





































  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

144 
 

ENGLISH LECTURERS’ PERCEPTIONS ON THE 
TRANSITION TO OUTCOME-BASED EDUCATION IN 

INDONESIA: CHALLENGES AND ADAPTATION 
 

Rizky Eka Prasetya1*, Fenti Sofiani2 
1,2Universitas Budi Luhur, Indonesia 

 
rizky.ekaprasetya@budiluhur.ac.id  

 

ABSTRACT 

This study explores English lecturers’ perceptions of Outcome-Based Education (OBE), the 
challenges they face in its implementation, and the strategies they adopt to adapt their 
teaching practices. To investigate this issue, the study employed a mixed-methods approach, 
combining quantitative survey data from 78 English lecturers with qualitative insights from 
15 semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis of interviews provided in-depth 
perspectives on faculty struggles, adaptation mechanisms, and the role of institutional 
support. Findings indicate that while some lecturers appreciate the clarity and structure OBE 
brings to curriculum design, many report increased workloads, reduced teaching flexibility, 
and difficulties in applying rigid assessment rubrics to evaluate complex skills like critical 
thinking and literary analysis. However, lecturers who received targeted training and 
institutional backing expressed greater ease in aligning their teaching with OBE 
requirements. The study concludes that successful implementation of OBE in English studies 
depends on flexible assessment practices, discipline-sensitive training, and institutional 
policies that respect pedagogical autonomy while promoting outcome alignment. This 
research adds to existing studies on OBE by focusing on the perspectives of English lecturers, 
who are often overlooked in OBE discussions. It highlights the mismatch between 
standardized education reforms and the interpretive nature of English teaching. The findings 
suggest that policymakers and curriculum designers should avoid a one-size-fits-all 
approach and instead create OBE models that suit the needs of different disciplines 

Keywords: Assessment Practices; English Studies; Higher Education; Lecturer Perceptions; Mixed-
Methods Research; Outcome-Based Education 

 

INTRODUCTION 

Outcome-Based Education (OBE) has been increasingly adopted in Indonesian higher 

education to align teaching and learning with global accreditation standards and measurable 
competencies (Asbari & Nurhayati, 2024; Josephine & Joseph, 2023). While OBE works 

effectively in technical fields, its implementation in English language teaching presents 

significant challenges. English instruction often relies on interpretative reasoning, creative 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
mailto:rizky.ekaprasetya@budiluhur.ac.id


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

145 
 

expression, and student-centered discourse, which are not easily captured in OBE’s 

standardized and quantifiable learning outcomes (Karwowski & Zhang, 2021; Hall, 2017). 

OBE’s primary advantage is that it ensures clarity and accountability in education. In 

professional and applied disciplines such as engineering, medicine, and business, students 

must acquire specific, predefined competencies to function effectively in their fields (Qadir 

et al. (2020)). While OBE has been widely embraced in technical disciplines, its application 

in humanities disciplines, particularly English studies, Carnell & Fung (2017) explicated that 

raises concerns regarding assessment validity, pedagogical flexibility, and disciplinary 

identity. Unlike STEM fields, where skills are often concrete and measurable, English studies 

emphasize abstract reasoning, interpretative thinking, creative expression, and rhetorical 

analysis, which are not easily quantified (Latif et al. (2024)). 

One of the key challenges in adapting OBE to English studies is that knowledge 

construction in the humanities is often subjective, evolving, and context-dependent. Hall 

(2017) argued that English education does not rely on definitive answers or standardized 

procedures, but rather on critical engagement, discussion, and exploration of multiple 

perspectives. Thornhill-Miller et al. (2023) added that OBE’s reliance on quantifiable 

assessment criteria presents challenges in evaluating subjective and creative competencies. 

In technical disciplines, performance-based assessment is often clear-cut—a student either 

successfully designs a circuit or does not, either diagnoses a patient correctly or incorrectly. 

However, in English studies, Donnelly (2024) identified that assessment is highly context-

dependent and iterative, making it difficult to fit into rigid outcome-based frameworks, 

particularly in disciplines such as English studies, where subjective and interpretive skills 

are central. 

The implementation of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) in English language teaching 
presents unique challenges, particularly for lecturers accustomed to process-oriented, 

exploratory, and interpretative pedagogies ( Chan et al. (2011); Prøitz (2014)). Saint (2021) 

underlined that traditional English teaching methods emphasize critical thinking, creativity, 

and open-ended discourse, which contrast with OBE’s structured assessment models, 

predefined learning outcomes, and competency-based evaluation frameworks. The 

transition to OBE requires curriculum redesign, modifications in assessment strategies, and 

a fundamental shift in pedagogical approaches, yet institutional mandates for OBE adoption 

do not always align with faculty perspectives, leading to resistance, confusion, and 

pedagogical dilemmas (Martins & Baptista Nunes. 2016); De Voto et al.  2021)). A primary 

challenge in OBE implementation within English studies is the inherent misalignment 

between structured competency-based learning and the fluid nature of literary analysis, 

composition, and discourse studies. Unlike disciplines such as engineering or medicine, 
where learning outcomes are tied to concrete technical competencies, Barua et al. (2023) 

corroborated that English studies often involve interpretative, subjective, and evolving 

understandings of texts, rhetoric, and linguistic structures. The rigid structure of OBE, which 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

146 
 

demands clearly measurable learning outcomes, does not easily accommodate the nuanced 

and iterative learning processes that define English education (Marcus et al. 2024). 

OBE does not necessarily inhibit creativity but rather demands a more structured 

approach to fostering it. Thimmaraju (2024) argued that well-designed competency-based 

frameworks can still accommodate open-ended and creative learning by emphasizing skills 

such as critical reasoning, textual analysis, and argumentation in a measurable way. Ludvik 

(2023) revealed that several institutions have successfully integrated OBE with process-

based writing instruction, using portfolio assessments, peer evaluations, and performance-

based rubrics to balance standardization with intellectual flexibility. However, such 

adaptations require faculty training and institutional support, which many lecturers feel is 

lacking in OBE implementation (Damit et al. (2021). The transition to OBE in English 

education is often driven by institutional mandates for accreditation and quality assurance, 

rather than a bottom-up, faculty-driven pedagogical reform. As a result, Yen et al. (2024) 

expressed that many lecturers perceive OBE as an externally imposed framework that does 

not fully consider the disciplinary nuances of English studies. Faculty resistance is not merely 

a reaction to change but often a response to the administrative and bureaucratic burdens 

associated with OBE implementation. Mufanti et al. (2024) determined that resistance to 

