Wijaya, Kristian: The Impacts of Outcome-Based Education … 75 THE IMPACTS OF OUTCOME-BASED EDUCATION FOR EFL LEARNERS’ LEARNING AUTONOMY IN THE INTRODUCTION TO EDUCATION CLASS Kristian Florensio Wijaya kristianwijaya500@gmail.com SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY ABSTRACT To enable all EFL learners to engage in teacher-course experiences to be high-quality educators in the future, outcome-based education needs to be implemented by all lecturers in charge of improving the future national educational systems through hands-on, enjoyable, and cooperative learning experiences. Therefore, outcome-based education had been assumed as one of the best answers to rejuvenate the whole educational policies nowadays since the learners will be able to engage more proactively in portraying their status as future educators through mutual cognitive and affective engagement. This study employed a qualitative method to investigate whether outcome-based education had successfully promoted learning autonomy for EFL learners engaging in the introduction to education class. Furthermore, two researcher instruments were also utilized to obtain a higher degree of trustworthiness in this study namely classroom observation and classroom survey. In accord with the gathered data, the findings suggest all EFL lecturers teaching in teacher-course experiences to apply outcome-based education fully to promote a higher degree of enjoyment in learning, engage all learners to be more highly participative in disseminating a wide array of knowledge, and raise more intriguing awareness for the lecturers to be more self-evaluative on their applied teaching-learning practices. Keywords: outcome-based education, EFL learners’ learning autonomy, introduction to education class A. INTRODUCTION To promote more holistic education in which all learners can learn some discipline-specific fields can be deemed as a challenging matter since the educational circumstances do not only provide more professional and compassionate teachers for them but also particular working competencies indispensable to thrive in this 21st-century era. Patena & Dinglasan (2013) state that the compatibility forming in the educational system should address all of the paramount modern skills for the learners who will be the professional workers in the future. In line with this essential need in today’s education, outcome-based education yielded the solutions for this issue since it demands the learners to be the creators of knowledge at the end of learning processes by enacting some particular products reflecting the whole learning processes endured by them. Furthermore, Harden mailto:kristianwijaya500@gmail.com ELTIN Journal, Volume 8/No 2, October 2020 76 (1986) adds that outcome-based education requires all learners to create particular learning products represented their obtained knowledge, which is completely different from input-based education in which the learners act as passive knowledge achievers. According to Spady (1993), learners should be able to generate more meaning-making processes in outcome-based education by designing some tangible learning products. He also clustered two trajectories of outcome-based education. First, a heavy emphasis on learners’ proficiency in specific subject fields. Second, the learners can be the agents of changes in their societies by integrating the knowledge they have obtained through proactive learning. In other words, outcome- based education breeds long-lasting learners who are always willing to identify various phenomena daily. By doing so, the learners will be able to develop their specific competencies into the utmost to attain their main objectives in their lives successfully and promote significant impacts to their societies. By the same token, Mamary (1991) proposed eight major principles of outcome-based education (as cited in Malcolm, 1999). First, the schools need to develop each unique learner’s talent. Second, the schools should ensure the learners to achieve their learning success. Third, robust credence should be established among the schools’ learning communities. Fourth, holistic learning should be promoted for all of the learners. Fifth, schools should diminish unfair judges for the learners since the main objective is to assist them to develop their competencies beneficial for future lives. Sixth, the learners should be able to cooperate meaningfully with each other. Seventh, all learners need to be more proactive in learning processes. Last, stronger trust should be ingrained within the teachers that all learners can learn the subjects well. The main objective of outcome-based education is aimed to enable all learners to establish mutual trust and cooperation with their teachers and other learning members, it is pivotal for the teachers to transform themselves become faithful learning companions to help their learners show significant progress in their learning rather than giving gigantic lecturing where the learners become sluggish learning participants. Regarding this aforementioned conception, Spady (1994) promulgated four major principles of outcome-based education namely clarity of focus, designing back, high expectations, and expanded opportunities. The first notion deals with the teachers’ capabilities to lead the learners to achieve excellent learning competencies by the end of learning processes. Thus, the teachers need to heed their attention to creating learning materials and assessments where the learners can potentially broaden their whole learning capacities to at tain more fruitful learning outcomes. In the second cycle, prior specific subjects’ curriculum should be closely interlinked with learning goals, tasks, and activities in which the learners will be able to foster their learning competencies efficiently. The third notion recites the learners’ bravery and confidence to cope with many kinds of challenges and impediments in their learning since higher learning standards should be attained by them. Hence, the teachers should always be faithful learning companions in the presence of their learners to overcome all of these learning difficulties. In the last cycle, all learners should be provided by wider opportunities to enhance their specific learning competencies based on their learning proficiency and pace. When the teachers can understand these unique differences occurred in their teaching-learning circumstances, the learners will eventually be able to develop their competencies successfully for flexible time constraint have already been given to them. The aforementioned objectives and advantages of outcome-based education, it is interesting to briefly note here that there are three types of program evaluations aligned with outcome-based Wijaya, Kristian: The Impacts of Outcome-Based Education … 77 education implementations in various classroom contexts (see Lixun, 2013) namely CIPP, Kirkpatrick’s, and outcome-based evaluation models. The first model resembles with output-based education emphasizes on the tangible learning activities endured by the learners. Therefore, this model provides clear-cut objectives for educational stakeholders since they will be able to harness all of the results of particular teaching-learning activities in the classrooms for the benefits of educational policies and purposes. Fitzpatrick et al. (2004) state that CIPP demands all educational stakeholders to conduct more profound educational evaluations to three specific extents such as people who are going to take more responsibilities to respond to the results, the way people wield these results, and eventual decision making towards relevant educational policies they will implement in the future. Due to the systematic procedures of this first educational evaluation, it is indispensable for educational stakeholders to ponder carefully before designing specific educational policies by integrating four particular CIPP models proposed by Stufflebeam (2005) namely planning, structuring, implementing, and recycling. Aligned with these four specific CIPP models, educational stakeholders must evaluate the educational programs by selecting and accommodating appropriate CIPP models since these models are dynamic in nature, not static. Furthermore, the second model had been accepted widely by educational stakeholders due to its practicality and relevance for learning processes. Stufflebeam (2005) argues that Kirkpatrick’s model has been extensively utilized in educational fields due to its practicality and feasibility to assist educators to evaluate intended learning processes undergone by the learners. Thus, this model comprises of four levels of learning evaluations namely reaction (particular reactions shown by learners towards the learning processes), learning (the degree of learning transformation experienced by the learners in terms of attitude, knowledge, and skills), behavior (the learners’ capabilities to adjust their behavior after being exposed to particular learning processes), and results (the ultimate learning achievements obtained by the learners). This second model will promote more significant impacts for learners’ achievement and whole learning processes since it deals mostly with learners’ satisfaction, learning levels, particular competencies, and the success of learning programs (see Boyle & Crosby, 1997). The ultimate model focuses more on the learning instructors’ capabilities to conduct more profound reflections on their learning programs to ascertain all learners walk in the right corridor of learning processes. Thus, the outcome-based evaluation model requires educational instructors to continuously evaluate their learning programs in terms of its uniqueness, major objectives, desired learning outcomes, and specific learning policies. Schalock (2001) asserts that the outcome-based evaluation model consists of individual beliefs uphold by the educational instructors, the main goals of educational programs, and learning effectiveness obtained through clear-cut educational purposes. In other words, an outcome-based evaluation program is aimed to ensure all learners have achieved particular desired learning outcomes designed specifically by the educational programs in terms of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. All of these three pivotal learning outcomes attempt to enable the learners to improve and expand their whole capacities as future academicians, who are adept in their discipline-specific fields to promote significant changes to their societies. Due to this main core of the outcome-based evaluation model, it can be inferred that tangible significant learning improvements experienced by the learners are more essential rather than increased credibility or quality of educational programs. ELTIN Journal, Volume 8/No 2, October 2020 78 In conformance with the major theme of this study, the researcher confessed that the implementation of outcome-based education in EFL classroom contexts is quite challenging since language teachers should be able to promote some particular learning models corresponding with learners’ four skills namely listening, speaking, reading, and writing. In the Indonesian learning context, there was no prior study conducted to investigate the impacts of outcome-based education for EFL learners’ autonomy. Since this study focuses on delineating significant impacts promoted by outcome-based education for EFL learners’ autonomy in an introduction to education class, the researcher attempted to mention seven previous studies delved more about the importance of promoting a student-centered learning approach to improve specific target language competencies. The first study was conducted by Simbolon et al., (2019). They discovered that EFL learners’ speaking competencies can be improved significantly through project-based learning since they are required to be proactive creators of their learning products in a diverse learning group. Further interesting study about learner’s autonomy was also conducted by Komala & Asri (2018). They found that language self- access centers had successfully promoted learning autonomy for EFL learners while doing their second language learning tasks as long as ample learning resources and assistance are given to them. Moreover, Poetra et al., (2019) discovered that cooperative learning activities enabled EFL learners to write their narrative texts in a better way for they can give more meaningful supports for each other’s writing. In addition, Fiani (2010) revealed that EFL learners were able to compose more qualified writing products, develop creative thinking, and improve their writing skills in cooperative learning groups compared to those exposed to the direct teaching method. Furthermore, Hidayati et al., (2018) discovered that EFL learners completely valued the implementation of cooperative learning since they were capable of sharing some mutual learning values with others and learning the target language easily. Moreover, Satriani (2019) also revealed that the cooperative script method enabled EFL learners to develop their communicative competences more significantly since they were always challenged to be more proactive, innovative, and creative target language communicators while interacting with their interlocutors. Ultimately, Bara & Satriani (2019) revealed that EFL learners who were exposed to cooperative learning activities in writing descriptive texts had shown better learning progress compared to the learners who were engaged in discovery learning practices. Although all of these previous studies conducted interesting investigations regarding the successful implementations of problem-based learning and cooperative learning activities to promote learner’s autonomy along with the higher quality of EFL competencies for language learners, none of these studies has investigated about impacts promoted by outcome-based education for EFL learners’ autonomy in an introduction to education class since the previous researchers heeded their profound attention to output-based learning (CIPP model) where the specific educational programs had been successfully undergone by the learners in the representations of their significant progress and achievements in particular learning subjects. To fill this gap, this study was undertaken to conduct a profound investigation on some specific impacts generated by outcome- based education to promote autonomy for EFL learners in an introduction to education class. One research problem was formulated to shed enlightenment for the specific discovery of this study Wijaya, Kristian: The Impacts of Outcome-Based Education … 79 namely: How did outcome-based education come into its implementation through the introduction to education class? B. LITERATURE REVIEW From what has been said so far, successful implementations of outcome-based education will lead the learners to be more proactive knowledge constructors since they are always willing to discover various phenomena in their lives and cooperating more mutually with other learning companions to enrich others’ understanding of certain discipline-specific fields. Due to these indispensable learning outcomes yielded by outcome-based education, the teachers need to play their roles as high-quality instructors, mutual learning facilitators, and faithful learning companions in the presence of learners. Two specific terms are believed to corroborate all of these outcome-based education main principles namely learner’s autonomy and social constructivism. More in-depth depictions of these two notions can be discerned as follows. 1. Learner’s Autonomy This term refers to the learners’ volitions to be in charge of their learning processes exert more powerful controls over their learning. In second language learning contexts, EFL learners are required to have an exhaustive understanding of specific subject matters they are undertaking and know their exact positions to acquire the targeted language competencies successfully. Due to this definition, language teachers need to understand the nature of learner’s autonomy thoroughly to provide more mutual learning assistance for them. Balçikanli (2010) argues that learner’s autonomy is an internal self-possession ingrained within the learners. To nurture and amplify EFL learner’s autonomy in some discipline-specific fields, the teachers need to promote supportive classroom environments in which the learners can continuously hone their learning autonomy. While mutual and cooperative learning assistances are still provided for them to proceed in their learning. Hudec (2002) asserts that the successful embodiment of learner’s autonomy is contingent on the teachers’ capabilities of designing classroom activities demand higher learning responsibility for each learner. However, the full activation of learner’s autonomy required long-term processes since the learners need to possess higher responsibilities, enjoyment, and stronger volitions in their learning. Further, the learners should also be able to value the specific-subject matters they are undergoing unless they will be demotivated in their learning. Wolfman & Sachs (2013) state that the main idea of learner’s autonomy is the learners can inculcate a stronger belief that they have stronger abilities, motivation, and responsibilities to learn. One major advantage of the successful implementation of learner’s autonomy is to breed long-lasting learners who are always willing to discover the truth forming in their lives. Therefore, classroom vicinities should be created democratically to enable all learners to have similar opportunities and liberty to disseminate their ideas, thoughts, and arguments. Borg et al., (2012 ) believe that learner’s autonomy will provide ample learning opportunities for the learners both inside and outside of classroom circumstances. To attain this major objective successfully, the teachers need to be qualified counselors, attentive listeners, and knowledge facilitators for their learners to help the learners to be more aware of the ELTIN Journal, Volume 8/No 2, October 2020 80 learning styles, preferences, and proficiency enabling them to achieve their specific learning objectives fully. Camilleri (1999) states that teachers can transform themselves to be high-quality learning managers, and additional learning assistance for their learners to promote learning autonomy and responsibility. It can also be stated that learner’s autonomy will be one of the laudable dispositions possessed fully by the learners only if the teachers view it as a habitual practice that should be continually rehearsed cultivated. (Borg et al., 2012) reported that there were three major obstructions for the teachers to promote learner’s autonomy namely rigid educational curriculum, learners’ demotivation in learning, and poor learners’ prior learning experiences in independent learning practices. In a similar vein, the teachers’ teaching styles will determine the successful implementation of learner’s autonomy. For instance, the teachers who commonly conduct gigantic lecturing in their teaching-learning praxis, will easily found demotivated learners who are attempting to exclude themselves from the ongoing teaching-learning processes. In stark contrast, the teachers who deliberately allow their learners to discover some specific phenomena autonomously will exhibit a higher degree of motivation, attentiveness, volition, and resilience in their learning since restrictive control behaviors towards the learners have been attenuated dramatically. Jelsma (1982) discovered that the learners would be more demotivated and inattentive in their learning when the teachers exerted more authoritative controls over the classroom circumstances (as cited in Egel, 2009). On the other hand, Deci et al., (1991) revealed that the learners had experienced a higher degree of enthusiasm in their learning when their teachers did not force them to follow every rigid step proposed at the onset of learning processes. 