Build the Knowledge Before Asking Students to Think Beyond It


In the previous post, I suggested that course design should begin with a simple question:

What should students be able to think and do after they have learned this?

That question naturally leads to another one:

What do students need to know before we can reasonably expect them to think beyond what they know?

This is where things become interesting.

Because in our enthusiasm for higher-order thinking, creativity and problem solving, it is easy to underestimate the importance of knowledge.

Can students simply look it up?

We live in a world where information is everywhere.

A student can search the web for an explanation. They can watch a video. They can ask an AI system to explain a concept. They can generate an example in seconds.

So it is reasonable to ask:

Why should students still spend so much time learning foundational knowledge?

I think the answer is that access to information is not the same as knowing how to use it.

A student may be able to find an explanation of an algorithm but ...

  • Can they recognise when that algorithm is appropriate?
  • Can they tell whether the explanation they found is accurate?
  • Can they identify an important assumption?
  • Can they compare two possible approaches?
  • Can they see that a solution that works in one situation may fail in another?

Those abilities require more than access to information. They require some knowledge to work with.


Knowledge gives thinking something to work with

Consider a simple Computer Science example: algorithms.

Imagine asking a beginner:

“Design the most efficient algorithm to solve this problem.”

It sounds like an excellent higher-order question. It encourages analysis and creativity.

But what happens if the student does not yet understand variables, loops, conditions, data structures or basic algorithmic concepts?

The problem isn't that the students lack creativity. They simply don't yet have enough building blocks.

Now imagine that the students have worked through the foundations. They understand common data structures. They have written and tested algorithms. They have encountered different approaches to searching and sorting. They have seen how an algorithm can behave differently as the size of the input changes.

Now the question can become much more interesting:

You have two possible approaches to this problem. Which would you choose, and why?

Or:

What would happen if the amount of data increased by a factor of ten?

Or:

Can you think of a situation where the approach you selected would not be the best choice?

The student is now in a position to reason.

The subject hasn't changed. The difference is that the learner now has something to think with.

Creativity needs raw material

This is particularly important when we talk about creative thinking.

Creativity is sometimes presented as though it means generating ideas without being constrained by existing knowledge.

But meaningful creativity rarely works that way.

A person who understands a subject deeply has more material to combine, question, modify and reconfigure. A programmer needs programming knowledge before they can meaningfully invent a different way of solving a programming problem. An engineer needs to understand materials, forces and constraints before designing a new structure. A writer needs language, vocabulary, experience and knowledge of the subject before creating something original.

The knowledge does not prevent creativity.

It gives creativity something to work with.

This is one reason I have become cautious about presenting knowledge and creativity as opposing goals.

They are not.

The more useful question is:

What knowledge do learners need, and what are we asking them to do with it?

Not everything needs to be memorised

This is where I think we need a more practical conversation about foundational knowledge.

Not every piece of information needs to be memorised. Some information can be looked up. Some procedures can be supported by tools. Some technical details will inevitably change. 

And in many professional environments, knowing where to find reliable information is itself an important skill.

But there are things that learners should know well enough that they can work with them without constantly stopping to search for the basics.

  • A programming student should not have to look up what a variable is every time they encounter one.
  • A biology student should have enough understanding of cells to reason about a biological problem.
  • A mathematics student should have enough number sense and conceptual understanding to recognise when a result doesn't make sense.

The question is therefore not:

“How much can we make students memorise?”

It is:

“What knowledge needs to become sufficiently secure that students can use it for more complex thinking?”

That is a very different question.

But how should foundational knowledge be taught?

There is another part of this discussion that I think deserves more attention. We often talk about what students need to know, but not enough about how that knowledge is introduced.

Traditionally, teaching foundational knowledge has often followed a fairly straightforward pattern:

Teacher → Knowledge → Student

  • The teacher explains. 
  • The student listens.
  • The student takes notes.
  • The student studies.
  • The student is eventually tested.

There is nothing inherently wrong with explanation or direct instruction. In fact, there are times when a clear explanation from a knowledgeable teacher is exactly what students need.

But foundational teaching does not have to be a one-way transfer of information.

Even when the teacher is introducing basic concepts, the learning experience can remain open-ended and interactive. 

A teacher explaining a programming concept can ask students to predict what a piece of code will do before running it.

A teacher introducing a networking concept can present a simple scenario and ask:

“What do you think would happen if this connection failed?”

A teacher explaining a database concept can give students two possible designs and ask:

“Which one do you think would create a problem later, and why?”

The students may not yet know the answer. That's perfectly fine.

The purpose is not to turn every explanation into a quiz. It is to make students think while the knowledge is being introduced.

The teacher provides the foundation, but students are not merely receiving it. They are examining it. Questioning it. Connecting it with what they already know. Testing their understanding and sometimes discovering that their initial assumption was wrong.

That is a very different classroom dynamic from simply transferring information from one person to another.


Theory should have somewhere to go

There is another responsibility I believe belongs strongly with the teacher.

Whenever possible, connect theory with its practical implementation. Students often encounter concepts as isolated pieces of academic content. 

  • A definition is introduced.
  • A formula is explained.
  • A principle is written on the board.
  • A procedure is demonstrated.
  • And then the class moves to the next topic.

But students naturally want to know:

“Why do I need to know this?”

Sometimes the answer is obvious to an experienced professional but not at all obvious to a learner.

The teacher is in a position to make that connection visible. 

  • If we teach sorting algorithms, show where sorting actually matters.
  • If we teach database normalisation, show the kind of problems that poorly structured data creates.
  • If we teach network redundancy, show why an organisation might care about a second route when a network connection fails.
  • If we teach version control, show how a development team can use it to work safely on the same software project.
  • If we teach cardinality among tables in a relational database, show why they matter most while designing a database for an organization.

