Knowledge-Meaning, forms and ways of knowing


Dr. V.K.Maheshwari, M.A (Socio, Phil) B.Sc. M. Ed, Ph.D.

Former Principal, K.L.D.A.V. (P.G) College, Roorkee, India

“‘Knowledge’ is defined as what we know: knowledge involves the mental processes of comprehension, understanding and learning that go on in the mind and only in the mind, however much they involve interaction with the world outside the mind, and interaction with others.” (Wilson, 2002)

According to Wilson, knowledge can only be in the minds of people. Although not directly expressed, the definition includes the empiricist (“interaction with the world) and the rationalistic (“comprehension, understanding and learning”) viewpoint on the creation of knowledge. Adding to his knowledge definition, Wilson (2002) says that knowledge is bound to the thinking structures of each individual and when these wish to share it, they compose messages which are then decoded by another individual. However, “the knowledge built from the messages can never be exactly the same as the knowledge base from which the messages were uttered”.

In an organizational context, knowledge is the sum of what is known and resides in the intelligence and the competence of people. “Information in context” is knowledge. Context is thereby defined differently. Rationalists see it as the coherent whole and ultimately true body of knowledge while pragmatists see it as the usefulness in a particular situation. The concept of context can supply information with meaning but does not necessarily include either usefulness (pragmatist viewpoint) or absolute coherence with the total body (rationalist viewpoint).

Allee (1997 ) has the viewpoint that “we literally cannot know anything without a word to describe it” and therefore binds knowledge exclusively to information. Her view on knowledge is very limited as language is only one out of many information channels such as visuals, sounds or practical demonstration. A defeater of her definition would be the fact that it is still possible to transfer knowledge without the use of language and often necessary when two individuals don’t speak the same language. Since these definitions are based on understanding of experience, and the criteria of usefulness for social action, these definitions represent the pragmatist’s view of knowledge.

“Knowledge, while made up of data and information can be thought of as much greater understanding of a situation, relationships, causal phenomena and the theories and rules (both explicit and implicit) that underlie a given domain or problem”

“Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers. In organizations it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices and norms” (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).

“Knowledge is experience or information that can be communicated or shared” (Allee, 1997) is based on experience and information. However, to say that “knowledge is information that can be shared” is problematic since this leads to the question which information is not shareable. But as information consists out of data which is always shareable, the definition equals information and knowledge, neglecting the difference of these two concepts.

This definition concentrates on the definition of organizational knowledge which due to the authors does not only include experience and contextual information, expert insight  but also values. The element of truth and justification is missing, leaving out the criteria of validation of knowledge claims. The statement that knowledge can be embedded in documents and repositories shows that knowledge is seen as tangible which other academics would call information.

Knowledge is human faculty resulting from interpreted information; understanding that germinates from combination of data, information, experience, and individualinterpretation. Facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

Knowledge includes the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association ,it is the  acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique.  The fact or condition of being aware of something ,  the range of one’s information or understanding,   the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning :   It is  the sum of what is known :  the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind.

The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned: In an organizationalcontext, knowledge is:

acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study orinvestigation; general erudition:

  • familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch oflearning:
  • acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report:
  • the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear andcertain mental apprehension.
  • awareness, as of a fact or circumstance:
  • something that is or may be known; information:
  • the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.

Thus knowledge is the sum of what is known and resides in the intelligence and the competence of people

In Indian context,the words knowledge, buddhi, and consciousness are used synonymously. Four means of valid knowledge are admitted: perception, inference, comparison, and verbal testimony. Perception is defined as the knowledge that arises from the contact of the senses with the object, which is nonjudgmental, or unerring or judgmental. Inference is defined as the knowledge that is preceded by perception (of the mark) and classified into three kinds: that from the perception of a cause to its effect; that from perception of the effect to its cause; and that in which knowledge of one thing is derived from the perception of another with which it is commonly seen together. Comparison is defined as the knowledge of a thing through its similarity to another thing previously well-known.

