ETEC 561 Reflection Two

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?

As I understand it, epistemology a philosophy of knowledge acquisition. This gaining of knowledge could be through natural progression of knowledge or it could be through instruction and training. Just because we know or can do something we did not before does not mean that we learned it formally. The acquisition of some new knowledge might have merely come from human development or maturation. Both human development and maturation will occur naturally and are not dependent on formal learning. However, you can classify both as ways we come to know so they fall under epistemology. However, instructional methods, models,  or theories, on the other hand, are ways to formally learn or ways to enhance a person’s knowledge or abilities. For example everyone learns to run. However, not everyone learns to run at the level of an athlete. To become an athlete one must train. Training is a process that has been designed using an instructional method, model, or theory.  Therefore, methods, models, and theories are used or will be used to enhance human performance. Where epistemologies or underlying beliefs about ways of knowing are just that simply that the philosophy of what and how we come to know.
 

2. 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 both a relativist or positivist stance, and how might social constructivism differ from either behaviorist or radical constructivist approaches to learning and instruction?

The contextualist epistemology would suggest that the leaner needs to have a more able other to achieve a greater potential. I believe that the contextualists are a mix of the positivists and constructivists. Constructivists suggest that the leaner should not go it alone, but should have a teacher as guide to steer them. However, I do not think the contextualists would have agreed that students should be a responsible for their own learning as constructivists do. Behaviorists are not totally in line with the contextualists either. Behaviorists would think that the teacher should steer the students more heavily than contextualists. A positivist would agree with a contextualists that you have to use your context or “the world around you” as basis for knowledge gain and understanding, however a positivist would say we should have a full understand of the universe and “the world around us”. A relativist would, I think agree with the idea that part of your context is your personal and cultural beliefs. However, I think a contextualist would not say that the there is no more truth then personal or cultural schema. This being said a contextualist epistemology would use cultural artifacts or tools to help the learner, but would also take into account the past experiences of the learner. When harnessed by a more able other this can allow the learner to achieve their full potential.
 

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?

Behaviorists problem solving comes from the “Sage on the Stage” or teacher. This theory would say that a learner would anticipate the evaluation and then corrective feedback instantaneously. This leads to instruction that is given in small doses and then checked for understanding. This allows the learner to become lazy and expect the correction no matter the output of the learner. The constructivists would have a very different approach to problem solving and this would consists of the “guide on the side” where the learner is responsible for their on gain of knowledge and the teacher is there to steer them and assist when needed. The Behaviorist approach has its place especially early on in the learning process. This approach can quickly give students information that is needed and can check for understanding of the information. However, this method can be boring and I feel that it does not often lead to authentic learning. This also does not allow the leaner to think for themselves or prepare them for “the real world”. The constructivist approach is much more authentic and student driven. Humans learn by doing and producing. So this approach I believe leads to more engagement. I have seen this first hand in my robotics classes. Earlier in the year I have to quickly supply them with knowledge that they will need for the rest of the year. To do this we take a “Sage on the Stage” approach. It is much more difficult to keep them engaged during this time then once they start to design and build their robots. At this time I have given them the information they need to have a basic understanding and then it is my time to be the “guide on the side” and be there when they need me. I move around the room to make sure they are understanding, but only stepping in if they get too far off course or are stuck. Even then, I ask question that will steer then not tell them this is what you should do. During this time engagement is high as it would be in any class that allows the student to be the acquirer and producer of their own knowledge gain.