OBE is not unique to English studies but is a common challenge in many disciplines adapting 

to outcome-based learning. Studies on OBE in STEM, social sciences, and education fields 

reveal similar faculty concerns about workload, assessment constraints, and rigid curricular 

structures (Katawazai; Bwembya; Aithal). However, Kim et al. (2018) emphasized that STEM 

disciplines often align more naturally with OBE’s competency-based approach, whereas 

English studies, with its interpretative and evolving nature, faces greater difficulties in fitting 

into rigid assessment models. 
Despite the widespread adoption of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) across various 

disciplines, there remains a significant lack of research on how OBE aligns with the 

pedagogical and epistemological foundations of English studies. Existing literature primarily 

explores OBE implementation in technical, scientific, and professional fields—such as 

engineering, medicine, and business—where learning outcomes can be clearly defined, 

measured, and standardized (Syeed et al. 2022); Khan et al. 2023); Asim et al. 2021). In these 

fields, competency-based assessment models align well with disciplinary needs because 

learning objectives typically involve tangible, observable skills, such as engineering 

problem-solving, medical diagnostics, and financial analysis. However, when applied to 

humanities disciplines—particularly English studies—OBE presents a set of distinct 

challenges (Limna (2023). English education is fundamentally different from STEM and 

professional disciplines, as it relies on interpretative reasoning, creativity, discourse 
analysis, and subjective meaning-making (Razavi. 2021); Figueiredo. 2023). These 

epistemological differences pose unique challenges when aligning English language teaching 

with OBE’s structured framework, yet current scholarship has not sufficiently examined how 

English lecturers perceive, adapt to, or resist this transition. As such, there is a clear research 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

147 
 

gap in understanding the practical and philosophical tensions between OBE mandates and 

the instructional realities of English educators. This study addresses that gap by exploring 

how English lecturers in Indonesian universities experience and respond to OBE 

implementation, offering insights into the discipline-specific adaptations and institutional 

supports necessary for successful integration. Current research fails to adequately address 

how OBE’s structured learning frameworks accommodate the open-ended nature of English 

studies. This gap raises critical questions: 

1. What are English lecturers’ perceptions of the transition to Outcome-Based 
Education? 

2. What challenges do lecturers encounter in implementing OBE in English courses? 
3. How do lecturers adapt their teaching strategies to align with OBE requirements? 

METHODS 

Research Design 

This study employs a mixed-methods research design, specifically an explanatory 
sequential design, to investigate English lecturers’ experiences with Outcome-Based 
Education (OBE). The explanatory sequential design follows a two-phase structure, in which 
quantitative data is collected and analyzed first, followed by qualitative data collection and 
analysis the approach provided a comprehensive understanding of English lecturers’ 
experiences with Outcome-Based Education (OBE), capturing both statistical trends and in-
depth personal perspectives. The quantitative component offers generalizable findings on 
lecturers’ perceptions, challenges, and adaptation strategies, while the qualitative 
component provides rich narrative data that explores context-specific experiences, 
concerns, and strategies for implementing OBE. 

Participants 

Participants included 78 English lecturers from universities implementing OBE in their 
curricula. They were selected using purposive sampling to ensure diverse representation 
across different institutions, years of teaching experience, and subfields (literature, 
linguistics, and English language teaching). 

Table 1. Demographic Profile of Participants (N = 78) 

Category Indicators Number (N=78) Perc. (%) 

Institution Type Public Universities 35 44.9% 
Private Universities 43 55.1% 

Specialization Literature 28 35.9% 
Linguistics 22 28.2% 
English Language Teaching (ELT) 28 35.9% 

Years of Teaching 
Experience 

1–10 years 20 25.6% 
3–15 years 24 30.8% 
5–20 years 18 23.1% 
6–25 years 16 20.5% 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

148 
 

Data Collection 

This study employed a two-phase mixed-methods approach, integrating quantitative 
surveys with qualitative semi-structured interviews to gain a comprehensive understanding 
of English lecturers' experiences with Outcome-Based Education (OBE). Data collection was 
conducted over approximately three months, from January to March 2024, covering both 
survey distribution and follow-up interviews. In the first phase, a structured online survey 
was distributed to lecturers across various institutions, collecting data on demographics, 
perceptions of OBE, challenges, adaptation strategies, and institutional support. The 
questionnaire included Likert-scale items for measurable analysis and open-ended 
questions for additional insights. The survey was administered via Google Forms, with a pilot 
test ensuring clarity and reliability. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, 
Pearson’s correlation, ANOVA, and cluster analysis to identify key patterns in lecturers' 
responses. In the second phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 
purposively selected lecturers, ensuring diversity in institutional type, experience, 
specialization, and OBE perspectives. The interviews explored in-depth experiences, 
assessment challenges, and adaptation strategies, providing qualitative insights to 
complement the survey findings. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed 
using thematic analysis with NVivo software, identifying recurring themes related to 
workload concerns, assessment limitations, and institutional support gaps. Ethical 
considerations, including informed consent, confidentiality, and voluntary participation, 

Gender Distribution Male 34 43.6% 
Female 42x 53.8% 
Prefer Not to Say 2 2.6% 

Academic Rank/Position Lecturer (Tenaga Pengajar) 25 32.1% 
Assistant Professor (Asisten Ahli) 21 26.9% 
Assistant Professor (Lektor) 18 23.1% 
Associate Professor (Lektor 
Kepala) 

14 17.9% 

OBE Training and 
Familiarity 

No formal training 16 20.5% 
Attended institutional OBE 
workshops 

42 53.8% 

Certified OBE instructor 20 25.6% 
Courses Taught Under 
OBE Framework 

Literature courses (e.g., Literary 
Theory, Poetry Analysis, Syntax, 
Phonetics) 

28 35.9% 

English Language Teaching (e.g., 
TESOL, Second Language 
Acquisition) 

30 38.5% 

Multidisciplinary/ Integrated 
Courses 

20 25.6% 

Institutional OBE 
Implementation Status 

Fully implemented OBE 16 20.5% 
Partially implemented OBE 32 41.0% 
Recently transitioned to OBE 30 38.5% 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

149 
 

were strictly followed. This sequential mixed-methods design allowed for a holistic 
investigation, where quantitative trends guided qualitative inquiry, strengthening the 
validity of findings and offering actionable recommendations for improving OBE 
implementation in English education. 

