Saturday, September 7, 2013

Week 2: Theories and Models of Learning and Instruction

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?


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?


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.