7TH BIENNIAL NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

TEACHER EDUCATION.

September 06 - 08, 2005

Outcome based education and its

impact on teachers’ practice in

technical colleges.

J. Deurwaarder College of Technical and Vocational Education (CTVE)

P Bag BO 148Gaborone

2

Outcome based education and its impact on teachers’practice in technical colleges.

J. Deurwaarder College of Technical and Vocational Education (CTVE).

Abstract

The Ministry of Education formulated as overall goal for the Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) system

“to develop the full potential of Botswana’s human resources to meet the current and future needs of the individual and the entire needs of the economy”(NDP 8).

The education programmes to reach this goal are to be “modularised and competency-based”. The Botswana Technical Education Programme (BTEP) is the result of theMinistry of Education’s brief.

The paper outlines the key elements of an outcome based programme and its the impact on teachers’ behaviour, practise, mode of instruction and assessment. Teachers’ views on the impact of the BTEP on their practice were obtained using questionnaires.

The result of the study is that outcome based education has not yet found firm hold in the technical colleges. Itshould be recognized that teachers and trainers are expected to introduce a learning programme and assessmentmode they never experienced themselves. Teachers and trainers indicated that to some extend they feel overwhelmed by a ‘barrage´ of changes, some of which theyperceive to be threatening their professional status, their job security and their deeply-held beliefs about effective teaching and learning.

Outcome based education – Effect on teachers’ practice?

J Deurwaarder College of Technical and Vocational Education (CTVE).

Introduction

Technical and vocational education in Botswana has

committed itself to introduce a competence outcome based

education and assessment system. NDP 8 describes the

required programmes to develop the full potential of

Botswana’s human resources to meet the current and future

needs of the individual and the entire needs of the

economy as:

A modularized and competency-based training programme will be

developed and a national qualification framework for all levels of

vocational and technical training will be established. (NDP8 page 369).

The move towards an outcomes-based approach is due to

concerns about the effectiveness of traditional methods

of teaching and training which were content-based. The

products of the traditional system were ‘unemployable’ –

1

had not acquired the knowledge and practical skills

potential employers were looking for.

An outcomes-based education and training system requires

a shift from focussing on teacher’s input (syllabuses

expressed in term of content) to focussing on the

outcomes of the learning process.

Outcome based education

In a traditional classroom the topics covered are

determined by a content syllabus. After the topic is

taught it is followed by a standard evaluation. Once the

evaluation is assessed, grades are assigned, the class

moves on, regardless of mastery of the content by

learners – the teacher’s focus is in covering the

syllabus, not so much on the whether or not learners have

grasped the content.

In outcome based education, a pre-test is given to help

the facilitator set individual goals for the learners,

2

prior achieved knowledge and skills are recognised.

Facilitation takes into account the learners’ differences

and needs. Assessment is continuous against set learning

outcomes. If a learner has produced evidence of having

met the set learning outcomes, against formulated

performance criteria, then he or she moves on. However,

if a learner fails to meet the learning outcome, he or

she is given remedial work and re-assessed.

An outcomes-based approach is characterised by the

following features:

an emphasis on the results of learning (outcomes)

a focus on learning by doing (performance in

context)

opportunities for the recognition of prior learning

an emphasis on the applications of learning in new

and different contexts

the learning – assessment cycle is repeated on

individual basis until the learners has demonstrated

competence on the learning outcome(s)

3

learners are – in order to gain the credit for the

unit / module – to demonstrate competence on ALL

learning outcomes / performance criteria and range

elements

no summative examinations and/or percent grading of

learners is involved.

The development of the BTEP is based on an outcomes-based

approach to education and training which has as its

starting point the intended outputs (learning outcomes

described in performance criteria) as opposed to the

inputs of traditional curriculum driven education and

training.

In outcomes-based learning, a learner's progress is

measured against agreed criteria. This implies that

formal assessment will employ criterion-referencing and

will be conducted in a transparent manner. All learners

who meet the agreed criteria for specified learning

outcomes receive the appropriate credit/s. Those who do

not meet the criteria could receive clear feedback,

4

indicating areas which need further work in order for

them to reach the required standard. They are given

support to try again to demonstrate competence on the

learning outcomes and/or performance criteria and/or

range elements not yet achieved i.e. the learner works

only on aspects not yet achieved and is NOT to repeat

aspects already having demonstrated of being competent –

this unlike traditional courses / examinations in which

the person on having been failed has to do the whole

examination or course again even if (s)he passed certain

parts of the course / examination. The concept of

pass/fail is radically altered to demonstrated competence

/ not yet competent.

