Learning Outcomes and the Legacy of Tabula Rasa: A Philosophical Examination

Learning Outcomes and the Legacy of Tabula Rasa: A Philosophical Examination

Finding a poster prominently displaying the learning outcomes hanging on the wall in a school classroom, is quite common. The conversation around learning outcomes is so widespread that one can find it everywhere in educational settings. Teachers often find themselves thinking of ways to achieve the learning outcomes, as most assessments are linked to them. The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), the premier institution for research and training in education in India, has officially published documents mapping the learning outcomes for each topic it recommends for school education across different subject areas.

In a mechanized teaching and learning environment in schools, we rarely pause to reflect on when learning outcomes officially replaced learning objectives. In a milieu where teachers are expected to act rather than think, this is not unusual. Without much thought, the terms "learning objective" and "learning outcome" are often used interchangeably. However, there is a significant epistemic shift when we move from learning objectives to learning outcomes.

Almost 500 years ago, in the 17th century, John Locke, an English philosopher, used the Latin term “tabula rasa” (blank slate) to describe the mind at birth. This implies that by controlling the environment, we can control the output, an idea that inspired the behaviorist school of thought. However, it was criticized for its view of humans as passive agents.

The constructivist school of thought provided a more detailed critique of this idea. Constructivism emphasizes that learners construct their own understanding and knowledge of the world through experiences and reflection. According to this view, learning is highly individualized, as each learner integrates new information with their existing knowledge base in unique ways. In this approach, the teacher's role is to facilitate learning by providing appropriate contexts, resources, and experiences that allow students to build their own understanding. The focus is on the learning process, not on achieving a predefined set of outcomes. Paulo Freire offered the harshest critique of the tabula rasa idea through his metaphor of the "banking model of education," where learners are seen as empty vessels to be filled with knowledge.

Through the works of John Dewey, Freire, and other 20th-century thinkers, constructivism was almost universally accepted as the best way to teach and learn. Indian education policy also responded to this philosophical understanding and continued with the idea of learning objectives, where teachers and policymakers may set objectives, but cannot determine outcomes. If one examines Indian policy documents from 1968, 1986, and 1992, these documents are completely silent on the issue of learning outcomes. Even the 2005 National Curriculum Framework refers to the term but in a more critical way. In contrast, the new education policy mentions learning outcomes at least 19 times in its 65-page document.

Upon closer examination, it becomes clear that the idea of learning outcomes appears to be a continuation of the 500-year-old and obsolete concept of “tabula rasa”, where it is believed that outcomes can be determined, thus minimizing the agency of the learner. Each classroom has become a space of inherent contradiction: teachers are trained to be facilitators, while the learning outcome chart hanging on the wall seems to control the learning environment and determine learning. In conversations with teachers, one cannot miss the confusion and anxiety many experience, often unaware that this is a matter of philosophical debate. Scholars in this field believe that this reflects the growing influence of techno-managerial approaches in education, which have less to do with the philosophy and sociology of education and more with budgetary allocation and measurement. The contradiction is inevitable.