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?

      Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology by Robert A. Reiser and John V. Dempsey  text defines epistemology as "the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge and understanding-their foundations, assumptions, and validity. (p.54) Epistemology is the "theory of knowledge". I see epistemology as the umbrella that covers all knowledge and instructional methods and theories.  Epistemological researchers ask questions such as "what is the extent of human knowledge? How much can one human actually know?" Instructional methods, and models of learning applies to teaching and helps educations to plan, present and successfully get the information to the students in a way they will have the ability to process and understand the information. 

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?

  Based on I've read about positivist and relativist epistemologies, as well as behaviorist and constructivist approaches  I feel that contextual epistemology falls in-between positivism and relativism  because  knowledge is separate from the learner, but it can be independent or created by the learner.  When I think of positivism I relate it to the classroom when I was in high school in the 80's. In positivism knowledge exists independent of the learner, and there is an absolute truth. (p.54) The teacher would instruct us on what we needed to know through lecture and a lot of note taking. In the design frameworks under objectivism it lists that knowledge is engineered externally. The teacher would tell us what we needed to learn and we were to learn it and not question the information. The class was teacher centered and very rarely did we have a class that was student centered. In contrast when I think of relativism I relate it to most of the classrooms today. In relativism knowledge is constructed by the learner, and the truth is contextual. (p.54) Constructivism falls under relativism. In constructivism the teacher guides the student in constructing knowledge by providing a rich context for negotiation and meaning construction. Many classrooms today are student centered thus falling under the relativism perspective. The goal in the class I am taking is to create a blog with our reflections of the chapter readings and knowledge we acquire, thus the instructor is acting as a facilitator and the student is in control of their learning. The blog serves as an artifact of the work that we have completed. 

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?

In the behaviorist's approach to problem solving the instruction would be teacher centered. The instructor would make sure the students understand the problem.  With the behaviorist's approach if the students do not fully understand the question, the instructor would break instruction into small pieces and when learners respond correctly  immediate feedback is given. (p.38) The students would probably work independently and turn in their completed products to the teacher for assessment.   

The constructivist's approach to problem solving would be student centered. The instructor would present the problem to the students then act as a facilitator while the students took control of their learning during the problem solving activity.  The students will be provided with authentic materials to "draw learners' attention to important information just as the use of color in diagrams or slides can help them distinguish important features of visual information. (p,39) My views lean very heavily toward the constructivist approach. 

The effect the difference might have on the learners motivation is that the behaviorist will give feedback whether it be negative or positive. The constructivist approach is rewarding for the student because they are in charge of their own learning and that is something to be proud of.

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2007). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.