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?
After reading
about the different learning theories in Chapter 4 and the history of
constructivism in Chapter 5, I have come to the conclusion that epistemology is
a part of each learning theory presented.
However, the theorists take different views on where this knowledge
comes from therefore shaping the different methods discussed. Dictionary.com defines epistemology as a
branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, method and limits of
human knowledge. Each learning theorist
studied in chapter 4 developed their own personal sense of where this knowledge
is acquired and created a form of instructional design based on these beliefs.
·
The
behavioral learning theory is based on how people respond to different
interventions. Skinner believes that if
we observe behaviors and peoples responses we can best create learning
environments for each individual. I
would say that this theory is based on an epistemology that revolves around the
individual and not the outside world.
·
The
Cognitive Information Processing Theory is where the information is passed
through different processes and stages where it can then be stored and
retrieved. This is also based on the
individual learner but there is more of a focus on the information that is having
to travel through these various processes.
·
The
Schema theory is based on a learners knowledge that they have already acquired
or schema. This theory focuses on what
the learner already knows and therefore depends heavily where they acquire
knowledge.
·
Situated
Learning Theory is based on social and cultural determinants of learning. I believe that this theory depends heavily on
the world that surrounds the learner.
·
Gagne’s
theory of learning involves nine events of instruction. It focuses on both internal and external
learning conditions so its priority is the way something is learned.
·
Constructivism
is where the learner receives info from the environment and transforms it in
various ways to be meaningful. This
theory focuses on the way information is consumed by each individual learner.
There has
definitely been a shift in thinking from focus on the content to focus on the
learner and how they acquire knowledge.
This has helped educators create lessons that are meaningful and
specific to the needs of each learner.
It is important to consider the way humans learn and retain knowledge.
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.
I believe
that I fall under the guise of contextual learning. I believe that it is important to have
opinions about knowledge but we must make sure we are balancing these opinions
within context. I had a professor in
undergrad that was a relativist. She believed
that each individual situation was important and that behaviors could and
should change based on changes in the environment and experiences of the
learners. While I appreciated this
approach to an extent, it became a bit frustrating when I had worked very hard
on a project and several students in my class did not and the professor ended
up giving the whole class an “A” on the project because she felt like the time
constraint was too much. I also felt
like it made learning a bit unpredictable because there was not a set standard
and it kind of changed from week to week.
I believe that anything you learn should have a personal spin to it, but
I believe that without a consistent standard on which to base this learning,
you will have a confused bunch of students trying to make sense of a changing
slate. I do think believe that situations
and experience play heavily into the learning process, but they should not be
the sole factor. Content and standards
are valuable and students need something by which to base their goals.
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.
David Jonassen argues that problem solving should be the
focus for all education in Chapter 7 of our text. His theories of real world application are an
important facet of student buy-in and success.
He argues that students should be presented with meaningful learning
applicable to their real world situations.
This can be done from both a behaviorist and constructive perspective. In a behaviorist perspective, students would attempt
to determine outcomes based on different behaviors that were observed both
before and after a different objective was addressed. Teachers could then determine if students
mastered that objective by observing these behaviors and giving students
opportunity to practice the behaviors that aligned with the desired
outcome. For example, teachers in a
science class could assign a question to students and then have observe
students as they created trial and error experiments to answer that
question. Students would be able to
answer the question when they designed an experiment that achieved the desired
outcome. This trial and error process
would allow students the opportunity to explore and discover the intended
learning. This is a more individualized
approach to problem solving.
Problem solving from a constructivist perspective gives
students the opportunity to connect new learning with their prior
experiences/perspectives. Students are
required to consider others thoughts and opinions and often work in
groups. They then construct their ideas
and receive feedback from both classmates and the instructor. I believe that this type of problem solving
is useful because students have to collaborate on what they already know or
what someone else already knows and then connect to their ideas. For example, you could show a short video or
have students read a text and have groups gather information to guess something
from the video or text (location/author/object described, etc.). The class could be divided into groups that
are responsible for research/observation.
You could have the class engage in a debate or chat room style of discussion
therefore allowing all students opportunity to develop their own ideas, but
also reap the benefit of hearing the thoughts of others. Students might be able to utilize information
learned from the other groups to solve the problem. This approach to problem solving tends to
utilize more of a group dynamic.
While both of these instructional methods could be
successful at helping students develop problem-solving skills, I believe that
the constructivist approach is the most successful as far as garnering student
involvement. Students have to depend on
each other for learning and therefore are often times more driven to accomplish
the objective. When students are doing
individual trial and error they can work at different paces and you will run
into the group of students who complete the work quickly and get bored and the
slower learners who get frustrated. When
the students have to consider others observations and opinions they will often
times work together and encourage each other to accomplish their goals.
No comments:
Post a Comment