My epistemological beliefs lean towards pragmatism, with healthy doses of both empiricism and constructivism. I agree with empiricist precepts that individuals begin life in a pristine and untouched state and that from the moment of birth their senses start collecting information about themselves and the world. Like the constructivists, however, I am aware that individuals use their existing belief systems to assign meaning to events and situations. I admit that I am uncertain about when or how belief systems develop within a person, or when individuals begin using belief systems to interpret the world.
One reason I label myself as a pragmatist is that I believe that knowledge is changeable. Just consider the revolutionary changes in the field of medicine. The emergence of heart surgery, innovations in cancer treatments, and the elimination of diseases like smallpox would have been unheard of 100 years ago. And advances promise to continue over the coming decades.
Just as I believe that knowledge is changeable, I believe that we can learn through every experience and piece of information we encounter. For a simple example of how someone can change through experience and information, I need only look at myself in 1994 when I was learning how to use Microsoft Word. For some time I did not understand the concept of styles or automated tables of contents, so when writing a document, I painstakingly formatted each paragraph and manually typed titles and page numbers for a table of contents. Needless to say, I quickly changed my method of setting up documents when I discovered that the process could be simplified tenfold by applying styles and generating an automated table of contents! I changed my actions as a result of receiving new information.
Another reason for identifying myself as a pragmatist is because I believe that one's perceptions are the dominant factor in determining one's feelings about an event or situation. In a crude example, consider that when a crime is committed, both the perpetrator and the victim may agree on what has occurred, but it is likely that each party expresses very different feelings about the event.
Like many people who were raised in the 1960's and 70's, much of my elementary education emphasized memorization of facts and rote learning, with a regurgitation of the information in a testing environment. I believe that this type of instruction is appropriate in subjects such as learning the alphabet, numbers, historical dates, and the basics of a new language. Beyond fundamental principles such as these, however, I believe that actual learning results from one's understanding of the logic of the subject and the reasons why something is stated to be so. For example, students may know the multiplication tables through memorization, but understanding that multiplication is simply an extension of addition could possibly ease the transition to more complex forms of mathematics.
I believe that that people have different levels of aptitude for different subjects, and like the behaviorists, I believe that reinforcement can assist learning. I also agree with the principle of cognitive learning theory that learning can take place only with the consent of the learner. To take another example from math: Suppose someone does not understand the logic of multiplication, either because she has talents in other areas or because she has never learned the principles behind it. Although she may (understandably) feel bored and frustrated with the subject, I believe that patient teaching and praise from an instructor could help boost the confidence and enthusiasm of this student so that she will be willing to apply herself diligently to understanding the material.
I believe that learning is a skill that can be refined by the individual. In other words, that one can learn to learn; to look critically at a statement or situation and glean several meanings from it.
Here are some ways that instructors can facilitate learning: