1. Epistemology is more a philosophical idea than an
instructional method or theory. Epistemology
is concerned with the very nature of what knowledge in addition to how knowledge
is acquired. The ideas behind knowledge
can change given the context of the information; the instructional methods and
theories then adapt to that changed epistemology.
As educators, we cannot effectively enlighten others with
knowledge if we do not truly know what knowledge is and how it is
attained. This would be like learning to
do mathematics by shortcuts and tricks; it completely bypasses the intricacies
and beauty of the subject matter. Once
we are able to define what we are aiming to teach (or what knowledge we wish to
further) and how the learner is to acquire it, then we can develop the proper
method or theory to instruct students with that knowledge.
2. The stance that I align most closely with is that of the relativist. As described in the text, the description of
the relativist that reality is subject to perception or a subject's frame of
reference. A person's reality is based upon
how they are experiencing it. If things
are generally going well for them, even a bump in the road will not cause them
to lose their heading. On the other
hand, if it seems that the whole world is out to get them, then even the
slightest set back sends them to the end of their rope.
I have had a few conflicts in the past with other
instructors on ways to teach certain topics.
One particular colleague happened to be a math teacher that had always
been of the mindset that there was one correct way to go about solving a
problem. When students were working on
proofs, they could reproduce her solutions and even come up with mathematically
accepted methods of working the problem but she would not give them credit
unless they worked the problems exactly as she had showed them in class. She was a contextualist and believed that the
ways she had been taught were the only ways; this conflicted greatly with the
way that I taught my class - if students could use "legal" methods to
work a problem and come up with the correct solution, then it didn't bother me. I am not about to re-invent the wheel just to
build the cart. She and I finally had to
sit down with our department chair and work out the differences; she eventually
conceded, though, and became a little more open-minded with the work of her
students.
3. Behaviorist theories are more based on observing and
making predictions. Behaviorists find
solutions to problems based on the experiences of the learner. Behaviorists can also attempt to condition
the learner to react or make decisions in a certain way. Instruction is built around how students will
react to certain cues or stimuli and those are adapted to change the
effectiveness of the instruction.
Constructivists, on the other hand, look at past experiences
and the abilities of the learner. Learners solve problems by thinking through
them rather than being motivated by feedback.
Learners in the constructivist environment would be more self-motivated
and able to make corrections to their own learning if redirection is
needed. Constructivists modify
instruction based on feedback received by students rather than the other way
around.
Students in a behaviorist classroom are more extrinsically
motivated than those in the constructivist classroom. Behaviorist learners are more akin to
receiving feedback and acting on that feedback; their motivation comes from the
instructor telling them that they did a good job or guiding them to the next
step. Constructivist learners tend to
have more self-motivation; they learn from their experiences and use those
experiences to guide them through the steps of problem solving.
Todd,
ReplyDeleteYou know I have read several blogs and it’s interesting to me that I haven’t found any other stance – outside of my own – to be a relativists. I align more with a contextualists stance. It seems like a million years ago, but it was probably 4-5 years ago, I went to a seminar that focused on issues related to epistemic contextualism, including the rules of assertion. It was a great seminar, and what I took from it was that our belief system regarding knowledge is what we’re most comfortable with and/or how we, as individuals learn. As you state that you are a relativist, I conclude that you must be able to grasp various “truths” from various sources, analyze all aspects, and “make sense” of it all. As to me, a contextualists, who needs to know how, when, where, etc. it must be this because of its content. Thus, contextualism tries to footstep an ironic path where suitably qualified conditions can be accommodated. Again, it’s just an interesting topic, belief, theory…
Regarding your last paragraph where you state that, “Students in a behaviorist classroom are more extrinsically motivated than those in the constructivist classroom”, I believe to be true. I believe this because this “behavior” operates on a principle of stimulus-response. To me, nothing’s better than that =)
Great post, thank you!