Bloom’s Taxonomy And OBE: Manifestation Of Reductionism In Malaysian Education
Zaky Jafaar
Reductionism has long been a source of concern for thinkers and scholars, as it has been linked to the degradation of several key institutions in modern society, including the economy, science, politics and education. This paper investigates the presence of reductionism in its more extreme form, or ‘wild reductionism’, within the Malaysian education system. Two key concepts have been identified as vessels for reductionism: Bloom’s taxonomy and Outcome-Based Education as interpreted by the Malaysian Engineering Education Council and adopted by many institutions. Reductionism is evident in the paradigmatic framework of these two concepts. This paper explores the issues and criticisms arising from their adoptions are presented. The criticisms against both have been ignored by educators and policymakers in shaping the education ecosystem.
Bloom’s Taxonomy and
Outcome-based Education is currently adopted as the basis of the Malaysian
education framework. Amidst the general embrace and adoption of these
mechanisms, signs of unwanted impacts are evident. These problems resemble the
symptoms of reductionism recognised elsewhere in politics, economy, science,
and technology. Various issues in education, such as the decline in the
nation’s PISA score, non-attendance of candidates for SPM exams, complex
pedagogy, inappropriate content complexity, and high educator workload, among
others, are hotly debated. It is not the intention of this essay to dwell on
these issues. We know the problems. People talked about it, although there
seems to be apathy on the supply side. Nevertheless, if we care to look deeper
into these, we will find that the ills and maladies are just a manifestation of
a deep-rooted belief in the modern mind. It is a crisis of perception[1]. It is a systemic problem[2]. It is neither an administrative nor a
strategic problem, and certainly not an operational one. It is a crisis of
paradigm, a problem rooted in our worldviews, arising from a misplaced emphasis
on specific aspects of modern philosophy. Specifically, it is the result of an
unbounded fascination with reductionism, a paradigm so pervasive and dominant
since the Age of Enlightenment in Europe. One key characteristic of
reductionism that results in this dilemma is the fragmentation of perceptions,
rendering our problem-solving skills ineffective and chaotic.
It is necessary at this
juncture to clarify the use of the term ‘reductionism’ in this writing.
Reductionism is an important human trait and a necessary cognitive framework
that has propelled humanity into the age of scientific discovery and
technological progress. However, it is not a new concept. It has been present
since the dawn of humankind, proving useful when early humans hunted prey, or
whenever he is focused on extracting benefits from the natural world. From a
neuroscience perspective, Iain Mcgilchrist attributes it to the left brain
processing[3]. Nevertheless, in the grand scheme of human
existence, reductionism should serve as an emissary to the master - the
holistic way of thinking often associated with right-brain operation. The
term ‘wild reductionism’ used here refers to the unbounded adoption of
reductionism regardless of context - an overdose[4]. As Mcgilchrist explains, it has become a
master instead of an emissary. For the sake of brevity, the term ‘reductionism’
is used elsewhere in this writing.
The problem of fragmented perceptions in the current education system parallels
many other aspects of civilisation: economy, politics, business, religion,
health, and more. These domains all seem to face myriads crises of varying
scales that pervade modern society. These issues are reflected in communities
and countries all over the world. The economy runs rampant, depleting
resources, causing global warming and related environmental disasters, and widening
the prosperity gaps between nations and between rich and poor. Political
frictions arise from power and resource grabbing, pushing nations towards wars
and skirmishes, and leading to governmental apathy towards the plight of
citizens. Each party believes it is doing the right thing, but within their
limited understanding and focus, resulting in conflicting and contrasting
results. These issues can all be summed up as symptoms of reductionism: the chaotic
fragmentations of human faculties of perception, leading to a loss of
understanding of the richness of phenomena, the elimination of humanness and the
inability to adopt a holistic perspective in establishing truth.
The precursor to modern reductionism is often attributed to René Descartes,
a French philosopher of the 16th Century. His view can be summarised as the
belief that reality can be understood by breaking it down into its constituent
components. This idea forms the foundation of scientific thinking. It is the
beloved child of modernity. It has produced wonders- sending humans to the
moon, curing diseases, and creating cataclysmic weapons. Its immense power has
led to its reverence, often beyond its true worth, which is where the problem
lies.
The flaw of reductionist thinking can often be summed up by the
statement: “the whole is more than a sum of its parts”. A musician, by
combining notes and rhythm, can produce a masterpiece, transcending mere sound
and noise. An artist, with a canvas and several colours, can create a painting
that moves people emotionally. The outcome cannot be predicted solely from the
size and type of the canvas or the chemical properties of the paints. The value
of such works cannot be inferred from their physical components alone. If you
detach the subjective quality of an object, it loses its value, meaning and
significance. Yet, this is what reductionism does—it surgically removes the
metaphysical properties of a phenomenon, focusing solely on its physical aspects,
then dissects it into isolated fragments, obscuring the interconnectedness of
phenomena. Its wholesale adoption across human endeavour results in a detachment
from reality.
Crises
of Reductionism in Literature
Due to its shortcomings, scholars and scientists from various fields
have highlighted the drawbacks and harm of reductionist thinking. The study of
complex dynamic systems has revealed a fundamental flaw in this approach, as
South African philosopher Paul Cilliers discussed in his 1998 book:
A complex system is not constituted merely by the sum of its components,
but also by the intricate relationships between these components. By ‘cutting
up’ a system, the reductionist method destroys that which it is trying to
understand.[5]
Fritjoff Capra, a leading physicist, argues that the reductionist
paradigm has led to fragmented thinking, which in turn has caused a
disconnection from the holistic nature of reality. He believes that the ills of
the modern world—war, hunger, environmental degradation—are results of the
reductionist worldview.[6]
Vandana Shiva, an Indian scholar, environmental activist, and author
known for her work in ecology, agriculture, and sustainability, asserts that
reductionism is not only the basis of the technology of war, violence and rampant
capitalism, but it is also a violent ideology that tears apart human knowledge
through epistemological politics. She identifies four forms of violence inflicted
by reductionism: violence against the subject of science, violence against the
object of knowledge, violence against recipients of knowledge and violence
against knowledge itself [7].
Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas, a prominent Malaysian scholar, in various
works, referred to reductionism as a “dajjalic cognitive framework”, discussing
how reductionist thinking can lead to a fragmented understanding of reality
that is at odds with a more integrated, Islamic worldview.[8]
Reductionism
in education
A significant body of literature explores the effect of reductionism in
education. Peter Senge, a prominent system thinker, addressed the issues surrounding
reductionism:
Today, I believe our traditional consensus regarding the goals and
processes of public education leaves us dangerously vulnerable in a world of
increasing interdependence. We have all been taught to break apart complex
problems and fix the pieces. Our traditional education process — indeed, our
theory of knowledge in the West — is based on reductionism, fragmenting complex
phenomena into component parts and building up knowledge of the parts.
Moreover, our traditional system is based on competition and individual
learning.[9]
Terry Wrigley criticises reductionism in educational theory for several
reasons: oversimplification, neglect of context, mechanistic view of learning,
and lack of holistic understanding[10].
He also concluded that reductionist approaches can lead to educational policies
that prioritize standardized testing and measurable outcomes over meaningful
learning experiences, ultimately harming the quality of education.
An emergent characteristic of reductionism in education is the rising
trend of mechanization driven by economic factors. This argument is presented
by Sancar, who contends that neoliberalism prioritizes market-driven
approaches, resulting in the commodification of education. He highlights how
this shift leads to increased standardization, a focus on quantifiable
outcomes, and the marginalization of critical thinking and creativity in
curricula.[11]
To identify the presence of reductionism in Malaysian education, several
key characteristics of the ecosystem will be discussed. These manifestations of
reductionism appear in methodologies, processes, operational strategies and
mechanisms. As such, people rarely see the underlying ‘isms’ behind these
manifestations.
Bloom’s
taxonomy
The first manifestation is the widespread adoption of Bloom’s Taxonomy
as a framework for developing the education ecosystem. Bloom’s taxonomy, was
first introduced in the publication Taxonomy of Educational Objectives:
The Classification of Educational Goals[12].
Here, the reductionist approach to education is evident, as it fragments
learning objectives into three broad domains: cognitive (knowledge-based),
affective (emotion-based), and psychomotor (action-based), each with a hierarchy
of skills and abilities. Educators use these domains to structure curricula,
assessments, and teaching methods to foster different types of learning.
A rising trend associated with the adoption of Bloom's Taxonomy in
educational settings is the increasing mechanisation of education, particularly
with the rise of technology-enhanced learning environments. Bloom's Taxonomy
provides a framework for categorizing educational goals, which educators often
use to design assessments that can be easily automated. For example,
multiple-choice quizzes and online assessments can be aligned with the
different levels of Bloom's taxonomy (e.g., knowledge, comprehension,
application), allowing for efficient grading and data collection. Another
example of mechanization linked to Bloom’s Taxonomy is the development of
Learning Management Systems (LMS). Many LMS incorporate Bloom's Taxonomy to
structure courses and assessments. Using this framework, various aspects of
education can be tweaked in a mechanical way. It can be concluded that the
framework's influence on assessment, curriculum development, and the
integration of technology in teaching and learning processes supports the trend
toward mechanization in education.
Outcome
Based Education
A derivative of Bloom’s Taxonomy is Outcome-Based Education (OBE). At
the outset, the reductionist tendency can be clearly identified. The basic
approach is to reduce and fragment the concept of education into a series of
focused, measurable outcomes. Since early 2004, interest in Outcome-Based
Education (OBE) began to emerge among several engineering education providers
in Malaysia. It is interesting to examine the rationale behind the adoption of
OBE. The providers recognized several gaps in traditional engineering
curricula.
The thinking at that time was to fill up
the gaps found in the six categories with several courses. If communication
skills are found to be lacking, then there should be such a course in the
curriculum. If the curriculum is lacking in thinking skills, then a thinking
skill course would be included. This was what was meant by a well-orchestrated
curriculum. However, in reality, the synchronization or integration was found
not to be there. [13]
This led educators to seek a solution that could bridge these gaps. OBE
was seen as an answer to this problem. Ironically, the positivist outlook of
OBE does not exclude reductionism, which essentially fragments the phenomenon.
In fact, it clearly breaks the learning experience into a few objective outcome
statements. This tendency to reduce phenomena to a limited number of outcomes
reflects positivist methodological reductionism in OBE. The irony here is
noteworthy: to solve the problem of gaps in a traditionally fragmented
education, a reductionist mechanism is adopted, which enforces fragmentation at
a higher level. Yet, this irony often goes unnoticed.
Another outcome of reductionism, which is not exclusive to education, is
the rise of bureaucracy. Due to the need to measure performance, and the
introduction of numerous indicators, excessive recording, documenting and
reporting begin to occupy a significant portion of educators’ workloads.
Symptoms
ignored
The nature of the reductionist tendency in Bloom's Taxonomy and OBE
warrants a cautious approach in their adoptions within an educational system. A
growing opinion suggests that both have resulted in less-than-satisfactory
performance in education.
The basic premise of Bloom’s taxonomy—that there is a hierarchy of
cognitive skills—has been rejected by many. Ron Berger wrote:
It (OBE) also gives the mistaken impression that some of these skills
are more difficult and more important than others. It can blind us to the
integrated process that actually takes place in students’ minds as they learn[14].
Flaws in the impact of implementing hierarchical models of knowledge
have also been highlighted. Roland Case identified three flaws in Bloom’s
Taxonomy: it lowers expectations for thinking, encourages the transmission of
information rather than fostering genuine analytical ability, and creates false
confidence.[15]
Another problem with cognitive hierarchy is the lowering of status
between “remembering” and “evaluating”. This poses a problem when it is assumed
that more time should be spent teaching evaluation skills rather than acquiring
information. In fact, the quality of evaluation in students correlates
positively with the amount of information internalized.[16]
With the advent of AI, these flaws in Bloom’s taxonomy have been
identified as problematic. The categorization of cognitive skills with its
hierarchy is misleading when embedded in Large Language Learning (LLM) and the
rational syntax used in AI.[17]
OBE is not free from its fair share of criticisms. In 1994, a report
by the Center of the American Experiment on OBE stated that:
But this apparent good idea (OBE) has led to considerable conflict. A
major reason for this conflict is that states turned over the task of defining
outcomes to the educational officials most threatened by the process. Educators
have proceeded to promote rather vague outcomes, often reflecting politically
correct positions, instead of knowledge, skills, and cognitive academic
outcomes. Education bureaucrats have taken a sensible idea and distorted its
meaning so that accountability is virtually impossible.[18]
Here it can be inferred that one of the core issues in OBE is who gets to decide the outcomes. Ideally,
a carefully selected group of ‘wise elders’ would craft balanced outcomes for the
education system. However, as is often the case in the real world, ideals rarely
materialize. There are no clear criteria for selecting those who make these
decisions. Most likely, as pointed out, this group would consist of high-ranking
administrators. While their ability to climb the bureaucratic ladder is
undeniable, they are not necessarily ‘wise’ individuals.
