Designing for educational outcomes

A large part of the formal education landscape across the world, and also in India, is based on what is called Outcomes Based Education, or OBE for short. But the way it gets implemented on the ground is sometimes mind-numbingly tedious and only promotes a toxic compliance-driven culture, rather than nurturing a culture of inquiry. 

One of the first mistakes we do is to equate "outcomes" with "exam performance" and argue for all of education be designed around examinations. We sometimes hear weird axioms like "assessments drive learning". It is one thing for assessments to assess learning-- but once they start driving our learning, we have lost the very reason why we are educating the population in the first place. This culture has also completely taken out the emphasis on learning, in classrooms. Most of our courses today start as a contractual agreement where we first present the assessment model, exam pattern, etc. and students make a decision based on how well prepared are they to "crack" the exam. 

I remember in one of my classes on distributed computing, many years ago, there was this student who had scored very high marks, who was sitting in the first row. He seemed to be visibly distressed by my teaching. When asked what is the problem, he blurted out, "But what kind of questions can you possibly ask from what we are learning now?" I had to let him know that I was not even thinking of the exam at this time. 

I've also conducted this related experiment. To incoming graduate or undergraduate level students, I ask them about the marks they obtained in Std 10th Board exams. Most of the students remember their marks (and also where they stood with respect to their friends). But when I take a random topic from their 10th standard, like say, explain the axioms of Eucledian geometry, or explain Apollonius theorem, they would have forgotten them. This is a sad state of affairs because the learning is supposed to stay with them-- not the marks. 

We have systematically conditioned our students to perform, but not learn. 

At the core of this mess that we are in, stems from our inability to understand the notion of outcomes. We often equate "outcomes" with "outputs". Outcomes is not the same as outputs. A quick Google search will reveal several articles and videos contrasting outcomes with outputs. 

How do we understand outcomes? Here is a quick definition: 

• Outputs are what we produce 
• Outcomes are what we become 

Consider an example. A car factory adopts the latest robotic technology to manufacture cars. As a result it is now able to build up to 500 cars of different models in a month. This is its output. As a result of its increased and high-quality output, it may become the market leader and it may also become an attractive organization for both customers and employees. These are the outcomes. 

Increased outputs do not necessarily mean better outcomes. Even high-quality outputs also need not imply good outcomes. An organization may be producing a lot of high quality output-- but in order to produce high-quality output, it may have turned into a toxic and exploitative place to work in. Or it may have taken several debts and made bad financial decisions in order to improve the quality of its outputs. Hence, even if the organization creates high quality outputs, the outcome may still be that it ends up bankrupt. Producing something, and becoming something, are two different things altogether. 

Designing for outcomes is not the same as designing for outputs. While outputs do play a role in manifesting the desired outcomes, they are not equivalent to one another. We cannot replace outcomes with outputs. Outputs are visible, while outcomes are typically latent. We have to infer the outcomes from the outputs (and other visible cues). 

In an education setting, it is not what the students produce which should be our focus, but how they are themselves changing and transforming as a result of their educational journey. 

Similarly, outcomes are not the same as capabilities. When educators sometimes understand that outputs are not the same as outcomes, we often see them focusing on students' capabilities instead-- and equating that with outcomes. This is done using frameworks like the Bloom's Taxonomy that categorizes learning based on the kinds of capabilities that the student can demonstrate. 

What a student is capable of doing, is not the same as what they have become, or how they have transformed as a result of their education. A student may have acquired several skills and capabilities during their educational journey, but in this process they might have also become disillusioned, cynical, resentful, and manipulative. We can only imagine how they would put their capabilities to use, based on what they have become. 

So what exactly can we use to design for outcomes? What is the transformation that we seek to manifest in our students as they go through their educational journey? 

To address this, we have to first ask what is the role that education plays in a society. The most general answer that we can give for this is that the role of education in a society is to create an empowered population. 

What is meant by an empowered population? Is it about a population that can meet industry needs and earn their livelihood? Is it about a population that can take ownership and solve problems? Is it about a population that can live independently? Is it about a population that thinks creatively? Is it about a population that can organize, cooperate and build civilized societies? Is it a population that creates jobs? Is it a population that is empathetic and just?

