Making sense of SLOs (part 2)

An educated person will expect accuracy in each subject only so far as the nature of the subject allows...... 

—Aristotle

.....I’m pretty busy, like everybody else, but I have had time to look a bit further into the origins of the SLO mess in which we now find ourselves.
.....Last time (Whence SLOs?), I noted that the push to emphasize “student learning outcomes” (SLOs) seems to trace back to the agenda and philosophy of the “outcomes based education” (OBE) movement of the 80s and 90s. I noted that the educational theory that is associated with OBE seems to have arisen more from the world of academic educationists than from the concerns and agendas of conservative reformers.
.....There is, however, a complex interaction between the conservative “back to basics” and “graduation exam” agenda and the (more or less progressive) educationist’s notion of “learning outcomes.” I sense that it will take some time to get my mind around that interaction. No doubt, to some degree, conservative reformers have borrowed from or taken on some elements of OBE ("measurable outcomes" and all the rest) because they wrongly assume that OBE is commonsensically focused on results. Well, no, common sense does not enter into OBE.

INNOVATOR BENJAMIN BLOOM:

.....Arguably, the father of the academic “learning objectives”/OBE philosophy is Benjamin Bloom, a fellow with a doctorate in education who entered the academic limelight during the 50s and 60s. Like many post-war theorists (Maslow, Kohlberg, et al.), he offered a grandiose theory about human beings. According to Bloom, people develop as thinkers along a hierarchy from the particular and practical to the general and abstract. Hence,

In Bloom’s model, curriculum would be divided into discrete and manageable modules that could be sequentially arranged for ingestion by students. At the end of each unit of knowledge, measurable learning outcomes were identified and tests administered to ensure that students were prepared for the next step. These outcomes and their measurement, moreover, were connected to the performance of observable activities that would demonstrate “in real time” that a student had “mastered” the previous piece of the curriculum. (Howard Doughty)

(Some of the terms and ideas associated with Bloom are “mastery learning,” the importance of “action” verbs, learning “taxonomies,” and “measured learning outcomes.”)
.....It is often said that Bloom’s theories have been adopted, but always with disastrous results. (I hope to be able to verify and spell that out in future.) For instance, Wikipedia’s article on Standards-based education reform asserts that

Education reform in the United States since the late 1980s has been largely driven by the setting of academic standards for what students should know and be able to do. These standards can then be used to guide all other system components…. Standards are an evolution of the earlier Outcomes-based education which was largely rejected in the United States as unworkable in the 1990s, and is still being implemented by some and abandoned by other governments … by the 2000s. The original model of OBE, which has met with large scale failures, attempted to completely change the structure of education and grading by massively individualizing instruction.

.....My guess is that the ideal of "individualizing" instruction is an element of OBE that reaches back to an earlier hero of progressive education: philosopher John Dewey (a fellow who was often horrified at how his words were being taken to mean, for what that's worth).
.....In contrast to OBE, the “standards-based” movement (says Wikipedia) embraces only the “core” of the OBE program, namely:

• the creation of curriculum frameworks which outline specific knowledge or skills which students must acquire,
• an emphasis on criterion-referenced assessments which are aligned to the frameworks, and
• the imposition of some high-stakes tests, such as graduation examinations requiring a high standard of performance to receive a diploma. (Standards-based education reform)

.....One of the gurus of the “standards” movement is Marc Tucker, an influential fellow who heads the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). He’s been active since the late 80s; President Clinton embraced 'im. Lately, he’s promoted the adoption of high school graduation examinations. (He was a prime mover of "No Child Left Behind." For a review of his book Tough Choices, see review.)
.....Evidently, Tucker is somewhat of a disciple of self-proclaimed OBE guru William Spady. It seems that occasional efforts to implement Spady’s OBE ideas have been so disastrous that reformers are compelled to disassociate themselves with the term “OBE” with which Spady is associated. (See William Spady.)

THOSE NASTY, CLOSED-MINDED PHILOSOPHERS:

.....Lemme tell you where I’m coming from. I’m trained in (Anglo-American) philosophy, which means that I think about logic and evidence. Many in the philosophy world are accustomed to noting and bemoaning grand contemporary failures of thinking, such as belief in the paranormal, embrace of alternative medicines, the scandal of "repressed" memory therapy (see Elizabeth Loftus), and the support of George W. Bush—to name just a few egregious examples.
.....Let me cut to the chase. If you want examples of bad thinking, head immediately to the world of academic educational theory. Or so say some people in my world of philosophers and logicians and hard-headed scientific skeptics. (Well, mostly, we say it amongst ourselves. Criticizing the educationist establishment is a bit like criticizing the Israeli lobby.)
.....As I noted above, it is said that OBE theories have been adopted with always disastrous results. I don’t know if that’s true, but if it is, it wouldn’t be surprising. Recall California’s embrace of the discredited “whole language” teaching (of reading) method—which was followed, as always, by plummeting student reading performance across the state. (See Whole Language Controversies.)
.....The facts simply don’t matter to some people. To this day, there are many within the education community who swear by “whole language,” the evidence be damned. To me, as a philosopher, there is little difference between such people and, say, those who rely on “Head-On” to cure their headaches.
.....But never mind philosophers. Lots of academics are horrified by the poor thinking that attends OBE theory—and by the folly of embracing "learning outcomes" with their idiotic "action verbs." For instance, I came across the following article by Howard A. Doughty, a Canadian political scientist and historian. The article is wickedly entitled Blooming Idiots: Educational Objectives, Learning Taxonomies and the Pedagogy of Benjamin Bloom (2006). Here are some excerpts.
.....They are merely that: excerpts. The actual article is quite lengthy.

