Talk:Outcome-based education
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Outcome-based education is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. |
| Portal | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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]] ==
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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] WA
I agree, there needs to be an Australian view of this that isn't just WA
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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))
[edit] 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. Standards-based 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
