Content is the Vehicle, Not the Destination

The Importance of Transferable Skills and Content Knowledge in Education

When I was describing the characteristics of Learning Progressions, I said that “Content is the Vehicle not the Destination.” But of course the content matters for our classes.   Content knowledge and its application are inextricably intertwined. In education, the importance of transferable skills as well as content knowledge is essential.

There are three main reasons for this:

  • Before students can apply information, they must know what the information is.
  • Creative and flexible thinking requires a foundation of knowledge.
  • Disciplinary Core Ideas may be mandated by the district or state.

I am a physics teacher, and therefore, the context in which I will embed this is necessarily physics-related. However, this is absolutely course-agnostic. No matter what you teach: math, social studies, physical education, world languages, cooking, or English, this applies to your field just as well as mine.

In this article, you will learn about the relevant research supporting this idea, what structures can be used to support student mastery, and what learning progressions I use to assess student learning.

Why distinguish content from skills?

Skills can be transferred while content knowledge is topic-specific. There are many arguments for why it is valuable to focus on skills that can be used in other contexts besides the one in our classroom.

“I’m not saying content isn’t important. It is and it always will be. However, transferable skills that can be used across content areas might be a better use of our time with content as the vehicle to get there.”

D. Frangiosa (2021) Tweet

Issues of Equity: We must offer multiple entry points to build and deepen understanding. All students can learn if given enough time and support. Higher order skills cannot be assessed separately from content so we offer appropriate learning tools once identified.

The Ability to Differentiate: Students’ individual learning styles and levels of readiness allows us to tailor the target level for a class or an individual. Once the terminology is separated from its application, the assessments are easily altered.

Student Engagement: Doing scientific activity encourages students to actively think about, integrate, and apply what they know. They cannot get engaged in activities if they do not have a handle on the content (what they know).

For all equity, differentiation, and engagement, the shared component is providing a “low floor” as an on-ramp and a “high ceiling” to offer appropriate levels of challenge. By using Learning Progressions, we can easily provide this spectrum of support.

Why do students need to memorize facts if they can simply google them?

We need students to have ownership of their knowledge. Without a firm grounding in the facts, how can they build upon them? As all educators know, Benjamin Bloom (1973) developed a hierarchical framework that categorizes educational goals into six levels, ranging from lower-order thinking skills to higher-order thinking skills. The six levels are knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. In order to use higher order thinking of any type, students must begin with knowledge.

Some other examples:

  • Fluency: The power to produce numerous ideas begins with a solid foundation. Students’ ideas must be grounded in the basic facts about the topic. 
  • Elaboration: The ability to pay attention to details related to an idea is essential. They must have a handle on the subtleties and distinguishing characteristics of the relevant terminology. 
  • Critical Thinking: One must truly understand the meaning in order to see connections and apply it in new situations. This is where transfer occurs, so that ideas are not siloed.

Content will always be important; it just doesn’t need to be the focus. #Reimaginedschools @EliseN_ETG

What Research Supports the Importance of Content as Foundational?

There is plenty of research supporting the idea of treating content in this way, as well as the importance of vocabulary knowledge as a foundational skill. One example is a study by Beck and McKeown (2007) which found that vocabulary knowledge is strongly linked to reading comprehension and academic achievement. They suggest that building students’ vocabulary knowledge should be a priority in instruction across subject areas, as it can help students better understand the content and make connections between new information and what they already know.

Another study by Marzano and Pickering (2005) identified six steps for effective vocabulary instruction, including providing a description, explanation, and example of new words, having students discuss and use the words in various contexts, and reviewing the words regularly. They found that these steps can significantly improve students’ vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension. While the results of both of these studies seem to be common sense, they do emphasize that their must be instruction. Students do not necessarily make the connections on their own, without guidance.

Regarding the idea of treating content as a vehicle, not as a destination, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) emphasizes the importance of teaching mathematics as a set of interconnected concepts and skills, rather than just a collection of facts and procedures. They suggest that teaching mathematics in this way can help students develop a deeper understanding of the subject and be better prepared to apply their knowledge in real-world situations.

And of course, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) also emphasize the importance of teaching science content as a means to developing students’ scientific practices and cross-cutting concepts, rather than just memorizing facts. The NGSS framework emphasizes the integration of science content with scientific practices and cross-cutting concepts, and highlights the importance of developing students’ abilities to ask questions, construct explanations, and engage in argument from evidence.

The First Step in Content Fluency: Unit-Specific Vocabulary

Dave and I asked ourselves, “What is the absolute minimum that students must know in order to begin to talk about the topic?” We determined that without the unit-relevant terminology, students would not be able to engage in any other activities. This is because students will not be speaking the same language as you. They should be familiar enough with the meanings of the new vocabulary to define the words.

The NGSS recognizes the importance of developing a strong scientific vocabulary, as it can help students understand and communicate about scientific concepts. The NGSS standards include specific language objectives that focus on developing students’ ability to use precise scientific language in context, and to communicate scientific ideas and explanations clearly. Before students can apply information, they must know what the information is. State and national standards for other disciplines have similar objectives.

The most basic step is to know the vocabulary. Here is how we structure the work:

  • I provide a list of new terms at the beginning of the unit.
  • They use a trustworthy resource for definitions (my video guides, as well as my subject-specific recommendations)
  • Students make traditional or electronic flashcards.
  • They begin studying.
  • During class time, I work with them to refine their understanding as well as build context and connections. Pear Decks and Kahoot! are my favorite ways to do this.
  • Students test their memory on the first Content Mastery Checkpoint (CMC).
  • They examine their results, noting any errors or omissions in their notes, adjusting their flashcards as needed.
  • I teach additional study strategies as needed. If flashcards are not effective, I show them alternatives, such as concept mapping, simple memory games, or pneumonics.
  • Complete another attempt at the CMC each week of the unit. 

The Content Mastery Checkpoints

To check vocabulary for each unit, they take the Content Mastery Checkpoint. These quizzes have 6-10 questions, meant to test their familiarity with the terminology for the unit. Here are the instructions that are at the beginning of each one. 

I built this quiz on our LMS, Canvas. The first 3 questions are matching: units of measurement, definitions of terms, and representative symbols that are used. Here are typical examples from our second unit, on Kinematics. I toggled the dropdown for the first one so you can see what the choices are.

These first three questions are the same for all attempts.

Canvas gives me the ability to create a question bank. The remaining multiple choice questions are pulled from this question bank, which I usually populate with 30-50 questions. So every time the student does an attempt, they get the same first 3 questions, but numbers 4 – end are randomly-assigned. I design these questions to dig a bit deeper into the subtleties of the definitions, often using multiple correct or fill-in-the-blank style questions. 

Later in the year, I add 1-3 questions from previous units. For example, in the Energy unit, I added one question from the Kinematics unit and another one from the Dynamics unit, because that material overlaps. Because physics is so reliant on previously learned concepts, this is a way to encourage constant review.

When they are done, students can see their results. I set the quiz up to display the right answers so they can learn from their mistakes. Since this is mostly memorization, that’s perfectly fine in my book!

Why Have Multiple Attempts?

Students usually have 5 attempts on this over the course of each unit, approximately once each week. Why five attempts? Multiple attempts are essential in order to provide feedback and reduce the stakes of any one performance. The number itself is arbitrary; it generally represents an attempt each week of a unit. Later in the year, they generally only have time for 3 or 4, because the amount of time we spend on each unit gets shorter.

I want students to have to retain the information from week to week. “Forcing” students to study the same set of material each week will, hopefully, create some traction in their long-term memory.

“The act of retrieving learning from memory has two profound benefits. One, it tells you what you know and don’t know, and therefore where to focus further study to improve the areas where you’re weak. Two, recalling what you have learned causes your brain to reconsolidate the memory, which strengthens its connections to what you already know and makes it easier for you to recall in the future. In effect, retrieval—testing—interrupts forgetting.”

Peter Brown et al (2014)

The weekly practice is one way to retrieve the information, which we have been practicing daily during class, from memory. Whether they do well or poorly, just the attempt to recall improves future performance.

How I Use the Scores from the Content Mastery Checkpoints

Before I can talk about how the grades are used, please recall that I use the Learning Progression Model. (If this is your first visit here, you may want to read a bit more about LPM before forging ahead.)

I do not use the grades on the CMC. Well, that’s not completely true. Let’s start with this fact: I do not enter the individual scores into my gradebook. They do not get averaged in any way. I use the scores on one of the learning progressions, that I call “Engaging with Content”. This LP has many other pieces, most of which have to do with Projects. which I have omitted for clarity. But let’s take a look at the relevant parts, shown in blue.

The first three achievement levels address content knowledge.

  • For Beginning, you must earn “at least 75% on any one of the content mastery checkpoints for this unit.”
  • For Developing, you must earn “at least 85% on any two of the content mastery checkpoints for this unit.”
  • For Proficient, you must earn “at least 95% on the most recent of the content mastery checkpoints for this unit.”

Why is this any better than simply grading the quizzes and posting a percentage?

The first reason that this is better is that it reduces the stakes. They have time to improve without penalty. They can learn from their mistakes.  In addition, this approach is simply more useful. The utility comes from several features. First, students see that learning vocabulary is part of a process. They are expected to learn a strategy that improves their retention of the information. (If their own strategy isn’t working, it is usually fairly apparent after the 3rd attempt.) Second (and related), they must retain the knowledge over the course of the unit. The goal is not to get through a single attempt and then move on, but to take it five times over 5-6 weeks, strengthening their knowledge over time.  Third, they are learning the vocabulary for a purpose… to apply it within other contexts, such as “Creating Explanations”, “Interpreting Graphs”, “Arguing a Scientific Claim.” This isn’t an end in-and-of-itself.

Therefore, we make that purpose obvious. The achievement levels of the Engaging with Content learning progression overtly state that the vocabulary and terminology must be integrated into the Unit Project. 