Criticism on outcome based education.

A number of objections have been levelled against outcome

based education. The main concerns being:

Outcome based education (OBE) relies heavily on

organising learning through the specification and

5

measurement of behavioural outcomes, expressed in

learning outcomes and performance criteria. In doing so

it pays insufficient attention to the process of

learning. OBE is viewed by critics as being based on

outdated behaviourist approaches to teaching and

learning. OBE is seen by some critics as a mechanistic,

and narrow approach to learning focussing solely on what

is observable and measurable and unlikely to develop the

full potential of learners.

Instead of an holistic framework, OBE atomises and

fragments learning into measurable and observable

outcomes. Learners are made to demonstrate competence in

fixed learning outcome after learning outcome. It narrows

learners views by focussing on a tiny aspect, a fragment

of knowledge or skill and hence does not encourage

critical reflection on alternative perspectives. The

critics of OBE regard OBE as offering a mono-cultural

view based on the satisfaction of narrow performance

criteria and directed towards fixed and pre-determined

ends.

6

As the learning outcomes and performance criteria spell

out clearly w hat the learners must demonstrate on the

assessment task, the facilitators / trainers instructors

in practice stick closely to these competencies in order

to prepare their learners adequately, thus ignoring the

wider individual and social aspects. The facilitators may

fail to cover underpinning knowledge adequately in the

construction of evidence of competence.

In summary, the main basic objections to outcome based

education are

the emphasis on outcomes undervalues the importance

of the learning process;

not all learning outcomes can be described in

specifiable, observable terms;

can lead to learning and facilitation that is

atomised, limited in scope and scale

Competence

7

The criticism levelled against outcome based education

can all be reduced to one key question – What is

competence? When do we say that a learner is competent?

Traditionally, competence has been perceived in terms of

individual attributes or a discrete set of tasks

performed meeting set criteria (Dall’Alba & Sandberg,

1996).

Gonczi (1994) describes the behaviourist view of

competence as

…..competence is conceived of in terms of the discrete behaviours

associated with the completion of atomised tasks….. Evidence for the

possession of the competency is based on direct observation of the

performance.

The generic view on competence Gonczi (1994) formulated

as follows:

... A view that concentrates on the underlying attributes, e.g.

knowledge or critical thinking capacity, which provide the basis for

8

transferable or more specific attributes …. competencies are thought of

as general attributes, ignoring the context in which they might be

applied.

The behaviourist and generic views, as observed by

critics, tend to produce narrow technical skills,

ignoring the broader aspects and contexts in which the

skill is performed and the meaning the learners give to

these skills (Dall’Alba & Sandberg, 1996).

However one can also see competence in a more integrated

perspective:

A skill or integrated cluster of skills executed within

an indicated range or context to specific standards of

performance in relation to:

a. Integrated understanding of the performance and its

knowledge base (integrating knowing and doing)

b. Understanding of the system in which the performance

is carried out (significance of parts in whole /

sense of holistic nature of a skill)

9

c. The ability to transfer to other related contexts;

d. The ability to innovate when appropriate.

(CTVE, 2001)

Competency is the ability to carry out a specific and

clearly defined task, the ability to demonstrate a

competence

10

This view on competence covers

Integrated view on knowing-doing.

Emphasised is the developing of an integrated

knowing-doing practice, engaging in vocational

practice and reflecting on it are central aspects of

a competence.

Significance of parts in the whole.

The view sees vocational theory and practice as a

whole, and understanding of the place and

significance of parts in the whole is part of the

competence.

Sense of skilled practice as a whole.

The integrated view of competence does not look at

isolated parts of a skill only but looks also at the

skill as a whole (the whole being more than the

parts) and also considers the place of that skill in

a broader socio – economic context. Critical

reflection by learners about the relationship

11

between an acquired skill and use of this skill in

socio – economic context is essential (e.g. ethical

implication / a ‘skill’ is not value neutral).

Assessment in OBE.

