Talk:Outcome-based education

Typographical Errors

I just want to point out some simple typographical errors in the first paragraph which I took the liberty to correct for the benefit of the readers. Originally, it reads, "Instead, it requires the students to demonstrate what they have learned the required skills and content." I changed it to, "Instead, it requires the students to demonstrate the skills and course content that they are required to learn." Please feel free to re-edit if this is an error. Imperator Romanii (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Tolentino(2014) Stated that he is tall.

Significant Restructure

I have taken the time this evening to go thru and make a massive clean up of this article. While i've done a fair bit, sections of it are still over the place and it seems to skip from topic to topic. I've also kicked the entire Australia section in the pants as this was just poorly worded and contained significant weasel words. I'd appreciate any further help to make sense of this article. thewinchester 16:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

South Africa

Why isn't the failure of OBE in South Africa discussed? The minister said that SA will change from OBE to a traditional curriculum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.18.183.53 (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup request

The following entries recommending cleanup of this article have been moved from Wikipedia:Cleanup/August:

• Outcome-based education has draft/editorial notes lying around in the middle of what is posted finished text and hasn't been touched by anyone since 12.23.2003. ffirehorse
  • Not to mention some serious POV problems - opponents are described as "conservative advocates of liberty." Not to be confused with liberal opponents of liberty. --Szyslak

- dcljr 12:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I, too, had some SERIOUS reservations about the POV of the article. It seems heavily slanted in favor of Outcome Based Education, even going so far to say "traditional education cares little if the students actually learn the material." As a teacher, I find that OBE is only concerned with achieving a goal, especially since funding and other incentives come because children achieve on standardized tests. This predicates "teaching to the test," and not really learning or thinking critically. I don't happen to have citations ready (I'm just killing time at work on my lunch), but I will search some out and post them here and on the article iself).TheKurgan (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Outcomes Based Education

An article on the same subject exists at Outcomes Based Education. Which title should we use? --Commander Keane 09:29, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

This article got redirected to "Outcomes Based Education". I moved the content from there here. See this for version before redirect and move. --Dodo bird 18:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The usual format is Outcomes Based Education, and I would recommend moving the whole article to there and reversing the redirect. There are a few examples of the current heading format online, but most use separate words with no hyphen. If no-one objects, I will do this myself in a week or so. --Ishel99 03:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil Vitkus 18:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)== comments moved here from [[Talk:Outcome-based Education]] ==

Merged (but not written) by Russ Blau (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Are there connections between this and the behaviorist school of thought? --Seb

The definition given sounds like it's written by a critic; it make one wonder why anyone would advocate it. Is there something that would be NPOV? --Eric

Well, like all educational theories that make it to the stage of being implemented by state legislatures, there are many aspects to OBE. Give it a day or two and more folks will weigh in. On the other hand, I think it has disappeared from the current educational politics radar screens - I haven't heard the term in public in 3 or 4 years. Seb, in my experience OBE never had the rigor of actual behaviorism, but then I experienced it not as a university research area but as a high school teacher being forced to attend 'training seminars' in how to implement a legislatively mandated practice. --MichaelTinkler, who would sometimes rather forget having been a high school Latin teacher...

I think OBE is more or less what Kentucky is implementing, via the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) they passed 10 or 12 years ago. I think it just isn't getting as much public debate as it used to. --Wesley

It is being introduced into South Africa now, heavily based on an Australian model that even the Australians are backing away from ... clasqm

Yes! It would be good if some South African teachers could add material from their own perspective, to make the article more well-rounded. I have amended the opening paragraph (only). --Ishel99 04:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, special education in the U.S. is drifting strongly towards results-based, not outcomes-based education. Outcomes are commonly perceived in this context as "what happens," but the results are the intended, purposeful, desired measurable, verifiable goals of the student. This is underlying the IDEA 2004 requirements for transition planning. See Post Secondary Transition For High School Students with Disabilities.

