The first way we acquire knowledge is through tenacity. Tenacity is the persistence of a certain belief or way of thought over a long period of time. We essentially accept the information as being correct since, if it were not correct, it would not have lasted such a long time. For example, many people may indicate that it is preferable to spank children with ADHD when they behave poorly. Many believe in this method of child discipline because it has been around for as long as we can remember. Spanking may be the most effective disciplinary method devised, but do we really know this from tenacity?
The answer is no. We can't assume that a belief is correct just because it has been around for a long time. In fact, recent research has found that "standard" disciplinary procedures, such as spanking, used with children with ADHD may not have the intended effects of improving the child's behavior. At some point, research will either support or refute long-held beliefs. However, long-held beliefs tend to be resistant to contrary evidence. Tenacity should not be considered a valid source of information on ADHD. Tenacity can aid us in asking research questions, such as, "What is the best way of disciplining children with ADHD?" It is not an adequate source for confirming or refuting information.
The second way we acquire knowledge is through so-called intuition. Intuition is a "feeling" one gets about a topic. For example, suppose we are exposed to two options for teaching a child with ADHD how to spell. One method is through teaching about morphographs (i.e., the smallest unit of language that carries meaning) and the other is a sight-word only method. We look at both methods and have a feeling that the sight-word method would be more successful because it seems easier to teach. We made our decision based on our intuition in this case. Intuition most likely comes from our past and current experiences rather than from some form of extra-sensory perception. We may have been taught via the sight-word method or have more familiarity with it when working with other students with or without ADHD.
Thus, if intuition is based on past experiences, our intuition may not be altogether accurate, since accuracy depends on the retrieval of past information. If our intuition is based on faulty information from the past, our intuition will always be based on this faulty information unless we have feedback to let us know the information is incorrect. This is especially true when working with individuals who deviate from the norm, due to disabilities, for example. Thus, intuition is not a way to obtain valid information on working with children with ADHD. As with tenacity, intuition can help us raise research questions, but it is not a way of confirming or refuting information.
A skill you should be developing when taking courses such as this one is critical thinking. Critical thinking is taking into account all available information and making an informed decision about a topic. Unfortunately, due to our insistence that students follow or accept what we say, students rely on authority (the third method) for information.
For example, teachers frequently are confused about the best way to teach reading to children with ADHD. Teachers may hear from several "authorities" about the best way to approach reading instruction for these students. Unfortunately, the information provided by these authorities may be diametrically opposed to that provided by other authorities. Students come away unclear and wondering who is correct. Many students align themselves with the authority they like the best. Thus, information that is accepted is based on the person or persons providing the information. But what are the pitfalls of acquiring information through authority?
First, many authorities may simply be wrong in the information they are providing. Second, authorities provide information based on their particular biases; therefore, the information is rarely objective. Third, even if the information provided by an authority is correct, you would have to rely on that authority or other authorities to tell you so.
Critical thinkers may rely on authority, but also attempt to seek confirming evidence. Again, as with tenacity and intuition, authority requires an active attempt on your part to gather supporting or refuting evidence for the obtained information. Authority is a source for developing research questions, but it cannot provide us with information to help confirm or refute methods of working with children with ADHD.
The first three ways of acquiring information all have the same weakness: They do not require the level of rigor that is needed to demonstrate the best practices in working with children with ADHD. This level of rigor is what separates a science from other endeavors. Science or research-based practices require a level of evidence that is not required in everyday life. One source of this rigor is empiricism.
Empiricism is querying knowledge through the observation of our world. It is the information we gain from our senses. If we say that a student of ours is sad, we most likely have made an inference of an emotional state based on what we observed, for example, a frown. If we wished to test the effectiveness of a reading program for a student with ADHD, we would observe how well the student read before and after the program. Empiricism, then, is the foundation upon which research-based practices are developed. It is like saying, "Show me that it works."
Empiricism must meet a higher level of rigor than the previous ways of obtaining data simply because it is public. Others must observe the same phenomena before acceptable conclusions are made about which are the best practices. Empiricism is not infallible. Mistakes can be, and often are, made. We must observe similar results or successes over a period of time. If we observe something only once and make conclusions (e.g., "This method of teaching students with ADHD is the best way.") based on some isolated incident, we run the risk of making incorrect conclusions. An isolated incident does not provide enough evidence to allow us to make correct or adequate conclusions in regard to what will work with other children with ADHD.
The final way to obtain information is through rationalism. Rationalism is interpreting the world around us through our reasoning processes or logic. Rationalism includes a beginning statement, the processing and observation stages, and finally the stage in which we make a logical conclusion based on our previous statements. Unfortunately, we cannot know through rationalism alone whether the statement is true. For instance, in the example about reading, we will not actually know whether every student who is taught in this manner will be able to read at grade level. We must make some type of assessment to determine whether in fact every student with ADHD who was involved in the reading program learned how to read at grade level.