


















































Journal of Green Learning


Journal of Green Learning, e-ISSN 2807-890X 

Vol. 2, No. 1, 2022, pp. 10-15.  
DOI: 10.53889/jgl.v2i1.99 

-------------------------------------------------------- 

 

Effectiveness of outcome-based approach to design contents for 

training secondary school English teachers in Laos 
 

Lakaisone Saiyachit
1
 

1 Savannakhet Teacher Training College, Savannakhet, Lao PDR 
 

Article Info  ABSTRACT 
Article history: 

Received December 20, 2021 

Revised   January 10, 2022 

Accepted March 16, 2022 

 

 This research aimed at evaluating effectiveness of an outcome-based approach 
for redesigning contents (training tasks, instructions, and assessments) of a 

teacher training program. Research participants were three English secondary 

school teachers. The effectiveness was evaluated by assessing abilities of in-

service teachers to use 15 student-centered teaching techniques to design 

activities to teach English, appropriateness of training contents and usefulness 

of abilities gained from the training. Therefore, the data were gathered by 

assessing trainees’ abilities during and after training and interviewing them at 

the end of the training. The findings show that all of the in-service teachers 

have gained high abilities to use the 15 students centered teaching techniques 

for designing activities to teach English. The findings from interview show that 

the training contents are suitable for training the new teaching skills and they 

confident to use them. Therefore, high training achievement and very positive 

opinions found in this research confirm that outcome-based approach is 

effective to use for designing contents of training program. 

 

Keywords: 

in-service English teachers 
outcome-based approach 

secondary school 

teaching techniques  

training program 

 

This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license. 

 
Corresponding Author: 

Lakaisone Saiyachit  

Savannakhet Teacher Training College  

Savannakhet 

Lao PDR  

Email: lakaisone2020.s@gmail.com 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Teacher professional development is important, because it is one way to upgrade the teaching and 

learning quality (Komba & Nkumbi, 2008), and it is worth to upgrade teachers’ teaching techniques, since 

teachers can influence students’ learning motivation (Daniels, 2011). They are the greatest assets and backbone 

of any education system (Rasmi, et.al, 2014), what teachers believe and what knowledge they have are two 

major factors that influence how they actually teach (Kauchak & Eggen, 1993), and to motivate students to learn, 

teaching techniques are important (Crookes et.al., 2013). 

Therefore, Ministry of education has provided an in-service teacher training program for training 15 

student-centered teaching techniques to secondary school teachers all over the country with the inquiry to 

improve quality of education in secondary school level. Before organizing the training, the training manual and 

training evaluations were created in the ministry of education. The manual contains 15 modules. Then training 

procedures and strategy to train as well as the knowledge in the training manual were trained to central key 

trainers who are responsible for training teachers in secondary schools around the country. Researcher is one of 

the central key trainers for helping in-service teacher to improve their instructional practices.  

Here are some procedures to use when training: before training, one of the trainers presents purpose of 

training, importance of 15 teaching techniques and how they evaluate the training results.  Next, secondary 

school teachers (trainees) are told to take pretests of 15 modules online. After that, trainees are divided into small 

group. Each group is responsible for studying some techniques in the training manual. Finally, each group 

presents the techniques that they have been assigned to do based on their understanding. After presenting each 

technique, trainees of other groups and trainers give comments and suggestions. At the end of the training, 

trainees are asked to do the posttests online again. 

It is easy for trainers to train by assigning some techniques for each group of trainees to study and 

present, and then observe the results and give comments, however, it was observed that trainees only paid 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


11 

 

attentions on studying the techniques that were assigned to do; they did not get deep insights and ability to use 

the other teaching techniques. Moreover, the given training manual is for training teachers of all subjects in 

secondary school level. Most of contents and examples are for training science teachers. Therefore, a new  

training manual for training English teachers as well as instructions/methods and evaluations were redesigned by 

using an outcome-based approach (OBA), which uses desired training outcomes as the guideline for designing 

the training contents. Then it was used for training English teachers who are teaching in the secondary schools. 

 

2. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE 

Main purpose of the research is to evaluate the effectiveness of using OBA for designing contents of an 

in-service teacher training program. The effectiveness is shown by abilities of trainees on using the 15 teaching 

teachings for designing activities to teach English, appropriateness of the training contents and confidence to use 

the techniques for teaching. Therefore, below statements are two sub-purposes: 

 (1) To evaluate abilities of trainees to use 15 teaching techniques for designing activities to teach 

English. 

