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?
I understand Epistemology as the base knowledge. For example, getting to know my students. In order for my classroom to be a success I need to know what my students know and how do they learn. One important factor is learning how they come to learn things (learning styles). I am relating this to my current class because at the beginning of every year I need to know them and how they learn before anything can begin. After I come to know what they know about my class and how they learn I can then decide the best way to move forward. This is where methods and theories come into play. In education, theories are generalized ideas of how learning should take place and how learners obtain knowledge (basically an opinion that derives from scholars like Piaget, Vygotsky, Dewey, etc... based off of their research and experiments). Methods are the way you carry out these theories. An example of this can be referred to M. David Merrill's First Principles that are used to enhance the quality of instruction. What might work for one student might not work for others. Reigeluth and Carr-Chellman further explain that learning is situational and approached from the standpoint of instruction and the type of learning outcome.
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 have a relativists stance because I believe knowledge is subjective to perception or relative to a particular frame of reference. Currently I am a middle school teacher in an economically disadvantaged area. Daily I am faced with challenges that are larger than myself. That is my students and what they bring to the table. Education is not always the forefront at home and my students are faced with possibly not having had dinner the previous day. This intern makes it difficult for me to tell my students that we need to learn this, but in actuality their minds are somewhere else. In order for my students to learn I have to break down that barrier and make learning meaningful. This is why I have to take constructivists theories and methods and apply them to my classroom.
In college I took a introductory sociology class where the class bases consisted of roughly 15 readings. Each week you read the assigned reading and wrote a reflection and the following class period we discussed the previous weeks readings. This specific week focused on Karl Marx theory. Without going into specifics of what I read and how I interpreted it, my professor gave me a D on this assignment. I honestly thought it was one of my better responses because I felt I was fully detailed with my response and interpretation that included specific examples and outcomes. This specific theory caught my eye and I was very interested in it. So in class when we discussed Karl Marx I raised my hand to give my interpretation that I used in my paper so I could understand why my grade was low. My professor basically told me that I had interpreted Marx theory wrong and my understanding was incorrect. This really confused me because a theory class, should be about interpreting theories and everyone is going to view them in their own perspective. After analyzing the class and realizing I would not change my professors mind I realized that this professor had a one truth or positivists point of view. I believe this is where conflict became issues because if I did not view the articles the way my professor did then I was not correct. My view of articles were based off of relativeness to previous experiences and situations that I encountered because that was the best way for myself to identify with the theorists.
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 a behaviorists approach the idea is teacher centered. Students are told how to perform/act in a controlled environment. In a constructivist approach the idea is learner centered. Students reflect on prior knowledge and input from other students to solve a problem in a inclusive environment.
For example in science, a behaviorist will go through the scientific process leading the entire scenario giving students hypothesis and expect students to follow along and understand with no interpretation of there own. In a constructivist setting students would be given a problem and students would come up with their own hypothesis from previous knowledge and work with other students and their input to solve the problem.
Motivation is constructed internally and externally. Internal motivation comes from the will of wanting to do something and external motivation comes from factors outside of body that encourage to do something. The behaviorist approach may not motivate students because by laying out a controlled way of solving a problem and failure to master that objective may externally motivate that student to loose interest. The constructivist approach the student uses prior knowledge to help solve a problem and can contribute. With being involved and valuable to the learning this grows confidence internally and keeps the student involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment