Taylorism and the logic of learning outcomes

Abstract

This essay examines the shared philosophical foundations of Fredrick W. Taylor’s scientific management principles and the contemporary learning outcomes movement (LOM). It analyses the shared philosophical ground between the focal point of Taylor’s system—‘the task’—and the conceptualization and deployment of ‘learning outcomes’ in American post-secondary systems. It further critiques Taylor’s principles and the logic of outcomes from the standpoint of John Dewey’s educational philosophy. This essay will show how the contemporary LOM is not only an extension of Taylorism, but also yields the very real possibility of restricting the creative capacities and unique potentials of students.

Keywords:

• educational assessment
• outcomes of education
• post-secondary education
• John Dewey

Notes

1. In this essay, I am specifically interested in the learning outcomes movement (LOM) as conceptualized and deployed in American post-secondary systems, but the philosophical critique established here is intended to be applicable across any system reliant upon centrally articulated outcomes and assessment efforts supporting the normative movement toward those outcomes.

2. I would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for assistance in the clarification of this distinction.

3. With limited space available in this essay, I am regrettably unable to offer a more robust articulation of the shared philosophical foundations between behaviourism and strands within the modern cognitivist theories that underpin the LOM. Here, I refer readers to Johnson and Rohrer (2007) and Lakoff and Johnson (1999, pp. 74–93).

4. Contemporary constructivism has done significant work to erode this view, which still dominates the discourse of the LOM. Yet constructivism still retains some problematic foundationalist assumptions. This issue will be treated in more depth in the following section.

5. Models and typologies for learning outcomes have been proposed by psychologists as varied as: Bloom (1956) and Forehand (2010) whose work focuses on instructional objectives and learner behaviours; Merrill (1983) and Gagné (1984) whose work focuses on the processes of thinking; and Kraiger, Ford, and Salas (1993) whose work focuses on a multiple modalities of thinking, acting and feeling (Lim et al., 2007, p. 2).

6. Here it might be assumed that contemporary constructivism has refuted this position but, at the ground, most constructivist paradigms still hold a foundationalist epistemology (see Garrison, 1995; Phillips, 1995; Vanderstraeten, 2002).

7. With limited space available, I am regrettably unable to offer a deeper articulation of how pedagogical goal setting and curricula may be constructed in a Deweyan system. Dewey was not opposed the idea of goal setting and, in fact, his system required significantly more planning and preparation by teachers than is required in a traditional system. A key point is that, for Dewey, goals were to be designed emergently and in a way, which began with the standpoint of the student and ultimately integrated experienced problems (the student’s perspective) with subject matters (the instructor’s perspective). Students should not conform to the logical structures of subject-matter experts, but instead subject matters were to be understood as illuminating and extending the emerging shape of a student’s horizon of understanding for the purposes of meaningful growth. Here, I refer readers to Simpson and Jackson (2012) and Tanner (1991, 1997).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Aaron Stoller

Aaron Stoller is associate director of the University Honours Programme at North Carolina State University – 221 Jensen Drive, #219 Clark Hall, Campus PO Box 8610, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8610, USA. Stoller is the author of Knowing and Learning as Creative Action: A Reexamination of the Epistemological Foundations of Education (Palgrave MacMillan, 2014).