How can Content be Woven into my Course-Specific Practices?

As I mentioned above, my guidelines come from the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). They distinguish between content (disciplinary core ideas, or DCIs) and skills (science and engineering practices, or SEPs) in several ways.  DCIs are “the key ideas and concepts that have broad importance within or across multiple science or engineering disciplines” while SEPs are “the practices that scientists and engineers engage in as they investigate the natural world and design and build systems.” The NGSS emphasizes that DCIs and SEPs should be taught together, rather than separately, in order to develop students’ understanding of both the content and the process of science. According to the NGSS, “the integration of scientific practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas in instruction should be targeted toward a limited number of key concepts” (NGSS Lead States, 2013, p. 10). 

Embedding Content Into the Project

If you look at the Engaging with Content rubric above, you can see specifically where the application levels begin. At the Developing level, as shown in pink font, students are required to use the terminology in context, although they may not do this correctly yet. At Proficient level, as shown in yellow font, students are required to correctly state the physics concept throughout their project, although the application may be incomplete or incorrect.  In order for students to demonstrate skills at an Advanced level, as shown in green font, a clear and correct presentation of concepts are required. 

Embedding Content Into Conceptual Questions

Another one of the NGSS science and engineering practices is “constructing explanations and designing solutions”, which involves students using scientific vocabulary to communicate their understanding of scientific phenomena. I have adapted this within my own learning progressions as “Creating Scientific Explanations.” Here is the learning progression that I use:

At the Developing level, as shown in pink, students are required to use the terminology in context, although they may not do this correctly yet.  A Developing level response may be, “The force acting on the ball is going to cause it to accelerate to the right.” 

At Proficient level, as shown in yellow, students are required to correctly state the physics concept, although the application may be incomplete or incorrect. A Proficient level response may be, “Newton’s Second Law says that an unbalanced force will cause a system to accelerate in the direction of that unbalanced force. Therefore, the force acting on the ball is going to cause it to accelerate to the right.” 

In order for students to demonstrate skills at an Advanced level, as shown in green, clear and correct presentation of concepts are required. An Advanced level response may be, “Newton’s Second Law says that an unbalanced force will cause a system to accelerate in the direction of that unbalanced force. Therefore, the unbalanced force that acts on the ball is going to cause the ball to accelerate to the right because it points to the right.” Each step demonstrates a better grasp of the concept. 

“Skills not only create and give meaning to knowledge, they are also transferable across curriculum areas and into students’ future lives, both vocationally and educationally."

Ben Lawless (2017)

Content is Everywhere, But it is just the Beginning.

Embedding Content Into Lab Reports

I weave this strategy throughout one other learning progression which I use on lab reports. In Arguing a Claim (aka Writing a Claim-Evidence-Reasoning), the content knowledge shows up in the reasoning part of the conclusion. I structure it similarly, where students move from mentioning relevant vocabulary to correctly stating the physics concept used in the lab to connecting that concept to the experimental results. In this manner, I emphasize the critical importance of content knowledge as the vehicle for demonstrating mastery. 

 

Embedding Content Into Your Course

Remember, while you may have a different context that I do, you can still use this approach. No matter what you teach, you want to move students from recall to understanding to application to synthesis.  It is logical and developmentally appropriate as well.

In World Language, students must know vocabulary before they can hold even the most simple conversation or read the most basic book. In World History, students need to know the different types of governments before they can compare and contrast them. In art class, students must know  what gesture drawing is, before they can follow directions to execute it. Every single discipline has this essential feature, which is why Bloom’s Taxonomy is taught to every undergraduate majoring in education!

“What we really ought to ask is how to do better at building knowledge and creativity, for without knowledge you don’t have the foundation for the higher-level skills of analysis, synthesis, and creative problem solving.”

Peter Brown et al (2014)

The fact is you can’t separate higher order thinking from content expertise.  Content will always be important; it just doesn’t need to be the focus. It is the foundation that will enable your students to move towards mastery of discipline-specific skills.

How do you encourage students to learn the vocabulary? How do you embed the content in the skills of your specific course? Please comment below, or reach out on social media to let me know!

References

Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 107(3), 251-271.

 Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl, D. R., & Masia, B. B. (1973). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook II: Affective domain. David McKay Company.

Brown, Peter C. Make It Stick : the Science of Successful Learning. Cambridge, Massachusetts :The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2014.

Frangiosa, David. “My Content Is Important”. Reimaginedschools.com, 2021, https://reimaginedschools.com/my-content-is-important/. Accessed 11 Mar 2023.

Lawless, Ben. “Skills are more important than content knowledge” Lawlesslearningland.Files.Wordpress.Com, 2022, https://lawlesslearningland.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/e-teaching-2017-28-skills-are-more-important-than-content.pdf. Accessed 30 Aug 2022.

Marzano, R. J., & Pickering, D. J. (2005). Building academic vocabulary: Teacher’s manual. ASCD.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. NCTM.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290

(Please note that this is an in-depth update of a blog post first published on November 15, 2022 called Content vs. Skills.)