OBE3+: "TEACHING WITH OUTCOMES IN MIND: IMPLEMENTING OBE AND CQA IN ONSITE & HYBRID CLASSROOMS"

Contemporary conditions—particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic—have necessitated significant changes and innovations in engineering education, especially in course delivery and the assessment of learning outcomes. During the pandemic, universities rapidly transitioned to fully online instruction, requiring faculty to adopt and maximize Learning Management Systems (LMS) such as Canvas. As restrictions eased, institutions gradually returned to face-to-face classes. More recently, some universities, including De La Salle University, have adopted hybrid classroom models in which a two-meeting-per-week course is conducted face-to-face on one day and online on the other day per week.

These shifts—from traditional face-to-face instruction to fully online delivery and now to hybrid modalities—have challenged faculty members to develop proficiency in emerging technological tools and digital resources. At the same time, educators must adopt innovative teaching and learning pedagogies that remain effective in achieving intended student learning outcomes across varied instructional formats.

To support engineering colleges on effective implementation of outcomes-based education, the OBE3 Team, composed of  Dr. Andres Winston Oreta, Dr. Manuel Belino and Engr. Efren Dela Cruz, the 3 engineering educators (members of the American Society of Engineering Education) who have actively conducted lectures and seminars on OBE, had transformed their OBE3 lectures adapting to the need of the present times. They delivered the updated lectures at the Bataan Peninsula State University (July 19-20, 2024), Technolgical University of the Philippines-Cavite (Aug 19-20, 2024) and Negros Oriental State University (NORSU Aug 11-12, 2025). The new OBE3 two-day seminar which is dubbed as "TEACHING WITH OUTCOMES IN MIND: IMPLEMENTING OBE AND CONTINUOUS QUALITY ASSESSMENT IN ONSITE & HYBRID CLASSROOMS" consists of the following subtopics:

Session 1: Understanding the "Why" of OBE

Session 2: The Architecture of Outcomes

Session 3: Designing OBE-Aligned Instruction

Session 4: Designing an OBE Syllabus for Onsite, Online & Hybrid Classroom

Session 5: Challenges in an Online Classroom

Session 6: Outcomes-Based Teaching & Learning in a Hybrid Classroom

Session 7: Authentic Assessment in Onsite, Online & Hybrid Classroom

Session 8: Continuous Quality Assurance Monitoring 

Interested to learn more about OBE+: Send us an email at mcbelino92@gmail.com or anyoreta@yahoo.com

  

    The OBE3 Team (Oreta, Belino & Efren) at NORSU, Dumaguete City

Read more on the OBE3 Past Seminars! 

OBE3 Team shares best practices on Student-Centered Teaching and Learning to Maritime Academy Faculty

The OBE3 Team: From right to left (Oreta, Belino & Efren - OBE)

 The Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) Team composed of  Dr. Oreta (Andres), Dr. Belino (Manuel) and Engr. Efren De La Cruz or OBE3 shared the best practices in Engineering on OBE and Student-Centered Teaching &Learning (TLA) to the faculty of the NYK-TDG Maritime Academy, Calamba, Laguna last May 29-20, 2018. Dr. Belino gave an overview and rationale on global trends on OBE and a lecture on Enhancing Creativity and Critical Thinking. Engr. Efren Dela Cruz presented the basic principles of OBE and Strategies on Cooperative Learning in the classroom. Dr. Oreta, on the other hand, presented various student-centered teaching and learning activities (TLA), outcomes-based assessment (OBA) and shared his TLA practices in the teaching of structural engineering courses at DLSU.

The OBE3 lecturers with the NYK-TDG Maritime Academy Faculty

One of the activities in the workshop on creativity was writing alternative lyrics of "row, row, row your boat" in relation to a course in Maritime Tranport or Marine Engineering. The song can be a good ice breaker to introduce a topic in their course. The NTMA faculty showed their creativity and each group was able to write interesting alternative lyrics. Here is one example which is related to safety.