Animal Farm?

I removed the link to animal farm since Mr. Orwell's novel doesn't actually have anything to do with OBE.Hegar 08:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

this article is not rigorous at all and is full of generalizations and oversimplifications, and is not full of rigorous facts. For a page on a major educational theory, that's pretty sad. -jfrisby

• Ha, oversimplification and OBE mentioned in the same context, ironic. --Einsidler 16:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Western Australian-centric

Can the article reflect on other examples outside WA where OBE has been implemented (and their satisifactory or unsatisfactory outcomes?). This article sounds a bit parochial focussing on one state in Australia.

• It's a very big, controversial, current issue in Western Australia, and quite a lot of the article is in the OBE in the USA section so I think there is a good balance, however I would like to see some more information about how it has/hasn't worked other places. If I come across any useful information on this topic I will add it. --Einsidler 16:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not a big issue outside WA in Australia as many states moved away from it a while ago. DanielT5 10:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Information-rich reports

I don't think "information rich" accurately conveys the fact that many outcomes-based reporting and assessment documents are written in the most terrible jargon, and therefore are unintelligible to many.This not only includes parents, but teachers and, most disturbingly, the students who have to undertake assessment tasks that are judged according to such frameworks. I feel something needs to be said about this.

• I agree that this particular section needs to get the message across about how complecated the reporting system is, perhaps an example image of an assesment marking sheet would suffice as there aren't any images here yet. I might do that tomorrow if I can be bothered finding and scaning in one of the marking sheets. --Einsidler 16:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Need OBE criticism help on the Traditional Education page

The page on Traditional education seems very pro-OBE to me. I've structured it a bit, but if someone wants to NPOV it, that'd be useful. I doubt I'm a full enough bottle on the thing to do it properly. TimNelson 13:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In the text under "Outcomes", it states QUOTE "Student can run 50 meters in less than one minute" instead of "Student enjoys physical education class." UNQUOTE. This gives the positive view of OBE. In the Western Australian Outcomes documents this would be worded densely something like "A learner can engage in high-coordination locomotory ambulation at speed over a given distance in a given duration". This aspect of OBE, its vague, easily attainable outcomes raises another aspect, namely, the commendable ideological objective of the movement, which is to ensure that every child is an achiever, and that their learning experience is viewed positively. In practise, what parents and traditionally high-achieving students experience is that the curriculum has been simplified so that traditionally low-achieving students can succeed. In the USA the NTCM maths syllabus is a good example. This syllabus was adopted in the early 1990s by Western Australian educrats practically word for word. In fact in Australia the NCTM documents are available through the various Mathematics Teachers Associations booklists. In short, when OBE proponents state that learners can advance at their own pace, in practise, parents and students find that "their own pace" is actually the pace of those students in the cohort that require the most time and intensive assistance to achieve the fuzzily stated "outcomes". Thus OBE has earned the moniker "dumbed-down" education. The coupling of computer technology, and calculators to the OBE paradigm is an example of a strategy to portray the opponents of OBE as backward Luddites. The computer becomes the Trojan horse that lends legitimacy to the egalitarian educational doctrine that is OBE. Some progressive educationists have questioned the primacy of computers, especially in elementary or primary schools [see http://www.allianceforchildhood.net/projects/computers/]. Since the revised NCTM maths documents were released in 2000, there has been an acknowledgement across the board that over-reliance on calculators can hinder children's mathematical development. In Australia, the State of Victoria re-wrote its maths syllabus to include activities without the calculator, and Western Australia's draft WACE (final year high school maths courses now (2007) include calculator-free components. These back-downs were vigorously contested. To say that OBE has been abandoned in Western Australia is simply not true. The marking regime has gone, but the structure underneath that, based on OBE, remains wholly intact from Year One primary school to (proposed) Year 12 final year.

A final thought. The founders and implementers of OBE are always strangely absent in any discussion of the movement. Where is there no mention of William Spady? Why is there no mention of how the work of Piaget has been used (or mis-used... as some would contend)? In Australia, we desperately need information on the educational bureaucrats and educators who have so successfully (or disastrously) implemented OBE. Why no mention of critical theory? It is one of the wellsprings of OBE, at least in the English language curriculum. And it is critical theory that has helped "gate-crash" the so-called content-driven subjects like music, maths and science. [User: Konscience] 18:37 (Australian Western Standard Time) 17 November 2007.

Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you.

Agreed with the info comment above. If you have time to write this, please fix the page in question. -- TimNelson (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed list

Given the requirements of the several states and of No Child Left Behind, I would expect the list "School districts with education reform based on OBE", if completed, would be unmanagable large, so I removed it. -- Beland 05:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide view

...is clearly not represented, eg Europe is mentioned once and even then generalized as a single nation. -G3, 14:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you find a source that suggests OBE is relevant to any country in Europe, Asia, or Africa? We could list several random countries as examples of non-OBE educational systems, but a statement like "Countries like India, Russia, and Poland didn't get on this bandwagon" hardly seems relevant or necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

WA

I agree, there needs to be an Australian view of this that isn't just WA

Need Rewrite? Country specific vs. OBE as a whole

This article is quite long, and also has country-specific information scattered through it in a slightly confusing manner. The article would be more readable if the article was organised in terms of

1. What is OBE?
2. Debate over OBE (a)Perceived benefits (b)Perceived problems/costs
3. Regions implementing OBE (a)USA (b)Australia etc.
4. Groups (v. brief list)
5. Links etc.

Each of the "regions" should be short with a link to a seperate article for all USA/Australia/whatever specific info. Groups from different countries can be in each article.

Given that many advocates of both sides of the OBE argument are involved in the writing of content (it seems obvious to me taking a quick look at the article, then maybe its worth trying sift out all the opinion/value based content from the less-disputed parts and put it in a pros/cons sections.

Does this seem like a reasonable plan? Of course easier said than done, long article, contraversial topic :P --134.115.68.21 13:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but I did it anyway. There were a few other sections, so I'm leaving them for now. -- TimNelson (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

according, opposition, or instead

"The curriculum will be revamped according to principles of progressive education, sometimes in opposition to, or instead might be based on traditional education with a system of incentives and punishments."

To what does "sometimes in opposition to" refer? revamping, principles, traditional education? (SEWilco 17:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

This is a grammatical monstrosity. TheKurgan (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Reform in general, vs. OBE itself

A lot of non-OBE reforms seem to be getting lumped in with OBE. I've killed the following:

Consistent with the latest education research, lecturing would be replaced by teachers as guides to help students discover and construct their own knowledge. Curricula would be integrated into "real life" contexts and project-based learning, and workplace-based learning similar to apprenticeship systems abroad. Facts and methods which are made obsolete by calculators and the internet would be replaced by higher order thinking skills and problem solving using the latest in computer networking technology. Education would no longer be based on merely re-teaching an obsolete curriculum. Education would focus on the success of ALL students as a transforming force which would advance cultural, language, racial and sexual minorities and women, and protect the environment. Process skills would take precedent over fact- and method-based "content". The new 3 R's as declared by leaders in the movement such as Terry Bergeson would be Relating, Representing and Reasoning, rather than emphasis on mere low-level skills such as arithmetic, reading and writing.

