OVERCOMING OBSTACLES TO IMPLEMENTING AN OUTCOME-BASED EDUCATION MODEL: TRADITIONAL VERSUS TRANSFORMATIONAL OBE
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attempts to introduce a new outcome- based curriculum in the Mechatronic Systems Engineering (MSE) Program at Simon Fraser University (SFU) have posed a range of challenges to teaching staff and students in terms of the most effective and efficient means for transitioning the program and achieving the expected improvements in educational outcomes. However, the mechanical process of pursuing outcomes without the deliberate revision of the pedagogy, attitudes and forms of assessments fails to attain the continuous improvement concept that OBE implies. This paper analyses MSE faculty interview responses to approaches they incorporate in their teaching practices and the effect these practices have on student learning. Class size, expectations of learner characteristics and reality, teaching practice and evaluation, and student motivation were the most commonly discussed challenges. Self-reported instructor characteristics and the perceived role of the instructor often contradicted the OBE model of learning. The results inform a critical discussion of the pedagogical aspects involved in reshaping existing curriculum to satisfy the needs of the 21st century learner. The process of transitioning from the content-driven to the outcome-based curriculum is revealing opportunities in terms of transformative teacher education as well as challenges that warrant further analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it