## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Knowledge as foundation**: Subject knowledge and related skills explicitly outlined at each stage > - **Knowledge enables skills**: Critical thinking and problem-solving require subject knowledge > - **Prior knowledge effect**: More existing knowledge makes acquiring new knowledge easier > - **Equity through access**: All students receive 'powerful knowledge' regardless of background ## Definition **Knowledge-Based Curriculum**: A curriculum design that prioritises and explicitly outlines the subject knowledge and related skills students should learn at each stage, recognising that knowledge provides the essential foundation for developing transferable skills and deeper learning. ## Overview The design of a curriculum reflects fundamental assumptions about how students learn and what schools should achieve. A knowledge-based curriculum prioritises building students' subject knowledge systematically over time, contrasting with resource-based approaches that emphasise generic skills whilst leaving knowledge acquisition implicit or incidental. Cognitive science demonstrates that skills cannot develop in a knowledge vacuum, that working memory limitations make explicit knowledge sequencing essential, and that students' existing knowledge determines their capacity to learn new information. By making knowledge central and explicit, knowledge-based curricula provide all students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, with the foundational understanding needed to acquire increasingly complex knowledge and develop genuine expertise. ## Connected To [[Explicit Teaching]] | [[Schema]] | [[Cognitive Load Theory]] | [[Prior Knowledge]] | [[Memory]] | [[Scaffolding]] | [[Part-whole approach]] | [[Mastery Approach to Learning]] --- ## The Fundamental Contrast: Two Curriculum Models Understanding knowledge-based curriculum design requires recognising how it differs from alternative approaches that have dominated educational policy in recent decades. ### Knowledge-Based Curriculum **Core principle**: Explicitly prioritises and sequences subject knowledge that students should learn at each stage. **Key characteristics**: - Content purposefully selected and made explicit - Knowledge treated as prerequisite for skill development - Clear progression pathways building on prior learning - Subject-specific knowledge structures honoured **Underlying belief**: Students need systematic knowledge building to develop genuine capabilities and critical thinking. ### Resource-Based Curriculum (Skills-Based) **Core principle**: Emphasises generic competencies and transferable skills whilst de-emphasising subject knowledge. **Key characteristics**: - Focus on processes like 'critical thinking' and 'creativity' - Knowledge selection often implicit or left to individual teachers - Skills assumed to transfer across contexts - Subject boundaries sometimes dissolved in favour of themes **Underlying belief**: Generic skills can be taught independently of subject knowledge and will transfer broadly. ## The Evidence: Why Knowledge Must Come First The contrast between these models is not merely philosophical-cognitive science provides clear evidence about which approach aligns with how students actually learn. ### Cognitive Architecture and Learning Research into human cognition reveals fundamental constraints that favour knowledge-based approaches: **Working memory limitations**: Students can process only limited information simultaneously in working memory (Cowan, 2001). When processing new material, cognitive overload occurs quickly, preventing learning (Sweller et al., 2019). This makes the systematic building of knowledge essential-trying to develop skills without adequate knowledge foundations overwhelms working memory. **Long-term memory as foundation**: Information stored in long-term memory as schemas does not burden working memory (Sweller, van Merriënboer, & Paas, 2019). Strong subject knowledge schemas therefore reduce cognitive load, freeing working memory for deeper processing and skill application. This explains why knowledge and skills cannot be separated-knowledge provides the progression pathway to skills. **The prior knowledge effect**: Existing knowledge facilitates acquiring new related knowledge-the more students already know about a topic, the easier they find learning additional information (Dochy, Segers, & Buehl, 1999; Stanovich, 1986). This creates a cycle where knowledge enables more knowledge, but it requires systematic building of foundational understanding first. ### Knowledge and Skills: An Inseparable Relationship Research evidence and practical experience indicate that skills and knowledge are interconnected. Critical thinking and problem-solving illustrate this relationship: **Critical thinking requires knowledge**: Analysing complex issues demands understanding of relevant concepts, contexts, and relationships (Willingham, 2007). A student cannot 'think critically' about climate change without knowledge of atmospheric science, carbon cycles, and energy systems. The thinking skills depend entirely on the knowledge base (Chi, Feltovich, & Glaser, 1981). **Problem-solving is domain-specific**: Problem-solving strategies that work in mathematics differ from those effective in literary analysis or scientific investigation (Sweller, 1988). There are no generic problem-solving skills that transfer automatically-students need both factual knowledge ('knowing that') and procedural knowledge ('knowing how') within specific domains. **Skills develop through knowledge**: As students acquire more knowledge in a domain, patterns become visible, principles emerge, and higher-order thinking becomes possible (Chase & Simon, 1973; Ericsson & Kintsch, 1995). The skills are products of knowledge accumulation, not prerequisites for it. ### The Reading Comprehension Connection Research on reading comprehension provides particularly compelling evidence for knowledge-based approaches. Students cannot comprehend texts about unfamiliar topics, regardless of their decoding skills or generic comprehension strategies: **Vocabulary dependence**: Language comprehension requires knowing the meanings of words encountered (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2002). Students with limited vocabulary struggle to understand age-appropriate texts, creating widening achievement gaps over time (Stanovich, 1986). **Background knowledge matters**: Students with knowledge gaps in the topic being read about demonstrate poorer comprehension, even when controlling for general reading ability (Recht & Leslie, 1988). A student reading about photosynthesis without understanding of cells, energy, or chemical reactions will struggle regardless of their technical reading skills. **Complexity requires knowledge**: As texts become more complex-a requirement for accessing increasingly sophisticated ideas-background knowledge becomes more critical (Hirsch, 2003). Building this knowledge systematically through curriculum design improves students' capacity to comprehend challenging material. ## Four Key Design Features of Knowledge-Based Curricula Effective knowledge-based curricula share four essential design characteristics that distinguish them from less systematic approaches. These features work together to ensure students build deep, usable knowledge over time. ### 1. Selective **Principle**: Content is purposefully chosen for each subject, aligned with the school's educational vision. Not all knowledge holds equal value for students' education. Knowledge-based curricula make explicit decisions about which knowledge matters most, considering: - What foundational understanding enables future learning - What connects to students' lives and broader world understanding - What represents the core disciplinary thinking of each subject - What provides access to further educational and life opportunities This selectivity contrasts with resource-based approaches where knowledge selection often remains implicit, varies by teacher, or gets determined by available materials rather than systematic planning. ### 2. Coherent **Principle**: Content interconnects across topics, subjects, and stages, reflecting the knowledge structures of different disciplines. Knowledge becomes powerful when students perceive connections and patterns, not when learnt as isolated facts. Coherent curricula ensure: - Concepts build upon and connect to previously learnt material - Related ideas in different subjects reinforce rather than contradict each other - The logical structure of each discipline shapes how content is organised - Students can see how knowledge forms coherent wholes, not arbitrary collections This coherence transforms how students experience learning-each new concept fits into expanding understanding rather than appearing as disconnected information to memorise. ### 3. Carefully Sequenced **Principle**: Content builds deep and broad knowledge over time, with clear prerequisites and gradually increasing complexity. The sequence in which students encounter knowledge profoundly affects their learning. Effective sequencing ensures: - Foundational concepts precede those that depend on them - Complexity increases gradually, respecting working memory limitations - Regular revisiting of core ideas deepens understanding over time - Both breadth (range of topics) and depth (sophisticated understanding) develop systematically Poor sequencing-teaching complex ideas before foundations exist, or never returning to deepen initial understanding-wastes students' time and creates confusion that disadvantages those without home support to fill gaps. ### 4. Specific and Clear **Principle**: The curriculum explicitly outlines what students should know, understand, and do at each stage. Clarity about expected learning enables both effective teaching and equitable outcomes. Specific curricula provide: - Clear statements of knowledge students should acquire - Explicit skills tied to subject content rather than generic descriptors - Transparent expectations that students, teachers, and families can understand - Basis for aligned assessment that measures intended learning This specificity contrasts sharply with vague curriculum statements that leave individual teachers to guess what students should learn, creating lottery effects where educational quality depends on which teacher a student happens to have. ## Teacher knowledge and curriculum implementation Teacher knowledge significantly affects curriculum implementation quality. Shulman (1986) identified three forms in which knowledge exists for teachers, all necessary for effective implementation: **Propositional knowledge** (evidence-based) includes principles (theoretical claims from empirical research), maxims (practical claims from experience), and norms (ideological or philosophical commitments). Teachers need research-based understanding of how students learn and what constitutes effective instruction. **Case knowledge** (specific documented events) includes prototypes (exemplifying theoretical principles), precedents (capturing principles of practice), and parables (conveying norms or values). Teachers benefit from specific examples of successful curriculum implementation, common student difficulties, and effective responses to challenges. **Strategic knowledge** involves knowing what to do when principles conflict, requiring metacognitive awareness for professional judgment. Teachers face situations where no simple solution exists and must draw on multiple forms of knowledge to make informed decisions. Research on teacher quality shows that differential teacher effectiveness is the strongest determinant of differences in student learning (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Teacher quality proves more important than other school resources like class size, accounting for more inter-district variation in student achievement than socioeconomic status. Subject matter knowledge has positive but complex relationship, depending on [[Pedagogical Content Knowledge|pedagogical knowledge]]. Equity implications are significant: disadvantaged students disproportionately receive less qualified teachers. When controlling for socioeconomic status, differences in achievement between student groups can be attributed more to differences in teacher qualifications than any other factor. Investment in teacher preparation proves more effective than reducing class sizes. ## Implementation: From Design to Classroom Reality Even well-designed knowledge-based curricula cannot improve learning unless teachers can implement them effectively. Research identifies three critical enablers that determine whether curriculum intentions translate into classroom practice. ### Professional Learning: Building Teacher Knowledge Teachers cannot effectively teach knowledge they do not possess or understanding they have not developed. Successful implementation requires: **Pedagogical content knowledge development**: Teachers need both subject knowledge and understanding of how to teach it-which representations work, what misconceptions arise, how to sequence explanations, and what students find difficult. Professional learning must develop this specialised knowledge, not generic teaching techniques. **Collaborative curriculum study**: When teachers study curriculum together-examining the knowledge progressions, discussing connections across topics, and planning instruction collectively-they develop shared understanding that strengthens implementation consistency and quality. **Ongoing support structures**: One-off professional development sessions prove insufficient. Teachers need sustained opportunities to deepen their understanding of content, share effective practices, and refine their implementation based on student responses. ### Quality Support Materials: Enabling Effective Practice Even knowledgeable teachers benefit from high-quality curriculum materials that embody the intended design. Effective support materials share common characteristics: **Comprehensive guidance**: Materials provide detailed teacher guidance about the knowledge being taught, common student difficulties, effective explanations and representations, and connections to prior and future learning. **Embedded assessment**: Built-in formative assessment opportunities help teachers monitor whether students are acquiring intended knowledge, enabling responsive teaching rather than assumption-based progression. **Practical usability**: Materials must be genuinely usable within normal teaching constraints-clearly organised, realistic about time requirements, and not dependent on extensive additional teacher preparation. Without such materials, implementation quality varies based on individual teacher capacity, undermining the equity goals that motivate knowledge-based curriculum design. ### Whole-School Approaches: Creating Coherent Systems Individual teachers implementing knowledge-based curricula in isolation face enormous challenges. Whole-school approaches multiply effectiveness by creating coherent systems: **Programme mapping**: Schools need clear oversight of what knowledge gets taught when, ensuring the intended progression actually occurs and gaps do not emerge from individual classroom variations. **Shared pedagogical approaches**: When teachers employ common instructional strategies aligned with knowledge-building goals, such as [[Explicit Teaching]], [[Worked Examples]], and systematic [[Practice]], students experience consistent, effective teaching across subjects and year levels. **Distributed curriculum leadership**: Rather than centralising all curriculum decisions, effective schools distribute leadership so subject specialists guide implementation while maintaining whole-school coherence. This honours the disciplinary knowledge required whilst ensuring systemic consistency. ## Knowledge-Based Curricula and Educational Equity Perhaps the most compelling argument for knowledge-based curricula emerges from equity considerations. The design choices made in curricula profoundly affect which students succeed and which fall behind. ### Providing Access to Powerful Knowledge Students from different backgrounds arrive at school with vastly different knowledge bases. Those from advantaged backgrounds often possess extensive vocabulary, broad general knowledge, and familiarity with academic content from family conversations, books, and experiences. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds may have rich knowledge in many areas but lack the specific academic knowledge schools assume. **Resource-based curricula exacerbate inequality**: When curricula leave knowledge implicit or assume students will acquire it incidentally, advantaged students draw on home resources to fill gaps whilst disadvantaged students fall progressively further behind. The implicit curriculum becomes accessible primarily to those already advantaged. **Knowledge-based curricula democratise access**: By making knowledge explicit, systematic, and universal, knowledge-based curricula ensure all students receive direct teaching of 'powerful knowledge'-the understanding that provides access to further education, informed citizenship, and life opportunities. Schools take responsibility for building knowledge rather than assuming students arrive with it or will acquire it independently. ### Not Relying on Assumed Knowledge Resource-based approaches often assume students possess certain background knowledge whilst focusing explicit teaching on generic skills. This assumption proves particularly problematic: **The assumption favours the advantaged**: Students whose families provide extensive background knowledge through conversation, reading, and experiences can engage with skill-focused activities successfully. Those lacking this foundation struggle not because they lack ability