We acquire and use knowledge every day and yet we rarely stop and think about the process through which we acquire knowledge. Epistemology is an area of philosophy that deals with the questions and theories concerning knowledge (Lawhead). There are multiple theories in epistemology with the main ones being rationalism, empiricism, and constructivism. Each theory seeks to answer the important epistemological questions in their own way with some being more convincing than others. I believe constructivism provides the strongest theory of knowledge by combining elements of both rationalism and empiricism in a manner that fixes some of the flaws in each theory. Before I get into constructivism, it is important to go over empiricism as I feel it …show more content…
To the empiricists, our mind is a blank slate when entering the world and only through experience are marks left on it. Empiricists are content with believing in conclusions that are probable rather than absolutely certain (Lawhead). Our sense experiences may not provide complete certainty as rationalists would like, but it is all we have to go on. Empiricists are against the speculation that rationalists tend to make. Empiricists believe every idea, concept, or term must be tested by tracing it back to an original experience from which it was derived (Lawhead). Empiricists also differ from rationalists by claiming that we have no innate ideas. While some ideas may seem universal, the empiricists would say these are expressions of the relations of our ideas or the generalizations from experience (Lawhead). For example, …show more content…
Constructivism is the claim that knowledge is neither already in the mind nor passively received from experience but that the mind constructs knowledge out of the materials of experience (Lawhead). Kant first started his epistemology with the belief that we do have knowledge. He found it undeniable that arithmetic, geometry, and physics provide us information about our world. He also believed these disciplines involved universal principles that no future discoveries would ever change. The problem Kant found here is that no collection of particular experiences could ever provide an absolutely necessary basis for such universal claims about all possible experience (Lawhead). This is where Kant decides to combine elements of rationalism and empiricism by claiming that both reason and experience play a role in constructing knowledge. Kant still needed to find a way to explain how we could have synthetic a priori knowledge. This is knowledge that is acquired through reason, independently of experience, that is universal and necessary and provides information about the world (Lawhead). Kant was eventually inspired by Copernicus’ theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun instead of the other way around. Kant decided to switch the center of focus from “knowledge conforms to its objects” to “objects conform to our knowledge” (Lawhead). This means that the only way
The constructivists worldview is typically an approach to qualitative research. Constructivists philosophies include understanding (seek understanding or meaning of subjective events
Epistemology can be defined as the study of knowledge. It asks questions like, “What is knowledge?”, “Why is knowledge important?”, and “How do people gain knowledge?”. Through a lot of determination in searching for answers to these questions, epistemologists discovered that there is a lot of disagreement on such questions. Therefore, epistemologists categorized these answers in groups based on beliefs that they have about where knowledge comes from and what the limit of knowledge is. The main groups epistemologists formed are: rationalism, empiricism, and constructivism. In my opinion, the Kantian constructivism has the strongest view.
Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge. What is it that we can know? Scholars of epistemology are searching for the definition of knowledge. I believe knowledge comes from direct experience, experimentation, practicing what you are learning and by association. Furthermore, knowledge must be acquired through experience; it is not born into an infant. A child or adult becomes wise in the ways of the world through living life.
Empiricists claim that genuine knowledge comes from experience: a posteriori knowledge. It can be difficult to argue against this point. When asked to explain even the most simple of objects, such as an apple, each description proposed is one that is associated with a previous experience. One might describe an apple to be red, round, hard and sweet. Each of these characteristics are descriptions of prior experiences. If a child who had never tasted anything sweet was asked to describe the flavor of an apple, the child wound be unable to. Without experiencing what ‘sweet’ is, it is not possible to understand it. This is true for any characteristic. If a child were to ask the meaning of the word round, an adequate description would require a explanation of something the child is familiar with in order to understand the relation. For example, “a ball is round”.
Constructivism represents a paradigm shift form education based on cognitive theories. This concept assumes that learners construct their own knowledge on the basis of interaction with their environment. (Gagnon & Collay, 200?) The role of the teacher as a constructor of the learning experience to ensure authentic curriculum and assessment which is responsive to the skills, needs and experiences of the learner, within established curriculum framework and with the reference to the achievement of literacy, numeracy, retention and attainment of outcomes. Krause, Bochner and Duchesne (p.157) comment that “as learners interact with their environment, they link information learned through experience to previous knowledge, and so construct new understandings and knowledge.” Constructivism then inturn encourages Teachers and Learning Managers to recognise the value of prior knowledge and experiences that each child brings with them into the classroom, and help them (the students) build on their understandings of the world by providing appropriate learning experience plans.
The debate between rationalist and empiricist philosophers looks at the nature of knowledge, and specifically, how we gain this knowledge. Rationalists and empiricists take opposite, and sometimes mutually exclusive, views on how knowledge is obtained.
Epistemology like described earlier, is the science behind accepting knowledge that has been given to us. Scientific method is a common method used to ask questions about things we have yet to understand and acquiring knowledge about those questions. Epistemology then comes in to question if the way scientific method answered that question was in fact, rational, or correct itself instead of just blindly accepting the results. The goal of epistemology is not to challenge scientific facts or beliefs. Ellerton (2017) explains this well by saying “epistemology serves not to adjudicate on the credibility of science, but to better understand its strengths and limitations and hence make scientific knowledge more
Constructivism theorists believe that learning is an ongoing collective application of knowledge where past knowledge and hands on experience meet. This theory also believes that students are naturally curious. If students are naturally curious, their curio...
Philosophy uses a term for empirical knowledge, “posteriori”, meaning that knowledge is “dependent upon sense experience”. (Markie, 2008, section 1.2) Yet, philosophical empiricism is defined in such an absolute way; which causes philosophical empiricism to be an inaccurate philosophical position from which to address all aspects of human life. Philosophical empiricism is defined as “the belief that all human knowledge arises from sense experience.” (Nash, 1999, page 254) Yet, medical empiricism is so far to the other extreme as to be insulting, while this empiricism is still said to be based on all sensory experience; only the scientific sensory experience is valued and counted. This form of empiricism excludes the experience of non-scientific persons. This is just one manner in which empiricism has “proved inadequate to explain many important human ideas”. (Nash, 1999, page 254) I believe that human truth is in a combination of empiricism and rationalism. Although, sensory data can inform us of the external world; yet, reason gives humanity access to equally important intangibles.
Empiricism claims that all of our knowledge depends on sense experience only instead of both reason and experience. Empiricists argue that we would not be able to understand what colors look like if we had never seen them. Describing taste, colors, smell, etc, would be meaningless
...ectively bring together the right ideas presented by the rationalists and empiricists and strengthen the foundation of metaphysics. Kant uses the theory of transcendental idealism, the claim that gains of knowledge are based on perceptions of the mind, to prove the limitations of the human mind. Transcendental realists are proven wrong by Kant because of their inability to see that the mind is incapable of perceiving things in themselves. Kant resolves Hume’s scepticism by confirming that there are sources of reality perceived by sensations. Kant is successful in resolving the debate between rationalists and empiricists by applying a Copernican approach on understanding the human mind and its perceptions. By understanding the capacity of the human mind, we are one step closer to strengthening the foundation of metaphysics and understanding how knowledge is attained.
Empiricists use three anchor points in which they derive their opinions from. The first of these points is; the only source of genuine knowledge is sense experience. An easier way to understand this is to compare the mind to a clean sponge. As the sponge touches things, it takes with it, a piece of everything it touches. Without this, the sponge would remain clean and be void of anything other than its own material. With this conclusion, empiricist believes we must be content with the knowledge we have at hand, rather than things we have not yet been privy to.
Constructivism is a method that says students learn by building their schema by adding to their prior knowledge by the use of scaffolding (Rhinehart Neas). Because the students are basically teaching themselves new information, the teacher is there mainly for support and guidance for the students.
...g experience is child-centred. “Constructivist classrooms are structured so that learners are immersed in experiences within which they may engage in meaning-making inquiry, action, imagination, invention, interaction, hypothesizing and personal reflection.” (Gray, A) The constructivist approach is one that more teachers need to adopt in their classroom, it is incredibly beneficial. The approach will not only improve the child’s learning but also the teachers learning of their students.
Constructivism is a defined, when referring to the learner, as a "receptive act that involves construction of new meaning by learners within the context of their current knowledge, previous experience, and social environment" (Bloom; Perlmutter & Burrell, 1999). Also, real life experiences and previous knowledge are the stepping stones to a constructivism, learning atmosphere. (Spigner-Littles & Anderson, 1999). Constructivism involves the learner being responsible for learning the material and, not necessarily, the teacher (Ely; Foley; Freeman & Scheel, 1995). When learning occurs, the goals, values, and beliefs of the individuals need to be linked to the new data. Also, in constructivism, the person, who is taking in the knowledge, can somehow filter, amend, and reformat the information that he or she feels is important to the schema (Spigner-Littles & Anderson, 1999). A constructivist learner uses the creative approach to apply their own meaning to a topic using the social and cognitive circumstances around themselves (Bloom; Perlmutter & Burrell, 1999). A short and sweet summary of constructivism is "how one attains, develops, and uses cognitive processes" (Airasian & Walsh, 1997).