Section 2 Theories and Models of Learning and Instruction

1.        In Section 2 of the textbook, epistemology is defined as “the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge and understanding – their foundations, assumptions, and validity”.  As I understand it, this is a field of study that is concerned with determining how an individual (or even a group) learns, disseminates, and retains information.  In distinguishing this field of study from theories, methods, or models of learning, it would seem that the belief one holds about learning would be a prerequisite to developing a theory, method or model.  Epistemology and how one perceives learning would be a predetermining factor in how an instructional design method is constructed.  The epistemological beliefs that one holds would also determine the type of theory of learning and ultimately the model of learning to be developed, introduced, or studied. 

 

For some reason, the question “Which came first-the chicken or the egg?” comes to mind as well as the phrase “putting the cart before the horse”.  By this, I mean that you cannot successfully develop and implement a design method without first understanding how a person learns or more to the point how you BELIEVE a person learns.  This determines the type of instruction you would lean toward developing.

 

2.       Positivism seems to be more the “old school” type of teaching, whereas relativism is the more current or progressive approach to delivering instruction.  As I was reading chapter six about these two terms, I realized that our state seems to take the objectivist perspective as the ultimate tool to learning.  As I was reading about the beliefs of objectivists and how they feel direct instruction is an important aspect of attaining knowledge, the TEKS objectives determined by the state immediately came to my mind.  We, as instructors and students/learners, according to the state, are only successful if the established objectives of learning are mastered on a standardized test.  I see that our students need a more relevant type of learning that they can find as useful in the real world.  They need to understand the “why” this is being taught and how they will be able to use it.  As educators, it seems that we must fall somewhere in the middle.  We must recognize the outcome of learning that is measure by a standardized test, the objectives, and that method of instruction.  We must also recognize the needs of our students, how they learn, and what type of instruction is best suited for them.  We have so many varied types of students, learning modalities, etc. that we must fall in between these two positions and do our best to successfully employ them both – thus falling somewhere in the contextualist camp.

3.       As far as epistemic stances and their different approached to learning and instruction, the constructivist perspective lends itself toward project-based learning (which is the current trend in education today).  The teacher is a facilitator and does not directly lecture/instruct but allows the learner to find their own way through a system of problems and arrive at an end product or solution.  It makes me think of my own children and  science fair projects that they have had to do.  They were the designers, planners, recorders, etc. and they shared their findings with their teacher and classmates in their final product for the science fair.  They were the leaders in their own learning after they had approval of their project idea by the teacher.  This, to me, is a relevant example of constructivism that our students face.

The behaviorist approach lends itself toward more direct teacher instruction to teach specific objectives and to “impart knowledge” from the outside in with our students.  It is, as I stated above, what seems to be the cornerstone of our standardized testing.  Teach certain things in a certain way to get a certain “acceptable” score or rating.  If we do not take into consideration  HOW our students learn and merely fall into one camp or the other, we are doing a disservice to our students.  I believe we should not be “teaching to the test” but teaching real world applications that our students will be able to use in higher education and in their lives as a whole.