I have a comment awaiting moderation on a blog which is in favour of a ‘knowledge-led’ curriculum. Until it’s accepted (if it’s accepted) I’m putting it here.
At some point I’m going to have a think about how this issue affects reading. But for now…:
Some quick questions, which you’ll probably be addressing in your next blog post re ‘which knowledge’, but anyway…:
It seems from the way that you talk about knowledge in your post above, you seems are referring specifically to ‘propositional’ knowledge – was that your intention? Do you also see a place for procedural knowledge?
Skill is often used as pretty much synonymous with procedural knowledge, but would you consider such knowledge to differ from ‘skills’ in relation to teaching and learning? If so, in what ways?
I’d be really interested in the ways in which your ‘knowledge curriculum’ itself makes provision for procedural knowledge. Is it explicit or implicit?
Is it possible, in your view, to make more than an academic separation between procedural and propositional knowledge, especially during the process of learning?
Assuming that you do not wish to exclude procedural knowledge (i.e. skills) completely, because you would be excluding basic literacy and maths techniques such as reading text, handwriting, calculation methods, etc., what would you say is the practical difference, in the classroom, between your curriculum and a non-‘knowledge’ curriculum?
Lots of questions…..