Tenacity
The first way we acquire knowledge is through tenacity. Tenacity is the persistence of a certain belief or way of thought for 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, phonics-based reading approaches have been around for decades. Thus, many people would indicate that the preferable way to teach reading is through phonics instruction. Arguments such as, “I learned how to read through phonics and it worked for me” are used to defend the practice. Instruction in phonics may be the most effective method of teaching early reading skills, but do we really know this from tenacity? The answer is “no." Just because beliefs have been around for a long time, it does not mean they are correct. At some point, research will either support or refute long-held beliefs. However, long-held beliefs tend to be resistant to contrary evidence. Tenacity is not considered a source of scientific information. Tenacity can aid us in asking research questions, such as “What is the best way of teaching children to read?” It is not an adequate means of confirming or refuting information.
Intuition
The second way we acquire knowledge is through so-called intuition. Intuition is a “feeling” we get about a topic. For example, suppose we are exposed to two options in teaching a child how to attack a word. One method is through teaching him how to sound out the word, and the other way is to have the student take a running start at the word and perhaps use the picture to guess what the word is. We look at both methods and have a feeling that the use of the picture prompt is the best way to have a child attack a word, since it seems to make sense to gain information about a word via looking at the picture. We made our decision based on our intuition in this case. Intuition most likely comes from our past and current experiences rather than some form of extra-sensory perception. We may have been taught via the use of picture cues. Thus, our decisions based on intuition are supported by previous information on the same or similar topics.
A problem with the use of intuition is that its accuracy is usually not assessed in any meaningful manner. Thus, there is a lack of feedback regarding the accuracy of our intuition. If we do not get feedback, there is no way to adjust our intuition. 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. If this feedback is not available, our intuition will continue to be incorrect. Intuition is not a way to obtain scientific information. As with tenacity, intuition can help us raise research questions, but it is not a valid means of confirming or refuting information.
Authority
One of the essential skills teachers should develop is critical thinking. Critical thinking means taking into consideration all available information and making an informed decision about a topic. Unfortunately, as stated by Stanovich, a major obstacle in reforming education is that it has suffered in the past from the “authority syndrome.” Stanovich describes this syndrome as the belief that knowledge resides within certain people who then impart it to others. Therefore, many teachers teach as they do because this is how they were told to teach in their college teacher preparation programs, not based on their understanding of the results of scientific research. Thus, authority is the third method of acquiring information.
For example, pre-service teachers in educational training programs are frequently confused about the best way to teach reading to elementary-aged children. Unfortunately, the debate has created an “us versus them” mentality. Some college faculty may tell students to use a whole-language or literature-based approach to reading. Other faculty may tell students to use a systematic approach that emphasizes teaching phonics first. Students come away unclear and wonder who is correct. In some instances, students align themselves with the faculty 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 may provide information solely based on their particular biases. Therefore, the information may not be objective. Third, even if the information provided by an authority is correct, we would have to rely on that authority or other authorities to tell us so. Individuals who think critically search out confirming evidence. Again, as with tenacity and intuition, authority requires an active attempt on the part of the individual to gather supporting or refuting evidence of the obtained information. Authority is a source for developing research questions, but it cannot provide us with information to help confirm or refute a scientific theory.
Empiricism
The three aforementioned ways of acquiring information all have the same weakness: that is, they do not require a level of rigor that is needed in scientific inquiry. This level of rigor is what separates science from other endeavors (Park, 2000); science requires a level of evidence that is not required in everyday life. The fourth source of information is one that we all use in our lives but most likely not to the extent and in the systematic manner in which a scientist uses it. This source is called empiricism. Empiricism is acquiring knowledge through observation of our world. It is the information we gain from our senses. If we say that a student of ours is a poor reader, we most likely made this determination based on what we observed when the child read or answered comprehension questions. If we wished to test the effectiveness of a reading program, we would observe how well students read both before and after the program. Empiricism, then, is the foundation upon which science functions. Instead of relying on what has been around for a long time, what we feel to be correct, and what others tell us, we actually go out and see for ourselves. It is like saying, “Show me that it works.”
Empirical methods require a higher standard of verification than previous methodologies because they are subject to public scrutiny and validation. Observations must be repeatable and witnessed by others before they are widely accepted within the scientific community. Yet, the empirical approach is not without error—mistakes can and do happen. For a finding to be considered reliable, it must be observed consistently over time. An isolated event, seen only once, does not confirm a consistent phenomenon. Basing conclusions on a single occurrence risks inaccurate judgments, as isolated incidents do not offer sufficient evidence to draw reliable inferences. Science relies on the predictability of phenomena; thus, to confirm an authentic phenomenon, its pattern must be discernible to enable future forecasts about its behavior. (Sola, 2023; Viera, 2023; Macalester, 2024).
Rationalism
Rationalism is interpreting or understanding the world around us through our reasoning processes. An example of this is the process of deductive logic. For example, we could begin with a general statement such as, “All students who are taught through a scientifically-based reading program will learn how to read.” Then, we have a second statement such as, “This student just finished a scientifically-based reading program.” Finally, we make a logical conclusion based on our previous statements such as, “This student learned how to read.” Unfortunately, we cannot know from rationalism alone if the statement is true. For instance, in the example about reading, we will not actually know if every student who is exposed to a scientifically-based reading program will be able to read. We must make some type of assessment to determine whether every student who was exposed to the program indeed learned how to read. Thus, what is needed is a combination of rationalism and empiricism. Thus, when we add the two together, we have a method of gathering information in a scientific context.