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?
The various instructional methods and theories have been developed to establish a guide or system to teach students new information. They all try to leverage the way we learn or and they are based on observable outcomes. The methods are much like philosophical truths which seem to be bullet proof for a large section of the population. However they all seem to fall short or fail to bring everyone under the same tent. Each method offers a glimpse into how our minds work such as Skinners behavioral method of reinforcement and feedback, or the CIP Theory of how we process, store and recall information. The methods may not apply to everyone as our brains are complex and the correlations of practice and acquisition does not necessarily indicate an absolute perspective of how we learn.
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?
The contextualist epistemology will use connections that the student can make with their culture and artifacts. Culture being their set of social rules and traditions that give their environment meaning.
This is different from the radical constructivist who believe that knowledge does not have to come from real world experiences. With contextualism, the student will use what is known and understood in their environment to make a connection or construct new knowledge. The social constructivist will leverage a group or collaboration but the contextualist approach sees the group as part of the environment, but not solely the environment.
A postivist epistimology relies on empirical evidence and unless that evidence is in their environment, the student will have a hard time connecting with the information, particularly if they do not see a need to use it in the future.
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?
A constructivist approach to instruction and problem solving activities will facilitate the engagement of the student, whereas the type of engagement from a behaviorist might be more of checking for responses and guiding or directing the process of solving the problem. I can see a behaviorist showing one (or more) ways to work a problem, but clearly indicating to the student if they are doing it right. A constructivist will give the student more room, ask questions, and try to provide scaffolding if needed. The term used in the book is rather than be a "sage on the stage", be a "guide on the side".
The constructivist method will include allowing the student to choose their area to work on a particular problem and the approach they might want to take.
The motivation factor with the student could fall either way in both cases. I imagine that to a novice, a behaviorist approach might be welcomed and appreciated to a certain extent. However, if it does not transition to freeing the constraints of the student so they can consider different approaches then their motivation might wane. On the other hand, if they are given too much freedom and not enough support or feedback (perhaps questions to reflect on), their motivation to continue to engage and their desire to learn could easily be stiffled.
Hi Albert,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post this week. I think it is beneficial that you pointed out how the different epistemic stances we have studied this week never actually succeed in being all-inclusive as ways of learning. As you say, none of them "bring everyone under the same tent." I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, either. It is up to us to utilize these different stances as a combined effort.
I'll admit I was somewhat confused by the academic explanations of the epistemic stances this week. This is why I think it's great that we have the opportunity to read our classmates' responses. I think doing this provides a bit of clarity for our understanding of the material.
I agree with your statement that a "novice" educator might favor a behaviorist stance at first. I think this is true and is maybe the default mode that a lot of new teachers fall into in order to feel like they are keeping their head above water. The ability to successfully maneuver a constructivist approach would likely come with more experience in the classroom and a better understanding of how students learn.
Again, great post this week!
Great post Albert! I agree that not everyone can be reached by every method. That's why it's so important for educators to vary the methods they use to reach their students. Each of our students' brains work differently from ours so we need to step back and assess which methods will reach which students. It takes more time than picking just a few methods to stick to but in the end the result is so much more successful. Studying about, reflecting and writing about the three epistimologies really threw me through a loop this week. I had never heard of them. I appreciate your explanation of each and it helps me better understand them. I absolutely agree with your comment about a novice sticking to the behaviorist approach. I can also imagine that many "old school" teacher still do. You are right though in that leaning too much on the constructivist approach can lead to students not mastering their goals.
ReplyDelete