Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
It is important to think about “thinking.”
There is a new book out on biblical integration that accepts the patterns of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Maslow’s Hierarchy as if they were given from Mt. Sinai. That upsets me. Why? The source of an idea matters. Consider that Bloom’s Taxonomy only concerns itself with the intellect, leaving out any attitudinal concerns. Or consider that Maslow’s Hierarchy ends with “self-actualization,” without any reference to supernatural concerns, contrary to a Christian point of view.
As an academic, I will read or listen to anyone’s point of view. What concerns me is when people will not give honest attention to the worldview of the person holding the position. The content of belief comes from someone who begins with an assumption that may be different from mine. As a teacher, I should always be cognizant of that idea.
Thanks for spending this minute with me, Dr. Mark Eckel.
Mark Eckel (MA English, ThM Old Testament, PhD Social Science Research) is Executive Director of the Center for Biblical Integration, Liberty University.
“Give Me a Minute” is an ongoing effort to simply, clearly, and quickly explain aspects of true Truth. [First published at MarkEckel.com]
Gratitude, as always, to my longtime friend, videographer, and tech guru Josh for his continued service.
AFTERWORD
Every theory comes from a worldview held by a person who subscribes to that view.
Maslow’s view of life excised any transcendent truth, making his hierarchy earthbound and human-centered.
Bloom focuses almost exclusively on cognitive and behavioral verbs in his taxonomy (“motive” and “value” may be two exceptions; nonetheless, there is no understanding of the internal nature of the person given by that verbiage). Do consider “Breaking Down the Bad of Bloom’s” by Jason Barney.
I am not arguing that elements of these theories are all wrong. What I am concerned about is an acceptance without Christian critique of these or any theories. Maslow’s focus on “family” is important to me. I utilize the verbs in Bloom for lesson plan development. However . . .
A biblical view would include ideas that are purely intrinsic, a transformation only possible by internal change.
I finished a journal essay, one section given to educational affective objectives (if you’re keeping track, I have written on the topic in these Friday emails obtained by sign up at the pop-up at MarkEckel.com : 4.4.25, 1.31.25, 4.26.24). Here is part of what I wrote:
Doctrine should be internalized, affecting our affections. Students in my Spring 2025 Gothic horror literature class, for instance, would be asked about doctrine through affective questions. Each query is burgeoning with creaturely concerns:
- How has your attitude changed?
- How have you been internally motivated?
- What virtues should you display?
- How has this experience brought you joy?
- How have you been caused to repent of anything in your life?[1]
Notice that none of these ideas (attitude, motivation, virtue, joy, repentance) can be seen or held in one’s hand. As I have written elsewhere: “You can’t see an attitude. You can’t touch an emotion. You can’t taste a mindset. But I can certainly experience attitude, emotion, and mindset in a person’s body language, tone of voice, or facial expression. In education we call this kind of learning affective. Learning that reaches to one’s thought process, that works to transform someone’s spirit, is affective learning. Learning that reaches to one’s thought process, that works to transform someone’s spirit, is affective learning.”
Discussion (10)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Didn't Maslow add a whole level later--something about transcendence?
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
When I look at that pyramid, I see the Democrat party's platform of government services.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Yes. But to him, "transcendence" meant communing with nature, helping others, along with a nebulous "spirituality." Interesting, in reading people who comment on Maslow's "religious tendencies" they describe his interaction with religion as "complex." I should write an essay on descriptive labeling of peoples' positions. I'm sure someone commenting about me would add the word "controversial."
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
While I wholeheartedly agree that both of these authors missed some major life elements, I respect both of them for creating a framework within which to look at psychology and education in a well-organized way.
Bloom's Taxonomy of Behavioral Objectives was met with resistance by most teachers because at that time, they were very disorganized in articulating teaching and learning goals. That was why he wrote the book. Kids need to know in concrete terms what is expected of them. I started out in educational publishing just as Bloom's taxonomy was starting to be incorporated into textbooks, and then I had my own children. I think Bloom was correct in analyzing the poor performance in schools, especially public schools. I noticed that when kids had a very clear understanding of what was expected of them--"Memorize the spelling of these ten words this week"--they met the challenge. When they did not know exactly what the teacher wanted, they tuned out. I could see it as a mom volunteering in my kids' classrooms over the years where I knew the kids well. So I respect Bloom's work. He probably didn't get the football all the way across the goalposts a lot of the time or even most of the time, but his work created a practical standard: teachers must set goals for their students.
As for psychology, Man's Search for Meaning should be the entirety of teaching, learning, and actual therapy in psychology, and the book would take only six weeks to read and study in order to be able to implement the "in a nutshell" principles. That said, I think Maslow, like Bloom, established a framework in which to think about human nature in a very well organized way. I admire that. It was not a complete summation of what makes us good and productive people, but it established a baseline for how psychologists should think about helping people. I helped a mentally ill person live fairly normally for many years, and the people I found most helpful in the array of professionals I was working with were the psychiatric social workers. It was a very narrow professional field, and they focused on housing and what we now call the "activities of daily living." They embraced Maslow's organization chart to organize their own work with their clients. "What does my client need each day?"
All that said, I do appreciate your point, that these two authors, leaders in their respective fields, ignored faith. :)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
You're seeing five of ten comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.