Having Knowledge Is Not the Same as Using It

Abstract

One of the strongest predictors of how easily and well a person will learn a topic is their prior knowledge about it. The more one already knows, the easier it is to learn more. Because of this fact, students often struggle more with introductory courses, where they know little about a field, than with advanced ones, where they are adding to what they already know. There is a controversy going on in education circles about the role of knowledge versus skills. Should we teach students background knowledge, or should we focus on developing abstract skills, like reading and critical thinking? The evidence shows that prior knowledge is necessary for effective reading and critical thinking, so some educators have advocated for an emphasis on memorization of facts and information. That approach, though, is not sufficient.

Full text

Having Knowledge Is Not the Same as
Using It
Stephen L. Chew ▪ December 12, 2022
One of the strongest predictors of how easily and well a person will learn a topic is their prior knowledge
about it. The more one already knows, the easier it is to learn more. Because of this fact, students often
struggle more with introductory courses, where they know little about a field, than with advanced ones,
where they are adding to what they already know. There is a controversy going on in education circles
about the role of knowledge versus skills. Should we teach students background knowledge, or should
we focus on developing abstract skills, like reading and critical thinking? The evidence shows that prior
knowledge is necessary for effective reading and critical thinking, so some educators have advocated for
an emphasis on memorization of facts and information. That approach, though, is not sufficient.

Cognitive research shows that useful prior knowledge is more than an accumulation of facts. Let me lay
out what the research shows.
A schema refers to organized knowledge about an event. The more common an event, the more
extensive your schema is about that event. Schemas[1] tell us what conditions must exist for an event to
occur, what to expect at the event, and how to understand what is happening during the event; later,
they help us to recall the event. The typical example we cognitive psychologists use is dining at a
restaurant. If you are going to a restaurant, you know you should be hungry and have a means to pay for
the meal. At a fine dining restaurant, you would likely make a reservation, check in with the host, be
seated and given menus, order and get your food, eat it, pay for the meal, and leave. At a fast food
place, you would expect to approach the counter, order, pay and get your food, find a table, eat, throw
away your trash, then leave. Imagine that you were at a fancy restaurant and after you ordered, the
server asked you to pay for your meal before getting your food. You’d be shocked, even though that is
what you’d do at a fast food place.
When we teach, we aren’t trying to instill unrelated pieces of information in our students; we are trying
to build schema, a coherent, connected understanding of concepts. The best way to develop schematic
understanding in students is still unknown, but it is something that effective teachers do better than less
effective ones. It certainly helps to present information within a coherent framework rather than
presenting it as unrelated facts for the students to learn. Even developing schematic knowledge,
however, is not enough if students aren’t able to activate and use the knowledge appropriately.
Bransford and Johnson (1972) performed a classic set of experiments on schemas, one of which became
a popular teaching demonstration. I’ve seen it done at several workshops, but typically the presenters
miss a key point about it. Let’s do the demonstration and then discuss it. Read the paragraph below and
think to yourself how easy this passage is to understand and how well you could memorize it if required
to.
The procedure is actually quite simple. First you arrange items into different groups. Of course,
one pile may be sufficient depending on how much there is to do. If you have to go somewhere
else due to lack of facilities that is the next step, otherwise, you are pretty well set. It is important
not to overdo things. That is, it is better to do too few things at once than too many. In the short
run this may not seem important, but complications can easily arise. A mistake can be expensive
as well. At first, the whole procedure will seem complicated. Soon, however, it will become just
another facet of life. It is difficult to foresee any end to the necessity for this task in the
immediate future, but then, one never can tell. After the procedure is completed one arranges
the materials into different groups again. Then they can be put into their appropriate places.
Eventually they will be used once more and the whole cycle will then have to be repeated.
However, this is part of life. (Bransford & Johnson, 1972, p. 722)
Now, on a scale of 1 to 7, rate how easy this passage is to comprehend, with 1 being very hard and 7
very easy. Next, if I were to ask you to recall as much of the passage verbatim from memory, how well
do you think you could do? You probably rated the passage as difficult to comprehend and predicted
that you would have a hard time remembering it unless you realized that it’s about washing clothes.
Reread the passage with idea that it is about washing clothes and see whether it is easier to
comprehend and recall.

Bransford and Johnson had participants read this passage, rate its comprehension, and recall as much of
the passage as they could. They did so in one of three conditions. In the No Topic control condition,
participants were not told the topic of washing clothes. In the Topic Before condition, they were told the
topic before they read the passage. Finally, in the Topic After condition, participants were told that the
passage was about washing clothes only after they read the passage. Figure 1 shows the average results
(in percentages) for comprehension ratings and recall.
Figure 1. Mean percentage of comprehension rating and mean percentage recall of the Washing Clothes
passage (Bransford & Johnson, 1972)
First, compare the No Topic and Topic Before conditions. Knowing the topic ahead of time greatly
increases ease of comprehension and recall of the passage. Even though both groups had similar
knowledge about washing clothes, if the knowledge was not activated, then comprehension and recall
suffered. Now compare the Topic After group to both the No Topic and the Topic Before groups. The
results for the Topic After group are similar to those for the No Topic group and much worse than for
the Topic Before group. In other words, activating the relevant schematic knowledge after reading the
passage was no help at all in comprehending or recalling the passage.
This latter point is critically important for teaching, and it is the one presenters of this demonstration
typically overlook. Teachers and textbooks often present a series of facts and then try to tie them all
together with an overarching concept. This practice makes it hard for students to understand and learn
material. The teachers, of course, know what the overall concept is, but the students don’t. It is easy for
teachers to forget that students don’t automatically grasp the big picture.
For optimal learning, teachers need to provide an overall framework for students first, then flesh it out
with specific information. Teachers need to make sure that all the relevant information is activated for

students to comprehend and learn new concepts. At the beginning of class, teachers should spend some
time reviewing concepts learned previously to ensure that students have activated the relevant
information. To promote transfer of knowledge, teachers should instruct students to identify new
situations in which schematic information is useful and should be activated. If the knowledge is not
activated, it won’t be helpful to students. Bransford and Johnson put it this way: “Prior knowledge of a
situation does not guarantee its usefulness for comprehension. In order for prior knowledge to aid
comprehension, it must become an activated semantic context” (p. 724).
Getting back to the controversy of knowledge versus skills, prior knowledge is critical for skill
development, but just having prior knowledge is not enough. Students need to have their knowledge
organized into schemas, and the relevant schemas must be activated. In addition to developing
knowledge schemas, students must learn to recognize when it is appropriate and useful to activate
them. How prior knowledge is taught is critical to its future usefulness.
[1] The proper plural of schema is schemata, but since about the 1980s we crude and unrefined
cognitive psychologists have used schemas as the plural.
Reference
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some
investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 717–
726. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80006-9
Stephen L. Chew, PhD, is a professor of psychology at Samford University. Trained as a cognitive
psychologist, he endeavors to translate cognitive research into forms that are useful for teachers and
students. He is the recipient of multiple awards for his teaching and research. Author contact:
slchew@samford.edu.