OBE3 Team: Promoting Effective OBE in the Classroom

 

 "Outcomes-Based Education for Engineering Educators" or OBE3 started in April 2012 when the Dr. Pag-asa Gaspillo, President then of the Philippine Association for Technological Education (PATE) invited us to design a seminar-workshop to promote OBE to PATE faculty members. The team, composed of  Dr. Manuel Belino, Engr. Efren Dela Cruz and I, designed the course entitled "Effective OBE in the Classroom." The seminar-workshop primarily targets the teachers who are the ones delivering the courses of the engineering curriculum. The course is principally concerned with improving the quality of  the teaching and learning process in the classroom. Accreditation is secondary, because if the teachers can effectively practice OBE in the classroom, then the present requirements on accreditation which based on OBE can be easily achieved.

The seminar workshop on "Effective OBE in the Classroom" consists of the following lectures:

• Understanding OBE. Why OBE? Global Trends. Designing your PEOs. - Dr. Manny Belino
• What are Student Outcomes? - Dr. Manny Belino
• Writing Course Learning Outcomes and Course Design - Dr. Andy Oreta
• Using Various Assessment Tasks - Dr. Andy Oreta
• Introducing a Variety of Teaching and Learning Activities - Engr. Efren Dela Cruz
• Designing an OBE Syllabus - Engr. Efren Dela Cruz

The workshops consists of the ff:

• Writing the Program Educational Objectives (PEO) for a specific Program
• Curriculum Mapping
• Writing Course Learning Outcomes for a Course You Teach
• Converting your syllabus to OBE format

The seminar-workshop usually takes one and a half days. One day for the lectures and at least half day for the workshop. The expected outputs of the seminar-workshop are draft PEOs of a program, Sample curriculum mapping and syllabi in OBE format. Accomplishing these main outputs involves the application of all the topics discussed in the lectures. Hence, the seminar-workshop is really outcomes-based where the participants are expected to apply the OBE principles in the design of the syllabus of the a course they teach.

After the 2012 PATE seminar-workshop, the OBE3 team was invited to conduct similar lectures and workshops in various schools like Colegio de San Juan De Letran, Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, Capiz State University and Northwestern Samar University. At the start of the seminar-workshop, there was resistance from the participants. For them adjusting to OBE is an additional burden. However, after Dr. Belino's inspiring lecture on Why OBE?, the participants realize the need to go to OBE, otherwise the engineering graduates will not be globally competitive. After the activity, the team hopes that the participants can effectively apply the OBE principles in the classroom. The saying, "It is only by doing that we learn" should always be in the minds of the teachers for them to understand and appreciate OBE.

Capiz State University (2013)

Collegio de San Juan De Letran (2014)

Northwestern Samar State University (2015)

"Effective OBE in the Classroom" is only the 1st Moduleof the OBE3 Seminar-Workshops. The 2nd module is "Outcomes-Based Assessment of an Engineering Program" which involves the continuous improvement of a program by assessing the student outcomes.

For more information about OBE3, email: 
O-Dr. Andy Oreta - andyroreta@yahoo.com

B-Dr. Manny Belino - mcbelino@mapua.edu.ph
E-Engr. Efren Dela Cruz -  efren.delacruz@dlsu.edu.ph

Useful Ideas from the Felder-Brent Workshop on Effective Teaching for OBE

Hotel Puteri Pacific, Johor Bahru, Malaysia

I attended the Effective Teaching for Outcomes-Based Education Workshop last May 20-21, 2014 at Hotel Puteri Pacific, Johor Bahru, Malaysia. The resource persons were the OBE experts,  Prof. Richard Felder, Ph.D. ChE and Prof. Rebecca Brent, Ed.D of the North Carolina State University. The workshop was very informative and educational. I have been teaching for more than 20 years in the university, yet I didn't realize that I have been doing bad practices in some cases and there many good practices that I should have applied tomake my teaching and students' learning more effective. I would just list the useful workshop ideas that I learned in the seminar-workshop and I intend to apply them in my future teaching activities.

