The Learning Equilibrium

Pune, India, January 22, 11:30 pm:

The future of learning is going to be exactly the same as the present and past of learning: a struggle against externally administered moral and social values.

Given the future of learning, the future of training is going to be exactly the same as the present and past of training: a struggle against the inherent internal rebellion of individuals.

In January 2023, Critical Thinking made it to number two in the Level 3 emphasised elements of a new proposed learning taxonomy, suggested in a white paper published by the World Economic Forum (which is also a contributor to the document).

The World Economic Forum is a non-profit lobbying group. The way I understand it, WEF represents a group of business interests who have interests ranging from various aspects of human life, living and development. I am aware of what WEF represents and I read, consume and interact with information and viewpoints published by the forum - just as I interact with information and viewpoints from official government bodies, corporates, informal communities individuals, and so on. When I quote or reference any study or report or information in any of my writings, I try to ensure that it is clear whether I am stating it as a fact or presenting it as particular viewpoint or if I endorse or disagree with any information or analysis.

I respect the WEF for what it is. Which is why I am wondering why the WEF and its collaborators felt a new taxonomy was required, why they feel their proposed taxonomy is new, and finally, why they feel it is an appropriate taxonomy for the future of learning - of all things. Even the great Bloom (and his team) did not venture to call their taxonomy a taxonomy of learning (which is an internal process for every individual).

Most people involved in the fields of learning, training and workforce development do not understand the significance of taxonomies and models (which are what they use daily and apply in their jobs). Taxonomies and models represent a value system agreed to by a group of people who shape how something will be developed and disseminated into the broader world. There are several taxonomies and related models across cultures - beyond the ones evangelised and followed by the modern education industry. But that is one of pandora’s boxes for later.

My focus is on words and phrases that are routinely used in education and training but never in the spirit: ‘Self-paced’, ‘learner-centric’, ‘democratic’ and my favourite: ‘pluralistic’.

I neither agree with the WEF’s new proposed taxonomy, nor do I feel there is a need to further divide and discriminate human beings on the basis of more intellectual barriers. I do, however, take the new taxonomy seriously and understand that it will prevail in driving and determining who gets opportunities and who doesn’t, mainly because taxonomies are not about learning but about conformity to a certain socio-political order since organisations can’t achieve goals if their workers do not follow the line towards the goal.

Here is my empirical exposition on taxonomies and my experience and observations on learning under three education systems that followed different taxonomies.

At the age of 7, I started writing and drawing simplified versions of the information provided by the school science and social science textbooks. Till that point I had no need to make detailed notes since it had been quite easy to reproduce (in class discussions and exam papers) all the information required by teachers and examiners. Even at that point it was not required in school, but that year my father introduced two new mentors as part of the traditional system of learning our family followed (I already had one each for grammar, music, and mathematics). The first new addition was for traditional Indian philosophy (a family friend well versed with Sanskrit, Hindi and English). The second was my father and he started discussing with me what are called ethics and law under western classical systems (my father had a Masters in Law, Library Science, and at that time was working as a programmer in Pascal and Fortran in Electronic Data Processing).

The discussions were interesting and I had only one task every alternate fortnight - to orally express my understanding of the previous discussion without repeating any matter verbatim or using any examples they had used. If they were not satisfied, there was no next discussion till I applied myself and provided an acceptable speech. It was four months before I produced my first acceptable speech on philosophy and another month for ethics.

I started writing and drawing as a mechanism to record whatever had been said by them, then to break it down, visualise it, and rewrite to see if I can understand any deeper pieces of information since they had clearly said it was not as easy as interpreting what they were saying. After the first two failures it became a matter of vexation for me that I could not crack it (one of the key intrinsic motivations so crucial for engagement in games) so I started transcribing my science and social sciences textbooks to save study time, to focus on my tasks (I had no intention of giving up play time). By the fourth month, it had become a matter of self-respect to succeed in the two tasks and I was spending even my play time to examine and write and speak and re-examine and rewrite and speak.

That simple intervention was how my father inculcated the habit of integrated analysis into my every day life. These two mentors gave me no instructions, simply a discourse with examples followed by a discussion and then a task with a passing criteria: their agreement to my argument or to disagree. In due course, both of them starting reviewing my written texts, asking questions (never providing direct inputs) and providing observations on my eventual speeches and how they differed from what I had written, often reading it out themselves to demonstrate how emphasis on certain phrases, pauses and expressions and gestures might grip an audience. They also gave practical warnings: “Theatre is important in every stage of life, but theatre cannot make up for lack of solid thought.” In later months, they sometimes sat in on each other’s discourses wherein they both spoke, often giving opposing arguments, by which they introduced the idea of diametrically opposed value systems, leaving me with the task of reconciling the differences.

As I learned the very hard way, different perspectives are not different ways of looking at a problem that can be easily reconciled: perspectives are deeply rooted in values, which are often impossible to reconcile since values, in turn, are rooted in centuries old belief systems. In short, the path to an acceptable solution is long and fraught with negotiations on many different aspects which may seem frivolous to one side but be a showstopper for the other.

