Section 2: Theories and Models of Learning and Instruction

1.   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: 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?

Epistemology is the study of how we learn and instructional methods, theories, and models are used to enhance the learning process.  According to theorists, the process of learning does not include human development which happens naturally and it does not include changes in ability which are not permanent. 

Recent theories consider the process of learning to be not an individual process but an instructional process merged with a cultural process.  Our surroundings affect the way we interpret and understand the world around us.  According to behavioral learning theories, the behavior must change for learning to be accomplished and instructional feedback must occur for reinforcement.  Cognitive information processing theory also requires feedback.  Continual feedback throughout the learning cycle is “used to continually modify what is stored in memory and used to guide performance,” (p. 37). 

The schema theory involves the use of long term memory or packets of information called schema.  For students to learn using schema, information must be presented in ways to reduce cognitive load by presenting only the needed information without distractors.  Situated learning takes into account cultural learning and the learner’s participation within a community.  Members of the community learn through practice. 

The constructivist learning theory puts more emphasis on the learner being actively involved and how the learner “imposes organization and meaning on the surrounding environment and constructs knowledge in the process,” (p. 40).  Through the process of constructivist learning, the teacher becomes the “guide on the side” but the teacher must address misconceptions throughout the learning process. 

Through epistemology, instructional methods, theories, and models were created.  By understanding how people learn, we can select parts of instructional models to further our student’s understanding.  I believe constructivist theories have played a big role in the instructional design we use in the classroom today.  The one who is actively learning is the one using more energy, thus we must shift the energy from the teacher to the student.  It may take more energy to create a lesson using instructional methods based on constructivist theories but during the lesson presentation the students will work harder than the teacher.  I can remember how I felt at the end of the day after lecturing all day.  I am the tired one while the students are bored but full of energy once they leave the room.  I worked harder than the students therefore, they learned less and had more energy in the end. 

Epistemology has given researchers and instructional designers expertise and ways of deepening the way knowledge is tested and shared.  The study of learning has shown us that students do not learn best through sit and get but we must “focus on the development of instructional interventions that develop complex pattern recognition, build knowledge structures that focus on big ideas [to] yield more durable learning,” (p. 58).

There is an abundance of instructional theories and methods to use when presenting instruction but I believe they all use some of the same elements learned through epistemology.  The learners must be actively involved in a meaningful lesson with relevance to their life and there must be feedback that allows the learner to correct errors in understanding.  Our goal should not be to follow any instructional model step by step but to use our understanding of epistemology to select parts from a few models to create lessons that will cultivate learning. 

   

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

            The behaviorist theories focused “linking discrete stimuli to responses through association or reinforcement,” (p. 53).  It was important to supply sufficient feedback to alter the learning process but it is not necessary to connect it to personal experiences.  The learner must show changes in behavior to demonstrate learning.  The constructivist approach believes the learner interacts with the environment and constructs knowledge depending on those interactions.  The focus is more on the process and not the end result.

Through contextualist epistemology, the learner acquires more knowledge when a real connection can be made to the lesson.  “Relevance and authenticity are crucial elements in this meaning making process,” (p. 58).  The key elements of a lesson based on contextualism are: making a personal connection and invoking real experiences.  By making a personal connection through real experiences, the learner will be more likely to transfer the knowledge to other domains.  The contextualist approach requires feedback like the behaviorist theories and the learner must interact with the environment similar to the constructivist theories but it is taken a step further by requiring a personal connection to “foster a conceptual change” while “building on their existing conceptions,” (p. 58)

            Social constructivism requires a community of learners all building on the experiences of the group through collaboration to construct knowledge.  Social constructivism is more group oriented while radical constructivism is about how a single learner interacts with information. 

            In contrast to contextualists, a radical constructivist believes “knowledge constructions do not have to correspond with reality to be meaningful,” (p. 40).  This is similar to a behaviorist’s theories in that the learner does not need to make a meaningful connection with the lesson to build knowledge. 

            The positivist stance requires students to gain understanding through the senses and evidence and not necessarily making personal connections to create understanding.  The stance is similar to a behaviorist’s view where feedback and reinforcement is important.   

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?

            An observable change in behavior is the primary outcome when problem solving from a behaviorist’s perspective.  The goal is stated before the lesson begins and if the goal is not accomplished learning did not occur.  From a constructivist’s perspective, the interaction with fellow students and with the environment is key in constructing new knowledge. 

From my understanding of the text, problem-based learning can be difficult from a behaviorist’s perspective.  Problem solving must include the following characteristics: authentic and relate to everyday life and work, relevant to the learner to provide intrinsic motivation, engages deeper learning, and the learner must engage in the problem in a meaningful way. 

Problem solving fits a constructivist’s model better since the priority is for the learner to construct or create new knowledge through the environment.  The students are enabled to work on problems in a group setting where there is not always one exact answer.  A behaviorist is typically looking for a particular outcome to prove learning but different groups may arrive at different solutions depending on the strategy used to solve the problem. 

When teaching math using a behaviorist’s perspective, I envision my students working out word problems independently with help or hints from me when needed.  Choosing the correct answer is proof of learning.  The problem may be based on real-world experiences but there is not interaction among learners to facilitate a deeper understanding.  This is not true problem solving in my opinion.  Authentic problem solving can be chaotic and appear unorganized to an outsider but if the teacher has set up an environment to encourage constructive learning, the students will understand the expectations.  In my classroom, the students are often spread around the room working together to solve real world problems.  My goal is always to be a helper and not the source of all knowledge.  The students are expected to work out the problem together and I will help only when necessary.  Determining whether each child fully understands the solution can be difficult.  By discussing the plan and outcome with each group, the teacher can determine proof of learning. 

It can be extremely frustrating when a student asks, “Why do I need to know this?” but that is actually a very important question.  Why are we teaching our students random science or social study facts?  Learner motivation plays a major role in what a student actually learns and comprehends.  If the lesson is not authentic, relevant, and engaging, students will begin to “check out.”  Problem solving using a constructivist’s model will foster more intrinsic motivation.  Using a behaviorist’s model, the teacher is the supplier of information and feedback while the student takes it in.  The students are not expected to interact with the world to form new ideas.  Instead of teaching in isolation, a constructivist problem solving lesson will require students to discover facts while trying to find a solution to a problem.  Discovering information instead of receiving it always makes a learner comprehend more and makes a learner more likely to apply it to future situations.