Data Analysis 

The data analysis process involved both quantitative and qualitative methods to ensure 
a comprehensive interpretation of English lecturers’ experiences with Outcome-Based 
Education (OBE). Quantitative data collected through the structured survey were analyzed 
using descriptive statistics, including mean scores, standard deviations, and frequency 
distributions, to summarize lecturers' perceptions, challenges, and adaptation strategies. 
Additionally, Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted to examine relationships 
between variables such as workload burden, assessment difficulties, and institutional 
support, while one-way ANOVA was used to compare perceptions of OBE across different 
institution types. Furthermore, cluster analysis categorized lecturers into distinct groups 
based on their level of adaptation to OBE, such as resistant, moderately adapting, or 
supportive, providing deeper insights into variations in faculty experiences. For the 
qualitative data, responses from semi-structured interviews were analyzed using thematic 
analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) to identify key themes, recurring concerns, and adaptation 
strategies. Interviews were transcribed and coded using NVivo software, allowing for the 
systematic identification of patterns in lecturers' perspectives on OBE implementation. 
Thematic categories included assessment challenges, loss of pedagogical flexibility, 
workload concerns, and creative constraints, alongside adaptation strategies such as 
alternative assessment models, student-centered learning approaches, and institutional 
policy recommendations. To enhance validity and reliability, findings from both datasets 
were triangulated, ensuring that quantitative trends were supported by qualitative insights. 
This mixed-methods analytical approach provided a holistic understanding of how English 
lecturers navigate the transition to OBE, facilitating evidence-based recommendations for 
improving its implementation in English education. 

RESULTS 

Research Question What are English lecturers’ perceptions of the transition to Outcome-
Based Education? 

This table presents the frequency distribution (percentage of responses) for each 

Likert-scale question, as well as the mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) to assess overall 

sentiment. 
  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

150 
 

Table 2. Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Statistics of English Lecturers’ Perceptions of OBE 

Transition 

Survey Item Strongly 

Disagree (1) 

Disagree 

(2) 

Neutral 

(3) 

Agree 

(4) 

Strongly 

Agree (5) 

M SD 

I understand the 

principles of OBE. 

4% (2) 8% (4) 16% (8) 50% 

(25) 

22% (11) 3.8 0.85 

My institution provided 

adequate training for 

OBE. 

22% (11) 28% (14) 14% (7) 26% 

(13) 

10% (5) 2.8 1.02 

OBE improves student 

learning outcomes in 

English courses. 

10% (5) 16% (8) 20% 

(10) 

40% 

(20) 

14% (7) 3.4 0.91 

The transition to OBE 

significantly increased 

my workload. 

4% (2) 6% (3) 6% (3) 46% 

(23) 

38% (19) 4.1 0.77 

OBE’s structured 

approach limits 

creativity in English 

teaching. 

8% (4) 10% (5) 6% (3) 48% 

(24) 

28% (14) 3.8 0.89 

I feel confident in 

aligning my teaching 

with OBE requirements. 

14% (7) 22% (11) 16% (8) 34% 

(17) 

14% (7) 3.1 0.94 

The assessment criteria 

in OBE are suitable for 

English courses. 

18% (9) 24% (12) 16% (8) 30% 

(15) 

12% (6) 3.0 0.98 

The results presented in Table 2—and visually reinforced in Figure 1—reveal a 

complex and often ambivalent perception of OBE among English lecturers. A clear majority 

report understanding the core principles of Outcome-Based Education (M = 3.8, SD = 0.85), 
as indicated by the dominance of “Agree” and “Strongly Agree” responses at the bottom of 

the chart. However, this foundational knowledge does not necessarily translate into 

readiness or institutional support. As shown in both the table and Figure 1, responses to the 

item on adequate OBE training are widely distributed, with over 50% either disagreeing or 

remaining neutral (M = 2.8, SD = 1.02), highlighting a notable shortfall in faculty preparation 

and development programs. 

  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

151 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Stacked Bar Chart Representing the Frequency Distribution and Descriptive Statistics of 
English Lecturers’ Perceptions of OBE Transition 

 

Although more than half of the respondents believe OBE can improve student learning 

outcomes (M = 3.4), the visual distribution of responses shows a significant portion of the 

faculty still expressing skepticism or uncertainty, pointing to epistemological tensions 

between OBE’s structured, outcome-driven models and the interpretive nature of English 

studies. Notably, OBE is perceived as a workload intensifier, with over 80% of lecturers 

agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement—this is visibly the most positively skewed 
item in Figure 1 (M = 4.1, SD = 0.77). Similarly, creativity constraints emerge as a key 

concern; 76% of lecturers perceive OBE as limiting pedagogical creativity (M = 3.8), reflected 

in the strong visual clustering toward agreement in the bar chart. 

Lecturers also expressed low confidence in aligning their teaching with OBE 

frameworks (M = 3.1), and uncertainty regarding the appropriateness of assessment criteria 

for English courses (M = 3.0). These patterns, both in numeric and visual form, underscore a 

larger issue: the incongruence between standardized learning frameworks and the 

pedagogical flexibility central to English education. Together, these findings suggest that the 

successful implementation of OBE requires more than theoretical understanding. It demands 

ongoing, discipline-specific professional development, flexible assessment designs that can 

accommodate subjective and creative learning, and administrative policies that reduce 

bureaucratic burden and promote academic autonomy. Without such support, the shift to 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

152 
 

OBE risks undermining the very pedagogical principles that underpin effective English 

instruction. 

Table 3. One-Way ANOVA Results – Perceptions of OBE Across Different Institutional Types 

Survey Item Institution Type Mean (M) SD F-value p-value 

Understanding of OBE principles Public University 3.9 0.78 3.21 0.045*  
Private University 3.6 0.82 

  

Adequacy of OBE Training Public University 3.1 0.92 4.85 0.012*  
Private University 2.5 1.04 

  

OBE improves student learning 

outcomes 

Public University 3.5 0.89 2.76 0.069 

 
Private University 3.3 0.95 

  

Workload increase due to OBE Public University 4.3 0.75 5.12 0.009**  
Private University 4.0 0.81 

  

OBE limits creativity in teaching Public University 3.7 0.88 3.69 0.031*  
Private University 4.0 0.79 

  

Confidence in implementing OBE Public University 3.3 0.94 2.91 0.059  
Private University 3.0 0.97 

  

Suitability of OBE assessments in 

English courses 

Public University 3.2 0.92 4.04 0.022* 

 
Private University 2.7 1.01 

  

The ANOVA results presented in Table 3 indicate statistically significant differences in 

English lecturers’ experiences with Outcome-Based Education (OBE) based on institutional 

affiliation, particularly between public and private universities. Public university lecturers 

reported a significantly higher understanding of OBE principles (M = 3.9) compared to their 

private counterparts (M = 3.6, p = 0.045), suggesting that public institutions may offer more 

consistent exposure to OBE frameworks, potentially through centralized government-led 

training or top-down policy alignment. Training adequacy also varied significantly across 

institutions (p = 0.012), with lecturers at public universities expressing greater satisfaction 

(M = 3.1) than those at private institutions (M = 2.5), revealing a critical training gap that 

may affect implementation quality in non-state settings. Interestingly, although all 

participants reported increased workloads due to OBE, public university lecturers 

experienced significantly higher burdens (M = 4.3 vs. M = 4.0; p = 0.009), possibly reflecting 
the administrative complexity and class size differences typical of public institutions. 

