Insights on Outcomes-Based Education (OBE)

...the father of outcomes-based education himself, especially as we all prepare for the implementation of new curricula aligned with K-12 beginning August 2018. The University of Santo Tomas began... efforts to embrace outcomes-based education since the Commission on Higher Education released CMO 46, series no. 112, towards a typology-based and outcomes-based quality assurance system. While we have invested much into this implementation in our institution, we all agree that our transition to OBE is still a work in progress, and that inputs from experts in the field, as well as interactions with peers, will help shed light on aspects that are still great to us. Every learning opportunity enables us to get a better grasp of outcomes and how these outcomes can be implemented. These should direct instruction, ensuring constructive alignment of elements of the learning process in order to maximize learning among students. We all look forward to a productive afternoon of interaction and may we be able to acquire new learning that will enable us to teach our students better, transforming them to become leaders and change agents of society. Thank you very much. Thank you, Professor Chetan Thirap. Unfortunately, Dr. Francis Uy is not able to be with us today, but to give us the overview of the Spady and Uy Center for Transformational OB and to introduce our keynote speaker, may I now call on Mr. Chino Arulio, the Business Development Manager of the Spady and Uy Center for Transformational OB. Good afternoon. Good afternoon everyone. First of all, we'd like to thank Dr. Paulo Bolaños and the rest of the administrators of the University of Santo Tomas for inviting us. It is indeed our pleasure to actually have this talk with you, a conversation, a dialogue. if you will, about outcome-based education. The Spady and Uy Center for Transformation of OBE has been existing for three years and our mission is to actually inform people and help people to actually implement transformation of OBE. Outcome-based education is unmatched globally. Known internationally as the father of OBE, he has earned the reputation as the recognized worldwide authority on future-focused, paradigm-shifting, personally empowering approaches to transformational OBE. For over four decades, he has spearheaded major OBE initiatives through North America, South Africa, Australia, the Philippines, and the Philippines. Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates on expanding the vision, shifting the paradigm, and improving the performance of learners, educators, and educational systems. This work has bolstered his recognized expertise in organizational change, transformational leadership development, strategic organizational design, and elevated models of learning and living. Recognize across the world as a dynamic... and compelling consultant and presenter, he received his PhD in sociology of education from the University of Chicago in 1967. He began his academic career as a professor at the Harvard University's Graduate School of Education. This was followed by major national leadership positions in education and the founding of his own national consulting company in 1991. Since then, he has lectured at several universities, including the University of Chicago, the University at two major educational conferences throughout the world on cutting-edge approaches to a range of topics related to OBE, leadership, human potential, paradigm change, and learning empowerment. He has published nine highly acclaimed professional books, scores of journals, articles, and many solicited chapters in the books of others. A list of his books can be found in his website williamsbaty.com He has been the subject of three doctoral dissertations and has been honored with a Center for the Arts. of transformational leadership and learning in the Philippines. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the father of OBE, Dr. William Spade. Thank you very much. Thank you. Can you hear me well? Yes? Okay. Thank you. This is a great honor, and I have shared that. with the distinguished colleagues in the front row. I've also told them to look under their chairs because anybody in the front row, there's a thousand peso note tacked to the chair. So they all immediately scrambled and looked under their chairs for the note. I explained also as we became acquainted that there is not a more controversial topic anywhere that I know about in education than outcome-based education because there is not a more misunderstood and misrepresented and misapplied concept than outcome-based education. So here I am, I've been doing it for 50 years, and it hasn't changed. The misunderstanding, the misapplication, etc. persists and persists and persists. It's called institutional inertia. The institution of education just keeps on being what it is. no matter what we try to do to change it. So what I understood from the very first moment that I was introduced to the ideas surrounding this, and I'll explain that in the course of the presentation, from the very first moment, I knew this meant major change. and education major change major major change and as a sociologist i knew that changing institutions and organizations is extraordinarily challenging i won't say impossible but i will say or just incredibly challenging so i have been living with the reality of a paradigmatic change model for 50 years. Okay? A paradigmatic change model. I will be giving you the best clear explanation of what I understand about that today. And I think in the dialogue we have in the... Later in the afternoon, many more issues will come out and you will have an opportunity. We're going to have an extended discussion, question, answer period. I want you to be brave and ask the hard questions and we'll talk about what's possible. This says that I'm at least 2,000 years old, okay, if I'm the father of OBE. So I guess either one or the other is not true, okay, because OBE has... around for way more than 2,000 years and I haven't I think so this is not a new idea this is not a new concept this is not a new paradigm It is ancient. It is ancient. It is deeply embedded in our culture, our civilization as human beings. I'm not the father of it. It's pure common sense. But I used my sociological training when I heard about this to say, oh my goodness, this means change in education. going to take this very promising, I said, of ideas and actually make them work. So that's what I've spent my whole career doing. My approach includes... It includes all five of the words you see up here. My approach is spiritual at its heart. It is grounded with a spiritual understanding of who we are as human beings. My sociological training has enabled it to be strategic, functional, technical, and systemic, because it's all of those. So this is not about curriculum. This is not about teaching techniques, but there are plenty of techniques to pay attention to. This is about how entire systems are defined and organized and function. What drives them? What drives them? What makes them work? So these five key elements, qualities, etc. have characterized my approach to this from the very, very beginning. So I'm going to be outcome-based with you and give you some outcomes. Are you ready? Oh, you better take notes. Here goes. Okay, number one. At the end, I'm going to come back to this, so you better be ready. I want you to be able to compare the four paradigms of OBE. Describe what they are, describe what they are, know the differences, and compare them. I would like you to explain OBE's three main premises. Now the three main premises are listed on your handout sheet. The front of the sheet is about outcomes, essentially, the criteria for outcomes. The back is all about... The paradigm, the premises, the purposes, the principles of OBE. Everything you wanted to know about OBE is on one sheet of paper. You're holding it. Okay? All the rest is details. All the rest is details. Okay? So I want you to understand the three premises because they are key to understanding the philosophy that OBE represents. I want you to be able to define an outcome of significance. Significance. An outcome that really matters in the long run. Not this semester's test score. An outcome that really matters in the long run. Because if we don't know what that is, we can't be outcome-based. It's that simple. If we don't know what an outcome of significance is, then we're just continuing to do the same old stuff we've always done. Okay, here we go. The operational heart, the doing heart of OBE is four principles. And I'll be explaining how those principles work in classrooms, how they work in programs, how they work in institutions. Because if you're not doing the four principles, you're not doing OBE. I mean that ever so sincerely. If you're not doing the four principles, you're not doing OBE. What you're doing might be wonderful. It's not that the four principles are the only four good things in the world. What you're doing won't be OBE. It'll be something else, and you get to decide. Now, here's the whole essence of it. The four principles. Change and expand the conditions of success. They redefine the ground rules that students are compelled to comply with because we have an educational system, in order to be successful. What do you have to do, students, to be successful? Well, there's a set of conditions. These four principles expand those conditions. They alter those conditions. They make success much more possible under those conditions. That's the real essence of OB. So this is about paradigms. And from the very beginning, I have taken the concept of paradigms very seriously, long before this became a catch word, long before it became just a thing that people throw around, a word they throw around all the time, on TV and otherwise. Paradigms are our picture of reality. They're our picture, our picture of how things work, what's real. And they shape how we think. They shape what we believe. Our whole picture of cause and effect is shaped by the paradigm we hold. They shape what we see and say. And especially what we do. Now, as I thought about this, and Paolo, I have not shared this with you, all these philosophers that you study are trying to describe a paradigm. They all have their version of reality and how reality works. And some of them seem more credible to us and some of them seem less credible. They all start with certain premises and starting points. But the philosophy is basically the attempt of extremely insightful and thoughtful people to describe how reality is put together and what it will lead to and what its implications are. So, that's something we might want to discuss a little later this afternoon when we get to it. These are pictures of reality and OBE is a different paradigm. Now, it's not an alien paradigm, as we'll see in a second, but it's different. Now, the good news and bad news about paradigms is we think our paradigm, whichever one we hold most dear and true, is the truth. And that's why we have had, since the beginning of humanity, wars and wars and wars and more wars while people fight over their paradigm. It's time to stop. It's not getting us anywhere. We're fighting over diverse pictures of reality, none of which may be reality. But it's the ones we've decided are reality, etc., etc. So let's keep that in mind as we move forward here. There's a very famous futurist that has had an enormous influence on my thinking in the States. His name is Joel Barker. And Joel Barker said in the first of the famous videos... that he put out a long time ago. When a paradigm shifts, that is when we really have a paradigm shift, everyone goes back to zero. Because all of our understandings about what's most real, how things work, what's most important, what are the priorities, etc. All of that shifts. And we've got to go back and figure it out all over again. And that's not fun. The great philosopher Bill Spady said, Come on folks, lighten up. Zero is not a place people like to be. We don't want to go back to zero. Nobody wants to go back to zero. It's scary to be back at zero where we have to figure out everything in a different way because of what we understand. But guess what? It's at zero where we can create. Real creation happens from zero. Otherwise, we're simply tinkering and massaging with what already exists, and that's not creation. So, potential and possibilities are alive and doing wonderfully at zero, but it's scary to have to go back there. Because we've all been conditioned to believe in the way things work. That's what life has been about for all of us. Figuring out how things work, where we fit in, and how we can do