Looking at competence in the above described integrated

way does away with some of the criticism levelled against

OBE, provided the practice reflects the theory. The mode

of assessment of competencies and the quality assurance

of the assessment system are crucial issues in an outcome

based system. The impact of assessment on mode of

facilitation (teachers) and mode of learning (learners)

has been demonstrated as substantial. Assessment must

therefore focus on the essential aspects of competencies

as described. It is on this aspect that the BTEP falls

short, the assessment tends to highlight the readily

measurable, over-emphasising details, rather than

promoting the essential aspects of competence. ‘In this

way, practice is trivialised through assessment which

fails to support competence development’ (Dall’Alba &

Sandberg).

12

To what extent has the introduction of outcomes-based

instruction and assessment in the technical and

vocational colleges affected classroom practice

To each of the six technical colleges 10 questionnaires

(Appendix A) were send with the request to select

randomly 10 teachers / trainers involved in the BTEP to

complete the questionnaire. 52 completed questionnaires

were returned (87%).

The questionnaire survey focussed on the collection of

data related to the role changes of teachers / trainers,

if any, as a result of the introduction of the BTEP.

These changes have been described in terms of a change

from 'teacher centred' to 'learner centred' methods or

from 'directing instruction' to 'facilitating learning'

(Hyland, 1994). These terms require caution in the OBE

context. The actually impact of OBE on the teaching

profession is largely a shift in the burden of the

teacher's work from group teaching to individual

assessment and related guidance / re-assessment and this

13

does not necessarily imply a change in facilitation

methods. Changes associated with the volume of assessment

and administration; increased work load; the need to

develop appropriate resources and learning materials; and

the need for major programmes of staff development to

prepare staff for the changes are the major impacts

mentioned by teachers in the survey.

14

The responses to some of the questionnaire questions are

summarised below.

How would you describe outcomes-based education?

In looking at how teachers understand OBE in 55% of the

responses the word “learner centred” is used

“A learner centred, resource based approach to teaching”

“A learner centred result oriented approach to learning”

“A programme based on outcomes and learner centredness”

Another 25% of the responses more or less refer

indirectly to learner centred approaches:

“A system in which learners are exposed to real life

situations to find out for themselves”

“An interesting way of learning that keeps learners

active involved in the process”

“An approach to teaching that involves learners at all

times”

15

“A good programme where learners are not spoon fed but

have to find out for themselves”

The other 20% of responses focus more on outcomes

“A type of education where a learner has to demonstrate

his achievement on stated outcomes”

“Education that produces candidates that have shown that

they can do the job they are trained for”

“Learning is assessed against outlined criteria”

“Result oriented learning”

The identification of OBE with a learner centred approach

is predominant in the responses. This is in line with the

observations made by Hyland (1994) mentioned earlier. The

key aspect of facilitation of learning guided by stated

outcomes, using whatever method of teaching, is

emphasised in only 20% of the responses. On further

questioning some of the respondents clarified that

outcomes are not really seen as a radical change because

all of them are used to stating lesson objectives and

these are seen as identical to outcomes. As such teachers

16

do not see much difference between OBE and a traditional

content syllabus guided system, to them the difference is

in the method of facilitation. Teachers have only a

shallow understanding of outcome based education taking

onboard aspects they can relate to their existing beliefs

and views without having to restructure their thinking

and practice.

Do you consider the introduction of BTEP an improvement in technical

education being offered to the nation? Justify your response.

64% of the teachers expressed that the introduction of

BTEP is not an improvement. The main reasons given are

that – referring to foundation level – the level is too

low and basic, too shallow. Teachers feel that the BTEP

does not allow learners to reach a skill performance

level that is required for employment.

25% feels introduction of BTEP to be a great improvement

of the vocational education and training system pointing

out that ‘second chance’ is given to learners that would

otherwise drop out of the education system.

17

The remaining 11% expressed that it is too early to make

a definite statement and/or pointed out the good

potential of the programme provided it was implemented as

intended with all resources needed in place.

The high percent of teachers expressing that BTEP is not

an improvement and that it were better to have reviewed

the National Craft Certificate programmes are basically

referring to what is presently mainly in place – BTEP

foundation level. However one has to look at the

programme as a whole including the certificate and

diploma levels that follow the foundation level. The

foundation level is indeed extremely basic and meant for

Junior Secondary School leavers that are not qualifying

for the senior secondary school. It should be noted that

presently a rather high percent of learners that

completed senior secondary school education are enrolled

for foundation courses leading to a mismatch between

level of prior achievement of the learners and the level

of the course offered, specifically as one of the key

aspects of outcome based education – the recognition of

18

prior achieved knowledge / skills – is not (yet)

implemented. Presently BTEP is very much offered as a

traditional course – ALL learners have to cover the

learning outcomes and performance criteria, even if for

some of them it is a mere repeat of what they already

know / can do e.g. in numeracy or ICT.