Conversely, lecturers in private universities reported greater restrictions on pedagogical 

creativity (M = 4.0) compared to public institutions (M = 3.7; p = 0.031), indicating that 

private institutions might adopt more rigid accountability measures under OBE. A significant 

gap was also observed in perceptions of assessment alignment, with public university 

lecturers (M = 3.2) finding OBE assessment models more suitable for English courses than 

those from private universities (M = 2.7; p = 0.022), possibly due to more adaptive 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

153 
 

assessment tools in public systems. Although two items did not reach statistical significance, 

they yielded useful trends. Public university lecturers perceived OBE as slightly more 

effective for student learning (M = 3.5 vs. M = 3.3; p = 0.069) and showed marginally greater 

confidence in implementing it (M = 3.3 vs. M = 3.0; p = 0.059). While these differences were 

not statistically significant, they suggest that institutional type may influence not only 

structural support but also lecturer readiness and perception, meriting further investigation 

The challenges that lecturers encounter in implementing OBE in English courses 

Table 4. Pearson’s Correlation (r) Between Challenges in Implementing OBE 

  Increased 
workload 

due to 
OBE 

Loss of 
flexibility 
in course 

design 

Assessment 
criteria are 
unsuitable 
for English 

courses 

Struggle 
to align 

OBE 
outcomes 

with 
English 
studies 

Creativity 
constraints 

due to 
measurable 
outcomes 

Increased 
workload due to 
OBE 

Pearson 
Correlation  

1 0.48 0.52 0.43 0.39 

Sig. (2-tailed) - 0.001** <0.001** 0.004** 0.009** 
n 78 78 78 78 78 

Loss of 
flexibility in 
course design 

Pearson 
Correlation  

0.48 1 0.57 0.46 0.49 

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.001** - <0.001** 0.002** 0.001** 
n 78 78 78 78 78 

Assessment 
criteria are 
unsuitable for 
English courses  

Pearson 
Correlation  

0.52 0.57 1 0.61 0.55 

Sig. (2-tailed) <0.001** <0.001** - <0.001** <0.001** 
n 100 100 100 100 100 

Struggle to align 
OBE outcomes 
with English 
studies  

Pearson 
Correlation  

0.43 0.46 0.61 1 0.58 

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.004** 0.002** <0.001** - <0.001** 
n 78 78 78 78 78 

Creativity 
constraints due 
to measurable 
outcomes 

Pearson 
Correlation  

0.39 0.49 0.55 0.58 1 

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.009** 0.001** <0.001** <0.001** - 
n 78 78 78 78 78 

The Pearson’s Correlation (r) table 4 reveals a significant relationship between 
increased workload and other challenges associated with OBE implementation. A 

particularly strong correlation is observed between workload increase and assessment 

difficulties (r = 0.52, p < 0.001), suggesting that as the workload grows, lecturers experience 

greater difficulties in designing and administering assessments, aligning outcomes with 

course content, and maintaining pedagogical flexibility. This indicates that the 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

154 
 

administrative and structural demands of OBE may contribute to faculty frustration and 

resistance, particularly when assessment frameworks do not seamlessly align with the 

interpretative nature of English studies. Another key finding is the strong association 

between loss of flexibility in course design and assessment challenges (r = 0.57, p < 0.001). 

This implies that when lecturers perceive a lack of autonomy in structuring their courses, 

they are more likely to struggle with standardized assessment models that may not fully 

capture the nuances of literary analysis, critical thinking, and creative expression. 

Additionally, creativity constraints are significantly correlated with loss of flexibility (r = 

0.49, p = 0.001), indicating that rigid course structures imposed by OBE may limit 

opportunities for innovative and student-centered teaching approaches. The data also 

highlights a strong correlation between assessment suitability and alignment struggles (r = 

0.61, p < 0.001), suggesting that lecturers who find OBE assessment models inadequate are 

also more likely to struggle with aligning learning outcomes with the nature of English 

studies. This reinforces broader concerns that OBE’s competency-based framework may not 

be fully adaptable to disciplines that rely on subjective interpretation and exploratory 

learning. Similarly, creativity constraints are closely linked to alignment issues (r = 0.58, p < 

0.001), indicating that when lecturers find it difficult to align OBE outcomes with their 

subject matter, they also feel restricted in implementing creative pedagogical strategies.  

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

Figure 2 Scatter Plots for Pearson's Correlation in OBE Implementation Challenges 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

155 
 

The scatter plots visually depict the relationships between increased workload due to 

OBE and four major challenges: loss of flexibility, assessment criteria unsuitability, struggles 

to align OBE with English studies, and creativity constraints. These relationships are further 

supported by the Pearson correlation matrix, which quantifies the strength and significance 

of these associations. The findings reveal that increased workload is strongly linked to 

greater difficulties in implementing OBE effectively, particularly in areas where academic 

flexibility, assessment suitability, and creativity are crucial. A moderate positive correlation 

(r = 0.48, p = 0.001) is observed between workload increase and loss of flexibility, as shown 

in the top-left scatter plot. This suggests that lecturers who experience higher workload 

burdens also perceive greater constraints in designing their courses. The upward trend in 

data points indicates that OBE’s structured approach limits autonomy in curriculum 

development, restricting the ability of lecturers to incorporate student-centered and 

exploratory learning approaches. The top-right scatter plot presents a moderate-to-strong 

negative correlation (r = 0.52, p < 0.001) between workload increase and the suitability of 

assessment criteria. Unlike the other graphs, this trend slopes downward, suggesting that as 

workload increases, lecturers perceive OBE assessment models as increasingly unsuitable 

for English studies. This highlight concerns that competency-based and structured rubrics 

do not effectively capture subjective skills like critical thinking, interpretation, and 

creativity—key components of English education. Similarly, a moderate positive correlation 

(r = 0.43, p = 0.004) is found between workload increase and difficulties in aligning OBE with 

English studies, as shown in the bottom-left scatter plot. The trend suggests that faculty 

members who struggle with higher workloads also find it harder to integrate OBE’s 

predefined learning outcomes with the nature of their discipline. Since English courses often 

emphasize open-ended discussions, literary analysis, and interpretative skills, the rigid 
competency-based framework of OBE appears to create a fundamental misalignment with 

traditional teaching methodologies. 