In today’s world, what I have described above is called ‘critical thinking’: the ability to make judgments after a complex series of processes related to gathering, analysing, evaluating and reconciling information into meaning that may remain constant or change depending on the context.

Critical Thinking is not a new term, although it has gained in status in recent years as a key skill for the future, and soon after it emerged in its new avatar, experts and consultants came up with models championed by thought schools, pushed through into education policy by governments, distilled into curriculums and then appeared as the new SuperHero in teaching and learning materials.

Some of the broader educational taxonomies in the western system of education include:

Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (1956)
Structure of Observed Learning Outcome (1982)
McCormack and Yager’s Taxonomy of Science Education
Anderson’s Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy 2001
Shulman’s Table of Learning (2004)
Marzano’s New Taxonomy (2007)
Fink’s Taxonomy of Significant Learning (2013)

A taxonomy is a theoretical classification that is proposed for a purpose and then, if used by enough entities, provides some data to evaluate it for the stated purpose. A taxonomy typically comes from researchers, academicians and/or practitioners in the field, and is then debated, rejected, applied, tested and so on. Many taxonomies have served a useful purpose in providing the basis for successive taxonomies. Blooms Taxonomy itself was the work of a team of educational psychologists led by Benjamin Bloom. It is important that educationists, practitioners, and professionals in related fields including training read the original Handbook 1 - Cognitive Domain (Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, the Classification of Educational Goals) authored by a committee of college and University Examiners led by Bloom. I have read the abstracts and the handbook several times in the past 25 years. The taxonomy is named after Bloom, there were four co-authors and a total of 34 educationists from universities across the United States who participated and contributed to the taxonomy through the conferences held between 1949 and 1953 - a team of 39 in all. The taxonomy itself is a good example of a collaborative outcome from a broad socio-cultural environment.

The intent of that original group of collaborators was to develop a foundation on a scientific basis (along the lines of the robust taxonomies already existing in physical and biological sciences). They examined and debated very fundamental questions at length over half a decade and eventually decided to publish the handbook for the cognitive domain. But the most extra-ordinary aspect of the committee’s approach was that they had decided that the taxonomy would be consistent with then accepted psychological principles and that there would be neutrality when it came to educational principles and philosophies - they wanted a truly universal system that would be inclusive of learning objectives, irrespective of educational orientations.

One of the concerns discussed was whether the availability of the taxonomy would curb the thinking and planning that teachers then were doing with relation to the curriculum. Growing up, that was exactly my experience with being taught. The majority of school teachers I met did not engage with students nor with the subject matter beyond what was prescribed. Forty years later, I find that the situation has not changed much, in spite of the fact that educational policies, methods, and processes have evolved considerably. Education for the masses is still largely prescriptive because all along the value chain, nobody is willing to let children and learners learn at their own pace, in their own way. Why? Education is still trapped in a time-and-space continuum. One is still expected to learn X amount of Y subjects by Z time frame - assessments and rewards are primarily based on that parameter.

Bloom and his colleagues were still working on the Affective and Psychomotor domains, and that work largely remains. There are several taxonomies prevalent in the world of performing arts and sports, and most of them integrate the cognitive but focus on the other two domains since that is primary area of learning and performance. The subsequent revision on Bloom’s was disappointing - it did cosmetic work on the cognitive domain, ignoring the other two domains, and incorporating creativity into the cognitive domain without establishing the groundwork.

Good training professionals and instructional designers build at least one taxonomy of their own during their careers, especially during their initial days one they understand the academic basis of what they are doing. One of the first things I did when I started training people (at age 21) was to start documenting my structure, identifying the underlined theoretical models, noting my observations, results, changes in behaviour and so on. Over time, I built what can loosely be called a taxonomy. I built several models for specific learning outcomes, employing some of them consistently in designing training material for development of specific skills (mainly decision making, which is my primary subject of expertise). For any professional in education or training, it is a good learning exercise to build a model or a taxonomy and test and modify it since that continuous exercise provides the practical basis for gathering empirical evidence from one’s work.

But there are many approaches, systems and taxonomies of education in cultures across the world. Which brings me back to my mentors between the ages of 6 and 16 years. Those mentors imparted knowledge to me as per the traditional Guru-Shishya Parampara, one of the ancient Indian approaches to preparing an individual for assuming a responsible role in society. In ancient times, Guru-Shishya engagement was complex and required the student to reside with and serve the family of the Guru (there is no equivalent English word, therefore I use mentor). The student had household duties and daily tasks that built skills (which were physical or psychomotor in nature) along with acquisition and practice of knowledge as an apprentice to the mentor in the primary spheres of knowledge. I am using modern terminology as a bridge but in the context of Guru Shishya approach, words had specific and complex meanings and the taxonomy was significantly different. The primary difference in approach was that it was an oral tradition based on behaviour, work, discourse, debate, and social interaction. Further, The system was integrated because everyday behaviour, abilities and knowledge were developed and assessed simultaneously in an everyday life context with primacy given to behaviour. My personal learning within that framework took much longer since conformity was a behavioural issue with me from the beginning.

