Theories and Models of Learning and Instruction

What are the differences between theories, methods, or models of learning and epistemologies or underlying beliefs about ways of knowing?

Over time many people have studied how we come to know what we know thus, there have been different theories on learning which implies a kind of permanence. (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012) 

The Behavioral Learning Theory believes that the environment plays an important role in learning. Learning is based on observable behaviors where feedback is essentially reinforcement (either positive or negative). Desired behaviors that are not exhibited can be specified as objectives to be addressed in the instruction that is being designed and developed. Unfortunately, these designs were boring to learners. (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012)

The Cognitive Information Processing Theory also believes that the environment plays an important role in learning. Our three memory systems receive information from the environment and transform it for storage and use in memory and performance. Learners must be actively engaged.

Gagne’s Theory of Instruction was primarily concerned with what is known about learning and can be systemically related to the design of instruction. (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012) He believed that there are three domains in which a student learns: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. His nine events of instruction continue to be the main lesson plan format that we still follow today.

The Schema Theory believes that knowledge must be anchored and is represented in long term memory which leads to automation, freeing up processing capacity. If learners do not have automated schemas to access, there result is a high cognitive load. The Cognitive Load Theory calls for learners to be introduced to a series of tasks on a continuum of simple to complex. (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012)

Vygotsky believed that culture plays a central role learning and that a student can learn better from the help of a more able other. Similarly, the Situated Learning Theory believes that knowledge accrues in meaningful actions that are the practices of a community. The strength of the Situated Learning Theory is integrating knowing with doing.

The Constructivist Theory seems to be where we are currently headed in education. Since the late 1990’s research shows that authentic problem solving in a social context with self reflection and feedback produces the strongest learning. (Where long term memory facilitates automatic skills.) If this is the case, why hasn’t this form of learning permeated our modern classrooms? Why hasn’t research that was published in 1999 guided the method of teaching that our future teachers learn to do in our colleges and universities, and thus infiltrated our school systems?

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.

I would consider myself more of a contextualist. While there are definitely times when truth is truth and there’s no getting around it, more often I tend to consider the context of the things when they happen. It’s like the story that Steven Covey tells about the man on the train. He is on there with his children. They are misbehaving and disturbing others around them. While some people on the train are thinking as a positivist, “Why isn’t this guy making his children mind?” A contextualist would realize that there might be a reason that he is not attending to his children. That was the case: they were on the way home from the hospital where his wife had just died. He was lost in his own thoughts and oblivious to what his children were doing.

The only time I have disagreed with my principal was over a discipline issue. I had a 9 year old student that had a history of stealing. It was a problem in all of the previous grade levels. When he began stealing in my classroom, my principal took the approach that he needed more love and hugs instead of discipline. The problem continued until there were finally stricter consequences for his behavior. In my opinion his behavior warranted being sent to the district’s alternative learning center. While I knew there was discord in his home, what I was not made aware of was the details of the severity of the discord in his home. For that reason, I would consider my principal to be responding as a relativist. I was responding with both a positivist approach (stealing is wrong and should have consequences) and as a contextualist in that the consequences for the first couple of offenses could be managed in the classroom.

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?

Teachers today see the value of a constructivist learning environment. Students are more engaged because they feel they are navigating through real, worthwhile problems. In a more traditional classroom setting that Gagne’ s theory recommends, the learning is more passive. Although Gagne’s theory is a great foundation for effective instruction and many of the components are still worth being used in a constructivist classroom, the engagement and depth of knowledge are greater when used in constructivism. With student driven learning, kids are excited to come to school each day to continue to work on solving their problem because it is relevant to them. They are more likely to go home at night and continue to research more ideas and additional information needed to solve their problem. And finally, the idiom of two heads are better than one applies here when students are able to work together and talk through what they are working on. While the problem is a problem with no known outcome at the start, learners believe that they can succeed in mastering the task. (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012) When the problem is solved, students are more likely to remember what they have learned thus it will become part of their long-term memory schema and students will have experienced satisfying outcomes. (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012) The teacher as facilitator can be a powerful role - when the teacher acts more like a coach, asking questions that gets students to think. A teacher that merely presents information, the sage on the stage, is not as effective in developing long term knowledge that the student can use in application or creation.

 Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2012). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.