{"id":216,"date":"2020-12-18T14:20:37","date_gmt":"2020-12-18T14:20:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/drkevinsmith\/?p=216"},"modified":"2025-10-30T05:19:41","modified_gmt":"2025-10-30T05:19:41","slug":"rethinking-knowledge-rich-curriculum","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/drkevinsmith\/rethinking-knowledge-rich-curriculum\/","title":{"rendered":"“Knowledge Rich” or “Content Rich” Curricula?"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n
\"\"<\/figure>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Sometimes, when talking about knowledge and curriculum, people will ask my thoughts about the term \u201cknowledge rich.” My response usually starts out with a statement saying “First off, I’m not opposed to knowledge,\u201d and then from there, well \u2013 things get complicated.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

I have some objections to the use of \u201cknowledge rich.” Here are a couple of my concerns. First, from a rhetorical perspective, \u201cknowledge rich\u201d can be used as an inflammatory and divisive term. For example, a Jeremiad<\/em> is a type of narrative bemoaning the (usually unsatisfactory) state of society and its morals. Used this way, \u201cknowledge rich\u201d is an indictment of approaches to curriculum perceived as not including \u2018enough\u2019 knowledge, or perhaps more appropriately the right kind of knowledge<\/em>. Some educators persuaded by E.D. Hirsch\u2019s \u201ccore knowledge\u201d may fit into this category, believing that simply including this \u201cright kind of knowledge\u201d in the curriculum will bring about their desired results. While this approach attempts to create a uniformed \u2018core\u2019 of knowledge it can also overemphasise \u201cknowledge\u201d at the expense of pedagogy and pupils, and presents a danger of teachers being reduced to transmitters of knowledge rather than subject experts with professional experience, knowledge, judgment, and expertise (Lauder 2009).<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\u201cKnowledge rich\u201d proponents often align their rhetoric to Young et al\u2019s (2008) call to \u201cbring knowledge back in\u201d to the curriculum, which itself is a Jeremiad<\/em> suggesting we should \u201cget back\u201d to a \u201cgolden age\u201d of education that held knowledge as the heart of the schooling experience (if such an era ever existed). \u00a0<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

\u201cKnowledge rich\u201d is also a kind of trope<\/em> situating the \u201crichness\u201d of a curriculum (which alludes to notions of wealth, abundance, fertility, and saturation) entirely upon its collection and presentation of knowledge. When used this way concerns over what to include in school curricula risk failing to address ways in which disciplinary knowledge becomes curriculum content.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

School subjects are \u201cuniquely purpose-built educational enterprises, designed with and through an educational imagination toward educative ends\u201d (Deng & Luke 2008, p. 83). If I were splitting hairs, I would argue for the use of \u2018aims\u2019 <\/em>instead of \u2018ends.\u2019 For me, \u2018ends\u2019<\/em> suggest a terminus, an educational exit-point grounded in discourses of schooling and training, whereas I interpret \u2018aims\u2019 <\/em>as educational ideals that are central to the immediate circumstances and experiences of teachers and pupils that also extend far into the realms of their future aspirations, being, and actions.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

However \u2014 irrespective of whether we position these curricular purposes as the outcome of schooling experiences or as ongoing educational aspirations that inform reflection, guide current action and thought, and provide motivations that fuel aspirations for the future \u2014 as part of a curriculum, school subjects remain aligned to socio-cultural, political, economic, educational and<\/em> individual outcomes and consequences.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