2. Social Constructivism In the old-period, teaching-learning processes were heavily dependent on teacher-centered where the teachers played their roles as knowledge transmitters for their learners. This outdated approach is not recently relevant in this modern age since the teachers have played their major roles as facilitators, encouragers, and attentive listeners for their learners. Therefore, the learners are required to construct their knowledge independently without relying extensively on their teachers. This dramatic shift of teaching-learning processes is emanating from the social constructivism approach proposed by (Vygotsky, 1978, as cited in Churcher et al., 2014) in which the learners should be able to discover a wide array of information autonomously. In a similar vein, he also believed that richer knowledge construction could be embedded successfully in the dynamic learning processes as long as the learners were undergoing meaningful interactions with other learning members to co-construct their attained knowledge. It can also be said that more meaning-making knowledge construction will be experienced fully by the learners when they are willing to negotiate some obtained information with their learning partners. The tangible merits which can be obtained from social constructivism are the learners will be able to develop their minds in learning due to the meaningful social and moral supports given by other learning members, improve their critical thinking along with communicative skills (see Beck & Kosnik, 2009). All of these three previous merits generated by social constructivism can merely be obtained through the utilization of scaffolding. In the scaffolding learning Wijaya, Kristian: The Impacts of Outcome-Based Education … 81 approach, meaningful learning supports should be donated fully by the teachers, learning peers, parents, and other school stakeholders to enable them to execute particular learning tasks exceeding their learning levels. However, this further utilization is a challenging matter for the teachers since the learning tasks should be created at moderate levels to promote learner’s autonomy and engagement for the learners. Meaning to say, feasible and laborious learning tasks should not be included while doing this kind of learning activity since the learners will experience a higher degree of boredom and frustrating learning processes. Gibbons (2001) states meaningful moral supports should be given appropriately and acceptably for the learners by providing them moderate learning tasks leading them to more advanced levels in their learning (as cited in Johnson, 2014). Due to the nature of social constructivism, it is worth restating here that social constructivism does not only benefit for constructing learners’ knowledge of certain specific subject matters but also help other learning companions to renew their paradigm continuously and promote higher learning confidence for the learners that they can create more meaning-making processes upon their knowledge discovery. To a particular extent, these other three major advantages of social constructivism were made in conjunction with the prior findings discovered by Schreiber & Valle, (2013). They discovered that social constructivism enables all learners to co-construct their obtained information impinges with the mutual social interactions that occurred in their learning discovery and enrich their knowledge towards particular discipline-specific fields. Therefore, these researchers also prompt the teachers to provide better learning guidance, instructions, and directions for the learners to be able to create more meaningful construction of new knowledge independently and envisage certain tangible phenomena that occurred in their daily lives by harnessing all well-constructed conceptions they have attained in their learning. In correspond with all of these aforementioned basic concepts. Some new lenses of implementing social constructivism successfully in various learning contexts by adopting five basic principles of social constructivism implementations proposed by (Hein, 1991 & Tam, 2000) namely heeding on learning processes endured by the learners, deeming the learners as proactive constructors of knowledge, establishing learning trajectories by providing useful guidance for the learners, not rigid instructions, engaging the learners to actively accomplish various challenging learning tasks, and incorporating learning assessments which are not judge learners’ existing proficiency. Rather modify and broaden their specific understanding of specific subject fields. C. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Aligned with the major objective of this study proposed in the previous section, the researcher applied the qualitative method to gather more reliable data regarding the impacts of outcome-based education for EFL learners’ autonomy in an introduction to education class. Bickman et al., (2014) assert that the purpose of qualitative research is to discover particular phenomena closely interlinked with some specific events undergone by people. To give a better response to the research problem formulated in this study, two research instruments were availed to gather more reliable data related to the major theme of this study namely observation sheet and classroom ELTIN Journal, Volume 8/No 2, October 2020 82 survey. In the first cycle of data gathering processes, the researcher reported some specific phenomena relevant to the implementation of outcome-based education in the introduction to education class. Specifically, the specific results of the observation were harnessed by the researchers to delineate the bigger pictures of outcome-based education. Classroom survey was also used to gather exact responses from English Education Students enrolling in an introduction to education class. Needless to say, the results of the classroom survey represented the successful implementation of outcome-based education in an introduction to education class. To a lesser extent, the researcher integrated narrative inquiry to discover some impacts yielded by outcome-based education for EFL learners’ autonomy in an introduction to education class. Clandinin (2006) argues that narrative inquiry will help the researchers to gain more in-depth life phenomena endured by human beings since all of the interpretations of the gathered data are contingent with some tangible stories recited by those related research participants. Due to the main advantage of this research method, the researchers would be able to attain the trustworthiness and authenticity regarding the collected data since all of the participants’ recalled experiences will be fully dependent on their real stories. D. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION To obtain richer and more reliable classroom data, the data collection was accomplished through weekly online report of introduction to education class to investigate whether outcome-based education had already been promoted successfully or not. Align well with this objectivity, this part will delineate three beneficial rewarding values implemented by the lecturer during conducting online-teaching processes for the students. Further discussions and explanations can be discerned as follow. 1. Strategic Learning Plan Ensured EFL Learners to Achieve the Tangible Outcomes in Their Learning The researcher had discovered that the lecturer teaching in introduction to education class prepared all of the learning materials well since he told his learners to watch one of the interesting videos about a Mathematics Japanese teacher, who taught his students with a great compassion, caring, and unique teaching method. Afterward, the students are required to write some critical responses on their essays based on the assigned video to ascertain that they have already obtained some paramount major big takeaways in their online learning. Another meaningful part of this learning is the lecturer did not assign learners to summarize and criticize the video based on their intuitions, yet he also provided his teacher-made essay to provide better learning assistance for the learners to hone their critical thinking skills and creativity in a better purpose. The main objective of this learning activity is to transform the learners to be more proficient, independent, critical, and creative academicians. Pertinent to this deep-rooted belief of holistic educational major purpose, it is also intriguing to correlate this conception with the theory of creativity and critical thinking surrounded second language learners by Kabilan (2000). He argued that both critical thinking and creativity enabled the learners to be more proficient academicians. Correspondingly, (Willingham, 2008) and Sarsani (2006) also delineate the Wijaya, Kristian: The Impacts of Outcome-Based Education … 83 importance of critical thinking and creativity in second language learning processes. The former one believed that critical thinking could lead the learners to the successful acquisition of higher - order thinking skills. While the second expert stated that since creativity had been pervasive in nature, it should be integrated contextually and relevantly pertaining to learners’ factual conditions. In conformance with the aforementioned depictions, the lecturer also gave clearer guidelines for the learners to write critical responses on their essays to rehearse their critical thinking and creativity continually. More complete example of the essay writing guideline can be seen as follow: A. How do you describe this exemplary teacher? B. Identify the strengths of his ways of teaching? C. What challenges do you think will take place if he teaches in an Indonesian school? Further, the lecturer also required learners to participate proactively, cooperatively, and critically on the D-day of the online class since they had to be able to generate critical discussions based on these guidelines: A. Description(s) of Imoto Haruhisa as an exemplary Math teacher. B. Inspiration(s) drawn from Imoto Haruhisa's ways of teaching. C. Inspiration(s) drawn from how his mother taught him to keep a high expectation to all people around him. D. Inspiration(s) drawn from how Imoto Haruhisa manages to keep a genuine relationship with his students E. Inspiration(s) drawn from Imoto Haruhisa's dedication to serving all students of any walks of life. Simply put, by conducting these kinds of unique teaching-learning processes, the learners are not only able to attain more purposeful and meaningful learning objectives through this course but also experience a higher degree of enjoyment and freedom in their learning processes. This tangible evidence of successfully grasped learning outcome is in accord with the theory of outcome-based education advocated by (Harden et al., 1999) and Harden (2007). This indicates that clearer and well-directed learning outcomes should be enacted more purposefully and scrupulously by the teachers in order to allow all learners to fully apply their obtained knowledge or designated competencies in real-life situations. These two positive rewarding values are grabbed fully by the learners since their way of thinking and perspectives had been highly appreciated by the lecturer and mutual engagement had been their habitual daily basis in their learning. Crucially, these dynamic learning strategies also allowed all learners to be more brave, confident, and critical while sharing their opinions, arguments, and thoughts in the critical essay responses. These above positive mentioned learning outcomes are very much in line with the theory of learning enjoyment evoked by Barrett (2005 as cited in Lucardie, 2014) who believes that enjoyment in learning can be experienced fully by all learners if those designed learning activities are challenging, liberating independent thinking, and accentuating on creativity. In a similar view, Preston & Hammond (2003) also state that the teachers have to be able to consider social factors, a wide array of implemented learning activities, and particular learning circumstances which can potentially create a higher degree of enjoyment in learning. With this result, it could be surmised that outcome-based education had been fully imparted in this class for the students have ELTIN Journal, Volume 8/No 2, October 2020 84 understood and conducted precise learning actions in line with the lecturer’ main objective of their learning through a greater learning ecstasy namely becoming more critical and autonomous academicians through self-critical reflection assumption. 