M. M. Shahidul Hassan, PhD :
History shows that while industrial revolutions have repeatedly transformed societies, education systems have often struggled to adapt at the same pace. In Bangladesh, this lag is even more pronounced. Despite various reform attempts, progress has frequently been derailed by a persistent gap between policy ambitions and actual implementation-compounded by inadequate planning, shifting political priorities, chronic instability, and deeply rooted structural challenges.
More than fifty years after gaining independence, Bangladesh’s higher education system still bears the imprint of its colonial past. The dominant model remains teacher-centered, heavily content-driven, and reliant on high-stakes examinations. Interdisciplinary integration is rare, and rote memorization continues to overshadow critical inquiry. Philosophically, this system echoes the logic of colonial bureaucracy – designed to produce compliant administrators rather than adaptive thinkers or innovators.
Against this backdrop, a shift toward Outcome-Based Education (OBE) has emerged in both public and private universities. Globally recognized, OBE prioritizes student-centered learning, measurable outcomes, and lifelong competencies – qualities seen as essential in the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The model promises a shift from memorization to mastery, from teaching to learning.
But the road to meaningful reform is complex. Adopting a global model like OBE requires more than procedural change; it demands a deep understanding of its philosophical foundations, practical demands, and local applicability. Without this, reform risks being superficial – well-intentioned but ineffective.
International experiences serve as cautionary tales. South Africa, for instance, introduced OBE in 1998 without adequately considering its unique social and cultural context. The result was widespread confusion, poor learning outcomes, and eventual abandonment of the model in 2010 in favor of more traditional systems. Such experiences remind us that educational reform cannot be imported wholesale – it must be contextualized.
OBE also raises valid pedagogical concerns. Critics argue that predefining learning outcomes may oversimplify the complex and evolving nature of education – especially in fields like literature, history, and philosophy, where depth, ambiguity, and interpretation are vital. Overemphasis on fixed goals may constrain curiosity, stifle creativity, and narrow the space for ethical reflection and intellectual growth.
Counterintuitively, the ambition to foster self-directed, lifelong learners can be undermined when learning outcomes are overly prescriptive and assessed through reductive mechanisms. While the articulation of intended outcomes provides essential direction, it must be complemented by sufficient flexibility to accommodate diverse cognitive trajectories and emergent understandings. As Zitterkopf (1994) rightly cautions, ‘A school that does not specify outcomes simply accepts whatever comes as a result’; however, this does not necessitate the rigid predefinition of all learning goals, nor should it constrain the dynamic and interpretive nature of the educational process.
At the heart of OBE are three interconnected components: (i) Program Educational Objectives (PEOs) – outlining what graduates should achieve within 3-5 years of completing a program; (ii) Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) – defining the knowledge, skills, and attitudes students should acquire during the program; and (iii) Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) – specifying the intended achievements of each individual course. For OBE to work, these layers must align. This alignment is supported by a system of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI), which ensures curricula remain relevant, responsive, and regularly updated. However, assessing outcomes – particularly soft skills like leadership, collaboration, and ethical reasoning – remains a major challenge. Rubrics help, but they often fail to capture the depth of student development.
As one faculty member at a university in Bangladesh observed, ‘It’s easy to check all the boxes in the rubric, but are we truly measuring growth in reasoning or analytical ability?’ This question points to a broader concern: Are we fostering genuine learning, or merely performing accountability?
Educational theorists remind us that imported reforms must be adapted with care. For Bangladesh, that means balancing innovation with tradition, global standards with local values. Deep-rooted teaching cultures, if engaged thoughtfully, can enrich rather than obstruct reform.
To make OBE a truly transformative force, universities must go beyond technical compliance. Faculty needs training not only in tools and techniques, but in the deeper philosophy of OBE. Students must be seen not as passive recipients, but as co-creators of knowledge. And the reform process must be inclusive, reflective, and iterative.
The journey toward meaningful change will not be quick or easy. But with thoughtful adaptation, sustained dialogue, and genuine commitment, OBE can help equip Bangladesh’s graduates to thrive in a complex, interconnected world.
[The writer is distinguished Professor, Eastern University and Professor (retired), BUET]
