Assessment in outcome-based education

At first glance, none of the concepts put forwards by proponents of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) are novel to those familiar with current educational theories and practices. OBE seemingly encompasses ideas such as 'student-centred teaching', 'self-directed learning', 'active learning', 'problem-based learning', 'mastery learning' and 'flexible delivery'. However, according to Spady (1993) OBE is not a passing fad, for it is seen as a 'transformational way of doing business in education'. If OBE is adopted fully in secondary schools what are the implications, if any, for assessment practices in higher education?

Since the entire curriculum in OBE should be driven by well-defined outcomes, the student outcomes become the focus of assessment, not what is taught, how long the student takes to achieve the outcomes or which particular path the student takes to get there. Under OBE teaching should cater for individual student learning needs, and the same outcomes should be achieved by all students. This implies that students with different abilities will follow different paths to reach their goals and may finish at different times. Does this mean that assessment should be carried out when the student is ready and not when those designing the course think it is time to do it? If so, how often should it be done in a semester? How many attempts should a particular student be allowed to show her or his abilities?

If it is the student's knowledge and ability at the end of the learning period that matters, and not the experiences during the journey itself, is there a place for continuous assessment? Apparently there is. The outcomes are set out on a gradation of increasing complexity and students are expected to master these outcomes in sequence. Moreover, OBE requires ongoing negotiation between the student and the facilitator (lecturer/ teacher) on what needs to be done, how and when. The facilitator is expected to provide feedback, and that implies continuous assessment should be carried out. Another issue to consider is whether continuous assessment should be formative only or should it become part of summative assessment.

The suggestions for assessing student outcomes include 'standard-referenced assessment' (similar to criterion-referenced assessment but with a clearer description of expected performance) and student portfolios documenting their progress (Willis & Kissane, 1995). In the school system, although teachers may be in the best position to judge student outcomes, standards may be determined external to the school. For example, the Toronto Benchmarking Program provides standards for assessment for schools in the region; in New York State the form of school student portfolios must be approved by the State (Willis & Kissane, 1995).

Professional development of teachers to take on the role of facilitators, to be able to identify content and performance standards, and to properly utilize student portfolios is seen as important. If adequate resources and support is lacking, there is a danger that institutions may give lip-service to OBE. This may be why Willis and Kissane (1995) found that "state-, system- and school-level assessment regimes are often at odds with the principles of outcome-based education those bodies espouse" (p. 5). As with any innovation in teaching and learning, OBE seems to need a careful examination of the implications for assessment and the development of necessary tools for evaluation of learning outcomes.

• Spady, W. (1993). Outcome-Based Education (Workshop Report No. 5). Belconnen, ACT: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.
• Willis, S. and Kissane, B. (1995). Systemic Approaches to Articulating and Monitoring Expected Student Outcomes. Murdoch, Western Australia: Murdoch University.