2. Mutual Trust and Positive Rapports Were Resided Fully to Ensure All EFL Learners Had Obtained Their Learning Outcomes to be Implemented in Their Daily Basis It was evinced by the online learning data that the lecturer had successfully played his major role as a faithful learning companion, an attentive listener, a powerful instructor, and a judicious communicator in the presence of the learners since he always tried to listen to every critical response, sharing, and argument given by them amid a difficult learning situation they had endured; poor Wi-Fi connection. One of the online learning excerpts can be discerned as follow: [10:22 AM, 4/20/2020] The lecturer: I apologise, my Indihome is down [10:23 AM, 4/20/2020] The lecturer: I could not give you feedback on belajar [10:24 AM, 4/20/2020] The lecturer: Now, I'm inviting you to reflect on today's class. What have you learned from today's class? [10:25 AM, 4/20/2020] The lecturer: Did you find my little essay helpful for you? How did it help you? [10:28 AM, 4/20/2020] +62 852-2778-2345: It helps me to understand the big concept more of Imoto's teaching method, and the behind reason why he teaches like that [10:28 AM, 4/20/2020] Niko: It gives me an insight into how you dissect the pivotal points from the video. Is somewhat like a blueprint for me to expands my notions about his methods of teaching In conformance with this excerpt, it can be concluded that the outcome-based education had been successfully implemented in this online teaching-learning process since the lecturer asked continuously whether his teacher-made essay enabled all learners to depict their profound understanding in the form of critical essay writings. This evidence is tightly interwoven with the theory of constructivism proposed by Bada & Olusegun (2015) who assert that the teachers need to design a positive learning circumstance for the students to work collaboratively with other learning companions to overcome a wide variety of issues truly occurred in their learning dynamics. As have been stated previously, outcome-based education is not merely intended to promulgate more enjoyable and efficient learning dynamics for learners but also enable them to co-create particular learning environments work best for their knowledge attainment processes. This paradigm is closely interlinked with the seminal theory of constructivism advanced by Tam (2000), who argues that active learning vicinities and hands-on learning experiences need to be integrated continuously to enable all learners to grasp the knowledge more meaningfully. Thus, the learners need to be more proactive knowledge seekers in constructivist learning since the transmission of Wijaya, Kristian: The Impacts of Outcome-Based Education … 85 a wide array of information is not merely imparted by the teachers but also constructed neatly by learners. (Honebein, 1996) argues that the learners should denote the ownership status in constructivist learning since the actual interpretations of discovered knowledge rely predominantly on proactive, mutual, and creative ventures. To elucidate another precious advantage of outcome-based education in light of constructivism, the researcher also sanctioned that most of the learners engaging in this class had ingrained a higher degree of motivation, inspiration, and persistence to imitate one of the exemplary Mathematics Japanese teachers after watching the video. Caine and Caine (2006) state that conducive learning atmosphere will deliberate learners’ thinking, aspiration, and perspectives since they deem the current learning circumstance as a safe rather than debilitating site to learn. More importantly, some of the students also argued that an interesting learning model implemented by this teacher will promote significant impacts on Indonesian educational systems. While some of them are strongly agreed that becoming a teacher does not merely ask the learners to accomplish abundant learning tasks. Rather, becoming their faithful learning counterparts for them whenever they confront with various learning impediments. This finding is evinced by the theory of constructivism demonstrated by Honebein (op.cit.), who strongly suggests that the teachers need to be qualified learning facilitators in the presence of their learners by promoting dialogic and open-ended interactions where they are able to construct their knowledge actively. The conceptions and theories are in relevance with this excerpt: [10:47 AM, 4/20/2020] +62 857-2703-6782: I learnt that become a teacher isn't an easy job. They need the appropriate method of teaching and also good attitude to make their students comfortable and can get the main knowledge. [10:51 AM, 4/20/2020] +62 895-3791-91451: From today’s class I can learn how to be an inspiring teacher whose learning systems rely more on brain function and thinking skill than just stick into one formula. It makes students develop better. Also by the approach with the students, which makes the classroom atmosphere more enjoyable but still comprehensive. [11:02 AM, 4/20/2020] +62 896-7487-9997: From today’s class I can learn about Imoto Haruhisa teaching skills. He is an inspirational person. he makes me want to be a great teacher in the future and can understand my students well. [11:06 AM, 4/20/2020] +62 898-5312-820: From today's class, I can understand the method used by Imoto to teach. I can also understand how to make students interested in the learning we provide, one of them by using an approach with them. When we can approach students, then learning will feel fun and it can improve student learning. Imoto inspired me to become a teacher like him that was liked by his students. [11:10 AM, 4/20/2020] The lecturer: Amazing notes. I feel how lucky I am to have you all in my class. ELTIN Journal, Volume 8/No 2, October 2020 86 3. Profound Reflective Teaching Practices Conducted by the Lecturer Yielded the Betterment for Future Learning Dynamics In light of the aforementioned complexities of outcome-based education, the researcher also attempted to report that the lecturer had been truly mindful, critical, and progressive for all EFL learners’ learning progresses in the introduction to education class since he had written three exhaustive reflections on his teaching-learning practices. The first one was he inferred that all learners had been successfully stimulated both in cognitive and affective aspects after watching the shared video about teaching. Cognitively, the learners had seized the targeted learning outcomes successfully by generating highly critical essays and discussions in their online classes. While in an affective aspect, the learners had mutually cooperated well with the lecturer and other learning counterparts by promulgating a wide array of information that had already been stored in their mindset after accomplishing their video responses assignment. Honebein (op.cit.) recites that in constructivist learning, the learners have to be able to negotiate their distinctive perspectives mutually and cooperatively together with other learning community members in order to navigate the knowledge contrivance in a more purposeful manner. Taken together, this evidence has a tight- knit relationship with the data presented below: The lecturer: It is apparent from their vivid responses that students were stimulated both cognitively and affectively. Learning in this