Table 5. Cluster Analysis Results – Lecturer Groups Based on Challenges in Implementing 

OBE 

Cluster Workload 
Impact  

Training 
Adequacy  

Confidence 
in OBE 

Assessment 
Challenges 

Loss of 
Flexibility 

Creativity 
Constraints 

M S.D M S.D M S.D M S.D M S.D M S.D 

Cluster 1: 
Strongly 
Resistant 

4.6 0.65 2.3 0.92 2.5 0.88 4.3 0.79 4.2 0.81 4.4 0.72 

Cluster 2: 
Moderately 
Adapting 

3.9 0.74 3.1 0.85 3.2 0.91 3.7 0.88 3.8 0.92 3.9 0.84 

Cluster 3: 
Supportive 

3.1 0.82 3.8 0.79 4.2 0.83 3.2 0.91 3.3 0.87 3.5 0.81 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

156 
 

The Strongly Resistant group, comprising 36% of lecturers, experiences the highest 

workload impact (M = 4.6) while receiving the least training (M = 2.3), which contributes to 

their low confidence in implementing OBE (M = 2.5). This group also reports severe 

assessment challenges (M = 4.3), alongside high levels of perceived loss of flexibility (M = 

4.2) and creativity constraints (M = 4.4). Their strong resistance to OBE stems from the belief 

that it restricts academic freedom and imposes rigid structures that may not align with the 

nature of English studies. To support these lecturers, institutions should implement targeted 

training programs, workload reduction strategies, and flexible OBE adaptation measures to 

facilitate a more effective transition. The Moderately Adapting group, which accounts for 

40% of lecturers, experiences moderate workload stress (M = 3.9) but benefits from slightly 

better training (M = 3.1) compared to the strongly resistant group. Their confidence in OBE 

is moderate (M = 3.2), indicating a willingness to adapt despite facing ongoing challenges. 

While they still report concerns regarding assessment challenges (M = 3.7), loss of flexibility 

(M = 3.8), and creativity constraints (M = 3.9), they are actively exploring ways to adjust their 

teaching methods within the OBE framework. With the right institutional support, such as 

targeted workshops, mentoring programs, and greater flexibility in course design, this group 

has the potential to transition into a more supportive stance toward OBE implementation. 

The Supportive group, representing 24% of lecturers, reports the lowest workload burden 

(M = 3.1) and the highest training adequacy (M = 3.8), which corresponds with their greater 

confidence in OBE (M = 4.2). They express fewer concerns about assessment challenges (M 

= 3.2), loss of flexibility (M = 3.3), and creativity constraints (M = 3.5), suggesting that they 

perceive OBE as adaptable within their teaching practices. Given their positive outlook and 

successful integration of OBE, these lecturers could play a crucial role in mentoring faculty 

members in the moderately adapting and resistant groups, providing peer support and 
sharing best practices to facilitate a smoother transition to OBE across the institution. 

How the lecturers adapt their teaching strategies to align with OBE requirements 

Table 6. Thematic Analysis of Lecturer Adaptation Strategies to OBE Requirements 

Theme Description Key Adaptation 
Strategies 

Supporting Interview 
Excerpts 

Aligning 
Teaching with 
Predefined 
Learning 
Outcomes 

Lecturers restructure 
syllabi and lesson plans to 
align with OBE-mandated 
learning outcomes, 
ensuring compliance with 
accreditation standards. 

Mapping course 
content to specific 
learning outcomes 

"We had to redesign our 
syllabus to ensure that 
each lesson clearly aligns 
with the expected 
competencies. It required a 
lot of effort, but it helps us 
stay within accreditation 
guidelines." 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

157 
 

Adjusting 
Assessment 
Techniques to Fit 
OBE 
Requirements 

A shift toward structured, 
measurable assessments, 
including rubric-based 
grading and competency-
aligned evaluations. 
Lecturers attempt to 
balance objective 
evaluation with the 
subjectivity of English 
studies. 

implementing 
detailed rubrics for 
grading 

"Using rubrics has made 
grading more transparent. 
However, in English 
courses, it's still 
challenging to quantify 
creativity and critical 
thinking in a standardized 
way." 

Increased Use of 
Formative 
Assessments 

To track student progress 
more effectively, lecturers 
integrate low-stakes, 
formative assessments 
that provide ongoing 
feedback and competency 
tracking. 

Using weekly 
reflection journals 
for self-assessment 

"The reflection journals 
have been very helpful. 
Students become more 
aware of their learning 
progress, and I can give 
them personalized 
feedback regularly." 

Blending OBE 
with Creative 
and 
Interpretative 
Approaches 

Some lecturers merge 
competency-based 
requirements with 
creative and interpretative 
learning strategies, 
ensuring that English 
courses retain flexibility 
and critical engagement. 

 Allowing students 
to demonstrate 
mastery in 
multiple formats 
(e.g., essays, digital 
projects) 

"I encourage students to 
showcase their 
understanding in different 
ways—whether through 
digital storytelling, 
presentations, or 
traditional essays. This 
keeps learning engaging 
while still aligning with 
OBE." 

Integrating 
Technology to 
Enhance 
Learning 
Outcomes 

Lecturers adopt digital 
tools and learning 
management systems 
(LMS) to track student 
progress and facilitate 
competency-based 
assessments. 

Using LMS to 
monitor student 
achievement and 
provide instant 
feedback 

"With the LMS, I can easily 
track each student’s 
progress and provide 
immediate feedback, which 
aligns with OBE’s focus on 
measurable outcomes." Incorporating 

interactive 
learning tools like 
quizzes and 
discussion forums 

Shifting to 
Student-
Centered 
Learning 
Approaches 

A move from traditional 
lecture-based teaching to 
student-led discussions, 
collaborative projects, and 
problem-solving activities 
to foster active learning. 

Encouraging 
flipped classrooms 
and peer learning 

"Students are more 
engaged when they 
actively participate in 
discussions and problem-
solving activities instead of 
passively listening to 
lectures." 

Designing 
problem-based 
learning (PBL) 
activities 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

158 
 

The thematic analysis identifies several key strategies that English lecturers employ to 

adapt their teaching methods to Outcome-Based Education (OBE) requirements. These 

strategies reflect efforts to align course content with predefined learning outcomes, modify 

assessment techniques, integrate formative assessments, balance creativity with structured 

learning, incorporate technology, and shift toward student-centered learning approaches. 

