Republic of the Philippines

Commission on Higher Education

Region V (Bicol
REPUBLIC COLLEGES OF GUINOBATAN, INC.
GRADUATE SCHOOL
G. Alban Street Iraya, Guinobatan, Albay

TOPIC : OBE CURRICULUM

SUBJECT : EDUC. 212a (CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT)
STUDENT GARPESA, MARIEL G.
PROFESSOR: DR. SARAH TOCA

Outcome-Based Education

You asked a series of specific questions about outcome-based education.

This report answers your questions in order. It is based largely on information from the

Education Commission of the States (ECS), a nonpartisan education research and

policy organization based in Denver, and the ERIC Digest, published by the

Clearinghouse on Educational Management at the University of Oregon.

What is the definition of “Outcome Based Education”?

Outcome-based education (OBE) is education in which an emphasis is placed on a

clearly articulated idea of what students are expected to know and be able to do, that is,

what skills and knowledge they need to have, when they leave the school system. It is

sometimes also called performance-based education and is an attempt to measure

educational effectiveness based on results rather than on inputs such as time students

spend in class. The student learning outcomes constitute the criteria by which

curriculum is developed or redesigned, instructional materials are selected, teaching

methods are adopted, and evaluation is conducted.

 Where did it start? Was there an educator or a group of educators or other

“experts” who proposed it originally?

The Education Commission of the States traces this concept back to the 1930s and a

study involving 300 colleges and 30 high schools. The participating high schools

redesigned their courses away from the conventional curriculum in order to promote

their students' acquisition of higher-order thinking skills, and the colleges relaxed their

conventional subject matter entrance requirements in exchange for detailed information

about the skills and abilities of the participating high schools' graduates. The study
revealed that graduates of the most experimental high schools were “strikingly more

successful” than graduates of schools with the traditional college preparation courses.

A University of Kentucky report on OBE finds all its basic principles outlined in a 1949

book on curriculum and instruction in which Ralph W. Tyler argued that teaching and

learning are inextricably linked, to the degree that it makes no sense to say that

teaching takes place if there is no learning. He viewed student learning as the criterion

of teaching effectiveness.

There is no single model for outcome-based education. Many national groups are

developing content-specific outcomes, and individual school districts and some states

have adopted some forms of OBE. But some people confuse the concept with one or

another specific program that may have elements with which they disagree. They then

object to the entire concept on that basis. An example of this confusion is identifying

outcome-based education in general with an instructional model developed in the 1960s

by Benjamin Bloom, who is thought to have coined the term OBE. Bloom's “Mastery

Learning” process divides curriculum material into lots of small distinct units, and

students' progress is measured by their mastery of these units. It is a specific teaching

method. The outcomes concept does not promote a specific method. It says rather that

educational practice should be focused on ensuring that students master the skills (that

is, master “the outcomes”) the community decides are necessary for them to be

effective adults.

Do other states use OBE? If so, what is their experience both politically (is it

accepted by parents, teachers and students), and academically (is there

measurable improvement in academic skills of students taught under OBE)?

ECS identifies 23 states that have developed or implemented some form of outcomes

program. These include Connecticut based on our state board's adoption of the

Common Core of Learning. The Common Core was issued as a set of guidelines, not

mandates, for districts and schools to use as they choose. An ECS spokesman reports

that several states (Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) have backed

away from implementing OBE, based on public “uproar.” Objections frequently relate to

the possibility of nonacademic goals that reflect someone else's politically correct values
being taught in schools. Others include a fear of loss of local control over education and

the (inaccurate) belief that OBE entails doing away with grades and Carnegie units.

Research conducted during the 1980s to identify the elements common to high-

achieving schools listed a goal-oriented instruction program as the first common

element. It also found that these schools direct resources toward achieving specific

instructional goals, and their staffs work together to achieve learning objectives. The

ERIC Digest cites Florida as a successful example of a state whose legislature helped

school districts define outcomes and then waived statutes to give schools the flexibility

to meet those goals on their own terms.

ECS points out that statistical proof of the benefit of statewide outcome-based

education programs may be difficult to come by. These programs are relatively recent,

and evidence of success will require establishing baseline data on students and schools

and then monitoring the results over time. But even then, it may be difficult to attribute

improvement solely to OBE. Many of the states, such as Kentucky, for example, are

involved in several reform efforts simultaneously, making it difficult to establish which

change caused which improvement.

Some schools and districts that have implemented OBE programs report positive

results: The Johnson City Central School District in upstate New York saw its first

graders' average reading scores increase after adopting OBE from slightly below the

national norm to three or four months above grade level. The percentage of its third

graders scoring above grade level on the Stanford assessment test increased from 37%

to more than 75%. The Sparta School District in Illinois reported that students achieved

significantly higher grades and test scores after four years of implementing an OBE

program.

Is it an element of OBE that traditional letter grades A through F are not used? If

so, what grading system, if any, is used?

The various OBE programs share an emphasis on changes to the entire educational

system, observable and measurable student performance or student outcomes, and the

assumption that all students can learn. There is no single grading system that is

common to all programs, nor is it a necessary feature of OBE that traditional letter
grades be abandoned. But it is true that some programs, such as William Spady's OBE

model, involve expanded opportunity and support for students who need more time to

master material. Students in these programs may be given grades of Incomplete until

they succeed.

Is it an element of OBE that homogeneous grouping is prohibited?

OBE does not require the elimination of homogeneous grouping. In fact, under Spady's

model, teachers use grouping, as well as coaching and team teaching, to give students

extra help.

Under OBE in other jurisdictions, who generally sets the outcome standards to

be achieved (i.e. teachers at the school or district level, local education agencies

or state education agencies or commissioners)?

The outcomes students should be able to demonstrate can be set at the level of the

school, the district, or the state. In fact, they can be and have been set at the national

level. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards are outcomes

developed by a national curriculum organization that have been adopted by individual

teachers, schools, and districts.

The standards can be adopted as mandates or as guidelines. Connecticut's current

Common Core was adopted for use as a guide by schools and districts. The

Commission on Educational Excellence in Connecticut has recommended that the

student performance standards be developed cooperatively at the state level by a

broad-based group of educators, parents, business leaders, and other citizens. It also

recommends that school districts set additional standards to supplement the state

standards.

Introduction to OBE (Outcome Based Education)

OBE focuses on students achieving outcomes (required attributes, skills, qualities) after

undergoing the learning process through the OBE curriculum. The attainment of the

outcomes are a learning process that may temporally vary from one student to the

other; regarded as means and not the end objectives. If the outcomes are not attained,

they are rethought, thus ensuring the Continual Quality Improvement (CQI) takes place
in the education system. OBE shifts the paradigm from the teacher-centered to the

student-centered learning. The new teaching and learning (T&L) approach transforms

from an emphasis on traditional input, such as course credits earned and hours spent in

class, to results or outcomes. It focuses on empirically measuring student performance,

or the outcomes. OBE implementation requires that students demonstrate that they

have learned the required knowledge and developed the required skill and attributes.

OBE Components

OBE comprises of four (4) major components which cover (1) curriculum design, (2)

teaching and learning methods, (3) assessment, and (4) continual quality

improvement (CQI) and monitoring. It addresses the following key questions; what

do you want the students to have and able to do?, how can you best help

students achieve it?, how will you know what they have achieved?, and how do

you close the loop?

OBE Implementation Process

The OBE implementation process encompasses the establishment of Programme

Educational Objectives (PEOs), followed by Programme Outcomes (POs), designing

curriculum, teaching and learning (T & L) methods, assessment, CQI and monitoring. 

PEOs are formulated in line with institutional mission statement and stakeholders'

interests. It also addresses the graduate attainment within 3 to 5 years after their

graduation. Programme Outcomes (POs), which consist of abilities to be attained by

students before they graduate, are formulated based on the PEOs. POs address

knowledge, skills and attributes to be attained by students.

Relationship between lesson topics, CO, PO and PEO

 Topics lead to lesson outcomes

 Group/individual lesson outcomes lead to course outcome (CO)

 Course outcomes must relate to programme outcomes (PO)

 Programme outcomes must address the programme objectives (PEO) (What

kind of "engineer" are we producing?)