In Australia, the introduction of OBE in 2006 was widely contested on
the grounds that OBE is conceptually flawed, difficult to implement and
substandard when compared to what is termed a syllabus or a standards-based model
of curriculum development.[19]
Beyond rhetoric, the concern can also be argued in pragmatic terms. The
world in 2024, as we know it, is characterized by rapid changes and
unpredictability, commonly referred to as VUCA[20].
An education system that is sluggish in response to these dynamics risks
becoming obsolete. In Malaysia, the development of any new curriculum must
adopt the nationally mandated outcomes by the Malaysian Quality Assurance (MQA)
agency. The OBE mechanism developed by engineers requires meticulously mapping
connections between Program Outcomes (PO), Learning Outcomes (LO), and Course Learning
Outcomes (CLO). To ensure effectiveness, there are specific ways assessment
should be weighed against the stated outcomes. As a result, the process can
take two to three years. Once in place, the curriculum—rigged with these
stringent requirements and mechanisms[21]
—must be adhered to rigorously for the next three to five years. By the end of
the cycle, the curriculum would have been operating on a paradigm that is eight
years old, while the world in the VUCA era changes at a pace of months, not
years. Therefore, obsolete curricula are a real outcome of Malaysian-style OBE
implementation.
A more damaging criticism of OBE is its impact on creativity and other
soft skills in learners. In that it effectively sidelined these skills, it
fails to foster the very traits it claims to nurture. In an essay by John
Senior, the Head of General Education at Skyline University College, he
poignantly summed up the impact of OBE:
The problem with this is that there are only so many hours in a course
and those outcomes must be mastered within that time. With time used up
achieving “measurable” outcomes, less measurable, but higher-order
learning - like creativity, thinking skills, divergent thinking, even social,
practical, and artistic learning take second place, or are not learned at all.
Worse, and perhaps the key problem, is that outcomes are often treated as a
one-shoe-fits-all solution by administrators who are trying to satisfy
institutional licensure and program review requirements which have little to do
with actual learning.[22]
Another symptom arising out of reductionism, as mentioned earlier, is
the rise of bureaucracy. A study on implementing OBE at Malaysian Vocational
Colleges shows an increase in the teacher’s commitment required to implement
it.[23] My
own experience in the organization suggests that the bureaucratic load of OBE
implementation has a stifling effect on creativity, freedom to think and
natural curiosity, due to the overwhelming need to fill out forms, checklists,
and map subjects to outcomes, along with requirements in teaching plans and a stringent
curriculum structure.
Reductionism’s
autoimmune defense mechanism
A crucial question arises at this point: Why has there been such
overwhelming and widespread adoption of these reductionistic manifestations in
the Malaysian education system? Despite the exhaustive problems and cautions
raised about these reductionist mechanisms, there seems to be a wholesale
embrace and vigorous push to implement them. A cursory search would reveal numerous
writings that uphold and promote the use of Bloom's taxonomy and OBE, largely
coming from developing countries like Malaysia. It appears that the drawbacks
and pitfalls of these two mechanisms are largely ignored. The attraction of
apparent efficiency ideals upheld by people from disciplines such as
engineering and business seems to have influenced education theorists and
administrators.
Ironically this particular propagation of reductionist paradigms is
enforced by reductionism itself. The reductionist tendency to focus on linear, narrow,
and fragmented objectives has put blinders on our minds, leading us to believe
that these mechanisms are the best answer. This approach ignores the symptoms
and criticisms highlighted elsewhere. It seems that the reductionist mindset
creates an autoimmune system, where the mindset itself serves as a defense
mechanism against criticisms and flaws, ensuring its rapid adoption in the
Malaysian education ecosystem.