While these adaptations enhance compliance with OBE frameworks, they also present 

challenges in maintaining the interpretative and creative nature of English studies. A major 

adaptation involves aligning teaching with predefined learning outcomes, where lecturers 

restructure syllabi and lesson plans to ensure that each lesson explicitly maps onto OBE-

mandated competencies. This restructuring ensures compliance with accreditation 

standards but requires significant effort in course redesign. One lecturer emphasized that 

syllabus revisions were necessary to ensure that each lesson aligns with expected 

competencies, stating, “We had to redesign our syllabus to ensure that each lesson clearly 

aligns with the expected competencies. It required a lot of effort, but it helps us stay within 

accreditation guidelines.” While this adaptation enhances curriculum clarity and consistency, 

some lecturers expressed concerns that strictly defined learning outcomes may limit 

pedagogical flexibility. 

Another significant shift is adjusting assessment techniques to fit OBE requirements, 

particularly through the implementation of structured, measurable evaluations such as 

rubric-based grading and competency-aligned assessments. This transition helps 

standardize grading and improve transparency, yet quantifying creativity and critical 

thinking remains a challenge in English courses. One lecturer noted, “Using rubrics has made 

grading more transparent. However, in English courses, it’s still challenging to quantify 

creativity and critical thinking in a standardized way.” This suggests that while OBE facilitates 
objective grading, it may not fully capture the depth and interpretative nature of literary 

analysis and critical discourse. To monitor student progress effectively, many lecturers have 

incorporated formative assessments, such as weekly reflection journals, quizzes, and peer 

evaluations. These methods provide continuous feedback, helping students become more 

aware of their learning progress while enabling instructors to tailor their teaching 

accordingly. One lecturer shared, “The reflection journals have been very helpful. Students 

become more aware of their learning progress, and I can give them personalized feedback 

regularly.” This adaptation aligns well with OBE’s emphasis on competency tracking, though 

some lecturers find it time-consuming to provide frequent feedback and assess students on 

an ongoing basis. 
  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

159 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. Lecturer Adaptation Strategies to OBE Requirements 

Despite OBE’s structured framework, some lecturers have blended competency-based 

requirements with creative and interpretative approaches, ensuring that English courses retain 

flexibility and student engagement. A common strategy is to allow students to demonstrate mastery 

in multiple formats, such as essays, digital projects, and presentations. One lecturer explained, “I 

encourage students to showcase their understanding in different ways—whether through digital 

storytelling, presentations, or traditional essays. This keeps learning engaging while still aligning with 

OBE.” This adaptation suggests that while OBE prioritizes structured outcomes, lecturers find ways 

to integrate flexibility within assessment strategies to accommodate diverse learning styles. In 

addition to modifying assessments and teaching methodologies, technology integration has emerged 

as a critical adaptation strategy. Many lecturers utilize Learning Management Systems (LMS) to 

monitor student progress, provide instant feedback, and facilitate competency-based assessments. 

One faculty member noted, “With the LMS, I can easily track each 

DISCUSSION 

The Pearson’s correlation analysis (Table 3) reveals that workload increase is strongly 
associated with multiple implementation challenges. The significant correlation between 

workload and assessment difficulties (r = 0.52, p < 0.001) suggests that as faculty members 

adjust assessments to align with OBE, their administrative burden increases. This is further 

supported by a moderate but significant correlation between workload and the loss of 

flexibility in course design (r = 0.48, p = 0.001), indicating that OBE may inadvertently 

restrict lecturers’ ability to adapt curricula to the interpretive and discursive nature of 

English studies. These findings align with prior scholarship that highlights how standardized 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

160 
 

learning frameworks can increase documentation demands and reduce pedagogical 

autonomy. 

The increased workload may be temporary. As faculty members become more familiar 

with OBE structures, they may develop efficient systems for assessment and reporting, 

reducing the administrative strain over time. Furthermore, Pargai et al. (2024) argue that 

well-designed competency-based assessments can improve learning outcomes by ensuring 

transparency and alignment between teaching objectives and student performance. Yet, the 

high workload burden reported by English lecturers (M = 4.6 in Cluster 1) suggests that any 

potential efficiency gains have not yet materialized for many faculty members. The study 

finds a strong correlation between loss of flexibility in course design and assessment 

challenges (r = 0.57, p < 0.001). English education traditionally values interpretative 

learning, critical discourse, and creativity, elements that may not always align with OBE’s 

structured learning outcomes. The cluster analysis (Table 4) further highlights that lecturers 

in the Strongly Resistant group (36%) feel particularly constrained, reporting high levels of 

dissatisfaction with assessment frameworks (M = 4.3) and loss of flexibility (M = 4.2). 

The qualitative findings support these quantitative patterns. Thematic analysis 

revealed that lecturers often restructure syllabi to ensure explicit alignment with predefined 

learning outcomes, which, while enhancing clarity and accountability, also demand time-

intensive planning and reduce spontaneous pedagogical opportunities. One lecturer 

commented, “We had to redesign our syllabus to ensure that each lesson clearly aligns with 

the expected competencies.” This level of restructuring reflects the institutional pressure to 

standardize learning, even in inherently subjective disciplines. 

The OBE does not inherently restrict flexibility; rather, its implementation may vary 

across institutions ( Stanton & Roelich. 2021). Mohamed et al. (2024) reported that Some 
institutions allow for adaptive learning outcomes, enabling lecturers to design OBE-aligned 

but flexible curricula. The Supportive cluster (24%) reports relatively low concerns about 

flexibility loss (M = 3.3), suggesting that some faculty members have successfully integrated 

OBE into their teaching. However, for many English lecturers, the requirement to design 

rigid, competency-based assessments remains a challenge that is difficult to reconcile with 

the open-ended nature of literary analysis and rhetorical studies. The moderate correlation 

between creativity constraints and loss of flexibility (r = 0.49, p = 0.001) suggests that OBE’s 

structured framework may limit opportunities for innovative teaching. The thematic 

analysis (Table 5) highlights that lecturers struggle to balance OBE requirements with 

creative pedagogical approaches, particularly in assessment design. One faculty member 

noted, “Using rubrics has made grading more transparent. However, in English courses, it’s 

still challenging to quantify creativity and critical thinking in a standardized way.” 
Moreover, the findings indicate varied responses to OBE implementation. While some 

lecturers adopt hybrid assessment strategies—such as combining rubrics with creative tasks 

like essays and digital projects—others struggle to reconcile the need for measurable 

outcomes with the open-ended goals of literary education. These hybrid practices 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

161 
 

demonstrate innovation but also reveal the need for institutional flexibility and support. OBE 

does not necessarily suppress creativity but rather requires a shift in assessment design. 

