By Joan Assam
In recent years, few debates in education have generated as much thoughtful discussion as that between substantive and disciplinary knowledge, not in terms of whether one is better than the other but rather on their proper balance, sequencing and integration within the curriculum. Substantive knowledge refers to the core content of a subject - the facts, concepts, and information students need to learn. Disciplinary knowledge, by contrast, focuses on how knowledge is created within a subject - the methods of enquiry, ways of thinking, and processes used to construct understanding. In simple terms, substantive knowledge is the “what” while disciplinary knowledge is the “how” and the “why”.
While at first this may appear as a deeply academic, very abstract debate rather unsuitable for the purpose of this blog, in reality its implications are very practical, influencing how we plan lessons, design curricula and shape how our students come to understand the world. In fact, as a Geography teacher, this debate plays out every time I make a decision, and while Geography sits uniquely at the intersection of science and humanities, the lessons from this debate extend well beyond my subject. I hope that this post, through exploring some of the benefits of the integration of both substantive and disciplinary knowledge within lessons, provides you with some ‘food for thought’ or even better, reignites a conversation within your department about the space which substantive and disciplinary knowledge occupy within your fields.
For some time now, one could argue, classrooms and teachers alike have swung between the extremes, prioritising one over the other. Some have emphasised the need for knowledge acquisition, feeling that if they focused too much on disciplinary thinking, their students would lack core knowledge. In contrast, others have prioritised skills and independent thinking, believing that if they prioritised content, they would neglect critical thinking. Unfortunately, this sort of approach risks creating a false dichotomy, for in reality students need both and, crucially, they need them intertwined. To demonstrate this, let’s talk through some examples.
In Geography, my subject, teaching students that Rio de Janeiro is a coastal city in Brazil with significant inequality (substantive knowledge) is insufficient without also helping them understand how we measure inequality, why interpretations differ, and how reliable different sources are (disciplinary knowledge). In other words, substantive knowledge is insufficient without the addition of ideas rooted in disciplinary knowledge, which is why these two ideas are taught hand-in-hand.
In Science, substantive knowledge consists of laws, theories and processes and disciplinary knowledge experimental design, interpreting evidence and even understanding uncertainty. Here, a student who memorises formulas without understanding how scientific knowledge is tested, is missing the essence of the subject. Therefore, as argued above, both types of knowledge need to be intertwined to ensure the best outcomes for our students.
Finally, in English, substantive knowledge can take the form of the learning of different texts, vocabulary and even literary devices whereas disciplinary knowledge concerns interpreting meaning, analysing language and constructing arguments. A student who can identify a metaphor but cannot explain its effect is only, arguably, halfway there.
What this all shows us, is that across all subjects, disciplinary knowledge when intertwined with substantive knowledge,transforms students from passive recipients into active thinkers. This is important, because students who only acquire substantive knowledge may perform well on recall-based tasks but struggle to apply or question information. In contrast, students who develop disciplinary understanding think more critically about the world, question assumptions, engage with complexity and even transfer their thinking across contexts. In short, ensuring both types of knowledge are present within our classrooms teaches students skills which will not only serve them well in exams, but in the world at large. In a world of abundant information - and of course misinformation - this is essential. Ensuring the intertwining of both types of knowledge within my classroom, especially with my GCSE students, has allowed for more rich discussions, the questioning of big ideas as well as a tremendous improvement in the quality of written work.
Of course, entwining both can pose its challenges even for those who recognise its merits, not least due to time constraints. However, we must look beyond this and remind ourselves of the ambition we all share, regardless of subject and discipline, the ambition of not just teaching students what is known, but inducting students into how knowledge is created, tested, and understood. If we keep this goal in mind, the debate becomes less about choosing sides and more about designing classrooms where knowledge and thinking grow together.
References & Further Reading
https://geography.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/GA-Curriculum-Framework-2022-WEB-final.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment