SYED ZAFAR ULLAH (BC190205889)    

(EDU401)
Assignment 2 (Fall 2019)

Q. 1: Summarize the article titled “Models of Education: In-depth Review”.

Models of Education: In-Depth Review

1. Introduction
Over many decades the processes of learning and teaching have changed significantly to adapt
to human needs and fulfill the requirements of evolving societies. Two common elements
associated to any learning and teaching methods are students and teachers. The two of them are
reflections of one another‟s success in their professions. As a teacher, successful students indicate
healthy teaching process, while successful teachers imply well-established learning styles.
2. Mastery Learning Education
Mastery learning is a theory as well as a teaching strategy. As a set of instructional practices, it
helps most students to learn at high levels. As a theory, it postulates that all students if given the
time can master the coursework. It is based on the belief that all students can learn [1-2]. The work
of Carroll [3] was influential in the development of mastery learning in arguing that students have
different needs in the amount of time to learn a given unit of study. In addition to the quality of
instruction and the ability to understand the instruction, [4] argues, the student‟s aptitude for the
subject determines the time needed for each student to master the learning.
Bloom [9] developed the Learning for Mastery (LFM) model in which students receive
individualized instruction to master all course material.
The LFM model states:
1. The learner knows what must be mastered and how;
2. The order and formulation of instructional objectives is important;
3. The course is broken into smaller units with corresponding tests;
4. The teacher provides feedback and correction after each test;
5. The teacher provides the time students need to learn;
6. Alternative learning opportunities should be provided; and
7. Students work in small groups to review test results and help each other understand errors [9].
Another influential model is Keller‟s [15] Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) that is
defined by four characteristics:
1. Students move at their own pace;
2. Students move from one unit to the next after they demonstrate mastery;
3. Lecture is minimized as a teaching strategy. Students are given objectives, reading material,
and study questions to prepare for tests; and
4. Instructional staff resources are used to help students correct errors.

3.Outcomes-based Education
 Outcomes-based education (OBE), outcomes-based learning (OBL), outcomes-based learning
and teaching (OBLT), or the outcomes driven developmental model (ODDM) are all similar
concepts and are based on a constructivist philosophy of education with a wide variation in their
implementation. In simplest terms, OBE is a student output-based system in which student need is
based on output performance; setting outcome expectations for students to achieve, ensuring
through teaching and re-teaching in as many different ways as possible for as long as it takes until
everyone meets them [12]. OBE is centered not so much on what is taught, but on what is learned
[17]. OBTL runs on a capacity building model where the quality of teaching is judged by the
quality of learning [17]. Once outcomes are identified, all educational practices should be aligned
with these outcomes [18]. When implementing a newly devised OBTL system, the entire
whereas the average student in a control class performed in the 50th percentile. In a study, covering
a period of three years (2006-2009), 18 workshops were conducted in Hong Kong pertaining to
teaching creativity and learning using an OBTL model [17]. Roughly 110 adults ages 30 and
above, 140 secondary to first-year university students ages 16-20, and 60 children ages 6-12
participated [4]. Both observational and portfolio assessment data were used as a means for
analysis. This study concluded that in-depth analysis and understanding of TLAs with a project
design is crucial when implementing OBTL as a basis of teaching and learning creativity [17]. If
OBTL is devised with rigid guidelines, students produce insufficient creativity in executing the
constructive alignment and designing of the outcomes; therefore, a loose form of OBE is suggested
to improve creativity [17]. Donnely [6] summarized the affect OBE had on the entire educational
system in Australia, South Africa, and the United States during the 1990s. Some of the criticisms
and concerns addressed are summarized as follows:

• An excessive number of curriculum outcomes required, especially in the primary grades;

• Superficial, vague, and overly generalized outcome statements that work against the
acquisition of essential knowledge, understanding, and essential skills associated with subject
disciplines;
• Management of individual student assessment data is overly time consuming, difficult, and
unfairly increases the workload of teachers;
• Weakening of the idea of striving for success for students by eliminating the concept of
failure;
• Overemphasis on criterion referenced assessment to the detriment of norm referenced
assessment;
• Emphasis on subject knowledge is reduced in preference to skills and processes; and
• Heavy demands placed on teachers to create curriculum.

Much of Donnely‟s [17] criticism was based on the failed implementation of OBE in South
Africa, Australia, and the United States in which OBE was replaced with a standards-based model.
In Australia, OBE was criticized by parents and teachers and was mostly dropped in 2007. OBE
was dropped in South Africa in 2010. OBE was a popular term in the United States during the
1980s and 1990s, but was modified and called mastery learning and standards-based education
among other terms. Ultimately, the No Child Left Behind Act came into prevalence in the 1990s in
which the standards-based movement prevailed. While the standards-based movement has elements
of OBE, the traditional style of education in which the standards-based system is housed delineates
it starkly from OBE.

4. Competency-based Education
 Competency-based education, a system of education that has emerged and re-emerged at various
times, was originally a product of the 1970s [11]. Competency-based education is commonly
defined as an educational model in which there is a clear, measurable definition of mastery, along
with procedures and tools for tracking that mastery. Students progress at their own pace, based on
what they can show that they know [13]. [14] added that competency-based education “is not
predicated on seat time, but upon observable activities demonstrated by the learner. Under this new
guise, a diploma is not guaranteed by growing older and staying out of trouble”. Historically,
competency-based principles are rooted in vocational education [13-16], and often appear in earlier
works specific to vocations like psychiatric care, clinical education, therapy, and teacher education
programs [12]. Competency-based refers to an instructional system where students are given credit
for performing to a predetermined level of proficiency under specified conditions [9] because of
fears that teaching facts and techniques provided students with information that quickly became
obsolete [3]. Barris [3] stated that competency-based education brings together similarly successful
elements of theoretical educational frameworks
5. Conclusions
This work has shown the possible correlation between major educational models currently in use and
the so-called teacher efficacy. Several models of education have been explained in thorough details
along with corresponding literature to highlight the link between the two variables mentioned earlier.
The study pinpoints the road map to further studies to explore this relationship