Empowerment includes all of those capabilities, and more. But without a framework to think about empowerment, the above would just be "hand wavy" rhetoric without giving any insight as to how to we design for empowerment. 

In order to address this, we have developed a framework that we call the "empowerment lattice" which is shown below: 

Empowerment Lattice

This framework presents different stages of "becoming" or "transformation" that we can expect from a learner as they go through an educational journey. 

When a learner starts their educational journey, we can think of their state of being as "novice" or beginners. When we provide novices with some skills, they become "capable" of doing something. The entirety of Bloom's taxonomy, including a student's ability to analyze, synthesize and create, are all about capabilities, which is but just the first step in the long journey to empowerment. For someone who is capable of something, we can now provide them with insights and practice. A capable person obtaining insights will become "knowledgeable", while practicing one's capabilities makes the person become "talented". A person who is knowledgeable and talented, can now combine their knowledge and talent in different settings, leading them to become "experts". 

Expertise is what I would call the "base camp" for empowerment. We cannot build an empowered population without first building expertise. Expertise is also the point of independence. All other outcomes below expertise would primarily serve to augment existing workforce in different forms. Some occupations primarily look for capabilities-- be it for laying bricks or writing a program, while some other occupations require knowledge and talent. All outcomes below expertise serve to cater to the existing needs of different occupations. But someone who is an expert in something, is in a position to choose their occupation and even operate independently. 

But expertise is not the same as empowerment. Acting alone, an expert cannot effect much change. When experts are provided with an inter-disciplinary environment that enables them to operate autonomously and connect with other experts from other fields, eventually we can expect this population to become empowered to effect some changes. Empowerment is about inter-dependency rather than about independence. An empowered population comprises of several experts coming from different areas of expertise, with a sound understanding of not just their expertise, but also their limitations. Such a population collectively ends up addressing a larger issue and bringing about desired changes. An empowered population cannot be formed by experts forming their own fiefdoms, operating in isolation, and trying to grab territory from one another. 

Any major challenge that we face as a population-- be it poverty or illness or climate change or whatever, requires an empowered population of inter-dependent experts enriching one another and collectively tackling the challenge. This is what educators need to aim for, 

Education is called a noble profession for good reason. As educators, we not only get to see but also get to affect how students are transformed in their educational journey. It is tempting to use the capabilities and talents of students to serve our own professional goals or our standing in the peer community. But at all times, we need to be mindful of not just what the students are producing-- but also how are they transforming-- what are they becoming. 

The journey of transformation is not simple. It is full of unexpected twists and turns and is a deeply personal journey. To foster transformative journeys for students, it is important for educators to foster a collaborative environment among themselves within and across institutions and countries. Competition is for businesses and athletes-- not for educators. Educators across the world should meet-- not to compare their personal scorecards-- but to enrich one another to help build an empowered humanity. 

Understanding "subjective" and "objective" statements

 A common source of confusion that we often encounter is regarding the terms "subjective" and "objective" statements. 

The term "subjective" is often defined to mean as expressing an opinion or sentiment, while the term "objective" is defined to mean statements that are factual or unbiased. 

But there is a problem with such definitions. How do we know that what we are stating is indeed factual? We may believe it to be a fact, while it may not actually be factual. Similarly, how do we know that what we are saying about something is unbiased? We may not even know what are all the possible sources of bias, and we may not have the complete picture about something even if we believe otherwise. 

Yet another (really weird) definition of these terms is that, a "subjective" question (in an exam, for example) is something that requires an essay-type answer, while an "objective" question is something like a multiple-choice question, or a fill-in-the-blank question, etc. 

To really understand these terms, we need to understand what is a "subject" and what is an "object". The "subject" is the inquirer or agent who is inquiring something or doing something. The "object" is the inquired or the "patient"-- that which is being inquired, or that on which the action is performed. In the picture above, the man is the subject, while the flower is the object. 

An "objective" statement or question simply means that the statement or question pertains to the object. While a "subjective" statement simply means that the statement or question pertains to the subject. 

Hence, we can very much ask an essay-type objective question in an exam-- for example, asking the student to provide a proof for a mathematical theorem. Similarly, we can ask an MCQ-type subjective question-- for example, in a feedback form where we ask for opinions in the form of a set of options. 

The reason why MCQs are often called "objective" questions is that the answer-key for them does not depend on the opinions of the examiner. There is an objective answer to the question, that is independent of any subjective opinions of the examiner. But see that this is also true for evaluating the proof for a theorem, which is in the form of an essay-type answer. Here also, the opinions of the examiner does not matter. The proof can be deemed correct or wrong, purely based on objective considerations. 

An objective statement can very much be biased-- or even be non-factual. It is just a statement or an assertion about the object. The assertion should be subjected to further inquiry to ascertain whether it is unbiased and factual. 

*~*~*~*

Once we get the above distinction clear in our minds, we are ready to take the next leap: What happens when the subject is the object of inquiry? As in self-inquiry? 

If I am inquiring about my opinions about something-- then are the opinions (which are "my" opinions) the subject or the object? 

Once we seriously start inquiring this problem, we make our first steps into Indian philosophy about the self.

In defense of Maya

Purva paksha: 

When we study Advaita Vedanta, we learn about the impermanent and transient nature of existential reality that is called Maya. Our daily experience of reality comprising of matter and interactions among them are in a continuous state of flux. Vedanta posits that the underlying substrate of all of our experience is an unchanging reality (that is called Brahman), that is the only reality that exists. This substrate is existence itself-- and forms the "is-ness" of everything that is. 

An example that is oft quoted is that of a clay pot. A clay pot is just clay and nothing else. There is nothing called a pot if we remove the clay from a clay pot. The cause of a clay pot is the clay, and the clay itself appears as a pot. The name, form and function that forms a pot is not at the same level of reality as the clay. The clay can exist without the pot, but the pot cannot exist without the clay. 

The transactional reality of our universe comprising of laws of physics and of mathematics, are all existing objects. They are termed to be just different appearances of the same underlying existence. No amount of existential laws can affect the fundamental nature of reality itself. Somewhat like how all the water in a mirage cannot wet a grain of sand of the desert where the mirage appears; or how all the happenings in a movie (like say, an explosion) that is played on a screen cannot affect the screen on which it appears. 

The transactional reality of our physical and even mathematical universe, is at a lower, transient level of existence than reality itself, that is eternal. 

One of the implications of such a philosophical theory is that it is wise to not embroil ourselves in the complexities of existential reality, and instead remain rooted in the ultimate reality that is indeed the true nature of our Self. 

Uttara paksha: 

While the philosophy of Advaita is itself solid and cogent, there are certain implications of such an inquiry that makes us infer that existential reality is somehow "inferior" or "irrelevant" as it is only transient, and does not represent the real nature of our selves. 

Such an interpretation can lead us to a state of nihilism, where all existential issues, including notions of ethics, patriotism, loyalty, human rights, justice, etc. are all considered transient and unreal, and therefore, not worthy of inquiry. 

To be sure, most key philosophers of Advaita were anything but nihilistic-- be it Adi Shankaracharya, Vidyaranya, or Vivekanda-- they were not just philosophers, but also key figures that changed the course of Indian history. There were also however, philosophers like Gaurapada (Shankaracharya's Guru's Guru) who was known to be a complete renunciate, and spent his life as a hermit in the mountains. 

But the question still remains-- if all of existential reality is Maya, and no more an appearance in Brahman, why and how do we motivate or advocate for anything at all? Do concepts like honesty, loyalty, justice, fairness, etc. mean anything at all? Or are they just movies played on the screen of reality?  

Swami Vivekananda grappled with such questions-- given that in his time India was in the grip of oppressive colonial rule, and philosophers struggled to unite against the oppression. In response to such questions, Swami Vivekananda came up with his own philosophy called Integral Advaita, about which, I had written about earlier. 

This post is about the importance of giving due diligence to the considerations of Maya or existential reality, despite the fact that it is "just" an appearance in Brahman, and not our true nature. 

For one, if Maya had not worked in my favour, I would not be sitting here writing this blog post, wondering about the true nature of the universe. 

