I must confess I find Kevin Donnelly's analysis and opinions of and about education worrying. He seems to be motivated more by emotion than logic, and whilst I acknowledge his dedication, I find it misplaced. One of the main issues I have with him is over Outcomes Based Education. He repeatedly labels it as "dumbing down". His publications on this issue are found at Online Opinion (www.onlineopinion.com.au). More than that, he tells his readers that it is part of a left-wing plot to take over education.
Outcomes-based education (OBE) is essentially about identifying which outcomes education is meant to achieve in terms of students' knowledge, understanding and dispositions. It involves identifying meaningful 'end-points', and working towards achieving those 'end-points'. Different groups on society have different ideas about what these end-points might be.
To quote Bill Spady (arguably the 'father' of OBE), outcomes are “high quality, culminating demonstrations of significant learning in context”. The words 'high quality' are important and point AWAY from 'dumbing down'!; the words 'culminating demonstrations' point not only to the end-point, but to the idea that students actively show their understanding; the words 'significant learning' point to learning which is meaningful and useful, and important; and the words 'in context' point to connections to the outside world, and learning which is NOT separated from context.
I challenge anyone to argue that the very bases of OBE are not those of good quality education.
Kevin Donnelly refuses to acknowledge these bases of OBE. He does so by either ignoring them, or by explicitly refuting them. 'Dumbing down' is actually the opposite to what a clear focus on important learning is all about. I propose that the type of education Kevin proposes is more like 'dumbing down' when he calls for a back-to-basics approach. This equates not to students demonstrating a 'deep understanding' but to students learning skills, and repeating them so that the teacher can mark how many are right/wrong. The back-to-basics approach also removes significance and context from learning.
Spady lists four principles of OBE. These are:
•Clarity of focus
•Designing back (or designing down)
•High expectations
•Expanded learning opportunities
The first means idenifying the important learning and keeping clear focus upon the end-point (what is that my students will achieve?).
The second means working from this point to identify and construct the learning experiencs of students in such a way as to ensure that outcome will be met (how are my students going to achieve this?).
The third means expecting the best of ALL students, and supporting them to achieve their best (how well are my students going to learn?).
And the fourth means providing students with more than one way to learn what it is they need to (because different students will learn in different ways, and may need alternative explanations in order to achieve).
Again, I really don't see how Donnelly could possibly have a problem with this by either calling it 'dumbing down' or by labelling it 'left-wing'!
What Donnelly should really be doing is criticising how some people understand and use OBE, NOT OBE itself.
[see Killen (2003) Effective teaching strategies: Lessons from reserach and practice. Katoomba: Social Science Press.
Spady (1994) Outcome-based education : critical issues and answers. Arlington, Va. : American Association of School Administrators.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
OBE has meaningful endpoints?
Here are some examples from WAs OBE-inspired courses of study:
From the VISUAL COMMUNICATION DESIGN COS
Formal Consultation Draft
Outcome 4: Visual communication design in society
Students understand the relationship between visual communication design and society and culture.
Level 5
Students understand and describe how values, beliefs, attitudes, and past and existing practices, are communicated and learned through visual communication design and how the public display of designs, incorporating designs of others, involves responsibilities and issues for self and others.
• understand how societal and cultural values, beliefs and attitudes are communicated and learned through visual communication design;
• understand self- and others responsibilities and issues when publicly displaying designs incorporating designs of others; and
• understand how past and existing practices are reflected in the diversity and trends of visual communication design over time.
Level 6
Students understand and explain how values, beliefs and attitudes of diverse sub-cultures, and changes in existing practices, are communicated and learned through trends in visual communication design and how the public display of culturally sensitive designs, involves community responsibilities and issues.
• understand how values, beliefs and attitudes of diverse sub-cultures in contemporary society are communicated and learned through visual communication design;
• understand community responsibilities and issues when publicly displaying sub-culturally sensitive designs; and
• understand how changes in existing practices are reflected, and drive changes, in visual communication design.
