1. Epistemology (the
study of what and how we come to know) is discussed in multiple chapters in this
section. Distinguish epistemology from instructional methods or theories. What
are the differences between theories, methods, or models of learning and
epistemologies or underlying beliefs about ways of knowing?
Epistemology is different from instructional theories and methods because it really is more of a philosophical view of how we come to know what we know. It is more abstract and tends to remain that way. In general, learning theories deal more with the application. They are methodology more than epistemology. They do have underlying beliefs, but they rely on empirical results to support their conclusions.
For example, though Skinner’s theories of learning rely on underlying beliefs, these beliefs are supported by application in the real world. As the course text states, “To begin with, behavioral learning theory is empirically based, which means that behavior is observed both before and after and intervention such as instruction has been implemented, and the observed changes in performance are related to what occurred during the intervention.” (Reiser and Dempsey, 2011, p. 36.)
Overall, the difference between epistemology and theories, methods and models of learning comes down to being a difference between beliefs without application and beliefs with empirical, real world application.
2. Chapters in this section present two contrasting epistemic stances: positivist and relativist. However, a third stance, the contextualist or hermeneutical, is also widely recognized. This stance falls somewhere between the strictly objectivist/positivist beliefs about knowing and the purely subjectivist/relativist stance. While designers and educators with a positivist stance generally apply behaviorist principles to the design and development of instruction, those with either a contextualist or relativist epistemological framework employ constructivist theories and methods. However, relativists ascribe to radical constructivist approaches, while contextualists draw upon social constructivist theories and models. Based on what you’ve read about positivist and relativist epistemologies, as well as behaviorist and constructivist approaches, try to more fully describe a contextualist epistemology. How might it differ from either a relativist or positivist stance, and how might social constructivism differ from either behaviorist or radical constructivist approached to learning and instruction?
Epistemology is different from instructional theories and methods because it really is more of a philosophical view of how we come to know what we know. It is more abstract and tends to remain that way. In general, learning theories deal more with the application. They are methodology more than epistemology. They do have underlying beliefs, but they rely on empirical results to support their conclusions.
For example, though Skinner’s theories of learning rely on underlying beliefs, these beliefs are supported by application in the real world. As the course text states, “To begin with, behavioral learning theory is empirically based, which means that behavior is observed both before and after and intervention such as instruction has been implemented, and the observed changes in performance are related to what occurred during the intervention.” (Reiser and Dempsey, 2011, p. 36.)
Overall, the difference between epistemology and theories, methods and models of learning comes down to being a difference between beliefs without application and beliefs with empirical, real world application.
2. Chapters in this section present two contrasting epistemic stances: positivist and relativist. However, a third stance, the contextualist or hermeneutical, is also widely recognized. This stance falls somewhere between the strictly objectivist/positivist beliefs about knowing and the purely subjectivist/relativist stance. While designers and educators with a positivist stance generally apply behaviorist principles to the design and development of instruction, those with either a contextualist or relativist epistemological framework employ constructivist theories and methods. However, relativists ascribe to radical constructivist approaches, while contextualists draw upon social constructivist theories and models. Based on what you’ve read about positivist and relativist epistemologies, as well as behaviorist and constructivist approaches, try to more fully describe a contextualist epistemology. How might it differ from either a relativist or positivist stance, and how might social constructivism differ from either behaviorist or radical constructivist approached to learning and instruction?
Contextualist epistemology, when reduced to its basic idea, asserts that what one “knows” is dependent on context, and meets a set of other criteria dependent on that specific context. Because of this, “knowing” something can change from one situation to another.
Contextualist epistemology differs from a relativist or
positivist stance in that it supports the notion that knowledge and reality are
shaped by interaction and society. Relativism relies more on the idea that each
individual constructs a unique perception of reality and “knows” the world in
an individual manner. Positivism asserts that reality and knowledge exist
independently from the perceptions of the individual and can be verified
empirically.
In the context of learning, a social constructivist stance would likely emphasize collaborative learning and interaction among peers, whereas a radical constructivist approach might encourage a student to discover and express their own perceptions of the content. A positivist approach would probably require students to acknowledge certain empirical facts without as much emphasis on student perceptions or opinions.
3. Differing epistemic stances lead to differing approaches to learning and instruction, and ultimately to problem-solving. Explain differences in problem-solving when approached from behaviorist and constructivist perspectives. How do the approaches differ in both the nature of the problem to be solved and in facilitating the problem solving process? Finally, what effect might these differences have on learner motivation?
In the context of learning, a social constructivist stance would likely emphasize collaborative learning and interaction among peers, whereas a radical constructivist approach might encourage a student to discover and express their own perceptions of the content. A positivist approach would probably require students to acknowledge certain empirical facts without as much emphasis on student perceptions or opinions.
3. Differing epistemic stances lead to differing approaches to learning and instruction, and ultimately to problem-solving. Explain differences in problem-solving when approached from behaviorist and constructivist perspectives. How do the approaches differ in both the nature of the problem to be solved and in facilitating the problem solving process? Finally, what effect might these differences have on learner motivation?