Areas of Knowledge

There are subject areas or disciplines into which knowledge is frequently classified. They may be seen as an application of Ways of Knowing, perhaps shaped by methodology, to particular subject matter.

There are eight different Areas of Knowledge




Human Sciences

Natural Sciences




Art- Art is the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture.  The product of such a process; paintings, drawings, and sculpture collectively. It has various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, and drama. Art includes subjects of study primarily concerned with human culture (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects).

Ethics-The branch of knowledge concerned with moral principles. The moral principles governing or influencing conduct. Ethics or moral philosophy is the branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. In practice, ethics seeks to resolve questions of human morality, by defining concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime..

The three major areas of study within ethics are:

1.         Meta-ethics, concerning the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions, and how their truth values (if any) can be determined

2.         Normative ethics, concerning the practical means of determining a moral course of action

3.         Applied ethics, concerning what a person is obligated (or permitted) to do in a specific situation or a particular domain of action

History -The branch of knowledge dealing with past events. A continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle .History a continuous record of past events or trends. It is the study of past events. Here the past considered as a whole. It believe that the past events connected with someone or something.

Human Sciences- Human science is the study and interpretation of the experiences, activities, constructs, and artifacts associated with human beings. The study of the human sciences attempts to expand and enlighten the human being’s knowledge of their existence, its interrelationship with other species and systems, and the development of artifacts to perpetuate the human expression and thought. It is the study of human phenomena .Human science is the objective, informed critique of human existence and how it relates to reality.  The human sciences corresponds to humanities and social sciences, but also includes aspects of psychology and even mathematics, as one of the key things we are concerned with is how we gather information in our study of human behaviour.

Natural Sciences- Natural science is a branch of science concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on observational and empirical evidence. Validity, accuracy, and social mechanisms ensuring quality control, such as peer review and repeatability of findings, are amongst the criteria and methods used for this purpose.

Natural science can be broken into two main branches: life science (or biological science) and physical science. Physical science is further broken down into branches, including physics, astronomy, chemistry, and Earth science. All of these branches of natural science are divided into many further specialized branches (also known as fields), and each of these is known as a “natural science”

Mathematics - The branch of science concerned with number, quantity, and space, either as abstract ideas (pure mathematics) or as applied to physics, engineering, and other subjects (applied mathematics). Mathematics is the science that deals with the logic of shape, quantity and arrangement. Math is all around us, in everything we do. It is the building block for everything in our daily lives, including mobile devices, architecture (ancient and modern), art, money, engineering, and even sports.

Indigenous- Originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.

Religion-A particular system of faith and worship, the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods, a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.

Areas of Knowledge in Indian context

The term ‘Jnana’( gyaan ) mean the same as education in its wide sense in Indian philosophy. In Indian philosophies, the term ‘Jnana’ is not used for only information or facts, though in the west, this sense is quite prevalent. In the Amarkosha, the terms ‘Jnana’ and ‘Vijnana’ (Vigyaan) have been distinguished saying that is related with emancipation while ‘Vijnana’ is reated with crafts. In other words,Jjnana or knowledge is that which develops man and illuminates his path to emancipation, while whatever is leant and known in practical life is called Vijnana or science.

The Indian concept of education can be understood from the prescribed list of subject on the concept of reality.

Vidya and Avidya

The terms Vidya and Avidya represent opposites. Vidya refers to knowledge ,learning, and to the different sciences – ancient and modern. So Avidya would mean the opposite – ignorance, absence of learning, and illiteracy

The Mundakopanised says :

Tasmai sa uvacha ha –dve vidye veditavye eti hasma yad brahmavido vadanti, para chaivapara cha

“…..There are two kinds of knowledge worthy to be known, namely, the higher(para) and the lower (Apara).”

The lines which follow the above quotation explains that the lower knowledge consists of the Vedas, phonetics, grammar, astronomy etc. and the higher knowledge is that by which the imperishable is known

The Sanskrit words Vidya is a shortened of forms of Para Vidya. The root Vid means to know. Para Vidya is knowledge of the Absoute or spiritual knowledge.


