Theories and Models of Learning and Instruction

         Chapters in this section discuss three contrasting epistemic (the study of what and how we come to know) 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. How was the situation resolved by you (effectively or ineffectively), and what could/can be done?

Based on the explanations provided in the textbook, I connect more with the contextualist point of view. When I plan out my lessons, I try to look at the whole picture. I start with the necessary TEKS, and student objectives, then I try to active student’s prior knowledge to previous lessons we’ve learned or something from the outside world that is applicable. (This is also a popular ELPS, which is imperative to address based on the community I work with.) I have found that if you do not try to see the outcome before planning the lesson, it’s hard to set the students up for success.

One time when I was in college, I had a statistics professor who would lecture us and basically read the textbook. This is not very helpful for me. He never addressed real world problems, or how to apply the skills to outside factors. Once I read the textbook myself and met with other students in the class, we started to see the patterns between polls, standard deviations and the real world. This helped all of us connect what we were learning, or more so listening to, to the real world. We all did very well and ended up enjoying the class much more. Once students can apply what they are learning to the whole picture, everything begins to click. This is also, why I’m a big fan of hands on learning! 

 Various theories/models of learning and instruction are discussed in multiple chapters in this section. Which theories/models of learning or instruction are the primary one(s) you apply to your teaching or you can relate the best, and why? Then, please pick one project or instructional unit (briefly describe title, target audience, and learning goals/objectives) where your designing/teaching or learning was most successful (or less than successful), and describe which theory/model or principle(s) from these chapters can be applied to improve design/teaching or learning. * You can reuse an instructional unit you used for Section 1 (or you can use a different one. In section 1 discussion, 6 components of good instructional design in chapter 2 was broad, and these chapters in section 2 should have given you more specific ideas about different approaches to teaching and learning.

Over the years, (through trial and error of course) I have grown to use the constructionist model. I have always tried to engage my learners into taking control and accountability of what they are learning. Whether it be students in a classroom, or professional developments for teachers, the learners have to take the lead of their learning. When I plan lessons, I try to keep my ‘lecturing’ to a mini-lesson, then I allow the students to dive in and discover through hands on, student centered activities. For example: This summer I taught a professional development over how to integrate iPads into teaching. (Our district gives each teacher an iPad to use in the classroom). I began the lesson doing a KWHL chart. We went over what everyone knows, wants to know, how they can continue to learn, and what we have learned by the end of the lesson. This began quite a discussion. Some teachers had a lot of experience with the iPads, some had none. I gave the teachers a few minutes to share and talk about what they have done in their classrooms. (This was a 6 hour PD.) And that really opened the door for the students' learning. They began to share their favorite lessons and activities. This also helped me, the teacher, know who needed more help than others, and where to direct my teaching towards. (Did I need to direct more towards high school teachers? English teachers? PreK teachers? Etc.) I went on to introduce apps or ideas on how to integrate smoothly. Then I let the teachers create their own lessons based on the apps I included. Each table group shared out what they created and practiced with the whole class. It went great! I had to start with the end result in mind. I could not have made a blanketed PD and expect that each teacher would take away exactly what I had in mind. I had to get a feel for the group as a whole and the needs of each teacher. I think flexibility and attention to student needs is what made this lesson successful.