There is a popular belief in the field of education these days that facts are unimportant and unnecessary to learning, as students can find all the information they need courtesy of Google. It is a reasonable sounding argument. After all, we are awash in an ever increasing sea of data. Why would any sensible teacher expect their students to know anything, when Google can supply any fact at the push of a button? Esteemed educator E.D. Hirsch has a different outlook on the importance of factual knowledge to learning.
(Book except from E.D. Hirsch, Commentary below by Peter Harvie)
“The argument used by educators to disparage ‘merely’ factual knowledge and to elevate abstract, formal principles of thought consists in the claim that knowledge is so rapidly changing that specific information is outmoded almost as soon as it is learned. This claim goes back at least as far as Kirkpatrick’s Foundations of Method (1925). It gains apparent plausibility from the observation that science and technology have advanced at a great rate in this century, making scientific and technological obsolescence a common feature of modern life. The argument assumes that there is an analogy between technological and intellectual obsolescence. Educators in this tradition shore up that analogy with the further claim that factual knowledge has become a futility because of the ever-growing quantity of new facts. The great cascade of information now flowing over the information highway makes it pointless to accumulate odd bits of data. How, after all, do you know which bits are going to endure? It is much more efficient for students to spend time acquiring techniques for organizing, analyzing, and accessing this perpetual Niagara of information.
Like the tool metaphor for education, the model of acquiring processing techniques that would be permanently useful – as contrasted with acquiring mere facts that are soon obsolete – would be highly attractive if it happened to be workable and true. But the picture of higher thinking skills as consisting of all-purpose processing and accessing techniques is not just a partly inadequate metaphor – it is a totally misleading model of the way higher-order thinking actually works. Higher thought does not apply formal techniques to looked-up data; rather, it deploys diverse relevant cues, estimates, and analyses from pre-existing knowledge. The method of applying formal techniques to looked-up data is precisely the inept and unreliable problem-solving device used by novices.” (Hirsch supports this and other claims with lots of evidence, examples, and references to studies.)
Reference: E.D. Hirsch, The schools we need and why we don’t have them. (1996, 1999), pp. 152-3.
We should not feel alone in this, however. A distinctly anti-intellectual, anti-content-based curriculum perspective has dominated most of North American education for almost a century. This “progressive” perspective has great appeal in that it superficially mirrors the progressive/liberal social and political beliefs of many educators. It appeals to our desires for equality and fairness. Besides, it just makes sense to us. It’s how we think the world of learning works – or at least how we think it should work. Unfortunately, this model of how we learn does not reflect reality and educational programs based on it do not work. It is firmly established in research and practical experience that students learn more and learn better with content-based curricula. It may not be the way we wish things were, but in the real world, possessing a broad base of factual knowledge is essential for critical thinking, reading, economic success, and pretty much every other measure of how well an education system is serving its students. Looking it up on the internet just doesn’t cut it. (Commentary by Peter Harvie, 2009)