THE SIGNIFICANCE OF OUTCOMES IN CURRICULUM PLANNING PRIVATE

IN AUSTRALIA

Laurie Brady

  University of Technology, Sydney

P.O. Box 222

Lindfield 2070

AUSTRALIA

DETAILS: Laurie Brady is an Associate Professor and Coordinator of

Research in the School of Teacher Education at the University of

Technology, Sydney. He is author of Curriculum Development, the

largest selling book on curriculum development in Australia, and Models

and Methods of Teaching.

ABSTRACT

Statements of outcomes have recently become part of the educational

agendas in many countries as a means of ensuring greater school

accountability. This article accounts for the emergence of outcomes as

the predominant statements of educational intent in Australian schools,

and synthesises the findings of two studies which investigated the

extent to which teachers are incorporating outcomes into their teaching

planning and practice in New South Wales. The findings indicate that

outcomes are instrumental in teachers' planning; that they are stated

differentially according to subject; that they are stated more in

relation to skills than knowledge or values; that they are stated for

short term intent rather than long term intent, and that they have not

significantly changed the nature of classroom pedagogy.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF OUTCOMES IN CURRICULUM PLANNING

IN AUSTRALIA

Introduction

The notion of outcomes as statements of educational intent has become

increasingly important in several countries in the nineties. Outcomes,

as distinct from the more general statements of educational intent like

aims and objectives, provide a means of system and organisation

accountability because they are overt, observable and therefore

assessable indicators of student achievement. Such accountability has

become part of an economic agenda which prompted the emergence of the

national curricula in both England and Wales, and Australia.

While the nomenclature relating to statements of educational intent is

variable across countries, in Australia the sequence of goal, aim and

objective has generally constituted an increasing order of specificity.

The perennial debate on whether objectives need to be behavioural has

never been uniformly resolved, with arguably typical practice being a

smattering of behavioural and non-behavioural objectives in system and

school curriculum documents.

In 1991, and corresponding with the emergence of the national

curriculum in Australia, the Board of Studies in New South Wales

published Curriculum Outcomes, defining outcomes as:

the intended results of teaching and learning expressed as a set

of broad, comprehensive, assessable and observable indicators

or benchmarks of student achievement at each stage of a course (p.5).

A pyramid diagram preserved the traditional ordering of general to

specific, adding outcomes at the base: aims, objectives, syllabus

outcomes, and classroom/lesson outcomes. Outcomes, the Board of

Studies claimed, clarified and explicated the objectives.

Outcomes were not new in Australia or elsewhere. In Australia the

label was sometimes used to signify educational intent, but outcomes

were more often embedded in statements of behavioural objectives.

However in April 1991 the Australian Education Council identified eight

learning areas for a national curriculum (english, maths, science,

technology, languages other than english, studies of society and

environment, the arts and health including physical education and

personal development), and each was to have a `statement' or agreed

national position, and a profile or description of progress in terms of

learning outcomes. The states were to develop their own statements and

profiles consistent with the national position.

Adoption by the states has been slow and inconsistent. A survey of the

state departments of education by the Curriculum Corporation in July

1996 indicated that almost all states were using the statements and

profiles as a basis for curriculum development though with local

variations, and that they perceived the nationally developed documents

as providing a common language, a national set of standards, and a

framework for planning, assessing and reporting. Conversely, commonly

cited difficulties of introducing an outcomes based approach included

the workload generated in record keeping and assessment; the cost to

systems of professional development, materials development and time

release; and the difficulties facing primary teachers working with all

the learning areas.

As a result of a review in 1995, New South Wales is no longer adopting

the nationally developed statements and profiles for implementation

through syllabuses, yet remains committed to `a manageable number of

outcomes'. Similarly, the most common modification made to the

national profiles by the other Australian states has been a reduction

in the number of outcomes.

This article synthesises the results of two studies which investigated

the ways in which teachers are using outcomes in their curriculum

planning in primary schools in New South Wales. As all states are

committed to a process of gradual implementation, and as New South

Wales develop its own syllabuses, many teachers are making their first

tentative steps in planning by outcomes.

The Literature

The term outcome based education is rarely applied to the national

curriculum in England and Wales, though it does have currency in the

United States and Australia. Its relative recency in Australia and the

consequent dearth of data, explains the predominantly American

literature in the field. The literature on outcome based education may

be classified into three broad areas.

First, there is the literature defining outcome based education in its

different forms (Towers 1994, Glatthorn 1993, Spady and Marshall 1991,

Hansen 1989). In relation to the different expressions of outcome

based education, the most frequently cited article is that of Spady and

Marshall (1991) who identify three outcome based designs comprising an

evolutionary sequence.

Second, there is the literature indicating the benefits of outcome

based education (McGhan 1994, Haack 1994, Mitchell, Hoyle and Martin

1994, Jasa and Enger 1994, Fitzpatrick 1991). The merits claimed

include the elimination of permanent failure and compromised standards

(McGhan 1994), the emphasis on learning achieved rather than time

served (Haas 1992) and the all subsuming benefit of improved test

scores.

Third, there is the literature indicating the problems with outcome

based education (Evans and King 1994, Pliska and McQuaide 1994,

Schwartz and Cavener 1994, Towers 1994, Glatthorn 1993, McKernan 1993).

The main criticisms include the view of outcome based education as

behaviouristic and mechanistic (Schwartz and Cavener 1994, Towers 1994,

Glatthorn 1993, McKernan 1993); as limiting creativity and enquiry

(Towers 1994, McKernan 1993); as devaluing the affective dimension

(Towers 1994, Zlatos 1993); and as involving huge demands on teachers

to plan remediation and enrichment, keep extensive records and

individualise teaching (Schwartz and Cavener 1994, Towers 1994).

A full literature review and critique is provided in Brady (1996 a and b).

The Studies

Two studies were conducted in 1995 and 1996 respectively. The first

was a detailed investigation of four primary schools in New South

Wales, each from a different administrative district for schooling, and

identified by Directors of Schools as being active in the

implementation of the state profiles. This study preceded New South

Wales' abandonment of the national profiles by a couple of months, and

involved analysis of interviews and classroom observation using the

grounded theory approach of Glasser and Strauss (1967). The study

aimed to investigate teachers' understandings of outcome based

education; to examine how teachers are incorporating outcomes into both

their planning and practice, and to determine means of facilitating the

implementation of outcome based education.

The second study involved surveying a `stratified proportional

systematic selection' (Fox 1969) of 48 primary schools from six

non-contiguous school districts in New South Wales. As primary schools

in New South Wales are classified from P1 to P6 according to size of

student enrolment, stratified proportional sampling involved

determining the proportions of each strata or type in each school

district, and selecting the eight schools from each district according

to those strata and proportions. Schools in each district were

alphabetically ordered and numbered for school type and every fifth

school was systematically selected for each strata or type.

The survey contained 24 items with a likert scale comprising four

response options, and elicited data on the extent to which teachers use

outcomes; the subjects in which they are used; the domains in which

they are stated; the nature of preferred outcomes (short and long term,

general and specific); and the extent to which they are used in

assessment and reporting. Data were analysed using frequency

distributions, T tests for significance, and multiple analysis of

variance.

The Findings

. Outcomes guide planning

Teachers in the four schools involved in the 1995 study were obviously

committed to planning by outcomes, as the schools were selected for

their excellence in profile implementation. However the 1996 survey

indicated widespread adoption of outcomes as statements of intent.

While a prima facie explanation may involve the impact on planning of

the national curriculum, and the state's endorsement of outcomes, a

less apparent explanation may involve the shifts in nomenclature

relating to educational intent. For instance the 1995 study revealed

some confusion among teachers about the distinction between objectives

and outcomes, with interpretations including objectives as statements

of teacher intent and outcomes as statements of student achievement;

objectives as statements of short term intent and outcomes as

statements of long term intent; and objectives as the specific steps in

achieving the long term outcome. Perhaps the more limited application

of other words to signify educational intent may also account for

teacher claims relating to the use of outcomes.

The existence of a relatively recent trend towards the statement of

outcomes is further supported by the finding that the least experienced

teachers were significantly more likely to be guided by outcomes in

planning (0.01). Teachers with under two years teaching experience

were followed by teachers with two to five years teaching experience as

the categories most likely to state outcomes. Many of the teachers in

these categories would have begun or resumed their teaching careers

after the introduction of the national curriculum in 1991 with its

emphasis on profiles expressed in outcomes. They may therefore have

adopted contemporary policy in relation to the use of outcomes, or have

been taught to plan by outcomes in teacher education programs.

Data also suggested that while teachers are planning by outcomes, this

does not indicate the use of an objectives or outcomes model of

curriculum planning by which the developer begins with outcomes and

moves in a linear manner through the curriculum elements (viz.

outcomes, content, method and assessment). The mean for the item

relating to the extent to which teachers are guided by content in

planning was fractionally higher than that for outcomes, though there

was no significant difference between them. The fact that outcomes and

content were both seen to be highly and comparably important in

planning may suggest that teachers use both concurrently in planning

what to teach.