Brent (2nd from left) and Felder(3rd from left)

1. You can get more feedback from "active learning" and "questioning." Felder and Brent demonstrated during the workshop how active learning can be done effectively in the classroom. In active learning, students do things in class related to the course. During the workshop, Felder asked the participants to group in pairs or three members. Then he pose a question or problem which the group must discuss within a few minutes (from one minute to three minutes depending on the problem). One member is tasked to record the group's output from the short discussion. Felder then asked selected members from various groups about their outpus. In about ten minutes, we got various answers and suggestions from the participants. He compared active learning strategy to individual questioning where in the teacher asked the whole class and then look for volunteers. In this case, you will find very few students willing to answer your question because most of them are shy or passive.

Why does this strategy work? Felder says students when they have interaction with fellow students, they get engaged in the activity. And when the teacher asked for their answers, the students are less shy because what he/she is sharing to the class is a group output not only his/her own. The students are awake during the short active learning activity and participate in the group discussion because they want to be prepared for an answer in case the teachers calls them. Don't worry about the noise students make during the group discussion. It's worth it than a quiet class where learning doesn't take place.

Useful idea: In a 90-minute lecture, students get bored if the teacher is the center of the teaching-learning process. Students should be more actively engaged. Short active learning activities during the 90-minute class is effective - it makes students awake, get them engaged and thinking and the activity also promotes collaborative learning.

2. Initiate opportunities where the students start thinking. Students should not be passive learners but active learners. As stated earlier students learn more on active learning. Before coming to class, review your notes and examples. Think of questions that you may pose to the students and apply active learning to make them think during the lectures. Use varied and challenging questions so that student can apply the lower and higher thinking skills. Instead of using "Is that clear?" or "Any questions?", ask questions similar to the photo below such as "What if I use a different section?", or "How could we improve the process?"

Asking varied questions make students apply the various thinking skills
(PPT slide form the Felder-Brent Workshop).

I applied this active learning in the first meeting of my class in Theory of Structures I (TSTRUC1). I want to review the students on the principles of Statics of Rigid Bodies (STATICS) and Mechanics of Deformable Bodies (MEDEFOR) which are prerequisite courses in TSTRUC1.  So I posed the question below and asked the students to discuss with their partner their answer to the problem for only ONE MINUTE.

Active learning activity in TSTRUC1 - Meeting No. 1

During the one-minute activity, the students get engaged in the discussion, the class obviously was noisy but they are awake. After one minute I called on students randomly from various pairs and I got good answers from the various groups. I have been doing this in my class in TSTRUC1 during the first meeting but in the past they do it individually. I got better, faster and more answers this time when I use pairings. Among the responses given were: type of material, available material, available equipment, allowable stress, weight of person, number of persons, span length, cross-sectional shape, temperature, environment, site, soil type, cost and budget. From the data gathered, I discussed the basic procedure of designing a simple beam bridge using their data and the principles of structural design using concepts from STATICS and MEDEFOR only. Span length, soil type as support and total load (weight and number of persons) are needed to model the bridge and solve the reactions, maximum shear and bending moment. The cross-sectional shape is necessary to determine the moment of inertia and location of the centroid of the section. The type of material is important to make an estimate on the allowable stress and the modulus of elasticity (E) of the beam bridge. The site and its environment are important if you are consider other environmental loads (temperature, wind, seismic, flood, etc). And finally, the budget becomes a constraint to your design as it will limit the cost of the bridge. The activity was very informative and new to them as they were introduced on how theory is applied to a real world civil engineering problem. About ten minutes were used effectively to review basic concepts in STATICS and MEDEFOR.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I shared this blog to Prof. Felder on June 7, 2014 and he immediately sent me this reply (June 8). 