DOUGHTY CONTRA BLOOM:

Benjamin Bloom’s initial forays into pedagogy were motivated by his study of student success and failure, especially in the years immediately following World War II. … Bloom learned that the difference between those who did well and those who did poorly was less a matter of good work habits, innate intelligence or educational background than it was the result of unequal problem-solving skills. Bloom also discovered that such skills could be taught. … Undoubtedly well-meaning and progressive in intent, Bloom’s studies and the educational reforms they inspired have, however, become weapons in the arsenal of educational corporatism….
…..
His influential reforms are rooted in his structural analysis of intellectual development and, in particular, in his theory of types of thinking. He produced a hierarchical taxonomy of thought that begins with the particular and the practical and rises to the abstract and universal. His internally coherent and superficially persuasive taxonomy of human thought processes led to recommendations for pedagogical practice.

In Bloom’s model, curriculum would be divided into discrete and manageable modules that could be sequentially arranged for ingestion by students. At the end of each unit of knowledge, measurable learning outcomes were identified and tests administered to ensure that students were prepared for the next step. These outcomes and their measurement, moreover, were connected to the performance of observable activities that would demonstrate “in real time” that a student had “mastered” the previous piece of the curriculum….
.....
The original components of Bloom’s taxonomy are easily presented and understood. He posits a ladder of learning that moves stepwise upwards in terms of levels of abstraction. Each step involves a specific kind of competence that allegedly can be tested with appropriate questions, each of which requires some “action” to demonstrate mastery of the material….

1. Knowledge …
2. Comprehension …
3. Application …
4. Analysis …
5. Synthesis …
6. Evaluation …

… Bloom’s taxonomy is obsolete. …Bloom created his taxonomy in a particular cultural context and that the social circumstances and political imperatives that gave rise to his ideas no longer exist. Bloom’s staircase of competencies was born of American social science’s naïve desire to construct universal, hierarchical, evolutionary and progressive developmental models in the social sciences….
…..
… Bloom’s taxonomy was originally put forward over fifty years ago, and has been revised so often that the current versions have lost much resemblance to the original, which is, nevertheless, the one that is still being touted in many colleges; … Bloom’s taxonomy is wedded to a hysterical, post-World War II, hypermodernist optimism that has been generally abandoned by serious scholars, but remains a minor article of faith among certain segments of the military, business and “training” communities; … Bloom’s taxonomy implicitly endorses corporatist social values, encourages individual conformity to those values, and is ideologically compromised, epistemologically repudiated, logically monstrous and pedagogically "unfit for service"; … Bloom’s taxonomy violates the basic mandate of the liberal arts (sometimes called general education), for it is ineluctably linked to behavioural training rather than to liberal (much less emancipatory) education….

… The ideal of educating the whole person and not just the part of a person which performs well in the labour market is subverted in every way by the corporate model, of which Bloom’s learning objectives and “action” orientation have become an integral part.
…..
… Among government officials and senior administrators, it was commonly believed, educational fashions come and go and rhetorical flourishes from on high can be routinely disregarded; educational leaders, after all, have shown tremendous gusto for various initiatives, but their attention spans are short and the most successful among them are not inclined to follow up on innovations, for a new fad is always crossing the horizon.
…..
In place of the noble goal of graduating students who might possess advanced vocational skills and who have also been educated as citizens has been manifestly reduced where it has not been wholly eliminated. The postsecondary version of “back to basics” education which wreaked havoc in elementary and secondary schools in the 1990s is in full spate. Vocationalism, standardization and the fetishism of accountability are now all the rage. Moreover, in terms of the labour process that replicates the ideology inherent in the obliteration of general education, the store of full-time professors dwindles, cost-effective hiring of part-time and sessional instructors grows, and authoritarian managerial practices are accentuated.

…The adoption of Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy of “types of thinking” and the insertion of its attendant language into the discourse of college education is but one small part of the general process of transforming colleges into corporate training centres. As inconsequential as it may appear in the overall structure of educational policy and practice, however, it is not unimportant….
…..
Two years ago, and for the first time that I can recall in forty years of teaching in one college and three universities, my colleagues and I were required to insert into our syllabi a “Statement of Learning Objectives” that contained only “action verbs.”….

The rationale for the edict apparently arose from the view that words such as “understand” are essentially useless because “passive” terms “do not convey what the student should be doing.” Instead, we were ordered to employ words that were included on a list of active words that emanated from Bloom’s own research (Bloom, 1956). Some people reacted to this new requirement with dismay. … Grumpy reactions and displays of reluctant submission aside, we all acquiesced.

