Curriculum: The Sticky Problem of Sticky Knowledge
- Aidan Severs
- 2 days ago
- 6 min read
Icky name aside, the idea of identifiying sticky knowledge on behalf of pupils is a tricky one.
The Origins of Sticky Knowledge
I think the phrase originated from Gabriel Szulanski and that he originally applied it to the difficulty that organisations experience when trying to spread good practice. It would appear that in his book 'Sticky Knowledge: Barriers to Knowing in the Firm' Szulanski focuses particularly on how organisations can make sure that its employees carry out the most effective processes.
These processes would perhaps be more akin to procedural knowledge (knowledge of how to do something, sometimes referred to as 'skills') than it would be to substantive knowledge (knowledge of established facts). For more on different types of knowledge, see my blog post 'What Are All The Different Types Of Knowledge? (part 1)'.
Sticky Knowledge in Education
In the world of education we seem to have begun applying this phrase 'sticky knowledge' to substantive knowledge. In particular, we have decided that there are certain facts that our pupils must know. We have run with the idea that it is our job to:
identify exactly what those facts are
encode them in curriculum
implement pedagogical approaches that support the teaching, learning and memorisation of those facts
And I'm not sure that's the whole picture.
With regards to the third bullet point I think we need to 'Beware The Reverse-Engineered Curriculum (or The Potential Pitfalls Of Retrieval Practice)'.
With regards to the first two bullet points, read on:
Is There An Alternative To Identifying Sticky Knowledge?
I am a huge advocate for having a well-structured curriculum which makes clear to teachers exactly what they should teach. This clears up confusion, makes planning easier for teachers and ensure equity of provision for pupils. For more on this see my blog post 'How To Achieve Both Curriculum Cohesion And Teacher Autonomy'.
However, I am also an advocate for the idea that whilst we might teach specific pieces of content (procedural, substantive and disciplinary knowledge) our intended outcomes have to be more than just the memorisation of those facts. In my blog post 'Curriculum-Making: Start With The End In Mind' I wrote:
"...the starting point of any curriculum should not be what needs to be covered or how it is going to be taught, but what you want pupils to achieve when they are taught the content."
In that blog post I suggest that your intended pupil outcomes might range beyond what they know to how they apply that knowledge, how they think in a disciplinary way, the characteristics and attitudes that they might develop, as well as emotions that might be evoked.
If this something you want to explore in more detail, the following blog posts might also be useful:
Of course, if all you want is to make sure that the children in your school memorise and repeat substantive facts, then go ahead and identify that sticky knowledge.
Sticky Knowledge or Residue Knowledge?
But, if you want something more, you may have to reckon with the idea that whilst you've chosen certain content to teach, the pupils may not remember those facts exactly in years to come. However, if you've gone further and identified goals for your pupils beyond memorisation, you can probably be happy with the outcomes.
Let's say you teach a unit on coasts in geography. And you teach them all the right terminology, show them specific examples in the UK, and you even visit the coast so the pupils can experience all the things they've learned in real life. And let's say two years later you ask them what they remember and they've forgotten some of the terminology and the names of the places given as examples.
Disappointing, right? Bad teaching?
Not necessarily.
What if those same children still remember that visit, and have actually taken their families back to those spots? What if, in their own words, they can explain why the cliffs were falling down? What if they approached the next geography topic with great gusto, knowing that it was going to be as fascinating as the coasts one? What if they head off to high school looking forward to their geography lessons?
And what if they know that things that happen in the world have an impact on other things in the world? That natural processes can cause other natural process, and that our physical environment changes because of them?
All of these are great and desirable outcomes - outcomes which I'd put my neck on the line and say trump the memorisation of a handful of facts.
Christine Counsell has some useful terminology for what is happening here.
She writes about 'fingertip' knowledge as being the "detail that one needs in ready memory and that is acquired through familiarity after extensive enquiry." Of this kind of knowledge she says "It does not matter if much of the detail then falls away".
She then introduces the concept of 'residue' (or residual) knowledge: "It is not just the ability to remember that the Tudors came before the Stuart and that they used Parliament a lot. It is also that loose, amorphous objective of 'a sense of period' - the retention of all manner of mental furniture, gleaned from a rich visual and active experience of period stories and scenes. Such a residue is bound to enrich current and future study by preventing anachronism and sharpening judgement, even after the particular stories and scenes have long receded."
To summarise she says "One kind of knowledge can be used by the teacher to create another. One of the purposes of 'fingertip' knowledge is that it leaves a residue.”
Un-sticky Knowledge
Whilst identifying the specific content we want to teach is a good idea, specifying that this is the exact knowledge that will stick with pupils is problematic.
All teachers can attest to the fact that at the end of a unit, pupils will have seized upon different aspects of the content, remembering some bits more than others.
This can probably be explained by two things: interest and prior knowledge. Those who have an interest in a specific topic or curriculum area are self-motivated to remember information. Those who have relevant prior knowledge are more likely to have made the links between the old and new content, with the outcome that the newer content 'attaches' itself to the growing schema in their minds.
As much as we might try to control exactly what pupils learn, there is much else that is outside of our control which determines whether or not they do, and the extent to which they do.
Sticky Knowledge and a Knowledge-Rich Curriculum
When Michael Young wrote about a knowledge rich curriculum and powerful knowledge it doesn't seem like he was envisioning a curriculum stuffed full of the best that has been thought/said/known; he had a goal of educational equity, social justice, and intellectual empowerment. He wasn't gunning for a fact-based, easily testable curriculum as an end goal - he wanted a content-rich curriculum that achieved goals beyond the acquisition of facts.
Knowledge? Yes. Sticky? Not Necessary
We must be clear on these goals. We must be clear about what we want for our pupils. Yes, we want a coherent curriculum but surely we want something more than getting knowledge to stick. Go ahead and identify exactly what you are going to teach (really, make sure you do that) but before you do, make sure you have a clear rationale for why you've chosen that content. And, if you want my opinion, it doesn't need to be called 'sticky'.
To end with, I refer you to one more blog post: Why You Might Need To Rewrite Your Curriculum (and Why You Might Not). In that blog post I suggest a formula for deciding on your curriculum content, one which depends on the context and particularly the goals and aims you have for children for each subject.
If you know you need to grapple with all of this, I can help you to enrich your curriculum.
Your 3-step enrichment plan:
Drop me an email
Have a phone call with me to talk about your school
We'll work together to empower you and your staff to enhance teaching and to enrich your pupils' lives
.png)
.png)