Dear Andres,

Thanks so much for sharing the blog entry with me. It really pleases Rebecca and me that you got as much as you did from the workshop and you put it to use in your teaching that quickly. The beam bridge exercise is excellent. I wish my statics professor had done something like it when I was taking the course many years ago.

Congratulations too on an outstanding blog. Your students are lucky to have you as a resource.

Best regards,

Richard

Richard Felder
Hoechst Celanese Professor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering
North Carolina State University
www.ncsu.edu/effective_teaching

Open Ended Problems in Mechanics of Materials





Problem solving is one learning activity that is extensively employed by engineering educators. “Problem-solving is defined as a process used to obtain a best answer to an unknown or a decision subject to some constraints” (Mourtos 2004). Through problem solving students learn to apply the theoretical equations in both hypothetical and real-world scenarios. Assigning problem sets provides students the opportunity to test their understanding of the theory and concepts. The type of problems assigned to students addresses various levels of thinking and outcomes. Traditionally, problems are designed with given parameters and students are required to determine an unknown quantity. The solution usually involves substitution of known values to an equation to solve for the unknown parameter. Problems of this type are said to be “close-ended.” Close-ended questions usually have a unique answer and the procedure of obtaining the answer is limited or straight-forward. Close-ended problems address lower levels of thinking (based on Bloom’s taxonomy) like “remembering”, “understanding” and “applying” and some higher mode of thinking like “analyzing”.



To address higher levels of thinking like “evaluating” and “creating” and transformative outcomes experienced in the real-world, “open-ended” questions should also be included in the problem sets. Sobek and Jain (2004) emphasized the need for open-ended problems. “Employers look for engineers who are effective at solving open-ended problems. Engineering accreditation demands evidence that students can tackle open-ended problems proficiently.” Open-ended problems address considerably the student outcomes on “an ability to recognize, formulate, and solve civil engineering problems” and “an ability to engage in lifelong learning.” Open-ended questions are usually ill-defined and there may be more than one valid approach to obtain the solution. As a matter of fact, the solution may not be unique because of varying assumptions made regarding some parameters. Mourtos (2004) noted in their study that “traditional exercises (close-ended) found in most engineering texts, although useful, do not adequately prepare engineering students for real-world problems. Students seem to have great difficulty approaching these (open-ended) problems; however, they also seem to enjoy the challenge and perform reasonably well if given proper guidance.”

Problem : If you were to install a

steel Z-purlin, which arrangement

would you choose to maximize the

moment capacity of the section?

In the problem sets in my structural analysis course, open-ended problems are given. The problem shown about a Z-purlin is related to analysis of beams due to unsymmetrical bending which is similar to a problem by Singer. Deciding on the most effective set-up of the Z-section whether upright or inverted would require application of concepts in moment of inertia, equilibrium, bending moment and elastic bending stress analysis. There are various ways of determining the more efficient arrangement of the Z-section. You may compute which arrangment has the larger moment capacity. You can assume a moment and compute the maximum stresses and compare.

References:

Mourtos, N. et al. (2004). “Open-ended problem solving skills in thermal-fluids engineering,” Global Journal of Egg Education, UICEE

Sobek, D and Jain V. (2004). “The Engineering Problem Solving Process: Good for Students?” Proc.2004 American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference & Exposition

NOTE: An updated version of this article - "Challenging Students' Thinking Through Open-ended Problems" was published as e-notes in The Philippine Engineering Education (Vol. 1, No. 1, Sept 2013) - the official news magazine of the Philippines Association for Technological Education (PATE).

Using Visual Gobbets in Teaching

A gobbet is “an extract of text, a passage of literature, an image, a cartoon, a photograph, a map or an artifact provided as a context for analysis, translation or discussion in an assessment” (Chan 2008). “The student’s task is to identify the gobbet, explain its context, say why it is important, what it reminds them of or whatever else you would like them to comment on” (Biggs and Tang 1999). Gobbets are usually used for assessment.

I used "visual" gobbets in my class in Theory of Structures and Earthquake Engineering. Here are some examples.

In my first meeting in Theory of Structures-I, as my review of basic concepts in Statics and Mechanics of Deformable Bodies, I displayed an image of a beam bridge  and posed the problem to the students: “if you are required to design a simple beam bridge to cross a river, what information would you gather to accomplish your task and how would you use the information?

A Gobbet on Simple Beam Analysis & Design

 The responses from this gobbet include span length, beam material, weight of the person(s), number of persons crossing the bridge at one time, shape and size of the beam, soil type at the beam ends and cost. After listing their responses, I asked them on how the items in the list will be used in the analysis and design of the beam bridge. From this exercise, the students were able to reflect and learned about the relationship of the listed items to concepts in Statics and Mechanics of Deformable Bodies.

• A beam bridge can be modelled as a simple beam with length, L and the weights represented as concentrated loads
• Analysis means solving for reactions and maximum internal forces – moment and shear
• The type of material will specify the material strength (allowable stresses) and mechanical properties (modulus of elasticity)
• Designing the beam means determining the shape and size of the beam
• Various types of design can be done for comparison (strength, cost)

Another gobbet in my Earthquake Engineering class was included in an exam to assess the students’ understanding of structural failure due to earthquakes. This is an exercise on post-earthquake evaluation usually conducted by structural engineers (ASEP) after the occurrence of an earthquake. The students are shown photos of a building damaged due to earthquake. A description of the observed damage is also given. The students are required to assess the condition of the building based on the photos and description and recommend the appropriate post-earthquake posting (Safe, Limited Entry or Unsafe).



 "Safe", "Limited Entry" or "Unsafe"?
nisee.berkely.edu



The third example of a gobbet exercise which I called “Scaling an Earthquake” was applied in the Earthquake Engineering course. One of the learning outcomes of the course is familiarization with the PHIVOLCS Earthquake Intensity Scale (PEIS). A series of photos were displayed to the class and the following problem was posted: “You are tasked to determine the intensity of the earthquake using PEIS. Assign the intensity scale for each photo. Explain your answer.” In this exercise, the students have to read and understand carefully the descriptors for each intensity scale in PEIS and relate them to the photos. 

Rate the Intensity Scale of this Earthquake
                     http://woldcnews.com/

References

Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University, McGraw-Hill Open University Press
Chan C. (2008) “Assessment: Gobbets”, Assessment Resource Centre, University of Hong Kong [http://arc.caut.hku.hk]: Available: Accessed: 8/27/2012

Meeting the Gurus of Outcomes-Based Teaching & Learning



John Biggs lectures at TIP (2012)

"The key to  'constructive alignment' is that all components in the teaching system - the curriculum and its intended outcomes, the teaching methods used, the assessment tasks - are aligned to each other. The teacher's job is to create a learning environment that supports the learning activities appropriate to achieving the desired learning outcomes, " says John Biggs, psychologist, educator and author and the man behind 'constructive alignment' and the SOLO taxonomy.

I met John Biggs and his wife and co-author, Catherine Tang at the International Conference on Outcomes-Based Teaching and Learning (ICOBTL) held on Feb. 16-17, 2012 at the Technological Institute of the Philippines, QC Campus. Biggs and Tang were the keynote lecturers at the ICOBTL which was attended by about 500 teachers, professors, university presidents and heads from CHED, DepED, PATE and PTC.

As I mentioned in my previous blog, I have been learning about outcomes-based education (OBE) and I have learned much from the papers of Biggs and Tang. Their rationale for constructive alignment (CA) which is an example of OBTL is quite noble. Biggs say CA is "concerned only with improving teaching and learning" unlike the other proponents who apply OBE for accrediation purposes.