The practical example does something important. It gives the abstract concept a context.

The student can now see not only what the concept is, but why someone would use it.

And once that connection exists, the teacher can take the next step:

“Now that you know why this is used, what do you think would happen if we changed this part?”

That is where foundational teaching begins to open the door to higher-order thinking.


From example to possibility

Suppose students have learned why a network might use redundant connections.

The teacher could stop at the explanation. 

Or the teacher could ask:

“If redundancy improves reliability, why don't we simply add more and more connections?”

Now students have something to think about. 

  • They may suggest that additional connections cost money.
  • Someone may raise the issue of complexity.
  • Another student may think about congestion or configuration.

The teacher can then introduce the relevant technical considerations.

The knowledge is still being taught. But it is being taught inside a problem space.

Students are beginning to see that concepts are not isolated facts. They are parts of systems in which decisions have consequences.

That is an important foundation for later analysis and evaluation.

Build the foundation — then use it

Perhaps a useful progression looks something like this:

Build foundational knowledge

↓

Practise using it

↓

Apply it in familiar situations

↓

Encounter variations

↓

Analyse unfamiliar situations

↓

Compare alternatives

↓

Question assumptions

↓

Explore possibilities

The important point is that the early stages are not something we should apologise for.

  • Students need time to learn.
  • They need examples.
  • They need explanations.
  • They need practice.
  • They need feedback.

But we should also recognise when the learning experience is ready to move beyond reproduction.


The practical design question

When planning a course, perhaps we can ask three simple questions about every major topic:

1. What knowledge is essential?

What must students genuinely understand before they can progress?

2. What can they reasonably look up or use a tool for?

Not every detail needs to occupy permanent memory.

3. What should they eventually be able to do with that knowledge?

This third question takes us back to Post #1.

  • If the intended outcome is analysis, then students need opportunities to analyse.
  • If the intended outcome is evaluation, they need opportunities to compare and justify.
  • If the intended outcome is creative thinking, they need opportunities to explore alternatives and develop ideas.

The foundation and the thinking therefore need to connect.

The balance matters

I don't think the answer is to return to education that is dominated by memorisation.

Nor do I think the answer is to minimise knowledge in favour of open-ended activities simply because they appear more creative.

Both approaches can create problems.

Without sufficient knowledge, higher-order thinking becomes difficult.

Without opportunities to use knowledge, learning can remain superficial.

The real challenge is finding the point where students have enough foundation to begin thinking independently—and then deliberately designing experiences that require them to do so.

That point will not be identical for every learner.

  • Some students will arrive with substantial prior knowledge.
  • Others will need more scaffolding.

That is why understanding the learner matters just as much as understanding the content.

And perhaps this is where instructional design becomes particularly important.

We are not simply deciding what content to teach. We are deciding:

What does the learner need to know first, what can they do with that knowledge now, and what can we gradually ask them to do next?

That is the beginning of a learning journey rather than a sequence of chapters.

And once the foundation is strong enough, another question becomes unavoidable:

How do we design learning activities that actually require students to use what they know to think, question, analyse and explore?

That is where we go next.

What do you think? 👇

I'd be interested to hear from teachers, educators, lecturers, academic leaders and other education professionals who have experience with these issues. If you have a different perspective, a classroom experience, or an approach that has worked for you, please feel free to share it in the comments.

Thoughtful disagreement is welcome too. The aim is to learn from one another and keep the conversation going. Thank you!

In this series of posts:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

When the Grade Becomes the Goal

Image
    When Assessment Stops Measuring Learning. A university had begun noticing a growing pattern. Students were becoming increasingly dependent on AI when completing major assignments. The institution's first response was to look at AI use. But one faculty member asked a different question: What if the problem was not only what students were doing with AI, but what the assessment system was asking them to do in the first place? Read the case →  CASE STUDY 04 Educational Management & Learning Design The Case A university had begun noticing a change in student behaviour. Assignments were becoming increasingly polished.  The language was sophisticated.  The structure was often excellent.  Students were producing work that appeared more professional than some of their previous submissions. At the same time, faculty members were becoming increasingly concerned about generative AI. Some students openly acknowledged using AI to improve their writing.  Othe...
Read more

The Student Who Stops Submitting

Image
When Non-Submission Is a Symptom, Not the Problem. A first-year IT student begins missing assignments. Is the problem motivation — or is something breaking down in the learning experience? Read the case →  CASE STUDY 01 Educational Management & Learning Design The Case Meet Arjun! Arjun is a first-year student in a Bachelor of IT programme. He is taking an introductory programming course delivered through a combination of face-to-face classes and an institutional learning management system (LMS). There are about 45 students in the class. During the first four weeks of the semester, there is nothing particularly unusual about Arjun's performance. He attends most classes, follows the programming demonstrations and submits the first two small exercises. His marks are around the class average. Then his pattern begins to change. In Week 5 , one assignment is submitted two days late. In Week 6 , there is no submission. In Week 7, Arjun attends the lecture but does not attend the pr...
Read more

The Classroom Caught Between Two Extremes

Image
   When Technology Becomes the Question, Not the Answer. A school wants to prepare its students for an AI-driven future. Some teachers want stronger restrictions on technology. Parents want more AI exposure. Students are caught between the two. The institution now has to decide: should it teach students to use AI, teach them to work without it, or teach them when each approach is appropriate? Read the case →  CASE STUDY 03 Educational Management & Learning Design The Case A secondary school had begun discussing how it should prepare students for a world increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence. Some teachers were already using AI tools to generate examples, create practice activities and provide students with additional explanations. Others were becoming increasingly concerned that students were using AI to complete work they should be doing themselves. Parents were divided as well. Some believed the school was not doing enough to prepare their children for the ...
Read more