Level 7
Students understand and analyse how stereotypical values, beliefs and attitudes of diverse cultural groups, and evolving practices, are communicated and learned through trends, and drive changes, in visual communication design and how transmitting designs in different formats and modes involves societal responsibilities and issues.
• understand how stereotypical values, beliefs and attitudes of diverse cultural groups in society are communicated and learned through visual communication design and how these processes shape perceptions of others;
• understand societal responsibilities and issues when transmitting designs in different formats and modes throughout multi-cultural communities; and
• understand how the evolution of practices is reflected in past trends, and drives current changes, in visual communication design.
Hi outhouse based education.
My point was that how states have adopted OBE is the problem rather than the concept itelf. It has been bastardised, to put it bluntly.
I understand that the WA version thereof is one that is causing a deal of concern, and the the English syllabus everywhere is doing the same.
Can you explain why what you have quoted is such a problem? I can guess your point, but would rather not for fear of misunderstanding.
Can you explain why what you have quoted is such a problem?
Well for a start no skills are emphasised.
Secondly only students values or opinions are being assessed.
Thirdly it is very subjective and open to interpretation (unlike usinf a percentage).
Fourthly the "Outcome" itself is pretentious and unnecessary.
Lastly no teacher, parent or student of this subject can agree on exactly what is required in order to acieve any of the levels.
The lunatic ramblings of the "level descriptors" are useless as a tool of assessment.
These outcomes and you points about them raise a great opportunity to discuss what is meant by outcomes education, and how they are interpreted.
Does every outcome need to be a skill, or can it constitute the learning of knowledge and understanding and a demonstration of that? How a student demonstrates this, according to the outcomes is through ‘description’, ‘explanation’ or ‘analysis’. One could argue that these are the skills, but then, I would call these generic skills used to demonstrate understanding of the content of the outcomes themselves. Is there something wrong with this, per se, or does each outcome have to constitute a skill of its own? Is there a skill in recognising and analysing stereotypes and the construction of knowledge and communication through design?
A good teacher would assess not students’ opinions and values, but the way in which they express and justify them in the context of having learned about the way communication design can construct meaning for different users/viewers. In other words, I would interpret these outcomes as meaning that assessment is of the understanding as shown through using the skills of description, explanation or analysis of this particular knowledge.
With regards to subjectivity and interpretation, a teacher would only be doing a good job here if they taught the students about subjectivity and interpretation, rather than using their own subjectivity and interpretation to assess the students’ grasp of this knowledge and understanding. This is open to the construction of this sort of knowledge and understanding by the teacher him/herself. The potential for influence by a teacher is huge. My question: are there any more guidelines than this for the teacher?? It would first be necessary to have a clear idea of how well students are to do their work, that is, what good work actually is. Thus explicit quality criteria would need to be matched to each level and relating directly to the content of the outcomes themselves. What is a good ‘description’ in this context, what is a good ‘explanation’ and what is a good ‘analysis’? How deep is the understanding of the issue shown through these mechanisms? How well has the student communicated his/her understandings?
Pretentious? I don’t quite get this assertion. Is it pretentious for people to be able to critique communication design from the point of view that it can influence stereotypes and the way different people are depicted/viewed?
Unnecessary … Let’s just say I have no problem with getting students to engage in this sort of thinking. If they’re learning communication design, then they really need to be aware of these things in order to have a deep understanding of the topic itself. A good communication designer should know this stuff, and one can’t assume they’ll just learn it without being taught.
Not knowing the rest of the syllabus documents … Perhaps I would be thinking that assessment would be of the depth of understanding of the concepts themselves (one would need to identify the key concepts), the students’ ability to elaborate and explain them, and the level of higher order thinking employed (ie past ‘description’ and using ‘analysis’) (see Bloom’s Taxonomy, 1956, I think, which is still used to talk about and understand levels of thinking, or Anderson & Krathwohl’s version thereof.)
Post a Comment