Week 2: Theories & Models of Learning & Instruction

This section of the book presents various theories and models that form the foundations of instructional design and technology, including the evolution of approaches to instruction and learning over time. In your blog for this week, reflect on the following:

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?

     Dictionary.com says that epistemology, “is a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods and limits of human knowledge.”  After studying the definition, I would say that epistemology is used in creating instructional methods or theories.  Instructional methods or theories are a system of connected beliefs that are used to instruct or guide people and help them learn and develop.  Epistemology wants to know, “how do we know?”  Epistemology is the how, why, and what of learning.  Theories, methods, or models of learning use what are believed to be related truths to build and design a systematic way of instructing and helping people to learn.  Epistemology is a “know that” concept, whereas theories, methods, or models of learning are a way of showing you how, to “know how.”  However, there is a difference between learning models and learning theories.  Learning theories are a widely accepted set of formalized and tested concepts that are used to help people to learn.  Some of the most well-known learning theories include behaviorism, constructivism, pragmatism, and idealism.  However, models, often shown in flow chart form, give a systematized rigorous process to designing and improving instruction.  Many learning models follow some, or all, of the elements of the ADDIE model whose five parts are analyzing, designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating. 

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 hate to say it, but I’m a positivist by nature, and by the nature of the subject that I teach.  I’m a high school math teacher and 2 + 2 = 4.  However, I do hold out that some facts do change over time.  I am part of a team, at the district level, that creates Geometry curriculum.  Over the years, we have gotten better at creating projects and activities that are based on constructivism.  We don’t use every aspect of constructivism because of the sheer amount of curriculum we are expected to teach to prepare students for the STAAR test.  However, motivation is much higher when you try to introduce more facilitated learning.  We try to have at least one activity per day that allows students to collaborate and work authentic, real-world problems. 

     I haven’t had too many conflicts as a learner.  I had a theology teacher that never took a stance on any aspect of the Bible.  He would just talk about the relativistic possibilities of every position concerning an issue.  I guess the positivist in me hoped for the possibility of some objective, or absolute truth.  However, he did make me think.

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?

     Problem-solving using behavioristic learning has to be understood, explained, and predicted entirely by observable events, or empirical data.  Behavior is observed both before and after an instructional intervention.  If nothing changes, then the instruction was worthless and needs to be changed.  If the targeted behavior occurs, then it is considered learned.  If the behavior is repeated, then it is considered learned.    Therefore, the pretest, instruction, and post-test triplet is an example of behavioral learning.  The importance of immediate feedback is a hallmark of behavioral learning.  Computer-programmed instruction using behavioristic models was popular for a while.  However, this type of computer-based learning waned as people were bored by the mundane process.  In behaviorism, problem-solving is teacher-led.  The environment and resources are totally controlled by the teacher.  The hope for strong student motivation is based on the idea that instant feedback would allow a student to either be excited about his success, or quickly change an incorrect response.  The belief was, after a series of successes, students would be motivated to learn more.  However most people were bored and unmotivated by a process they did not get to own.

     Constructivist-based problem solving is student-centered and requires the teacher to be a facilitator, a “guide on the side.”  The student receives a large amount of autonomy, so the student is self-directed.  However, the student would also be able to collaborate with others in solving the problem.  The student is given the ability to choose which materials and resources they would need to solve the problem.  The problem that they would solve would be authentic.  Authentic meaning a real-world problem that would mirror a student’s life, now, or in the future.  For example, the problem could be based on a job that students might have in the future.   Authentic problems are closer to the world students live in, and closer to how they think.  Students are also encouraged to set their own goals.  After they complete the problem, learners are encouraged to reflect upon the outcomes of the process.  Experience plays a major part in constructivist thought, as well.  If the process is done right, and set up well, students are highly motivated to construct their own learning.  However, there are some problems that can occur with constructivism.    Students may be disillusioned as they walk around in a daze trying to figure out a problem that’s too hard.  The problem may also be too easy and very little learning happens.  Discipline management problems could occur to derail the process, as well.  For instructors, it is difficult to create a constructivist problem solving venture.  Also, the activity may not hit targeted learning, accessibility to the process may only benefit the privileged, and benefits can sometimes be very hard to measure.  To me, constructivism has a definite place in the curriculum.  I believe constructivism is better than behaviorism, it’s just harder to create, and harder to make happen.