Section II #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?

I am not a fan of the positivist approach to education. I feel as thought, it is very "old school" and probably why I hated school so much during my younger years. All learners are different, come from different backgrouds, and thier prior knowledge will always differ. To be so concrete in the field of education, is not eduation, but rather indoctrination. Positivism, a philosphy brought forth by an elite French man called Auguste Comte, was developed as the Old Regime in France was crumbling as a result of the French Revolution. He believed in a social order in which experts were experts and everyone else should ask no questions and believe what they are told. Well of course an elitist would want education to be that way. How dare the poor become educated and take his land away! I digress, my point is that I believe freedom for all humans comes with education. There is a reason prisons are filled with the uneducated, and the poor have a difficult time coming out of poverty. Furthermore, isn't it vital to education to know why? To ask questions? To truly believe in what is being taught? This is why I am more in favor of the realtivists approach to education. While I agree that teachers and professors are to facilitate the learning process, and give information to the students, I think it is equally as important to create an educational environment where the student becomes a life-long learner - thirsty for knowledge. In the Constructivists approach, the classroom is designed as such that the students are a part of the learning process. Social Constructivism allows the students to become affected by what they are learning through a real-life process of collaborating with others. Radical Constructivists believe that people all learn differently because we all hear words differently and therefore cannot possibly have the same exact knowledge. This reminds me of a movie I once watched, called "Waking Life" in which there was one scene where two women were discussing this very viewpoint - one of the women said that when two people say they love each other they do not mean the same thing - because each person has thier own experiences and memories of the word, love. This is very deep thinking, of course, but it is worth noting that we do all hold different histories and memories and therefore, it only makes sense that we cannot every really learn the same and have the same knowledge. To me, it seems that constructivists try to take pieces for positivists, realitivsts, social constructivism and radical constructivism, and create  a learning environment that is cohesive to all the different learning philosophies and learning types. Interesting stuff....my brain is hurting. :)

Section II #1

#1

Basically, early in the 20th century, much of the studies of learners had to do with how the teacher was affecting the learner. Later on in the century, the cognitive development of the learner became the focus, rather than the effectiveness of the teacher. Therefore, instructional design was modeled after strategies that would assist the learner in the processing of information and how they applied their knowledge. To me, it seems they began to shift their focus on how to promote higher level learning. It is one things to be able to regurgitate information, and another thing to be able to truly understand and apply what one is learning. I have always been fascinated with the Montessori School, it is very learner-centered and a lot less structured than the average private or public school. There are no exams, and there is a much more holistic approach to learning. It really reminds me of Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird - his children are constantly questioning him and wanting answers to questions, but instead of telling them what his beliefs are and how to think, he socratically (I think I just made up a word:) allows them the opportunity to forge their own beliefs and own way of thinking. It is nice to think that as educators we can just teach the content - but that really is too easy. The challenge is - and the challenge should be - that we are constantly experimenting with new ways to encourage our students to own their learning, and how to apply what they are being taught. 

Since media comes from the word "medium" and medium simply means - the transfer of information - I have to suggest that a chalkboard, textbook, and teacher, can all be considered a type of media. With that being said, I do not believe that those 3 elements should be relied on in regards to Instruction Design. In the first three chapters of the text, the definition of Instructional Design has shifted in past 50 years. This shift is due to the evolution of technology, and it seems logical to me that our classrooms evolve along with technology. We serve our students best, whenever we understand how they learn best - and they are dependent on computers, ipads, kindles, nooks, social media, etc. How can we be effective, relate to the students, and ensure they are part of the learning process, if we refuse to become part of the lives in which they live - become a part of their reality? Clearly students can receive and learn information from their teachers and textbooks - but should that be their only source of learning? I believe it is irresponsible for a teacher to rely on their own voice and the voices of a few authors of texts to educate today's younger generation.

Week 1 Question #2

As the STAAR test became a large focus within my school, I completely changed many of my lessons. Our school became very data driven, and we had monthly meetings and district-wide unit tests, that allowed us to see where the students' strengths and weaknesses were. I really found this useful, because I was able to see where I needed to foucs more of my attention.