Alternative assessment models, such as performance-based tasks, project-based learning, 

and digital storytelling, could be incorporated into OBE frameworks while maintaining 

measurable learning outcomes (Natalie & Mario. 2023). However, the high creativity 

constraint scores (M = 4.4 in Cluster 1) suggest that many faculty members are still 

struggling to implement such strategies effectively. Thematic analysis reveals that many 

lecturers restructure their syllabi to explicitly map course content onto OBE learning 

outcomes. One lecturer stated, “We had to redesign our syllabus to ensure that each lesson 

clearly aligns with the expected competencies.” While this adaptation helps ensure 

compliance with accreditation standards, it also requires significant effort and may limit 

academic freedom. 

Structured learning outcomes can enhance curriculum coherence by clearly defining 

expected competencies (Karanja & Malone. 2021; Bone & Ross. 2021). However, for 

disciplines like English, where discussion-based learning and interpretative exploration are 

essential, the challenge remains how to align such open-ended learning experiences with 

predefined outcomes. One of the most notable adaptations is the shift toward rubric-based 

grading and competency-aligned assessments. While rubrics provide clear evaluation 

criteria, some lecturers express concerns that they may oversimplify complex analytical 

skills. One interviewee noted, “OBE pushes standardized outcomes, but I integrate flexibility 

by letting students choose how they demonstrate mastery—some write essays, others create 

digital projects.” This hybrid approach, where lecturers preserve creativity while adhering 

to OBE principles, represents a promising model for OBE implementation in English studies. 

However, this approach requires institutional support and policy flexibility, which may not 
be available in all contexts. 

Thematic analysis indicates that lecturers are increasingly using quizzes, reflection 

journals, and peer evaluations to track student progress. One lecturer stated, “The reflection 

journals have been very helpful. Students become more aware of their learning progress, and 

I can give them personalized feedback regularly.” While formative assessments provide 

valuable ongoing feedback, their effectiveness depends on faculty workload. As seen in the 

cluster analysis, lecturers with higher workload burdens (Cluster 1) report lower confidence 

in OBE (M = 2.5), suggesting that the additional time required for formative assessments may 

contribute to faculty resistance. 

Some lecturers have successfully integrated Learning Management Systems (LMS) 

and digital tools to enhance student engagement and streamline assessment. One 

interviewee shared, “With the LMS, I can easily track each student’s progress and provide 
immediate feedback, which aligns with OBE’s focus on measurable outcomes.” While 

technology enhances competency tracking, it also presents challenges related to digital 

literacy, infrastructure, and institutional support. Additionally, shifting to student-centered 

approaches, such as flipped classrooms and problem-based learning, may require 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

162 
 

substantial faculty training and curriculum redesign, which not all lecturers may be 

equipped to handle. 

CONCLUSION 

The findings of this study highlight the complex relationship between Outcome-Based 
Education (OBE) and English studies, revealing both potential benefits and significant 
challenges in its implementation. While OBE provides structured learning outcomes and 
accountability, its rigid competency-based framework often conflicts with the interpretative, 
process-driven nature of English education. Many English lecturers struggle with increased 
workload, restrictive assessment models, and limited pedagogical flexibility, making it 
difficult to fully integrate OBE without compromising the creative and analytical depth that 
defines the discipline. These obstacles suggest that the current implementation of OBE—
largely modeled on practices from STEM and professional disciplines—fails to accommodate 
the epistemological and pedagogical characteristics of the humanities. A universal, 
standardized model of OBE risks diminishing the richness of English studies unless 
institutions adopt more discipline-sensitive frameworks . 

Implications for future research include the need for longitudinal studies that track 
how student learning outcomes evolve under OBE frameworks in English departments over 
time. Comparative research across cultural and institutional contexts could reveal how 
national education systems mediate OBE adaptation in the humanities. Additionally, future 
studies should investigate the development and effectiveness of alternative assessment 
models—such as narrative rubrics, performance tasks, and multimodal assignments—in 
capturing the kinds of learning valued in English studies. Finally, exploring the impact of OBE 
training programs on faculty confidence and pedagogical innovation would provide 
actionable insights for policy and curriculum development. By embracing more nuanced, 
context-aware adaptations of OBE, higher education institutions can support both the 
accountability goals of educational reform and the intellectual depth of humanities 
disciplines, ensuring that English education remains both rigorous and relevant in an 
outcome-driven academic landscape 

Nevertheless, the study also uncovers promising adaptation strategies. The use of 
portfolio-based assessments, formative tools such as journals and peer evaluations, and the 
integration of digital platforms shows potential for reconciling OBE with the goals of English 
instruction. These hybrid approaches, if supported through faculty training and flexible 
institutional policies, may allow English educators to meet accreditation standards without 
sacrificing disciplinary integrity 

REFERENCES 

Asbari, M., & Nurhayati, W. (2024). Outcomes-Based Education in Indonesian Higher 

Education: Empowering Students’ Learning Competencies. International Journal of 

Social and Management Studies, 5(5), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.5555/ijosmas.v5i5.445 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

163 
 

Asim, H. M., Vaz, A., Ahmed, A., & Sadiq, S. (2021). A Review on Outcome Based Education and 

Factors That Impact Student Learning Outcomes in Tertiary Education System. 

International Education Studies, 14(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v14n2p1 

Barua, K., Radwan, N., Singh, V., & Figueiredo, R. (2023). Design and Implementation of Higher 

Education Learners’ Learning Outcomes (HELLO). IGI Global. 

https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-9472-1 

Bone, E. K., & Ross, P. M. (2021). Rational curriculum processes: revising learning outcomes 

is essential yet insufficient for a twenty-first century science curriculum. Studies in 

Higher Education, 46(2), 394–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1637845 

Carnell, B., & Fung, D. (2017). Developing the higher education curriculum: Research-based 

education in practice. UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787350878 

Chan, W. M., Chin, K. N., Nagami, M., & Suthiwan, T. (2011). Processes and process-orientation 

in foreign language teaching and learning (Vol. 4). Walter de Gruyter. 

Damit, M. A. A., Omar, M. K., & Puad, M. H. M. (2021). Issues and challenges of outcome-based 

education (OBE) implementation among Malaysian vocational college teachers. 

International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(3), 197–

211. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v11‑i3/8624 

De Voto, C., Olson, J. D., & Gottlieb, J. J. (2021). Examining diverse perspectives of edTPA 

policy implementation across states: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Teacher 

Education, 72(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120909390 

Donnelly, W. (2024). A case study of teacher beliefs and school culture in developing 

assessment literacy in Irish Post-Primary Schools. National University of Ireland, 

Maynooth (Ireland). 

