Outcomes-Based Education and Relevant Pedagogy: Practicing the Most Appropriate
Three
years practiced in the university, yet the Outcomes-Based Teacher Education
Curriculum (OBTEC) is still barraged with negative critiques and feedback.
Students rant about the laborious nature of OBTEC to a point where the pressure
to comply with the requirements can lead to suicidal thoughts which is
dangerously realistic. In a learners' perspective, the curriculum is now
considered aberrant and futile, since it is realized that the toll of the
workload does not lead to academic mastery.
Put
shortly, the curriculum, as described, has a stubborn empirical nature.
Lawson et. Al. (2007)
explains that the contextual practice and application of Outcomes-Based
Education (OBE) occurs in various forms, for it 'has different versions
practiced in different ways and different places'. Relative to the university's
case, OBTEC is an OBE curriculum that has been constructed in consideration to
the country's pursuit of the K to 12 curriculum as imposed in the Enhanced
Basic Education Curriculum (EBEC) of 2013. Given that students are now oriented
in K to 12 classrooms, it gives the teaching force more reason to up its ante
in meritorious reliability. The university took its initiative as the National
Center for Teacher Education to inculcate this view to their academic
orientation. Although the university administration greatly considered the
relevant future of its stakeholders, it led into giving birth to a squeezed
curriculum— a trimestral curriculum with averagely 29 units per term.
Excessive Workload for Lesser Quality
Education
Kevin
Donelly has been a critic of OBE, debunking William Spady – a major promoteur
of OBE – and his principled curriculum. Spady specifies his ideal construct of
OBE into four principles: clarity of focus, designing back, high expectations
for all students and teachers providing expanded opportunities to allow for
achievement of outcomes in various ways. Donelly views this as vague. And
seemingly, Donelly's claims are proven to be relevant if PNU's practice of
OBTEC is to be considered.
Curriculum
control is criticized by The Western Australian claiming that if the
central/National or local control of the curriculum becomes too specific,
professional responsibility of teachers will be 'eroded.' Just like other
curricula, teachers' integrity to teach such a level will be compromised and
can lead to professional mismatch in terms of expertise— same case applied to
teachers teaching K to 12 students. The university faces such a dilemma which
motivated the administration to support its teaching staff to pursue doctoral
degrees both locally and internationally. Furthermore, part-time instructors
were hired to teach OBTEC classes. Although the problem in merit has been
resolved, t all goes down to pedagogy. Lawson cites Andrich and Louden reports
regarding a broad assessment of a great number of outcomes. OBE has been
criticized for its excessive number of outcomes upon drafting the curriculum,
although it shares this nature with usual forms of curricula.
Donelly
strongly striked and questioned the constructivist nature of OBE since the
orientation of the curriculum to 'unguided learning' goes to negative extremes.
The extents of unguided learning leaves students with lessons without the
teacher having any material contribution while in contrast, it should have a
proper practice of 'facilitating learning.' Otherwise, students will not find
any appreciable content to the learning activities. This shapes the complaints
of most OBTEC students in terms of the frequent absence of professors,
immediate exams without any formal classes taking place, 3-month experimental
researches and other odd forms of "learning outcomes." This makes the
toll of the trimestral curriculum even greater.
'Dumbing down' a curriculum
In
terms of standards, it centralizes to the produced 'outcome.' In Spady's lens,
the 'outcomes' are criticized in the WA Louden report saying that most teachers
had difficulties in 'translating broad outcome statements in a pedagogically
meaningful way'— a possible reason for teachers' professional erosion. Due to
the vagueness of the outcomes, the standard used for assessing the learning
delves on a very thin line between Spady's 'clevering up' expectations and
Donelly's 'dumbing down' predictions. Although Spady views that these standards
are leveled similar to the spiral curriculum's pre-requisite form, Donelly
imposes such to be dogma since it does not apply to nationally-standardized
tests, therefore ineffective.
David
Andrich stresses that there is no 'in-principle compatibility' between the
practice of OBE and the Modern Assessment Theory that views assessment
procedures as developmental continuums. Also, there were assessment-related
problems like unnecessary assessment procedures, teacher's lack of assessment
guidance, compulsory exams to compensate for unattended levels etc. In
application to PNU's case, it would compromise a ginormous aspect of its
reputation that serves basal to its integrity as the National Center for
Teacher Education – the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET). Given the
warped orientation of learning, OBTEC students will be facing rather surprising
circumstances upon taking their licensure exams. With these points, passing
rates are questionable.
Expecting
the Philippine Regulatory Commissions (PRC) to restandardize the LET in synch
with the levels of OBTEC will strike the efficiency of the curriculum in two
respects: either it will lead to mandating all colleges and universities that
have education course programs to adopt OBTEC as a curriculum or, finally see
through the thin veneers of OBTEC as irrelevant to national standards,
revealing that PNU may have been blindly following a delusion all this time.
OBTEC Prompts Students for Globalization
Industry,
as a stakeholder of a curriculum, shall determine the role of its students when
they move on to the workplace. But to expound, it can be viewed that the
country's industry is not its own, since it is in patronage of the global
markets. The Philippines does not have a nationalized industry to a point
wherein it can independently develop production in a much larger scale, resolve
problems in job mismatches and finally give the country the integrity as a
nation that for so long has been deprived by old-age colonizers. It only has a portion of the profits in the
global markets. Being a country that is a member of the Association of South
East Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Philippines is therefore bound to cohere to
Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)— standards that are basal to the development of
the collaborated 21st Century Skills. Given this, the country has
every reason to strengthen its fields of Science, Technology, Acquisition of
International Languages and others, neglecting other professional fields that
may contribute in further strengthening the country's pedestals.
The
same case is also applied to the K to 12 Curriculum. Not only does it focus
more on mediocritizing the careers of Filipino students, but it also alienates
the impoverished students into bringing their education to further lengths
since the means and circumstance deprives them from doing so. This basically
sums up OBTEC and the K to 12 program's tonality of service: it does not exist
to prioritize student interest, it gives greater focus to the dictates of the
global market— a form of neoliberalism in its prime.
The Most Appropriate Curriculum
There
is no perfect curriculum, although there is an appropriate one so long as it
fits the concrete conditions of society. Even for Donelly whom proposes a
discipline-based curriculum, still the application of it to the country will be
put to the test. Paulo Freire may serve contributive to developing a curriculum
with an expanded scale of patrons, but it still needs to be put to the test.
Spady's points to evolve from the traditional curriculum were not all wrong,
though the application led to being too warped and delusional. An ideal
curriculum serves the interests of its major stakeholders and in return
contributes to the development of responsible citizens that shall keep the
stability of society. It empowers students and opens new areas for improvement
in an environment free from discrimination and open to all schools of thought.
The
responsibility now goes to the academics willing to revolutionize the
pedagogical tonality of the service. It is in the responsibility of those
within the academe to develop a nationalist, scientific and mass-oriented
educational system that is open to all citizens no matter the socio-economic
and socio-political state.
References:
W. Spady. (1994). Outcomes-Based
Education: Critical Issues and Answers. The American Association of School
Administrators.
Retrieved on: March 2, 2017
M. Lawson Et. Al. (2007). Outcomes-Based
Education: A Discussion Paper. Association of Independent Schools of SA.
Retrieved on: March 2, 2017
M. Aliakbari Et. Al. (2011). Basic
Principles of Critical Pedagogy. Ilam University – Iran
Retrieved on: March 2, 2017
Relevant Hyperlinks:
Comments
Post a Comment