Sequencing knowledge within a science curriculum

Written by:
7 min read
Adam Stubbs, Teacher of Science and Maths; Evidence Leader in Education, Park View School, UK Designing a curriculum forces decisions to be made about the importance and value of different ideas while structuring their progression over time. As subject experts, teachers are well placed to plan, structure and sequence the curriculum. However, the subject expertise necessary to design a curriculum can cause teachers to succumb to the curse of knowledge, whereby their thought processes are biased by virtue of their expertise. The way in which a teacher conceptualises, sequences and processes knowledge differs from that of a novice learner, which influences how they identify, conceptualise and sequence ideas (Birch et al., 2017). This causes teachers to recognise patterns and ideas to which students are unable because they don’t have such a well-developed schema. As teachers conceptualise subjects differently to students, their innate ideas about sequencing topics are likely to be bia

Join us or sign in now to view the rest of this page

You're viewing this site as a guest, which only allows you to view a limited amount of content.

To view this page and get access to all our resources, join the Chartered College of Teaching (it's free for trainee teachers and half price for ECTs) or log in if you're already a member.

    • Ashbee R (2021) Core and hinterland. In: Curriculum: Theory, Culture and the Subject Specialisms. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 50–51.
    • Birch S, Brosseau-Liard P, Haddock T et al. (2017) A ‘curse of knowledge’ in the absence of knowledge? People misattribute fluency when judging how common knowledge is among their peers. Cognition 166: 447–458.
    • Counsell C (2018) Taking curriculum seriously. Impact 4.
    • De Bock D, Deprez J, Van Dooren W et al. (2011) Abstract or concrete examples in learning mathematics? A replication and elaboration of Kaminski, Sloutsky, and Heckler's Study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 42(2): 109–126.
    • Gluckman M, Vlach H and Sandhofer CM (2014) Spacing simultaneously promotes multiple forms of learning in children's science curriculum. Applied Cognitive Psychology 28(2): 266–273.
    • Harp SF and Mayer RE (1998) How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 90(3): 414–434.
    • Kaiser N (2021) EEF Blog: Supporting curriculum planning in science. Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/news/eef-blog-supporting-curriculum-planning-in-science (accessed 10 September 2021).
    • Kirschner PA (2009) Epistemology or pedagogy, that is the question. In: Tobias S and Duffy TM (eds) Constructivist Instruction: Success of Failure. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 144–157.
    • Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Clark RE (2016) Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching. Educational Psychologist 41(2): 75-86.
    • Maton K (2013) Making semantic waves: A key to cumulative knowledge-building. Linguistics and Education 24(1): 8–22.
    0 0 votes
    Please Rate this content
    0 Comments
    Oldest
    Newest Most Voted
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments

    From this issue

    Impact Articles on the same themes