Theories & Models Of Learning & Instruction
According to the article Education Theory/Epistemology and Learning
Theories, Epistemology investigates the origin, nature, methods and limits of
human knowledge. This branch of philosophy seems to focus on a broader range of
learning and not just the how of learning defined by Driscoll, 2005 as
mentioned in Chapter 4 of Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and
Technology. It also isn't the individuality of learning as Lemke, 1997 believes
in that same chapter. Behavior Learning Theorists believe that knowledge is
gained by reaction and thought processes that go along with previous actions
which is only a small part of the Epistemology Philosophy. It seems that if you
are tempted to being an Epistemologist (new word?), then you must look deeper
into learning as opposed to choosing one aspect of a theory and developing a
method of determining how learning takes place. Epistemology is all
encompassing of every aspect of learning--where it comes from, how it forms,
the methods used to induce learning as well as possible limits to learning.
There doesn't seem to be a limit placed on the other learning theories. If the
processes of Cognitive Information Processing Theory continue, then learning
continues and there is no limit placed on the internal processes of learning.
The methods and theories seem to be just what they represent--a way to get
students to learn and thereby limitless. Epistemology seems to investigate how
learners learn and assumes that learning is limited.
As a Relativists, I believe that all knowledge is subjective to perception or relative to a particular frame of reference. When looking at a particular idea, the truth of the idea doesn’t rest in the concept of the idea as right or wrong, true or false; but in whether individuals in society believes the idea is the correct interpretation of what the idea is. It is from their life experiences that this frame of reference reveals its meaning.Take for instance the belief in God and creation or Evolution and the Big Bang Theory (Science, not the show). If an individual has not been acclimated to God and the idea that He created the World/Universe; then this belief rests in the conceptualized thoughts of truth ONLY in the individuals who chooses to believe it. The same goes for people who believe the world was created in one large explosion (Big Bang) and then all things that had life, started changing into other things who wanted a better or different life. The belief or knowledge is relative to circumstance and situation.I remember my first religion class. The professor was of African descent (not sure why that is important to say other than it seemed important at the time). He made a statement that, "Religion is the belief in a higher being and that Being has a special or particular place reserved for his followers." Now, this belief in and of itself is a true statement at best. But then it raises a question when he added, "The followers of this Higher Being will be given a special place in Heaven." On the surface, another true statement. But when the statement is broken down you realize that a belief in a higher being can be God/Jesus or Satan. The heaven the professor revealed can only be a place where everyone is happy and satisfied with no more pain or tears or sorrows. Except.......technically the professor put Satan in Heaven with God. Those of us who believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth and the Earth was void before God created all things including Man (and Woman) know that this is impossible. And of course I told him so. In our discussion, I realized that my professor was an intelligent man whose religion was based on the Context he was teaching. While I was running with my relative belief (which to this day I believe is correct and am ready to discuss the point). He was being a professor who was attempting to open us up to new ideas that were based loosely on biblical stories instead of biblical fact. He was operating on the Context for which religion is based on which were stories told over time and the view of the end game (death).
Behaviorist believe that students learn from the reaction or consequences to their behaviors. Cognitive Theorists believe that learners process information through direct attention, encoding and retrieval and practice through context. With Behaviorist, I believe it is the student's behavior (school acting) that is learned instead of cognition (school learning). If the teacher wants the student to sit quietly and work, then when he/she doesn't and the teacher reacts in a way to deter the student, then said student learns to behave in this class. When this same student want to learn a concept, then the Cognitive processes come into play. To me this seems to be two separate issues and should not be comparable. One can affect the other, but depending on the reactions in either situation they can impact student motivation positively or negatively depending on behavior levels and how the instructor responds as well as knowledge level (how much or little the student learns) because of the level of knowledge with which he entered the classroom and again how the instructor responds. So I put to question, it isn't student behavior or cognition that comes into play when we look at learner motivation, but Teacher behavior and cognition (of how students learn) that drives or kills learner motivation.
Jennings, D., Surgenor, P.., & McMahon, T. (2013). Education Theory/Epistemology_and_Learning
Theories - UCD - CTQG. Ucdoer.ie. Retrieved 6 may 2016, from http;//www.ucdoer.ie/index.php
/Education_Theory/Epistemology_and_Learning Theories.
Reiser, Robert A., & Dempsey, John V. Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology.
Boston, MA. Pearson. 2012.