mode, by responding to the video, stimulated by the teacher-made essay, was proven to be highly effective and efficient. As evidenced by the data, another rewarding learning value was also deemed and admired by the lecturer since almost all of the learners had successfully shown greater learning performances and exceeded the lecturer’s expectations on their learning progresses. Most importantly, some developed learners also gave significant contributions to this learning mode for they did not feel hesitant to have intense discussions with their learning peers and lecturer. This positive learning outcome is resonated very well with the nature of constructivist learning advised by Harasim & Harasim (2018) who state that mutual social interactions embedded in knowledge inquisitions enable all learners to achieve higher learning success rather than those delving the information individually. In concord with this positive learning trajectory promoted by outcome-based education in the light of constructivism, it can be concluded that outcome-based education and constructivism do not only promote more meaningful learning processes for the learners but also allow them to engage more cooperatively and mutually with other learning members. This further finding is harmonized well with this excerpt: The lecturer: A closer look at the individual’s responses and questions allows me to see the degree of participation on the part of my students. I was amazed by the fact that the students were mostly committed to learning. Many students performed very well, above my expectations. Even, underperforming students seem to get stimulated to engage more after seeing how their well- performing colleagues published their responses in the Forum Discussion. Transformative learning truly happened in this type of new learning since the lecturer confessed that most of the learners had expressively and proactively generated higher critical responses on their learning peers’ responses regarding the video. Further, the lecturer also acknowledged that this positive learning engagement rarely happened in face-to-face classes since the learners always Wijaya, Kristian: The Impacts of Outcome-Based Education … 87 meticulously follow all of the thoughts, ideas, and opinions shared by the lecturer accordingly. Dirkx et al., (2006) in their work on the role of transformative learning in adult learners have strongly advocated that collaborative knowledge enterprise will promote three notable gains for learners’ further cognitive and affective development namely creating more meaningful discovery based on tangible experiences, extending more positive rapports with others, and getting to know oneself more exhaustively. Regarding all of these advantages, it is worth pointing out that outcome-based education in the view of transformative learning does not merely aim to have all learners to generate more useful knowledge for other learning members. On the one hand, it also enables all learners to be more autonomous in their learning and cooperative to seek the truth together with other learning counterparts. Due to this positive learning trajectory generated by outcome-based education and transformative learning, the lecturer bolstered the utilization of technology in this 21st-century teaching-learning process since a higher degree of enjoyment, democratization, and engagement had already been inculcated fully in all EFL learners engaging in the introduction to education class. This increasing demand on the utilization of technology in second language learning is closely aligned with one of the benefits generated by it as proposed by Riasati et al., (2012) in their study of benefits and drawbacks that technology can promote in language learning. They believed that technology can infuse learners with a higher degree of excitement steering them to inculc ate more robust motivation and mutual engagement in accomplishing various language learning tasks. Before proceeding to the last chapter of this paper, the researcher quoted one of the excerpts written by the lecturer in his in-depth critical reflection on outcome-based education implementations. The excerpt can be discerned as follow: The lecturer: Down the line, “this thinking through their fingers strategy” certainly allows more room for personal engagement and metacognitive thinking to happen. By the end of the class, students reflected on the learning for 90 minutes. To my surprise, many students were so eloquently expressive in their reflections. They wouldn’t have done so vividly in real class where all students gather in the same room. This technology has allowed some kind of democratization for many. So promising, indeed. E. CONCLUSION All in all, within the scope of this paper, the researcher will of necessity elect to iteratively reiterate some essential learning values generated by outcome-based education in the introduction to education class namely promoting a higher degree of learning enjoyment, engaging all learners to independently and cooperatively rejuvenate their way of thinking through meaningful discussions, and enabling the lecturer to gain more awareness to continuously reflect on specific episodes of particular teaching-learning dynamics that have already been conducted in some learning circumstances. Furthermore, this present study could also enable future researchers to conduct more expansion to the body of knowledge that examines outcome-based education implementations in Indonesian EFL learning contexts. Therefore, it is worthwhile to be suggested for the future researchers to delve more profoundly about the implementations of outcome-based education on some EFL teacher-course experiences like micro-teaching, school management, ELTIN Journal, Volume 8/No 2, October 2020 88 field-teaching practicum, and learning program design to ensure all EFL teacher candidates have already constructed clearer understanding of becoming more professional and compassionate educators for their future learners through more independent, enjoyable, and transformative learning practices in which all learners successfully experience significant learning growth. F. REFERENCES Bada, S. O., & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70. Balçıkanlı, C. (2010). Learner autonomy in language learning: Student teachers’ beliefs. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 35(1), 8. Barfield, C. E. (2001). Free Trade, Sovereignty, Democracy: Future of the World Trade Organization. Chi. J. Int'l L., 2, 403. Borg, S., & Al-Busaidi, S. (2012). Learner autonomy: English language teachers’ beliefs and practices. ELT journal, 12(7), 1-45. Boyle, M. A., & Crosby, R. (1997). At Issue-Academic Program Evaluation: Lessons from Business and Industry. Caine, G., & Caine, R. N. (2006). Meaningful learning and the executive functions of the brain. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 110, 53-61. Caine, G., & Caine, R. N. (2006). Meaningful learning and the executive functions of the brain. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 110, 53-61. Camilleri, G. (1999). Introducing learner autonomy in teacher education. Council of Europe. Churcher, K. (2014). " Friending" Vygotsky: A Social Constructivist Pedagogy of Knowledge Building through Classroom Social Media Use. Journal of Effective Teaching, 14(1), 33-50. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (2006). Narrative inquiry. Handbook of complementary methods in education research, 3, 477-487. Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational psychologist, 26(3-4), 325-346. Dinglasan, B. L., & Patena, A. (2013). Students Performance on Departmental Examination: Basis for Math Intervention Program. University of Alberta School of Business Research Paper, (2013-1308). Dirkx, J. M., Mezirow, J., & Cranton, P. (2006). Musings and reflections on the meaning, context, and process of transformative learning: A dialogue between John M. Dirkx and Jack Mezirow. Journal of transformative education, 4(2), 123-139. Egel, I. P. (2009). Learner autonomy in the language classroom: From teacher dependency to learner independency. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 2023-2026. Fiani, A. (2012). The Effectiveness of Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (Circ) For Teaching Writing Viewed From Students’ Creativity (The Experimental Study at the Fourth Semester of STAIN Bengkulu in the Academic Year of 2010/2011). Harasim, L., & Harasim, L. (2018). Constructivist Learning Theory. Learning Theory and Online Technologies. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315716831-5. Harden, JR Crosby, MH Davis, M. Friedman, R. M. (1999). AMEE Guide No. 14: Outcome-based education: Part 5-From competency to meta-competency: a model for the specification of learning outcomes. Medical teacher, 21(6), 546-552. Harden, R. M. (1986). Ten questions to ask when planning a course or curriculum. Medical education, 20(4), 356-365. Wijaya, Kristian: The Impacts of Outcome-Based Education … 89 Harden, R. M. (2007). Outcome-based education: the future is today. Medical teacher, 29(7), 625- 629. Hein, G. (1991). Constructivist learning theory. Institute for Inquiry. Available at:/http://www. exploratorium. edu/ifi/resources/constructivistlearning. htmlS. Hidayati, L. A., Kharisma, I., & Satriani, I. (2018). Students’ Perception in Applying Cooperative Learning in EFL Classroom. ETERNAL (English, Teaching, Learning, and Research Journal), 4(1), 16-30. Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. Constructivist learning environments: Case studies in instructional design, 11- 24. Kabilan, M. K. (2000). Creative and critical thinking in language classrooms. The Internet TESL Journal, 6(6), 1-3. Kelling, S. T., Beloin, R. M., Fitzpatrick, J. W., Gill, F. B., Slothower, R. L., & Fredericks, T. A. (2004). U.S. Patent No. 6,772,142. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Kosnik, C., & Beck, C. (2009). Priorities in teacher education: The 7 key elements of pre-service preparation. Routledge. Lucardie, D. (2014). The impact of fun and enjoyment on adult's learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 142, 439-446. Malcolm, C. (1999). Outcomes-based education has different forms. Changing Curriculum: Studies on Outcome-Based Education in South Africa, 77-113. Maxwell, J. A. (2008). Designing a qualitative study. The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods, 2, 214-253. Poetra, E. P., Gustiana, D. S., & Santoso, I. (2019). Improving The Students’ Writing Narrative Text by Applying Cooperative Learning Type Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD). PROJECT (Professional Journal of English Education), 2(4), 588-593. Preston, J., & Hammond, C. (2003). Practitioner views on the wider benefits of further education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(2), 211-222. Rao, Z. (2006). Helping Chinese EFL students develop learner autonomy through portfolios. Reflections on English Language Teaching, 5(2), 113-122. Riasati, M. J., Allahyar, N., & Tan, K. E. (2012). Technology in language education: Benefits and barriers. Journal of education and practice, 3(5), 25-30. Sarsani, M. R. (2006). Quality improvement in teacher education. Sarup & Sons. Satriani, I. (2019). Storytelling in Teaching Literacy: Benefits and Challenges. English Review: Journal of English Education, 8(1), 113-120. Schalock, R. L. (2001). Outcome-based evaluation. Springer Science & Business Media. Schreiber, L. M., & Valle, B. E. (2013). Social constructivist teaching strategies in the small group classroom. Small Group Research, 44(4), 395-411. Simbolon, D. R. S., Haryudin, A., & Efransyah, E. (2019). Improving Students’ Speaking Skill Through Project Based Learning. PROJECT (Professional Journal of English Education), 2(2), 241-246. Smith, R., & Erdogan, S. (2008). Teacher-learner autonomy: Programme goals and student-teacher constructs. Learner and teacher autonomy: concepts, realities, and responses, 83-102. Spady, W. (1993). Outcome-based education. Australian Curriculum Studies Association. Spady, W. G. (1994). Outcome-Based Education: Critical Issues and Answers. American Association of School Administrators, 1801 North Moore Street, Arlington, VA 22209 (Stock No. 21-00488; $18.95 plus postage). ELTIN Journal, Volume 8/No 2, October 2020 90 Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). The CIPP model for evaluation. In International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 31-62). Springer, Dordrecht. Syatroh, I. L., & Husnussalam, H. (2017). Promoting Learning Autonomy Through Self-Access Center Activities. Jurnal Ilmiah P2M STKIP Siliwangi, 4(1), 8-15. Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for transforming distance learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 50-60. Vera, B., & Satriani, I. (2019). The Use of Cooperative Learning and Discovery Learning in Teaching Writing Descriptive Text. Journal of English Language Learning, 3(2). Wang, L. (2011). Adaptation of outcome-based learning in an undergraduate English education programme. Willingham, D. T. (2008). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? Arts Education Policy Review, 109(4), 21-32. Yang, L., & Wilson, K. (2006). Second language classroom reading: A social constructivist approach. The reading matrix, 6(3).