 As a capmus, our main focus became that of rigor, and I needed to focus more of my lessons around the process of analyzing and applying knowledge. As I mentioned in my previous post, I no longer could act a a giver of information; I was now needing to focus on becomming more of a facilitator. As I began to reshape the scope of my lessons, I began with goals for each unit - essential questions that I wanted to make sure my students were able to answer at the close of each unit.

A couple years ago, I read about "flipping the classroom", a decided to implement this idea in my classroom. This new idea was was learner-centered, in that I did not orally give them the information they needed. Instead, I referred to the KHAN Academy and John Green's youtube series, and various written sources sent home, and the students were to learn the content on their own in thier homes. This way, the class period would be devoted to applying thier knew and prior knowledge. I created projects that would require them to apply thier knowledge, and in class lessons that required the students to analyze various ideas, as well as make decisions about how they felt about the things they were learning. My goal was to make World History relatable, so that they were able to apply the histoical content with real world issues. For example, when studying the Agricultural Revolution that occurred at the dawn of civilization, I had the studetns read about the causes and effects of the revolution, as well as compare and contrast that time with revolutions that might be occurring today. They had to decide whether they belived the postitive effects outweighted bad, and they were able to do this by using thier access to the web to reserach all the effects that Agriculture has had on our planet.

In order to measure the outcome of their learning in a meaningful way, I like to use DBQ's. DBQ's, are document based questions essays that require the students to analyze primary and secondary sources, in order to write an essay over various themes in History. Using these sources, the students are require to make important decisions about how they feel about the content. By reading thier essays, I am able to distinguish whether or not they have learned to make the content applicable. This is an excellent way for me to evaluate thier learning. Another way to evaluate thier learning, is that I have the students use our computer labs to create documentaries, movie trailers, and blogs. I love the blogs, because the students are very in tune with any type of social media, and they seem to involve themselves much more in the learning process.

The only portion of the six charactrstics that I have not been able to apply to my classroom, is team effort. Social Studies is unable to have common planning periods, and outside planning groups, because the majority of our teachers in that content area are coaches. They have very busy schedules and all of them have the same conference periods and athletic periods, leaving those of non-coaches to fill in for those class periods they are not in the classroom. I have seen two subject areas benefit greatly from working as a team and having common planning periods. Our Science and Math departments have heavily followed all six of these characteristics and the over success rate has been astronomical. It is evident to me that by reshaping their entire system, they have been able to reach so many students. They plan together, make use of technology, create innovative lessons that encourage the students to apply their knowledge on a DAILY basis. By doing these things, those two core areas have seen a great deal of success.

Week 1 Question #1

It was no surprise to read that the definition of Instructional Design has changed for the last 50 years. Technology has changed and with that came the realization that education practices should change as well. It seems that it was not until the late 1970's that the analysis portion of learning became a topic of discussion. This was not shocking to me, because as I began my career in 2001, it was still a common practice to have a sit and get style approach in the classroom. Teachers refused to give up their role as the provider of facts, and worksheets and movies were amongst the most common practices used in the classroom. Between the 70's and 90's there was a huge shift in technology when it came to computers. I remember being in high school (late 90's) and we there was no Internet on my campus, and in college, I still used all books for my resources when writing a research paper. So when I began my teaching career, the push for the use of technology within our curriculum was not a big topic of discussion. In fact, we had that 60's and 70's mindset of media in the classroom is instructional design. Over the last 20-30 years, the definition of Instructional Design has changed in a few important ways: 1) it became apparent that the learner needed to be able to analyze what they are learning; 2) the ultimate goal for education became the "improvement of learning"; 3) teachers and professors are being held more accountable in their teaching approach.; and 4) In order for humans to be successful, they need to learn by the instructor and on their own.

Honestly, at the beginning of my career it was easy to fall into the old school mentality of how students should learn. Also, I love the subject I teach, so I enjoyed standing in front of my class and making History come alive through storytelling. The main problem with this, however, is that my students were getting more and more advanced in technology themselves, that I was starting to lose them. They needed so much more than what I was giving them. They didn't (and don't) need me to give them all the information from the content - then can find that with the touch of a finger and click of a mouse - they needed to learn how to think deeply and apply their knowledge. Therefore, in the last few years, I have changed the makeup of my classroom and have begun giving up my role as the giver of information and have taken on a more facilitating role.

Hello! I am looking forward to learning more about technology so that i can apply my new knowledge in the classroom.