  (2) To identify opinions of trainees toward the appropriateness of the training contents and confidence 

to use 15 training techniques. 

 

3. METHOD  

3.1 Design  

This research used Research and Development design (R&D), which consisted of four phases: (1) 

establish the problem, (2) develop instrument to solve the problems and research instruments, (3) use the 

instruments in practice and collect the data and (4) analyze, summarize and present results of the research. 

3.2 Research samples  

The population of this research was three-service teachers, one woman who are teaching English at the 

Sathid secondary school. The three teachers are known as trainees who attend the training, practice using the 

new teaching techniques, present each technique with example, and give feedback and scores for other trainees. 

This means that they are observers, commentators and evaluators when they are not the presenter of the 

assignment.  

3.3 Research instruments  

Two types of research instruments were used to collect the data: tests (pre and posttests) and semi-

structure interviews. 

Tests: 15 teaching techniques were trained, so 15 pretest and 15 posttests were conducted. The pretests 

were done before and during the training. The tests assess two dimensions: (1) definition of the being trained 

teaching technique and (2) model of using the technique. Total score of each dimension is 10. Only 

trainer/researcher assessed the results of the tests. The posttests were done at the end of the training. The tests 

assess three dimensions: (1) definition of the being trained teaching technique, (2) model of using the technique 

and (3) trainees’ abilities to use 15 teaching techniques for designing activities to teach English. Total score of 

each dimension is 10. Trainer/researcher and two trainees assessed the results of the tests.  

Semi-structure interview:  The interview was used for interviewing the trainees in group in order to find 

out their opinions on the appropriateness of the training contents and their confidence to use the 15 teaching 

techniques. The interview was conducted at the end of learning term. It takes about 30 minutes. While 

interviewing researcher took notes the important points related to the appropriateness of the training contents and 

their confidence to use the techniques. 

3.4 Data collection  

The data were collected along the training processes: Before starting the training, trainers presented 

purpose of training, training desired learning outcomes, training technique and strategy to assess. Before and 

during the training each technique, trainer assessed prior knowledge of the being trained teaching techniques, 

specifically its definition and model. Then at the end of training each teach technique, trainer gave a posttest that 

consists of definition, model for using the technique and use the model to design activities to teach. After doing 

each posttest, each trainee presented the done work. The trainer and two trainees observed, and then gave 

comments and scores.  

3.5 Data analysis  

The quantitative data was analyzed by using descriptive statistics such as: the mean and standard 

deviations. The qualitative data from the interview was summarized, grouped, ranked, transcribed, and 

presented. 

 

4. RESULT 

Based on the results of analyzing the quantitative and qualitative data, the results are presented based on 

the purposes of the research: abilities of trainees to use 15 teaching techniques for designing activities to teach 



12 

 

English and their opinions on appropriateness of training contents and confidence to use the 15 training 

techniques as shown in Table 1.  

 

Table1 Teaching abilities in 15 teaching techniques 

Module that contains teaching techniques M SD 

M1 Experiential teaching technique 9.40 0.67 

M2 Experiment-based teaching technique 9.44 0.60 

M3 Discovery teaching technique 9.26 0.73 

M4 Simulation teaching technique 9.45 0.60 

M5 Role play teaching technique 9.52 0.65 

M6 Gamified teaching technique 9.18 0.70 

M7 LAOPDR teaching technique 9.52 0.58 

M8 Inquiry-based teaching technique 9.56 0.58 

M9 Problem solving teaching technique 9.41 0.67 

M10 Project-based teaching technique 9.37 0.66 

M11 Interactive teaching technique 9.56 0.59 

M12 Brain storming teaching technique 9.41 0.67 

M13 Buzz session teaching technique 9.37 0.61 

M14 Think-Pair-Share teaching technique 9.59 0.58 

M15 Question and Answer teaching technique 9.37 0.68 

Average total 9.43 0.64 

 

The table shows that the trainees obtain very high ability to use all 15 teaching techniques, since the 

mean of each technique is more that 9 out of 10. The trainees achieved the highest score in module 14:  Think-

Pair-Share teaching technique (M=9.59; SD=0.58) out of 10 scores. They achieved the lowest score in module 6:  

Gamified teaching technique, but the mean score is still high (M=9.18; SD=0.70) out of 10 scores. 

A paired sample T-test was conducted to compare the scores of the pre-test and the post-test. The 

results showed that there was a significant difference in the scores of the pre-test (M=3.75, S.D.=2.48) and the 

post-test (M=9.44, S.D.=.21); t (29) = 12.35, P< .05 as presented in the Table 2. 

 

Table 2 Pre-test and post-test scores 

Comparison Pre-test Post-test 
t p 

Competence of in-service 

teachers on using outcome-

based approach 

�̅� S.D. �̅� S.D. 

3.75 2.48 9.44 .21 12.35 .000 

 

The findings showed that trainees significantly improved their ability to define the meaning and usage 

of 15 teaching techniques after the training, since the mean score of the post-test was considerably higher than 

the mean score of the pre-test (9.44 > 3.75). The low mean score of the pre-test proved that the trainees lacked 

knowledge to define and to describe the use of 15 teaching techniques but they learned greatly from the 

training.    

The finding showed that trainees felt very satisfied with the contents of training. They said that the 

training contents were very organized and appropriate for training the 15 teaching techniques to teach English. 

Here are some statements that were summarized and gathered from interview: 

 

One trainee A said “I like the organization of the training manual. It is easy to follow, since it starts with 

the introduction of the manual, it purposes, following with training outcomes, training techniques and 

evaluation” 

 

One trainee B added that “it is easy for me to assess my own ability to use 15 teaching techniques, since 

each module shows the desired outcomes in the first step. Moreover, I like it when assessments assess the 

abilities based on training outcomes of each module” 



13 

 

 

One trainee C also commented that “it is easy for us to learn, because the contents of each module are 

short. They are about only the definition, model and example of using the model. Having these tasks, we have the 

pictures of how to use the model well” 

 

All of them agreed that the training instructions and assessments were very effective. One statement 

shows “it is good that the trainer gave us the chance to practice all of the desired skills in each module” one 

added that “and it a good idea that you gave us the chance for describing the definition, model and using the 

trained teaching technique”.  

 

In terms of confidence, the finding showed that they all felt very confident to use all of the training 

technique. When the question was asked “to what degree do you feel confident to use these techniques?” the 

answers were: 

Trainee A answered, “for me, 95 percent”, trainee B said, “I think I can use them 90 percent” and 

trainee C said, “I think I can use them all very well”. 

 

5. DISCUSSION 

Main purpose of the research is to evaluate the effectiveness of using OBA for designing contents for 

training. The results show that OBA is effective for designing contents for training, because the training achieves 

positive results that trainees obtained very high abilities to use the 15 teaching techniques for designing activities 

to teach English (M=9.59; SD=0.58). Their abilities to describe the meaning of each technique and its teaching 

steps have been improved as it was shown in table two that the mean score of the posttests has been increased 

from 3.75 to 9.44. Moreover, the trainees satisfied about the training contents and they have confidence to use all 

of the 15 techniques. 

It is not wondered that trainees had very high abilities on using 15 training teaching techniques for 

designing activities to teach because the contents were designed based on the desired training outcomes of the 

training program. Moreover, it is easy for trainees to pay attention on what need to learn and to achieve because 

each training module contains its desired outcomes and contents for practicing. Therefore, trainees can pay 

attention on practicing and achieve the desired outcome of each model easily. 

And  it is not strange that many users used desired learning outcome to design tasks in different areas 

such as: to design activities to teach in UBD lesson planning mode (Wiggings & McTighe, 2012),  to building a 

learning program in the department, school or central educational level (Kember, 2005; Biggs & Tang, 2010), to 

design training policies and practices (Cedefop, 2009), to provide a common framework of reference and 

accountability to the AUN quality assessment process (AQRF, 2015), to reform the curriculum (Wilson, 1996 

Jansen, 1998), since by using the outcomes as the guideline to design contents can obtain achievement in 

practice as in this research. 

Moreover, it was confirmed that using desired learning outcome could help teachers to have clear 

ideas to design tasks to test (Burns, 1987; Spady, 1988; Hansen, 1989; Nyland, 1991; Pollock et.al., 1992; 

Marzano, 1994; Brown, 1997), could help students to upgrade their self-managed learning, critical thinking, 

problem solving, adaptability, communication skills, and interpersonal skills & group work (Kember, 2005; 

Nuangchalerm & El Islami, 2018) and could foster an atmosphere of learning (Lansari et.al., 2007). 

