In the past decade the word “knowledge” has played a large role in English educational discourse.
I have no problems with that word. Knowledge is an essential component of any curriculum, and I think one would be hard-pressed to find people who disagree with that. However, I do think that it’s quite easy for people to nod along with the idea of “knowledge” while thinking about totally different things.
Some fear that the change in government will undermine the increased focus on knowledge, including a panicky article in The Telegraph decrying “reforms that spell disaster for Starmer’s schools shake-up”.
But the interim report from the government’s curriculum and assessment review, published earlier this month, should please those who like the term “knowledge-rich”, with an explicit reference to having a “commitment to a knowledge-rich curriculum”.
Knowledge and the curriculum review
But even in this report, wildly different sources are cited, from a handbook on instructional feedback to Michael Young’s ideas about “powerful knowledge” and the book Developing Curriculum for Deep Thinking: the knowledge revival. This is a book with an impressive list of authors that describes the worldwide movement towards knowledge-rich curricula. It’s an interesting read, with most of the sections quite considered; for example, the one on complex learning.
For those who have been immersed in the knowledge discussions over the past decade, some themes in this book are not very surprising, with popular names like ED Hirsch and David Geary popping up, along with ideas such as reading comprehension. But luckily there are also much broader ideas, too, like Van den Akker’s “curriculum spiderweb” and Young’s “powerful knowledge”.
It is also good to see some critical references on knowledge. There are at least five pathways with positive effects, including guidance attention, facilitating the interpretation and encoding of new information and the bundling of new information into chunks that can be efficiently memorised.
However, prior knowledge can induce misconceptions, negative transfer, perceptual biases and inflexible behaviour. These negative sides are somewhat skimmed over in the book, with the positive case for knowledge receiving most attention. This is a shame because both these need to be considered to build students’ schemas in long-term memory.
More from Christian Bokhove:
The final section of the book highlights evidence on the effectiveness of a knowledge-rich curriculum, with evidence from international large-scale assessments and recent trials. But these do not unequivocally show that a knowledge-rich curriculum is the driver of better performance. Studies have shown much more mixed results. If we look at high-performing countries more widely - for example, Singapore - then they have no problem marrying competences, skills and knowledge-richness.
I feel that in the book there is an implicit assumption that being knowledge-led will also (perhaps automatically) lead to concepts, with the final pages stating that “a knowledge-rich curriculum constitutes a plan for learning over time that is concept-led and knowledge-led”. It also offers three overarching principles describing how a knowledge-rich curriculum can enhance learning: content richness, coherence and clarity.
I sincerely doubt many would disagree with that. Would that mean they agree with the idea of a knowledge-rich curriculum?
I applaud that the authors wanted to steer clear from false dichotomies like skills versus knowledge, but I hope that this extends to often hot-tempered discussions about curriculum.
The thinktank quoted in The Telegraph’s article bluntly states that “countries that have abandoned a knowledge-rich curriculum have seen their education system pay a price”, and that “trusting headteachers, strong accountability and high standards drove England up the international league tables. But now the government is setting us back two decades.”
This is not a productive discussion and there is no place for such hyperbole.
Christian Bokhove is a professor in mathematics education at the University of Southampton and a specialist in research methodologies
