Theories and Models of Learning and Instruction

Epistemology versus Instructional Theories

A broad definition of epistemology states it “is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry” (Steup, 2005).  This is a philosophical study.  Epistemology studies how and what we know, whereas instructional theories use that information to plan instruction for learners.  The different models of learning discussed within the text focus on the application and how a teacher or instructor can facilitate learning, through some measurable means.

Epistemic stances

At first, I struggled with these chapters.  Maybe it’s my “summer brain,” but I needed to do some additional research in order to have a better grasp on the epistemologies.  I searched for a graphic to help me better understand and associate an image to these concepts.  Based upon the descriptions presented in this week’s question and an image I found (pictured above), I believe my epistemic stance is primarily contextualist.  I don’t believe the only truth or knowledge to be something objective; other elements must be taken into consideration.  Therefore, I cannot consider my stance positivist.  In addition, I’m not a relativist, as I don’t believe truth and knowledge to be entirely subjective.  Epistemology is the study of what and how we know something, and I believe that knowledge and its acquisition are based upon context. As I think about my reflection of the theories presented in the textbook, I was drawn to cognitive information processing theory, situated learning theory, and constructivism.  These are the theories I see at play in my classroom and firmly believe other components play a large role in learning- outside factors, such as societal experiences.  This completely connects with a primarily contextualist stance.

My favorite classes in high school were Speech and English.  I am a Communication major, with a minor in Anthropology, and really loved my argumentation, English, and Anthropology classes.  Observing my audience, planning a speech, discussions about books, delving into the lives of past cultures- this is inspiring and engaging to me.  However, two required class in college were Introduction to Communication and Communication Theory.  They were (are?) essentially the same class, taught by the same professor.  After the former, my first college class ever, I was dreading taking the upper-level equivalent.  The information was presented in a manner that didn’t engage me at all, and quite frankly, led me to consider other degree programs.  Fortunately, I didn’t let it deter me, as other Communication classes were fascinating.  This professor lectured about Communication theories for over an hour, we read textbooks, and then we took a test.  Information was presented in a completely behaviorist manner.  Theories were presented as absolute truths, which must be memorized and spit out.  Other classes were presented in different manners, allowing observations of human interaction to lead us to our own conclusions.  Towards the end of the semester, I finally realized that in order to be successful, I had to memorize these dozens of theories.  I vividly remember rewriting many of my notes to include personal examples and graphics that I could equate with each theory/theorist.  Then, I transferred that information to flash cards and continually reviewed them to drill it into my brain.  When I took the upper-level class, at least then I had an idea of what I needed to do.  

Problem-solving

Behaviorism states that learning is understood, explained, and predicted entirely on an observable basis.  Consequences of a behavior determine if it is repeated.  The text provides the example of a student conducting a new Internet search for information.  If they find the information for which they were looking, they are more apt to continue using that method.  Based upon this, I believe problem-solving from the behaviorist perspective would be very controlled.  This is the picture in my head: students following an incredibly formulaic procedure, with positive or negative feedback provided after every step.  If the feedback for step 1 is positive, students move on to step 2.   If the feedback for step 1 is negative, students start back over. Personally, I feel as if this would be incredibly boring to students, and they wouldn’t be self-motivated.  Chapter 9 describes motivation as “a person’s desire to pursue a goal or perform a task, which is manifested by choice of goals and effort” in pursuing said goal (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012, p. 85).  If students don’t have a choice or personal investment in the problem to be solved, the motivation would be lacking.  In some contexts, it might be beneficial for students to learn steps or procedures in this manner.  But does this have real-world application? 

Constructivism appears to be steeped in problem-solving situations.  The second precept presented in the text states that “learning opportunities arise as people encounter cognitive conflict, challenge, or puzzlement, and through naturally occurring as well as planned problem-solving activities (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012, p. 45).  In addition, the final precept presented sets the guideline that learners take primary responsibility for their learning.  Feedback should occur naturally, but a learner-centered experience drives constructivism.  Therefore, this lends itself to authentic practice and problem-solving.  The teacher then becomes a facilitator.  The text identifies potential benefits of constructivism and two in particular lend themselves to student motivation: integrating emotion, affect, and engagement and increased relevance to realistic problems.

Bates, T. (n.d.). Reading between the lines: the ‘intangibles’ in quality online teaching and learning. Retrieved June 14, 2017, from https://www.tonybates.ca/tag/epistemology/

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and

            technology (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Steup, M. (2005, December 14). Epistemology. Retrieved June 13, 2017, from  

         https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/