See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228694362

Barriers and enablers to the implementation of outcomes-based education: A

reflective practice perspective

Article · January 2010

CITATIONS READS

0 246

5 authors, including:

Rosemary Levy Chang Llewellyn Mann

Swinburne University of Technology Swinburne University of Technology
17 PUBLICATIONS   327 CITATIONS    48 PUBLICATIONS   249 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alex Stojcevski Gillian Lueckenhausen

Deakin University
9 PUBLICATIONS   200 CITATIONS   
122 PUBLICATIONS   457 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Engineering Education View project

Learning Without Borders: Linking Development of transnational leadership roles to international and cross-cultural teaching excellence View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Llewellyn Mann on 29 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 th nd
Joint International IGIP-SEFI Annual Conference 2010, 19 - 22 September 2010, Trnava, Slovakia

BARRIERS AND ENABLERS TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF

OUTCOMES-BASED EDUCATION: A REFLECTIVE PRACTICE
PERSPECTIVE
Rosemary Chang1, Llewellyn Mann2, Alex Mazzolini3, Alex Stojcevski4, and Gillian
Lueckenhausen5
1
Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box 218 Hawthorn VIC 3122 Australia
rchang@swin.edu.au
2
Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box 218 Hawthorn VIC 3122 Australia
lmann@swin.edu.au
3
Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box 218 Hawthorn VIC 3122 Australia
amazzolini@swin.edu.au
4
Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box 218 Hawthorn VIC 3122 Australia
astojcevski@swin.edu.au
5
Swinburne University of Technology, Sarawak, Jalan Simpang Tiga, 93350,
Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia
glueckenhausen@swinburne.edu.my

Abstract: This paper explores Swinburne‘s University of Technology professional

learning using a reflective approach in relation to the implementation of an Outcomes
Based Education (OBE) activity with academic staff in Engineering Education. The
paper describes the initial stage of an implementation of outcomes based education
across the engineering curricula at Swinburne University of Technology, which
provides programs at both university and polytechnic levels. As this is the first stage
in a larger implementation, a number of recommendations have emerged in relation
to future work. The recommendations are strongly interrelated to the element of ―staff
development‖, since they were required for the next, immediate phase of the larger
study. The recommendations are also generalisable to the engineering education
community engaging with curriculum renewal.

Keywords: Outcomes-based education, curriculum alignment, reflective practice.

1. Introduction
While outcomes-based education (OBE) has become core to engineering programs
around the world, particularly through national accreditation programs [1,2], the
implementation and embedding of this within and across programs and curricula
remains an issue. OBE approaches can strengthen student learning by making the
outcomes of learning explicit to students in terms of ―what a learner is expected to
know, understand and/or be able to demonstrate after completion of a process of
learning‖ [3]. Through the alignment of explicit learning outcomes, learning activities,
feedback and assessment processes, outcomes based education focuses on
enabling students to demonstrate their learning [4]. This paper describes the initial
stage of an implementation of outcomes-based education across the engineering
curricula at a public Australian university, which provides programs at both university
and polytechnic levels. The implementation of OBE has been an iterative process,
 th nd
Joint International IGIP-SEFI Annual Conference 2010, 19 - 22 September 2010, Trnava, Slovakia

and this paper reports on a second phase of activity that was intended to consolidate
previous activity.

While this OBE activity is part of a larger study being conducted across all
undergraduate engineering programs, the reflections reported in this paper focus on
four units of study. The four units were identified to be included in this paper based
on three criteria: (1) as first-year units, they form an important transition step for
students between high school and university; (2) they already used some active
learning strategies to focus on engaging students more; and (3) they were common
to all engineering discipline curricula and so represented large classes and the
enrolment of all first-year students. In this second phase, the OBE activity was
designed to expose academic staff to OBE in greater depth. The activity involved
further familiarising academic staff with a conception of OBE, then enabling them to
describe their current practice in OBE terms. However, it must be emphasised that it
was not the intention to change teaching practice at this initial stage of the study.

