Section Two: Epistemology

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?

For me the difference is simple, meaning epistemology is how we as the individual learn something and instructional methods are how the information is presented to us. The classroom as been up until the later part of the last century as been mainly behavorists and has slowly been changing towards the relativist/constructivist view with swinging back and worth due to the individual school district dynamic.

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?

'Inasmuch as positivists believe that knowledge exists independent of the individual learner; it follows that they generally employ instructional methods designed to transmit knowledge, so as to help individuals "learn" or duplicate it. Conversely, inasmuch relativists believe that knowledge is not absolute but rather what the individual constructs, they typically rely on instructional methods that are intended to promote...personal interpretations and refine understanding'. (Ch 5,pg. 71) This statement for me defines the two main perspectives quite well and needs no further thought but I am not stopping there of course. I will however keep it short what I do say so as not to ramble. Learning is defined in the book as 'a persisting change in human performance or performance potential'. We has human beings are constantly changing everyday both physically, mentally, and emotionally, we do this each day as individuals and as a soociety/community. Our classrooms facilitate this growth on all levels and we as the
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?


For me the difference is simple, meaning epistemology is how we as the individual learn something and instructional methods are how the information is presented to us. The classroom as been up until the later part of the last century as been mainly behavorists and has slowly been changing towards the relativist/constructivist view with swinging back and worth due to the individual school district dynamic.

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?

'Inasmuch as positivists believe that knowledge exists independent of the individual learner; it follows that they generally employ instructional methods designed to transmit knowledge, so as to help individuals "learn" or duplicate it. Conversely, inasmuch relativists believe that knowledge is not absolute but rather what the individual constructs, they typically rely on instructional methods that are intended to promote...personal interpretations and refine understanding'. (Ch 5,pg. 71) This statement for me defines the two main perspectives quite well and needs no further thought but I am not stopping there of course. I will however keep it short what I do say so as not to ramble. Learning is defined in the book as 'a persisting
 teacher have a humongous responsibility to ourselves, our students and our community to try and make sure that each student is given the oppurtunity to thrive and learn everyday how they need to and to be successful at it. The contextualist approach is more of a 'community approach' rather than the individual appoaches of the other two, meaning the community or societal situation will affect the learning in the classroom more so than the individual. So in the classroom you as the teacher would need to keep this in mind when deciding your objective or desired knowledge to be learned.
 

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?

Behavorists believe in external stimuli to change or influence behavior whereas constructivists believe in internal stimulis to promote change from within. Therefore, how problems are solved in the classroom will depend on how you as the teacher decide to act or react in that situation. If you try it from the behavorist approach it might look like something like this; the teacher explains a behavior/objective to be seen or demonstrated and when it is seen the teacher then gives a reward to the student. When it is done by the constructivist approach the teacher is more of a facilitator not a direct influence such as in the behavorist, they present the problemt to be solved by the students and the students then figure out a way to solve it themselves. The students are self motivators in the second situation whereas the first one they are given the instructions and told what to do and rewarded when their behavior matches the objective. I believe both approaches have their positive and negative effects in the classroom, neither, is right nor wrong both are needed as the classroom is made up of human subjects with varying learning styles.