Anyone who has taken an introductory undergraduate psychology course has probably studied operant conditioning and the Skinner box. Essentially, all behaviorist approaches to learning rely on the same basic principle as the Skinner box: reinforcement. Specifically, reinforcement of desired behaviors. In a classroom setting, a behaviorist approach might mean offering positive praise for a correct answer, or consequences for a behavioral misstep. The same idea is applied to problem solving in a behaviorist classroom. The problem solving is facilitated by the teacher via positive or negative feedback and reinforcement. Problems to be solved might be applied in a more individual way, with one student working by himself or herself to achieve the goal of positive feedback from the teacher.
A constructivist approach to problem solving would likely emphasize more collaborative efforts and working with peers to come to a solution to a problem. In this scenario, a teacher might facilitate problem solving by providing several sources of information or other tools the students could use to find answers and solutions. The students would probably rely less on direct feedback from the teacher. As we read in our course text, a constructivist approach is a “closer match to how people really learn – through direct engagement with their worlds, generally leading to more meaningful learning outcomes.”(Reiser and Dempsey, 2011, p. 50.)
I believe a constructivist, rather than traditional behaviorist, approach would have a more positive effect on overall learner motivation. Students in a constructivist setting are encouraged to deal with the world around them. The application of problem solving strategies to the world they actually live in lends authenticity and relevance to their learning. Behaviorist approaches, while effective in eliciting rote responses, cannot deliver the same level of authentic learning.
References:
Reiser, R. R., & Dempsey, J. V. (2011). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Lauren, Sep 10, 2013
ReplyDeleteReading your blog helped solidify the different learning sciences and theories we read about this week. I felt Reiser was often too verbose in definitions and examples. It took a long time for me to work through the reading as I would get confused and have to start over. You were able to touch on the important differences in design approach succinctly and simply.
I generally agree with your stance regarding epistemology as more of a philosophical view of learning rather than a method or application used for instruction. In comparing epistemology to design I hadn’t thought of epistemology as a philosophical view. You made a good point, I hadn’t thought of it in that sense. I saw epistemology as the general science behind and the basis for different theories, methods and models. Almost a jumping off point if you will.
Part two was painful for me to get through. After reading yours I’m pretty sure I overthought it. What took the best part of my time to complete; you had down in the three paragraphs. The three examples you chose reflected each method clearly. Each example helped me to differentiate how these theories would be used in an everyday learning environment.
In clinic classes, the students combine lessons from lecture and lab to apply to a real world patient. Once they come to the hospital to fulfill clinical requirements they are working beside us caring for our clients. Every semester the students tell us how important clinicals were to their learning motivation. When students meet people face to face who are depending on them to be at the top of their game in knowledge and skill, I see a huge change in motivation and drive. I don’t think lives have to be in the balance to produce this change in passion. I believe it’s made through relevance. Students deeply involved in learning experiences find it easier to have ownership of their advancement. Hopefully this excitement leads to growth and empowerment in the learning environment. Like you, I see the constructivist model of learning more likely to achieve this goal.
I love the way you worded the meaning of epistemology in relation to theories and learning models. It makes total sense that epistemology is more abstract because it differs from person to person.
ReplyDeleteI agree about constructivist approach would have a more positive effect on students because it gives them the power and control with their own learning. Students need to feel what they're learning is important because that means it is authentic to them and their future. I can see where some behaviorist approaches would be beneficial because students need to learn correct and incorrect behavior or procedures. I thought your views on contextualist epistemology was interesting because it showed the important of group interaction. Students have to learn to work together in different situations because that is the type of environment they have in the working world. Social skills are a very important skill to learn and practice in the young ages. Not only does it help students learn how to work in a group, but it also teaches students the importance of doing your part of the work and staying on task.
I thought you did a great job and you really opened my eyes to some interesting views!
I love your spin on how underlying beliefs deal more with the application in the learning process. Skinners theories help to make sense of the before and after effects of epistemology. The response regarding positivism and perceptions of the individual can help the teacher to create learning situations and possibilities that cater to all learner types. Collaborative efforts in the constructivist environment is a great approach in the older elementary groups which can offer innovation for students. Problem solving applications have the tendency to help with self confidence of students and gives everyone a responsibility.
ReplyDeleteLauren,
ReplyDeleteAlot of our ideas are alike her. I must admit when reading this chapter it took alot for me to understand what everything meant. After rereading the chapters and reading your blog I now have a better understanding of theories and models of learning.When talking about social constructivist and radical constructivist our definitions were similar. Social constructivist allows learners to work collaboratively and to be social which is what we see frequently in classrooms now. Whereas radical constructivist encourage radical approaches to learning allowing students to explore and find out things on their own. I think both ideas work and allow students to be successful in the classroom. I also think a constructivist approach to learning works best in a classroom. Especially when it comes to problem solving students need to be exposed to real world experiences and applications. It allows students to make connections and they are able to understand what and why they are learning it a little better! Enjoyed your blog!