Exploring the Essence of Knowledge in Educational Research

What does it really mean to know something? For educators and researchers, this question is not just philosophical – it has direct consequences for how we teach, what we assess, and how we design learning experiences. Knowledge is the very foundation of education, yet it is far from a single, uniform thing. It comes in different forms, serves different purposes, and is acquired through different means. Understanding these distinctions is fundamental to anyone engaged in educational research or practice.

What is the nature of knowledge? 🔗

Epistemology – the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature, sources, and limits of knowledge – tells us that knowledge is not simply information sitting in the mind. For centuries, many philosophers have defined knowledge as justified true belief: a belief must be true, the person must hold it, and they must have sufficient reasons or evidence for holding it. This framework is especially relevant in education, where the question of what students genuinely know (versus what they’ve merely memorized) shapes assessment, curriculum design, and pedagogical choices.

In educational research specifically, research methods are themselves a form of epistemology – each method reflects and supports a particular claim about how knowledge is produced and validated. The way we choose to investigate a classroom problem, for example, reflects our assumptions about what knowledge is and where it comes from. This is why understanding the types of knowledge matters so deeply to educators and researchers alike.

Personal knowledge: subjective and experience-based 🔗

Personal knowledge is the knowledge each of us builds through direct experience. It is shaped by individual perceptions, emotions, cultural backgrounds, and prior encounters. The philosopher Michael Polanyi, who introduced the concept of tacit knowledge, captured this idea in the now-famous phrase that we can know more than we can tell. Personal knowledge is often called tacit because much of it cannot be fully articulated or transferred to others through written or spoken language.

Consider a teacher who has spent twenty years in a classroom. Their instinct about when a student is disengaged, or when a lesson is falling flat, is rooted in personal knowledge – experience-based, deeply contextual, and difficult to capture in any textbook. Tacit knowledge is intimate and circumstantial, shaped by direct interaction with specific people, places, and situations. This is precisely why it is hard to transfer: it requires face-to-face interaction, mentorship, and practice rather than instruction.

In educational research, personal knowledge is not dismissed – it is recognized as a legitimate and rich source of professional insight. However, its inherently subjective nature also means it cannot on its own serve as a basis for generalizable claims about education. That is where scientific knowledge enters.

Scientific knowledge: validated through research 🔗

Scientific knowledge is distinguished by the processes used to generate and verify it. Unlike personal knowledge, it is not derived from individual experience alone – it is produced through systematic inquiry, tested against evidence, and subject to peer scrutiny and revision. Scientific epistemology examines how knowledge is justified, acquired, and validated through methods such as controlled experimentation, observation, and logical reasoning.

In education, scientific knowledge forms the backbone of evidence-based practice. When researchers conduct a study on the effectiveness of a teaching strategy and submit their findings for peer review, they are contributing to the collective body of scientific knowledge in the field. Inappropriate or poorly followed research methods can undermine claims to have produced new knowledge, which is why rigor in methodology is non-negotiable in educational research. Scientific knowledge is not static, either – it evolves as new evidence challenges or refines what was previously accepted.

The contrast between personal and scientific knowledge is not a hierarchy where one is better than the other. Rather, they serve complementary roles. Personal knowledge offers depth, context, and nuance; scientific knowledge offers generalizability, reliability, and accountability.

Declarative knowledge: the “what” of learning 🔗

Declarative knowledge is the knowledge of facts – it is what we know about the world. Declarative knowledge is the knowing of this or that, such as understanding that photosynthesis converts carbon dioxide and sunlight into energy, or knowing that World War II ended in 1945. It is propositional in nature, meaning it can be expressed in statements and assessed through written tests, quizzes, or verbal explanations.

There are two main categories within declarative knowledge. Factual knowledge involves discrete bits of information – dates, definitions, formulas. Conceptual knowledge involves understanding categories, classifications, and the relationships between ideas, such as understanding what makes a government democratic rather than authoritarian.

Declarative knowledge plays a central role in human understanding of the world, underlying activities like labeling phenomena, describing them, explaining them, and communicating with others. However, its limitation is well-recognized in education: knowing a fact does not automatically mean a learner can use it. A student who memorizes the formula for calculating area is not guaranteed to apply it correctly to a real-world problem. That gap points directly to the next type of knowledge.

Functioning knowledge: putting facts to work 🔗

Functioning knowledge refers to the ability to actively apply declarative knowledge in meaningful contexts. It bridges the gap between knowing a fact and doing something productive with it. Knowing the steps of the scientific method is declarative knowledge; being able to design an experiment using those steps is functioning knowledge.