The first phase of the OBE activity involved preparation and piloting. Introductory
materials for OBE (with indebtedness to our colleague at the international campus)
including a matrix to analyse curriculum alignment was developed. These materials
were then piloted. The second phase of activity involved staff development. A
workshop was convened that focused on OBE with the dual aims of deepening
conceptual understanding and introducing the documentation to describe current
teaching practice in terms of OBE; and when the documentation was rolled out, staff
were invited to have consultations with the academic developer and to share drafts in
progress. The academic developer also approached staff from units with large
student enrolments including those in this study for consultations. She held
consultations with six academic staff relating to this study. The final phase of the
OBE activity involved staff completing and submitting the initial OBE documentation.

The question this research aimed to answer was: What are the barriers and enablers
for academic staff to engage with outcomes-based education?

2. Outcomes-based Education
The outcomes-based education activity within the four units of study was analysed
using a framework developed by Barrie et. al. [5] shown in Figure 1. This framework
from the National Graduate Attributes Project (National GAP) consists of eight
interacting elements that focus on how an institution can implement renewal in
learning and teaching—in this case towards outcomes-based education. The eight
elements are:
 Conceptions – referring to the different ways people understand outcomes-
based education, which has been shown to influence how they implement
them within their own situations [6]
 Stakeholders – referring to the various groups that influence and are
influenced by the way outcomes-based education is implemented, including
staff, students, the university and professional bodies
 Implementation – or the way a university coordinates its implementation of
outcomes-based education
 th nd
Joint International IGIP-SEFI Annual Conference 2010, 19 - 22 September 2010, Trnava, Slovakia

 Curriculum – refers to both the general structure of the curriculum as well as

any pedagogical features that may influence the process such as project
based or work integrated learning
 Assessment – or the way outcomes are explicitly embedded within
assessment pieces
 Quality Assurance – refers to the way the implementation of outcomes-based
education is monitored for quality
 Staff Development – refers to the way staff are engaged and enabled to
implement outcomes-based education
 Student Centred – or the perception by students of the way in which the
process has developed within them worthwhile outcomes

Figure 1: National GAP Framework [5]

3. Methodology
This paper focuses on the development and introduction of an OBE activity with
academic staff. The methodology used a reflective approach drawn from action
research with its emphasis on professional practice [7]. Of the ten definitions of
reflection that emphasise outcomes, this approach is most closely aligned with
reflection as ―a process of critical review‖ [8]. The main device for data collection was
the reflective writing journal kept by the first author, who holds the role of academic
development advisor on the OBE project. This author built rigour into the reflective
process by applying Moon‘s [8] framework to support depth and meta-cognition in
reflective writing. She wrote reflective entries through the three phases of the OBE
activity, and after each consultation with academic staff regarding OBE—with
additional weekly entries to enable depth of reflection. The second data source
comprised reflections that developed from conversations between the first author and
the second author acting in the role of ―critical friend‖ [9]. The validity of reflective
interpretations was enhanced by this critical partner who was independent of the
OBE project.

The third data source was documentary artefacts collected during the project, which
included: unit outlines revised by academic staff to strengthen the OBE approach;
project plans; unit resources; and staff development materials for OBE. These data
were then analysed in terms of the eight elements of renewal of learning and
teaching. In combination these three data sources provided triangulation.
 th nd
Joint International IGIP-SEFI Annual Conference 2010, 19 - 22 September 2010, Trnava, Slovakia

4. Findings
As discussed in the theoretical framework, this section presents reflections arranged
by Barrie‘s framework [5] of eight elements in the renewal of learning and teaching.
These are reflections of the first author, who was the academic development advisor
(ADA) in the OBE activity, who henceforth will be referred to as the ADA.