better and better at it. So, here we go. History, I believe, human history, has known four major paradigms of OBE. Okay, I'm just calling them P1, P2, P3, and P4 for right now. P1 is very tangible OBE. And it has historically been the common sense way to educate. If you want somebody to learn something, if you want somebody to do something, etc., be clear about what it is and teach them that. This is not rocket science. People have been doing P1 for thousands of years. Otherwise, humanity wouldn't have survived. We wouldn't be passing on our capacities to do things from generation to generation to generation to generation to generation. So P1 should come as no surprise to us when we see what it is. The good news and the bad news is we created educational systems. Back in the 19th century is when formal educational systems really... started to take root in quote advanced societies and when education became modern we lost P1 and we replaced it with P2. A P2 is CBO. I'll keep you in suspense for a few minutes on what that means, okay? Because there are lots of CBOs. P2 is not real OBE. Now, this is no fault of Ched's. But Ched and the whole rest of the world think CBO is OBE. That's the problem. Because when we created big, formal, institutionalized education, we let go of paradigm one, and we adopted a different paradigm. I'll be explaining that. Finally, in 1968, just when I got interested in OBE, it is because P3 emerged. And P3 emerged, we call it transitional OBE, because it's almost OBE but not quite, okay, came out of Benjamin Bloom's work, the famous Benjamin Bloom of the taxonomies and all that stuff, right? You know about him, okay. Well, he created this instructional model called mastery learning. And mastery learning for 18 years in North America was what we meant by OBE. OBE was and wasn't any more than mastery learning. But the good news was Mastery Learning had a lot of good stuff, which we embraced, and Mastery Learning gave us virtually all the things on the back of your handout page, not the front. Okay? It gave us the premises and the purposes, and it gave us the principles, etc. That all got birthed and born... born and nourished in the mastery learning period, 1968 to 86. Once things shifted radically in 1986, along came something I call transmutational, not just transformational, transmutational, the fundamental, thank you, could you open it for me, the fundamental inner character, thank you, okay, of OBE changed. Now, I have good news to share. The St. Paul's system, both tertiary and basic air, has pushed this fourth paradigm farther ahead than any system in the world. And I want to share just a little bit about that toward the end of the presentation. Okay, so P4 is going to come late, alright? But they are pushing the cutting edge. They embody the cutting edge right now. And the more cutting and cutting and cutting we make the edge, the more that paradigm gets refined and expands, et cetera. Okay, that's the lay of the land. That's the orientation. So here goes. Paradigm one. What does OBE mean? Operation-based efficacy. Operation based efficacy. What's that mean? Why those words? Operation. An operation is an organized set of actions that have a purpose. They're active processes. That's an operation. An operation is when something works and goes. It's a performance too. So paradigm one is based on stuff happening. Based efficacy. What do the operations do? They make you competent. They make you effective. They make you an active agent in the world making a difference in your life. They make you competent and efficacious. So P1, operation-based efficacy, was about being able to do stuff that makes you capable, that makes you an effective agent of life. So what are some real life examples? Well, the best ones we have for a reason that I'll give you in just a second were what were called the craft gills in Europe. The guilds were built around different professions. Shoemaking, candle making, musicians, all kinds of crafts. had their guild. They were specialized training centers where people learned their craft in the Middle Ages in Europe. Whoops! Hello, what happened? Did I hit the wrong button? No. Scouting merit badges. Scouting merit badges. Every badge is a symbol of, an emblem of, operation-based efficacy. You've had to do something and accomplish something and perform something to get the badge. Karate instruction. Belts. Notice, just because you have a gold belt doesn't mean you get a D in black belt. You don't get a gold belt until you get an O, I mean an A in gold belt. And then you work your way up, belt to belt to belt. Every belt is an A. Every belt is an A. Or you don't get the belt, yet you keep working at it. Scuba Instruction and levels. Flight schools and piloting qualifications and licenses. There are levels and levels and levels and levels of different kinds of qualifications in piloting. Parenting is outcome based. You just don't get any awards for it. You just have to live through it. Now notice, with scuba diving and flight schools, if you're not competent, people will die. Including you. Okay, that's how important competent performance is for different kinds of diving or piloting or whatever it is. Okay, so we've had that. that then for thousands and thousands of years, these kinds of things making children competent so that they can occupy adult roles and function effectively, etc., and no one will die. That's P1. Now they have four things in common, so I'll go quickly with this. Number one, And I have, if you can't see the words, this says there is a clear criterion defined. That's extremely important. Those two words. Every one of these things has clear criterion defined standards of learning and performance. that are associated with each level. Each belt has its criterion-defined standard. Each level of scuba diving has its criterion-defined levels of capacity and ability. Criterion-defined means real words describe what it is. Okay, here's the start of the paradigm shift, folks. Hang with me right here. Criterion defined means word defined. It doesn't mean scores. It doesn't mean percents. It doesn't mean points. It doesn't mean ranks. Real words define the criteria. Each level is explicitly taught. What you have to learn for that particular level is explicitly taught to the learners. They don't throw you in the ocean and say, well, you'll get it. You'll figure out what to do. Now, number three. Each of those performance standards has been set, verified, validated, credentialed, etc. by experts in the field. People who are the expert implementers are the people who say this is what constitutes this particular level. That's true of all those models. And my favorite, multiple performance trials are allowed. They don't kick you out of the scouts just because you don't do everything right to get a badge the first time. So those four things define paradigm one. So, in modern... When education became modern and industrial, because modern education is really built around the fundamental, structural, operational, organizational, systemic paradigm called a factory assembly line. A factory assembly line. Now, when education took that route... When we started to model education after the most wonderful thing anybody had ever invented up to that time in human history called the highly efficient productive assembly line, that was our paragon, that was our paragon of organizational efficiency and effectiveness. Everything changed. What emerged was paradigm number two, which is alive and well everywhere in the world. Now, orthodoxy-based educentrism. There is just the right way to do education. Educentrism. ...is a closed system. Educentrism is everything about education, reinforcing everything else about education, but nobody else in the world does that stuff. Only education keeps doing education inside of its own closed system. The only time anything ever gets out is when graduates go out and bring educat-educentrism into the organizations they work in. Because the rest of the world doesn't work in the educentric paradigm. Okay, here we go. CBO syndrome. Get ready. Get ready. This isn't it yet. Get ready. The CBO syndrome is imitation OBE. It is imitation. It is not OBE. It is orthodoxy based at Juscentrism. So here goes. This is one of my favorite slides in the whole universe. Okay? Check out the CBOs. You'll find a favorite up there somewhere, okay? You might find multiple favorites up there. Okay? That's orthodoxy-based educentrism. It's called CBO. And it's the syndrome around which the whole system is built. It's the system around which it's thinking it's built, and its operations are built, on and on and on, and on and on and on. Okay. I'll promise during our break, I'll bring this back and you can copy all this. Okay, I'll just leave it up during the break. Here's what's here from my perspective is what part of the problem is. All the people who love paradigm two don't understand what based means. Okay? And as a sociologist, I think based is the most important of the three words. If you're going to have outcome-based education, you sure better know what based means. Whoa, here goes. Based means... defined by, and, plus, focused on, plus, designed around, plus, organized around. That That's what it means to base something on something else. That something else is your fundamental foundation. It's your fundamental foundation. And everything revolves around that. What you do is defined by it and organized around it. And you build stuff around it and design around it. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That's what base means. That's what's not understood. Among other things. Okay? By the paradigm, two people. So here's more bad news. And I have to say this bad news is approximately my favorite bad news of all the slides. So here goes. You have to promise you'll write this one down. Okay? Everybody promise. Here goes. It's time-based. Education is defined by, focused on, designed around, and organized around blocks of time. And those blocks of time and the whole CBO syndrome are defined by, focused on, organized, designed around the clock, the schedule, and the calendar. And you can't run a 400 year old university without it, okay? Okay, there they are. That's it. And the minute I was introduced to the basic ideas of OBE back in 19... It was Christmas time in 67... Before most of you were born... I instantly understood education is time-based. How can you be outcome-based if you're time-based? How come, how can we be outcome based if everything is determined by what day is it on the calendar? We are time driven. That's the modern era. That's what started to happen in the middle of the 19th century. Everything started to get defined around the blocks of time. So from this weird spady perspective, education is a giant opportunity system boxed in by time. It's a giant system boxed in and defined by time. And OBE, which we'll get to more in just a second, is going to require that system to be more flexible, expansive, and learner-responsive. And it's hard to do that when everything is defined by the clock, the schedule, and the calendar. Okay? That's all. I mean, we face an incredible institutional challenge if we want to do real OBE. Okay. Here we go. 1963. A chink in the armor. A chink in the P2 armor. A man named John Carroll, who was a professor at Harvard at the time, wrote a paper. 