The concepts in the chapters in the text present a wide spectrum regarding epistemology. The variances of the theories presented focus on the different aspects of epistemology (learner, environment, content, and instructor). Looking from afar, a student learning or understanding might look quite simple but on the underside there is a whole complex and interconnected world. The chapters in the text take the learning activity and dissect it and look at it from all the different participants.
My understanding regarding the difference between epistemology and instructional methods and theories is that the former means how a person learns and the latter relates to how we learn best. Epistemology relates to understanding the different players in the learning process. These players are the context or environment, the use of short and long term memory, motor skills, and language. I see the methods and theories as different processes or views about changing or modifying the players in the learning process in order to have a more effective or productive outcome.
Most of the theories and methods come from observing the learning process. Skinner was able to make inferences from student results or behaviors. His inferences were based on behavioral outcomes. The backdrop that states that learning can be understood explained and predicted has led to many methods and theories that focus more or less on the key players and on their role in the learning process.
I want to touch on one of the theories presented in this section. One of the big players or distinctive method is constructivism. This theory focuses mostly on the learner and puts most of the weight of the results of learning on the student. I kind of like this method because I can visualize students engaged and highly motivated, if all the other pieces are in place. As teachers we assume students are paying attention, understanding and making connections. But when we see finished projects we find out that not all was understood or connected. So we realize not everything we said or explained was understood. The basic tenets of constructivism are self motivated and engaged learners mixed with the support and guidance from others in order to achieve personal goals. When students have more choices or input in the learning process, they achieve a more authentic outcome. But apparently constructivism can backfire if some elements are not there for the learner (resources, skills, time, environment, and facilitator). So constructivism can be a great tool or it can be a great flop if the different parts are or aren’t aligned correctly.
Positivist vs Relativist and Contextualist
In dealing with these postures we are immersing ourselves in the deep realms of philosophy and existentialism. I would not like to be boxed into a category according to my thought on the matter. One might get more insight and change his or her opinion then it would fall under the relativist or contextual realm based on the relative information in this present context. A person who might say everything is relative would be making a positivistic statement. And vice versa a positivistic person who sees everything as white and black would have to admit that those are his views at that present time. But, with regards to learning my thoughts regarding the three views tend to be a mix of two views: positivistic and contextualist. First of all, I am using positivism in answering this question. The writer and the reader agree that the word “cat” carries the idea of a certain animal that is objective and does not mean “dog.” Anyway, this is a silly example but I think it proves that many parts of learning are positivistic and objective. Secondly, with regards to the contextualist view, I see that not all students understand the word “cat” in the same way. The more we direct the instruction the more we will agree on the idea or concept. Another reason for backing a contextualist view is seeing the student as myself as instructor as subject to the situation or context we are in. Because of x or y, the student or teacher might not be well prepared for the task. I can see how constructivism is more aligned with relativism and contextualism. Some beliefs of constructivism, like setting their own pace and goals, can be relative and the results are also dependent on the context of the learning environment.
Most of the times that I have differed with my instructors regarding a grade have come from courses that involved essays and writing projects. Sometimes, I have had differences regarding expectations for an assignment. In these situations, I thought I had done enough to answer the item only to find out that it wasn’t enough. But to be honest, I can’t remember a specific assignment. I never really had problems with courses like math and science because they are more exact courses.
Problem Solving in a Behaviorist and Constructivist Classroom
Like the textbook mentions, we are confronted daily with decisions that need to be taken with regards to situations that can be considered as problem solving moments. Most of the time we construct our own solutions based on what we know and what we find out at that moment. Real life looks more like constructivism. The behaviorist process with regards to problem solving has to do with control or anticipated techniques with predictable outcomes. The design of the problems already are guiding the learner and basically needs to rationalize the situation and come up with an expected answer or in some instances, chose a predetermined multiple choice option. The constructivist approach to problem solving focuses on the processes and not so much on the result. In this instance the focus is on the learner and his own technique to solve a problem. In both cases the problems are authentic and with situations and vocabulary that is at the learners’ level.
Towards the end of the school year I had my students work on a math project (problem). This assignment was done after learning and practicing extensively the four basic operations of addition, subtraction, division and multiplication. I gave them basic broad instructions with regards to the project. Basically each student had to come up with a word problem using one or more of the operations, with answer choices and one of them being the correct answer. The problem was going to be given to other students to solve. It was great to see how engaged they were and I could see them thinking and working hard to come up with a good problem for the rest of the class. Looking back, the assignment was behaviorist because of the expected outcomes but at the same time constructivist because they had to come up with a scenario and decide what operation they were going to use. When the students went to solve other students’ problems, the result was that they used different strategies than the author’s initial strategy. In conclusion, I would say that constructivism has a great advantage on learner motivation. Learners take ownership of their learning and this is authentic.
No comments:
Post a Comment