Theories & Models of Learning & Instruction

Epistemology vs. Instructional Methods or Theories

Reiser and Dempsey (2012) report, “Researchers became more aware of different theories of knowledge (epistemology) and postmodern critiques of theory and practice”  during the 1990s shift to constructivist learning (p. 46).   Upon the first introduction of epistemology, I had no schema with the term.  The footnote on page 46 in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology equates it as, “a branch of philosophy addressing knowledge-how we know, what it means to know, etc.  Postmodern critique changes stories and assumptions underlying our theories, ideas, and practices” (Friesen, 2009).  With more research, Jennings, Surgenor, & McMahon (2013) define epistemology as “a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge.” This branch of philosophy plays a role in the way we learn and reflects its remarkable influence, too.  Each person’s epistemology is key determinants to their learning theories.  Basically, your theory of learning is based on your knowledge and beliefs.  Therefore, there have been many theories discovered and discussed in Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology.

The theory advocated by Skinner is the behavioral learning theory.  Skinner believed that “learning can be understood, explained, and predicted entirely on the basis of observable events namely, the behavior of the learner along with its environmental antecedents and consequences. It was noted that this theory “influenced early conceptions of instructional feedback” (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012, p. 36). The information processing theory came to light in the 1970s and, like the behavioral theory, remarks that during learning the environment plays an important role but with the internal processing of new information.  Reiser and Dempsey (2012) also report, “it also put increased emphasis on the role of prior knowledge in learning new knowledge and skills” (p. 37).

Schema theory resulted in the automation of previous learned events or topics to aid in the long-term memory, which resulted in lower cognitive load.  The higher the cognitive load was a result of lack of schema in that particular field of study (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012).

Situated learning theory is regarded by Kirshner and Whitson (1997) as “a work in progress” (p. 38).   Reiser and Dempsey (2012) claim this theory to be more reliant “on social and cultural determinants of learning than it does on individual psychology" (p. 38).  

  Gagne’s theory of instruction was based on effective teachers he observed, which included a combination of his own reflections and of the cognitive processing theory.  The three domains of his theory included cognitive, affective, and psychomotor.  Gagne reported that verbal information, intellectual skills, cognitive strategies, attitudes, and motor skills were the five essential categories of learning.   Reiser and Dempsey (2012) report, “The differences in conditions of learning across categories of learning outcomes provide guidelines for which condition must be included in instruction for specifically defined instructional goals” (p. 40).  Gagne’s theory is viewed to be analytical and can result in losing the overall goal of learning when considering all of the details.
A constructivist view of learning supports active learning through constructive means where the learner is in control and new information is linked to prior knowledge.  It’s viewed more as a collection of views where learners construct knowledge from the surrounding environment.  It encompasses the learner to focus on compound learning goals where authentic activities and collaborative feedback with peers play an important role (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012).  

My Stance

When comparing the three, contrasting epistemic stances I closely relate myself with contextualism because I believe that truth or knowledge is relative to the context rather than individual, subjective understanding.  Also, because of my epistemological framework, I employ a constructivist theory for learning.  I vividly remember a time in college when my perspective of learning conflicted greatly with that of my professor’s.  The assignment was to write a lesson plan.  Simple enough, right? I thought I had the perfect plan because I followed her detailed instructions explicitly,  However, after receiving negatives responses from her and multiple revisions attending her suggestions, resulting in a lesson that was a less than perfect learning experience.  My grade was a low B.  Our opposing beliefs in epistemology was definitely the root of the conflict. She definitely held a positivist stance.  Her expectations were ambiguous and inconsistent.  She held the views of only black and white, with no gray area to be considered.  Her responses proved that if it couldn’t be observed and measured then it shouldn’t be considered.     

Differences in Problem Solving

The behaviorist approach derives from the operant condition where stimuli and responses are associated with changed or new behavior reflecting the evidence of new learning. Particular consequences cue the learner of desired behavior.  Therefore, problem-solving is a weakness in this approach.  They are not trained to think critically or take initiative because they learn through repetition and automatic response. The constructivist approach is based on an individual's personal experience and their interpretations of external perceptions.  Because we all live differently, each of our learning is unique from the constructivist standpoint.  Individuals use the new experiences and prior knowledge to adjust their understandings of new knowledge.  Every constructivist construct their own knowledge and are not predictable, which make them better problem solvers.  However, one should have a broad foundation of personal experiences to make meaningful interpretations through active engagement.  The attention to motivation in instructional design has changed dramatically during the last fifteen years.  Its importance and crucial role are now understood in the performance of students.  One would less likely be motivated to learn from one that follows the approach of a behaviorist.  There are many variables to examine when studying motivation but one consideration would be the level of engagement in a constructivist learning environment versus that of a behaviorist.  Also, it’s more motivating when the learner is in control of the learning.  The principle of curiosity is related to motivation.  

Geiwitz and Vodanovich (1966, 2003) studied the dynamics of boredom and reported, boredom results from being in an environment that are filled with uniform, unchanging stimuli such as a warm classroom with an instructor lecturing in a soft uninflected voice. It is possible to be curious about the topic but so bored by the delivery method that sleep is inevitable (p.87).

Therefore, the presentation of new knowledge and the environment in which it’s received can greatly affect the motivation of learners.  Hence, a constructivist approach is a more plausible approach.  

References

Frisen, N. (2009). Re-thinking elearning research: Foundations, methods and practices [Chapter 6: Critical theory: ideology critique and the myths of e-learning (pp. 173-199)]. New York: Peter Lang.

Geiwitz, J.P. (1966). Structure of boredom.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 593-600.

Jennings, D., Surgenor, P., & McMahon, T. (2013). Education Theory/Constructivism and Social Constructivism in the Classroom - UCD - CTAG. Ucdoer.ie. Retrieved 12 June 2017, from http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php/Education_Theory/Epistemology_and_Learning_Theories

Kirshner, D., & Whitson, J.A. (Eds.). (1997). Situated cognition: Social, semiotic, and psychological perspectives.  Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reiser, Robert A. & Dempsey, John V. (2012).  Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (3rd ed.).    Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Vodanovich, S.J. (2003). Psychometric measure of boredom: A review of the literature. The Journal of Psychology, 137(6), 569-595.