THE QUEST FOR KNOWLEDGE: AN OUT DOOR PROJECT IN DIRECT METAL SCULPTURE

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
According to Darwin (2003), “knowledge is often defined as belief that is true and justified. This definition has lead to its measurement by methods. A correct or an incorrect answer is interpreted to mean simply that a person knows or does not know something. Such methods of measurement have certain deficiencies that can be alleviated by expanding the definition of knowledge to include the cost-taker’s certainty.
Knowledge is justified true believe and is achieved by learning either through perception, or through the adoption of such a tradition that contains previously gathered knowledge.
(Greco and Sosa 1999, p. 104; Nonaka 1994): Knowledge is “justified true belief”. (Definition 2) Beliefs refer to the attitude of individuals, “roughly, whenever [they] take something to be the case or regard it as true” (Schwitzgebel 2014). Acknowledging that the qualification as “justified true” has been subject to extensive philosophical debates (Greco and Sosa 1999, p. 162), we briefly discuss justification and truth. Concerning justification, there are several approaches (Moser 2002, p. 204), such as rationalism or empiricism. In a scientific context, knowledge is justified if it results from the rigorous application of methods and if it has not been refuted by repeated criticism and attempts of falsification (Moser 2002, p. 390; Popper 1962; Slife and Williams 1995, p. 169). With respect to truth, different epistemic theories show that there is no consensus on what is true (Becker and Niehaves 2007; Hassan 2011; Meredith et al. 1989; Mingers 2001; Moser 2002, p. 386; Yadav and Gupta 2008). Therefore, knowledge should not be subject to
9

an absolute and static conception of truth (Nonaka 1994), but it should rather be assessed in the light of an
appropriate theory of truth. Hence, when defining knowledge as “justified true belief”, we acknowledge that there are different types of knowledge that are based on different methods of justification and different theories of truth.
Americans tend to do well in international comparisons of reading; it is the concentration of readers in poor, urban neighborhoods that continue to be at risk for failure in reading. On average, children at risk grow up with lower incomes, less nutritious diets, unhealthier environments, and poor medical care. They are likely to come from home environments that may value education, but have neither the physical or social conditions to support it entirely.
Focusing specifically on early skill accomplishments, Keith Stanovich developed the “Matthew Effect” which places phonological processing and print exposure at the center of reading acquisition. He argues that children who develop efficient decoding processes early on are likely to be able to concentrate on the meaning of the text. They will read more, practice, and get better at it, enjoying the riches of reading. But unfortunately, children who do not become proficient in these skills begin a negative spiral. These are the children with limited exposure to print, limited opportunity to hear language in print, have difficulty developing an understanding of the code, avoid reading, read little, and achieve less.
Another reason is poor instruction. Bruner for example found that most early childhood settings are not providing the language opportunities children need. And we know that children
10

need much instruction in language. Hart and Risley’s study of meaningful differences for example, reported an astonishing figure. Middle-class parents spoke approximately 300 words per hour to their children, compared with only few for welfare moms and their children. The child from middle-class homes at age 3 had a similar vocabulary level to those of the welfare moms. Hart and Risley estimated that it would take 41 hours a week of extra intervention to make up for these disparities. Consequently, adequate instruction is not enough–we need intensive, high quality instruction. And if these learning needs are ignored, problems will only become compounded and the negative cycle will continue.
What is striking in the descriptions of these risk factors is their potential ‘alterability.’ We can change them far more easily than difficulties related to illness and inherent abilities. But we must have the will and will must take the effort to do so.
How much knowledge are we teaching in the early years in prekindergarten settings?
Not much. Several new studies provide a clarion call. For example, Taylor and Pearson in their study of primary grade achievement in 14 schools examined content learning in 1-3 grades. They emphasized these particular grades since it would be clear that comprehension and learning must be emphasized by this time.
They found that comprehension instruction was minimal, rarely seen. Here were the common strategies used in these grades to teach content:
Picture Walks
11

Text-Based Questions
Aesthetic Response
Completing a Workbook Page
Retelling a Story.
Experiences that enrich children’s ability to problem solve is also critical for content knowledge development.