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