6SEP2014

1. Epistemology in my understanding is the background of how we come to knowledge. It is the why of learning, focused on the way and reason people acquire knowledge. Instructional methods or theories or methods are the practical application of Epistemology. It is using knowledge to teach or to solve actual problems. 

I have never been a great student of psychology. I had some difficulty with these chapters. I have always focused on practical application of knowledge and skills. It was interesting reading about the theories behind the application but I didn’t see a lot of value in a real world sense. I have read about Skinner and I have always admired his logical, measurable approach. I can see how his work would be included and still used in education today.

2. I would have to say I identify with the Positivist stance. Objective truth or practical application is and always has been my goal. It doesn’t seem worthwhile to me to have knowledge without being able to utilize that knowledge in a practical way. Relativists and Contextualists don’t seem to favor practical application, but have a grey picture of application of knowledge. I think I favor a positivist stance because of my time in the army where everything had a practical application or because I value results.

I have had a few instances where I believe my instructor had a different epistemic stance. Mr. A, a professor in civil procedure seemed to be a relativist. Anytime I would ask a question I would not get a concrete answer. Everything he said was in terms of particular hypotheticals. And the answer to the same question would be different depending on what hypothetical he ran the question through. I had a problem with this as I wanted and expected a black/white answer to what I assumed was a yes/no question. Mr. A taught me that even in procedural law there is no absolutes, just arguments.

3. A behaviorist approach to learning would focus on structure and feedback. I personally favor this approach. I have seen it used effectively in the army and have used it myself when giving classes in the Army. A constructivist approach would present the group with a problem and let them come to their own solution. I like some aspects of this approach. I can see it being beneficial in a situation like you are in charge of a squad and must ambush a convoy, how do you accomplish the mission?

I think the major difference in the two approaches is what type of learning is desired. Are we talking about a basic skill like setting up a claymore mine or clearing a building? Or are we talking about a leadership skill such as deployment of a squad prior to engaging the enemy? I believe the behaviorist approach would be best for personal skills but a constructivist approach would be better for tactical response to a changing situation.

Learner motivation would probably be harder to maintain in a behaviorist approach. There is quite a bit of repetition but eventually the desired response will become automatic. It will get to a point where the student doesn’t even need to think and appropriate actions will be taken. A constructivist approach would have higher student motivation simply because the outcome would depend entirely on how the student decided to proceed.