 Applying OBE is not something new. The new terms  like 'constructive alignment', 'intended learning outcomes' or ILO, 'teaching and learning activities' or TLA and 'assessment tasks' or AT should not intimadate the teacher. OBE or OBTL or CA has been practiced by teachers consciously or unconsciously. What the teacher should do is simply to understand the concepts and refocus his/her teaching and learning activities and assessment tasks to address learning outcomes. With OBE, there is more focus on what the teacher and student should do. This is the challenge in OBE especially for engineering educators. How can you effectively apply OBE in the teaching of a technical course with a lot of theory like 'Engineering Mechanics' or  'Theory of Structures.' I am still groping for effective strategies aside from traditional classroom lectures and I will report on this in the future.

Catherine Tang, John Biggs, my co-faculty at DLSU - Alvin Chua and I

Outcomes-Based Education: As I see it

 

I was tasked by the dean and department chair to be a "champion" for outcomes-based education (OBE). The main motivation for this is that OBE may be used in the accreditaion of engineering programs in the Philippines following the accreditation practice (ABET) in the US.  But how can I be a champion when I don't have any idea about OBE. I attended a series of seminars conducted by DLSU educators but somehow it was difficult to comprehend the topics because the seminars combine UBD, OBE, Transformative Learning, Student-Centered Learning, etc. So I have to do my own readings of scholarly papers on OBE by experts like Spady, Biggs, Rogers and Feldman especially those related to ABET and engineering . After reading these papers and reflecting on them, I came up with a diagram (shown above) of  "the OBE Framework" as I understand it. Here are some of my thoughts about OBE.

• OBE is a “student-centered learning philosophy that focuses on empirically measuring student performance, which are called outcomes.”
• Outcomes are clear learning results (knowledge, skills, values, behavior) that learners have to demonstrate at the end of significant learning experiences.
• Outcomes follow a hierarchy: (a)University level: the mission and vision defines the expected graduate attributes, (b) Program level: Program educational objectives (PEO) describe what graduates are expected to attain within three to five years after graduation, (c) Program level: Student outcomes describe what students know and can do after graduation, (d) Course level: Learning outcomes describe what the students know and can demonstrate at the end of the course.
• Defining the outcomes is the key in curriculum and course design and delivery. The teaching methods, leanring activities, topics and assessment tools must be aligned with the outcomes.
• At the end of the course or program, an assessment must be done to determine whether the outcomes were achieved or not. The purpose of asssessment is to provide a continuous process of planning, measuring, analyzing results, and using the results to make informed decisions that, preferably, lead to improvements.

Now that OBE has started to be come a framework in the teaching-learning process in the university, how will this affect me and my colleagues? I have been in the academe for more than 20 years (five years at UP and 17 years at DLSU). When I reflected on the OBE paradigm and my present teaching practice, I can see that I need to make a few adjustments:

• I must explain to the students at the start of the term that they should address the learning outcomes in all their learning activities - readings assignements, exams, etc.
• I must always refer to the syllabus and make sure that my teaching-learning activities and assessments (exams, assignments, etc) are aligned with the learning outcomes.
• I must use various learning activities to develop the students' interest in the classroom. Available technology (youtube, internet, etc.) must be explored.
• I must explore creative ways of delivering course content. I should  deliver only the most important content in lectures and the other related content through other means (e.g. internet).
• I must regularly assess on whether the learning outcomes are being achieved through seatworks, recitation and homeworks. These assessments need not be part of the final grade but must be used to improve the teaching-learning process during the term. If I observe some weakness in a specific topic, then I need to make adjustments on that topic.
• I must design an assigment on how I can assess the "skills, knowledge, behavior" of students related to the course and relate to real world tasks to achieve "transformational" outcomes.

Moving from traditional methods to outcomes-based takes time. As a start, an OBE syllabus must be designed by the faculty. Then gradually the faculty should change his/her teaching practices (e.g. combine various activities in lectures) and eventually teaching based on OBE becomes natural. This I hope to achieve.