The core substrate that is my reality is also the very same substrate of the table in front of me or of the dog that is barking outside. Yet, it is me imagining about reality and writing this blog post, and not the table or the dog. 

Similarly, while the screen is the only real entity in a movie being played on TV, it is for the movie that we buy the TV and not just the screen. Suppose I have a broken TV which doesn't work anymore, I cannot possibly sell it to someone saying that they are getting the real thing (the screen), and the movies that play on the screen aren't real anyway! 

The clay may be the only reality of a clay pot, but it is debatable to say that the cause of the clay pot is the clay alone. If the clay alone were to be the cause of the pot, then all clay would turn into pots! Rather than the clay, it is the idea of a pot is the cause of the pot. The idea of a pot has a sound mathematical structure that can be argued to exist even when we remove the clay from a clay pot. The idea of a pot may not have physical properties like size and weight. But it does have mathematical properties like its topology and geometry. 

Hence, despite being "just an appearance" in the reality of Brahman, Maya is the reason that we are all here trying to understand what this is all about. Unlike Brahman that is the nature of eternal existence-consciousness-bliss, Maya is of complex hues and forms and characteristics. It is what that gives us all our existential dilemmas, all ethical quagmires, all philosophical schools, all scientific theories, and all religion and spirituality. 

Despite the reality of the screen in which our movie plays, we are but characters in the movie that we are in, and we better play our roles well. 

Science, and the game of science

In an episode of Young Sheldon, young Sheldon who is supposedly a genius and a budding scientist, is listening to the live broadcast of the Nobel prize ceremony live from Stockholm. He had invited several of his friends to listen to this live broadcast, even tried to engage in debates with them on who ought to be winning the Nobel this year, and also arranged for snacks for them to have a listen-party-- but no one turns up.

The next scene shows him lamenting that he may end up dying all alone, at this rate. The scene then shows other future BBT protagonists as kids, and what they are doing at that time. Young Howard is tinkering with some machine, Young Raj is looking at the stars, Young Leonard is reading something, Young Penny is sleeping, and so on. None of them had invited anyone else to listen to the live broadcast from Stockholm and were lamenting about no one turning up. 

It appears from this, that the real budding scientists were Young Sheldon's friends. Young Sheldon only showed interest in the game of science, while his friends showed interest in science itself. They were more interested in science itself, and not the social practices around science, like awards and recognitions. Young Sheldon only deluded himself as a scientist, but was more interested in who gets what award.

Of course, it is more likely that it is Sheldon who would stand the best chance of winning a Nobel prize later on. We tend to get what we really want. What Young Sheldon wanted was recognition as a scientist-- and his friends were more inclined to be a scientist.

*~*~*~*~

The difference between some field of activity, and the "game" of that field of activity, is the most important thing that we need to teach our next generation. Today, it is very hard to find those rare individuals who are really interested in scientific inquiry as an end in itself-- and are willing to pursue it sincerely, regardless of whether they get published and cited for their work. Their voices are drowned by the shrill rhetoric of very many scientific tournaments that abound. 

Most administrative decisions around science today, are based around the game of science, and not around science itself. Science is supposed to be a systematic inquiry into something that helps us understand reality better, and overcome some of our problems and challenges that we face. But the game of science is about award, glamour, recognition, fame, power, and such things. 

I often give an analogy to help understand this better. Consider a space research organization that has the capability to send humans to the moon. Even in such an organization, not every employee gets to go to the moon. The few astronauts who do get to go to the moon, get a lot of visibility, glamour and fame. But by far, they are not the ones who are practicing the science of going to the moon. There are typically hundreds or thousands of scientists and ground staff-- most of whom get no recognition at all-- who are pursuing the actual science of sending humans to the moon-- and of bringing them back! 

Scientific inquiry is a dispassionate and collaborative process. We all possess some nugget of insight from our own inquiry, and only when we collaborate and exchange notes will we get a glimpse of the deeper picture of reality. But the game of science sets up a competitive atmosphere of credits and awards, that goes against the spirit of collaboration. Imagine cartographers from olden days who each had an understanding of their region and just a broad idea about how the rest of the world looks like, competing with one another and pushing their version of the map as the authoritative one! (Such things did happen, but advances in technology made all such games obsolete). 