The deliberations of knowledge noted above are all set within the context of educational policies (e.g. national, regional, and school), established discourses of practice, and the simple (yet often unforeseen) realities of school-life. Curricular work focused on questions of \u201cwhat knowledge is of most worth\u201d (as well as why, and how it is experienced at school and beyond) means disciplinary knowledge stops existing in its initial form prior to<\/em> curricular deliberations and is then<\/em> translated into<\/em> a curricular context and form through the efforts of curriculum workers. The outcome is a \u201cvery special kind of knowledge that results from a special selection, organisation and transformation of knowledge for social, cultural, educational purposes\u201d (Deng 2020, p.7).<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Finally, in returning to a rhetorical analysis of the phrase \u201cknowledge rich,\u201d we can also interpret it as a kind of ideograph<\/em> \u2013 a term that appeals to an idea that evokes strong emotions in many people. In 2002, the \u201cNo Child Left Behind\u201d (NCLB) act was introduced in the US. Its emotive title suggested children were being \u201cleft behind\u201d (but when, and by whom?), and that they would continue to be \u201cleft behind\u201d without this national policy.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Ideographs can frame resistance to the details <\/em>of policies like NCLB through simply using a provocative phrase. Initially, opponents to NCLB were positioned through rhetoric as being opposed to “not leaving children behind.\u201d The term \u201cknowledge rich\u201d can also be used in this way, with those who are suspicious or critical of the term and its use<\/em> automatically situated as being opposed to the idea<\/em> the phrase suggests (e.g., \u201cWhy do you oppose knowledge rich curricula? Don’t you think pupils should gain knowledge?\u201d).<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

If I had to choose an alternative to \u201cknowledge rich\u201d curricula, but still had to use the word \u201crich,\u201d perhaps I would choose \u201crich curriculum content.\u201d This is largely because I think this better represents the deliberations and justifications for the inclusion of particular forms of knowledge in school and how they are to be considered in planning, enacting, and evaluating educational experiences.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n\r\n

Reflective Questions<\/h2>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Typical curricula are organised around three broad considerations: Curriculum content, societal needs, and individuals\u2019 needs.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

    \r\n
  1. Of the three considerations above, which one is of the utmost importance to you? Why?<\/li>\r\n
  2. How should curriculum workers (e.g. teachers, curriculum leads, pupils, parents, etc.) negotiate different perspectives on knowledge in curricular deliberations?<\/li>\r\n
  3. While curricular deliberations involve how to translate subject\/disciplinary knowledge into curriculum content, arguments involved in those deliberations can sometimes ignore the epistemological foundations of curriculum work. In general terms, epistemology is concerned with the nature of knowledge, its acquisition, and how we justify those claims. With this in mind…\r\n
      \r\n
    • What do you believe knowledge \u201cis?\u201d<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n
        \r\n
      • How do you think humans acquire knowledge?<\/li>\r\n
      • How do you justify these claims?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

        References<\/h2>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

        Deng, Z. 2020. Knowledge, Content, Curriculum and Didaktik<\/em>: Beyond social realism. London: Routledge.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

        Deng, Z. and Luke, A. 2008. Subject matter: Defining and theorizing school subjects. In F.M. Connelly, M.F. He, & J. Phillion (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction<\/em>. pp.66-87. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

        Lauder, H. 2009. Policy and governance (Introduction) in Daniels, H., Lauder, H., and Porter, J. (eds). Knowledge, Values and Education Policy: A critical perspective. <\/em>London: Routledge.<\/p>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\u201cKnowledge rich\u201d sounds appealing\u2014but what are we really saying when we use it? In this post, I take a closer look at how the term shapes our thinking about curriculum, teaching and value, and why we might need richer language\u2014and richer ideas\u2014to describe what education is for.","protected":false},"author":1081,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"A quick read over lunch turned into my first blog post in a LONG time: \r\n\"Knowledge Rich\" or \"Content Rich\" Curricula?\r\n#Curriculum #CurriculumTheory #KnowledgeRich #CurriculumContent","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2],"tags":[121,12,125,119,7,128,120,123,42,63],"class_list":["post-216","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-education","tag-core-knowledge","tag-curriculum","tag-curriculum-studies","tag-curriculum-theory","tag-education","tag-knowledge","tag-knowledge-rich","tag-rhetorical-analysis","tag-school","tag-schooling"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/drkevinsmith\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/drkevinsmith\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/drkevinsmith\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/drkevinsmith\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1081"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/drkevinsmith\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=216"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/drkevinsmith\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":354,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/drkevinsmith\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216\/revisions\/354"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/drkevinsmith\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/drkevinsmith\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/drkevinsmith\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}