4.1 Conceptions
As Barrie [5] argues, individuals‘ conceptions of the renewal of learning and
teaching—in this case OBE—influence their behaviour towards all aspects of the
renewal, including curriculum design, documentation and teaching practice. Within
this project, through conversations and reviewing unit outlines, the ADA observed a
continuum of conceptual variation with four distinct stages of viewing OBE that were:
holistic, complimentary, parallel or unformed. The ADA spoke to one staff member
who had adopted OBE at previous institutions who viewed OBE as an holistic, all-
encompassing approach to learning and teaching. This staff member fundamentally
saw OBE as a way to support students to take responsibility for their own learning,
including self-directed learning outside class. Implicitly, this view encompasses a re-
imagining of teaching practice in comparison to traditional lecture-lab-tutorial modes.
The ADA spoke to other staff that held a complimentary view—seeing OBE as an
opportunity to reshape the communication with students, and to shift curriculum
design and teaching practice to become more student-centred. Staff with this view,
see OBE as complimenting their additional renewal activities (such as incorporating
active learning), but not as the sole framework or driver for renewal. Rather OBE is
integrated into existing curriculum and additional renewal activities, without being the
dominant driver for change. Staff with a parallel view of OBE saw it as sitting
alongside their current teaching practice, without necessarily influencing or making
contact. Such staff had begun to gain conceptual understanding of OBE, but had not
had the opportunity to consider implications for teaching practice. In discussions with
one individual, he spoke using ―retro fitting‖ imagery—explaining that he felt that he
was adding OBE descriptions back onto his existing curriculum. This view has
implications that are explored in the staff development theme. One staff member,
although willing to engage in OBE activity, indicated a yet unformed view of OBE.
This individual had not developed conceptual understanding of OBE, and instead
viewed OBE activity through the lens of documentation required for accreditation.
This staff member maintained a conception of curriculum as a series of content
topics within traditional approaches to teaching and learning. Our fresh
understandings of the potential stages for viewing OBE are factors that can enable
subsequent staff development initiatives to support conceptions of OBE. Elucidating
conceptions is the first step towards supporting conceptual change, which is a notion
that will be explored further under the theme of staff development.

4.2 Stakeholders
Stakeholder reflections will focus on stakeholders‘ cultures, specifically academic
leaders‘ and teaching academics‘ cultures, since the ADA was particularly ―struck‖
[10] by conversations that reflected culture—which became a catalyst for reflective
learning.
 th nd
Joint International IGIP-SEFI Annual Conference 2010, 19 - 22 September 2010, Trnava, Slovakia

Two academic staff members in leadership positions were conscious of academic

staff as the key actors in the implementation process. Both spontaneously raised the
theme of staff motivation and co-operation with the ADA. Both described academic
staff members as being motivated to help students, emphasising that they genuinely
care about students‘ experiences, and that they would co-operate. In this the ADA
was struck that the two academic leaders spontaneously acted as advocates for
other staff members‘ perspectives—rather than being focussed on progressing a
management agenda. The ADA was also interested in a focus on academic staff
from an affective perspective: Leaders considered, how might their emotional
reactions influence them in relation to the implementation?

When the ADA talked to academic staff, she was equally struck by their willingness
to engage with the OBE activity with a co-operative attitude. This attitude implies a
loyalty to the faculty/faculty leadership that may be related to lengthy employment
with the faculty (15-20 years‘ service is not uncommon). The academic culture of
willing co-operation starkly contrasted with the ADA‘s experiences at other
universities, where change agendas have contributed to an anti-managerial culture.
In turn, academic developers are seen as agents of management. In such cultures,
the ADA has observed attitudes towards change and academic developers ranging
from cynicism, to antagonism, to anger and obstructionism. Instead, she was keenly
aware of the unusual opportunity that the academic culture of willing co-operation at
this faculty represents to support genuine renewal of learning and teaching; however,
with a proportion of the workforce facing retirement in the short- to medium-term,
responsive action is required to harness this opportunity to embed renewal with
experienced teaching staff. This culture of willing co-operation is a distinct enabler of
renewal to further strengthen OBE.

4.3 Implementation of Policy

The ADA‘s observation of implementation of OBE prior to this OBE activity is that
activity was mainly focused at the level of individuals or teaching teams. Future OBE
activities provide the opportunity for a focus at faculty level to support extended
developmental activities. The ADA‘s conversations with a colleague leading similar
work at the university‘s international campus suggest that faculty-level activity—using
workshops and conversations over an extended period, coupled with academics in
situ to mentor colleagues—are key factors that enable implementation. An additional
enabler of implementation is the growing body of comprehensive approaches to
renewal of learning and teaching such as in [5] and [11].

4.4 Curriculum & Assessment

During the OBE activity, some reframing of curriculum and assessment was being
driven by the intersection of undergraduate degrees offered at university and
associate degrees offered at polytechnic level. Staff involved at this point of
intersection had given effort and thought to what OBE means for documentation,
teaching practice and learning resources.