. Outcomes are stated differentially by subject

Rather than state outcomes uniformly in all primary school subjects,

there were significant differences in the extent of use of outcomes.

The sequence indicating most to least use of outcomes in the six

primary learning areas was English, Maths, Science and Technology,

Human Society and its Environment, Personal Development, Health and

Physical Education and Creative Arts. There were highly significant

differences (all 0.00) between each subject and those below it in the

hierarchy, except between English and Maths, and between Science and

Technology and HSIE.

A number of explanations are possible. The first relates to the

perception of a traditional hierarchy of importance in school subjects.

The core subjects have traditionally been regarded as English, Maths

and Science. English and Maths incorporate the time-cherished basic

skills of reading, writing and arithmetic, and the importance of these

subjects is reflected by the larger time allocations given to them in

both primary and secondary schools.

The other three learning areas of HSIE, PD/H/PE and the Creative Arts

have either experienced relatively recent changes of name and content

(HSIE), or are amalgamations of subjects to form `key learning areas'

designated by the national curriculum (for example, the Creative Arts

comprises art, craft, music and dance).

A second explanation relates to the difficulty of stating outcomes in

certain subjects. Eisner's (1979) distinction between instructional

(behavioural) and expressive objectives was one resolution in the

perennial debate on whether some subjects like English and Maths enable

the specification of precise objectives whereas others like the Arts do

not. It is generally argued that areas involving attitudes and values,

and areas that require high subjectivity in assessment, are not well

suited to the specification of outcomes as the basic skills.

The survey further indicated that the largest schools in terms of

student enrolment were significantly more likely to state outcomes in

the various subjects (English 0.00, Maths 0.05, Science and Technology

0.03, HSIE 0.05, and Creative Arts 0.01). A possible explanation is

the potentially greater degree of school based committee involvement in

planning for the respective subjects.

. Outcomes are stated differentially by area

The survey indicated that teachers were significantly more likely to

state outcomes for skills than either knowledge or attitudes/values

(0.00), and significantly more likely to state outcomes for knowledge

than attitudes/values (0.00). It is not unusual to state outcomes for

each of these areas in programs and curricula throughout Australia.

The finding that skills were significantly more likely to involve

outcomes than knowledge, raises interesting epistemological questions

about the relationship between the two, and implicitly about the

relationship between theoretical and practical knowledge. As

definitions of knowledge and skills were not provided in the survey,

one explanation is that teachers regarded a skill as demonstrated

knowledge, that is, knowledge became a skill when it was demonstrated

in an observable and assessable way like listing, labelling or

identifying.

The fact that teachers were significantly less likely to state outcomes

in relation to attitudes) values is not surprising. One problem with

outcomes based approaches to schooling is the relatively greater

difficulty of stating outcomes in the affective domain.

. Outcomes are short term

The survey indicated that teachers were significantly more likely to

state short term outcomes than long term outcomes (0.00). The 1995

study revealed that teachers perceived the outcomes in the profiles as

too broad and long-term. The levels at which the outcomes are stated

in the national curriculum span approximately 20 months (eight levels

from K-12), so it is not surprising that some outcomes were seen in

this light. Several teachers cited the outcome `recognises the effects

created by different patterns in spoken texts' as not being

sufficiently explicit for student demonstration, and argued the need

for further short term outcomes to indicate teaching towards such

broader outcomes.

The survey results suggest that teachers are now stating short term

outcomes, and that whatever the degree of prescription from governments

and systems, they will continue to develop an operational curriculum

that best suits the immediate needs of their classrooms.

. Outcomes have not changed teaching methods

In the 1995 study, the majority of teachers indicated that there had

been little change in the way they taught, suggesting that the

introduction of outcomes had few implications for classroom method.

The 1996 survey confirmed this perception.

One fear expressed by many teachers in Australia in the early nineties

in relation to the national curriculum, involved the likelihood of the

adoption of a mastery learning model of outcome based education with an

emphasis on outcomes driven teaching, repetitive testing, and the

constant provision of remediation and enrichment. It was felt that

such an interpretation of outcome based education would have

implications for changing the nature of teaching towards more

behavioural (and some argued mechanistic and dehumanising) models of

teaching.

However, while planning has become more outcomes driven, it appears not

to have impacted markedly on the nature of teaching. Observed lessons

revealed nothing distinctive about the method that would be related

specifically to outcomes. There was certainly no evidence of

behavioural methods that might be linked to a mastery learning

interpretation of outcome based education.

Several teachers in the 1995 study also claimed that they stated for

their students at the beginning of lessons the outcome to which their

teaching was directed. This finding was further confirmed by a

moderate rating on the survey, and involved a significant difference

according to status: the higher status teachers (teacher, advanced

skills teacher, executive teacher, assistant principal) were

significantly more likely to state the learning outcomes they wanted

students to achieve (0.03). No explanation is provided for this

finding.