Programme Outcomes (POs)

 Programme Outcomes (POs) are statements that describe what students are

expected to know and be able to perform or attain by the time of graduation.

 These relate to the skills, knowledge, and attitude that students acquire

throughout the programme.

 Outcome-Based Education (OBE) Framework

Outcome-based education (OBE) is an educational theory that bases each part of an

educational system around what is essential for all students to be able to do

successfully at the end of their learning experiences.

For the educational system to function effectively, OBE framework is identified. It

guarantees that curriculum, teaching and learning strategies, and assessment tools are

continuously enhanced through an evaluation process.  The methodology P-D-C-A

(plan-do-check-act) cycle has been applied for optimum effectiveness and efficiency.
The framework adopts the OBTL implementation which revolves around three important

elements: a) description of the intended learning outcomes (ILOs) in the form of a verb

(learning activity), its object (the content) and specification of the context and a standard

the students are to attain; b) creating a learning environment using teaching/learning

environment activities (TLAs) that address that verb and therefore are likely to bring

about the intended outcome; and c) using assessment tasks (ATs) that also contain that

verb, thus enabling the teacher to judge with the help of rubrics if and how well students’

performances meet the criteria.

The implementation of an outcomes-based education, which promotes the practice of

constructive alignment between outcomes, learning activities and assessment tools

needs an environment where all stakeholders (teachers, students and the institutions)

are engaged in the process of transformative reflection and constant action. Each of

these participants reflects in interaction with the others in three domains: teacher and

student, teacher and institution, student and institution that would have built-in quality

enhancement and mechanisms for not only assuring quality but for enhancing quality.

(Biggs, 2007, pp. 247-249)

Building a learning community that enhances the ownership of curriculum planning and

reflective practice among its faculty will establish new opportunities for meaningful

dialogue among peers, and facilitate the collective efforts of the institution in responding

to the demand of accountability from accreditation agencies as well as the public inquiry

about the quality of teaching and learning in higher education.

What is Outcome-based education?

Outcome-based education is a model of education that rejects the traditional focus on

what the school provides to students, in favor of making students demonstrate that they

"know and are able to do" whatever the required outcomes are.

OBE reforms emphasize setting clear standards for observable, measurable outcomes.

Nothing about OBE demands the adoption of any specific outcome. For example, many

countries write their OBE standards so that they focus strictly on mathematics,

language, science, and history, without ever referring to attitudes, social skills, or moral

values.
The key features which may be used to judge if a system has implemented an

outcomes-based education systems are:

    Creation of a curriculum framework that outlines specific, measurable outcomes. The

standards included in the frameworks are usually chosen through the area's normal

political process.

    A commitment not only to provide an opportunity of education, but to require learning

outcomes for advancement. Promotion to the next grade, a diploma, or other reward is

granted upon achievement of the standards, while extra classes, repeating the year, or

other consequences entail upon those who do not meet the standards.

    Standards-based assessments that determines whether students have achieved the

stated standard. Assessments may take any form, so long as the assessments actually

measure whether the student knows the required information or can perform the

required task.

    A commitment that all students of all groups will ultimately reach the same minimum

standards. Schools may not "give up" on unsuccessful students.

Outcomes

The emphasis in an OBE education system is on measured outcomes rather than

"inputs," such as how many hours students spend in class, or what textbooks are

provided. Outcomes may include a range of skills and knowledge. Generally, outcomes

are expected to be concretely measurable, that is, "Student can run 50 meters in less

than one minute" instead of "Student enjoys physical education class." A complete

system of outcomes for a subject area normally includes everything from mere recitation

of fact ("Students will name three tragedies written by Shakespeare") to complex

analysis and interpretation ("Student will analyze the social context of a Shakespearean

tragedy in an essay"). Writing appropriate and measurable outcomes can be very

difficult, and the choice of specific outcomes is often a source of local controversies.

Each educational agency is responsible for setting its own outcomes. Under the OBE

model, education agencies may specify any outcome (skills and knowledge), but not

inputs (field trips, arrangement of the school day, teaching styles). Some popular
models of outcomes include the National Science Education Standards and the NCTM's

Principles and Standards for School Mathematics.