1963. And in his paper said, we have absolutely, the education system is built on the wrong understanding of what aptitude is. We think aptitude is your ability to do things. It's not. Aptitude is the rate at which you learn to do things. things and we all have different aptitudes there are things we learn to do fast there are things to learn we do learn slow okay we sometimes say people are gifted well that means they just learn it really fast okay it's not their ability to learn it. And this is what we had to challenge. OBE became a big, big challenge, especially to high school people. There are things in your curriculum that you can't do. that you think only the smart kids can learn. Not true. They all can learn the hard stuff, but not if it's packaged around fixed schedules and timelines and courses and credits and all that stuff. So John Carroll wrote this paper, and lo and behold, our good friend Benjamin Bloom read it. And Benjamin Bloom knew Carroll, and he said, oh my gosh, yeah, why do we organize everything in classrooms around rigid schedules? What could we do to accommodate differences in rates? What could we do to accommodate differences in aptitudes and get kids on a successful learning path as fast as possible when they come to us? So between 63 and 68 when Bloom officially published his paper called Learning for Mastering, not Mastery Learning, Learning for Mastering, in those five years he... basically put together and tested and researched with his graduate students, who were friends of mine, the fundamental ingredients of P3, of Paradigm 3. This is in hindsight. This is Spady many, many years later looking back at all of that and saying what that bloom work was, was really opportunity-based expansion. It was giving kids more chances, better chances, more flexible chances, expanded chances to demonstrate what they learned. That's what it was. Okay? So, Paradigm 3 was born in 1968. It ended up, a few years later, being called Mastery Learning instead of Learning for Mastery. So it was just known as Mastery Learning ML. Now, whoa, here is a load of stuff. The basic, and I don't have time, I'm sorry, I don't have time to get into the rationale behind every one of these things, etc., but I would like you to capture the essence of what was in this model. Teachers had to get rid of comparative standards and grading and all of that for kids. They had to start defining in criterion terms, what do you want the kids to be able to do? What do you want them to learn? So teachers had to define performance standards and expectations for kids clearly in real words. No bell curve expectations or grading. No bell curve. There's a whole long scenario about that. It's worth another seminar. Clear and high expectations for kids. Now, in the States, passing was 70. Bloom said, every kid can get 80. Every kid can get 80. And 80 became the performance standard. Now, that's good news and bad news, and I'll explain it in a minute. Okay? But he raised expectations. Every kid can get 80. Now, teachers needed to be sure that kids had the prerequisites for new instruction. If they don't have the prerequisites, they aren't going to understand the new stuff. Okay, so part of the instructional design was to create, okay, a review, etc., of critical prerequisites that went into every unit of instruction. Now, this is where the term formative assessments was born. All right, so I will now say something really controversial since I haven't said anything controversial yet. Okay? Are you ready? This is the audience participation part of the program. Okay? Here goes. What is the difference between a formative assessment and a summative assessment? Okay, are you ready? Nothing! Well, wait, there's an exception. One gets graded in pencil, and one gets graded in ink. Otherwise, it's the same assessment. You're trying to... What's an assessment? You're trying to gather evidence about something. So, is the evidence there? Now the decision about whether you put a number on it or a grade on it or a letter on it or any other symbol is totally artificial. They simply did what they did. You invented the grades. Be sure to write this down. You invented the numbers. You invented the passing. You decide if you're going to use a pencil or a pen. Right? Am I doing okay? Is anybody angry with me so far? Yes, okay. You decide all that stuff. A formative assessment is simply an initial assessment to see how they're doing. And what you do with a formative assessment is diagnose. You diagnose. how they're doing and you make adjustments accordingly in guess what an expanded opportunity period in so what happens after the initial assessment Do you do anything? Instructionally or do you just say forget it and write the grade in your book? Okay, a formative assessment model says you have the responsibility to do something about it and so do they. Okay, in a summative assessment model you just put a grade on it, put it in the book and send it to the registrar. Seriously. So the mastery learning model was built around formative assessment where targeted assistance was provided to the kids using a different instructional approach. during an expanded opportunity or second chance period. And initially that was just days. That was just a few days. So they needed more time to work on this. That was the mastery model. So, it was strictly a classroom instructional process. It worked within the existing curriculum. Nobody had to change curriculum. It challenged the fixed-time, single-opportunity structure of schools, however. And it really began to challenge it when it became report- What do you do on report card day? Can there be life after report card day? No, this was a huge challenge for people. It all sounded good until report card day came along. What OB is, here we go, is an inclusionary model of success. We want as many kids as possible to be successful learners. We want them to be successful learners. That's why we don't have bell curves. If everybody earns an A, everybody earns an A, whatever that means. Okay? OBE from the very beginning was an inclusionary philosophy of success. Which challenges education selection bias because education is a gigantic selection machine. Now, OBE is built around five major pillars. Okay? Five major pillars. Mastery learning. Okay? Opportunity-based expansion, paradigm three, gave us four of the five. Here are the five pillars. Now. As I said before, the first one is on the front page of your handout, and the other four basically are on the back page. The bad news is, mastery learning only dealt with the bottom four. It didn't have outcomes of significance. Okay, that was the dilemma. And we didn't know it because we just were riding along, okay, in this whole idea. Here we go, oh my God, kids, all you have to do is get 80%. Just get 80%, okay, you'll go to heaven. 80%. So mastery learning gave us what and whether is more important than when and how. That's the paradigm of OBE. What and whether they can do it well is more important than when and how. And all the educational reforms we've had in the U.S. for the past 20 years of relentless, relentless insanity has all been about when and how. It's got to be on the right dates. It's got to be the right curriculum. It's got to be the right test. It's got to be this and it's got to be that and they haven't got a clue what an outcome is. Mastery learning based on three key or two key purposes. Sorry. Send all the learners into the world, equipped and empowered to succeed. Under the assumption, by the way, which we came to challenge enormously in a little while, under the assumption that the curriculum we were teaching them was going to prepare them to succeed in the world. Notice the assumption. The courses we're teaching now are preparing them for a volatile, changing future. Oh boy. Weak assumption. Philosophy professors. Weak assumption. Number two purpose is maximize the conditions. ...of success in the school and in the classroom that enabled this to happen. Those are the two purposes, the two compelling purposes of what you're doing. Okay, aha, the philosophy. All students can learn and succeed. Okay, straight out of John Carroll. But not on the same day and not in the same way. Success breeds success, failure breeds failure. Almost self-evident. Success breeds success cognitively and motivationally. Schools control the conditions of success. Schools control what you have to be and what you have to do to be called a good student. Okay? Schools control that. Parents don't, neighborhoods don't, peer groups don't. Schools define what you have to do to be called a good student around here. OBE was all about expanding those conditions. So here we go, heart and soul, da da da, the engine that drives the train. Principle 1, clarity of focus on outcomes of significance. Now as a matter of historical circumstance, we ended up calling this the clarity of focus principle. which is true. Clear focus. Make the focus clear to everyone. But the principle probably could have equally well been called the focus on outcomes principle. So we're doing kind of both. Principle number two. Expanded opportunity for all to succeed. High expectations for all. They all can get 80. And the fourth principle, design your curriculum down. Design it back from your ultimate outcomes. Now just a touch of explanation. This is color-coded. You can't do number four if you haven't done number one. If you don't have any outcomes, you can't design down from them. And... Expanded opportunity and high expectations have to be kept in a very delicate balance. If you have too much of one, you have a high failure rate, and if you have too much of the other students, go on vacation. Okay? So you've got to balance. That's the two blue ones. Okay? There's a real art to balancing those two, and there are a variety of techniques that we developed to do that. How do you apply the four principles? Here it is. Two C words and two S words. They've got to be consistently applied, they've got to be systematically applied. Creatively applied was my favorite. Creatively, that's how we really were able to create some great expanded opportunity situations around the existing schedule. And simultaneously, you need all four. It's like a chemical compound. You leave something out and you don't end up with the same thing. So you need all four principles working simultaneously. Okay, here we go. So what does clarity of focus mean? This applies to every professor in the room. Keep your focus on the culminating outcome. What are you ultimately working toward? Keep their focus on it. It's your starting point. It's what you want them ultimately to accomplish. Keep reminding them. It's your top priority. It's your bottom line. Okay? Your culminating outcome, whatever it is, Target of success. The reason we had clarity of focus is make that clear to the students. Hey students, what you see is what you get. This is not going to be a trick. This is not going to be an exam you can't pass. This is going to be something that will be an authentic demonstration of what we're trying to accomplish with you. Show them. Model it. No surprises. Demonstrate it. Show them what it's going to look like once they get there. Keep showing them. Here's what it's all about. And this came from a colleague. I was writing a paper. He and I were writing this great paper about this concept for an education journal in the States. And he said, you know, if I was a real outcome-based professor... I'd give them the final exam on the first day. And I would tell them, anytime you can do all of this, come to my office, show me, and you'll be done. It was radical. I never thought about it. Okay? Douglas Mitchell was his name. Radical idea. Give them the final exam on the first day. Not so that they memorize the answers. It's so that they understand what this is really all about and what it is they need to learn to be able to do. Just an option, just in case. Okay, here's one of my favorite slides in the whole world. Opportunity ends when you get graded in ink. That just happens to be when time blocks ink. We just have this habit of when the time blocks over we grade them in ink. We don't have to. We don't have to. We just do. Because it's always been done that way. Which is why it's orthodox-based educentrism. We've just always done it that way. Our professors did that to us. I guess we better do that to our students, too. And all you students out there, be sure you do that to your students. when you become professors. Okay. Now, the essence of design now. This is, I'm skipping over some stuff here. I just have to get, think of this one. When mountain climbers plan their climb, they always start from the peak and design the climb back from there. Because there may be only one way to take the final five steps. And if you can't take the final five steps, you can't get to the peak. So you have to know how to get to the final five steps. And then you have to get to know how to get to that point. And to that point and to that point. Now there may be multiple places you can start from at the bottom of the mountain. Okay? But they're not going to get you to the peak unless you have designed that. Oh my gosh. That's their strategy. They want to get to the peak. They've got to know how to get there. Why should that be your strategy? You want your students to get there. A colleague who I will talk more about this afternoon, he's on that one brochure with me, Elias Sampa. He is just brilliant at this work. He can help you do these things in an incredibly effective way. And he is just the champion of design down and the champion of aligning your curriculum. from the peak back. And it makes an incredible difference. An incredible difference. Okay. So mastery learning launched Paradigm 3, but it had four fatal flaws. It remained content-bound. Whatever was in the curriculum is what we taught. Nobody ever challenged the curriculum. They just helped you learn the curriculum, whatever was there better. Now, it was the quantitative face of OBE. And it reinforced what I call the numbers game, and that is a whole, totally, separate, big workshop I do about how our whole numerical grading system and point system and all of this is totally artificial. And I have a... A wonderful example of a 10-item test that will show you that nothing in the test is essential learning based on how we do our thing. Nothing in the test is essential learning. And we just test and test and test and give points and give scores. That's the problem with mastery learning. It became just 80 of anything because it never defined outcomes. It never knew what a real outcome was. And it struggled to get beyond being time-based. So that's what reached four major films. And those flaws suddenly got just, they just exploded one day at a national conference in 1986. It took us 18 years. We called ourselves outcome-based education and for 18 years we didn't know what an outcome was. Because we had points. All we had was points and scores. You surely get enough points. It doesn't matter what the outcome is, what the learning is, just get points. We were caught in the numbers game. We thought 80% was masculine. Well, I don't want my pilot of my plane to get 80% on piloting and miss the 20% on landing. Okay? I kind of like him to get a hunger, not 80. Okay. So it was time to escape the trap. We didn't even know we were in the trap. We were paradigm blind. I'd love to tell the story about how it happened, but we were compelled to do this, and I compelled a design team of the best OBE high school teachers in the United States to sit with me and hammer out a definition, and there it is. Because I told them, unless we have a definition within a week, I quit this whole movement. And I meant it. It's hypocritical to say you're outcome-based and you don't even know what an outcome is. So this is approximately the most important slide of the day. Our definition, an outcome is a culminating demonstration of learning. Four words. Culminating demonstration of learning. That was our definition. Which means that outcomes require action. Because you can't demonstrate nothing. You've got to demonstrate things. Culminating means that it's going to happen at or after the end. And we said they need to last into the future. An outcome needs to be something that sticks and lasts and matters. So outcomes happen. They're tangible actions that require competence. That took us from content to competence. You've got to be able to do something. Not just mental processing. Not just thinking. And they take many forms. Demonstrations take many forms. We'll see that in detail in a second. Outcomes are driven by strong action verbs. I've done a whole critique on the verbs in Chet documents. Oh my God. They are not strong action verbs. Outcomes are defined by words, not numbers and percents. Every word counts in an outcome statement. Outcomes happen somewhere. Think about that. Every time you do something, you do it somewhere. And that somewhere can be an incredibly challenging performance context, or it can be an absolutely simple, easy one. Like here, we're sitting in this nice air-conditioned auditorium. Hey, this is simple and easy. It wouldn't be so simple and easy if they turned the lights out. Just one little thing, okay? So what we've been ignoring in education forever is performance context. Whoops, hello, come on. Alright, which is critical. And outcomes matter after they're done. Demonstrations that matter after they're gone. Now, here's the paragons. With that definition, we were able to recover good old Paragon 1! Okay? Once we had a definition that says, gosh, without being able to do something, we could bring that original paradigm back. So operation-based efficacy came back into the picture. So it wasn't a whole new paradigm. At the time we thought, oh my gosh, we've created a whole new paradigm here. No, what we really did was resurrect one that had been around for thousands of years. That's what we did. So? Let's remember, operation, that's what that means, and efficacy, that's what that means. Same slide as we saw before. Okay, so here we go, into new paradigm land. We had all these weird things we called Spadians. When you see this, you're just going to groan, okay? Here was the first great Spadian. You may know this in a slightly different way, okay? By their verbs, ye shall know that. Because it's their verbs, that is, what the verbs in the outcome statements are that you want them to demonstrate, that's whether you know they know anything or not, or whether they can do anything. or not. Even philosophy students, and we'll get into that later, okay? I guarantee you. Don't give up on them. Poor Apollo is kind of pennant stricken over in the corner. Don't give up on them. Not all verbs are created equal. There are power verbs and there are weak demonstration verbs. There are non-demonstration verbs, there are other kinds of verbs, etc. But it's by their verbs that ye shall know them. Choose strong, powerful, good demonstration verbs. Now I mentioned my colleague Elias Sampa, okay? He is the king of alignment. Alignment means everything needs to match. And when we started with our teachers, this is something we did way back in the olden days, we started just by focusing on the action verbs. The learning experience must foster that verb. The teacher must teach how to do that verb. The students must be able to demonstrate that verb, not something else. The assessment must measure it. Okay? I mean, this is... This is all basic stuff that I'll guarantee you the world is awash in terrible alignment. Terrible alignment. And this transcript... has to document it. That's not what our transcripts document. Our transcripts have this much space for the number or the grade we put in. It doesn't document anything. Our transcripts don't document anything. So this applies to all the words in an outcome statement. All the words. All the words. All the words. So here we go. Outcomes of significance are three-dimensional. This is about three-dimensional learning. Dimension one, cognition. Cognition is what happens in your head. It's your brain functioning. That's one-dimensional. We call it one-dimensional learning. Two-dimensional learning is what you can do with what's going on in your head. Can you actually perform or demonstrate anything? So instead of saying, okay students, I want you to know this stuff, why not ask the students to describe this stuff? Or explain this stuff, and then you'll find out if they know it or not. And context is whether you can do it where the doing really counts. And we then started to push that way out into being future focused, future focused, future focused in life. What are they going to really have to do? What are they going to have to do? Don't tell us about the textbook, tell us about life. Tell us about the performance context in which we want the kids to thrive. This was a very volatile period. Now, I'm skipping over years of stuff, but one day we realized Bloom's taxonomy is in the way. Because Bloom's taxonomy is all about one-dimensional learning. It's not about real performance. It's not about reality. It's not about life. It's about cognitive processing. So I sat down and in a few hours I had created an early and very primitive version of this wheel from Bloom's Taxonomy. And three years later of working with experts all over everywhere, it evolved into this. We call it the Life Performance Wheel. Everybody who has to perform a real role in life, a life role, has to be able to do it. Once we had the wheel, and we had it almost 30 years ago. Everything continued to evolve and evolve and evolve and evolve and evolve. The wheel got us rolling along into the world we call transformation. And it took us, it took us from P1, okay, the original P1, to a new paradigm. Ownership-based empowerment. Now, we're getting toward the end. Here we go. What do those words mean? Ownership means... It's mine. I own it. I identify with it. It has meaning for me. This is something that belongs to me, that I can do. Empowerment. Empowerment means we exert our authority to do something. Nobody can empower you. You empower yourself. You empower yourself by taking charge and doing things. Now, what's this paradigm all about? Well, guess what? It required a huge, mega shift within the movement. Because what we realized, this is mega paradigms, is we were operating in an old paradigm of OBE. The old paradigm was about empowerment, where we adults put stuff in to the heads of the kids. We put curriculum in there. We put our beliefs and values in there. Our job is to be inputters. Empowerment is to draw out of the kids enormous amounts of innate capacity and choice and creativity that's there. It is an absolute mega paradigm shift. Now, for that to make any sense, you need to realize that outcomes, remember we said they take many forms, they take microforms down at the bottom. Those are microforms of demonstrations. We used to call that the traditional zone. This looked like a mountain. We had a mountain. That's the traditional zone of the mountain. That was the transitional zone. And that was the transformational zone that we called it. Notice the red is about role performance abilities, how you function in the world. The wheel stuff. The stuff in the wheel. And the final big breakthrough. The final huge breakthrough happened in 1991, where you are looking at a framework. This is the first framework ever in the history of the world about human beings. All the rest of the outcome frameworks were about kinds of curriculum and curriculum outcomes. All the rest of the stuff was about kinds of skills and competencies. This is the first one where anybody ever said this is the first one. the kind of human beings we want to send out the door. Okay? And what we want to send out the door is self-directed learners, because that's what life requires, and collaborative workers, because that's what life requires, and complex thinkers, etc., etc. Now, from that framework, notice the word who, because the word who then was we had to follow it with, well, how would you know one if you saw one? Okay? So that's where the tough, tough design work is, is finishing those statements. Self-directed learners who do these things because that's what a self-directed learner does, etc. It got built around, these frameworks got built around what I call my five C's. Consciousness, creativity, collaboration, competence, and compassion. Because the new... I'm question what drives what should our outcomes be the answer is what kind of human beings do you want to say what kind of human beings not what kinds of skills not what kinds of confidence what kinds of human beings are going to make a better world Here's one impressive answer. St. Paul's Outcomes for Tertiary Education. Ethical Millennium Leaders and Professionals. Came right out of the consciousness box. Cutting edge, resilient visionaries and innovators came right out of the creativity box. Engaging, trustworthy team builders and mentors came right out of the collaboration box. Reliable, productive experts and implementers came right out of the competence box. And dedicated, transformative supporters and stewards of all creation came out of the compassion box. And they are redesigning curriculum around those five constellations of role performance, qualities, and abilities. Your outcomes for today. Can you compare the four paradigms? Can you explain the three premises without cheating and looking at the back of the sheet? Can you define an outcome of significance? The four power principles that drive the whole thing. How your program and classes can expand the conditions of success. So, is that the final paradigm? Is that as far as we're going to go with ownership-based empowerment? Oh, by the way, I should mention, excuse me, I really, really forgive you. We also have created for the St. Paul... for the St. Paul Outcome Framework, a whole series of student affirmations, which is where the ownership is. So the students will be saying, I am a... given notebooks, etc., reflecting on how am I improving on this, etc., etc. So it's through this affirmations process that we are strengthening both the ownership and the empowerment aspects. And we're doing this for all their K-12 schools, and we're doing this for all five of their universities. The answer? No. There's a P5. It's transcendent, O.B.E. It just goes beyond what we were talking about. Once we have oneness-based experience, once we really recognize our connection to all things, all people, okay? So thank you for your time. I'm sorry it's taken so long. Is it midnight yet? Thank you Dr. Spady for that very interesting and enlightening talk.