. Outcomes are the basis of assessment and reporting

As the schools in the 1995 study were specially selected, it is not

surprising that the methods of assessment and reporting by outcomes

were reasonably sophisticated. In two schools, each student had a

large work folder which contained the state profiles in all subjects,

and students did their best work, demonstrating the outcomes, in the

folder. Teachers annotated the folders by writing personalised letters

to the students. Thus the folder was the vehicle for assessment and

reporting. Another school was providing spiral bound books for each

student in each subject containing the profiles and outcomes. As the

outcomes were demonstrated, the date of achievement was entered, and

the book was handed on to successive teachers.

The survey results confirmed the importance of outcomes as the basis of

both assessment and reporting. It further indicated that the largest

schools in terms of student enrolment, were significantly more likely

to report student progress to parents in terms of outcomes (0.00). One

explanation of such a finding is that in larger schools the principal

may feel accountability issues more keenly, and therefore perceive the

need to achieve greater uniformity in assessment and reporting.

Conclusion

Outcomes have replaced objectives as the major label expressing

educational intent in Australia. The practice of overt, assessable

indicators of student achievement is not new, as it was embedded in

behaviourally stated objectives, but one legacy of the national

curriculum has been the more frequent and uniform use of outcomes in

planning by teachers.

Outcomes are guiding planning for teaching, though outcomes-driven

planning seems to be supplementing rather than replacing content-driven

programming. Outcomes statements tend to apply to short term learning,

and are stated differentially both by subject and by the type of

learning intended.

Adherents of outcome based education like Spady and Marshall (1991)

argue that it represents new ways of thinking about schooling. While

teachers in Australia are increasingly crystallising their real

intentions by making learning explicit in statements of outcomes, there

seems to have been negligible change in classroom pedagogy.

References

Board of Studies (1991), Curriculum Outcomes, (North Sydney, Board of

Studies).

Brady, L. (1996), Outcome-based education: a critique, The Curriculum

Journal, Vol 7, pp5-16.

Curriculum Corporation (1996), Take-up of Statements and Profiles.

Summary Report, Curriculum Corporation, Victoria.

Eisner, E.W. (1979), The Educational Imagination. On the Design and

Evaluation of School Programs, USA, MacMillan.

Evans, K.M. and King, J.A. (1994), Research on OBE: `What we know and

don't know', Educational Leadership, 51(6), 12-17.

Fitzpatrick, K.A. (1971), `Restructuring to achieve outcomes of

significance for all students', Educational Leadership, 48(8), 18-22

Fox, D.J. (1969), The Research Process in Education, U.S.A., Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.

Glasser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded

Theory: Strategies for

Qualitative Research, Illinois, Aldine Pub. Co.

Glatthorn, A.A. (1993), `OBE Reform and the curriculum process',

Journal of Curriculum and

Supervision, 8(4), 354-63.

Haack, M.K. (1994), `Defining outcomes for guidance and counselling',

Educational Leadership, 51(6), 33-37.

Haas, J. (1992), `Issues in outcome based schooling', NASSP Bulletin,

76, Dec., 97-100.

Hansen, J.M. (1989), `OBE: A smarter way to assess student learning',

The Clearing House, 63(4), 172-4.

Jasa, S. and Enger, L. (1994), `Applying OBE to arts education',

Educational Leadership, 51(6), 30-32.

McGhan, B. (1994), `The possible outcomes of outcome based education',

Educational Leadership, 51(6), 70-72.

McKernan, J. (1993), `Some limitations of outcome based education',

Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8(4), 343-53.

Mitchell, L., Hoyle, C. and Martin, C. (1993), `Designing successful

learning: staff development for outcome based instruction', Journal of

Staff Development, 14(3) 28-32.

Pliska, A.M. and McQuaide, J. (1994), `Pennsylvania's battle for

student learning outcomes', Educational Leadership, 51(6), 66-69.

Schwartz, G. and Cavener, L.A. (1994), `Outcome based education and

curriculum change: advocacy, practice and critique', Journal of

Curriculum and Supervision, 9(4), 326-38.

Spady, W.G. and Marshall, K.J. (1991), `Beyond traditional outcome

based education, Educational Leadership, 49(2), 67-72.

Towers, J.M. (1994), `The perils of outcome based teacher education',

Phi Delta Kappan, April, 624-7.

Zlatos, B. (1993), `Outcomes based outrage', The Executive Educator,

August, 12-16.