  

 

Figure 1 The outcome-based approach framework 

(Adapted from the Outcome-based education framework of Spady, 1994) 



14 

 

 

 

When using outcome-based approach for training, the training outcome can show the real capacities of 

trainees, since the outcome in outcome-based approach is not defined by the knowledge but the skills or abilities 

(Spady, 1994). Trainees could achieve the ability to use 15 new training techniques to design activities to teach 

English when training activities in the program were designed by using outcome-based approach or desired 

learning outcomes of the program. The mean score of the posttest is 9.44 out of 10. Because of the success of 

using desired learning outcome to design activities to teach or to train, many the learning outcome. The findings 

in this research show that trainees achieve the desired outcomes of the training and they felt happy with the 

training activities (content of each module, training instructions, and assessments). Therefore, it can be assumed 

that outcome-based approach is effective for designing activities for training. 

 

6. RECOMMENDATION 

Although the research achieved the successful results, the number of samplings was small. The further 

study needs to include bigger samplings with different characteristics of the trainees who are from different 

schools or areas, for examples teachers who are teaching in the rural schools and in the town, or variety of 

degrees in order to confirm more effective results. The outcome-based approach can be used for designing 

activities for teaching and training other subjects; therefore, teachers or further researchers can use it to design 

contents and then can use similar research instruments or adapt them to conduct the similar research. 

 

REFERENCES 
AQRF. (2015). The guide to AUN-QA assessment at programme level. ASEAN Qualifications Reference 

Framework Level, 8 

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2010). Applying constructive alignment to outcomes-based teaching and learning. 

In Training Material for “Quality Teaching for Learning in Higher Education” Workshop for Master 

Trainers, Ministry of Higher Education, Kuala Lumpur (pp. 23-25). 

Brown, G. (1997). Assessing student learning in higher education. Routledge. 

Burns, R., & Squires, D. (1987). Curriculum organization in outcome-based education. The OBE Bulletin. 

Cedefop, (2010). Learning outcomes approaches in VET curricula: A comparative analysis of nine European 

countries. Publications Office of the European Union. 

Crookes, K., Crookes, P. A., & Walsh, K. (2013). Meaningful and engaging teaching techniques for student 

nurses: A literature review. Nurse Education in Practice, 13(4), 239-243. 

Daniels, E. (2011). Creating motivating learning environments: Teachers matter: Teachers can influence 

students’ motivation to achieve in school. Middle School Journal, 43(2), 32-37. 

Ewell, P. (2005). Applying learning outcomes concepts to higher education: An overview. Retrived from 

http://www. ied. edu. hk/obl/files/OBA.pdf. 

Hansen, J. M. (1989). Outcome-based education: A smarter way to assess student learning. The Clearing 

House, 63(4), 172-174. 

Jansen, J. (1998). Curriculum reform in south Africa:  A critical analysis of outcomes-based education. 

Cambridge Journal of Education, 28, 321-331. 

Kauchak, D. P., & Eggen, P. D. (1993). Learning and teaching.  Allyn Bacon. 

Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2005). The influence of the teaching and learning environment on the development 

of generic capabilities needed for a knowledge-based society. Learning Environments Research, 8(3), 

245. 

Komba, W. L., & Nkumbi, E. (2008). Teacher professional development in Tanzania: Perceptions and 

practices. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 11(3), 67-83. 

Lansari, A., Tubaishat, A., & Al-Rawi, A. (2007). Using an outcome-based information technology curriculum 

and an e-learning platform to facilitate student learning. Issues in Informing Science & Information 

Technology, 4, 461-472. 

Marzano, R. J. (1994). Lessons from the field about outcome-based performance assessments. Educational 

Leadership, 51(6), 44-50. 

McTighe, J., & Thomas, R. S. (2003). Backward design for forward action. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 52-

55. 

McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2012). Understanding by design framework. Association for Supervision and 

Curriculum Development. 

Munby, J. (1978). Communicative syllabus design. Cambridge University Press.  

Nyland, L. (1991). One district's journey to success with outcome-based education. 1-15. 

Nuangchalerm, P., & El Islami, R. A. Z. (2018). Comparative study between Indonesian and Thai novice science 

teacher students in content of science. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 6(2), 23-29.  

O’Keefe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom. Cambridge University Press.  



15 

 

Pollock, S. G., Abbott, R. D., Boucher, C. A., Beller, G. A., & Kaul, S. (1992). Independent and incremental 

prognostic value of tests performed in hierarchical order to evaluate patients with suspected coronary 

artery disease. Validation of models based on these tests. Circulation, 85(1), 237-248. 

Spady, W. (1994). Outcome-based education: Critical issues and answers. American Association of School 

Administrators. 

Spady, W. G. (1988). Organizing for results: The basis of authentic restructuring and reform. Educational 

Leadership, 46(2), 4-8. 

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2011). The understanding by design guide to creating high-quality units. ASCD. 

 


