Law teachers’ adoption and acceptance of OBE: a case study of Hong Kong

ABSTRACTOutcome-based education (OBE) is a pedagogical approach that suggests that educators should organise every component in a curriculum so that learners achieve predetermined learning outcomes upon completion of their learning process. The focus of OBE is on teaching knowledge and skills that students can attain upon the completion of their formal learning process. Because of its pedagogical impact, institutions worldwide are embracing OBE as a measure of quality assurance of legal education. However, having a set of outcomes is only the first step towards implementing OBE. To fully implement OBE, teachers need to understand and adopt the underlying principles of OBE in their teaching. This article aims to explore the implementation of OBE via an empirical research study in Hong Kong. It concludes that the current institutional policy in Hong Kong allows law teachers to adopt a lukewarm attitude towards OBE. Their attitudes towards OBE can be categorised into five groups, ie loyal followers, incidental followers, lukewarm followers, pretenders and deniers.KEYWORDS: Outcome-based education (OBE)academic freedomlegal educationteaching practicesbest practices Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.Notes1 William G Spady, Outcome-Based Education: Critical Issues and Answers (American Association of School Administrators 1994) accessed 11 May 2023.2 Tuning Association, “Tuning-Ahelo Conceptual Framework of Expected and Desired Learning Outcomes in Economics” (OECD, 23 June 2009) 2 accessed 11 May 2023.3 Spady (n 1) 3.4 Maureen Tam, “Outcomes-Based Approach to Quality Assessment and Curriculum Improvement in Higher Education” (2014) 22 Qual Assur Educ 158, 159; Peter Ewell, “Building Academic Cultures of Evidence: A Perspective on Learning Outcomes in Higher Education” (Paper presented at the Symposium of the Hong Kong University Grants Committee on Quality Education, Quality Outcomes – The Way Forward for Hong Kong, June 2008) 1 accessed 11 May 2023.5 UGC accessed 11 May 2023.6 UGC, “Symposium on Outcome-Based Approaches in Student Learning: ‘Quality Education, Quality Outcomes: The Way Forward for Hong Kong’” (18 June 2008) accessed 11 May 2023.7 Quality Assurance Council, “Audit Manual Second Audit Cycle” (22 October 2018) 4 accessed 11 May 2023.8 HKU, Teaching and Learning Innovation Centre (TaLiC) (formerly known as the Centre for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning (CETL) all accessed 23 September 2023.9 TaLiC, “A Short Guide to Outcomes-Based Approaches to Student Learning” accessed 21 September 2023; TED, “Outcomes Based Teaching and Learning (OBTL)” accessed 11 May 2023; CUHK, “OBA@CUHK” accessed 11 May 2023.10 Jean A King and Karen M Evans, “Can We Achieve Outcome-Based Education?” (1991) 49 Educ Leadersh 73, 74.11 ibid; Timothy G Hoffman, “An Examination of Outcome-Based Education Practices, Standards, and Factors That Enhance Implementation of OBE” (PhD thesis, Iowa State University 1996) 2.12 Spady (n 1).13 Hoffman (n 11) 15.14 Cliff Malcolm, “Outcomes-Based Education Has Different Forms” in Jonathan D Jansen and Pam Christie (eds), Changing Curriculum: Studies on Outcomes-Based Education in South Africa (Juta and Company Ltd 1999) 77, 79.15 ibid 78; cf Gwennis McNeir, “Outcomes-Based Education: Tool for Restructuring” (1993) 36(8) OSSC Bulletin, 4 accessed 11 May 2023. McNeir explains that Lewis Rhodes applies Deming’s principle to OBE.16 Ewell (n 4) 1.17 ibid 8.18 Cf McNeir (n 15) 5, “foremost