with a few definitive articles about their effectiveness in general (not the effectiveness of a particular framework.) Has anyone come across a source that looks at the difference between integrating tech with a framework in mind, versus integrating technology without one? … I can (cite/list) lots of articles and case studies, but no one seems to have looked at the trend of using frameworks. Thanks!

This was not something I had given much thought to before. Theory is sacrosanct in academia, its the air we breathe so why question it. Reflecting on Pilar’s question prompted me to respond at length (maybe at greater length than she needed or wanted). Interestingly, the discussion moved form citing specific studies into the deeper philosophy of science issues. This is what I wrote (edited lightly to make it work as a blog post):

This is an excellent (meta) question and one that really needs way more space than FB can provide – but let me try… with an analogy. A framework for technology integration for me is akin to the the role that theory plays in science. What a theory does is provide a structure that lets us systematically study the phenomena under question, allows us to make predictions, guides practice and so on. Now have there been any studies that show that having a theory is better than not having one? I doubt it – because the benefits are so obvious. Think of biology before Darwin’s (and Wallace’s) insights and the answer should be obvious.

So there is a reason why it will be difficult to find someone comparing using a framework v.s. no framework. In fact one can even question whether there can be “no framework.” One can of course compare different frameworks (in terms of their simplicity, explanatory power, coherence etc.) but to my mind, any framework, is better than no framework at all

The Mishra & Koehler 2006 article in TCRecord does get into this in some detail, where in a section titled “What does the TPACK framework buy us?” we start with the question “What is the value of a theoretical framework?” and we answer it along three dimensions- description, inference generation and application. And we end the article this way:

We are sensitive to the fact that in a complex, multi-faceted and ill-structured domain such as integration of technology in education there is no single framework that tells the “complete story;” no single framework that can provide all the answers. The TPCK framework is no exception. However, we do believe that any framework, however impoverished, is better than no framework at all. As Charles Darwin said (Darwin & Seward, 1903, p.195): “About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to observe and not theorize; and I well remember someone saying that at this rate a man might as well go into a gravel pit and count the pebbles and describe the colors. How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!” In proposing the TPCK framework, we have sought to provide one such view.

So to cut a long story short… I doubt you will find studies that compare no frameworks vs a framework. This may be a blind spot of science but having a framework or theory is critical to the process-and for better or worse having one is better than having none.

But there are philosophers of science who argue that all this theory is just curve fitting … and just so stories told post hoc, full of sound and fury signifying nothing. I don’t agree with them but again that’s just my opinion.

Isn’t is amazing how a simple question leads us into the depths of philosophy of science.

*****

Just as a side note, Darwin’s Origin of Species (maybe the most powerful example of the value a theoretical view point) ends as follows:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

There are a couple of interesting points I would like to make about this quote.

First, not many people know that the word “evolve” (or variants thereof such as “evolution,” “evolved” etc.) makes it first and ONLY appearance in the very last word of the Origin of the Species! How strange is that, given the controversy the word has caused over time and the fact that Darwin’t theory is known as the “theory of evolution.”

Second, the phrase “this view of life” (at the beginning of the quote) was taken by Stephen Jay Gould as the title of a series of essays he wrote in Natural History magazine. I read these essays when I was growing up in India and they not just influenced my thinking about science and evolution but also informed my writing style. Gould became my inspiration and I aspired to write like him. For this reason I was quite deliberate in ending the TCRecord piece with the words “one such view”—a subtle homage to two of my heroes—Charles Darwin and Stephen Jay Gould.

Topics related to this post: Blogging | Evolution | Fun | Learning | Philosophy | Science | Stories | Teaching | Technology | TPACK | Worth Reading

A few randomly selected blog posts…

The song remains the same

The song remains the same

As I dig through my Research Gate requests I realize that I have missed out on putting some of my articles onto my website. Here is another one (and on a side note, it never hurts to make a Led Zeppelin reference in your paper - actually the paper starts with a quote...

Posting from an iTouch

typing on this keyboard is still kind of painful, though I am getting better every word I type.

Teenagers, retirement & the new abnormal

Teenagers, retirement & the new abnormal

The economist and thinker Andrew Scott once said something that blew me away. He said that:  The 20th century created the idea of teenagers and retirement. I had never considered that the idea of teenagers and retirement was a 20th century idea. These seemed to...

Seeing patterns with eyes closed

Oliver Sacks has a fascinating piece in today's NYTimes (titled Patterns, as a part of his NYTimes blog, Migranes, perspective on a headache). Oliver Sacks describes the visual auras he has suffered through his life as follows: tiny branching lines, like twigs, or...

véjà du, all over again

A véjà du experience is about looking at a familiar situation but with fresh eyes, as if you’ve never seen it before. It forms the basis of an assignment I give in my CEP818, Creativity in Teaching & Learning course. The assignment is described in greater detail...

Hotels & the internet

A while ago David Pogue, NYTimes tech columnist and reviewer, asked a his readers a series of questions that he hadn't been able to find an answer for. This list, called Pogue's Imponderables, generated a lot of comments from readers. One of his questions was "Why is...

Thanks Wipro & Microsoft

#MSUrbanSTEM Thanks Wipro! #MSUrbanSTEM Thanks Microsoft Over this past summer I have had one of the best teaching/learning experiences of my career. Through a project funded by Wipro (and with support from Microsoft) we have the opportunity to work with 125 teachers...

TPACK Newsletter #20: May 2014

TPACK Newsletter, Issue #20: May 2014Welcome to the twentieth edition of the (approximately bimonthly) TPACK Newsletter! TPACK work is continuing worldwide. This document contains recent updates to that work that we hope will be interesting and useful to you, our...

Corporations as Paperclip Maximizers: AI, Data, and the Future of Learning

Corporations as Paperclip Maximizers: AI, Data, and the Future of Learning

Once in a while, you come across a piece of writing that doesn’t just make you think—it makes you rethink. It rearranges the furniture in your head, putting things together in ways you hadn’t considered but now can’t unsee. Charles Stross’s essay, “Dude, You Broke the...

0 Comments

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Designing Theory: New article | Talking About Design - […] I have been, in one way or the other, been interested in the idea of theory, its role and…
  2. Designing Theory: New article – Punya Mishra's Web - […] I have been, in one way or the other, been interested in the idea of theory, its role and…
  3. Update on “The TPACK story” Or “Oops!” – Punya Mishra's Web - […] graduate students a lot as they move through the program (and I have posted about it earlier here and…
  4. Why Theory: Or the TPACK story – Punya Mishra's Web - […] graduate students a lot as they move through the program (and I have posted about it earlier here and…
  5. Speed limits and theoretical frameworks - Spencer Greenhalgh - […] of my colleagues, Josh Rosenberg and Punya Mishra, have recently blogged about the value of theories and frameworks, both…
  6. What TPACK “buys us” in terms of theory and practice | Joshua M. Rosenberg - […] Punya Mishra blogged about the value of a theoretical framework (TPACK) in terms of guiding technology […]

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *