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?
From understandings of the text on epistemology it differs in various ways
from instructional methods and theories in that it is the study how we learn
and become knowledgeable on topics. Instructional methods are the way in which
we present that knowledge and can be constructed in various ways. Theories are
beliefs or ideas of ways that students learn best and most beneficial to them.
Models of learning are specific frameworks in which educators can build their
instruction around. Epistemology differs from all of these in that it is the
examination of how we come understand and develop the ideas or thoughts of
specific content or topics.
2. 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.
My stance is primarily relativist. I believe that all students gain
knowledge from within the context that they are learning. Students may learn
about adaptations but they best come to understand the concept within the parameters
from they are learning. Such as students may learn about specific structural
adaptions based on the place in which they live whether it be in New York City,
Abilene or another country like Mexico. Knowledge can be gained and students can
learn but within the context that they are learning from.
When I was in high school I had a freshman biology teacher that was a
positivist and believed that the concepts that we were learning where black and
white because our textbook said it therefore we should simply learn through
reading the text. I had a difficult time in this class because I had nothing to
compare what I was learning in the textbook to in real life because we only
studied the textbook. I believe our opposing stances had a lot to do with me
not fully understanding the concepts taught and the instructor having difficulty
in not understanding why I could not obtain the information. It was not until I
took Biology 2 in high school that I began to truly understand the concept of
biology because of the way it was taught.
3. 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 in itself is vital when preparing students for their
future. If students cannot critically think to find solutions then they will
ultimately struggle in the real world. Behaviorist approach problem solving in
giving students a generated problem and the teacher models and show the
students how to work through the problem. From there the students must follow a
predictable pattern to achieve or be successful in solving the problem. The constructivist
approach in problem solving is presenting students with a real world problem
and encouraging them to critically think about that problem while the teacher
acts as a guide in the learning process. The teacher facilitates student
learning and encourages students to generate their own thoughts and ideas by
informing them that there is no right or wrong answer.
The difference that this might have on learner motivation is that students
will derive motivation through developing their own ways of solving problems.
If a teacher models for students how to solve a problem and says this is the
primary way to solve the problem the teacher might find a lack of motivation in
their students’ learning. However, if the teacher models for their students a
way to solve a problem and then follows up by explain that there a multiple ways
to solve a problem then presents students with a real world problem to solve
then what the students are learning will become more meaningful to them. Student
motivation is fixated on meaningful learning experiences and if what the
student is learning is told to them rather than letting them explore and
discover topics then the knowledge gained will be shallow and undeveloped.
Hi, Taylor.
ReplyDeleteI like the fact that you describe instructional methods as the way in which we “present” knowledge. Putting it like that allows me to think a little differently about it – that we, as instructors, are like presenters, and students are then allowed to process the information however they might. This view seems to be a little more instructor-centered, and therefore more of a behaviorist approach. If we tailor that presentation, however, to fit the way a learner learns, then we are shifting to a more learner-centered method, and are thereby demonstrating more of a constructivist approach. Thinking about it like this makes differentiating between behaviorist and constructivist a little easier.
I, too, am primarily a relativist. I think that it would be hard for a modern educator to be anything but. Philosophically, I like to believe that there is a universal truth; but when dealing with other human beings, each person’s perception is his or her own truth, and to ignore that would simply be a violation of “best practice” in the classroom.