Implementation of Outcomes-based Education in an Interdisciplinary Design Course and Curriculum: An Action Research Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a case study that focuses on the challenges that I, as the action researcher and design educator at the post-secondary level face in the integration of an outcomes-based curriculum model that has been adopted in recent years by the higher education sector in Ontario in order to ensure quality, transparency and compatibility among the credentials. In this thesis, I studied the implementation of the outcomes-based education curriculum in a design program through investigative cycles of action-reflection of my own teaching practice as well as that of my colleagues in the Art and Design Foundation Program at the School of Design, George Brown College. The selection of action research as my strategy of inquiry is my response to the qualitative and critical nature of the challenges that educators are facing in their efforts to integrate learner - centered principles in their teaching practice. My research has been completed in two phases: Phase A – Critical Dialogue with Self and Phase B – Critical Dialogue with the Institution. The participants of my study are my students in Foundation Design II: Colour Theory and Practice, one Critical Expert from the Teaching and Learning Exchange, one Interested Observer (graduate of the program), Art and Design Foundation faculty and a Critical Administrator at the College. These are the synthesis of the insights I gained: Phase A – Critical Dialogue with Self: • A holistic approach to teaching and learning of the foundation of art and design. • Proactivity and reflexivity in my teaching practice with the goal of self-improvement and growth based on personal beliefs and social values. • A flexible learning - centered approach in course planning. • Sense of care towards student learning. • Mentality of success in teaching and learning: we are a team and we are working together to succeed. Phase B – Critical Dialogue with the Institution • A holistic learning - centered approach in the art and design foundation curriculum planning. • Use of new strategies to engage faculty in curriculum development. • Use of design thinking tools in curriculum design. • Empowering students and faculty by giving voice to their individual beliefs and values in art and design education.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.061 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".