Potential enablers that might assist the further embedding of OBE include the
existing engagement in innovative teaching practice. Staff are currently innovating
with curriculum and teaching—including active learning, and e-learning such as
 th nd
Joint International IGIP-SEFI Annual Conference 2010, 19 - 22 September 2010, Trnava, Slovakia

simulations and tablets. This innovation speaks of a receptive approach and

orientation towards student centred learning.

4.5 Quality Assurance

As with engineering faculties elsewhere, external accreditation is strong driver of
quality assurance in our faculty. While the OBE activity was not an audit, we are
attempting to collect data (including this study) to understand the current state of staff
conceptions and teaching practice. This is to potentially inform a subsequent
intervention of a larger scale, which would aim to avoid a compliance-driven
approach, but rather intend to build meaningful engagement with OBE for staff. A
compliance-driven approach focusing on documentation has its drawbacks. As
Carew et. al. [11] have articulated about documenting renewal in engineering and the
potential for disconnection from teaching practice: ―the ‗paper universe‘ is not always
accurate‖. In terms of accreditation, it was noted previously that some staff viewed
the OBE activity within the framework of creating documents for accreditation. One
staff member was particularly concerned to ask questions about documentation
processes and status. These questions made the ADA reflect on how we had
presented the context of the OBE activity to staff. While it had been our intention to
make these matters clear, we have scope to improve. This person‘s questions
highlighted the importance of enabling staff to understand context to their
satisfaction, preferably including opportunities for conversation and questions. It also
emphasised for her the way in which external accreditation can add gravitas to an
implementation in the eyes of academic staff. In combination, these two factors—the
gravitas of external accreditation and engagement through participatory
conversation—highlighted enablers for future staff engagement that could harness
the power of dialogue [12] presented in the context of needs for accreditation.

4.6 Staff Development

In terms of staff development, these reflections will contrast the experiences of two
specific staff members: one who participated in the pilot implementation and one who
did not. The staff member who participated in the pilot expressed a low level of
confidence in understanding OBE at the start of the process. However, via the
piloting process he received an extended period of ―opportunities for conceptual
change‖ regarding OBE, which Barrie et. al. [6] have identified as a key factor in staff
development for learning and teaching renewal. Over approximately six months, he
engaged in developmental activities that included repeated dialogue with the ADA as
the academic developer, opportunities to influence and trial the implementation
documents, and opportunities for self-directed further reading to expand his
understanding. Through these experiences he created ―intellectual space‖ [13] to
enrich his conceptual understanding. Through the course of the project the ADA
observed in this individual the highest degree of conceptual change regarding OBE
and clear intentions to feed changes back into his teaching practice.

In contrast, another staff member told the ADA that he felt he was ―guessing‖ to
complete the OBE activity. She recognised that he was expressing an insight that
cognitive change was required and he was willing, but was not confident that he had
achieved sufficient change to adequately complete the OBE activity. Specifically, he
talked about feeling as if he was asked to guess what was in students‘ heads. His
 th nd
Joint International IGIP-SEFI Annual Conference 2010, 19 - 22 September 2010, Trnava, Slovakia

description points to further scope for cognitive change (since OBE has a focus on
what students can demonstrate, rather than their internal understanding.) This staff
member‘s conversation feeds into a diagnostic of the staff development process.
Institutional timelines prevented us from providing the extended period for
engagement and reflection for all staff, which had been available to staff in the pilot. It
has become clear that length of time is a significant enabler in the staff development
process. Therefore, sufficient time for staff development to support cognitive change
is an important consideration in further activities.

4.7 Student Centred

The OBE activity was initiated with faculty leadership expressing to the ADA the
belief that a stronger shift towards OBE would assist the faculty to become more
student centred. To this end, the OBE staff development workshop was promoted to
staff as part of a ―move away from a teacher-centred ‗content‘ approach‖ that would
include describing ―units in terms of learning objectives from the student perspective.‖
There is already evidence of student-centred approaches in existing teaching
practice, which surfaced in consultations and documentary artefacts, such as unit
outlines. For example, there is a strong orientation towards active learning. However,
these lie in pockets of teaching teams or individuals‘ practice. The way forward for
future OBE activities is to tap into the current co-operative good will, and to
consolidate pockets of student-centred approaches to build a strong foundation for
renewal.