Conclusion
While reductionism has been an important cognitive framework that has helped
humanity in many ways, it has grown to such an extent that some modern crises are
now being identified as the result of its overuse. It is evident from this discussion that reductionism, a paradigmatic concept, has permeated the Malaysian
education system at an operational level through two mechanisms: Bloom’s
Taxonomy and Outcome-Based Education. Risks such as hindering creativity, the flawed
constructs of human skill, and the rise of bureaucracy are among the core issues
identified. Another problem in Malaysia is the slow process of drafting an OBE-driven
curriculum, which may render it obsolete in a fast-changing world. The controversial
aspects of both mechanisms have largely been ignored by Malaysian education
administrators, most likely due to the tendency of reductionism itself to overlook
the broader impacts of small and fragmented objective measures.
Notes and references:
[1] This proposition can be found in the work
of Marshall McLuhan’s work such as “Understanding Media: The extension of Man
(1964)
[2] A sentiment expressed by many thinkers
such as Naomi Klein, David Harvey, Peter Senge, Russel Ackoff and many more.
[3] McGilchrist, I. (2009). The Master and His Emissary: The Divided
Brain and the Making of the Western World. Yale University Press.
[4] A public talk by the author titled”
Reductionism overdose in Malaysian Education”, presented in an online seminar.
Wacana Intelektual. Organiser PEKA, UPSI. July 11th 2024.
[5] CIlliers, P. Complexity and
Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. Routledge. London 1998.
[6] Capra, F. The Turning Point: Science
Society and The Rising Culture. Simon & Schuster. 1982
[7] Shiva V., Reductionist science as epistemological violence in in Science, hegemony and violence. Ed Ashis Nandy, Oxford University Press Bombay Calcutta
MadraS 1988
[8] An example of this discussion can be found
in his work such as "The Concept of Education in Islam"* "Islam and Secularism"* - which
critiques modern secularism and its cognitive frameworks.
[9] Senge, Peter M. The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations Are Working
Together to Create a Sustainable World. Crown Business, 2008
[10] Wrigley, T. .Education and the complexities of learning. London: Routledge.2000.
[11] Sancar C., Sancar M., Neoliberal
Mechanisation Of Education, The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology – July 2012, volume 11 Issue 3
[12] Bloom, B. S.; Engelhart, M. D.; Furst, E.
J.; Hill, W. H.; Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy
of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Vol.
Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.
[13] A.A. Aziz*, M.J. Megat Mohd Noor, A.A.
Abang Ali and M.S. Jaafar. A Malaysian
Outcome-Based Engineering Education Model. International Journal of
Engineering and Technology, Vol. 2, No.1, 2005, pp. 14-21
[14] Berger, R. (2018) Here’s What’s Wrong With Bloom’s Taxonomy: A Deeper Learning
Perspective. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-heres-whats-wrong-with-blooms-taxonomy-a-deeper-learning-perspective/2018/03#
[15] Case, R. The Unfortunate Consequences of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Social Education
77(4), pp 196–200 ©2013 National Council for the Social Studies
[16] Bradley Busch, (ed) Be wary of pyramids: The problem with Bloom,
Dale and Maslow. Online articcle. https://www.innerdrive.co.uk/blog/pyramids-bloom-dale-maslow/#:~:text=What's%20the%20problem%20with%20Bloom's,higher%20value%20than%20the%20former. Accessed on 27/12/2024.
[17] Luke Zaphir, Dale Hansen The trouble with Bloom’s taxonomy in an age
of AI. Online article. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/trouble-blooms-taxonomy-age-ai
[18] Manno, Bruno V. Outcome-Based Education. Has It Become More Affliction than Cure?
Center of the American Experiment, Minneapolis, MN. Aug 94.
[19]Kevin Donnelly, Australia's
adoption of outcomes based education: A critique. Issues in Educational
Research, 17(2), 2007
[20] Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and
Ambiguity.
[21] Being born out of engineering discipline,
Malaysian OBE is characterized by countless tables, checklists and tick boxes
and mapping mechanism which can be dragging.
[22] Senior, J. Does Outcomes-Based Education do More Harm than Good?. Online
article 27 Dec 2020 https://www.skylineuniversity.ac.ae/knowledge-update/from-different-corners/does-outcomes-based-education-do-more-harm-than-good
[23], M.A.A.Damit, M. K. Omar, M.H.M Puad, Issues and Challenges of Outcome-based
Education (OBE) Implementation among Malaysian Vocational College Teachers. Academic
Research in Business and Social Sciences. Vol. 1 1 , No. 3, 202
Comments
Post a Comment