We all look forward to a productive afternoon of interaction and may we be able to acquire new learning that will enable us to teach our students better, transforming them to become leaders and change agents of society. Thank you very much. Thank you, Professor Chetan Thirap. Unfortunately, Dr. Francis Uy is not able to be with us today, but to give us the overview of the Spady and Uy Center for Transformational OB and to introduce our keynote speaker, may I now call on Mr. Chino Arulio, the Business Development Manager of the Spady and Uy Center for Transformational OB. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon everyone. First of all, we'd like to thank Dr. Paulo Bolaños and the rest of the administrators of the University of Santo Tomas for inviting us. It is indeed our pleasure to actually have this talk with you, a conversation, a dialogue.

if you will, about outcome-based education. The Spady and Uy Center for Transformation of OBE has been existing for three years and our mission is to actually inform people and help people to actually implement transformation of OBE. Outcome-based education is unmatched globally.

Known internationally as the father of OBE, he has earned the reputation as the recognized worldwide authority on future-focused, paradigm-shifting, personally empowering approaches to transformational OBE. For over four decades, he has spearheaded major OBE initiatives through North America, South Africa, Australia, the Philippines, and the Philippines. Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates on expanding the vision, shifting the paradigm, and improving the performance of learners, educators, and educational systems.

This work has bolstered his recognized expertise in organizational change, transformational leadership development, strategic organizational design, and elevated models of learning and living. Recognize across the world as a dynamic... and compelling consultant and presenter, he received his PhD in sociology of education from the University of Chicago in 1967. He began his academic career as a professor at the Harvard University's Graduate School of Education.

This was followed by major national leadership positions in education and the founding of his own national consulting company in 1991. Since then, he has lectured at several universities, including the University of Chicago, the University at two major educational conferences throughout the world on cutting-edge approaches to a range of topics related to OBE, leadership, human potential, paradigm change, and learning empowerment. He has published nine highly acclaimed professional books, scores of journals, articles, and many solicited chapters in the books of others. A list of his books can be found in his website williamsbaty.com He has been the subject of three doctoral dissertations and has been honored with a Center for the Arts.

of transformational leadership and learning in the Philippines. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the father of OBE, Dr. William Spade. Thank you very much. Thank you. Can you hear me well?

Yes? Okay. Thank you. This is a great honor, and I have shared that.

with the distinguished colleagues in the front row. I've also told them to look under their chairs because anybody in the front row, there's a thousand peso note tacked to the chair. So they all immediately scrambled and looked under their chairs for the note. I explained also as we became acquainted that there is not a more controversial topic anywhere that I know about in education than outcome-based education because there is not a more misunderstood and misrepresented and misapplied concept than outcome-based education. So here I am, I've been doing it for 50 years, and it hasn't changed.

The misunderstanding, the misapplication, etc. persists and persists and persists. It's called institutional inertia. The institution of education just keeps on being what it is. no matter what we try to do to change it.

So what I understood from the very first moment that I was introduced to the ideas surrounding this, and I'll explain that in the course of the presentation, from the very first moment, I knew this meant major change. and education major change major major change and as a sociologist i knew that changing institutions and organizations is extraordinarily challenging i won't say impossible but i will say or just incredibly challenging so i have been living with the reality of a paradigmatic change model for 50 years. Okay? A paradigmatic change model. I will be giving you the best clear explanation of what I understand about that today.

And I think in the dialogue we have in the... Later in the afternoon, many more issues will come out and you will have an opportunity. We're going to have an extended discussion, question, answer period. I want you to be brave and ask the hard questions and we'll talk about what's possible.

This says that I'm at least 2,000 years old, okay, if I'm the father of OBE. So I guess either one or the other is not true, okay, because OBE has... around for way more than 2,000 years and I haven't I think so this is not a new idea this is not a new concept this is not a new paradigm It is ancient. It is ancient.

It is deeply embedded in our culture, our civilization as human beings. I'm not the father of it. It's pure common sense.

But I used my sociological training when I heard about this to say, oh my goodness, this means change in education. going to take this very promising, I said, of ideas and actually make them work. So that's what I've spent my whole career doing. My approach includes... It includes all five of the words you see up here.

My approach is spiritual at its heart. It is grounded with a spiritual understanding of who we are as human beings. My sociological training has enabled it to be strategic, functional, technical, and systemic, because it's all of those.

So this is not about curriculum. This is not about teaching techniques, but there are plenty of techniques to pay attention to. This is about how entire systems are defined and organized and function.

What drives them? What drives them? What makes them work?

So these five key elements, qualities, etc. have characterized my approach to this from the very, very beginning. So I'm going to be outcome-based with you and give you some outcomes. Are you ready? Oh, you better take notes.

Here goes. Okay, number one. At the end, I'm going to come back to this, so you better be ready. I want you to be able to compare the four paradigms of OBE.

Describe what they are, describe what they are, know the differences, and compare them. I would like you to explain OBE's three main premises. Now the three main premises are listed on your handout sheet.

The front of the sheet is about outcomes, essentially, the criteria for outcomes. The back is all about... The paradigm, the premises, the purposes, the principles of OBE.

Everything you wanted to know about OBE is on one sheet of paper. You're holding it. Okay? All the rest is details.

All the rest is details. Okay? So I want you to understand the three premises because they are key to understanding the philosophy that OBE represents.

I want you to be able to define an outcome of significance. Significance. An outcome that really matters in the long run.

Not this semester's test score. An outcome that really matters in the long run. Because if we don't know what that is, we can't be outcome-based. It's that simple.

If we don't know what an outcome of significance is, then we're just continuing to do the same old stuff we've always done. Okay, here we go. The operational heart, the doing heart of OBE is four principles.

And I'll be explaining how those principles work in classrooms, how they work in programs, how they work in institutions. Because if you're not doing the four principles, you're not doing OBE. I mean that ever so sincerely.

If you're not doing the four principles, you're not doing OBE. What you're doing might be wonderful. It's not that the four principles are the only four good things in the world. What you're doing won't be OBE.

It'll be something else, and you get to decide. Now, here's the whole essence of it. The four principles. Change and expand the conditions of success.

They redefine the ground rules that students are compelled to comply with because we have an educational system, in order to be successful. What do you have to do, students, to be successful? Well, there's a set of conditions. These four principles expand those conditions.

They alter those conditions. They make success much more possible under those conditions. That's the real essence of OB.

So this is about paradigms. And from the very beginning, I have taken the concept of paradigms very seriously, long before this became a catch word, long before it became just a thing that people throw around, a word they throw around all the time, on TV and otherwise. Paradigms are our picture of reality.

They're our picture, our picture of how things work, what's real. And they shape how we think. They shape what we believe.

Our whole picture of cause and effect is shaped by the paradigm we hold. They shape what we see and say. And especially what we do.

Now, as I thought about this, and Paolo, I have not shared this with you, all these philosophers that you study are trying to describe a paradigm. They all have their version of reality and how reality works. And some of them seem more credible to us and some of them seem less credible. They all start with certain premises and starting points.

But the philosophy is basically the attempt of extremely insightful and thoughtful people to describe how reality is put together and what it will lead to and what its implications are. So, that's something we might want to discuss a little later this afternoon when we get to it. These are pictures of reality and OBE is a different paradigm.

Now, it's not an alien paradigm, as we'll see in a second, but it's different. Now, the good news and bad news about paradigms is we think our paradigm, whichever one we hold most dear and true, is the truth. And that's why we have had, since the beginning of humanity, wars and wars and wars and more wars while people fight over their paradigm.

It's time to stop. It's not getting us anywhere. We're fighting over diverse pictures of reality, none of which may be reality.

But it's the ones we've decided are reality, etc., etc. So let's keep that in mind as we move forward here. There's a very famous futurist that has had an enormous influence on my thinking in the States.

His name is Joel Barker. And Joel Barker said in the first of the famous videos... that he put out a long time ago. When a paradigm shifts, that is when we really have a paradigm shift, everyone goes back to zero. Because all of our understandings about what's most real, how things work, what's most important, what are the priorities, etc.

All of that shifts. And we've got to go back and figure it out all over again. And that's not fun. The great philosopher Bill Spady said, Come on folks, lighten up.

Zero is not a place people like to be. We don't want to go back to zero. Nobody wants to go back to zero.

It's scary to be back at zero where we have to figure out everything in a different way because of what we understand. But guess what? It's at zero where we can create.

Real creation happens from zero. Otherwise, we're simply tinkering and massaging with what already exists, and that's not creation. So, potential and possibilities are alive and doing wonderfully at zero, but it's scary to have to go back there. Because we've all been conditioned to believe in the way things work.

That's what life has been about for all of us. Figuring out how things work, where we fit in, and how we can do better and better at it. So, here we go. History, I believe, human history, has known four major paradigms of OBE. Okay, I'm just calling them P1, P2, P3, and P4 for right now.

P1 is very tangible OBE. And it has historically been the common sense way to educate. If you want somebody to learn something, if you want somebody to do something, etc., be clear about what it is and teach them that. This is not rocket science. People have been doing P1 for thousands of years.

Otherwise, humanity wouldn't have survived. We wouldn't be passing on our capacities to do things from generation to generation to generation to generation to generation. So P1 should come as no surprise to us when we see what it is. The good news and the bad news is we created educational systems.

Back in the 19th century is when formal educational systems really... started to take root in quote advanced societies and when education became modern we lost P1 and we replaced it with P2. A P2 is CBO. I'll keep you in suspense for a few minutes on what that means, okay? Because there are lots of CBOs.

P2 is not real OBE. Now, this is no fault of Ched's. But Ched and the whole rest of the world think CBO is OBE.

