Distinguishing Factual and Conceptual Knowledge in Academic English Teaching: Implications for Learning and Self-Study
Roč.16,č.1(2026)
In higher education language teaching, students work with qualitatively different types of knowledge that place distinct demands on learning, yet these differences are rarely made explicit in instruction. As a result, learners often apply uniform learning strategies across knowledge types, leading to ineffective processing of content – for example, attempting to memorise what requires understanding or overanalysing forms that need to be readily recalled. This misalignment between knowledge type and learning strategy can limit both learning efficiency and the development of usable language skills, particularly in Academic English and English for Specific Purposes (ESP) contexts, where learners must integrate accurate linguistic retrieval with conceptually informed communication. This paper presents a classroom-informed pedagogical approach that explicitly distinguishes between factual and conceptual knowledge and examines its implications for classroom learning and student self-study. It is based on the premise that factual knowledge benefits from accurate recall and retrieval, while conceptual knowledge requires understanding relationships and context-sensitive use. Making this distinction visible in instruction supports more appropriate engagement with content. The article demonstrates how this distinction can be operationalised through targeted task design, differentiated instructional techniques, and explicit modelling of learning strategies. It provides concrete examples of how teachers can guide students in recognising what needs to be remembered, what needs to be understood, and how to approach each effectively in independent study. The paper outlines practical implications for teaching, particularly in relation to task design, instructional clarity, and the development of more effective learning habits. By aligning teaching approaches with the nature of the knowledge being learned, this approach supports the development of usable language skills and contributes to greater learner autonomy.
academic english; conceptual knowledge; factual knowledge; instructional design; learning strategies; self-regulated learning
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university (4th ed.). Open University Press.
Cassidy, S. (2011). Self-regulated learning in higher education: Identifying key component processes. Studies in Higher Education, 36(8), 989–1000. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.503269
Chamot, A. U. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: Current issues and research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 112–130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000061
Entwistle, N., & McCune, V. (2004). The conceptual bases of study strategy inventories. Educational Psychology Review, 16(4), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0003-0
Gönen, S. İ. K., & Kızılay, E. (2022). Critical reading in higher education: A review of research and practice. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(1), 1–15.
Hyland, K. (2006). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource book. Routledge.
Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772–775. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327
Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Schneider, M. (2015). Developing conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics. In R. Cohen Kadosh & A. Dowker (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of numerical cognition (pp. 1118–1134). Oxford University Press.
Sinkkonen, H.-M., & Tapani, A. (2024). Supporting self-regulated learning in higher education: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 14(2), 123. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14020123
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. Springer.
Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-006-6893-0
Weil, L. G., Fleming, S. M., Dumontheil, I., Kilford, E. J., Weil, R. S., Rees, G., Dolan, R. J., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2013). The development of metacognitive ability in adolescence. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(1), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.01.004
Wingate, U. (2012). Using academic literacies and genre-based models for academic writing instruction: A “literacy” journey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.006
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Copyright © 2026 Ivana Juríková