What’s “The Very Stuff” Students Need to Learn

07/07/2018 | Maverik Education | Cognitive Rigor, Complexity, Deeper Teaching and Learning, Depth of Knowledge (D.O.K.), Higher Order Thinking, Modern Learning

Let’s face it. Children learn A LOT of “stuff” in their K-12 academic career. Just think of all the facts, definitions, terms, words, concepts, ideas, information, incidents, names, theories, categories, classifications, principles, procedures, and strategies they learn in every subject area! How can we categorize all this knowledge – or stuff – students acquire and gather in a manner that is not only manageable but also meaningful?

First, we need to clarify what is meant by “The Very Stuff”. The “The Very Stuff” is the course work and subject matter or material taught in classrooms. The term “The Very Stuff” as it relates to knowledge was first mentioned in the landmark report A Nation at Risk(1981) which defined the content being taught to students as “the very stuff of education” (p. 18). This content is generally provided and dictated by the curriculum program and publications purchased by the school. For example, whatever “The Very Stuff” students learn about Edgar Allan Poe, the water cycle, the Civil War, or linear equations depends upon whatever information is provided in that textbook by a particular education publishing company adopted by the district or school. That’s “the very stuff” — or knowledge — students will generally learn unless the teacher decides to go beyond the text.

“The Very Stuff” also refers to what Krathwohl (2002, p. 213) identifies as the subject matter content in academic standards, educational objectives, and learning outcomes – or, simply put, “The Very Stuff” that comes after the cognitive verb. These are the nouns or noun phrases following the verb that identify the topics that will be taught and learned. Take a look at this educational objective from a college and career standard in mathematics.

Add and subtract fractions with unlike denominators (including mixed numbers) by replacing given fractions with equivalent fractions in such a way as to produce an equivalent sum or difference of fractions with like denominators. (CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.5.NF.A.1)

Performance objectives of academic standards such as this consist of two things: “some subject matter content and a description of what is to be done with or to that content” (Krathwohl, 2002). With this standard, the subject matter is fractions – specifically, fractions with unlike denominators, mixed numbers, equivalent fractions, fractions with like denominators, equivalent sums and differences. What the student is expected to do with these fractions is add and subtract them by replacing the fractions given in a mathematical or word problem with fractions that are equivalent to produce an equivalent sum or difference of fractions with like denominators. The verbs indicate the level of thinking students must demonstrate. However, what exactly is the knowledge students must acquire, gather, and develop?

First, students must acquire and gather factual knowledge about subject-specific terminology. They must be able to define and describe content specific terms what is a fraction, a mixed number, a fraction with like and unlike denominators, equivalent fractions, and equivalent sums and differences. They must also be able to define academic vocabulary or content obligatory words such as equivalent, mixed, like, and unlike – words that have multiple meanings and appear frequently across the curriculum in other subject areas. They must also know specific details about the different types of fractions addressed in the standards such as where are the numbers placed in different types of fractions, what is the relationship between different types of fractions, and when should fractions be changed or converted in order to address a problem or accomplish a task.

Once they acquire and share their factual knowledge of words, terms, and details, they must develop conceptual knowledge of what categorizes, characterizes, or classifies the fractions as a particular type (e.g. What are the characteristics of a mixed number or equivalent fractions?) and procedural knowledge of how can algorithms, formulas, methods, steps, and strategies be transferred and used. This is developed by having students not only apply the knowledge to attain but also explain answers, conclusions, decisions, outcomes, results, and solutions. With the previous example, students should be challenged to demonstrate and communicate conceptual knowledge of what classifies a fraction as a particular type and procedural knowledge of how can different types of fractions be added and subtracted to produce equivalent sums and differences.

The penultimate goal is for students to process the factual, conceptual and procedural knowledge they have acquired and developed into metacognitive knowledge – or, simply, self-knowledge and personal understanding of how and why they can transfer and use what they have learned strategically in a variety of conditions and contexts. This is where students take personal ownership for their learning and are able to demonstrate and communicate the depth and extent of their knowledge in a particular area, subject, or topic insightfully and in their own unique way.

These are the four categories of knowledge Anderson and Krathwohl (2001; Krathwohl, 2002) list in the Knowledge Dimension of the Cognitive Domain of Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy. Anderson and Krathwohl revised the classic taxonomy by replacing the cognitive process categories with cognitive verbs instead of conceptual nouns. They also split the Cognitive Domain into two parts: the Cognitive Process Dimension and the Knowledge Dimension. The Cognitive Process Dimension categorized the type of thinking students are expected to demonstrate. The Knowledge Dimension categorized the kind of knowledge students are expected to develop and demonstrate:

Factual: The basic elements that students must know to be acquainted with a discipline or solve problems in it.
Conceptual: The interrelationships among the basic elements within a larger structure that enable them to function together.
Procedural: How to do something; methods of inquiry, and criteria for using skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods.
Metacognitive: Knowledge of cognition in general as well as awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition.

In their work with incorporating depth of knowledge into teaching and learning using Webb’s Depth of Knowledge Model to establish the context in which knowledge and thinking is transferred and used, Walkup and Jones (2015) expanded the Knowledge Dimension developed by Anderson and Krathwohl to include the following:

Relevant Knowledge: How can knowledge be used in different real world contexts?
Deep Knowledge: How can knowledge be developed into and used as expertise?
Communicative Knowledge: How can knowledge be expressed and shared?

These levels not only further contextualize but also personalize the knowledge students are developing beyond metacognition. Using the previous standard as an example, students demonstrate and communicate relevant knowledge when they are asked to use what they have learned to attain and explain the answers, outcomes, results, and solutions to real world problems involving adding and subtracting fractions with like and unlike denominators. Students demonstrate and communicate deep knowledge when students express and share their insights how else could the knowledge they have acquired and developed can be used in different contexts. They also demonstrate and communicate communicative knowledge by using the proper verbiage or choosing an appropriate format to express and share the depth and extent of their learning clearly, comprehensively, correctly, and even creatively.

This table not only clearly identifies the kind of knowledge that is to be taught and learned but also helps teachers and students to categorize “The Very Stuff” they are learning in a more manageable manner. Are they defining and describing words, terms, and details to build and develop factual knowledge? Are they demonstrating conceptual and procedural knowledge of how answers, outcomes, results, and solutions can be attained and explained? Are they processing the information into metacognitive or self-knowledge they can personally use strategically in different contexts or under a variety of conditions? Are they expanding relevant knowledge of how they can transfer and use what they are learning to address real world issues, problems, and situations? Are they showing and telling deep knowledge – or expertise – in a particular area, subject, or topic? Are they using communicative knowledge of how to express and share the depth and extent of their learning?

This is “The Very Stuff” students must not only know but also understand and be aware of in order to answer questions, address problems, accomplish tasks, and analyze texts and topics. The specific “stuff” in a particular unit or individual lesson can be categorized in one of these levels in order to make the vast and various kinds of knowledge more manageable, meaningful, and even manipulative to meet criteria and exceed expectations for student performance.

Erik M. Francis, M.Ed., M.S. is an author, educator, and speaker who specializes in teaching and learning that promotes cognitive rigor and college and career readiness. . He is also the author of Now THAT’S a Good Question! How to Promote Cognitive Rigor Through Classroom Questioning published by ASCD. He is also the owner of Maverik Education LLC, providing academic professional development and consultation to K-12 schools, colleges, and universities on developing learning environments and delivering educational experiences that challenge students to demonstrate higher order thinking and communicate depth of knowledge.