Like others who have tried to save themselves unnecessary bother and pointless friction, I too complied with the edict, but I did so regretfully and under sullen protest. Also like others, I suppose that I was tired of confronting “silliness” with quixotic gestures that change nothing and are quickly allocated to the category of buffoonery….
…..
The 1950s and the 1960s were the salad days for a certain sort of intellectual system builder, of which Benjamin Bloom is representative. As triumphal Western civilization turned its attention to newly independent Third World nations, intellectuals had it in mind to lay out what would now be called a road map to a future of global democracy and prosperity….
…..
Moving on to ethics, Lawrence Kohlberg sorted out the disturbing results of the Milgram experiments using similar tactics…. He attempted to show, through the interpretation of a vast number of repetitive and seemingly reliable, cross-cultural experiments, that worry about human evil was justified, but that there was also hope. Our ethical reasoning was built on inevitable and discoverable inherent stages of moral development. Once we learned the nature of our innate moral calculus, calumnies could be overcome….
…..
In education, Bloom trotted out his own six-stage theory. At the lower end were types of thinking (knowledge, comprehension and application) which would suffice for the training of suitably submissive citizens and fully-functioning consumer-workers (the stereotypical Dickensian “Gradgrinders” whose political docility and mindless materialism ensured social stability and corporate profits). At the higher end were analysis, synthesis and evaluation, the types of thinking that could be achieved with appropriate teaching techniques were applied to potential business and cultural leaders—people, we are given to assume, such as Conrad Black, William Bennett and Bill Gates.
…..
Like all such inventions, Bloom’s design is premised upon “a standard theory of human nature that its promoters consider applicable to all cultures and at all times” (Biehler, 1971, 213). We must treat such grandiose claims with appropriate caution.

In adopting Bloom’s template, I think we are making a number of errors. We are accepting the veracity of an intellectual fashion of fifty years ago, which has not been well served by time. At the time that Bloom was fashioning his theory, Ronald Reagan was appearing every Sunday night as host and prime huckster for General Electric on its television program, “GE Theatre”. At the close of every episode, I vividly recall, he would bid the audience farewell with the slogan: “At General Electric, progress is our most important product.”….

… One obvious point concerns the history of Bloom’s taxonomy itself. It is, by all scientific standards, an antique. Over the years, various individuals and agencies tinkered with it and, by the 1990s it had been substantially revised to the point where resemblances of contemporary versions to the original are of antiquarian interest only….

The version of Bloom’s typology that is being imposed upon colleges is a thoroughly deceased old horse that needs no additional flogging. We need not overly concern ourselves with criticism of the detritus of Bloom’s brainchild. We must remember that we are being told to build into our course outlines an obsolete relic, the creaky old bones of a fundamentally flawed instrument. Its fundamental flaws are more important than any forensic inquiry into its antiquated remains, and they are what need to be addressed.
…..
The types of thinking Professor Bloom celebrates are well and good in moderation; however, just as I do not completely disapprove of testable learning outcomes, neither do I find them necessary, sufficient nor even appropriate for measuring a liberal education. There are, at least, a few other types of thinking to be tossed into the mix. How about quiet reflection? How about the ecstasy of aesthetic transformation? How about (dare I say it) small hints of “wisdom.” I am even prepared to give a quick nod to Howard Gardner’s notion of “multiple intelligences” (1993), which at least provides a little balance, flexibility and something about musical or kinesthetic learning—anything to strip Bloom of his imperious certainty and his theoretical boxes, with their straight sides, study tops and even design, that are just right to be plopped atop one another as we ascend the ladder of learning.

Even if, however, we were to shrug in tentative agreement that Bloom’s typology adequately described human thought in all its forms, I would still find the insistence on a strict behavioural assessment of whether a student has “mastered” a subject objectionable. Measurable mastery is available for only the simplest of tasks; college education should be more subtle, more nuanced and harder to spot. It should involve the internal growth and transformation of the student and not the acquisition of the capacity to respond on command with a regurgitation of curricular morsels previously ingested from a text or some “activity” put on by a teacher grown tired of lecturing, no longer having the stamina to be “a sage on the stage.” Absent expensive brain activity monitors (which I probably wouldn’t trust and certainly wouldn’t know how to use anyway), I am stumped when it comes to describing what happens when students “do” wisdom.
.....
Constructing educational policies that are designed to encourage students to do something with data and, when the doing is done, declare the performances to amount to “mastery” is a cruel joke….

MEANWHILE, ON THE FAR RIGHT...



Some view Outcomes Based Education (OBE) with alarm, but not for the reasons mentioned above. Nope, according to the Lunatic Right (LR), OBE is actually a government plot to establish thought control. —Er, no, it's a plot by Humanists to make us socialists. —Um, maybe it's part of a global strategy to bring about One World Government!

One thing is certain: Bill Clinton's up to his eyeballs in it!