Since a curve might require giving out low passing Ds to the lowest 25 percent and fail the lowest 5 percent, such a system would appear to make it possible for all students to succeed, However, in practice, such tests typically given out FAILING "does not meet standard" levels to as many as 80 per cent of students, and much higher levels of minorities. Since performance standards and grading rubrics are not based on traditional knowledge and skills but "higher order thinking skills" and "problem solving", and sometimes even attitudes, significant numbers of high-performing students may also fail these assessments.

on the grounds that it's non-OBE reform, unsourced, and POV to boot. C'mon folks, use your brains. OBE means that you base your education program on your outcomes. From there, any system that works is fine. It could be the boring classroom of the 1950s, or the rolicking rural school of the 1850s. OBE does not, in and of itself, guarantee that modern, intelligent, practical outcomes -- or teaching methods -- will be adopted. WhatamIdoing 22:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that education departments (at least in Australia) are applying a strong sematic drift to the term OBE, by bundling it with other things. Then people who try to learn about OBE by coming here see that there's almost nothing related to what they're doing. About the only way to fix it is to put a disambiguation section near the top of the article that links to other articles that cover these topics (ie. Outcomes-based education is not to be confused with the Western Australian fuzzy outcomes specified by that state's education department). Of course, that means we'd need a Western Australian fuzzy outcomes article.

-- TimNelson (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another:

Many states contracted with the NCEE to create legislation which would require the creation of a curriculum framework or standards, a standards-based assessment to assess attainment of those standards, and a Certificate of Initial Mastery, to be obtained by age 16 or the 10th grade. These frameworks were often written with the intention of excluding traditional standards. Reform mathematics are based on the controversial NCTM design which did not require, or even discouraged instruction of elementary arithmetic which is felt to be too difficult for some students in the age of calculators, instead using class time and homework to write about one's favorite number or color in 10,000 charts with colored pencils. Advanced topics such as algebra and statistics which are unfamiliar to most adults are introduced in elementary school to "raise standards". The whole language movement was largely devoid of the mechanics of phonics and grammar, while exposing students to literature and higher-order thinking concepts such as "how do you feel" rather than questions with one correct answer such as "what did he do". Simple basal readers are replaced by "authentic literature" with reading complexity far beyond traditional reading grade levels. A paper written at a 2nd grade level which contained an original thought "My mother showed integrity" might be rated higher than a paper written at a college level, but which only restated the facts. Inquiry-based science replaces instruction with facts with teaching, and assessing students as early as the fourth or fifth grades how to design and interpret experiments, a skill traditionally not even taught at the high school level, where students were merely expected to participate in, not design experiments. Science assessments such as WASL contain very little in the way of items that require knowledge of scientific facts.

Can you say "unsourced"? I can: Not a single source for that entire paragraph.

Can you say "factually inaccurate"? I can: NCTM this year issued a strongly worded repudiation of this incorrect interpretation of their math guidelines. According to NCTM, mere dry facts aren't the be-all and end-all of math, but you can't do anything else without basic facts. They're right about both halves of that statement.

Can you say "irrelevant"? I can: Whole-language isn't OBE: you can't measure it, and it's furthermore a method of teaching, not a set of desirable outcomes. Inquiry-based science is also a teaching method, not a set of desirable outcomes.

May I recommend that you create a page called my favorite fads in education? WhatamIdoing 22:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, is it possible that both your POV and the POV of the section you criticize are correct? Yes OBE and for example, inquiry based maths or science are not the same. However, inquiry based methods, a disdain for rote learning of any kind, e.g times tables, word lists, a doctrinaire and some would say simplistic application of Piaget's stages of cognitive development resulting in eschewing abstract maths at set age levels, ...all these things were introduced as a package by educational reformists. They came in together as a group of mutually dependent and supporting approaches. You are correct in pointing out how editors sloppily introduce them all over the place. But perhaps the way to fix the Wikipedia article is not to rigorously exclude, but to incorporate in the right place, with proper referencing, as you correctly point out. [Konscience, WST 14:47, Australia]

Can people start quoting with proper indentation? (I've fixed some).

Konscience, you're both right and wrong. I agree all these things need to be covered, but if something isn't OBE (ie. that whole language thing) then it doesn't belong in the article. Maybe the "OBE in Outer Elbonia" should have a section that says "OBE in Outer Elbonia was introduced as part of a package which included the Whole Language approach. The package was labelled OBE, and thus there is significant anti-OBE sentiment in Outer Elbonia by people who actually object to the Whole Language approach".

-- TimNelson (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

flaw in article structure

Why are there two separate points in the article that list criticisms without any clear difference between the reason for the sections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.183.20 (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Heavily Biased

This article is heavily biased. It reads as if it was written by a person with a vested interest in a pro-outcome based educational system. The entire neutrality of this article should be disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.176.236 (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? It looks to me like this article has become a dumping ground for generalized gripes about public schooling today, and the actual term "outcome-based education" has lost all meaning in and of itself. Much like "new math," it's a phrase that didn't necessarily mean anything to start with, is never really used by its proponents, and is used to attack a wide swath of unrelated topics by opponents.

Anyway, it's unclear to me that anybody who didn't already know what "outcome-based education" was could gain any useful information from reading this patchwork article. The organization is atrocious, the attempt to achieve "balance" by swinging back and forth from one extreme opinion to another gives the reader whiplash, and the grammar and diction appear to be the products of a sixth-grade education at the most. This whole page should be wiped and rebuilt from scratch. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is a total mess. Better than it was, but still a total mess. Would you like to help fix it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I too agree, it's almost as if the principal author was a product of an OBE system. On a serious note, though, I think this article would be much better for being cut down to bare facts until it can be properly redrafted. Right now it verges on incoherent. I'm certainly not qualified to write an adequate description of exactly what OBE is (and I'm clearly biased, too), but perhaps some brave soul is willing to try? Anybody else in favour of chopping out the unsubstantiated bits and the going-nowhere paragraphs in the meantime? Davidkturner (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite?

I've grouped the material in the Criticism section around a few headings (the table of contents at the top of the article will give the overview). Now all it needs is for someone to rewrite the individual sections so they make sense.

-- TimNelson (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work today. Rearranging all of the sections was the step I was dreading, so it's nice to discover that someone else has done it already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

History of OBE and related concepts

OBE or, more accurate, a similar concept seems actually to have had a first peak in the 1970s, named Competence-based education, starting in teacher education mostly on behavioristical basis, disseminating in American institutions of higher education with different theoretical orientations (along with behavioristical approaches: holistic, functionalistic). This "movement", as labeled by the editor of a research compendium, Gerald Grant, would not have been spread outside of teacher education "without active promotion from FIPSE" (Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education) (Gamson, Z. (1979). Understanding the Difficulties of Implementing a Competence-based Curriculum. In G. Grant (Ed.), On Competence. A Critical Analysis of Competence-Based Reforms in Higher Education (S. 224–258). Proquest Info & Learning). Only recently I found this source, and makes me aware of the history of these similar concepts, which are dealing with things like outcome, beeing able to do, usefullness... pointing out just one aspect of OBE, the standardization of outcomes an its measurement seems to be rather in a behavioristical tradition then other approaches like holistic or functionalistic...the history and the comparison of these concepts has to be written, yet... By the way, I would appreciate any references or sources about programs of comptence-based teacher education in the 1960s! Tombbb (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Causa Finalis has been around since the days of Aristotle, Final cause. I added these references.

84.140.241.249 (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Relationship to Competence based education

Per the above post, is this essentially a rename of "Competence based education" (CBE)/"Competence based education and training" (CBET)? If so, it was very influential in the UK in the 1980s. It was the founding idea behind National Vocational Qualifications, and there is a substantial academic literature on it. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

EU/Poland experiment

Apparently there's a change in Polish legislation governing universities (and younger levels?) from "standards-based" to "efekty kształcenia", which is intended to mean OBE (AFAIK), though because of (i think) ambiguity in Polish (and some other languages) between teaching and learning, it can be literally interpreted as "effects of teaching", even though the intended meaning is "effects of learning".

