p
roblems and use research methods to solve those prob-
lems, all the while using their knowledge of the “basics.”
A
fter those same biologists have solved a new problem,
they present it for public critique, submitting their work
for critical review by colleagues. If the work is not defensi-
ble in this public domain, they return to their laboratories
to reexamine their evidence and revise their thinking.
Similarly, if students are to leave school armed with the
knowledge and skill necessary to participate as citizens
and thinkers, they need to know many things. They need
to learn about the ideas, theories, facts, and procedures of
a discipline. They need to become fluent with the linguis-
tic systems of a field, developing the skill and knowledge
associated with inquiry in that field, which includes both
individual methods and the social context of the intellec-
tual discourse. Thus, they need extensive experience with
the ways in which ideas are argued and proved in discipli-
nary fields as well as a deep and thorough understanding
of the facts and concepts in each field. Children need to
write, the reformers argue, so that they can read critically
and not be persuaded by spurious text. Students need to
do statistical analyses of problems that they themselves
identify so that they might be better consumers of statis-
tics use
d daily by the press. Students need to read primary
sources and work on their own historical interpretations
so that they are better able to critique the ones they read
(Brune
r 1960/1977; Dewey 1902/1956; Schwab 1978a).
Clearly, we run the risk of oversimplification with such
a brief tour through very complicated ideas. We do not
want to suggest that these ideas about learners, learning,
and knowing are either mutually exclusive or monolithic.
In fact, their compatibility is one reason for their popular-
ity in the last 20 years. Because disciplinary knowledge is
d
e
veloped in communities, such as those of mathemati-
cians and physicists, the emphasis in these theories on
inquiry, discourse, community, and social construction of
kno
w
le
dg
e s
up
port one another. Because we assume that
teachers must know what their students know and think,
treating students’ differences as resources rather than
obstacles makes sense. Because contemporary theories of
knowledge emphasize individuals and their interpreta-
tions, constructivist theories of learning seem reasonable.
B
ut in the last 20 years we have also witnessed consid-
e
r
able debates about which ideas about learning, learners,
teaching, and knowledge deserve pride of place. Critics of
some standards ha
v
e rightfully noted that it is problemat-
ic to mix images of what students should be learning
(knowledge) with how they should be learning (teaching),
because teachers ought to have latitude to make their own
d
ecisions about appropriate pedagogy. Critics also have
worried about the tendency of some educators to adopt
o
rthodoxies that are either limiting or not based on
empirical evidence (e.g., Hirsch 1996; Ravitch 2000).
Discussions concerning race and culture have raised ques-
tions about an oppressive, monolithic “politically correct,”
“social justice” stance. Further, within the disciplines, con-
siderable debate has taken place about the nature of
knowledge, the role of interpretation, and an apparent
slide into a frightening relativism.
5
But recent research suggests that we cannot let political
differences obscure the fact that
all students need deep
knowledge of content. Research in cognitive science helps
us understand why it is important for students to have
both a sound basis of factual knowledge, and a flexible
understanding of how to use that knowledge in authentic
and new contexts. As Bransford, Brown, and Cocking
(2000) argued:
To develop competence in an area of inquiry,
students must: (a) have a deep foundation of
factual knowledge, (b) understand facts and
ideas in the context of a conceptual frame-
work, and (c) organize knowledge in ways
that facilitate retrieval and application…. To
develop competence…students must have
opportunities to learn with understanding.
Deep understanding of subject matter trans-
forms factual information into usable knowl-
edge. A profound difference between experts
and novices is that experts’ command of con-
cepts shapes their understanding of new
8 Theories of Learning and Teaching
5
T
hese differences were at the heart of the curriculum debates of the 1990s.
C
o
ncerned that the curricular reforms of the 1980s had swung too hard in
the direction of teaching for understanding, with too little attention paid to
the basics, legislators, parents, and educators began calling for more “bal-
ance.” California passed the ABCs legislation, mandating the teaching of
phonics and basic math facts (Wilson 2003). The NCTM 2000 Standards
paid more explicit attention to foundational ideas of mathematics, which
was heralded by a number of journalists as a move “back to the basics.” The
nat
io
nal hist
ory standards were roundly criticized for too much attention to
interpretation and multiculturalism (Nash, Crabtree, and Dunn 1997), and
several organizations, including the American Federation of Teachers, evalu-
ated state standards for their content, precision, clarity, and rigor.
The questions being raised about school knowledge parallel similar questions
ab
ou
t disciplinar
y kno
w
ledge. For example, there is considerable debate in
the fie
ld o
f history about the roles of fact, truth, and interpretation. When an
eminent historian, Simon Schama, wrote a piece of historical fiction entitled
D
ead C
e
r
taint
ies
(1991) se
v
e
r
al hist
o
r
ians pub
licly chastised him for toying
w
ith q
uest
io
ns o
f
historical truth. Similar debates characterize literature,
mathematics, and the sciences. In part, these questions arose in the wake of
deconstructivism and postmodern thought. See, for example, Fish (1980).