Epistemology and Theories: You can't have one without the other!

Epistemology seemed at first to be exactly what the definition said, but after much consideration, I have come to believe that it amounts to having about as much "knowledge" as I have of herding of cats.

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?

“I believe that knowledge is built by an individual, is internal to the individual, and is affected by the social culture and experiences of the individual and that the role of the educational practitioner is to guide individuals as they individually construct their knowledge.”  Dr. Susan Colaric, Director of Instructional Technology, Saint Leo University

This quote from Dr. Colaric’s Epistemology website stuck with me as I tried to make sense of this week’s reading and blog post.  I had to understand first what epistemology is so that required a Google search which brought about so much information that I had sensory overload.  Basically I finally figured out that it is how we learn and is based on truth and not how to do something.  Once I figured that out, I was able to realize that theories, methods, and models of learning are simply how the information we need to learn is presented to us as individuals.  So as Dr. Colaric states above, our knowledge is built by us individually and we are responsible for how we construct our knowledge and teachers should be there to guide us in seeking out that knowledge.   They do this by creating lessons which engage us and allow us to learn by interacting with our world and each other.  

 
2. Chapters in this section discuss three contrasting epistemic stances: positivist, relativist, and contextualist (or hermeneutical). Positivists believe that the only truth or knowledge is objective truth. Relativists don’t believe that objective truth is possible and that all knowledge is subjective to perception or relative to a particular frame of reference. Contextualists believe that truth or knowledge is relative to context rather than individual, subjective understanding. 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. Reflect on whether your stance is primarily positivist, relativist, or contextualist. Then, identify an instance when your perspective or stance as a learner conflicted with that of your instructor. Describe the conflict that you experienced and analyze whether opposing epistemic stances may have been at the heart of the conflict.

As I read through the chapters and then of course employed Google to help me understand all three of the stances better, I realized that depending on the day of the week and subject I am teaching, I can relate with all three of them.  For example, if I am teaching my Pre-AP Science students about photosynthesis, then I relate to the positivist stance.  It is a fact that plants take in carbon dioxide and water then in the presence of radiant energy, convert it to glucose and oxygen.  That will not change no matter what context it is in.  It is never subjective and will not change whether I am sitting in my classroom in Forney, Texas or a Hindu temple in India.  On the other hand, if we are talking about my English class and reading The Outsiders, then I may be looking at the context that the story was written to determine what the author meant when she said that Johnny thought Dallas Winston was like the southern gentlemen in the book Gone With the Wind.  At this point, my students may all have a different answer depending on what they read into this statement and their cultural beliefs.  Again, I really believe these three stances will be determined more by the subject you are trying to design a lesson for, rather than the individual instructor.  Since I primarily teach science, I lean more towards that positivist stance because I deal with absolute truths more than context.  

I tried to think of a time I, as a learner, did not agree with my instructor and honestly could not come up with one.  I am not sure if this is because I have had great instructors who have similar beliefs to mine, or I just did not like conflict when I was younger and never “rocked the boat” so-to-speak.  I did recently have a course with a professor who seemed to be disorganized and did not give timely feedback.  After having several courses in both my undergraduate and graduate studies where the professors not only gave timely feedback, but also went out of their way to explain why you may have missed something, it was very hard for me to sit back and wait.  I was even more disconcerted when I received my grade only to find there wasn’t one bit of feedback on why I did not receive full credit.  Only after emailing for clarification, did I receive the feedback I needed to “learn” from my mistakes.  I guess this qualifies as an instance where I as a learner conflicted with my instructor.  Thinking more on it and the definitions above, as a learner, I lean more towards the positivist stance as I want to know in empirical data, my grade.  I am not sure this particular professor understood the importance of keeping my 4.0 GPA in my graduate courses.  I am sure she was very busy and had many other things going on, but in my world, I was only concerned with my grade in her course and how it would affect my overall GPA.  



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?

Behaviorist Perspective on problem-solving

Constructivist Perspective on problem-solving

·         Students are encouraged to engage in learning with peers using positive reinforcement from teacher. ·         Instructor minimizes negative behavior with negative reinforcement. ·         Students are given no time to evaluate or self-reflect on learning. ·         Simply informed whether they are right or wrong in their learning. ·         Emotions and feelings are not involved in assessment.

·         Students or learners are encouraged to collaborate with their peers on real-world problems. ·         Instructor does not give information, but merely guide students in finding the solution to the problem. ·         Students are able to evaluate their solutions and determine if they solve the problem.  No definite right or wrongs. ·         Assessments are based on context of problem and if all learning objectives are met.

Behaviorist problem solving seems like it would be the simplest.  I believe an example would be touching a hot stove with your bare hand.  Usually it only takes you once to learn from your mistake.  However, if you still think it is a good idea, there is always room for more negative reinforcement.  It is a quick right or wrong situation and while senses are involved, the emotions do not have any place in the problem solving.  My mom told me not to touch a hot stove when I was a little girl.  If I did touch it, then I did not learn from her verbal warning and therefor did not receive any coddling from her when I chose to burn my hand on the hot stove.  Instead I heard those words no kid wants to hear, “I told you so”.


Constructivist problem solving is a little trickier.  For instance, I might tell my students that Disney Corporation has decided to build an amusement park in our town.  The piece of land they are looking at is in an area deemed wetlands and they must determine if it is feasible to build there.  There are many things they would need to consider and I might want to determine what concepts they already know before guiding them in their research.  Once we establish their prior knowledge, they would be able to determine what factors they need to know in order to make a sound decision in the feasibility to build in the wetlands.  In this situation, I gave my students the problem they needed to solve, but will not tell them how to solve it.  This is a true real-world problem that allows them to make decisions and determinations that may affect their lives and our town.  Behaviorists problem solving would have required me to tell them how to come up with the “right” answer instead of letting them see that their opinions and thoughts matter.
 
Students are motivated in different ways.  Those who are motivated intrinsically or extrinsically may lend towards the behaviorist perspective because their learning is related to not only their own, but the instructor’s.  However, motivation that is due to a gap in the learner’s knowledge or their curiosity is peaked, lends more towards the constructivist perspective.  These learners are challenged by the idea they are able to problem solve and thus their motivation is self-promoted.  They want to collaborate with their peers and determine if their solution to the problem is probable.  Learners may fall on one end or the other of this spectrum, but most will fall in the middle.  Most students that I have encountered crave the adventure perceived in working on a real-world problem, but only if they will also receive praise for their hard work.    
 


 

• Behaviorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2002, January 19).Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved June 14, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism
• Colaric, D. S. (n.d.). Epistemology.Redirect. Retrieved June 14, 2013, from http://iteach.saintleo.edu/InstructionalDesign/Epistemology.html
• ED 190 Online: Education for Change: Journal #14- Alternate Pedagogies (Ashmi). (2011, April 6). ED 190 Online: Education for Change. Retrieved June 14, 2013, from http://educ190.blogspot.com/2011/04/journal-14-alternate-pedagogies-ashmi.html
• Langford, D. (2007, October 10). Presbyopia Patient Education – optoblog.com. optoblog.com - Scripts from Optometrists. Retrieved June 14, 2013, from http://www.optoblog.com/2007/10/10/presbyopia-patient-education/

 

ETEC 561 Week 1 Reflection

Week 1

1.  How do the definitions in the first chapter compare to your own definition of instructional or educational technology?  What experiences or other influences have shaped your definition?  How has your definition changed from examining the definitions in the first chapter of this book?

When I began classes for my Master’s in Educational Technology this past spring, I came with the idea that “Educational Technology” meant using computers and the internet in my classroom.  With my first course, I modified my definition slightly to include all “media” devices from televisions to VCR’s.  The next course made me look more at how I created and planned lessons to meet certain criteria in both educational philosophy’s and technology ideals.  After reading Chapter 1 and the definitions presented as the concept has evolved over the last decade, I have come to realize it is about the design of the instruction, not just the technology we use.  Technology and media is great and does have place in my classroom, but if the content and objectives are not being met, then it is just playing on a computer or watching a video.  Not even close to what it is meant to be.  It is also about continuing the instruction past “school” and into the workplace.  This should have already come to me as I came from the business world prior to teaching.  Keeping abreast of the latest technology and processes was very important in my career field, as it is with teaching.  If I did not attend conferences and training seminars, I would never see how others were using the technology with success, nor learn some of the latest abilities of the software we used.  Reading the evolving definitions in this chapter, made me realize how our thoughts evolve and mature as we learn and add onto our prior knowledge of our field.  They also evolve as technology and learning theories are updated with new discoveries.