Approaches to grading, reporting, and promoting

An important by-product of this approach is that students are assessed against external,

absolute objectives, instead of reporting the students' relative achievements. The

traditional model of grading on a curve (top student gets the best grade, worst student

always fails (even if they know all the material), everyone else is evenly distributed in

the middle) is never accepted in OBE or standards-based education. Instead, a

student's performance is related in absolute terms: "Jane knows how to write the letters

of the alphabet" or "Jane answered 80% of questions correctly" instead of "Jane

answered more questions correctly than Mary."

Under OBE, teachers can use any objective grading system they choose, including

letter grades. In fact, many schools adopt OBE methods and use the same grading

systems that they have always used. However, for the purposes of graduation,

advancement, and retention, a fully developed OBE system generally tracks and reports

not just a single overall grade for a subject, but also give information about several

specific outcomes within that subject. For example, rather than just getting a passing

grade for mathematics, a student might be assessed as level 4 for number sense, level

5 for algebraic concepts, level 3 for measurement skills, etc. This approach is valuable

to schools and parents by specifically identifying a student's strengths and weaknesses.

In one alternate grading approach, a student is awarded "levels" instead of letter

grades. From Kindergarten to year 12, the student will receive either a Foundational

level (which is pre-institutional) or be evidenced at levels 1 through to 8. In the simplest

implementation, earning a "level" indicates that the teacher believes that a student has

learned enough of the current material to be able to succeed in the next level of work. A

student technically cannot flunk in this system: a student who needs to review the

current material will simply not achieve the next level at the same time as most of his

same-age peers. This acknowledges differential growth at different stages, and focuses

the teacher on the individual needs of the students.

In this approach, students and their parents are better able to track progress from year

to year, since the levels are based on criteria that remain constant for a student's whole

time at school. However, this experience is perceived by some as a flaw in the system:

While it is entirely normal for some students to work on the same level of outcomes for

more than one year parents and students have been socialized into the expectation of a

constant, steady progress through schoolwork. Parents and students therefore interpret

the normal experience as failure.

This emphasis on recognizing positive achievements, and comparing the student to his

own prior performance, has been accused by some of "dumbing down" education (and

by others as making school much too hard), since it recognizes achievement at different

levels. Even those who would not achieve a passing grade in a traditional age-based

approach can be recognized for their concrete, positive, individual improvements.

OBE-oriented teachers think about the individual needs of each student and give

opportunities for each student to achieve at a variety of levels. Thus, in theory, weaker

students are given work within their grasp and exceptionally strong students are

extended. In practice, managing independent study programs for thirty or more

individuals is difficult. Adjusting to students' abilities is something that good teachers

have always done: OBE simply makes the approach explicit and reflects the approach

in marking and reporting.

Differences with traditional education methods

In a traditional education system and economy, students are given grades and rankings

compared to each other. Content and performance expectations are based primarily on

what was taught in the past to students of a given age. The basic goal of traditional

education was to present the knowledge and skills of the old generation to the new

generation of students, and to provide students with an environment in which to learn,

with little attention (beyond the classroom teacher) to whether or not any student ever

learns any of the material. It was enough that the school presented an opportunity to

learn. Actual achievement was neither measured nor required by the school system.

In fact, under the traditional model, student performance is expected to show a wide

range of abilities. The failure of some students is accepted as a natural and unavoidable

circumstance. The highest-performing students are given the highest grades and test
scores, and the lowest performing students are given low grades. (Local laws and

traditions determine whether the lowest performing students were socially promoted or

made to repeat the year.) Schools used norm-referenced tests, such as inexpensive,

multiple-choice computer-scored questions with single correct answers, to quickly rank

students on ability. These tests do not give criterion-based judgments as to whether

students have met a single standard of what every student is expected to know and do:

they merely rank the students in comparison with each other. In this system, grade-level

expectations are defined as the performance of the median student, a level at which half

the students score better and half the students score worse. By this definition, in a

normal population, half of students are expected to perform above grade level and half

the students below grade level, no matter how much or how little the students have

learned.

Why do institutions got to follow OBE?

