Reflection: Thinking Doesn't Have to Wait for Knowledge

I came across this Instagram post recently which challenged an assumption I didn't even realise I was making: that thinking needed to come after knowledge acquisition.

Read full article here: https://givespark.substack.com/p/thinking-doesnt-have-to-wait-for

---

TL;DR

• We often assume that students must first learn the facts before they can think deeply about an issue, but this creates a hidden barrier: students who already possess more background knowledge get to participate in rich thinking, while others are left trying to catch up.

• Instead, we can design learning experiences where students begin thinking immediately using information that is accessible to everyone. Knowledge is then introduced progressively, allowing students to refine and strengthen their thinking over time. This is not about removing knowledge from learning. It is about ensuring that students do not need extensive prior knowledge before they are allowed to think.

---

Reflection

As a Social Studies teacher, I often felt that it was somewhat bobian that some students would naturally perform better in discussions and inquiry tasks because they were more well-read, followed current affairs closely, or had greater exposure to issues beyond the classroom.

When students struggled with a question, my instinct was often to think: "They just don't have enough background knowledge yet."

This article made me realise that the knowledge demand of a question is itself a design choice, and perhaps the issue is not always that students lack knowledge, but that we have designed the task such that extensive prior knowledge is required before students can even participate.

This feels especially relevant to ongoing conversations about equity and inclusion in learning design. Students do not enter our classrooms with the same experiences, family backgrounds, reading habits, media exposure or cultural capital. Some students have been discussing current affairs at the dinner table since primary school, while others may have had little exposure to such conversations. The reality is that these differences will always exist, and the challenge for educators is not to eliminate these differences, but to design learning experiences such that everyone can participate meaningfully in the learning.

This made me rethink a Social Studies question I used to discuss with my students:

"Is it right to impose a burkini ban in France?"

In my mind, students first needed sufficient knowledge and context before they could engage meaningfully with the question. So the lesson would typically begin with the unpacking/recap of concepts and contextual knowledge such as:

• What is a burkini?

• What is France's immigration model?

• What is assimilation?

• How is assimilation different from integration?

• What were the circumstances surrounding the policy?

I wanted to ensure that students were aware of the relevant facts and competing perspectives before inviting them to discuss the issue and take a stand. As a result, the question itself had become gated behind a long list of prerequisites.

This led me to a different question: What is the essential question underneath all of this? Perhaps it is simply:

Should a government be allowed to tell people what they can or cannot wear?

or

When individual freedoms and national values come into conflict, which should take priority?

This reframing would allow every student, or at least most students, to participate meaningfully in the discussion. The knowledge then becomes something that helps students refine and reconsider their positions, rather than a prerequisite for having a position at all.

Importantly, this does not lower the cognitive demand of the task. Students are still being asked to weigh competing values, justify positions and make judgments. What changes is the knowledge demand. The thinking remains rigorous, but the entry point becomes more accessible.

---

Applying This to Activity Design

Using the same example above, a typical sequence may look something like this:

1. Explain what a burkini is.

2. Teach/recap French immigration policy.

3. Teach/recap assimilation (vs integration).

4. Share the context of terrorist attacks.

5. Finally ask: Is it right to impose a burkini ban in France?

Thinking is essentially postponed until after knowledge acquisition.

---

Alternative Design: Thinking First, Knowledge Building Later

Level 1: Universal Entry Point

If we ask:

Should a government be allowed to tell people what they can or cannot wear?

Are there situations where personal freedom should be limited?

If someone's clothing reflects their beliefs, should governments be allowed to regulate it?

• No prior knowledge required; every student can participate.

• The goal is not correctness, but to surface intuitions and values.

---

Level 2: Introduce the Burkini

Students learn: A burkini is a full-body swimsuit worn by some Muslim women.

Now ask:

Should someone be allowed to wear a burkini if they choose to?

Is banning a type of clothing different from requiring people to wear it?

• Students begin applying earlier principles to a concrete case.

---

Level 3: Introduce Competing Perspectives

Students encounter two competing claims when reading the background Information of the source-based case study:

Supporters

• The ban upholds French values.

• The ban protects secularism.

Critics

• The ban violates individual freedoms.

• The ban discriminates against Muslims.

Now ask:

Which argument do you find more convincing?

What values are in conflict here?

Can a policy promote one value while undermining another?

• Students move from personal opinions towards evaluating competing viewpoints.

---

Level 4: Introduce France's Context

Students learn about:

• Laïcité (French secularism)

• Assimilation

• Religious neutrality in public spaces

Now ask:

Does France's commitment to secularism make the ban more justifiable?

Should immigrants adapt to a country's values, or should countries accommodate cultural differences?

• Knowledge now deepens thinking.

---

Level 5: Extension

Finally, students step back from the specific case.

Ask:

Can governments promote national unity without limiting individual freedoms?

When two values conflict, how should societies decide which takes priority?

Is there ever a "correct" answer to such issues?

At this point, students are no longer discussing burkinis. Instead, they are wrestling with enduring questions about citizenship, rights, identity, diversity and governance.

---

What I also appreciate about this approach is that it shifts the purpose of the discussion. Rather than getting students to simply sift through sources and determine whether they support or oppose a particular position, students are first invited to form a view of their own.

The sources and contextual knowledge then serve to challenge, refine or strengthen that view, rather than information to be mechanically processed in order to arrive at a "correct" answer.

In that sense, the lesson becomes less about practising an examination technique and more about practising judgment. Students are asked not only, "What does this source say?" but also, "What do I think about this issue, and why?"

To me, this feels more aligned with the spirit of Social Studies. It is not just about preparing students for an examination, but about helping them learn how to form and justify their own perspectives on complex issues.

---

Takeaway

Knowledge matters, but it should not be a ticket that students must purchase before they are allowed into the conversation. We do not need to wait for students to know everything before asking them to think. We can invite them into the thinking first, and use knowledge to help them think better.