My introductory post of my ideas about knowledge (in What is Knowledge? My ideas) referred to epistemology, which is the study of knowledge that I learned of in Creswell’s 2005 tome on research design during ETEC 500. I said, “epistemology is basically ‘what do you know and how do you know it’ and there is no absolute truth.” But the question was not asking what I think about the study of knowledge, it asked what I think knowledge is. My thoughts have expanded.         

       Pritchard’s (2018) summary definition of knowledge is a justified, true belief that is attributable to evidence (e.g., someone’s testimony, first-hand experience), not luck. To be counted as knowledge, Pritchard teaches that our beliefs must be justified and uses the analogy of a house (belief) being supported by a foundation (justification). The author explains that this leads us to Agrippa’s Trilemma (P. 32). The trilemma is that there are three positions of justification: 1) There are no supporting grounds for our belief (called Foundationalism); 2) The chain of justification for our belief is infinite (meaning that supporting grounds do not appear more than once, called Infinitism); or 3) A circular chain of supporting grounds where a supporting ground does appear more than once, and is called Coherentism (Pritchard, 2018, P. 32- 33).

       Foundationalism argues that some beliefs are self-justifying, as in Descartes’ example of believing that one exists. To believe in one’s own existence, one would have to be alive, and therefore exist to wonder (P. 36).  An example of a circular chain of justification (Coherentism) would be that you believed that the capital of Bolivia is La Paz (pretend there is no internet), is true. You believe this because your instructor in Geography taught you this. Your instructor believes this because she saw this in a textbook. The textbook author believes this because they saw it on a map. The map maker believes this because their instructor taught her. Coherentism is the most probable and tenable justification (P. 34). Edmund Gettier taught us that justified true belief cannot be a matter of luck, to be counted as knowledge (Pritchard, 2018, Pp. 23- 25). If one happens to look at a stopped clock at noon, and the clock just happened to have stopped at 12 o’clock, one would be lucky in their belief that the time was correct, hence it would not count as knowledge.

       My post on September 7, noted that, according to Plato and Aristotle, epistemic virtues and character traits that guide one to reach the truth are learned (Pritchard, 2018, P. 58; Hansen, 2022, P. 175). But as I learned through this course, truth is a complex concept.           

       Taber (2020) suggests, “A true constructivist has little use for traditional notions of knowledge as true justified belief, as this assumes someone can infallibly judge what is true.” Taber explains that one understands the world through their senses and perceptions, and our brains create and experience patterns. Piaget described the adaptation of our brains to new information as returning to equilibration (Fosnot, 2005, P. 12). Taber adds that learning is iterative, incremental, non-linear, and limited by the fund of knowledge we have in our brains (2020). A constructivist teacher helps students to build knowledge by assessing current understanding, scaffolds when necessary, and uses formative assessment to ensure learners understand as intended (Fosnot, 2005, P. 25; Taber, 2020).

       My current role is an accessibility advisor in a university. Part of what I do is help students to construct an understanding of what support they are eligible for by assessing what they know currently about their condition, and how it affects their learning. My future role will be consulting for organizations regarding eLearning and creating workshops. My understanding of how knowledge is created and constructivism as a learning theory will play a prominent role. To put this into action for clients I will assess prior knowledge, report the difference between old and new knowledge (what I can show them), have them apply the knowledge and provide them with feedback, and finally, confirm and reflect what has been learned (Baskivar et al., 2009, 543-544).