How Do We Come to Know that Which We Know?

The discussion of epistemology vs. theories/methods/models of learning is a complex one.  After reading the chapters and some reflection on the topic, I was reminded of the research methodologies course that I took last semester, as the intro to that course involved describing how we know what we know.  Merging ideas from that previous course with information taken from this week’s readings I have come up with the following:

Epistemology is study of the foundations of human knowledge. Basically, What do we understand? What causes us to understand this?  According to Babbie (2010), the way that we have come to know that which we know is either through agreement reality (common knowledge, e.g. the earth is round) or direct experience. I find this to be a very concise description, and one that has helped me to put the rather vague idea of epistemology into a more manageable perspective. Theories/methods/models of learning build on this foundation by taking us more deeply into explaining and understanding the process of acquiring knowledge, whether it be a response to stimuli or a result of our experiences as we interact with our environments or cultures.

Babbie, E. (2010). The practice of social research. (13 ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Cenage Learning.

Positivist-Behaviorist, Contextualist- Social Constructivist, or Relativist- Radical Constructivist

This week’s readings have caused me to reflect upon and evaluate the way in which I am designing lessons and how students are learning in my own classroom. To better articulate my understanding of these epistemic stances and the theories and models that those who hold these stances would favor, I will explain them from my perspective as a Spanish teacher.

A Spanish teacher who subscribes to positivist-behaviorist practices might design lessons in which behavioral objectives are written. An example might be that the student uses the correct form of the adjective when describing a particular noun. The teacher might design a series of exercises and drills so that this becomes an automatic response. Ex. When a student hears a Spanish noun that ends in “o”, he automatically responds by giving an adjective that also ends in “o.”  Although the student might successfully satisfy the objective, this grammar concept does not necessarily hold meaning for the student, and does not easily transfer itself to real-life speaking situations. Because of this, many students leave a foreign language class saying “I can conjugate verbs (insert other grammar concepts), but I cannot speak the language.”

Instructional design that leans too far in the opposite direction might very well have its own flaws. A Spanish teacher who subscribes to relativist- radical constructivist practices might allow a bit too much individual freedom in project design or goals that are set toward acquiring the knowledge and skills to become fluent in the language. Would the focus of the student be well-rounded enough to allow for progress in all areas of language acquisition such as speaking, reading, and writing? Many students may not be mature enough to take on so much responsibility for their own learning. Unless carefully controlled, students and teacher alike could find themselves floundering in an attempt to maintain direction in this environment.

Although the textbook does not blatantly say that a constructivist approach to instructional design is best, Reiser and Dempsey do present compelling evidence in favor of constructivism. A Spanish teacher who subscribes to contextualist- social constructivist practices might have a classroom that fits the following description:

•  Instruction is designed according to the knowledge that the student is to gain, not according to how and what the teacher feels compelled to teach.

•  The teacher does not lecture and then drill students on subject/verb agreement, but rather tries to engage students in more authentic conversations that might elicit the use of this grammar concept.

•  Student learning is self-paced, but carefully managed by the teacher. For example, if a student does not master the correct use of verbs, they are given more opportunity to practice with other students at or above their attainment level (as opposed to time-based instruction where students are herded forward even before they are ready causing further struggle and dissatisfaction).

• If one were to walk into this teacher’s classroom, rather than seeing students sitting and individually working on the same worksheet, he might see students engaged in authentic conversation with other students, or students collaborating in an effort to create a product that might be useful to the school’s ESL population.

I think that in order to effectively draw meaning from the curriculum, it really comes down to students being authentically engaged within a community of learners. 

Of these stances and learning models, I find myself to use more positivist-behaviorist practices. This is not because I find this to be the best practice, but because it is how I was taught, and how I was trained to teach. I am left contemplating how I may make the shift to developing a more learner-centered constructivist classroom. How does one begin to restructure a course that she has been teaching for several years? How does one find the resources and time? Can this be done mid-year? (I am guessing that it would be a process that would take some time.) What smaller steps could I implement now to make learning more authentic and engaging? I appreciate that the text (pg.80) discussed how technology might assist in some ways to manage a constructivist classroom and how it might also be used in lesson design and instruction to maximize learning.

Learner Motivation

Many instructional designers and educators agree that problem-based learning is effective. A behaviorist approach to solving a problem might be that students must first master prerequisite skills before using them to solve a problem. This could be detrimental to student motivation because the students might not initially view the skills as valuable if they cannot see a relevant use for mastering them. On the other hand, a constructivist approach places much importance on students’ meaning making during the learning process. If the students are able to initially make meaning of what they are learning, and continue to learn skills as they work to solve an authentic problem, they will likely reach deeper levels of comprehension and knowledge. Students in this learning environment will develop skills such as drawing upon mental models, realizing causal relationships among elements in a problem, and making predictions, to better solve other authentic and more complex problems in the future. These students are also more likely to remain engaged and experience the intrinsic motivation of completing a task into which they are deeply invested. 

A picture of my classroom taken from our school website.                                           www.denisonisd.net