5. Conclusion & Recommendations

This paper has explored Swinburne‘s professional learning using a reflective
approach in relation to the implementation of an OBE activity with academic staff. In
this conclusion, the authors (1) reflect on the usefulness and limitations of the
National GAP Framework to analyse renewal in learning and teaching, and (2)
crystalise our reflections in the form of recommendations for future action. The
National GAP Framework provided a useful model for analysis, but presented
limitations. For instance, the diagrammatic representation of the model does not
capture the interconnections between the elements and implies a hierarchy of
chronology or sequence that is misleading. In addition, the term ―student centred‖
does not accurately describe the final element—and renaming (to a term such as
―student perspective‖) points to potential future work in refining the model.

As this is the first stage in a larger implementation, a number of recommendations

have emerged in relation to future work. These recommendations are strongly
interrelated to the element of ―staff development‖, since they were required for the
next, immediate phase of the larger study. These recommendations are also
generalisable to the engineering education community engaging with renewal.

The authors recommend:

 That where a faculty culture of willing co-operation exists, that this represents
an unusual opportunity to embed renewal of learning and teaching in the
short- to medium-term with teaching staff of lengthy experience and warrants
harnessing.
 th nd
Joint International IGIP-SEFI Annual Conference 2010, 19 - 22 September 2010, Trnava, Slovakia

 That planning and implementation of renewal relating to OBE incorporate staff

development strategies that include staff involved in leadership, teaching,
curriculum development and student support.
 That renewal relating to OBE commence with the understanding that
individuals hold varied (and sometimes conflicting) views of OBE, and that the
first step in staff development strategies is to uncover existing conceptions
through discussion and debate, which would be fruitfully employed using a
community approach across the faculty.
 That the gravitas of external accreditation provides a powerful context for staff
engagement, and that this context be strategically combined with a
deliberately dialogical approach [12] to deepen staff engagement with OBE
implementation.
 That staff development strategies be implemented over a sufficient period of
time to allow discussion, debate, questioning and reflection to enable genuine
conceptual change.
 That future implementations build on existing, comprehensive approaches to
learning and teaching curriculum renewal.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the staff whose teaching practice formed the
basis of the reflections presented in this paper. Four authors are founding members
of the Engineering and Science Education (ESER) group at Swinburne University of
Technology.

References
[1] Aziz, A. A., Megat Modh Noor, M. J., Abang Ali, A. A., Jaafa, M. S. ―A Malaysian Outcomes-Based Engineering Model‖.
International Journal of Engineering and Technology. 2(1) 2005. Pp 14-21.
[2] Greve, D., Schonk, P. & Van Der, AA, P. Matching, Monitoring and Assessing Learning Outcomes of Students in Practical
Assignments. SEFI Annual Conference, 2009.
[3] Tuning Association. Tuning-AHELO conceptual framework of expected and desired learning outcomes in Economics.
OECD, 2009.
[4] Houghton, Warren. Constructive alignment – and why it is important to the learning process. Loughborough, HEA
Engineering Subject Centre, 2004.
[5] Barrie, S., Hughes, C. & Smith, C. The National Graduate Attribute Project: Integration and Assessment of Graduate
Attributes in Curriculum. Australian Learning & Teaching Council. 2009.
[6] Barrie, S.C., ―A Research-based approach to generic graduate attributes policy‖. Higher Education Research and
Development. 23(3), pp261-275. 2004.
[7] Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. Participatory Action Research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of
rd
Qualitative Research (3 Ed, pp. 559-603). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2005.
[8] Moon, J. A. A Handbook of Reflective and Experiential Learning: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge Farmer. 2004.
[9] Kember, D. Action Learning and Action Research: Improving the Quality of Teaching and Learning. London: Kogan Page.
2000.
[10] Culiffe, A. L. On Becoming a Critically Reflective Practitioner. Journal of Management Education. 28(4), pp 407 – 426.
2004.
[11] Carew, A. L., Lewis, J. H. & Letchford, C. W. Conversational Auditing of Stage 1 Competencies for Accreditation and
Beyond. Proceedings of the 2008 Australasian Association of Engineering Education Conference, Yeppoon. 2008.
[12] Vella, J. Learning to Listen, Learning to Teach: The Power of Dialogue in Educating Adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers. 1994.
[13] Barnett, R. Higher Education: A Critical Business. Milton Keyes: SRHE/Open University Press. 1997.

View publication stats