What is Epistemology?

According to Encyclopædia Brittanica, epistemology is one of the four primary branches of philosophy. It is defined as:

"the study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The term is derived from the Greek epistēmē ("knowledge") and logos ("reason"), and accordingly the field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge."

So, what does that mean? Essentially, epistemology is the study of how we learn and attain knowledge. As humans, we are constantly driven by the need to know and understand the world around us. As teachers we are always searching for the best ways to introduce material to students and to understand how they will best acquire and process that knowledge.


Epistemology vs Instructional Methods, Models, and Theories


Epistemology and instructional methods, models, and theories are all related in the sense that they build upon one another in terms of lessons. Epistemology is what researchers use to develop their ideas on HOW the students acquire information. Once the researcher has an idea of HOW the student best learns, they create a THEORY like constructivism or behaviorism. Dictionary.com provides us with two relatable definitions of theory:

"1. A coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.

2. A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact" (Dictionary.com).

Basically, theories like constructivism and behaviorism are what researchers have come up with after testing their ideas on HOW knowledge is acquired. Behaviorism, based on the ideas of B.F. Skinner states that:

"Learning can be understood, explain, and predicted entirely on the basis of observable events, namely, the behavior of the learner along with it's environment antecedents (cues...that signal the appropriateness of a behaviors) and consequences...(which) then determine whether it is repeated and thus considered to be learned" (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012, p.38).

Once a THEORY is in place, instructional MODELS are created to guide the creation of lessons and instruction using the ideas set forth within the theory. A classroom following a behaviorist theory might use a model like Gagné's Nine Events of Instruction to plan a lesson. According to Northern Illinois University, "follow a systematic instructional design process that share the behaviorist approach to learning, with a focus on the outcomes or behaviors of instruction or training." A guide for each of the nine steps published by Northern Illinois University is available here: Gagné’s Nine Events of Instruction.

After choosing a MODEL to use to plan a lesson, the teachers must that choose the individual activities aka METHODS or instructional strategies for each step of the model that they will use to actually introduce, teach, reinforce, or evaluate the skill being taught. A method could be something like a gallery walk, book talk, bringing in a guest speaker, debating, etc.

The image below provides a look at the differences between a few theories of instruction, how they believe knowledge is acquired, and what some methods that may be utilized within that learning theory. The image was created by Debbie Morrison for Online Learning Insights.




I'll note that although the image above lists lecture as a behaviorist method, Reiser and Dempsey disagree stating that lecture is often miscategorized and this is "a mistake since behaviorist learning requires above all active responding" (p.46).


Why I'm a Constructivist at Heart


While I was growing up, the majority of my schooling followed a mixed behavioralist/cognitivist approach. I remember spending hours in classrooms listening to lectures, copying seemingly endless notes projected in the front of the room, doing drill and kill, and numerous multiple choice assessments. Did I learn the material in a way that allowed me to pass the class and any necessary assessments? Sure! Of course I did. All learning theories that are still around today are there with some form of back-up that the method does work; however, I think some things that work in the short term are NOT always as effective in the long term. Did I learn the material and pass my classes, yes. Fifteen years after graduating, do I remember the material I was taught? Not necessarily. I will admit that many of the drill and kill exercises for facts did help the facts stick with me, but how useful is a random fact about 16th Century history in a daily real-world context?

One of the things I LOVE about constructivism is that it allows students to form their own knowledge by relating and learning the knowledge in the context of the world around them and their own experiences. Some of the lessons that stuck with me the most when I was in K-12 were those that required a hands-on, exploratory, student-centered exploration of the material. I am a contextualist. I believe that we build our knowledge based on our own backgrounds, communities, and life experiences. I think adopting a constructivist approach is the best way to serve our students who may come from many different backgrounds and have varied upbringings. As teachers, we can't expect our students to learn in the same way using the same contextual connections we made growing up. Students need to be able to relate the knowledge they learn to their everyday lives and not to some concept solely living inside a textbook.

Prior to attending college, I had learned about various learning styles, but I did't know anything about learning theories. Therefore, I never really question my K-12 instructors as to why we had to learn a lesson in a particular way. We were taught to sit quietly, listen, and copy notes. We were not taught to question the status quo. Looking back, I wish that I had understood that putting knowledge into a relatable context would help me to use and retain that knowledge. One of my biggest academic weaknesses in K-12 was mathematics. I could understand the formulas and complete the problems if I wanted to but at that time I never saw how advanced math could be applicable to my daily life. Studying concepts like geometric proofs seemed like a waste of my time. I'm the type of person who will learn a new fact or issue and I immediately go and Google to find several additional sources to provide confirmation or more information. I love finding CONTEXT and making connections! My math classes made no connections beyond me wondering if I would ever be on a train traveling 60mph to Boston while there was a NE windspeed of 25 mph that could potentially cause a travel delay of x minutes.


Problem-Solving in Behaviorist Versus Constructivist Approaches


As previously mentioned, behaviorism is generally focused around the idea that humans can learn following a systematic procedure by using antecedents which we will consider to be positive signals and positive or negative consequences for fulfilling an action. Essentially, the student is conditioned to react in a certain way to stimuli in order to learn. Although Reiser and Dempsey's book does not seem to directly mention it, behaviorism is basically operant conditioning. One of the big problems with this type of approach is that it does not encourage students to think creatively or work outside of the box. Students may be able to problem-solve in the context that they will puzzle out the correct way to respond in situation x in order to attain y; however, that does not necessarily lead them to be capable to apply that knowledge to other unrelated situations when they come up against different antecedents and consequences.

Constructivism on the other hand is practically built for problem solving. Since constructivism follows the belief that students should construct their own knowledge based around the context of a situation, students must be able to think critically and problem solve in order to learn. It is no longer the teacher who is in charge of shepherding every morsel of knowledge to the students.

Constructivism places an "emphasis on authentic performance in realistic settings, (so) constructivist learning can potentially be more relevant to out-of the classroom needs" and most importantly it "as learners encounter more complex problems and tasks during instruction, they should be able to transfer that knowledge...more easily" (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012, p.47).

Constructivism even spawned a model of learning that is solely based upon learning via problem solving. Problem-based learning or PBL, works by "centering instruction around a key statement of a problem, prompting team-based inquiry and problem-solving processes" (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012, p.46).


Motivation!


Reiser and Dempsey referenced J. M. Keller's principles of motivation two of which I've referenced below:

"Motivation to learn is promoted when the knowledge to be learned is perceived to be meaningfully related to one's goals" (p. 87).

Learning with behaviorism, which does not focus on providing a real-world context, may make it difficult for students to understand how a skill is related to their life and their goals.

"Motivation to learn is promoted when learners believe they can succeed in mastering the learning task" (p. 87).

This particular principle of motivation could be considered a strong point for behaviorism. Since students are conditioned to arrive at the desired result, they may develop confidence that they can complete a task by following the prescribed behaviors. Unfortunately this conditioning could also be a downfall for those who consistently fail to master a task and are constantly presented with negative consequences. This may cause "maladaptive conditioning that is highly resistant to change" and "failure continues as a result of not believing success is possible" (Reiser & Dempsey, 2012, p.88).


________

Northern Illinois University. (n.d.). Gagné’s nine events of instruction [PDF]. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University, Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center.

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Stroll, A., & Martinich, A. (n.d.). Epistemology. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

Theory. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved June 15, 2017 from Dictionary.com website: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/theory