POST 2 Section 2: Theories and Models of Learning and Instruction (due 9/8/13)

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?

   Our textbook defines Epistemology as a branch of philosophy that is concerned with how knowledge is acquired or addressed.

  It covers the basic precepts of learning:

• ·        Learning is an active process in our lives
• ·        Learning opportunities come out of cognitive conflicts particularly through solving problems
• ·        Learning is a social activity that is provided through our communities
• ·        Learners should be self-regulated 

   These precepts are good guidelines for designers of instruction and this is from a constructivist point of view. We all have epidemiological beliefs. It’s what helps us deliver our instruction, influences our approach and design.

   Our book covers many instructional methods but let me touch on one example. There is a “Problem-based learning” method where the instructor is the delegator that gives students a problem and the students solve the problem by gathering and organizing data, then attempts to solve the problem by giving an explanation. Then the students need to reflect on how they came to solve the problem by analyzing the strategies they found.

   Learning theories are about instructional designers figuring out the best ways that students learn. Since I am not a full time teacher, my insights are what I believe will happen or from my student/substitute teaching reflections. So far I am bent towards a constructivist approach. Designing from a constructivist approach requires that the designer produces a product that is much more facilitative than prescriptive. The standard pencil-and-paper tests of mastery learning are not used in constructive design; instead, evaluation is based on notes, early drafts, final products and journals. Because of the subjective nature of constructive learning, it is easier for a designer to work, and therefore the objective approach to instructional design. That is not to say that classical or old school instructional design techniques are better than constructive design, but it is easier, less time consuming and most likely less expensive to design within a "closed system" rather than an "open" one. Perhaps there is some truth in the statement that "Constructivism is a 'learning theory', more than a 'teaching approach'." (Wilkinson, 1995).

   Instructional models describe the process of instruction. It helps teachers gain insight and meaning on the process of how teaching is to be done and applied.  It gives some insight into how their students view what is presented to them.  A couple of my favorite models are the e5 and ADDIE models. The e5 model helps instructors develop a deeper understanding of what it takes to be a successful teacher in the classroom. The ADDIE model forms a road-map for the entire learning and training development.

   

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?

   Our textbook points out that 'Inasmuch as positivists believe that knowledge exists independent of the individual learner; it follows that they generally employ instructional methods designed to transmit knowledge, so as to help individuals "learn" or duplicate it. Conversely, inasmuch relativists believe that knowledge is not absolute but rather what the individual constructs, they typically rely on instructional methods that are intended to promote...personal interpretations and refine understanding'. Learning is defined in the book as 'a persisting change in human performance or performance potential'. We as humans are constantly changing everyday both physically, mentally, and emotionally. 

      Contextualist epistemology maintains that what one knows is somehow relative to context. So to make a long story short, here, the veracity of the ascription of the word being used depends upon the context in which it is being used.

   “Relativist epistemology reflects fundamentally different views about the nature of knowledge, and knowing. Relativist believe that reality is not directly knowable, and can only be inferred or signed by convention or consensus. They assume that individuals actively assign different meanings to common objects, events, and circumstances that cannot be judged simply as “correct” or “incorrect” by comparing it to convention”. (Driskoll, 1999;Hannafin & Land, 1997;Hwang, 1996;Yarusso, 1992).

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 1996, several defined behaviorism as a philosophy and values associated with the measurement and the study of human behavior. Others will say that they have an understanding of learning based on cause and effect. If that particular behavior was followed by a positive reinforcement, then the behavior was more likely to be repeated; on the other hand, if there was a negative reinforcement, the behavior would be less likely to be repeated.

   In in our text, we see that constructivism is not a single theory, but rather a collection of use, sharing a fundamental assumption about learning that contrast sharply with the assumptions underlying theories such as information processing. Learning is more a matter of going from the inside out. This is where the learner actively imposes organization and meaning on the surrounding environment and constructs knowledge in the process. Constructivism, schema theory, and situated learning theory now offer the instructional designer of the ways of thinking about learning. Along with technology advancement, the design strategies for producing learning environments are more complex, more real, and more exciting than ever. But the easiest way to define constructivism is one who sees learning as a process of constructing or making something.

   Behaviorism, suggest that effective reinforcement brings about results that motivate the students. But critics to this approach will say that it's the reinforcers that take away from the students being able to focus and gain knowledge from the instructor because they are too busy wanting more of that positive reinforcement. I can see as a teacher why one might go to the store and buy lots of candy or stickers and use that candy or sticker as a reinforcer for motivation. Eventually, some students will be doing the assignment or activity just to learn the candy or the sticker.

   The constructivist viewpoint, motivation seems to be an assumed, existing characteristic within the learner. A constructivist view of motivation is based on the premise that each individual is motivated differently. What may motivate one person to learn a foreign language and keep studying in order to become proficient in that given language will differ from individual to individual. Constructivism stresses the fact that an individual's motivation is a subject to social and context you influences. Constructivism stresses the fact that an individual's motivation is a subject of learning. It not only helps learning, but it is essential for learning. It includes the understanding of the ways in which the possessed knowledge may be used by the learners. I have used several approaches with students, but the one I like best is the ones that keep everyone moving and active in class. When the students can self-regulate themselves, and teach others along the way, that is a successful day. In my opinion, kids like the constructivist approach more than they like the behaviorist.