but because the prerequisite knowledge was never taught. **Knowledge gaps compound over time**: Early gaps in background knowledge make acquiring new knowledge progressively harder. Students with limited existing knowledge find new learning more difficult, creating widening achievement gaps. **Explicit teaching closes gaps**: Knowledge-based curricula assume nothing about students' background knowledge. Instead, they systematically build the foundational understanding all students need, providing disadvantaged students with the same knowledge base their advantaged peers often acquire at home. ### Setting High Expectations for All Learners Some critics suggest knowledge-based curricula impose rigid, low-level expectations. The evidence demonstrates the opposite: **Knowledge enables higher-order thinking**: Providing all students with strong knowledge foundations makes sophisticated analysis, evaluation, and creation possible. Without knowledge, 'higher-order' activities become empty exercises in opinion-sharing rather than informed reasoning. **Equity requires high expectations**: Setting high expectations means ensuring all students acquire the knowledge needed for future success, not hoping they will somehow discover it through activities. Knowledge-based curricula operationalise high expectations through clear, ambitious learning goals for every student. **Excellence and equity together**: Rather than requiring trade-offs between excellence and equity, knowledge-based curricula achieve both by ensuring systematic knowledge building that enables all students to reach high standards. ## International Evidence: Natural Experiments in Curriculum Design Several countries have effectively conducted natural experiments by shifting from knowledge-based to skills-based curricula, providing revealing evidence about the consequences of each approach. ### Declining Systems: The Cost of De-Emphasising Knowledge **France**: Historically high-performing France introduced skills-based reforms that reduced subject knowledge emphasis. Subsequent PISA assessments showed achievement declines, with impacts on disadvantaged students who lost access to the systematic knowledge building previously provided (OECD, 2016). **Finland**: Long celebrated for educational success, Finland's shift toward generic competencies and reduced subject knowledge focus correlates with declining PISA performance over successive assessments (Sahlberg, 2015), suggesting the skills-based approach undermines the knowledge foundations that previously enabled student success. **Scotland**: Scotland's Curriculum for Excellence prioritised skills and experiences over subject knowledge. Following implementation, achievement gaps widened rather than narrowed, and overall performance declined (Priestley & Humes, 2010; Scottish Government, 2017)-outcomes contradicting the reform's equity and excellence goals. These cases share a common pattern: reducing curriculum knowledge specificity and emphasis correlates with declining achievement, harming disadvantaged students the reforms intended to help (OECD, 2016). ### High Performers: Knowledge-Rich Foundations **Japan**: Maintains knowledge-rich curricula with detailed content specifications, careful sequencing, and high-quality support materials. High PISA performance combined with relatively small achievement gaps demonstrates that knowledge-based approaches can achieve both excellence and equity (OECD, 2016). **Singapore**: Features comprehensive, carefully sequenced knowledge-based curricula supported by extensive teacher professional learning and quality materials (Deng & Gopinathan, 2016). Students demonstrate strong performance across achievement levels, with explicit knowledge building enabling rather than constraining higher-order thinking. **High-performing PISA countries generally**: Analysis of curriculum approaches in high-performing PISA nations reveals knowledge-rich curricula as a common feature (Schmidt, Zoido, & Cogan, 2014), suggesting the approach supports developing student capabilities. These examples demonstrate that knowledge-based curricula, when well-designed and effectively implemented, support both high achievement and educational equity (OECD, 2016). ## Addressing Common Criticisms and Misconceptions Despite strong evidence supporting knowledge-based curricula, several persistent criticisms and misconceptions warrant direct examination. ### "Knowledge-based curricula are rigid and inflexible" **The misconception**: Critics suggest that specifying knowledge content eliminates teacher autonomy and prevents responsive teaching. **The reality**: Clarity about intended learning actually enhances teacher effectiveness. When teachers understand precisely what knowledge students need to acquire, they can employ varied instructional approaches, respond to student needs flexibly, and make informed decisions about pacing and emphasis. Vague curricula that leave knowledge implicit force teachers to guess what matters, creating anxiety and inconsistency rather than autonomy. ### "Knowledge-based approaches promote rote learning" **The misconception**: Emphasising knowledge means students memorise disconnected facts without understanding. **The reality**: Knowledge-based curricula focus on building connected understanding, not isolated fact accumulation. The coherence and sequencing principles ensure students see relationships, understand concepts deeply, and develop usable knowledge. Rote learning occurs when students memorise material they do not understand-precisely what happens when curricula skip foundational knowledge and rush to 'higher-order' activities students lack the understanding to complete meaningfully. ### "Only some students benefit from knowledge-based curricula" **The misconception**: Knowledge-based approaches work only for academically inclined students; others need different, presumably less knowledge-focused approaches. **The reality**: This misconception