Scientific breakthroughs are often a result of shooting from the shoulders of giants. A great breakthrough is the result of several independent pursuits and there is typically no one inventor of anything. Unlike what we were taught for example, it is not just Wright brothers who built heaver-than-air flying machines. Several people around the world had independently created heaver-than-air flying machines-- that also included an Indian scientist named Shivkar Talpade (who does not feature in any "mainstream" articles or on Wikipedia for obvious reasons). Even if it is only the "Hindu nationalists" who mention Shivkar Talpade, it is entirely plausible that thinking minds existed in India too just like in every other corner of the world, and someone could have very well attempted building flying machines. 

The game of science is all about territoriality and turf wars, that is intricately affected by prevailing socio-political power structures. The science of radio was discovered and practiced by the Bengali scientist J C Bose quite successfully but the game of science only reluctantly acknowledged his contributions (with many conditions and caveats) several decades later. 

Science is driven by curious minds, while the game of science is driven by commercial and political interests and their power dynamics. The game of science is about winners and losers-- while science is about knowledge and ignorance. 

*~*~*~*~

Oftentimes to promote scientific temper, we create one or more "games" around science to "motivate" people to pursue science. However, unless we understand the psychology of how our minds interact with games, such efforts lead pretty much to the exact opposite of the intended outcome. 

Sometimes I ask the younger generation who are in their early 20s, whether they remember the marks they obtained in their crucial 10th standard Board Exams that they took when they were 14. Invariably, most of them would remember the exact marks that they had got in 10th standard. In fact, more than the students, their aunts and uncles would remember their marks much more clearly-- as this becomes a benchmark for their own children to aspire for, and get better results and "win" against their cousins, in this game. 

But when I then take up a random topic from their 10th standard syllabus and ask them a question about it (like say, "What is Apollonius Theorem"? or "What are Eucledian axioms of geometry?"), most of them would have forgotten the answers to these! I've also asked questions like "How do you measure the height of a tall coconut tree without climbing it?"-- something that the assimilated knowledge of 10th standard education should have helped them solve, even if they didn't remember specific theorems. But most of the times, the students are clueless about how to do this. 

The marks, which is an artifact of the game of science lives for much longer in our minds, and gets a life of its own, than the science itself! The marks is supposed to have represented how good we are in the science that we were taught-- yet, after a few years (or sometimes, just after the exams are over), only the marks remain, and the science is forgotten!  

And this is not relegated to just individuals. Entire institutions and nations are gripped in the game of science, and neglecting the practice of science in this process. 

Recently there was this news about the University of Zurich calling it quits and withdrawing from the game of university rankings expressing concerns about the quality of its research suffering from an obsessive emphasis on quantitative metrics. 

Some years ago I got to speak with an agency that advises universities on how to get better rankings. The person speaking to us was almost boasting that their agency had played a critical role in convincing the government to make these rankings mandatory-- and now they are advising universities (for a fee, of course) on how to get better rankings. He even when on to say that while he himself did not get admission in a prestigious technical university several years ago-- these universities now come to him for advice on improving their rankings! 

It reminded me of a scene from a Charlie Chaplin movie, where Charlie first sends out a boy, who goes about throwing stones at glass windows and breaking them, and then Charlie himself walks in a few minutes later, selling his services for window repair! Rankings are a classic case of the broken window fallacy where actual scientific activities get upended, to cater to the requirements of the game. 

Real scientific pursuits results in a congenial and cooperative work environment where the focus is on the scientific object of inquiry and problem-solving, while emphasizing on the game of science results in toxic work environments, full of mistrust, backstabbing, and an indignant and judgmental atmosphere. 

*~*~*~*~

The only thing worse than not having a scientific mindset, is to have a "game of science" mindset. 

Financial inclusion in rural Malawi

Recently, I had the opportunity to visit several locations in rural Malawi in southern Africa, to study different initiatives towards financial inclusion. This was part of my collaboration with a UK based organization called Rural Inclusion, and its implementation partner, CADECOM (Caritas Malawi). This activity was supported by a grant from the Frontiers Programme of the UK Royal Academy of Engineering. 