Apara Vidya or it shortened from Avidya is knowledge of any sector or worldly knowledge in the wider sense.

Etymologically avidya is the antithesis of knowledge, ie., the absence of knowledge. But the word is not used in the negative concept. All knowledge or Apara Vidya which envelopes the phenomenal world is turned Avidya.

Isa – Upanishad explains the idea in the following verse:

Vidyam Cha avidyam cha

Bah tad veda upayam saha

Avidyaya mrutyum tirtva


It is through Avidya that one crosses the great stream of death which through Vidya one attains immortality.

Adi Shankara on avidya says in his Introduction to his commentary on the Brahma Sutras, “Owing to an absence of discrimination, there continues a natural human behaviour in the form of ‘I am this’ or ‘This is mine’; this is avidya. It is a superimposition of the attributes of one thing on another. The ascertainment of the nature of the real entity by separating the superimposed thing from it is Vidya (knowledge, illumination)”. In Shankara’s philosophy Avidya cannot be categorized either as ‘absolutely existent’ or as ‘absolutely non-existent’.

In the Mundaka Upanishad, a student reverentially questions a Rishi about Truth: ‘Revered Sir, what is that by knowing which everything (in this universe) becomes known?’ (2) The Rishi begins his reply by classifying knowledge or Vidya into two categories: Para(higher) and Apara (lower). Apara Vidya refers to the four Vedas and the six accessories of Vedic knowledge (the vedaigas): phonetics, the ritual code, grammar, etymology, prosody, and astrology. The compass is clearly very wide: the process of creation, the nature of gods and goddesses and their relation to creation, the nature of the soul and of God, the rituals that procure worldly and heavenly enjoyments, and the way of release from the series of birth and death; in short, religious or scriptural knowledge and the ways of living prescribed by different religions are all subsumed under Apara Vidya. Para vidya, the Rishi informs his student, is that ‘by which the immutable Brahman (akshara) is attained’. This Brahman is imperceptible, eternal, omnipresent, imperishable, and the source of all beings. Scriptural study is Apara Vidya, secondary knowledge. To know Brahman (or God) directly and in a non-mediate fashion is the primary aim of life, and is therefore termed Para Vidya.  If the scriptures tell us about life, then what about the other sciences – physical science and technology, and the social and political sciences? They do play a very valuable role in our lives, and are classed as Apara Vidya. But they are secular sciences. What do we get through secular knowledge? Wealth, power, luxury, and pleasure, but not the bliss that results from spiritual knowledge. The Apara Vidya that comprises scriptural knowledge helps us know that this world is not the only world, that there are other divine worlds accessible to human beings. The keeping of religious injunctions and performance of scriptural activities are prescribed as means for attaining enjoyment in these higher divine worlds. But these gains are transient and ephemeral. However, if the obligatory duties prescribed by one’s faith are performed with the aim of cultivating love of God and love of people of all faiths, the performer gets his or her mind and heart purified, and can attain the realization of that immutable Brahman which secures eternal bliss.

The Upanishads remind people with dogmatic and fanatic tendencies that scriptural injunctions also lie in the domain of ‘lower knowledge’. The Mundaka Upanishadsays that people devoted to mere scriptural ritualism are ‘deluded fools’: ‘dwelling in darkness, but wise in their own conceit and puffed up with vain scholarship, [they] wander about, being afflicted by many ills, like blind men led by the blind’. They think of their way as the best and delude themselves into believing that they have attained fulfilment, and so continue to suffer the ills of life .