That's the problem. Because when we created big, formal, institutionalized education, we let go of paradigm one, and we adopted a different paradigm. I'll be explaining that. Finally, in 1968, just when I got interested in OBE, it is because P3 emerged.

And P3 emerged, we call it transitional OBE, because it's almost OBE but not quite, okay, came out of Benjamin Bloom's work, the famous Benjamin Bloom of the taxonomies and all that stuff, right? You know about him, okay. Well, he created this instructional model called mastery learning. And mastery learning for 18 years in North America was what we meant by OBE. OBE was and wasn't any more than mastery learning.

But the good news was Mastery Learning had a lot of good stuff, which we embraced, and Mastery Learning gave us virtually all the things on the back of your handout page, not the front. Okay? It gave us the premises and the purposes, and it gave us the principles, etc. That all got birthed and born...

born and nourished in the mastery learning period, 1968 to 86. Once things shifted radically in 1986, along came something I call transmutational, not just transformational, transmutational, the fundamental, thank you, could you open it for me, the fundamental inner character, thank you, okay, of OBE changed. Now, I have good news to share. The St. Paul's system, both tertiary and basic air, has pushed this fourth paradigm farther ahead than any system in the world. And I want to share just a little bit about that toward the end of the presentation.

Okay, so P4 is going to come late, alright? But they are pushing the cutting edge. They embody the cutting edge right now.

And the more cutting and cutting and cutting we make the edge, the more that paradigm gets refined and expands, et cetera. Okay, that's the lay of the land. That's the orientation. So here goes. Paradigm one.

What does OBE mean? Operation-based efficacy. Operation based efficacy. What's that mean? Why those words?

Operation. An operation is an organized set of actions that have a purpose. They're active processes.

That's an operation. An operation is when something works and goes. It's a performance too.

So paradigm one is based on stuff happening. Based efficacy. What do the operations do?

They make you competent. They make you effective. They make you an active agent in the world making a difference in your life.

They make you competent and efficacious. So P1, operation-based efficacy, was about being able to do stuff that makes you capable, that makes you an effective agent of life. So what are some real life examples?

Well, the best ones we have for a reason that I'll give you in just a second were what were called the craft gills in Europe. The guilds were built around different professions. Shoemaking, candle making, musicians, all kinds of crafts. had their guild. They were specialized training centers where people learned their craft in the Middle Ages in Europe.

Whoops! Hello, what happened? Did I hit the wrong button?

No. Scouting merit badges. Scouting merit badges.

Every badge is a symbol of, an emblem of, operation-based efficacy. You've had to do something and accomplish something and perform something to get the badge. Karate instruction. Belts. Notice, just because you have a gold belt doesn't mean you get a D in black belt.

You don't get a gold belt until you get an O, I mean an A in gold belt. And then you work your way up, belt to belt to belt. Every belt is an A. Every belt is an A.

Or you don't get the belt, yet you keep working at it. Scuba Instruction and levels. Flight schools and piloting qualifications and licenses.

There are levels and levels and levels and levels of different kinds of qualifications in piloting. Parenting is outcome based. You just don't get any awards for it. You just have to live through it.

Now notice, with scuba diving and flight schools, if you're not competent, people will die. Including you. Okay, that's how important competent performance is for different kinds of diving or piloting or whatever it is.

Okay, so we've had that. that then for thousands and thousands of years, these kinds of things making children competent so that they can occupy adult roles and function effectively, etc., and no one will die. That's P1.

Now they have four things in common, so I'll go quickly with this. Number one, And I have, if you can't see the words, this says there is a clear criterion defined. That's extremely important.

Those two words. Every one of these things has clear criterion defined standards of learning and performance. that are associated with each level. Each belt has its criterion-defined standard. Each level of scuba diving has its criterion-defined levels of capacity and ability.

Criterion-defined means real words describe what it is. Okay, here's the start of the paradigm shift, folks. Hang with me right here.

Criterion defined means word defined. It doesn't mean scores. It doesn't mean percents.

It doesn't mean points. It doesn't mean ranks. Real words define the criteria. Each level is explicitly taught.

What you have to learn for that particular level is explicitly taught to the learners. They don't throw you in the ocean and say, well, you'll get it. You'll figure out what to do.

Now, number three. Each of those performance standards has been set, verified, validated, credentialed, etc. by experts in the field. People who are the expert implementers are the people who say this is what constitutes this particular level. That's true of all those models. And my favorite, multiple performance trials are allowed.

They don't kick you out of the scouts just because you don't do everything right to get a badge the first time. So those four things define paradigm one. So, in modern...

When education became modern and industrial, because modern education is really built around the fundamental, structural, operational, organizational, systemic paradigm called a factory assembly line. A factory assembly line. Now, when education took that route...

When we started to model education after the most wonderful thing anybody had ever invented up to that time in human history called the highly efficient productive assembly line, that was our paragon, that was our paragon of organizational efficiency and effectiveness. Everything changed. What emerged was paradigm number two, which is alive and well everywhere in the world. Now, orthodoxy-based educentrism.

There is just the right way to do education. Educentrism. ...is a closed system. Educentrism is everything about education, reinforcing everything else about education, but nobody else in the world does that stuff. Only education keeps doing education inside of its own closed system.

The only time anything ever gets out is when graduates go out and bring educat-educentrism into the organizations they work in. Because the rest of the world doesn't work in the educentric paradigm. Okay, here we go. CBO syndrome.

Get ready. Get ready. This isn't it yet.

Get ready. The CBO syndrome is imitation OBE. It is imitation. It is not OBE.

It is orthodoxy based at Juscentrism. So here goes. This is one of my favorite slides in the whole universe. Okay?

Check out the CBOs. You'll find a favorite up there somewhere, okay? You might find multiple favorites up there.

Okay? That's orthodoxy-based educentrism. It's called CBO. And it's the syndrome around which the whole system is built.

It's the system around which it's thinking it's built, and its operations are built, on and on and on, and on and on and on. Okay. I'll promise during our break, I'll bring this back and you can copy all this. Okay, I'll just leave it up during the break.

Here's what's here from my perspective is what part of the problem is. All the people who love paradigm two don't understand what based means. Okay? And as a sociologist, I think based is the most important of the three words.

If you're going to have outcome-based education, you sure better know what based means. Whoa, here goes. Based means... defined by, and, plus, focused on, plus, designed around, plus, organized around. That That's what it means to base something on something else.

That something else is your fundamental foundation. It's your fundamental foundation. And everything revolves around that. What you do is defined by it and organized around it. And you build stuff around it and design around it.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That's what base means. That's what's not understood.

Among other things. Okay? By the paradigm, two people. So here's more bad news.

And I have to say this bad news is approximately my favorite bad news of all the slides. So here goes. You have to promise you'll write this one down.

Okay? Everybody promise. Here goes. It's time-based.

Education is defined by, focused on, designed around, and organized around blocks of time. And those blocks of time and the whole CBO syndrome are defined by, focused on, organized, designed around the clock, the schedule, and the calendar. And you can't run a 400 year old university without it, okay? Okay, there they are.

That's it. And the minute I was introduced to the basic ideas of OBE back in 19... It was Christmas time in 67...

Before most of you were born... I instantly understood education is time-based. How can you be outcome-based if you're time-based?

How come, how can we be outcome based if everything is determined by what day is it on the calendar? We are time driven. That's the modern era.

That's what started to happen in the middle of the 19th century. Everything started to get defined around the blocks of time. So from this weird spady perspective, education is a giant opportunity system boxed in by time. It's a giant system boxed in and defined by time.

And OBE, which we'll get to more in just a second, is going to require that system to be more flexible, expansive, and learner-responsive. And it's hard to do that when everything is defined by the clock, the schedule, and the calendar. Okay? That's all. I mean, we face an incredible institutional challenge if we want to do real OBE.

Okay. Here we go. 1963. A chink in the armor. A chink in the P2 armor. A man named John Carroll, who was a professor at Harvard at the time, wrote a paper.

1963. And in his paper said, we have absolutely, the education system is built on the wrong understanding of what aptitude is. We think aptitude is your ability to do things. It's not. Aptitude is the rate at which you learn to do things.

things and we all have different aptitudes there are things we learn to do fast there are things to learn we do learn slow okay we sometimes say people are gifted well that means they just learn it really fast okay it's not their ability to learn it. And this is what we had to challenge. OBE became a big, big challenge, especially to high school people. There are things in your curriculum that you can't do.

that you think only the smart kids can learn. Not true. They all can learn the hard stuff, but not if it's packaged around fixed schedules and timelines and courses and credits and all that stuff. So John Carroll wrote this paper, and lo and behold, our good friend Benjamin Bloom read it. And Benjamin Bloom knew Carroll, and he said, oh my gosh, yeah, why do we organize everything in classrooms around rigid schedules?

What could we do to accommodate differences in rates? What could we do to accommodate differences in aptitudes and get kids on a successful learning path as fast as possible when they come to us? So between 63 and 68 when Bloom officially published his paper called Learning for Mastering, not Mastery Learning, Learning for Mastering, in those five years he...

basically put together and tested and researched with his graduate students, who were friends of mine, the fundamental ingredients of P3, of Paradigm 3. This is in hindsight. This is Spady many, many years later looking back at all of that and saying what that bloom work was, was really opportunity-based expansion. It was giving kids more chances, better chances, more flexible chances, expanded chances to demonstrate what they learned. That's what it was. Okay?

So, Paradigm 3 was born in 1968. It ended up, a few years later, being called Mastery Learning instead of Learning for Mastery. So it was just known as Mastery Learning ML. Now, whoa, here is a load of stuff.