advocates and developers of OBE”; King and Evans (n 10) 73, “prime mover in the development of OBE”; Hoffman (n 11) 14, “most commonly used”; Roy Killen, “Outcomes-Based Education: Principles and Possibilities” (Unpublished manuscript, University of Newcastle, 2000) 2 accessed 11 May 2023, “the world authority on OBE”.19 Spady (n 1) 1.20 ibid 9.21 ibid 1.22 ibid 81.23 ibid 89.24 ibid.25 ibid 90.26 ibid 92, “[l]ittle acknowledgment or evidence in most states that [OBE principles] even exist”.27 Killen (n 18) 2.28 Spady (n 1) 93.29 ibid.30 Spady (n 1) 10.31 ibid 11.32 ibid 12.33 ibid 14.34 ibid 16.35 ibid 18.36 ibid 18.37 John Biggs and Catherine Tang, Teaching for Quality Learning at University (4th edn, SRHE and Open University Press 2011) accessed 11 May 2023.38 ibid 97–110.39 ibid 119.40 ibid 98.41 ibid 105.42 ibid.43 ibid 106.44 ibid 131.45 Roy Stuckey and others, Best Practices for Legal Education: A Vision and a Road Map (Clinical Legal Education Association 2007) accessed 11 May 2023.46 ibid 28.47 ibid 121.48 ibid 152.49 ibid 171.50 ibid 198.51 ibid 35.52 ibid.53 ibid 36.54 ibid 40.55 ibid 95.56 ibid 96.57 ibid 97.58 ibid 88.59 ibid 127.60 ibid 117.61 ibid 190.62 ibid 191.63 ibid 181.64 ibid 199.65 ibid 198.66 Clinical Legal Review; Legal Education Review; Journal of Legal Education; The Law Teacher.67 1994–2019.68 Cf Carolyn Grose, “Outcomes-Based Education One Course at a Time: My Experiment with Estates and Trusts” (2012) 62 J Legal Educ 336; Deborah Maranville, Kathleen M O’Neill and Carolyn Plumb, “Lessons for Legal Education from the Engineering Profession’s Experience with Outcomes-Based Accreditation” (2012) 38 Wm Mitchell L Rev 1017.69 SPT Malan, “The ‘New Paradigm’ of Outcomes-Based Education in Perspective” (2000) 28 JFECS 22, 23.70 Arthur W Chickering and Zelda F Gamson, “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education” (1987) 39(5) AAHE Bulletin 3, 4.71 The approval was obtained on 19 January 2019.72 The number of law teachers at the time of the survey is 98 at HKU, 42 at CityU and 44 at the CUHK.73 See the discussion in section 2.4.74 Jim McKernan, “Some Limitations of Outcome-Based Education” (1993) 8 JCS 343.75 Susan H Duncan, “The New Accreditation Standards Are Coming to a Law School Near You – What You Need to Know About Learning Outcomes & Assessment” (2010) 16 Legal Writing 605, 609; Mary A Lynch, “An Evaluation of Ten Concerns About Using Outcomes in Legal Education” (2012) 38 Wm Mitchell L Rev 976, 990.76 Stuckey and others (n 45).77 Maranville, O’Neill and Plumb (n 68) 1020.78 See section 2.2; Spady (n 1) 93.79 Cf Steven Friedland, “Outcomes and the Ownership Conception of Law School Courses” (2012) 38 Wm Mitchell L Rev 947, 965.80 Cf John Bell, “Key Skills in the Law Curriculum and Self‐Assessment” (2000) 34 Law Teacher 175, 182.81 Cf Duncan (n 75) 609; Lynch (n 75) 990.82 Section 2.2; Spady (n 1) 1.83 Stuckey and others (n 45).84 See section 2.2; Spady (n 1) 89.85 Cf Gary Yukl, Helen Kim and Cecilia M Falbe, “Antecedents of Influence Outcomes” (1996) 81 J Appl Psychol 309, 310.86 ibid.87 Francine Ryan, “Rage Against the Machine? Incorporating Legal Tech into Legal Education” (2021) 55 Law Teacher 392, 393.88 Brian Dalton, “Cognifying Legal Education” (Above the Law) accessed 11 May 2023.89 Cf Richard Susskind, “AI, Work and ‘Outcome-Thinking’” (2018) Brit Acad Rev 30, 31.90 Cf Richard Susskind, “Tomorrow’s Lawyers” (2014) 81 Def Couns J 327, 331.91 Alex Nicholson, “The Value of a Law Degree: Part 2: A Perspective from UK Providers” (2021) 55 Law Teacher 241, 257.