reflects low expectations dressed as differentiation. All students benefit from systematic knowledge building-indeed, disadvantaged students and those who find learning challenging benefit most because they depend on school to provide knowledge they may not access elsewhere. Denying students systematic knowledge instruction in favour of generic activities perpetuates rather than addresses inequality. ### "Knowledge-based curricula limit teaching practices" **The misconception**: Specifying knowledge content restricts teachers to particular instructional methods, typically assumed to be traditional lectures. **The reality**: Knowledge-based curricula specify what students should learn, not how teachers must teach it. Teachers employ diverse, evidence-based instructional approaches-[[Explicit Teaching]], [[Worked Examples]], [[Scaffolding]], [[Practice]], and many others-to help students acquire intended knowledge. The curriculum provides direction without dictating methodology, enabling teachers to select approaches suited to their students' needs whilst ensuring all students work toward common, important learning goals. ### "The modern world needs skills, not knowledge" **The misconception**: Rapid change and easy information access make knowledge less important than generic skills like critical thinking and creativity. **The reality**: Critical thinking and creativity are not generic skills that operate independently of knowledge. Research indicates they are products of domain knowledge. Experts think critically and solve problems creatively because they possess knowledge that enables pattern recognition, principle application, and combination of ideas. Generic 'skills' instruction without knowledge foundations may produce limited capabilities. Knowledge building supports engagement with complex domains. ## Knowledge-Based Curriculum and Australia's Educational Goals Australia's educational policy articulates ambitious goals: excellence in learning outcomes, equity in access and achievement, and preparing lifelong learners. Knowledge-based curricula provide essential foundations for achieving each goal. ### Excellence Through Knowledge Building Excellence in education means students develop sophisticated understanding and genuine capabilities, not superficial familiarity with disconnected content or generic skill labels. Knowledge-based curricula enable excellence by: - Ensuring students systematically build the deep knowledge that enables expert-like thinking - Making learning progressions explicit so teachers can guide students toward increasingly sophisticated understanding - Providing foundations for higher-order thinking rather than assuming students can think critically about topics they do not understand ### Equity Through Access to Powerful Knowledge Educational equity requires that all students, regardless of background, receive the knowledge and skills needed for future success. Knowledge-based curricula advance equity by: - Making important knowledge explicit rather than leaving it implicit and accessible mainly to the already-advantaged - Taking institutional responsibility for knowledge building rather than assuming students will acquire it from home resources - Ensuring systematic instruction that provides disadvantaged students with the same knowledge foundations their advantaged peers often acquire incidentally ### Lifelong Learning Through Strong Foundations Preparing students as lifelong learners requires building the knowledge structures that make ongoing learning possible. Knowledge-based curricula support lifelong learning by: - Creating the knowledge foundations that make acquiring new knowledge progressively easier - Developing domain knowledge that enables students to evaluate new information critically - Building foundations that allow students to pursue increasingly complex understanding independently Rather than compromising between these goals, knowledge-based curricula recognise them as mutually reinforcing-excellence, equity, and lifelong learning all depend on ensuring students systematically acquire important knowledge. ## Moving Forward: Implementing Knowledge-Based Curriculum Design The evidence supporting knowledge-based curricula is compelling, but evidence alone does not change educational practice. Moving from current approaches to effective knowledge-based curricula requires deliberate action at multiple levels. ### For System Leaders **Curriculum review and revision**: Examine existing curricula against the four key design features-selective, coherent, carefully sequenced, specific and clear. Where curricula fall short, commit to systematic revision rather than superficial adjustments. **Investment in support materials**: Recognise that quality curriculum materials are infrastructure investments that multiply teacher effectiveness. Commission or curate comprehensive materials rather than expecting individual teachers to create them. **Sustained professional learning**: Move beyond one-off workshops to sustained professional learning that builds teachers' subject knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge over time. ### For School Leaders **Whole-school curriculum coherence**: Develop clear programme mapping ensuring the intended knowledge progression actually occurs across year levels and subjects. **Distributed curriculum leadership**: Build teacher expertise in leading curriculum implementation whilst maintaining school-wide coherence and consistency. **Protected professional learning time**: Create structures allowing teachers to study curriculum together, develop shared understanding, and refine implementation collaboratively. ### For Teachers **Deep curriculum engagement**: Study the curriculum not as a checklist but as a knowledge progression requiring understanding of how concepts build and connect. **Evidence-based instruction**: Employ teaching practices aligned with how students learn-[[Explicit Teaching]], [[Worked