There's a claim that this is supposed to be part of the Sorbonne/Bologna process, so if someone wants to do a bit of web-searching, it should be possible to find a standard "Sorbonne/Bologna" definition somewhere in English.

Here's an example of OBE discussion by a Polish academic: http://forumakademickie.pl/fa/2009/06/interesuja-nas-efekty-ksztalcenia/ The main concrete point i see is that the author says that the proportion of Polish young people studying has increased dramatically, and this makes expecting all students to learn to the same advanced level is unrealistic/unfair in a democracy. i don't really see why that requires OBE.

Anyway, i'm just putting these hints here for anyone interested in developing the article further. It really has a fundamental flaw right now: if different social actors in different countries have different POVs on what OBE is, and if it means different things in terms of specific legislation and perceptions of what it is, then all of these need to be in the first section of the body as a list of properly WP:RS'd POVs. If that were done, then the other parts of the article could follow according to the various definitions. Otherwise, this article will remain as confusing as the apparently poorly-defined concept of OBE itself is...

Boud (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent EU Commission Article was Added

Rethinking Education > New #EU Outcome Requirements http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1233_en.htm

The youth unemployment rate is close to 23% across the European Union – yet at the same time there are more than 2 million vacancies that cannot be filled. Europe needs a radical rethink on how education and training systems can deliver the skills needed by the labour market.

Check the list of specified outcome requirements! This is the real McCoy!

84.140.248.241 (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Lack of Expert & Conference Information

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale, and as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

As long as up-to-date references to expert conferences & summit information is lacking this article won't scale up. The antagonistically-motivated focus along various Australian text parts will drag the rating down from an international viewpoint. I propose to lower the quality rating for this reason.

84.140.248.241 (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I added the following

Deductive Evidence that OBE actually works

Meanwhile, OBE is a coherent bound collection of ideas, with uniformity in the way it is implemented from case to case. This enhances testability for OBE's effectiveness in a way that applies universally. The concreteness of OBE's conception of a "measurable outcome" is welcoming, both in implementing an OBE regime and in testing its effectiveness. The ERIC Database provides a Thesaurus Descriptor "Outcome-based Education" with presently over 369 peer-reviewed hits.

Academic conference Handling of OBE

Educational conference directories provide the following sources:

- Lanyrd (1 hit in 2012) > ECOO Conference 2012

- Conferencealerts.com (3 hits for 2013)

- Allconferences.com (199 hits for past and future)

- Yahoo Directory

84.140.241.249 (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see your editing of this article - nobody seemed to be interested in trying to rescue it!

There are academic principles for editing the Wikipedia that it would be useful for you to read. In particular:

• please see WP:EXT about external links;
• please see WP:NPOV and WP:RS;
• please see WP:COPYVIO: this edit made by Special:Contributions/84.188.89.6 (maybe not you, just someone using a similar IP range) was an outright copyright violation in the absence of quotation marks.

This particular article is about a topic whose name, "outcome-based learning", has probably only existed for about two decades, though the article does not state this clearly, as of 21:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC).

An encyclopedic article focussed on this topic cannot state what "outcome-based learning" is unless there is very wide acceptance of what it is. It would be better to give references for various definitions, and then we apply neutral point of view, which is a standard part of academic practice. In other words, instead of saying that "outcome-based learning" is such-and-such, we say that educational systems in countries X, Y and Z have given the name "outcome-based learning" during the epochs or in the years 200x, 200y, 200z and defined it as educational programs or an educational style defined as A, B and C, and these were implemented in years whatever.

A good example to follow is the Wikipedia article God. That article is presented in WP:NPOV style.

Boud (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Major Revisions

I'm working on this for a class, here are my proposed edits:

One section I would like to work on extensively is the section comparing OBE to traditional education. I would like to give the section a neutral point of view by removing some of the bias in the current article favoring OBE and including information that includes comparison to systems of traditional education in the global south. I would also like to extend this section or divide it into subsections (if there are enough resources) that talk about this program at different academic levels, some of my research has shown OBE has been tested in tertiary education, but the article currently only focuses on its implementation at the secondary education level. If there are resources available I would also like a section on primary education.