Figueiredo, S. (2023). The effect of mobile‑assisted learning in real language attainment: A 
systematic review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 39(4), 1083–1102. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12811 

Hall, G. (2017). Exploring English language teaching: Language in action. Routledge. 

Josephine, O. E., & Joseph, C. (2023). Library Use Instruction: The Outcome-based Education 

Approach. Library of Progress-Library Science, Information Technology & Computer, 

43(1). 

Karanja, E., & Malone, L. C. (2021). Improving project management curriculum by aligning 

course learning outcomes with Bloom’s taxonomy framework. Journal of International 

Education in Business, 14(2), 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-05-2020-0038  

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-05-2020-0038


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

164 
 

Karwowski, W., & Zhang, W. (2021). The discipline of human factors and ergonomics. 

Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 1–37. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119636113.ch1  

Katawazai, R. (2021). Implementing outcome-based education and student-centered 

learning in Afghan public universities: the current practices and challenges. Heliyon, 

7(5). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06987 

Khan, M. S. H., Salele, N., Hasan, M., & Abdou, B. O. (2023). Factors affecting student readiness 

towards OBE implementation in engineering education: Evidence from a developing 

country. Heliyon, 9(10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20905 

Kim, N. J., Belland, B. R., & Walker, A. E. (2018). Effectiveness of computer-based scaffolding 

in the context of problem-based learning for STEM education: Bayesian meta-analysis. 

Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 397–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-

9419-1  

Latif, E., Zhou, Y., Guo, S., Gao, Y., Shi, L., Nayaaba, M., Lee, G., Zhang, L., Bewersdorff, A., & 

Fang, L. (2024). A systematic assessment of openai o1-preview for higher order thinking 

in education. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2410.21287. 

Limna, P. (2023). The impact of NVivo in qualitative research: Perspectives from graduate 

students. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 271–282. 

https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.17  

Ludvik, M. J. B. (2023). Outcomes-based program review: Closing achievement gaps in-and 

outside the classroom with alignment to predictive analytics and performance metrics. 

Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003446231  

Malhotra, R., Massoudi, M., & Jindal, R. (2023). Shifting from traditional engineering 

education towards competency-based approach: The most recommended approach-
review. Education and Information Technologies, 28(7), 9081–9111. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12047-8 

Marcus, A., Rosenzweig, E., & Soares, M. M. (2024). Design, User Experience, and Usability: 

13th International Conference, DUXU 2024, Held as Part of the 26th HCI International 

Conference, HCII 2024, Washington, DC, USA, June 29–July 4, 2024, Proceedings, Part V 

(Vol. 14716). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-61353-1 

Martins, J. T., & Baptista Nunes, M. (2016). Academics’e-learning adoption in higher 

education institutions: a matter of trust. The Learning Organization, 23(5), 299–331. 

https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-05-2015-0034 

Melin, C. A. (2019). Foreign language teaching and the environment: Theory, curricula, 

institutional structures. 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119636113.ch1
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9419-1
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9419-1
https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.2.17
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003446231


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

165 
 

Milon, M. R. K., Imam, M. H., & Muhury, P. (2024). Transforming the Landscape of Higher 

Education in Bangladesh: Teachers’ Perspectives on Implementing Outcome-Based 

Education (OBE). ICRRD Journal, 5(2), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.53272/icrrd.v5i2.2 

Mohamed, R. N., Borhan, H., Rusli, M. S., Abd Hafiz, K., Othman, A., Ridzuan, A. R., Razak, M. I. 

M., & Marmaya, N. H. (2024). Influence of App Usability and Learning Environment on 

Student Behavior in Mobile-Based Marketing Education in Malaysian Higher Learning 

Institutions. Journal of International Business, Economics and Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 

145–155. https://doi.org/10.24191/jibe.v9i2.3200  

Mufanti, R., Carter, D., & England, N. (2024). Outcomes-based education in Indonesian higher 

education: Reporting on the understanding, challenges, and support available to 

teachers. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 9, 100873. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.100873  

Natalie, F., & Mario, P. (2023). Innovating assessments to measure and support complex skills. 

OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/18a99858-en 

Pargai, D., Saini, R., & Ghamande, M. V. (2024). Implementing Outcome–. Social Innovations 

in Education, Environment, and Healthcare, 41. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-

9472-1.ch003  

Prøitz, T. S. (2014). Conceptualisations of learning outcomes in education-an explorative cross-

case analysis of policymakers, teachers and scholars. 

Qadir, J., Taha, A.-E. M., Yau, K.-L. A., Ponciano, J., Hussain, S., Al-Fuqaha, A., & Imran, M. A. 

(2020). Leveraging the force of formative assessment & feedback for effective engineering 

education. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--34923  

Razavi, N. (2021). The power of discourse in high school adapted science with English language 

learning students. 

Saint, M. (2021). Development of a curriculum based on content and language integrated 

learning and competency-based education for enhancing business English writing ability 

of undergraduate students. 

Stanton, M. C. B., & Roelich, K. (2021). Decision making under deep uncertainties: A review 

of the applicability of methods in practice. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 

171, 120939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120939 

Syeed, M. M. M., Shihavuddin, A. S. M., Uddin, M. F., Hasan, M., & Khan, R. H. (2022). Outcome 

based education (OBE): Defining the process and practice for engineering education. 

IEEE Access, 10, 119170–119192. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3219477  

Thimmaraju, T. (2024). ADVANCE PEDAGOGY OF TEACHING. Laxmi Book Publication. 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
https://doi.org/10.24191/jibe.v9i2.3200
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.100873
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-9472-1.ch003
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-9472-1.ch003
https://doi.org/10.18260/12--34923
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3219477


  
 

Copyright © The Author(s) 
Vol.6, No. 3, July 2025 

e-ISSN: 2723-4126 
p-ISSN: 2776-8880 

 

166 
 

Thornhill-Miller, B., Camarda, A., Mercier, M., Burkhardt, J.-M., Morisseau, T., Bourgeois-

Bougrine, S., Vinchon, F., El Hayek, S., Augereau-Landais, M., & Mourey, F. (2023). 

Creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration: assessment, 

certification, and promotion of 21st century skills for the future of work and education. 

Journal of Intelligence, 11(3), 54. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11030054  

Yen, P. H., Thuy, P. T., Thi, N. A., Anh-Thu, H. T., & Tra, N. H. (2024). Reframing Assessment 

Strategies: The Impact of Reflective Teaching on University EFL Lecturers’ Perspectives 

and Practices. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 15(1). 

https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1501.05 

 

http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
http://u.lipi.go.id/1593190689
https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11030054

