Section 2: Theories & Models of Learning & Instruction

1.     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 the study of what we know and how we gained the knowledge. In the reading it describes epistemic curiousity as the desire to know why or how something is happening. My students are always asking me why something happens the way that it does.  Right now they are very curious about why I have a couple of different kinds of insects in  my room.  They are making predictions about why they are there and what I am going to use them for in our class.  I allow them to wonder and make their own predictions because it keeps them more interested in what I am teaching.  Instructional methods or theories are the study of different models or methods of helping others to learn. These theories or models focus on how best to teach others new concepts or ideas. 

2.     2. Chapters in this section discuss three contrasting epistemic stances: positivist, relativist, and contextualist (or hermeneutical). Positivists believe that the only truth or knowledge is objective truth. Relativists don’t believe that objective truth is possible and that all knowledge is subjective to perception or relative to a particular frame of reference. Contextualists believe that truth or knowledge is relative to context rather than individual, subjective understanding. 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. Reflect on whether your stance is primarily positivist, relativist, or contextualist. Then, identify an instance when your perspective or stance as a learner conflicted with that of your instructor. Describe the conflict that you experienced and analyze whether opposing epistemic stances may have been at the heart of the conflict.

My epistemic stance is primarily contextualist because I do have a more constructivist approach in my classroom.  I am the facilitator more often than the instructor in my classroom.  This helps my students build their own knowledge on concepts with my guidance and therefore it makes their level of understanding and retention of the concepts increase.  It also helps because I have students of many ability levels in each of my classes and they need concrete, tactile activities to help them understand many of the concepts that I have to teach them.

When I was in high school geometry, I struggled to understand what my teacher was trying to teach.  I now believe it is because of her epistemic stance which was positivist.  She definitely used the behaviorist approach in her teaching.  She would show us an example of how to do a problem and then turn us loose to do an assignment.  I think I would have done better if she had taken a more constructivist approach so that I could have developed my own understanding of the concepts that she was teaching. I never really developed a firm understanding of Geometry and as a result I struggled in some of my college level math classes later on in life.

3    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?

Using the behaviorist approach, the teacher is the primary source of information and students may or may not be interested in what he/she has to say.  Students today have a very difficult time staying focused for long periods of time so any lecture time lesson falls on deaf ears in many cases.  I know that when I have to do a direct teach lesson, I make sure to include some things that break the flow so that I can redirect students who are having trouble focusing.  I use weblinks, videos or questioning to break up the flow of the lesson.  This helps to keep the students more engaged.  Teachers that lecture on a consistent basis or use textbooks for most of the learning are not helping many of their students because they lack the ability or desire to learn what is being taught.

Using the constructivist approach, the teacher becomes a facilitator and the students are given more control over what they are learning.  It is an amazing thing to watch when a student gets what I am teaching.  When that connection is made for a student on their own it is something they will not forget.  Teaching Science lends itself very well to this theory but I know that if I were teaching any other subject area I would still give the students more of an opportunity to develop their own understanding of the concepts.  My students love to come to class every day because they never know what we are going to do. They notice everything in my classroom every day.  They want to learn what I am teaching because we can have fun and learn at the same time.