How does one overcome Avidya Through Vidya, for ‘through the help of Vidya one cultivates such virtues as the taste for holy company, knowledge, devotion, love, and renunciation.’ Sri Ramakrishna  explicates the nature of Avidya: ‘Avidya consists of the five elements and the objects of the five senses – form, flavour, smell, touch, and sound. These make one forget God’

So Avidya is nothing but human ignorance about God’s nature, by which one is perpetually deluded into doing the rounds of Samsara, the cycle of transmigration. This Avidya again is nothing but misidentification of real knowledge, which is one’s real nature. Therefore, religious scriptures ask humans to purify their heart, mind, intellect, and ego. Real human nature is pure and divine; each soul is potentially divine. Maya personifies our illusory perception. This phenomenal world is the longest dream come out of cosmic mind, of which the individual is a part.

‘According to the Advaita philosophy,’ says Swami Vivekananda, ‘there is only one thing real in the universe, which it calls Brahman; everything else is unreal, manifested and manufactured out of Brahman by the power of Maya. To reach back to that Brahman is our goal. We are, each one of us, that Brahman, that Reality, plus this Maya. If we can get rid of this Maya or ignorance, then we become what we really are.’  While lecturing on ‘The Real Nature of Man’ Swamiji dwelt upon the nature of ignorance, Avidya:

Ignorance is the great mother of all misery, and the fundamental ignorance is to think that the Infinite weeps and cries, that He is finite. This is the basis of all ignorance that we, the immortal, the ever pure, the perfect Spirit, think that we are little minds, that we are little bodies; it is the mother of all selfishness. As soon as I think that I am a little body, I want to preserve it, to protect it, to keep it nice, at the expense of other bodies; then you and I become separate. As soon as this idea of separation comes, it opens the door to all mischief and leads to all misery . Swamiji also makes a distinction between objective knowledge that is in the domain of avidya, and para vidya, which is our very Self: ‘Knowledge is a limitation, knowledge is objectifying. He [the Atman, the Self] is the eternal subject of everything, the eternal witness in this universe, your own Self. Knowledge is, as it were, a lower step, a degeneration. We are that eternal subject already; how can we know it? It is the real nature of every man’ .

Types of knowledge

There is so much disagreement over what are, exactly, the different types of knowledge that an agreed upon “master list” simply does not exist.

Here is a master list of the different types of knowledge and theories of knowledge that are out there

1. A Priori

A priori literally means “from before” or “from earlier.” This is because a priori knowledge depends upon what a person can derive from the world without needing to experience it. This is better known as reasoning.

2. A Posteriori

A posteriori literally means “from what comes later” or “from what comes after.” This is a reference to experience and using a different kind of reasoning (inductive) to gain knowledge. This kind of knowledge is gained by first having an experience  and then using logic and reflection to derive understanding from it. In philosophy, this term is sometimes used interchangeably with empirical knowledge, which is knowledge based on observation.

3. Explicit Knowledge

Explicit knowledge is similar to a priori knowledge in that it is more formal or perhaps more reliable. Explicit knowledge is knowledge that is recorded and communicated through mediums. The defining feature of explicit knowledge is that it can be easily and quickly transmitted from one individual to another.

4. Tacit Knowledge

Whereas explicit knowledge is very easy to communicate and transfer from one individual to another, tacit knowledge is precisely the opposite. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to communicate tacit knowledge through any medium.

The biggest difficult of tacit knowledge is knowing when it is useful and figuring out how to make it usable. Tacit knowledge can only be communicated through consistent and extensive relationships or contact.

5. Propositional Knowledge (also Descriptive or Declarative Knowledge)

Propositional and non-propositional knowledge,  share similarities with some of the other theories already discussed. Propositional knowledge has the oddest definition yet, as it is commonly held that it is knowledge that can literally be expressed in propositions; that is, in declarative sentences  or indicative propositions.The key attribute is knowing that something is true.

6. Non-Propositional Knowledge (also Procedural Knowledge)

Non-propositional knowledge (which is better known as procedural knowledge, is knowledge that can be used; it can be applied to something, such as a problem. Procedural knowledge differs from propositional knowledge in that it is acquired “by doing”; propositional knowledge is acquired by more conservative forms of learning.