Rural Inclusion, as an organization, works with several Community Based Organizations (CBO) in multiple countries to provide training on financial literacy through their platform named Ostrii. The CBOs in turn work with several communities to impart this training as well as assess impact on the ground. 

As part of our visit, we interacted with several communities in the Dedza region, and the Ntchisi region of Malawi. Communities in these places had organized themselves to create informal banking systems called VSLA (Village Savings and Lending Association), where community members are encouraged to make deposits regularly. Unlike formal banks, VSLAs are run completely for and by the community members. Depositors in VSLAs are not customers, but members of the community, and hence stakeholders in the VSLA. Unlike a formal organization, a VSLA runs on community principles of social responsibility, openness, honesty, and caring for each other. 

VSLA deposits are then invested in multiple projects in agriculture, education and small businesses to lead to dividends. These dividends could also be in-kind, as in agriculture produce-- that are then shared with community members in proportion to their investments. 

Community members of Golomoti village in Dedza region of Malawi, with their community bank (the locked treasure box)

These community banks were run by mostly the women-folk, although there were some men as part of these initiatives as well. We also interacted with a youth club in the village of Golomoti, which started in 2019 and had members ranging in the ages of 10-40 years old. This group had a more heterogenous mix in terms of gender and age, among its members. 

A self-help youth club, started in 2019, with members ranging from 10-40 years of age, becoming financially self-sufficient from the training provided on the Ostrii platform and the guidance from the local CBO

Several institutional players are also involved in these community initiatives in different ways. Major telecom providers like Airtel and TNM are pushing mobile money initiatives, so that the community banks do not have to store cash. The community coffers currently have three locks whose keys are with three different office-bearers, requiring all their consent before the box is opened. In mobile money initiatives, apparently, the PIN is split into single digits and four different office-bearers know one digit of the PIN each. 

The ubiquitous Airtel mobile money kiosks that are found in most public areas and marketplaces, that enable subscribers to perform all their banking operations using feature phones, with the help of the kiosk attendant.

We also interacted with officials from the Malawian Reserve Bank, as well as from the UN Capital Development Fund (UNCDF), both of whom are keen on promoting digital technologies towards financial inclusion. I also noticed some marked differences in their opinions regarding digital inclusion as well. While the official from the Reserve Bank was keen on promoting digital identity solutions and bringing community banking into the formal sector, the official from UNCDF voiced concerns about such establishmentarian solutions that could upend traditional community-oriented solutions that also fostered a sense of belongingness and identity to the population. 

We could also notice several interesting elements of the community dynamics. For one, they had elaborate songs and dances celebrating the community and our visit to them. One of our hosts translated some of the lyrics of these songs to us. In one of their songs, for example, the community was welcoming us as "co-workers" that have come to enrich their community. We learned that in these communities, everyone who contributes-- including external collaborators like us-- are co-workers, and there is no strict hierarchy within the community as well. 

The women of Ntchisi welcoming us to their community bank

I also learned something interesting about the interplay between families and communities. Many tribes in this area practice a matrilinear system. Here, wealth is primarily held with the womenfolk, and a man's wealth for example, is not inherited by his sons, but by his sisters' children, because the female sibling is seen as the primary custodian of generational wealth. These traditions that have a long lineage, have been an integral part of the tribal dynamics in the region, leading to several interesting outcomes that are unique to the region. 

Some specific challenges included the challenge of getting community members to understand the need for insurance. Many community members were expecting their principal to be paid back by the insurer if they had suffered no loss, and there was no need for the sum insured to be paid out. Rural Inclusion had created several instructional videos in their local language Chichewa, to explain many fundamental concepts of financial management. These videos typically featured a central character called Mr. George, operating in different scenarios that require different kinds of financial wisdom. 

In this specific visit, the community members were shown a series of videos on different kinds of mobile money frauds and how money is lost to fraudsters when using mobile money. We encountered several responses from community members, detailing similar situations that they had been in. Thankfully, none of them had lost any money to fraudsters so far. 

Overall, the visit was a very good learning experience, showcasing a real use case of digital empowerment with the use of Internet, mobile and digital banking technologies.