Section 2 Theories/Models of Learning & 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 a branch of philosophy that deals with the idea of the nature of knowledge and the ways that people come to believe that knowledge. Instructional methods or theories are ideas that examine how people come to understand and remember ideas. In other words, theories, methods, and models of learning are used to examine the ways that people acquire information or how they are taught. Epistemologies focus more on the idea of what knowledge is and how people construct meaning for what they have learned.

An epistemological idea may state a belief about learning, but does not look at the process or steps by which that knowledge was acquired.  Epistemologies are often influenced by an individual’s prior experiences. One person’s belief may differ from another individual’s due to different experiences that help to shape the meaning that is applied to the knowledge they have acquired. For instance, one student in a classroom may have the belief that math is difficult to learn, while another student might think that math is easy. These different epistemological ideas could stem from the application of certain instructional methods that were successful in helping one student to learn the material, while unsuccessful in helping the other. My cousin experienced this in his algebra class. He had consistent difficulty understanding the information that was being taught and therefore, developed the belief that algebra was too difficult for him to ever learn. This is something that I hope to do my best at trying to prevent from happening when I begin teaching by incorporating various learning models into my instruction. The last thing that I want my students to leave my classroom thinking is that they are incapable of learning what I am trying to teach them.

Instructional methods or models of learning focus on the ways that people learn and remember information, not whether they believe what they are learning. These methods or “steps” are ways designed to assist the facilitator in delivering information to learners. Some examples of learning models are project based learning, Blooms taxonomy, and learner centered activities. Models of learning are an essential part of the classroom because they provide guidance for teachers when they are attempting to determine the most effective method of presenting information to their students.

 Epistemology examines the ways in which people come to believe that what they have learned is or is not true, while learning models or theories focus on the methods of delivering information to learners. You might say that epistemologies or “beliefs about learning” establish a foundation for the development of various theories, methods, or models of learning and thus, a structure for the educational process.

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 positive 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.

When considering these three epistemic stances, I would have to say that my beliefs would most closely align with that of a contextualist. This theory or belief that truth or knowledge is relative to context rather than individual, subjective understanding makes the most sense to me. If you do not have any context to which you can relate the information that you are learning, I think that it would be difficult to assign meaning to the knowledge that you have acquired.  Positivists seem to believe that the only truth is that which can be proven, while relativists seem to believe that all knowledge is subject to perception or the idea that the truth is only true if you believe it to be. I believe based on what little I have seen and experienced within the educational field, that a great deal of classroom instruction today centers around a positivist stance, mainly due in part to mandatory testing. While there are certain areas of learning where I might be inclined to take a more positivist stance, (especially when it comes to basic math and science concepts), I still tend to believe that even if information can be proven, it does not necessarily translate to meaningful knowledge if there is no context by which it can be related to give it “personal” relevance.

In thinking about an instance where my learning perspective conflicted with that of another person, one example that comes to mind was more of a discussion rather than a lesson. This discussion involved the theory of Creationism versus Evolution. In our discussion, we had great differences of opinion regarding these topics. One of the individuals involved in this discussion tended to have more of a positivist stance. He believed more in the idea of Evolution than Creationism because much of what he knew regarding Evolution could be supported by scientific evidence. He did not want to believe in the idea of Creationism because of the fact that he knew of little scientific evidence to support that belief. If there was no evidence to support a theory that was presented, he did not want to believe that that theory could be true. I certainly believe that opposing epistemic stances were a factor in this conflict because he was only willing to believe something to be truth if there was proven evidence to support it.

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?

When it comes to the behavior theory of learning, Skinner believed that “learning can be understood, explained, and predicted entirely on the basis of observable events, namely the behavior or the learner along with its environmental antecedents and consequences”. In other words, evidence of learning can be seen by watching the learner and how he or she responds to given cues within the learning environment that indicate to the learner if their behavior was correct or incorrect. Essentially, this theory deals with trial and error. This perspective is empirically based in that in order to determine if learning has occurred, behavior must be observed both before and after an intervention.  With this theory, learners have more of a “passive” role because they are basically just responsive to stimuli and dependent upon the instructor’s reinforcement. Behaviorists see learning as a way to acquire a new behavior and focus on the use of conditioning, whether operant or classical. In this type of classroom, the instructional design would lend itself to more “teacher centered” instruction with repetition and feedback necessary to determine if learning has occurred.

 A constructivist perspective on learning is essentially opposite from a behaviorist viewpoint. Constructivists believe that “the learner actively imposes organization and meaning on the surrounding environment and constructs knowledge in the process”. Another way of explaining this might be to say that instead of relying on cues from the surrounding environment to help determine the learner’s behavior, the learner uses existing knowledge to adapt to their behavior to their surroundings and constructs new knowledge as a result of those experiences.  With constructivism, learning is an “active process”, encouraging students to “analyze, interpret, and predict information”, thus using problem solving and higher order thinking skills. In this type of classroom, instruction would be more “student centered”, providing opportunities for students to discover and apply ideas themselves.  I can see how the incorporation of this perspective on learning into instructional design would be extremely beneficial to students.

When it comes to problem solving in a classroom setting, a behaviorist is likely to begin by teaching students the steps needed to solve the problem before using those steps to develop the solution. The behaviorist theory essentially assumes that learners will “master content before applying what they have learned in order to solve a problem”. For example, if students are given the task of measuring the length of the classroom a behaviorist might approach this problem by introducing their students to the concept of measurement and the proper way to use measuring tools such as a ruler. Once students have been given these tools, they would use them to determine the measurement of the classroom. When it comes to learner motivation, behaviorists are interested in behavioral responses and would most likely use environmental stimuli to reinforce desired behavior. If learners received positive reinforcement, they would be motivated to continue to perform correctly and negative reinforcement would entice them to change their behavior. The feedback that students get when presenting their findings to the teacher would be motivation to either try again or consider the task completed and the skill successfully learned.

The constructivist approach to problem solving would likely involve the introduction of the problem at the beginning and then allowing the students to develop ideas or steps on their own for solving the problem. This theory assumes that students will “master content while solving a meaningful problem”. Constructivists are most likely to approach a problem by applying their existing knowledge in order to provide meaning and develop a reason, as well as a solution to the problem. In the example of students being tasked with measuring the length of the classroom, a constructivist might assign this task to their students without giving them any explanation about measurement or what tools that they needed to use. They might also allow the students to work together to figure out how they can best determine the length of the classroom. While some students might have prior knowledge about measurement and the use of rulers, other students might have different ideas about measurements, based on their existing knowledge, which could be helpful in solving the problem as well. For instance, some students might think to measure the classroom using their shoe because they know it to be a certain length, while others might want to measure the length in hands. Constructivists allow students to approach the problem with little instruction from the teacher (mainly just guidance), and develop their own methods for reaching a solution. This approach can lead to the learners to developing additional questions, which serve to motivate them to continue to work toward a solution.