Information is your understanding about major and software to use for designing, you get them from books and lectures of professors. But knowledge is your experience which is obtain when you start to act. you must learn that knowledge from your experience. That information and knowledge are tacit knowledge which is very hard to transfer to others.

For example, driving signs in the book are Data, when you learn the meaning of them and how and when must used data will change to information (driving license).

When you drive a car, that mean you get knowledge from your own experience.

Finally, if you get good knowledge, how to drive in stormy weather, you obtain wisdom.

This is the summary of the link below:

"1. Information is processed data whereas knowledge is information that is modeled to be useful.

2. You need information to be able to get knowledge.

3. Information deals with the way data is related while knowledge examines patterns within a given set of information.

4. To get knowledge you need some cognitive and analytical ability while for information you do not need cognitive ability."

http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-knowledge-and-information/

The information refers to the simple registration by any sensory organ of existing or imaginary data, insofar as knowledge consists in the processing of said information for practical purposes, regardless of whether its result is material or intellectual. If in this processing the information has been able to connect with the previous one, there is what in education is known as meaningful learning.

From the perspective of architecture education, true knowledge is what enhances the student's performance as an architect, for example, in project practice, or in architectural criticism.

Actually the amount of information available in architecture is too huge to be processed by students. The key is giving them the tools necessary to find what they need, keeping the rest for another moment. I use to say to my students that internet is an increasing mirror that gives you back amplified what you already have, but if you cannot put anything in front of, it only reflects the void.  

As our colleagues have explained above the key of your question focus on the transition from data to wisdom (data – information – knowledge – wisdom) and this transition goes in parallel with this other one:  being able to know – being able to understand – being able to explain - being able to apply - being able to transform - being able to create.

That path is the one we have to guide our students through.

When they try to reach directly to the last step…they fail, or they have some luck and their design is more or less right. But, certainly the have learned nothing, neither failing nor doing it right. When they understand, explain, apply and transform architecture previously to create, doesn’t matter if they fail because they learn and will do better next time. And if they do right it is the result of having acquired knowledge and consequently they will be able to reproduce the process again.

What shall we exactly do for getting results… I’m afraid is a question too wide to be answered here.

In addition to what has been suggested. Information in architectural education is what is available for the students to know within and without the classroom sources required to aid design processes. While knowledge is the understanding and the application of the processed information into architectural processes and services during and after training

These terms have been defined and used in countless and mostly confusing ways; but because people use them in different ways -- in architecture and other realms -- to communicate useful and less useful things, there is no point in insisting on one definition that would then dismiss all the other uses. A distinction about the relationship between data, information and knowledge I have found useful is the following: 'Knowledge' refers to the way we organize our picture or model of the world in our mind. 'Information' refers to messages that cause a change of that knowledge -- 'forming', (in-form-ation!), restructuring, enhancing it. The messages consist of 'data' ('givens') from outside our minds, only some of which become 'information' in that they change our state of knowledge. Other data streams just remain 'data'. This means, among other things, that the same data that can become interesting information for one person may just remain useless (not registered or understood, meaningless) data for another. Priceless wisdom messages in a language I don't understand, sadly remains just meaningless data for me. The 'data' can be descriptions of other people's or common repositories about descriptions of reality -- 'knowledge bases' -- books, videos (which are just models of reality no matter how 'real they seem, because they are selective perspectives of reality) -- webpages etc., but data also comes from reality itself. The really interesting aspect of this information process is the question -- as the language example shows -- what 'knowledge' elements and structure must already be in our mind in order for some potentially valuable and meaningful data to become information to enhance our knowledge? In the avalanche of data we are subjected to these days, that question seems to have been buried, but isn't it really a vital issue for all the data to become 'information'?

Data is the rawest form of input

when you add meaning, it becomes information

when you add structure and organization to information, it becomes abstract knowledge

when you add methodology, abstract knowledge becomes applied knowledge

when you add creativity, applied knowledge becomes a design

when you execute design it becomes a precedent

precedent, when analyzed, it becomes data source. then the cycle repeats. 

thet are all the same shit....