If "knowing what" is referred to as propositional knowledge, "knowing how" can be called procedural knowledge. The former is equivalent to what discourse semiotics refers to as semantic knowledge, while the latter corresponds to what it defines as modal knowledge, which are constitutive of the cognitive competence of the subject.
2. "Knowing how to do" does not describe propositional knowledge, but it does entail procedural knowledge. In this sense, navigating the streets (a pragmatic type of doing) and solving equations (a cognitive type of doing) are not propositional knowledge in themselves. However, as a prerequisite for their execution, they presuppose both propositional and procedural knowledge within the cognitive competence.
3."Knowing how to do" does not describe the quality of an action or a coordinated set of actions, but rather a cognitive quality of the agent (subject of doing) of the action. This is precisely what discourse semiotics refers to as modal cognitive competence.
4. "Knowing how to do" is not synonymous with being able to do. According to discourse semiotics, the competence of the subject of doing is of two kinds: cognitive (modal/procedural and semantic/propositional) and possessive. A subject may possess cognitive competence but not possessive competence (or vice versa), which prevents them from actualizing and performing the action successfully, i.e., initiating the action and bringing it to a successful conclusion.
It is true that someone who knows how to perform a certain activity, which depends on their modal/procedural competence (knowing how to do), also has some propositional knowledge about it, which depends on their semantic/propositional competence (knowing about being and doing, or, if preferred, about the states and processes of the referred world). Therefore, it is not correct, as many specialists in competence assessment do, to define cognitive competence simply as knowing how to do, because not only the subject's procedural knowledge is evaluated, but also (and sometimes above all) their propositional knowledge.
It is true that procedural knowledge implies propositional knowledge, but propositional knowledge does not imply procedural knowledge. This means that semantic/propositional competence is presupposed by modal/procedural competence, but it does not presuppose it. This leads us to speak of a relationship of unilateral presupposition, rather than reciprocal presupposition, between the two types of cognitive competence.
It is not exactly knowing how to do that can be a way to verify knowledge, but rather the doing itself, which presupposes in the subject both procedural and propositional knowledge: the subject's cognitive competence (modal and semantic) can only be evaluated based on their cognitive performance. An examination (in a broad sense) is a cognitive doing (but not necessarily exclusively cognitive) that allows the examiner to infer the actual modal/procedural and semantic/propositional cognitive competence of the examinee and evaluate it by comparing it to an ideal cognitive competence modulated according to normative expectations.
From the above, it follows that there is a difference between examining and evaluating competences: in the former case, the cognitive competence of the examinee is described; in the latter case, it is compared to the cognitive competence that, according to the evaluator, the examinee should have. As Philippe Hamon says (Texte et idéologie. Paris: PUF, 1984), evaluation is a comparison (a relation) that an evaluating instance establishes between an evaluated process and a norm (evaluator, prohibitive or prescriptive program, both reference and endpoint of the evaluation).
The idea that there exists a tacit or silent dimension of knowledge has had a significant impact on contemporary discussion. Certain important aspects are "tacit" in nature. Similarly, it is not sufficient to teach students about root canal instrumentation by simply asking them to read a book or an article. It must be demonstrated. Often, knowledge is transmitted through the act of doing.
A substantial part of endodontic knowledge must be characterized as techne. It is not possible to learn everything about endodontics solely by studying a textbook. It will always be crucial to have a good clinical instructor, observe how other dentists work, perform the procedures oneself, and reflect on what has been learned.
PREV
