Knowing what we Know

What I have come to know…

In studying what knowledge is and how we attain it (epistemology), we, as educators have developed theories for approaching learning.  If epistemology is comprised of what we believe about knowledge and how it is acquired, then learning theories or models represent the path we believe will result in the highest levels of attainment.  These theories become the frameworks for how we will administer instruction to encourage learning.  I use the term encourage versus ensure as my personal epistemology aligns with a contextual view of knowledge acquisition and the belief that learning lies in the hands of the beholder; the learner.  We can design instruction based on best practices that are supported by research and evidence, but ultimately, we cannot force, nor ensure learning.  Furthermore, I found an immediate connection to this understanding of both epistemology and learning theories as I worked on writing curriculum with colleagues this week for our gifted program.  We started with what we believed to be true of knowledge and how it is attained, which shaped our beliefs that the highest levels of learning and thinking happen when inquiry based methods are used in instruction.  We worked to build frameworks that designated what would be taught, how it would be presented to learners by providing students with an initial problem to solve, and what instructional resources could be used to support and guide students towards this goal.

Where do I stand ?

As mentioned earlier, I take a contextualist stance on the circumstantial dependence of knowledge, and I often find myself constructing meaning by attempting to find relevance and purpose for learning in relation to the situation it occurs in.  As an example, I am often not afraid to question or challenge knowledge that conflicts with my own interpretation of a situation.  In order to learn, I have to understand how the learning fits into the bigger picture (the why or how) before accepting knowledge as truth.  Our district gifted and talented coordinator’s view on knowledge is more characteristic of a positivist in that knowledge is objective; truth is truth in any context or situation.

Once accepted as truth, even the most challenging, insightful questions will not cause her to waiver or consider another perspective.  I respect her knowledge of content, and know that she brings a wealth of experience and enthusiasm to our group of gifted teachers.  However, her stance seems to contrast the very pedagogical practices she accepts as truth.  I struggled to place her into one of the categories discussed in this week’s reflection, because she pushes us to implement problem based learning, exploration, differentiated experiences and unique approaches to learning, yet preaches on consistency across all of our classrooms.  We have frequently debated how we can have autonomy in serving our gifted students and allow them to pursue deeper learning they don’t often have time for in the classroom while also maintaining consistency in teaching the same lessons and content in our classrooms located on different campuses that serve different students.  We seem to wrestle each year with how to marry these two concepts, but I can see how operating on a team of only contextualists can produce a vague or “fuzzy” approach as mentioned in this week’s readings (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012).  Ultimately, I do believe that her positivist views challenge our own epistemology and encourage us to further develop our theories or models of learning.

 Implications of Contextualism

While contextualism generally tends to employ constructivist methods for learning, it is important to note that in some situations or contexts, a contextualist may find it necessary to approach learning with behaviorist methods specifically when outcomes can be controlled or predicted.  Contextualism, like its action based partner, constructivism, both leave room for a vague, generalized view of knowledge and learning.  In recent years, this view of knowledge acquisition through construction has been challenged as mentioned in the text (Reiser and Dempsey, 2012).  However, without the introduction of a new approach or one that substantially differs from the generally characterized view of constructing knowledge through experience, thought process and social/emotional stimuli, constructivism remains the umbrella that continues to cover the development of new learning theories.  Constructivism as a larger theory that encompasses various models remains relevant primarily because it revolves around a focus of problem solving practices to construct new knowledge.  Where behaviorists cling to absolutes and rules in conjunction with learning, they practice convergent thinking which leaves only one right possible answer.

On the other hand, Constructivists and ultimately Contextualists bring the factor of context into the equation and approach learning with divergent thinking with either a possibility for multiple or unlimited solutions to a problem.   Our society today functions on the development of innovations and many ways to answer a problem or fill a need.  Without the theory of multiple solutions to the simple, every day first world problems we face, our economy wouldn’t nearly be as diverse as it is now.  Creativity and innovation thrive in an environment where convergent thinking is encouraged and problem-solving scenarios inspire challenging work.  I have found in working with gifted students who often make connections I had never considered, that they most often are motivated to act when presented with a problem to solve.  The opportunity to use their creativity in solving these problems motivate them to gather information, construct meaning and take responsibility for their own learning.

References:

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