I
am very fortunate to have met in person
Dr. William Spady, the author and father of Outcomes-based education. It happened in Surigao City days after an
earthquake hit the city. He was the
guest-speaker of a two-day seminar on Outcomes-based Education held in an
air-conditioned gym at St Paul University Surigao. My sincerest thanks to the SPC sisters like
Sr. Joseline Lasala, SPC and Sr. Dina Alilain, SPC for sending me there to
attend such a philosophically-laden seminar.
Dr. Spady is an old man with brilliant ideas and he is very passionate
to share his system of ideas –he termed as Spadyism. Spadyism, as I struggled to grasp it in the
whole period of seminar, is not a pure system of education yet underlying it is
the philosophy of pragmatism –particularly, neo-pragmatism, which I’ll try to
discuss in this article.
In
the event, I was trying to find an occasion to ask Dr. Spady some questions regarding
his knowledge on neo-pragmatism, if he knows personally Richard Rorty, the
father of neo-pragmatism, or how neo-pragmatism influences Spadyism. Unfortunately, I was not able to ask him
those questions. Rorty was connected
with the University of Chicago –the same university where Spady has conceived
his Spadyism. My hunch was telling me
that Spady must have known Rorty, and neo-pragmatism must have been a
philosophy behind Spadyism.
In
my interpretation, Outcomes-based Education (Spadyism) is a very revolutionary
idea –in the sense that if fully implemented, it will create a 360-degree
change in the whole structure of education, which will have an eventual effect
to other institutions, like the industries, family, government, and even the
church. OBE begins with the question,
“What a university wants its graduates to become (outcome/result)?” This question bears emphasis of the results
of education, not so much of its process.
With such intended end-result, say “competent pilot,” the university,
then, has to realign all subjects so as to make all its graduates “competent
pilots.” It has to shape its curriculum
to meet its intended outcome –for example, to produce “competent pilots. Besides curriculum, all other elements like
the training environment, facilities, personnel, etc. should have suited to realize
the end-result of the university.
This
system really revolutionizes our idea of education. Traditionally, we think that the role of
educators is to impart a body of knowledge to learners so that when they
graduate they would become “highly intellectual.” So, teachers are regarded as “knowledgeable”
of their fields. But, with OBE’s
perspective, teachers shall act as “facilitators” of the learning process of
learners. They are not only
“knowledgeable” but must be “experts” in their fields. Their role is not so much to impart knowledge
but to “facilitate” or guide learners to become competent in their chosen
courses. As facilitators, they know what
conditions or when to vary the conditions of learning to learners. For example, a learner-pilot already knows
how to fly and land an airplane under normal conditions. The teacher’s role, then, is to put to test
the capability of the learner-pilot in different conditions. He has to let this learner-pilot fly and land
an airplane under heavy rain or fly an airplane amidst thunderstorms. The teachers have to vary
conditions to test the competence of their graduates.
The
formulation of outcomes is also crucial for the school. An outcome is futuristic. It is based on “social hope” –the hope of
every agent of education that what they have produced in school may contribute
for the betterment of the society as a whole.
It is somehow anchored in the vision, mission, core values, and
objectives of the school. This is to
emphasize the trademark of the school like its main thrust to educate the
students. The integration of the school’s
vision, mission and core values will ensure that outcomes are value-laden. Value-laden outcomes will help form graduates
a “well-rounded” person, who will serve the public in the coming future with the
“heart,” not with the “mind.”
So,
what is the philosophy behind OBE? Spady
himself did not mention the term, neo-pragmatism. However, he laid out the philosophy of OBE in
the first day of the seminar. As mentioned
above, neo-pragmatism is associated with the person of Richard Rorty, who used
to work in the University of Chicago.
Rorty’s brand of pragmatism is somehow a new breed of what is known as
the classical pragmatism. In general,
pragmatism is a philosophical belief which holds that “effectivity” is the
measure of a true idea. If an idea like “education”
works in a certain situation, then it is true.
This doctrine contradicts the traditional definition of “true idea,”
which is propounded in the correspondence and coherence theories. In correspondence theory, for example, an
idea is true if it conforms with the external reality. Education (as an idea), for correspondence
theorist, becomes only true if and only if the process of educating (imparting
knowledge) happens in the mind of the learners.
Thus, there are two important elements in education: (1) imparting of knowledge,
and (2) the absorption of it. If one element
is lacking, then education fails. For
pragmatists, on the other hand, education will only become true, if its
end-results (outcomes) are given priority.
Outcomes should be conceived first, before knowledge will be imparted to
learners. Spady was taking some cautions
that OBE is not disregarding knowledge. Knowledge
is still important to achieve the end-result.
Yet, education should not become knowledge-based. It should, first of all, be an outcome-based.