2.  Next, think of a lesson or unit of instruction that you have developed.  Or if you haven’t ever taught or developed instruction, think of one that you have received.  How does that lesson adhere or fail to adhere to the six characteristics of instructional design?  How would you redesign it to better adhere to the six characteristics?

Each year, we discuss catastrophic events and human impact in science.  A few years ago, I found a webquest that covers various catastrophic events and tweaked it to use with my Pre-AP students.  I did not know about instructional design, and therefor did not have that in mind when I finished tweaking the assignment.  After looking through it, I have decided that it did follow many of the six characteristics. 

1.  Instructional design is student centered:  the students work in teams to research their event and present their information to the class as a whole. 

2.  Instructional design is goal oriented:  the goals (objectives) were explained in the instructions that students received at the beginning of the project.  I made sure we went over them as a class, but they were also in writing for students to reflect on later in the project.

3.  Instructional design focuses on meaningful performance:  students were asked to present the information they learned during their research to the class at the end.  Each student was told to take notes on important points during each presentation.

4.  Instructional design assumes outcomes can be measured in a reliable and valid way:  for this characteristic, I could see possibly adding a pre-test to see what students already know, before they conduct the research.  Then when they finish presenting to the class, each would take a follow-up assessment to see if they added to their prior knowledge.  It does have specific questions to guide them in their research and also to let them know the goals of the project, but an actual before/after assessment would benefit them as well.

5.  Instructional design is empirical, iterative, and self-correcting:  I was a little unclear of what this particular characteristic is.  With that in mind, I am going to take a stab in the dark and say that the data collected from the pre-assessment and then the post-assessment would give me an idea if the students had learned the information I wanted them to, or if I need to go back and tweak the project more to get the desired results.  I am not sure what changes I would make, and since I did not use this project this past school year, I am unable at this time to give any information on anything that might need to be changed. 

6.  Instructional design typically is a team effort:  this might be one of the hardest ones for me.  I typically find things on the internet and if needed re-create them based on the original concept.  My colleagues usually ask me to find something as they are unsure how to find it.  I do ask their opinions before making the final product, but usually, I am the one who designs it.  After reading this characteristic, I realize how important it is to collaborate on ideas rather than doing all the work myself.  It might also save me a lot of time spent on weekends “working” when I should be saving that time for my family. 

Since it has been at least a year since I used this project, I am not able at this time to give any exact information on what needs to be changed.  I plan to look over it in the coming year and make some of the changes already mentioned above, but I think with any lesson we design, until I use it and take these characteristics into consideration, it is impossible for me to make a decision on what changes I need to make. 

3.  In the 3^rd chapter, Reiser distinguishes instructional media from instructional design, excluding teacher, chalkboards, and textbooks from the definition of instructional media.  Why?  Would you consider teachers, chalkboards, and textbooks instructional media?  Is the purpose of instructional design to incorporate media into instruction?

First, I think Reiser separates instructional media from instructional design so that we understand how each has evolved over the past century.  More often than not, we automatically assume that instructional media is included in instructional design, but he wants us to see the difference between the two.  As far as excluding teachers, chalkboards, and textbooks from the idea of instructional media, I think one of the reasons he does is because it is a given that teachers and textbooks will be part of instruction.  However, I think he is underestimating the influence of the teacher and textbook in a classroom.  This year I tried a few times to create videos of me presenting the material and having students watch them at home during the week before coming to class.  Many said they missed the extra things I added and stories that related in our discussions.  They did not necessarily say they disliked the videos, but wanted more information than what was presented in each one. 

Instructional design, as the history in this chapter portrayed it, seemed to more about how to design instruction rather than incorporating media, at least until the 1970s when the military began creating training material for their use in training personnel.  While Reiser mentions at the end of the chapter that the two overlap, it seemed that the history of design focused more on how it was thought up and not on the media used.  I think ultimately, we should look at how to incorporate media into the design of instruction.  Otherwise, the media may not lend any purpose or value to our instruction.