With the superficial understanding of what outcome based

education is all about – as noted in the previous section

– it is not surprising that none of the respondents makes

reference to one of the most fundamental improvements the

BTEP implemented as compared with the traditional

vocational technical education system: BTEP guarantees

employers / the public that the learners declared

competent have demonstrated competence in ALL listed

learning outcomes and performance criteria. BTEP is

saying: the learner has shown (s)he can do what the

learning outcomes express and the evidence is there

available for anyone to inspect. This is unlike any other

none outcome based system. Examination assessed courses

can not in anyway guarantee that the candidates that

19

passed the examination can do / have the knowledge as

spelled out in the course syllabus (intended curriculum)

as the assessed curriculum is only a fraction of the

intended curriculum while the attained curriculum (what

the candidate really knows / can do) is again a fraction

of the assessed curriculum, candidates will be declared

pass for any score above 50%.

What effect has introduction of outcomes based education (BTEP) and QAA

assessment system had on your practice as a teacher?

80% of the respondents states that the main impact is the

increased workload due to increased paper work required

to document the achievement of learners.

10% states that BTEP has forced them to take facilitation

much more serious as now they are hold accountable for

the progress of the learners and their work is internally

and externally checked. One respondent expressed

resentment about this by saying “teachers are now

accountable for learners passing the assessment. The old

system was better as learners were accountable for

passing or failing.”

20

Another 10% of the respondents mentioned as major change

in their practice that they are now “preparing learners

for the assessment instruments”. Teaching for the exam –

or in this case for the assessment instrument is not a

new phenomena. As teachers / trainers have prior

knowledge of the assessment instrument (the instruments

are available to them as assessment can take place at any

time the facilitator feels the learner is ready for

assessment) learners can be prepared, in case written

evidence is required, for responding correctly to the

questions without really having grasped the concepts.

Have the BTEP assessment practice influenced your teaching practice in any

way?

What teaching practice have you abandoned from the former educational

programme because of the BTEP?

These questioned focussed on change in classroom practice

of the teachers. From the responses to the question

related to understanding outcome based education

discussed earlier it will not come as a surprise that 20%

of the teacher responded with “None” – BTEP is to them

21

business as usual with only an extra paper burden. 75% of

the respondents take up the method issues they also

mentioned as, in their view, being the main

characteristic of outcome based education when saying

that they moved away from lecturing to more learner-

centred methods of facilitation.

However, one must keep in mind that these are the

espoused view – it is what teachers are saying. The

message that outcome based education goes hand in hand

with a learner centred approach to facilitation has come

across load and clear. As iis often the case that when

through in-service training new concepts are introduced

teachers show evidence that they have learned the jargon,

but this does not necessarily imply that the espoused

views are also enacted. Many learners in the classes,

observed during teaching placement visits to the

colleges, still do not participate fully in the learning

process since teachers are still providing a great deal

of direct instruction and are still pre-occupied with

content coverage.

22

Other changes reported are

Increased one-to-one contact with learners

(individual coaching and guiding)

Increased accountability of the facilitator for the

learning of learners leading to teaching towards the

assessment instrument

What do you see as the main impact on the learners of the BTEP?

Do you feel that BTEP is a good preparation for learners in their vocational

area?

The impact on learners is described by most teachers

(60%) in negative terms

Laziness

Poor attendance of sessions

Low motivation

Increased dependence on the facilitator

These are attributed to the unchallenging nature of the

programme i.e. the programme being of a low level and not

23

enhancing the opportunities of learners to get jobs on

completion of the (foundation) programme.

The same percent of respondents states that BTEP is an

insufficient preparation of learners, the programme being

too shallow, with several content areas being below

Junior secondary level. One respondent formulated this as

“the programme appears to be designed for kids not for adult learners.

Childish games and knowledge are expected to be assessed”

The programme is also considered as being too long as

obtaining a certificate takes the same time as obtaining

a diploma in other institutions. This reflects again the

misconception that foundation level is seen as tertiary

level education while this is to be seen as the

vocational equivalent of the academic two year secondary

school programme. The (unfortunate) practice of admitting

into foundation courses a substantial number of secondary

school leavers effects the intentions of the programme.