As a Relativists, I believe that all knowledge is subjective to perception or relative to a particular frame of reference. When looking at a particular idea, the truth of the idea doesn’t rest in the concept of the idea as right or wrong, true or false; but in whether individuals in society believes the idea is the correct interpretation of what the idea is. It is from their life experiences that this frame of reference reveals its meaning.Take for instance the belief in God and creation or Evolution and the Big Bang Theory (Science, not the show). If an individual has not been acclimated to God and the idea that He created the World/Universe; then this belief rests in the conceptualized thoughts of truth ONLY in the individuals who chooses to believe it. The same goes for people who believe the world was created in one large explosion (Big Bang) and then all things that had life, started changing into other things who wanted a better or different life. The belief or knowledge is relative to circumstance and situation.I remember my first religion class. The professor was of African descent (not sure why that is important to say other than it seemed important at the time). He made a statement that, "Religion is the belief in a higher being and that Being has a special or particular place reserved for his followers." Now, this belief in and of itself is a true statement at best. But then it raises a question when he added, "The followers of this Higher Being will be given a special place in Heaven." On the surface, another true statement. But when the statement is broken down you realize that a belief in a higher being can be God/Jesus or Satan. The heaven the professor revealed can only be a place where everyone is happy and satisfied with no more pain or tears or sorrows. Except.......technically the professor put Satan in Heaven with God. Those of us who believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth and the Earth was void before God created all things including Man (and Woman) know that this is impossible. And of course I told him so. In our discussion, I realized that my professor was an intelligent man whose religion was based on the Context he was teaching. While I was running with my relative belief (which to this day I believe is correct and am ready to discuss the point). He was being a professor who was attempting to open us up to new ideas that were based loosely on biblical stories instead of biblical fact. He was operating on the Context for which religion is based on which were stories told over time and the view of the end game (death).
Behaviorist believe that students learn from the reaction or consequences to their behaviors. Cognitive Theorists believe that learners process information through direct attention, encoding and retrieval and practice through context. With Behaviorist, I believe it is the student's behavior (school acting) that is learned instead of cognition (school learning). If the teacher wants the student to sit quietly and work, then when he/she doesn't and the teacher reacts in a way to deter the student, then said student learns to behave in this class. When this same student want to learn a concept, then the Cognitive processes come into play. To me this seems to be two separate issues and should not be comparable. One can affect the other, but depending on the reactions in either situation they can impact student motivation positively or negatively depending on behavior levels and how the instructor responds as well as knowledge level (how much or little the student learns) because of the level of knowledge with which he entered the classroom and again how the instructor responds. So I put to question, it isn't student behavior or cognition that comes into play when we look at learner motivation, but Teacher behavior and cognition (of how students learn) that drives or kills learner motivation.
Jennings, D., Surgenor, P.., & McMahon, T. (2013). Education Theory/Epistemology_and_Learning
Theories - UCD - CTQG. Ucdoer.ie. Retrieved 6 may 2016, from http;//www.ucdoer.ie/index.php
/Education_Theory/Epistemology_and_Learning Theories.
Reiser, Robert A., & Dempsey, John V. Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology.
Boston, MA. Pearson. 2012.
This weeks readings were definitely a bit challenging due to the abstract nature of what we're discussing. For that reason, I found myself having to go back and re-read some of your post to make sure I understood it and didn't miss anything.
ReplyDeleteI thought that we were supposed to compare behaviorist and constructivist frameworks? I do agree that with the behaviorist framework that it is more of directing student behavior than facilitating student learning. I often incorporate behaviorist principles as a part of redirecting student behavior in the learning environment. I once gave students who answered questions right a piece of candy, but I found that it was harmful to the students that didn't get the answers right.
You brought up an interesting point that I hadn't thought of before. Despite all of these different models and frameworks of cognition and learning, at the end of the day the teacher needs to be skilled and knowledgable enough to apply what she knows about learning and her students to drive motivation. I think we have to factor in building relationships with our students. If you know nothing about who you're teaching, then it will be difficult to reach them.
Thanks for you post!
Ashanti, thank you for your thoughts and response to my post. The readings were definitely challenging and abstract in nature. For some reason my mind's eye went to Cognitive Theory instead of Constructivism --not sure why. And unfortunately I did not realize I had made a mistake in the theories. Thanks for pointing that out.
DeleteLike Ashanti, this week's reading assignment was also difficult for me to understand. I do like how you found an example of an instance of when someone had an opposing epistemic stance. I know that religion is always a touchy subject but I like how you show the differences in the contextualist and relativist views of God and heaven.
ReplyDeleteI believe that on any given day, there are several different theories at work in the classroom. I agree with you about the behaviorist view, that student behaviors are learned. As the example in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology states, if a learner is rewarded with a teacher's smile for paying attention in class will be more likely to follow the teacher's direction at a later time the one whose behavior goes unnoticed. Great post!
Thank you Gloria for your post. I believe the reading assignment was difficult for everyone on some level and we all just do our best to get the best understanding we can.
DeleteEpistemology is very abstract and looks at all aspects of knowledge and how we learn, it's a very broad idea. The example of religion on your second section is an excellent example of relativism. So many people have different perspectives on what is true based on their own personal experiences and context.
ReplyDeleteOn your third section you also made some strong points. The one that stood out to me was your point that teachers can drive motivation. I find this to be very true as I have seen good teachers make otherwise "boring" subjects interesting and not so good teachers make lessons boring. The teacher plays a great role on the culture on the classroom, it's easier to produce better products or want to do more when you have a great leader.
Thank you Alexis for your response. I would love to study Epistemology. It seems like such an interesting topic. These days student motivation is all in the hands of the teacher. The teacher can enhance it or destroy it depending on his/her reaction to the student.
Delete