The basic, and I don't have time, I'm sorry, I don't have time to get into the rationale behind every one of these things, etc., but I would like you to capture the essence of what was in this model. Teachers had to get rid of comparative standards and grading and all of that for kids. They had to start defining in criterion terms, what do you want the kids to be able to do? What do you want them to learn?

So teachers had to define performance standards and expectations for kids clearly in real words. No bell curve expectations or grading. No bell curve. There's a whole long scenario about that. It's worth another seminar.

Clear and high expectations for kids. Now, in the States, passing was 70. Bloom said, every kid can get 80. Every kid can get 80. And 80 became the performance standard. Now, that's good news and bad news, and I'll explain it in a minute. Okay? But he raised expectations.

Every kid can get 80. Now, teachers needed to be sure that kids had the prerequisites for new instruction. If they don't have the prerequisites, they aren't going to understand the new stuff. Okay, so part of the instructional design was to create, okay, a review, etc., of critical prerequisites that went into every unit of instruction. Now, this is where the term formative assessments was born. All right, so I will now say something really controversial since I haven't said anything controversial yet.

Okay? Are you ready? This is the audience participation part of the program.

Okay? Here goes. What is the difference between a formative assessment and a summative assessment?

Okay, are you ready? Nothing! Well, wait, there's an exception.

One gets graded in pencil, and one gets graded in ink. Otherwise, it's the same assessment. You're trying to... What's an assessment? You're trying to gather evidence about something.

So, is the evidence there? Now the decision about whether you put a number on it or a grade on it or a letter on it or any other symbol is totally artificial. They simply did what they did.

You invented the grades. Be sure to write this down. You invented the numbers.

You invented the passing. You decide if you're going to use a pencil or a pen. Right? Am I doing okay? Is anybody angry with me so far?

Yes, okay. You decide all that stuff. A formative assessment is simply an initial assessment to see how they're doing. And what you do with a formative assessment is diagnose. You diagnose.

how they're doing and you make adjustments accordingly in guess what an expanded opportunity period in so what happens after the initial assessment Do you do anything? Instructionally or do you just say forget it and write the grade in your book? Okay, a formative assessment model says you have the responsibility to do something about it and so do they.

Okay, in a summative assessment model you just put a grade on it, put it in the book and send it to the registrar. Seriously. So the mastery learning model was built around formative assessment where targeted assistance was provided to the kids using a different instructional approach.

during an expanded opportunity or second chance period. And initially that was just days. That was just a few days. So they needed more time to work on this. That was the mastery model.

So, it was strictly a classroom instructional process. It worked within the existing curriculum. Nobody had to change curriculum.

It challenged the fixed-time, single-opportunity structure of schools, however. And it really began to challenge it when it became report- What do you do on report card day? Can there be life after report card day? No, this was a huge challenge for people.

It all sounded good until report card day came along. What OB is, here we go, is an inclusionary model of success. We want as many kids as possible to be successful learners. We want them to be successful learners. That's why we don't have bell curves.

If everybody earns an A, everybody earns an A, whatever that means. Okay? OBE from the very beginning was an inclusionary philosophy of success. Which challenges education selection bias because education is a gigantic selection machine. Now, OBE is built around five major pillars.

Okay? Five major pillars. Mastery learning.

Okay? Opportunity-based expansion, paradigm three, gave us four of the five. Here are the five pillars. Now. As I said before, the first one is on the front page of your handout, and the other four basically are on the back page.

The bad news is, mastery learning only dealt with the bottom four. It didn't have outcomes of significance. Okay, that was the dilemma.

And we didn't know it because we just were riding along, okay, in this whole idea. Here we go, oh my God, kids, all you have to do is get 80%. Just get 80%, okay, you'll go to heaven.

80%. So mastery learning gave us what and whether is more important than when and how. That's the paradigm of OBE. What and whether they can do it well is more important than when and how. And all the educational reforms we've had in the U.S. for the past 20 years of relentless, relentless insanity has all been about when and how.

It's got to be on the right dates. It's got to be the right curriculum. It's got to be the right test.

It's got to be this and it's got to be that and they haven't got a clue what an outcome is. Mastery learning based on three key or two key purposes. Sorry. Send all the learners into the world, equipped and empowered to succeed. Under the assumption, by the way, which we came to challenge enormously in a little while, under the assumption that the curriculum we were teaching them was going to prepare them to succeed in the world.

Notice the assumption. The courses we're teaching now are preparing them for a volatile, changing future. Oh boy.

Weak assumption. Philosophy professors. Weak assumption. Number two purpose is maximize the conditions. ...of success in the school and in the classroom that enabled this to happen.

Those are the two purposes, the two compelling purposes of what you're doing. Okay, aha, the philosophy. All students can learn and succeed. Okay, straight out of John Carroll.

But not on the same day and not in the same way. Success breeds success, failure breeds failure. Almost self-evident.

Success breeds success cognitively and motivationally. Schools control the conditions of success. Schools control what you have to be and what you have to do to be called a good student. Okay?

Schools control that. Parents don't, neighborhoods don't, peer groups don't. Schools define what you have to do to be called a good student around here. OBE was all about expanding those conditions. So here we go, heart and soul, da da da, the engine that drives the train.

Principle 1, clarity of focus on outcomes of significance. Now as a matter of historical circumstance, we ended up calling this the clarity of focus principle. which is true.

Clear focus. Make the focus clear to everyone. But the principle probably could have equally well been called the focus on outcomes principle.

So we're doing kind of both. Principle number two. Expanded opportunity for all to succeed.

High expectations for all. They all can get 80. And the fourth principle, design your curriculum down. Design it back from your ultimate outcomes.

Now just a touch of explanation. This is color-coded. You can't do number four if you haven't done number one. If you don't have any outcomes, you can't design down from them.

And... Expanded opportunity and high expectations have to be kept in a very delicate balance. If you have too much of one, you have a high failure rate, and if you have too much of the other students, go on vacation. Okay? So you've got to balance.

That's the two blue ones. Okay? There's a real art to balancing those two, and there are a variety of techniques that we developed to do that.

How do you apply the four principles? Here it is. Two C words and two S words.

They've got to be consistently applied, they've got to be systematically applied. Creatively applied was my favorite. Creatively, that's how we really were able to create some great expanded opportunity situations around the existing schedule. And simultaneously, you need all four. It's like a chemical compound.

You leave something out and you don't end up with the same thing. So you need all four principles working simultaneously. Okay, here we go.

So what does clarity of focus mean? This applies to every professor in the room. Keep your focus on the culminating outcome. What are you ultimately working toward?

Keep their focus on it. It's your starting point. It's what you want them ultimately to accomplish.

Keep reminding them. It's your top priority. It's your bottom line.

Okay? Your culminating outcome, whatever it is, Target of success. The reason we had clarity of focus is make that clear to the students. Hey students, what you see is what you get. This is not going to be a trick.

This is not going to be an exam you can't pass. This is going to be something that will be an authentic demonstration of what we're trying to accomplish with you. Show them. Model it.

No surprises. Demonstrate it. Show them what it's going to look like once they get there.

Keep showing them. Here's what it's all about. And this came from a colleague. I was writing a paper.

He and I were writing this great paper about this concept for an education journal in the States. And he said, you know, if I was a real outcome-based professor... I'd give them the final exam on the first day. And I would tell them, anytime you can do all of this, come to my office, show me, and you'll be done.

It was radical. I never thought about it. Okay?

Douglas Mitchell was his name. Radical idea. Give them the final exam on the first day.

Not so that they memorize the answers. It's so that they understand what this is really all about and what it is they need to learn to be able to do. Just an option, just in case.

Okay, here's one of my favorite slides in the whole world. Opportunity ends when you get graded in ink. That just happens to be when time blocks ink.

We just have this habit of when the time blocks over we grade them in ink. We don't have to. We don't have to.

We just do. Because it's always been done that way. Which is why it's orthodox-based educentrism.

We've just always done it that way. Our professors did that to us. I guess we better do that to our students, too. And all you students out there, be sure you do that to your students.

when you become professors. Okay. Now, the essence of design now.

This is, I'm skipping over some stuff here. I just have to get, think of this one. When mountain climbers plan their climb, they always start from the peak and design the climb back from there. Because there may be only one way to take the final five steps. And if you can't take the final five steps, you can't get to the peak.

So you have to know how to get to the final five steps. And then you have to get to know how to get to that point. And to that point and to that point.

Now there may be multiple places you can start from at the bottom of the mountain. Okay? But they're not going to get you to the peak unless you have designed that. Oh my gosh. That's their strategy.

They want to get to the peak. They've got to know how to get there. Why should that be your strategy?

You want your students to get there. A colleague who I will talk more about this afternoon, he's on that one brochure with me, Elias Sampa. He is just brilliant at this work.

He can help you do these things in an incredibly effective way. And he is just the champion of design down and the champion of aligning your curriculum. from the peak back.

And it makes an incredible difference. An incredible difference. Okay. So mastery learning launched Paradigm 3, but it had four fatal flaws.

It remained content-bound. Whatever was in the curriculum is what we taught. Nobody ever challenged the curriculum. They just helped you learn the curriculum, whatever was there better.

Now, it was the quantitative face of OBE. And it reinforced what I call the numbers game, and that is a whole, totally, separate, big workshop I do about how our whole numerical grading system and point system and all of this is totally artificial. And I have a...

A wonderful example of a 10-item test that will show you that nothing in the test is essential learning based on how we do our thing. Nothing in the test is essential learning. And we just test and test and test and give points and give scores. That's the problem with mastery learning.