There are several taxonomies associated with traditional Indian educational approaches, although the documentary evidence exists within spiritual texts, mainly in the form of verses, which is why verses were the foundation of the teaching and learning process for philosophy which underlined all other subjects. Since my gurus all taught me in verse, it was not surprising that when I started writing for self-expression, my primary style was verse.

When I turned 16, I was given my final task: analyse and explain the entire English language works of Swami Vivekanand (8 volumes). It took me three and a half years to complete. And I failed my assessment since my oration was neither humble nor delivered in calm decorum - which was the point of the education - to keep control over your senses and attain equanimity.

What is the taxonomy of a Guru Shishya tradition? It isn’t a single taxonomy but a connected ecology of qualities, performance behaviours, knowledge taxonomy, and philosophical evolution on an evolving path of progress towards the concept of oneness with the world. It is a behaviourist approach within a constructivist framework. The accompanying graphic describes my experience of it. It is not a compartmentalised breakdown of knowledge and behaviours but an integrated development of an individual. Contrary to perceptions, Guru Shishya parampara is not rigid adherence to established norms (conformity) but a guided evolution to individual contribution to family society and world on the foundation of understanding how knowledge has evolved through the ages and why. The idea is to prepare the individual to understand continuity and change and take decisions and behave in accordance with their conscience.

From the age of 6 to 13, I attended an English school run by Christian missionaries under a curriculum that was administered by the education board of the state of Maharashtra, under the education policy of India. My father was clear that I would get my formal education from an English medium school run by missionaries, where apart from regular subjects, I also had Moral Science, Community Living, Civics, and got exposure to choral singing, western theatre and dance forms. I learned to read, write and speak English, Marathi and Hindi. Many elders in the family questioned the wisdom, pointing out that the moral systems would clash and confuse me. To the contrary, it taught me to see the similarities, explore the differences, appreciate and respect a different religio-social culture, examine my own religio-social culture and reflect and communicate in such a world. It was interesting because I was simultaneously learning Indian vocal music, theatre forms, history and philosophy from my gurus.

The two methods were worlds apart and instilled in me a deep understanding of the fact that the world is a place of diverse value systems and an appreciation of the values enables us to communicate appropriately.

From ages 13-16, I attended a school in Delhi, originally established to educate the children of Bengali civil servants and administrators during British rule in India. The school taught a curriculum prescribed by the Central Board of Secondary Education, under the education policy of India. In Delhi, I was required to take up Sanskrit and though I started the language three academic years after everyone else, I did reasonably well due to my familiarity with the language through the oral traditions.

I never felt the need to abandon any previous taxonomy whenever I encountered a new one. In fact, when I reflect upon my education, I feel that I benefitted immensely from having learned in systems driven by different taxonomies. As I worked, managed and trained people from all over, I grew quieter and calmer, focusing single-mindedly on possibilities and solutions rather than problems, on reconciliation rather than conflict, and on meaningful output rather than constant communication.

Human beings are now in a unique age when the pace of organised education cannot match the pace of change. The role of education should have changed decades ago, and its prescriptive nature no longer serves any constructive purpose. A new taxonomy cannot be crafted by generations that do not comprehend the nature of the learning challenge. As a corollary, newer generations cannot be directed by existing adult generations if they continue to be prescriptive in nature.

Thankfully, there are some very fine models that have been developed by educational organisations on the basis of existing taxonomies. One that already addresses and has proven, practically, its success in developing the skills and competences that are required today, is the International Baccalaureate’s programme frameworks, core aspects of which are developed from Bloom’s Taxonomy. The IB has Four programmes, a Learner Profiles model, 6 Teaching Approaches and 5 Learning Categories. The IB as a non-profit organisation is continuously engaged in and commissions research in education, evolving its framework in a predictive manner to address possible future requirements of students.

When I first encountered IB education, I recognised it as a scalable Guru Shishya approach. I realised that it is a learner-driven pace in a social, collaborative environment, overseen by a teacher-in-an-observer-mentor role. It is personalised and self-paced, focused on innovation and creativity (by the learners, as opposed to as prescribed by the curriculum or the teachers), and so on. A constructivist build of a behavioural educational approach.

Today, almost every educational system and corporate training approach uses the same terminology - leadership, empathy, critical thinking, creativity, resilience, holistic, self-paced - and yet most of them just use these as marketing jargon and a facade for the same old methods. Every passing day, they fall further and further away from the emerging reality of newer generations, watching more skills disappear per square job opportunity, and then find themselves competing against the same new generations for work opportunities that require skills that new generations are born with.

So what is the purpose of a new taxonomy? To rebuild education? By when will that rebuild be complete? By next year, the goalpost would have shifted. The challenge for the education industry is that the business model has shifted from under its feet. GenZ and Alpha can construct their own learning. They know how to curate content, crystallise outcomes, apply knowledge almost at run time and learn while they are doing that and improve. Or abandon a path and find a new one. More importantly, they have their own value systems.

How is an aging leadership going to taxonomy that?