What we know about 'knowledge'
There's an ongoing flamewar between traditionalists and progressives, who believe that education should either be about 'knowledge' or about 'skills'. This has been going on, in various forms, at least since Thomas Henry Huxley and Matthew Arnold squared off in the 19th century about what kind of education is required to foster 'true culture'.
As Bruce Chatwin demonstrates in his modern-day classic The Songlines, there are ways of knowing that are based on action rather than 'head knowledge'. He details how Australian aboriginal 'knowledge' is interwoven with their physical environment, is passed on primarily in an oral way, and comes with certain prohibitions as to who is allowed to 'have' such knowledge.
The Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy's entry on knowledge lists four main types:
- Knowing by acquaintance
- Knowledge 'that'
- Knowledge 'wh' (i.e. whether, who, what, why)
- Knowing 'how'
I've always been of the opinion that the second type of knowledge listed here, knowledge 'that', is of limited value. If I was coming up with my own personal hierarchy of the relative importance of these kinds of knowledge, I'd put this one at the bottom. It's the kind of knowledge that may be foundational, but taken to absurd lengths, just means you're good at pub quizzes.
For me, it's knowing 'how' that's of central importance, and what we should focus on in education. This is why I think that 'knowledge' vs. 'skills' is a false dichotomy.
Knowing 'how' is usually described as a set of 'skills' in our culture, labelled as 'vocational', and given a back seat to the 'more important', 'academic' forms of knowledge. I think this is incorrect and should be remedied as soon as possible.