Rewrite Section 2

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?

Distinguish epistemology from instructional methods or theories.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that is concerned with the nature of knowledge and understanding—their foundations, assumptions, and validity.

Instructional design is a system of procedures for developing education and training programs in a consistent and reliable fashion. Instructional design is a complex process that is creative, active, and iterative.

It is apparent that different epistemologies have different psychological frameworks, which in turn have different implications for instructional design. That is what I learn from the chart on the book. By design, instructional materials and methods should reflect beliefs and evidence about the nature of learning and understanding in ways that are consistent with key foundations and assumptions.

In my word, instructional design is depended on epistemology, I mean since epistemology is a kind of psychology and it is kind of mental control, and instructional design is more like a physical activities. Or say, instructional design is a method to make our mental thinking comes true.

What are the differences between theories, methods, or models of learning and epistemologies or underlying beliefs about ways of knowing?

In China, we have an old saying, adjust measures to local conditions. I guess I can use it in here. If learning is a pyramid, theories are on the top and methods are on the bottom. I am not saying that methods are not important, but it is more like a nerve ending. It is like a human body, all mental command has to through it then comes true (I have no idea am I making sense of it.).

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?

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.

I notice that the chart on the book page 72, which mentioned that there are two kinds of epistemological perspectives: positivism and relativism. And by the hint above, that contextualist is between these two perspectives. Therefore, I guess there are two possible characteristics: 1. Knowledge exists independent of the learner; truth is contextual; 2. Knowledge is constructed by the learner; there is an absolute truth. From what I have learned, I would like to go with the second one. Because I think knowledge is different with different explanation; nevertheless, truth is always there, no matter who said it.

How might it differ from either a relativist or positivist stance?

This is what I found in the internet, in epistemology, contextualism is the treatment of the word 'knows' as context-sensitive…epistemic contextualists argue that the word 'knows' is context sensitive, expressing different relations in some different contexts. From this explanation, I conclude that contextualisms are still admit that there is a truth exists absolutely, but how to get it is variable. That is why they are differing from relativisms and positivisms.

How might social constructivisms differ from either behaviorist or radical constructivist approached to learning and instruction?

Behaviorists believe that learning is mediated by relationships among external stimuli, overt responses, and reinforcement principles.

Social constructivism is a sociological theory of knowledge that applies the general philosophical constructivism into social settings, wherein groups construct knowledge for one another, collaboratively creating a small culture of shared artifacts with shared meanings. (From Wikipedia)

And radical constructivist with the word “radical”, I will take it as an extreme way to approach to learning and instruction.

After comparing these three points, I found that social constructivism is gentler. Also, social constructivism is depending on learner, so it is felt more comfortable by learners.

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?

Explain differences in problem-solving when approached from behaviorist and constructivist perspectives.

Behaviorists believe that learning is mediated by relationships among external stimuli, overt responses, and reinforcement principles. And for constructivists, objects and events have no absolute meaning.

While problem solving as a process has two critical attributes. First, problem solving requires the mental representation of the situation in the world; second, problem solving requires some active manipulation of the problem space.

Combining these critical points, I conclude that behaviorist is more proper with story problem, because first of all, it satisfies that solution is clear, second, it is constrained to predefined elements. And constructivist perspectives satisfy several types of problem solving. So, I guess behaviorist perspectives are more specific, and the constructivist perspectives are more general.

How do the approaches differ in both the nature of the problem to be solved and in facilitating the problem solving process?

I failed to locate it on the book, so I can only answer this question myself. I guess the difference between these two approaches is the concern of learning. While behaviorists consider that problem solving is a way to confirm the truth, which is already there. Constructivism perspectives treat problem solving a process to get the truth, which you have to find it yourself.

What effect might these differences have on learner motivation?

Honestly I will consider the differences are intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. While, what are the definitions of these two motivation types? According to Deci, intrinsic motivation occurs when one engages in a task for which there is no apparent reward except the pleasure of engaging in the activity. In contrast, extrinsically motivated individuals engage in tasks for rewards associated with successful accomplishment. Therefore, I think a behaviorism perspective approaches an extrinsic motivation and constructivism perspectives approach an intrinsic motivation. They are all from their definition.