Ways of knowing

Philosophers have identified these four ways of knowing: Sense Perception, Language, Emotion/intuition and Logics/Reason.

Sense Perception: You know certain things because you can see and perceive them yourself. Empiricists consider sense perception so important that they will say that all knowledge comes from the senses.

Language/Authority: You know certain things because someone (an authority who knows more than you) told you personally or you read it somewhere. A person who had more knowledge than you passed on his/her knowledge with the help of language.

Emotion/intuition: You know certain things because you feel them emotionally. You know that certain things are ethically not right. Some decisions in your life are so complicated that you have to rely on your intuition.

Logics/Reason: You know certain things because you can apply logics and reasoning Rationalist consider reason and logics so important, that they say that all sources of our knowledge comes from our ability to use reasoning.

Five ways of knowing

The two inter-related concepts, knowing and knowledge, are defined the concept of knowing is about perceiving and understanding ourselves within our environment; whereas,knowledge is about being able to communicate the knowing (this is making it public). Bothconcepts are inter-related. Multiple ways of knowing contribute to the knowledge ofteachers. There are five ways of knowing. the first four from Carper (1978) and the fifth from Chin and Kramer (2008).

1. Empirical – . It is about what we can experience through our physical senses: hearing, seeing, touching. It is about seeking the truth; it draws on traditional science and is expressed as scientific knowledge. It is conscious reasoning and problem solving, predicting, explaining and describing to develop formal theories and descriptions or use them to substantiate actions. This is about laws, theories and explanations that are generalizable and allow prediction; it is consistent  and verifiable. These are educational theories .

2. Ethical – Ethics is the moral knowledge. It is about how teachers act or conduct themselves in their roles. It requires experiential and empirical knowledge of social norms and values as well as ethical reasoning. The goal is to know your responsibility and know right from wrong. It is being able to solve a conflict of values, principles or norms. Other sources of ethical knowing may be different philosophical positions including duty and social justice. These are all based on the premise that teaching is a service, is available to everyone, and in some countries considered a right. It goes beyond the code and considers all actions that are deliberate and involve a decision of right and wrong. In different philosophical positions designed to deal with moral judgment and notion of service.

3. Personal – It is about having an authentic relationship with the learner and the knowledge where the student and teacher are seen as open systems that interact and move toward what Maslow calls self actualization or growth of human potential . It is based on the assumption that when we engage or interact with students, we bring our personal biases; in contrast to empirics, where the teacher is objective. It is about recognizing that individuals are not objects and fixed entities but continue to develop so both students and teachers develop through all interactions .

4. Aesthetic – Aesthetic knowing recognizes the practical skills that are required to be an educator. When considering possibilities and outcomes, they draw from their previous experiences and not necessarily empirical framework.  In contrast to empirical knowing,in aesthetics, educators draw on what has worked in the past, but do not respond toa similar situation in exactly the same way. It may involve intuition. It is the art of teaching that leads to transformation and creativity and new knowledge in a very particular context, that is an open system. This is done by experienced educators, and excellent educators do this automatically even if they are not conscious of the process.

5. Emancipatory – Emancipatory knowing is knowing that critically examines the context or the environment in which the teaching and learning experience occurs. It is about understanding the  social barriers to education. It requires teachers to have capacity to recognize hegemony and the changes that are required to ‘right the wrongs’ that exist. Emancipator y knowing is developed through action in and on reflection or praxis.

The five ways of knowing are all inter-related and overlapping. All these ways of knowing are necessary in understanding the role of the teacher.

Modes of Knowledge:

Abstract and concrete

Abstract terms refer to ideas or concepts; they have no physical referents, while Concrete terms refer to objects or events that are available to the senses. The terms concrete and abstract are also used to suggest how practical or impractical an idea might be. In this sense, concrete ideas are those that have relevance to action

Abstract and concrete are classifications that denote whether a term describes an object with a physical referent or one with no physical referents.  . An abstract object is an objectwhich does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing.