Examples]], [[Check For Understanding]], systematic [[Practice]]-to ensure students acquire intended knowledge. **Formative assessment focus**: Use ongoing assessment to monitor whether students are building intended knowledge, adjusting instruction based on evidence rather than assumptions. ## Conclusion: Knowledge as Foundation The choice between knowledge-based and resource-based curriculum design is not a matter of pedagogical preference or philosophical orientation-it reflects fundamental understanding of how students learn and what schools must do to ensure all students succeed. Cognitive science demonstrates clearly that knowledge provides the foundation for skills, that working memory limitations make systematic knowledge sequencing essential, and that existing knowledge determines capacity to acquire new understanding. Knowledge-based curricula align with this evidence by making important knowledge explicit, carefully sequencing learning progressions, ensuring coherence across topics and stages, and providing specific guidance that enables effective teaching. The approach promotes both excellence and equity by ensuring all students systematically acquire the 'powerful knowledge' that opens doors to further learning and life opportunities. The international evidence reinforces these conclusions-countries that have abandoned knowledge-based approaches have experienced achievement declines and widening gaps, whilst high performers maintain knowledge-rich curricula with strong implementation support. Australia's educational goals of excellence, equity, and lifelong learning become achievable when curricula ensure all students build the knowledge foundations that make continued learning possible. The path forward requires commitment at every level-system leaders ensuring curricula meet design standards and provide implementation support, school leaders creating coherent whole-school approaches, and teachers engaging deeply with curriculum knowledge whilst employing evidence-based instruction. Together, these actions can transform curriculum from implicit and variable to explicit and effective, ensuring every Australian student receives the knowledge-based education they deserve. > [!tip] Implications for Teaching > > - **Engage deeply with curriculum knowledge progressions** to understand how concepts build and connect across stages > - **Make knowledge explicit** in planning and instruction rather than assuming students will acquire it incidentally > - **Use evidence-based practices** like explicit teaching, worked examples, and systematic practice to build student knowledge > - **Assess for knowledge acquisition** regularly, adjusting instruction based on evidence of what students have actually learnt > - **Connect new knowledge to prior learning** explicitly, helping students build coherent understanding rather than isolated facts --- ## References Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). *Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction*. Guilford Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. *Education Policy Analysis Archives*, 8(1), 1-44. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. *Cognitive Psychology*, 4(1), 55-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90004-2 Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. *Cognitive Science*, 5(2), 121-152. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0502_2 Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. *Behavioral and Brain Sciences*, 24(1), 87-114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922 Deng, Z., & Gopinathan, S. (2016). PISA and high-performing education systems: Explaining Singapore's education success. *Comparative Education*, 52(4), 449-472. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2016.1219535 Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. *Review of Educational Research*, 69(2), 145-186. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069002145 Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. *Psychological Review*, 102(2), 211-245. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.211 Hirsch, E. D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge—of words and the world. *American Educator*, 27(1), 10-13, 16-22, 28-29, 48. OECD. (2016). *PISA 2015 results (Volume II): Policies and practices for successful schools*. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en Priestley, M., & Humes, W. (2010). The development of Scotland's Curriculum for Excellence: Amnesia and deja vu. *Scottish Educational Review*, 42(1), 24-41. Recht, D. R., & Leslie, L. (1988). Effect of prior knowledge on good and poor readers' memory of text. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, 80(1), 16-20. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.80.1.16 Sahlberg, P. (2015). *Finnish lessons 2.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland?* (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press. Schmidt, W. H., Zoido, P., & Cogan, L. (2014). Schooling matters: Opportunity to learn in PISA 2012. *OECD Education Working Papers*, No. 95. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k3v0hldmchl-en Scottish Government. (2017). *Summary statistics for attainment, leaver destinations and healthy living, No. 7: 2017 Edition*. Scottish Government. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. *Educational Researcher*, 15(2), 4-14. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. *Reading Research Quarterly*, 21(4), 360-407. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1 Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. *Cognitive Science*, 12(2), 257-285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4 Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. *Educational Psychology Review*, 31(2), 261-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5 Willingham, D. T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? *American Educator*, 31(2), 8-19.