You’re right. The models outlined in the infed article do appear to represent different paradigms or world views. This makes is particularly difficult to move from the second one – product – to the third – process. Though in language and writing instruction, as you know, a superficial resemblance can be found with “process writing” and “process reading” and so on – it is still difficult to move into real process focused instruction.
I have been doing this process thing for several years, and other colleagues have done the same – spontaneously it would seem – however, we get a lot of push back from colleagues who see us as “irresponsible” or refusing to be “accountable” for our teaching. They respond by attempting to impose a strictly “transmission” based curriculum on us, build entirely around delivery of a list of materials. They define this so closely that even they are unable to comply with it. This fails instructionally but succeeds in driving out “bad teachers” (those who think about what they are doing).
The forth level, praxis, is what is done in my sons’ school. This is designed to create a kind of “model citizen” constructed along populist, democratic principles, so it has political socialization at it’s core – and this is quite traditional. Kids resist it as “scolding” and moralistic.
So, I think that paradigms are relevant, but that distinctions may go a little deeper. Instructionism may be useful in early primary education and corporate training, praxis based curricula are well suited to adult and continuing education, professional development, and some post-grad level education. Other environments may be better suited to product or process based curricula.
If we wanted to introduce curriculum theory into teacher ed, it would have to be under this type of rubric and not as an artifact of the culture wars.