In educational research and curriculum design, functioning knowledge is essential. A curriculum that only fills students with facts – without creating opportunities to use those facts – produces learners who perform well on recall tests but struggle when faced with novel problems. Students may have processed information such that they can perform at the lower levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy – remembering and understanding – but not in ways to perform at higher levels such as applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating.

Functioning knowledge is closely tied to what educators call transfer: the ability to take what is learned in one context and apply it meaningfully in another. When students develop functioning knowledge, learning becomes generative rather than inert. This is a central goal of effective teaching.

Procedural knowledge: the “how” of competence 🔗

Procedural knowledge is the knowledge of how to do things. It is the knowing of the steps and strategies involved in how to do things – for example, the sequence of steps in solving a quadratic equation, or the process of conducting a literature review. It is often called “know-how” and is best demonstrated through action rather than words.

An important finding from research published in Education Sciences is that procedural knowledge and declarative knowledge are not separate silos – they develop iteratively. When teachers engage in practical activities designed to build procedural knowledge, their declarative understanding of the same subject can deepen as well. In other words, doing and knowing reinforce each other in a dynamic cycle.

Procedural knowledge is particularly significant in skills-based learning – whether that is writing, critical thinking, laboratory technique, or classroom management. It cannot be fully conveyed through explanation alone; it requires practice, feedback, and repetition. This is why hands-on learning experiences are indispensable in professional education, including teacher training.

Conditional knowledge: the “when and why” of expertise 🔗

Conditional knowledge is perhaps the most sophisticated of all. It is the knowledge of when and why to apply particular knowledge or skills. According to educational theorists like Anita Woolfolk, conditional knowledge is about knowing when and why to use declarative and procedural knowledge. Without it, a learner may possess facts and skills yet be unable to deploy them appropriately in varied real-world situations.

A clear example: a student who knows how to write a formal argument (procedural) and understands what persuasion means (declarative) but applies formal argumentative writing in a casual text message is lacking conditional knowledge. Conditional knowledge tells the student which register, strategy, or tool fits the specific situation at hand.

Higher levels of critical thinking require conditional knowledge, but often students have only practiced and developed declarative and procedural knowledge. This misalignment is a significant challenge in education – one that researchers and curriculum designers must actively address by building learning experiences that push students to think contextually and adaptively.

Research on metacognitive interventions in intelligent tutoring systems has demonstrated that bridging the gap between declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge measurably improves student learning performance. This underscores that conditional knowledge is not a bonus – it is a necessary destination in the learning journey.

How these knowledge types work together in education 🔗

In practice, these six types of knowledge – personal, scientific, declarative, functioning, procedural, and conditional – do not operate in isolation. Effective learning and effective teaching draw on all of them. A well-designed lesson might begin by activating declarative knowledge (what do students already know about this concept?), build through procedural practice (how do they perform this task?), reinforce functioning knowledge (can they apply this in a new context?), and ultimately develop conditional knowledge (do they know when and why to use this approach rather than another?).

Effective teachers often blend epistemological approaches rather than adhering rigidly to one theory – introducing a concept through explanation, verifying it through experimentation, and then encouraging students to construct their own understanding through discussion. This integrated approach respects the diversity of how people come to know things, and it ensures that learning is both deep and transferable.

For educational researchers, understanding these knowledge types also shapes how research questions are framed, how data is collected, and how findings are interpreted. Research that only measures declarative knowledge (through recall tests) will miss everything that happens at the levels of functioning, procedural, and conditional knowledge. Comprehensive assessment requires attention to all these dimensions.

What do you think? When you design a lesson or a learning experience, which type of knowledge do you spend the most time developing – and which might be getting less attention than it deserves? How might explicitly building conditional knowledge into everyday teaching change the way students engage with what they learn?

References

1. https://www.immerse.education/beyond-syllabus/philosophy/what-is-epistemology-definition-history-types-philosophers/
2. https://open.library.okstate.edu/gognresearchmethods/chapter/epistemology/
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge
4. https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-explicit-knowledge-and-tacit-knowledge.html
5. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-oneonta-education106/chapter/5-4-educational-psychology/
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarative_knowledge
7. https://teach.ucmerced.edu/content/part-i-understanding-different-types-knowledge-assess
8. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/11/10/598
9. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.11739
10. https://www.structural-learning.com/post/epistemology