I think we are probably speaking past each other a bit about knowledge
But that doesn't mean we agree
I have an expansive view of knowledge. When the neurons rewire or whatever it is they do to store a memory of something, be it a fact, an action, a story, someone’s opinion, or how to hold a tool to perform an action in a way you could not articulate, I count that as knowledge.
Kirschner, Sweller and Clarke suggested learning is a change in long-term memory and I agree with that. However, a criticism of this definition could be that it lacks a statement about the value of that change. Strictly speaking, I don’t think that’s necessary because I think we can learn pointless or incorrect things. Students, for example, often ‘learn’ misconceptions about maths. Nevertheless, we could perhaps argue that ‘knowledge’ encompasses all those worthwhile changes in long-term memory.
As I have argued before, it is often helpful to reframe declarative knowledge—‘I know that’— as knowhow. Until a recent discussion on Twitter/X, it hadn’t occurred to me that I have been accidentally doing this for years by framing my learning intentions as, ‘To be able to…’ This further demonstrates that to me, knowledge is all of the things.
It is clear that others don’t see it this way. To some, knowledge just means facts and figures, with maybe the occasional memorised quote. Doing something with those facts and figures is framed as a ‘skill’. If we misrepresent Bloom’s taxonomy, as educators have a tendency to do, we could argue that some of these skills, like analysis or evaluation, are ‘higher-order’. Those who have been around long enough in education will be familiar with being exhorted to ask more higher-order questions. In fact, this higher/lower framing is still a feature of the Quality Teaching Rounds model of professional-development-through-classroom-observation about which I remain deeply sceptical.
The question therefore arises as to whether the argument between those, like me, who want a knowledge-rich curriculum and those who don’t, is one of definitions. I want a knowledge-rich curriculum because I include in that definition many things others would refer to as skills. They don’t include these things in their definition and so they worry that a knowledge-rich curriculum will miss them out. If we can agree our definitions, is the problem solved?
No.
Firstly, proponents of a knowledge-rich curriculum do not see facts and figures as in any way ‘lower’ than other forms of knowledge. They are, instead, essential. Knowledge is what we think with. These capabilities that others call ‘skills’ are actually the activation of webs of interconnected knowledge in the mind that psychologists refer to as ‘schemas’.
Some may now deny it, but if you taught in England in the 2000s—and I am led to believe from my contacts this was not unusual to England—you would be told that facts can be looked up on the internet and so it was important to focus on skills instead. We can speculate on who was responsible for this—and please don’t write in explaining it is not Benjamin Bloom because I have already acknowledged that point—but it feeds the general educationally progressivist dislike of adult authority. ‘Analysis’ sounds like something nascent and developmental that can somehow be activated within a student. It’s very hard to imagine how such students can efficiently obtain a lot of factual information without being taught by an adult figure.
Secondly, the definition issue is the product of a much deeper one. There is no qualitative difference between what some think of as ‘skills’ and bits of discrete knowledge that we may term facts and figures. The former emerges from the latter. The perceived difference arises from subjective experience.
For example, teaching a child to manipulate a simple algebraic equation such as:
10 - a = 2
requires teaching them lots of knowledge. They need to know their number bonds. They need to know what the ‘=’ sign means. They need to know that a is standing in for a number. They need to know what the ‘-’ represents and a whole lot more besides. And yet you probably just know that a = 8. To you, that feels like something you could just do. It feels like a skill. However, what you have done is unconsciously and without effort activate a schema of knowledge relevant to the problem. This illustrates the extraordinary ability of knowledge to enhance our cognitive abilities.
It is a simple example, but all mathematical problem-solving is ultimately like this, even when it draws on ‘episodic’ knowledge of mathematical experiences we have had before. The accumulation of discrete bits of knowledge into interconnected networks is what accounts for these things we call skills.
And that leads to the final issue. As the algebra example demonstrates, things that look and feel like skills are not necessarily general. In fact, few general problem-solving strategies exist. Where they do, they tend to have much more limited value than more specific ones. If you don’t believe me, try to explicitly describe a general problem-solving strategy.
Instead, problem-solving moves tend to be specific to particular types of problems and situations. I don’t know a = 8 because I have a general-purpose problem-solving skill, I have a specific set of interconnected knowledge relevant to a particular class of problems.
Opponents of a knowledge-rich curriculum tend to believe in the existence of general-purpose skills such as critical thinking. Indeed, the Australian Curriculum lists ‘critical and creative thinking’ as a general capability. It is not general—our ability to think critically depends a great deal on the knowledge we hold about the thing we want to think critically about—but you can understand why such a view is beguiling. We cannot possibly know what knowledge students will need in the future, but if we can teach them a general-purpose skill, they will be able to apply it to anything. The trouble is, such skills don’t exist.
Which leaves us with the messy and politically fraught task of deciding what knowledge to teach students. Messy and politically fraught it may be, but it cannot be ducked by anyone committed to a knowledge-rich curriculum.
If you have enjoyed this post and especially if you have shared it with others, you really should become a paid subscriber to Filling the Pail. As a Pailer, you will have full access to all my exclusive Curios posts, keeping you up-to-date with the most important news in the world of education, as well as the entire back catalogue of posts. You can also comment on posts and let me know what you are thinking. At just $5 AUD per month or $50 for a year, a subscription to Filling the Pail costs far less than it should, given the hours that go into writing it, but you will help me to do a few nice things for my family. A group subscription is a great way to share this knowledge around your workplace, guilt free, and right now, there is a 20% discount.
If instead of generic problem solving skills we called then common problem solving ideas such as - clarify the problem, breakdown the problem, brainstorm, sleep on it we can be sure they do exist but are all pretty well known.
As you have pointed out explicitly teaching these doesn’t appear to help much and that is likely because there is not much to teach that is not covered implicitly.
If you want to take on something more serious you can frame all of mathematics as generic problem solving. The whole point it arithmetic, algebra, logic, geometry and so on can be learned without concern for a specific physical context.
So you could change the debate and say you are exactly teaching generic problem solving and it looks like it takes about 16 years to go from nothing to novice.
Nice post, Greg. Nary a day goes by when someone doesn't mention 'skills' - "We need to teach them the skills". Knowledge barely gets a look in, perhaps because it carries pejorative associations with rote memorization, traditional teaching methods, and "mere facts" ("Now, what I want is Facts... Facts alone are wanted in life!", says Gradgrind). That to me is implicit evidence that my colleagues see them as dichotomous and possibly irreconcilable. It doesn't help that the critical thinking skills are at the apex of Bloom's Taxonomy - they are of a 'higher order' - while knowledge lingers near the bottom. Take this entrenched notion and add a dose of expertise-induced blindness and is it any wonder that many educators prioritize skills over knowledge acquisition? Never the twain shall meet.