Week 2 Theories and Models of Learning and Instruction

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 branch of philosophy that asks “what can we know?” or “What can we be sure of?”   These basic questions then lead to philosophical theories or ideas intended to explain something. Theories are supported by evidence and data. Theories are a well thought out idea of what should work if we implement our plans accordingly. Instructional methods resemble teaching strategies used in instructional design to improve learning and teaching. An example of an instructional method could include the use of problem based learning, bloom’s taxonomy or higher order learning and questioning. We use instructional methods as a means to teach material to our students. When using instructional methods we look to see if it’s successful. If not, we research a new method or strategy to reach our goals and objectives.

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?

Those who follow the contextualist epistemology most often develop strategies and instruction that use theories based on constructivist models. Contextualist epistemology or ideas relies solely on context. Educators in the field of instructional design and technology have embraced constructivism and are able to successfully confirm effectiveness of this particular approach. Constructivism has proven to be one of the most dominant approaches in the education field today.  Contextualist epistemology acts as an alternative to constructivism as a fresh and innovative perspective emerging in the field of psychology. This perspective provides a philosophical basis to build on the science of learning and instruction. With contextualism we are able to refer to both current and historical context relating to the study of education. Social constructivism uses many methods that are implemented into social situations. Groups work collaboratively with one another to share knowledge developed in social context. The radical constructivist  approach suggests that students discover their own learning and perceive knowledge in a unique way. Behaviorism differs in that it is a philosophy of psychology. The primary focus with behaviorism is how one acts, thinks and feels. Behaviorism also studies how one will react or behave to positive and negative simuli.

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?

Learning and instruction can take many different shapes and forms. When we utilize problem solving as an approach towards learning we are faced with the two different perspectives. Both the behaviorist and the constructivist perspectives provide a unique framework for instructional design. The constructivist perspective primarily focuses on problem solving and critical thinking. Tasks and activities are designed to take learning to a higher order level in order to improve cognitive outcomes. The environment for constructivism consists of opportunities for learners to collaborate with others, problem-solve together and actively participate in order to create and construct a successful and significant end product. Problem solving from the constructivist approach also emphasizes education and preparation for real world responsibilities. In all levels of education, often times students are “underengaged, underchallenged, passive, or disengaged (Reiser 46).” When problem solving with the constructivist approach, students create noteworthy and meaningful knowledge or products. Problem solving when approached from the behaviorist perspective also has distinct features. Through B.F. Skinner’s career he sought to take a different approach towards the study of psychology by focusing on behavior. Behaviorism is primarily focused on observable behavior as opposed to internal thinking.  Skinner believed that learning occurred between the connection of behavior, environmental stimulus and consequences. Behavior is observed before and after instruction to determine what the learner already has knowledge of. In problem solving, desired behaviors that are not observed can be addressed and developed during instruction. Skinner also thought that once a desired behavior was reached, feedback and reinforcement must be provided. I do not believe that the behaviorist approach lead to a positive learner motivation. When learners respond with correct and incorrect answers they are provided with the same feedback. For example, “good job” or “incorrect” was the typical response for student reinforcement. “Unfortunately, these designs, were boring to learners, who could also “peek” ahead at answers before they responded, which meant that the presumed benefits of feedback were rarely realized (Reiser 37).” The constructivist approach promotes authenticity and seeks to engage its learners and keep them motivated through reflection and multiple perspectives. “ However, until a better “ism” comes along and makes a splash, constructivism is good shorthand, denoting our general aims for making instruction more meaningful, authentic, and problem based (Reiser 50).”

Reiser, R.R. & Dempsey, J.V. (2011). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.