Abstract knowledge is about things that is removed from the facts of the “here and now”, and from specific examples of the things or concepts being thought about. Abstract thinkers are able to reflect on events and ideas, and on attributes and relationships separate from the objects that have those attributes or share those relationships

People always think differently. Some may think in concrete terms and some in abstract terms. Concrete thinking refers to the thinking on the surface whereas abstract thinking is related to thinking in depth.

Concrete knowledge does not have any depth. It just refers to thinking in the periphery. On the other hand, abstract knowledge goes under the surface. Concrete knowledge is just regarding the facts. On the other hand abstract knowledge goes down below the facts. While some mental process is involved in abstract knowledge, no such effort is evolved in concrete knowledge. A person with concrete knowledge does not think beyond the facts. They do not have the ability to think beyond a certain limit. Concrete knowledge only have a generalized concept for all things. On the other hand, abstract knowledge have a very specific concept of things.

When compared to concrete knowledge, abstract knowledge is about understanding the multiple meanings.

When abstract knowledge is based on ideas, concrete thinking is based on seeing and also on facts. Abstract knowledge may be referred to the figurative description whereas concrete knowledge does not think so.

Abstract and concrete are classifications that denote whether a term describes an object with a physical referent or one with no physical referents. An abstract objectis an objectwhich does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing, i.e., an idea, or abstraction.

Concrete words are nouns; they describe things you experience through your senses: smoke, mist, a shout. Abstract words name qualities: beauty, justice, truth. Concrete words help us describe things; abstract words help us classify them.

A word or phrase is concrete if:

  1. It is specific, particular, real and tangible
  2. It is characterized by or belonging to immediate experience of actual things or events
  3. It provides specific meaning.

A word or phrase is abstract if:

  1. It is insufficiently factual
  2. It has only intrinsic form
  3. There is little or no attempt at written pictorial representation or narrative content
  4. It is unclear, indefinite, imprecise, indistinct, slight, hazy, vacant or obscure
  5. The words or phrases do not provide specific meaning

Theory vs. Practical

When it comes to knowledge there are different kinds of knowledge and different ways of acquiring each kind. On one side is theory and on the other side is the practical application of theory. Both types of knowledge are important and both make you better at whatever you do.

Theoretical knowledge — teaches the why. Theoretical knowledge can often lead to a deeper understand of a concept through seeing it in context of a greater whole and understanding the why behind it..

It helps in understanding why one technique works where another fails. It shows  the whole , builds the context, and helps in  setting strategy. Where self education is concerned theory prepares  to set a direction for  future education. Theory teaches  through the experience of others.

Practical knowledge — Practical knowledge can often lead to a deeper understanding of a concept through the act of doing and personal experience. It helps in acquiring the specific techniques that become the tools of  trade. It sits much closer to  actual day-to-day work. There are some things that can only be learned through doing and experiencing. Where theory is often taught in the ideal of a vacuum, the practical is learned through the reality of life.

Both of the above are important. One won’t survive in any career unless he bring results and to do that one need practical knowledge. There’s no avoiding it.

A distinction is usually made between practical and practicable. Practical refers to a person, idea, project, etc., as being more concerned with or relevant to practice than theory: he is a very practical person; the idea had no practical application. Practicable refers to a project or idea as being capable of being done or put into effect: the plan was expensive, yet practicable

At the same time learning how to solve a specific problem only teaches you how to solve that same problem again. Practice can only take you so far. Theory helps you apply what you learned solving one problem to different problems.

But if theoretical and practical knowledge cannot be adequately differentiated on the basis of the character of their goals, the source of movement (change) in their subject matter, or the exactness/inexactness of their subject matter . There are no major epidemiological differences between the types of knowledge..

Thus, although pointing only to the differences in the goals of practical and theoretical disciplines may not by itself help in identifying in what way the character of practical knowledge differs from that of theoretical, the implications the goals have may do so. One difference, then, between practical and theoretical disciplines is this: While the latter kind of disciplines can be solely constituted by general or abstract accounts, those of the former kind must, in virtue of their goals, also include particular, specific, or detailed accounts.

