I want to begin by
saying that this section was difficult for me.
I read and reread most of it several times trying to be certain that I
understood what the authors were trying to express. That being said, I believe that
epistemologies, methods and theories are all closely related. Epistemology,
according to the text is “the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of
knowledge and understanding – their foundations, assumptions and validity”
basically what we know or sometimes think we know and how we use or apply
it. Methods are the various ways that a
person might teach something. Theories
describe how we learn and how we can teach to help students learn more efficiently.
I see the three as being connected because we can agree with a certain one or
several learning theories and use a variety of methods to teach our subject
matter but our epistemic stance influences our decision.
Since someone with a
positivist stance applies behaviorist principles to instruction basically they
are saying “I am teaching you the absolute truth and whether you believe or
understand it or not, it will still be the truth” Someone with a relativist
stance teaches with pure constructivist theories and basically they are saying
“The truth is out there, I will give you activities to help you construct the
truth in your mind but it is up to you to make it what you need it to be.”
Since a contextualist is somewhere in between the two perspectives but draws
upon social constructivist theories, I can only assume that their thoughts on
teaching would be something similar to “There is a truth out there but it can
be seen in many ways. I will give you
activities to help you construct your truth but be open to others’ truths as
well.” A contextualist epistemology considers that we cannot know something
without knowing the context that it applies to and realizes that different
contexts will lead to different understandings.
When problem solving is approached from a behaviorist
perspective it is usually objective driven and presented in such a way that
accepts only one correct answer, in reality there may be more instruction than
actual problem solving taking place. Constructivist
approaches to problem solving are different in that they are more
constructional than instructional. They
focus more on problem solving, the students are in control, and provide support
to one another while the teacher is there as a facilitator. Learner motivation
is critical to learner success. Learner
motivation only comes when the subject matter is relevant to the learner and in
most cases the learner will find the subject matter more relevant when they are
given an opportunity to participate in the subject selection. With that being
the case, I think that a constructivist approach to problem solving would be
more motivating for learners.
Christie, I am glad to hear that I was not the only one that had difficulty with this reading. I agree with you completely regarding the behaviorist versus constructivist approaches to problem solving. I did not get the hard line view on truth, from the reading, that you perceived. I had not really thought about the varying viewpoints from this perspective until reading your responses, and I have to say I have some more to grapple with. If this element of differing perspectives of truth exists, then there is something for us as educators to be aware of. If as a behaviorist I approach ID with the perspective that I am conveying absolutes, and I am conveying information as so authoritative, then I have a tremendous responsibility to ensure that the information that I am sharing is accurate and grounded. If however, I am approaching ID from the perspective that I am presenting the student with an opportunity to define his/her own truth, as from the constructivist perspective, then I also have a great responsibility to walk closely along side the student
ReplyDeleteChristie, I agree that a constructivist approach is more effective in motivating learners. Bored people don't learn, so keeping them engaged is paramount to their own success. I like the way you were able to sum up the varying theories and put them in layman's terms. Occasionally I find, as I'm sure you do, that while waxing philosophical, those who write our textbooks come across as entirely too wordy and it ends up reading like a legal document. :)
ReplyDeleteI agree with you both. Especially Christies' comment about "Bored people don't learn." After struggling through the reading, I tried to take a more hands-on approach by trying to apply what I'd read in the classroom. I learned that I need to make learning more unique to the individual. I need to present lessons that allow for discovery. In order to do this I will need to take a constructivist approach. Even though everyone is at different levels, it's possible to format a lesson that can engage each of them from their individual interest.
ReplyDelete