There is a seamless and cross-institutional approach to market OBE. for instance ,

the induction of India within the Washington Accord in 2014 with the permanent

signatory status of The National Board of Accreditation (NBA) is taken into account

an enormous breakthrough for the higher-education system in India. It means an

Engineering graduate from India are often employed in anybodyof the other

countries who has signed the accord (Know more about the Washington accord

here). For Indian Engineering Institutions to urge accredited by NBA according to the

pacts of the accord, engineering institutions must follow the result Based Education

(OBE) model. So, for an Engineering Institution to be accredited by NBA it should

compulsorily follow the OBE Mode Tutorials, Assignments, Project work, Labs,

Presentations, Employer/Alumni Feedback, etc,. These course outcomes are

mapped to Graduate attributes and Program outcomes supported relevance. This

evaluation pattern helps Institutions to measure the Program Outcome. The Program

Educational Objective is measure through Employer satisfaction survey (Yearly),

Alumni survey (Yearly), Placement records, and better education records.

METHODS OF ASSESSMENT

Formative Assessment

To monitor student learning and to

1. To monitor student learning and to supply onging feedback which will be

employed bu instruction to enhance their teaching and by student to

enhance their learning.

2. Help student to identify their strengths and weaknesses and target areas

that require work

3. Help faculty recognize where student are struggling and address problem

immediately

4. Examples of formative assessment include asking student to

5. Submit one or two sentence about a piece of writing or lecture during a

discussion forum

Summative Assessment

1. To evaluate student learning at the top of an idea instructionsal unit by

comparing it against a typical or benchmark

2. Often high stakes which suggest that they need a part value and a bg

impact on the course grade

3. Examples of summative includes : exam, projects and paper

4. Help students identify their strengths and

To monitor student learning and to

• the way to choose classroom reform

• the way to choose program alignment

 • the way to create external accountability

• the way to achieve system transformation

• the way to sustain it over time.

CHALLEGES:

o Meaning of the term ‘out-come based education and the way they’ve ‘

o Deliver.

o Current interest in OBE to global socioeconomic changes.

o The way to choose classroom reform

o The way to choose program alignment

o The way to choose to creat external accountability

o The way to achieved syster system transformation

o The way to sustain it over time.

RESOURCES

Briggs, A. David. “Alhambra High: A `High Success' School.” Educational

Leadership 46, 2 (October 1988): 10-11. EJ 378 738.

Brown, Alan S. “Outcome-Based Education: A Success Story.” Educational

Leadership 46, 2 (October 1988): 12. EJ 378 739.

Conley, David T. Roadmap to Restructuring: Policies, Practices, and the Emerging

Visions of Schooling. Eugene, Oregon: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational

Management, University of Oregon, 1993. 430 pages.

Glatthorn, Allan A. “Outcome Based Education: Reform and the Curriculum

Process.” Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 8, 4 (Summer 1993): 354-63.

McKernan, Jim. “Some Limitations of Outcome-Based Education.” Journal of

Curriculum and Supervision 8, 4 (Summer 1993): 343-53.

McNeir, Gwennis. Outcomes-Based Education: Tool for Restructuring. Oregon School

Study Council Bulletin. April 1993. Eugene: Oregon School Study Council. 29 pages.

Rothman, Robert. “Taking Account.” Education Week 12, 25 (March 17, 1993): 72-75.

Schlafly, Phyllis. “What's Wrong with Outcome-Based Education?” The Phyllis Schlafly

Report 26, 10 (May 1993): 1-4.

Spady, William G. “Organizing for Results: The Basis of Authentic Restructuring and

Reform.” Educational Leadership 46, 2 (October 1988): 4-8. EJ 378 736.

Streshley, William, and Mac Bernd. “School Reform: Real Improvement Takes

Time.” Journal of School Leadership 2, 3 (July 1992): 320-29. EJ 447 130.

Vickery, Tom Rusk. “ODDM: A Workable Model for School Improvement.” Educational

Leadership 47, 7 (April 1990): 67-70. EJ 405 195.

DAM:pa

https://engineering.uitm.edu.my/civil/index.php/academic/quality-in-academic/

introduction-obe/introduction-to-ob