Section 2: Theories and Models

So an interesting thing happened on my way to an answer to this week’s prompt.  From an epistemological perspective, I am a positivist.  I think that has to with my background as a scientist and science teacher.  The truths that I study are based on observable, measurable data gathered from the world around me.  There is nothing subjective about the layers of the atmosphere or how many rabbits are living in an area (as a side note, the literature scholar in me recognizes that all knowledge is subjective.  Truth is different based on your perspective).  However, I employ constructivist principles most often as a vehicle of learning for my students.  I think that my positivist viewpoint conflicted with one of my professors’ hardline relativist stance when I was in college.  He was very existentialist in his views about reality and perception.  I walked away from the experience thinking that our perception defines our reality (there is no spoon!) but that most people want to have the same reality so agree with the perceptions of each other. 

I generally try to apply constructivist model of learning in different forms, depending on the unit.  For my year-long courses, I like to employ problem-based learning.  Environmental science is a perfect theater for that sort of instructional model; there are plenty of problems to solve and most of my students come into my class with working knowledge of environmental problems around them.  I also frequently use inquiry-based instruction because I have found (and so have many other people with fancy titles attached to their names) that students retain information better if they find it out on their own versus me telling them what they need to know.  I like PBL the best because the relevancy of the work the students are doing is at the forefront of the unit and becomes a great motivating force.  In the summer, I teach a PBL academy for students to get extra credits towards graduation.  This past summer, we conducted water quality surveys of the San Marcos, Guadalupe, and Comal rivers and various locations that students were familiar with from growing up in the area and tried to explain what caused the water conditions that we observed on our sampling trips.  The overall goal was a presentation of their findings and explanations of trends and connections between different locations (ex: why the water quality was different between the Comal Springs, and just a few yards downstream past a public wading area).  The instances in which I was giving them information that they needed to know were limited to relaying basic information and that was because the program was only 3 weeks (most of that time needed to be devoted to water sampling time, travel, and project work time).  It was faster for me to give them the information in a traditional, lecture format.  But, even then, I still inject inquiry into the lecture by asking them to fill in “holes” that I left at strategic points in my lecture for them to fill using prior knowledge I knew they had.  I think to improve upon the experience for next year (which I am hoping will be the case) I can create more inquiry experiences and create opportunities for more classroom discussion in which the students lead the conversation and build the knowledge they need to have, instead of me leading the conversation.