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?
When one solves a problem, he or she needs to be involved in the problem-solving process. I understand the Behaviorists view that the teacher can provide the reinforcement needed in order to achieve motivation in the classroom, but I tend to lean more towards the constuctivists view, that real motivation is obtained when the students are at the center of their learning. Since the beginning of my career, it was very evident to me that I had to make the subjet I teach relavant to the students. Otherwise, I would lose most of them - even the AP student needs to have motivation to achieve success in my classroom. And the only way I can ever get the motivation, is to make the content relavant to the student. For example, I recently taught my pre-AP World History class about the crisis in Syria. They are very bright students, but thier eyes would gaze over as the very mention of "Arab Spring" or even "Chemical Warfare". I mean, come on! Chemical Warfare? How is that not interesting? Well, to 15 year old, pubescent teenagers, it just isn't. So, instead of me teaching them from the front of the classroom, I had them research certain aspects of what is going on, teach each other, and then as a group figure out how to solve the problem in Syria without United States intervention. I even went as far as to have the students think of ways to be an international superpower without the use of weapons. The students were very engaged and empassioned. Furthermore, the situation in Syria became more real to them. I also think that they got more involved in the learning because they didn't feel like the students getting information from the teacher - they were teaching each other - they owned thier learning. To me, that is more meaningful than any speech or powerpoint lesson. I think that if we do not meet our students to where they are today (people who do not need for us to give them all the information since it is right there at their computer), the we could possibly lose the motivation of an entire generation.
Hi Ashley,
ReplyDeleteI'm posting this comment here for your three posts this week, since it is the third section. I really enjoyed your perspectives in this week’s post. I’ll freely admit that this week’s readings on epistemic stances were a bit confusing for me. I really like the way you flesh out what these different stances actually are and how they would look in real life.
In particular, I appreciated your comparison of a relativist viewpoint to the scene where the movie characters were describing love. I think this is a perfect example of what relativism really is. I agree that relativists would argue that we all bring our own histories to the learning process.
In the end, I think a combination of these approaches is the best way to help students be successful. If I’m reading things right (which I may not be,) it seems like the constructivist stance would achieve this most effectively. My brain is hurting, too!
Great Post!