Constructivist vs. Positivist

First of all, I'd like to say that I'm really not that big on philosophy. I don't believe that there's any reason to dive so extremely deep into things and question absolutely everything about the world around us.

I read a story once about a philosophy professor's final exam. The professor put a chair at the front of the classroom and the exam consisted of one question: "Does the chair exist?"

That kind of stuff just grinds my gears. I see the chair at the front of the room. You put it there. Of course it exists! End of story. And of course, I would have failed that exam simply because I didn't go further into it.

That being said, Epistomology is one of those philosophy branches that seeks to define what knowledge really is. Sigh... Ok. If I know that 2+2 is 4, then that's that in my opinion. Why should anybody waste their time to figure out what it means if I "know" that simple math problem. And yes, I know it goes to much deeper knowledge than a simple math equation, but it's the same basic idea.

Anyway, there's some big differences between constructivists and positivists. A positivist believes that knowledge is simply having factual information in memory. They don't go too deeply into it. A constructivist is more of that philosopher. They don't believe that knowledge is something that a person haves. They believe that having a really deep understanding of material is knowledge. Going back to the simple math problem, a positivist would believe that what I have there is knowledge. A constructivist would ask me if I truly had a deep understanding of the math problem. (Which in this case I do. I can picture having two sheep and getting two more sheep. Now I have four sheep! Yay!)

I'm pretty sure I identify more with a positivist attitude. I like to have information and remember it for a long time. I enjoy the most simple meanings of what I learn. I like simply "knowing". But as much as I hate to admit it, there's nothing wrong with questioning what you really know. In college, it's not all about regurgitating information on paper during a test, but really coming out of it with an education, and being a better, more well-rounded person. It's about having that constructivist attitude. While I'm not quite at that point, because it's still frustrating to me, I believe I'll probably have to make myself go there.

When it comes to visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners, I can tell you which one I'm not: Auditory.
Ok, if anyone I know tells me that they are an auditory learner, I'll probably think they're lying. Yeah, I know those people are out there somewhere, but I find it hard to grasp that people can simply hear something and then understand it.

I believe that I am both a visual and kinesthetic learner. I like pictures, and actually going out and doing what I am taught. I mean, obviously I can't learn to fly an airplane without ever stepping in one.

From the article, I took that it's very important to make sure that the student has a clear understanding of the material, no matter how he or she learned it. If I ever get one of those auditory learners, I'm probably going to really make sure that they can tell me about the material in their own words so I know they got it. The same goes with the other two types of learners. And of course, I got that it's important to teach a student in the best way that they can take in the information. Like I said earlier, I like pictures, and I always tell my instructors to draw stuff out, especially systems. I now understand that what I am doing is simply requesting that I'm taught by the modality that I learn best with. In the future, I'll make sure to find out what modality my students go by, and I will cater to that and teach them in that manner.