Universal knowledge and Local knowledge

Universal knowledge is  versed in or embracing many or all skills, branches of learning, etc. adapted or adjustable to meet varied requirements universal  Universal knowledge is affecting, concerning, or involving all and used or understood by all.

Universal knowledge is relating to, or characteristic of all or the whole, affecting, concerning, or involving all and used or understood by all: Universal knowledge is present and   applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: of, affecting, or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases. Universal knowledge is   related to the universe, all nature, or all existing things:

It is something  may be applied throughout the universe to many things, usually thought of as an entity that can be in many places at the same time. Universal knowledge is  a trait, characteristic, or property, as distinguished from a particular individual or event, that can be possessed in common.

Universal Knowledge is simply a collection of frequencies, just like any other, that you can learn to access. You can ask questions and you can absolutely receive answers.Universal knowledge is that which is known to be true everywhere in the Universe and all of the time.  Physics and math are the two primary fields of study related to this type of knowledge.  It doesn’t matter where you are or what your situation you can rely on mathematics to remain stable.  Equalities will always be equal.  All of the functions of mathematics remain constant all the time. that can be used for a great many or all kinds, forms, sizes, etc, intended to be used, or understood by all.

Universal knowledge is   related to the universe, all nature, or all existing things: It is experienced by everyone : existing or available for everyone existing or true at all times or in all places including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception;   existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions ,  embracing a major part or the greatest ,  comprehensively broad and versatile,   affirming or denying something of all members of a class or of all values of a variable,  denoting every member of a class .

Local knowledge, contrary to Universal knowledge local knowledge Is not  versed in or embracing many or all skills, branches of learning, etc.It is not adapted or adjustable to meet varied requirements universal  local knowledge is not affecting, concerning, or involving all and   is not used or understood by all. Local knowledge  is not relating to, or not characteristic of all or the whole, affecting, concerning, or involving all and  is not used or understood by all: local knowledge is not present and   applicable everywhere or . It is not affecting, or done by all people or things in the world an inapplicable in a particular group. Like  Universal knowledge it  is not   related to the universe, all nature, or all existing things: It is not something  which may be applied throughout the universe.

Local knowledge is not  experienced by everyone , existing or available for everyone existing or true at all times or in all places without limit or exception. Local knowledge is not   existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions.

School-knowledge and Non School-knowledge

School-knowledge describes the learning of academic facts and concepts through a formal curriculum. School knowledge includes  learning activities that are voluntary and self-directed, life-long, and motivated mainly by intrinsic interests, curiosity, exploration, manipulation, fantasy, task completion, and social interaction.

School knowledge is  organized knowledge guided by a formal curriculum, leads to a formally recognized credential such as a high school completion diploma or a degree, and is often guided and corresponds to a systematic, organized education model, structured and administered according to a given set of laws and norms, presenting a rather rigid curriculum as regards objectives, content and methodology.

School knowledge includes a   hierarchically structured, chronologically graded ‘education system’, running from primary school through the university and including, in addition to general academic studies, a variety of specialized programmes and institutions for full-time technical and professional training.

Out-of-school-knowledge includes those that operate before and after school, on weekends and holidays. Knowledge that are intended to  help develop and nurture their talents, improve their academic performance and provide opportunities for them to form bonds with adults and older youth who are positive role models. This knowledge include a wide array of models and approaches. Some are focused exclusively on boosting academic achievement through special courses, tutoring and homework help. Others are specifically focused on providing cultural enrichment in the visual, performing and culinary arts; recreational activities and athletics; or leadership training and community service. . It corresponds to the education process normally adopted by our schools and universities. .   Out-of-school setting and can be linear or non-linear and often is self-paced and visual- or object-oriented.  It provides an experiential base and motivation for further activity and learning.  The outcomes of  out-of-school-knowledge learning experiences in science, mathematics, and technology include a sense of fun and wonder in addition to a better understanding of concepts, topics, processes of thinking in scientific and technical disciplines, and an increased knowledge about career opportunities in these fields

Acquiring out of school knowledge is truly lifelong process whereby every individual acquires attitudes, values, skills and knowledge from daily experience and the educative influences and resources in his or her environment – from family and neighbours, from work and play, from the market place, the library and the mass media.