24

Another group of respondents is more optimistic and

mentions as positive impacts

The low level of the foundation course creates a

second chance to learners that performed extremely

poorly at Junior Secondary level – these learners

are motivated as they are (finally) working at a

level they can follow.

Imparting of basic generic skill in learners such as

numeracy and ICT

Giving a broad orientation of learners in a specific

vocational field

These respondents see BTEP foundation only as a first

step (not leading to employment) and see the programme as

meant for Junior Secondary school leavers.

What do you consider the main problems that have arisen in the process of

the introduction of the BTEP (outcomes-based education and QAA

assessment)?

What suggestions do you have related to the BTEP programme.

25

A good number of concerns were raised and followed by

related suggestions as to how to address these concerns.

The following issues related to BTEP and OBE in general

emerged:

resources (people, learning/teaching materials,

assessment materials, time)

assessment (grading, skills versus knowledge,

quality)

Resources

Resources are here defined broadly as including people,

learning/teaching materials, assessment materials, time.

People: One of the problems mentioned several times (30%)

was that the teachers that are to implement the BTEP are

insufficiently familiar with the system and at times ill

motivated. Similarly it was noted that the supervisors in

the colleges expected to guide the staff often failed to

do so due to the fact that they themselves insufficiently

26

understood the outcome based BTEP. It was felt by some

respondents that the programme was “dumped” on the

colleges without proper consultation, preparation and

involvement of staff concerned. This results in BTEP

being seen by several staff as an additional

administrative burden without benefits. It was also

mentioned that, although in-service workshops were

organised, these were not very effective as too much was

attempted to cover in a short time resulting in

participants picking up some of the jargon but not

grasping the basic concepts.

A rigorous in-service programme allowing sufficient time

to grasp the basic ideas was suggested.

Learning/teaching materials:

The BTEP heavy depends – as any programme – on

appropriate resource materials for facilitators and

learners. The programme also places great demands on

modern technology structures and equipment (computers /

online communication; video equipment; data projector,

etc.) being in place as well as availability of

27

vocational subject specific equipment. It was stated that

in many cases the programme was started without the

resources being available. The quality of the printed

learning materials was also questioned with some

respondents (10%) raising the question whether vocational

experts were involved in the development as – according

to them – the materials were riddled with content errors.

The suggestions put forward related to this is to involve

more independent expert to go over the materials prior to

distribution and use.

Assessment materials

40% of the respondents mentioned as one of the major

problems that the centrally supplied assessment

instruments by the Quality Assurance and Assessment unit

(QAA) contain numerous errors and that the process of

following up these errors is a tedious process.

Time

28

60% of the respondents mentioned time as a major problem.

The time required for assessment and numerous re

assessments (on individual basis), completing the

documents related to assessment, the checking and

rechecking of the assessment evidence (internal and

external verification) is overwhelming and has increased

work load of teachers considerable. The BTEP is

considered as consuming too much time without teachers

involved in assessment and internal verification being

given ‘timetabled’ (i.e. recognised) time for these extra

activities.

It was suggested to review the workload of ‘outcome based

teachers’ as number of contact hours in sessions in not

appropriate for this type of education.

It was also suggested to an electronic monitoring system

of learners progress should be developed to make the

administrative burden less tedious.

Assessment.

29

Respondent raised various issues related to assessment.

The ‘error riddled assessment instruments’ issue (40% of

the respondents) was already mentioned above.

Grading

The key aspect of outcome based education – declaring a

learner competent / not competent is difficult to accept

by many teachers as becomes clears from the problem

raised in relation to this. 55% of the respondents feels

that some form of grading is needed in order to have an

indication of level of competence. The unit specification

describe what is the minimum level required to be

declared competent but what about those learners

demonstrating a level of competence well above the

minimum requirement? It is felt that there is a need for

strategies to bridge the gap between competence and

excellence. The respondents said there is need for more

than an award of 'competent' or 'not yet competent' for

employers to make staff selection decisions. It was also

pointed out that the impact on learners is that they just

30

go for the minimum as additional efforts are not

recognised in any way.

OBE might remove the fear of failure for lower achievers,

it ignores the extra efforts of higher achievers. Teacher

consider graded assessment as a way to motivate learners.