It became just 80 of anything because it never defined outcomes. It never knew what a real outcome was. And it struggled to get beyond being time-based.

So that's what reached four major films. And those flaws suddenly got just, they just exploded one day at a national conference in 1986. It took us 18 years. We called ourselves outcome-based education and for 18 years we didn't know what an outcome was. Because we had points.

All we had was points and scores. You surely get enough points. It doesn't matter what the outcome is, what the learning is, just get points. We were caught in the numbers game.

We thought 80% was masculine. Well, I don't want my pilot of my plane to get 80% on piloting and miss the 20% on landing. Okay?

I kind of like him to get a hunger, not 80. Okay. So it was time to escape the trap. We didn't even know we were in the trap.

We were paradigm blind. I'd love to tell the story about how it happened, but we were compelled to do this, and I compelled a design team of the best OBE high school teachers in the United States to sit with me and hammer out a definition, and there it is. Because I told them, unless we have a definition within a week, I quit this whole movement. And I meant it.

It's hypocritical to say you're outcome-based and you don't even know what an outcome is. So this is approximately the most important slide of the day. Our definition, an outcome is a culminating demonstration of learning. Four words.

Culminating demonstration of learning. That was our definition. Which means that outcomes require action. Because you can't demonstrate nothing. You've got to demonstrate things.

Culminating means that it's going to happen at or after the end. And we said they need to last into the future. An outcome needs to be something that sticks and lasts and matters. So outcomes happen.

They're tangible actions that require competence. That took us from content to competence. You've got to be able to do something. Not just mental processing.

Not just thinking. And they take many forms. Demonstrations take many forms. We'll see that in detail in a second. Outcomes are driven by strong action verbs.

I've done a whole critique on the verbs in Chet documents. Oh my God. They are not strong action verbs.

Outcomes are defined by words, not numbers and percents. Every word counts in an outcome statement. Outcomes happen somewhere. Think about that.

Every time you do something, you do it somewhere. And that somewhere can be an incredibly challenging performance context, or it can be an absolutely simple, easy one. Like here, we're sitting in this nice air-conditioned auditorium. Hey, this is simple and easy. It wouldn't be so simple and easy if they turned the lights out.

Just one little thing, okay? So what we've been ignoring in education forever is performance context. Whoops, hello, come on.

Alright, which is critical. And outcomes matter after they're done. Demonstrations that matter after they're gone. Now, here's the paragons. With that definition, we were able to recover good old Paragon 1!

Okay? Once we had a definition that says, gosh, without being able to do something, we could bring that original paradigm back. So operation-based efficacy came back into the picture. So it wasn't a whole new paradigm.

At the time we thought, oh my gosh, we've created a whole new paradigm here. No, what we really did was resurrect one that had been around for thousands of years. That's what we did. So? Let's remember, operation, that's what that means, and efficacy, that's what that means.

Same slide as we saw before. Okay, so here we go, into new paradigm land. We had all these weird things we called Spadians. When you see this, you're just going to groan, okay?

Here was the first great Spadian. You may know this in a slightly different way, okay? By their verbs, ye shall know that.

Because it's their verbs, that is, what the verbs in the outcome statements are that you want them to demonstrate, that's whether you know they know anything or not, or whether they can do anything. or not. Even philosophy students, and we'll get into that later, okay?

I guarantee you. Don't give up on them. Poor Apollo is kind of pennant stricken over in the corner.

Don't give up on them. Not all verbs are created equal. There are power verbs and there are weak demonstration verbs. There are non-demonstration verbs, there are other kinds of verbs, etc. But it's by their verbs that ye shall know them.

Choose strong, powerful, good demonstration verbs. Now I mentioned my colleague Elias Sampa, okay? He is the king of alignment.

Alignment means everything needs to match. And when we started with our teachers, this is something we did way back in the olden days, we started just by focusing on the action verbs. The learning experience must foster that verb.

The teacher must teach how to do that verb. The students must be able to demonstrate that verb, not something else. The assessment must measure it.

Okay? I mean, this is... This is all basic stuff that I'll guarantee you the world is awash in terrible alignment.

Terrible alignment. And this transcript... has to document it.

That's not what our transcripts document. Our transcripts have this much space for the number or the grade we put in. It doesn't document anything.

Our transcripts don't document anything. So this applies to all the words in an outcome statement. All the words.

All the words. All the words. So here we go. Outcomes of significance are three-dimensional. This is about three-dimensional learning.

Dimension one, cognition. Cognition is what happens in your head. It's your brain functioning. That's one-dimensional.

We call it one-dimensional learning. Two-dimensional learning is what you can do with what's going on in your head. Can you actually perform or demonstrate anything?

So instead of saying, okay students, I want you to know this stuff, why not ask the students to describe this stuff? Or explain this stuff, and then you'll find out if they know it or not. And context is whether you can do it where the doing really counts. And we then started to push that way out into being future focused, future focused, future focused in life. What are they going to really have to do?

What are they going to have to do? Don't tell us about the textbook, tell us about life. Tell us about the performance context in which we want the kids to thrive. This was a very volatile period.

Now, I'm skipping over years of stuff, but one day we realized Bloom's taxonomy is in the way. Because Bloom's taxonomy is all about one-dimensional learning. It's not about real performance. It's not about reality.

It's not about life. It's about cognitive processing. So I sat down and in a few hours I had created an early and very primitive version of this wheel from Bloom's Taxonomy. And three years later of working with experts all over everywhere, it evolved into this.

We call it the Life Performance Wheel. Everybody who has to perform a real role in life, a life role, has to be able to do it. Once we had the wheel, and we had it almost 30 years ago.

Everything continued to evolve and evolve and evolve and evolve and evolve. The wheel got us rolling along into the world we call transformation. And it took us, it took us from P1, okay, the original P1, to a new paradigm.

Ownership-based empowerment. Now, we're getting toward the end. Here we go. What do those words mean? Ownership means...

It's mine. I own it. I identify with it. It has meaning for me. This is something that belongs to me, that I can do.

Empowerment. Empowerment means we exert our authority to do something. Nobody can empower you.

You empower yourself. You empower yourself by taking charge and doing things. Now, what's this paradigm all about?

Well, guess what? It required a huge, mega shift within the movement. Because what we realized, this is mega paradigms, is we were operating in an old paradigm of OBE.

The old paradigm was about empowerment, where we adults put stuff in to the heads of the kids. We put curriculum in there. We put our beliefs and values in there. Our job is to be inputters.

Empowerment is to draw out of the kids enormous amounts of innate capacity and choice and creativity that's there. It is an absolute mega paradigm shift. Now, for that to make any sense, you need to realize that outcomes, remember we said they take many forms, they take microforms down at the bottom.

Those are microforms of demonstrations. We used to call that the traditional zone. This looked like a mountain.

We had a mountain. That's the traditional zone of the mountain. That was the transitional zone. And that was the transformational zone that we called it.

Notice the red is about role performance abilities, how you function in the world. The wheel stuff. The stuff in the wheel. And the final big breakthrough.

The final huge breakthrough happened in 1991, where you are looking at a framework. This is the first framework ever in the history of the world about human beings. All the rest of the outcome frameworks were about kinds of curriculum and curriculum outcomes. All the rest of the stuff was about kinds of skills and competencies. This is the first one where anybody ever said this is the first one.

the kind of human beings we want to send out the door. Okay? And what we want to send out the door is self-directed learners, because that's what life requires, and collaborative workers, because that's what life requires, and complex thinkers, etc., etc.

Now, from that framework, notice the word who, because the word who then was we had to follow it with, well, how would you know one if you saw one? Okay? So that's where the tough, tough design work is, is finishing those statements. Self-directed learners who do these things because that's what a self-directed learner does, etc. It got built around, these frameworks got built around what I call my five C's.

Consciousness, creativity, collaboration, competence, and compassion. Because the new... I'm question what drives what should our outcomes be the answer is what kind of human beings do you want to say what kind of human beings not what kinds of skills not what kinds of confidence what kinds of human beings are going to make a better world Here's one impressive answer. St. Paul's Outcomes for Tertiary Education.

Ethical Millennium Leaders and Professionals. Came right out of the consciousness box. Cutting edge, resilient visionaries and innovators came right out of the creativity box. Engaging, trustworthy team builders and mentors came right out of the collaboration box.

Reliable, productive experts and implementers came right out of the competence box. And dedicated, transformative supporters and stewards of all creation came out of the compassion box. And they are redesigning curriculum around those five constellations of role performance, qualities, and abilities. Your outcomes for today. Can you compare the four paradigms?

Can you explain the three premises without cheating and looking at the back of the sheet? Can you define an outcome of significance? The four power principles that drive the whole thing.

How your program and classes can expand the conditions of success. So, is that the final paradigm? Is that as far as we're going to go with ownership-based empowerment? Oh, by the way, I should mention, excuse me, I really, really forgive you. We also have created for the St. Paul...

for the St. Paul Outcome Framework, a whole series of student affirmations, which is where the ownership is. So the students will be saying, I am a... given notebooks, etc., reflecting on how am I improving on this, etc., etc. So it's through this affirmations process that we are strengthening both the ownership and the empowerment aspects. And we're doing this for all their K-12 schools, and we're doing this for all five of their universities.

The answer? No. There's a P5.

It's transcendent, O.B.E. It just goes beyond what we were talking about. Once we have oneness-based experience, once we really recognize our connection to all things, all people, okay? So thank you for your time. I'm sorry it's taken so long.

Is it midnight yet? Thank you Dr. Spady for that very interesting and enlightening talk.

Transcript for:Insights on Outcomes-Based Education (OBE)

Transcript for:
Insights on Outcomes-Based Education (OBE)