I don’t see a huge problem with results arising from the commitment of teachers to an approach. Isn’t that how programs are meant to work? So we can deduce that if implemented with enthusiasm and fidelity, it works. I mean if it was implemented in a half arsed way, we would get no result. We have to assume that if we put energy into something rigorous, it will work.
I agree that the way a curriculum is implemented is crucial. One problem with the write-up of this study, which was not in a peer-reviewed or even an academic journal, was that it didn't include any of the information about how the curriculum was implemented. It really should have, because it could leave readers with the obviously mistaken impression that the implementation wasn't important.
This is a useful article regarding the research on a knowledge based curriculum. My view is that a knowledge based curriculum has to be focused around helping students better understand the world around them - key understandings in each subject area. These form the basis for learning and remembering knowledge and facts. For example framing learning about genetics as the "conflict between nature and nurture" helps give meaning to learning biology and makes learning interesting and important. The more we can focus content learning around key understandings, the more the learning becomes meaningful, interesting, and worth learning and remembering. I hope that Natalie Wexler will write more about this idea in the future.
Thanks for this ! How we teach knowledge matters as well. In my early teaching days, I learned from Wiggins and McTighe’s Understanding by Design that enduring understandings help students make sense of what they learn. Knowledge isn’t just about collecting facts—it’s about developing insights that transfer across contexts.
For example, in a Social Studies unit on Rural, Suburban, and Urban Communities, an enduring understanding might be: Different places offer different resources and experiences. What makes a place "good" or "bad" depends on people’s individual needs, values, and circumstances. This helps students think critically about the world around them, not just recall definitions.
I have a Substack piece coming Monday that explores this idea further!
I'm a fan of the Bookworms curriculum—it's an evidence-based program that effectively integrates fluency, comprehension, and writing. But its success comes from a complex mix of strategies, including elements of MTSS, not just knowledge-building. That’s why I find it problematic to use the Bookworms study as evidence for knowledge-building. It could just as easily be called a 'fluency-focused curriculum' or an 'MTSS SoR curriculum,' so focusing only on its knowledge-building aspect seems like a false cause fallacy.
Also, the Reading League review didn’t find Bookworms to have particularly strong knowledge-building, and certainly not the transfer of knowledge that the Kim studies suggest improves comprehension. As the review states:
"Reviewers found that Bookworms’ practices for background knowledge are ‘somewhat met.’ As mentioned previously, Bookworms’ curriculum includes a variety of complex texts, including both narrative stories and knowledge-building expository texts. Additionally, the reviewers did not find evidence of leveled texts, and students who are automatic with the code are asked to engage with authentic, knowledge-building texts that feature varied genres and subject areas. One area of concern noted by reviewers is opportunities to bridge existing knowledge to new knowledge. Although Bookworms’ units are centered around a theme, the team was unable to identify evidence linking new units to previously discussed concepts and texts. The inability to establish connections among the various topics incorporated within the curriculum creates a missed opportunity for students to see the bigger picture and form meaningful connections between distinct ideas."
Who determines the sequence of the core knowledge or what core knowledge is taught in each grade level? Wouldn't it make sense to align the ELA core knowledge to the science and social studies content that already needs to be taught to help students develop a deeper understanding and to help teachers address the many standards that need to be covered in a short amount of time?
The developers of curricula determine the topics covered in each curriculum. Those topics will vary depending on the curriculum. The Core Knowledge Foundation and its curriculum developers, therefore, determined the topics in the various curricula it produces, as well as the Sequence.
I'm sure curriculum developers do try to align their content to state science and social studies standards, not only to help teachers, as you suggest, but also because states and districts are more likely to adopt curricula that align with the standards teachers are supposed to teach. But of course those standards vary from state to state. So there's a limit to how much alignment there can be in a curriculum that is intended to be used across the country.
I don’t see a huge problem with results arising from the commitment of teachers to an approach. Isn’t that how programs are meant to work? So we can deduce that if implemented with enthusiasm and fidelity, it works. I mean if it was implemented in a half arsed way, we would get no result. We have to assume that if we put energy into something rigorous, it will work.
I agree that the way a curriculum is implemented is crucial. One problem with the write-up of this study, which was not in a peer-reviewed or even an academic journal, was that it didn't include any of the information about how the curriculum was implemented. It really should have, because it could leave readers with the obviously mistaken impression that the implementation wasn't important.
This is a useful article regarding the research on a knowledge based curriculum. My view is that a knowledge based curriculum has to be focused around helping students better understand the world around them - key understandings in each subject area. These form the basis for learning and remembering knowledge and facts. For example framing learning about genetics as the "conflict between nature and nurture" helps give meaning to learning biology and makes learning interesting and important. The more we can focus content learning around key understandings, the more the learning becomes meaningful, interesting, and worth learning and remembering. I hope that Natalie Wexler will write more about this idea in the future.
Yes this reminds me of the UDL framework and planning for the enduring understandings of each unit. In my experiences, this is essential.
Thanks for this ! How we teach knowledge matters as well. In my early teaching days, I learned from Wiggins and McTighe’s Understanding by Design that enduring understandings help students make sense of what they learn. Knowledge isn’t just about collecting facts—it’s about developing insights that transfer across contexts.
For example, in a Social Studies unit on Rural, Suburban, and Urban Communities, an enduring understanding might be: Different places offer different resources and experiences. What makes a place "good" or "bad" depends on people’s individual needs, values, and circumstances. This helps students think critically about the world around them, not just recall definitions.
I have a Substack piece coming Monday that explores this idea further!
I'm a fan of the Bookworms curriculum—it's an evidence-based program that effectively integrates fluency, comprehension, and writing. But its success comes from a complex mix of strategies, including elements of MTSS, not just knowledge-building. That’s why I find it problematic to use the Bookworms study as evidence for knowledge-building. It could just as easily be called a 'fluency-focused curriculum' or an 'MTSS SoR curriculum,' so focusing only on its knowledge-building aspect seems like a false cause fallacy.
Also, the Reading League review didn’t find Bookworms to have particularly strong knowledge-building, and certainly not the transfer of knowledge that the Kim studies suggest improves comprehension. As the review states:
"Reviewers found that Bookworms’ practices for background knowledge are ‘somewhat met.’ As mentioned previously, Bookworms’ curriculum includes a variety of complex texts, including both narrative stories and knowledge-building expository texts. Additionally, the reviewers did not find evidence of leveled texts, and students who are automatic with the code are asked to engage with authentic, knowledge-building texts that feature varied genres and subject areas. One area of concern noted by reviewers is opportunities to bridge existing knowledge to new knowledge. Although Bookworms’ units are centered around a theme, the team was unable to identify evidence linking new units to previously discussed concepts and texts. The inability to establish connections among the various topics incorporated within the curriculum creates a missed opportunity for students to see the bigger picture and form meaningful connections between distinct ideas."
Who determines the sequence of the core knowledge or what core knowledge is taught in each grade level? Wouldn't it make sense to align the ELA core knowledge to the science and social studies content that already needs to be taught to help students develop a deeper understanding and to help teachers address the many standards that need to be covered in a short amount of time?
The developers of curricula determine the topics covered in each curriculum. Those topics will vary depending on the curriculum. The Core Knowledge Foundation and its curriculum developers, therefore, determined the topics in the various curricula it produces, as well as the Sequence.
I'm sure curriculum developers do try to align their content to state science and social studies standards, not only to help teachers, as you suggest, but also because states and districts are more likely to adopt curricula that align with the standards teachers are supposed to teach. But of course those standards vary from state to state. So there's a limit to how much alignment there can be in a curriculum that is intended to be used across the country.