Out-of-school-knowledge  describes learning about cultural values, norms, and expected behaviors by participating in a society. This type of learning occurs both through the formal education system and at home. Our earliest learning experiences generally happen via parents, relatives, and others in our community.

Contextualized knowledge and Textual knowledge

Contextualized knowledge is a proven concept that incorporates the most recent research in cognitive science. It is also a reaction to the essentially behaviorist theories that have dominated American education for many decades. The contextual approach recognizes that learning is a complex and multifaceted process that goes far beyond drill-oriented, stimulus-and-response methodologies.

According to contextual learning theory, learning occurs only when students process new information or knowledge in such a way that it makes sense to them in their own frames of reference (their own inner worlds of memory, experience, and response). The mind naturally seeks meaning in context by searching for relationships that make sense and appear useful.

Building upon this understanding, contextual knowledge focuses on the multiple aspects of any learning environment, whether a classroom, a laboratory, a computer lab, or a worksite. It encourages educators to choose and/or design learning environments that incorporate many different forms of experience in working toward the desired learning outcomes. In such an environment, students discover meaningful relationships between abstract ideas and practical applications in the context of the real world; concepts are internalized through the process of discovering, reinforcing, and relating.

The term context to refer to an immediate linguistic environment (rarely detached or isolated) in which a particular word occurs. Since it is not always explicit, it may be hidden within the neighboring members of a word used in a piece of text. Taking these factors into consideration, Miller and Leacock (2000) have classified context into two types: (a) local context, and (b) topical context., the. According to these scholars, reference to the two contexts is more of less sufficient in understanding the actual contextual meaning of the knowledge  used in a text.

Dash (2005) classify contexual knowledge  into four broad types (): (a) Local Context, (b) Sentential Context, (c) Topical Context, and (d) Global Context

Local Context- The local context refers to the immediate environment of the KW in a sentence where it has occurred, encompassing its immediately preceding and succeeding words. While the local context refers to one or two words immediately before and after the key word (KW) under investigation.

Sentential Context- The sentential context refers to a sentence where the KW has occurred. It supplies syntactic information to know if the KW has any explicit or implicit syntactic relation with the other words used in the sentence.

Topical Context- The topical context refers to the topic of discussion and focuses on the content of a piece of text. Topical context refers to the topic of the text where the KW has been used Quite often, it is found that the actual meaning of the KW depends heavily on the topic which has a strong role to alter etymological meaning of the knowledge.

Global context- The global context deals with a huge chunk of information available from the external world, that supplies vital cues of place, time, situation, interpretation, pragmatics, discourse, demography, geography, society, culture, ethnology, and various other things . Since the global context builds up a cognitive interface between language  and reality, we often refer to it to understand: who says, what is said, to whom it is said, when it is said, where it is said, why it is said, and how it is said. Thus, the global context becomes a valuable source of information for meaning disambiguation of words, and it helps us to understand if the knowledge has any meaning variation, and if so, what it .

Textual knowledge, comes from the Latin word textualis, the adjective form oftextus, (“text”).  it is always related to some written material or relating to or based on a textor  This word is most commonly used in the study of religion, literature, philosophy, or the law — any field requiring the careful examination of various texts.Definitions oftextual

Anything textual has to do with writing. A textual analysis, comparison, or interpretation, has something to do with what is in a particular piece of writing (or text). A word, when used in a piece of text, usually denotes only one meaning out of multiple meanings it inherently carries. Although it is still unknown to us how does it happen, the general observation is that it is the context that determines which meaning of the word should be considered. This observation, as a logical consequence, leads us to identify the context responsible for meaning variation of a word.



This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.