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:
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?
I think the best way to differentiate
Epistemology from instructional methods and theories is to first understand
that Epistemology is a philosophical study that deals more with the beliefs and
attitudes. Contrastingly, instructional
theories and methods are more psychological and deal more with behaviors and
motivation to perform or act upon a stimuli. Instructional methods, models and/or
theories are used by instructional designers and educators effectively to convey
or share knowledge. Whereas
epistemologies of learning are simple beliefs as to the best way instruct.
2. Chapters in this section discuss three
contrasting epistemic stances: positivist, relativist, and contextualist (or
hermeneutical). Positivists believe that the only truth or knowledge is
objective truth. Relativists don’t believe that objective truth is possible and
that all knowledge is subjective to perception or relative to a particular
frame of reference. Contextualists believe that truth or knowledge is relative
to context rather than individual, subjective understanding. 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. 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.
I am
primarily a Positivist. This probably is
in part to my 20 years of military service starting from age 19. In the military, you have to frame your life
around facts. This leads itself to
uniformity and discipline. And these are
key to military life. You have to know
that the person next to you is going to perform exactly as he or she has been
trained to do in a given situation. The
exact same way you have been trained to do.
You have to know and believe that the airplane you are flying on is going
to function exactly as it is suppose, as it did when you were train with
it. You have to know that the parachute
that is strapped to you back is going to open every time you jump out of that airplane
you are flying on. Now, having said that,
I am in a small part (33%), by the above definitions, a Relativist. I have come to believe that everybody’s truth
can be different due to their particular frame of reference. I jokingly ask everybody in my office
environment as I pass them in the hallway, “Are you having fun today”? Some will say yes and some will say “How can
you have fun at work”? And I respond to
them with “Fun is a relative term. I
used to crash helicopters for fun”. They
will look at me strangely and I will tell them how one of my military assignment
was as a flight mechanic on combat rescue helicopters. My job was to fix the helicopters and then do
me and a flight crew would do a functional check flight where we would fly up
to about 10,000 feet and shut the engines off and float down to about 5000 feet
and make sure the engines would come back on.
When I was in my 20’s that was fun.
I once had a sociology class where instructor believed that what was in
the text book she was using was the absolute gospel. In this textbook, there was a passage that
stated Autobahn in Germany had a set speed limit. Having lived in Germany for 3 years I knew this
to be a partly untrue statement. Yes, it
had a speed limit in certain areas, but for the most part, speed was
unlimited. Well, she argue that the text
book had the most up to date information.
Well I guess you could say she was a Positivist who believed in the
objective truth of the text book. On the
other hand, my experience (Relativist) was that the objective truth of the text
book was not as accurate as my frame of reference having lived and experience
the Autobahn.
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?
The Behaviorist
approach to problem solving would tend to be more of a Positivist approach
where the factual information would be examined to determine the cause of the
problem. After determining the factual
cause of the problem, the behaviorist would then apply known solutions until
the problem is solved. On the other hand
the Constructivist approach would be more of a Relativist and would try to reconstruct
the problem in a simulated environment relative to the conditions at the initiation
of the problem. The Constructivist would
then try to simulate in differing scenarios, the best steps resolve of the problem.
I believe the approaches differ in nature by rigidity in which the Behaviorist
would approach the cause of the problem.
The Behaviorist will probably follow strict guidelines for problem determination,
believing that only factual information should be used to facilitate the problem-solving
process. Whereas the Constructivist will
use a less rigid, more simulated environment approach for the problem-solving
process. In today’s technology driven environment,
I believe the Constructivist approach would be more learner-centered, thereby increase
learner motivation by allowing the learner to interact with the dynamics of the
problem.
Hi, David.
ReplyDeleteI am glad that you mentioned “beliefs” in your definition of epistemology. I studied quite a bit of philosophy when I was younger, and when I first thought of the definition of epistemology, I thought of “certain beliefs about knowledge and truth.” I still have a hard time associating epistemology with instruction, but as long as I remember how epistemology is being used (in what context), I’m OK.
I think we might be exact opposites when it comes to our own stance on epistemology. I am primarily a relativist because I have been a teacher for going on thirteen years, and many of my students over the years have proven to me that things like “good” and “bad,” are relative to your surroundings and your upbringing. However, my philosophy background likes for there to be an absolute truth in the world – like Justice or Goodness, so I fall a little bit into that category as well.
I like your last statement in regard to constructivists and a technology driven environment. I think that definition is spot-on. Constructivists are definitely more learner centered.
Hello David,
ReplyDeleteDid you ever crash a helicopter that wasn't fun? I used to work with a man that crashed three in Vietnam, but he never referred to any of them as fun. Glad you were able to straighten out that teacher about the Autobahn. I always say that we are all entitled to our own delusions. So once you get out of an office and find yourself in a classroom do you feel that you will be a Constructivist educator? What was the most important thing you ever learned from crashing helicopters?
See ya in class,
Joe
P.S.
Thank you for your service.