A second section I would like to focus my efforts on is the OBE programs section, many of the sections need to be expanded or added. The South Africa section is one sentence that states that South Africa tried OBE, but gives no further details. Also there is not section on Asia, where I know there is some research available. If South or Central America has any resources I would like to add sections for that as well. The Europe section also needs expanding, as it only briefly mentions the EU’s attempt to shift to programs like OBE.

Other smaller things that I would like to work on for the entire article would include adding citations throughout the article, cleaning up some of the existing links, and adding new useful ones. As well as doing my best to ensure that the article maintains a NPOV throughout. A final goal would be to clear out unnecessary information that would belong in other articles or is simply more information than necessary on the topic.

Kjatczak (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good, just be bold and fix it! IBE (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've moved my edits into the article, I did not get to the What is OBE section and this section is still in need of citations and work, the rest of the article has been updated Kjatczak (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Updates

In my sand box User:Kjatczak/sandbox I have started working on the OBE Programs section, adding details, and citations to the existing sections. Kjatczak (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but what is it?

This article does not make clear what is new about Outcome Based Education.

Every field of human endeavor requires a focus on outcomes - otherwise it would just be a waste of time. Similarly, any non-ridiculous idea of education acknowledges that a student has to be tested against pre-determined criteria to determine if they have acquired the necessary skills and/or knowledge. This has been going on for millennia - only the subject matter and method of examination change, the central idea is the same. AFAICT it's only lazy teachers and parents of underachieving students who dispute this; everyone else is pleased to have their efforts recognized and rewarded.

Apart from the use of standardized tests, what differentiates an OBE-based education policy from any other kind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.213.61 (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed multiple issues template

User:kjatczak worked on revisions on this article. User better summarized, added citations, and revised so it more closely meets quality standards. That said, we encourage continued editing of the article to improve it. Cheers! Prof.Vandegrift (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

User notes, above, that the "what is OBE" section needs work. Will put flag on it. Prof.Vandegrift (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2018

isues = issues 2605:E000:9149:A600:60D0:33C0:BE27:3A89 (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Edit

May I proposed adding this statement to OBE in the USA:

In the United States, Outcome-Based Education (OBE) has gained popularity in many states. It has a spontaneous appeal that can attract many people. The process requires setting outcomes students are expected to attain. Mentors can teach and repeat lessons in multiple ways provided students meet them. The OBE approach ensures students an education with 42 states engaged in OBE. {{Research on OBE: What We Know and Don’t Know |Evan=|Karen=|King=|Jean=|1994=| http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar94/vol51/num06/Research-on-OBE@-What-We-Know-and-Don't-Know.aspx =}}

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOBOSKYJOJO (talk • contribs) 03:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

India: Mentioning a private commercial product in the description!

In the following paragraph of the "India" section of the article,

There are products like inpods which are available in India for implementing a culture of outcomes based education for Engineering, Pharmacy, Management programs.

the highlighted word; inpods, is a comercial product that sells software to colleges. Mentioning such a product in the official wikipedia page for SEO and search ranking purposes is in bad taste. I move a request to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakhmv (talk • contribs) 12:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2021

Add line towards the end of the introduction: Organizations such as the IN4OBE headed by Dr. William Spady support educational institutions globally to align with the paradigm, philosophy and principles of authentic OBE. Cite or refer: https://in4obe.org/about-us/ 109.82.128.81 (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: No need to mention this company or person ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

IN4OBE is an educational organization supporting implementation of authentic OBE and Dr. William Spady is the one who developed the OBE paradigm and coined the word 'OBE'. When you refer to Washington Accord with the IEA and others and you refer to William Spady's work (the first reference) you should also mention the educational organization that voices, implements and supports authentic OBE.