31

Skills versus knowledge

A key concern of respondents (35%) was ensuring that

assessment was inclusive of underpinning knowledge,

skills, attitudes and ethics. It was felt that the

present QAA assessment was too scanty and insufficiently

covering ‘competence’ in the inclusive sense. Some

respondents related this to the ‘shallowness’ of the

units that, in their view, inadequately covers the need

for producing evidence by learners for underpinning

knowledge, skills, attitudes and ethics. Performance

criteria for units were said to have major gaps in their

consideration of underpinning knowledge and assessing

ethics and attitudes.

It was suggested that assessment should specifically seek

assessment of underpinning knowledge, ethics and

attitudes.

Quality

The quality of the assessment process was seen as a

problem by 20% of the respondents. It was pointed out

that

32

teaching tended to be guided by the assessment

instruments

all learners use the assessment instrument, although

being assessed as wide spread different times

some learners intentionally go for re assessment

knowing that the same assessment instrument is being

used

As a result learners can be declared competent –

specifically on written assessment – because they

memorised the required responses (obtained from the

facilitator and/or peers) without really understanding

the underlying concepts.

These respondents suggested to go for a system where

assessment is done by an independent person / body.

Conclusion

1. Teachers generally have a rather shallow understanding

of the principles of OBE. They have mainly taken one

33

aspect – mode of facilitation as being the major change

brought about by the introduction of OBE.

This outcome should be related to the fact that teachers

are working under conditions that are not conducive to

their own learning and development. Teachers feel that

they are to implement a new programme without having been

part of the development of the programme nor having been

sufficiently briefed on the concepts of the programme.

The new programme is looked at with the fixed ideas and

beliefs on what effective learning and teaching is in

mind, based on years of experience within the ‘old

system’. Hence as only impact is seen the increased

administrative burden placed on them.

2. Some of the teachers see potential in the BTEP but

feel that the intended programme has not been implemented

and that the new wine has been put into the old bottles

by the majority of their colleagues.

3. The introduction of BTEP has not effectively changed

the classroom practice of teachers, despite the verbal

adherence to ‘learner-centred’ teaching.

34

4. The main problems mentioned by teachers relate to

resources (people, learning/teaching materials,

assessment materials, time) and assessment (grading,

skills versus knowledge, quality).

5. The management of OBE multiplied the administrative

burdens placed on teachers.

Recommendations

1. The induction programme to introduce teachers to OBE

/ BTEP requires review to ensure a better

understanding of the programme among teachers.

2. BTEP / QAA to radical review the system of

assessment to address the flaws mentioned by

teachers.

3. Review BTEP unit specifications to include evidence

to be produced by learners covering underpinning

knowledge, ethics and attitudes in order to cover a

more comprehensive view on competence.

4. Involve independent experts to develop / review

appropriate learning and facilitation resources for

the BTEP

35

5. To develop an electronic learners progress

monitoring system to reduce the paper work

associated with the BTEP in order to reduce the

workload of teachers.

References

Botswana, Republic of. (1997). National development plan 8 1997/98 – 2002/03. Gaborone: Government Printer.

CTVE. (2001) Glossary of terms. Gaborone: CTVE.

Dall’Alba, G. & Sandberg, J. (1996) Educating for competence in professional practice. Instructional Science, 24,pp. 411-437.

Hamilton, S. (1997). The social impact of ABET? ABET Journal, Vol 1. No. 1, pp. 47-59.

Gonczi, A. (1994) Developing a Competent Workforce. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.

Hyland, T. (1995) Behaviourism and the meaning of competence, in P. Hodkinson & M. Isett (Eds) The Challenge ofCompetence. London: Cassell.

36

Appendix A. Questionnaire questions

1. How would you describe outcomes-based education?

2. Do you consider the introduction of BTEP an improved in technical education being offered to the nation? Justify your response.

3. How has your vocational programme changed since the inception of the BTEP?

4. Do you consider these changes positive or negative? Explain.

5. What effect has introduction of outcomes based education (BTEP) and QAA assessment system had on your practice as a teacher?

6.Have the BTEP assessment practice influenced your teaching practice in any way? How? Why?

7. What teaching practice have you abandoned from the former educational programme because of the BTEP?

8. What do you see as the main impact on the learners of the BTEP?

9. Do you feel that BTEP is a good preparation for learners in their vocational area?Justify your response.

10. What do you consider the main problems that have arisen in the process of the introduction of the BTEP (outcomes-based education and QAA assessment)?

11. What suggestions do you have related to the BTEP?

37