Theories & Models of Learning & Instruction

1. Epistemology and How it Differs From Instructional Methods or Theories 

Epistemology is a philosophical subdivision of the theory of knowledge that focuses on methods, rationality and possibility. Epistemology is also the study of what differentiates acceptable belief from opinion. Whereas instructional methods or theories is more on the lines of a psychological standpoint that focuses on how to improve learning and development. 

What are the differences between theories, methods, or models of learning and epistemologies or underlying beliefs about ways of knowing?
Theories of learning is how someone learns and is also something that is studied in cognitive psychology. There are many different types of learning theories that measure how someone learns something new or learns in general. Sensory stimulation is when the sense are stimulated. Most adults learn by seeing and hearing.  Reinforcement was developed by Skinner and he believed that behavior was the key to learning. Positive reinforcement (rewards) was something that was done when something was learned whereas negative reinforcement was a punishment of some sort that would redirect the behavior until the lesson was learned and passed.  Holistic focuses on the personality, such as emotions or desires to learn. Facilitation focuses on the environment in which the learner is in. Experiential is the focus on experience and experiments. Andragogy (adult learning) is where adults bring in their experience into the learning environment, know what they want and how to be educated and also expect feedback on their progress. Methods of learning is where an educator use any interference's that are intentionally started to help the process of learning. Learning models help us make sense of things, how to take something so difficult to understand and break it down to where we can understand it. Learning models effect everything in the learning environment such as the teachers, the students, whether the classroom is organized or not, an even the learning material.  

2. Reflect on whether your stance is primarily positivist, relativist, or contextualist. 
I would have to say that I am more on the lines of a positivist stance. I feel that  knowledge is objective as it can go either way. I am the type of person, whether I am a student or an educator, that believes wholeheartedly that if you must be able to use ANY of your senses to learn anything. Whether it's seeing, hearing. touching, smelling,or tasting. This is how we start out learning (as babies) and we continue to learn using those same senses but for different things. I like to argue with my children at times because they do not understand the value of the dollar. For instance, Kris who is 9, always asks for money to buy things he really doesn't need. I tell Kris that money doesn't grow on trees and nothing in life is free. He likes to say that the air we breathe is free and in return I try to tell him that it is not free.  

An Instance When My Perspective as a Learner Conflicted with My Instructor. 
I remember one instance with an instructor that caused a debate in the classroom. It was my last semester at the community college where I began my college career. There were about 30 students sitting in our Philosophy class and the topic that day was religion. The instructor asked "if seeing is believing then how do we know that God exists?" He then said "I've never seen him, so how can I be convinced he exists?" Some of my classmates were in agreement while others were not. I was convinced that the whole class was going to hell. One student then said, "you can't see air with the naked eye but it's there". This discussion/debate went on for approximately 4 class meetings. The instructor was still convinced that if something can't be seen then it just doesn't exist. I, on the other hand, really on my other senses to tell if something exists or not. Someone who was born blind has never seen the sky, but that does not mean the sky doesn't exist. 

3. Differences in Problem-Solving From Behaviorist and Constructivist Perspectives. How They Differ in the Nature of the Problem to be Solved and in Facilitating the Problem Solving Process?  What Effect Might These Differences Have on Learner Motivation?
From a behaviorist perspective, if you are faced with a problem and apply your behavior then the problem can be solved. The study of behavior is objective and can be observed and problem solving occurs through trial and error processes. This is where I provide an example of something that I remember from a few of my psychology courses. Thorndike did an experiment with cats (I believe). He placed that cats in a box with something to hold the door closed and the door would only open if the cats performed a series of actions. The cats had to learn which string was the correct one to pull in order to get out of the box. A constructivist perspective, if you are faced with a problem are you to develop different ideas on how to actually solve the problem. This type of problem-solving reminds me of one of my favorite television shows "House M.D.". Dr. House works (and I use that loosely) with his interns and tries to solve medical problems. They will have a patient that collapses somewhere for no apparent reason and run tests but will come up with nothing. They then go to a room where they sit there and go over all the symptoms, what they know about the patient, what they don't know about the patient, and using PRIOR KNOWLEDGE...they figure out what is wrong with the patient and treat them. The key here is prior knowledge and using what you already know to solve the problem.  As for learner motivation, feedback is used for the behaviorist and allowing your students to figure things out on their own (like Dr. House) is used for the constructivist perspective.