INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Integrating the Philosophical Foundations of Education and Their

Influence on Outcome-Based Education (OBE) in English Language

Teaching (ELT): A Documentary Research

Sarinrat Eiamworawuttikul

Faculty of Liberal Arts, Rajamangala University of Technology Phra Nakhon (RMUTP)

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100063

Received: 07 November 2025; Accepted: 14 November 2025; Published: 28 November 2025

ABSTRACT

This documentary study investigates the philosophical traditions that have shaped modern educational thought

and examines how these traditions inform the design and practice of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) in Basic

English instruction. OBE, a learner-centered paradigm emphasizing articulated learning outcomes and

performance-based assessment, has become a central model for reform across global education systems. By

reviewing international scholarship, this paper analyzes the theoretical foundations that position OBE within

broader epistemological, pedagogical, and ethical debates and considers how these foundations translate into the

teaching of English as a foreign language. The synthesis indicates that OBE fosters transparency, coherence, and

learner autonomy while also presenting difficulties related to assessment design, teacher preparation, and

contextual adaptation. The study argues that OBE represents not merely a technical framework but a

philosophically grounded approach that aligns with the communicative goals of Basic English learning, provided

its implementation is supported by reflective practice and localized pedagogical sensitivity.

Keywords: Educational Philosophy, Outcome-Based Education, Learning Outcomes, Competency-Based

Instruction, English Language Teaching

INTRODUCTION

The landscape of contemporary education is marked by ongoing attempts to reconsider how learning is

conceptualized, facilitated, and evaluated. These shifts reflect deeper philosophical debates about the nature of

knowledge, the purpose of schooling, and the role of the learner. Throughout the twentieth and twenty-first

centuries, educational theory has increasingly moved away from teacher-centered models rooted in essentialist

or behaviorist traditions and toward pedagogies that foreground learner autonomy, inquiry, and demonstrable

competence (Biggs & Tang, 2011; Harden, 2007; Spady, 1994). Within this broader transformation, Outcome-

Based Education (OBE) has emerged as a prominent framework that reorients curriculum, instruction, and

assessment around clearly defined learning outcomes.

OBE reconceptualizes learning as a coherent system in which desired end results serve as the organizing

principle for all instructional decisions. Rather than beginning with content coverage, OBE adopts a backward-

design model: educators identify essential learning outcomes, align instructional methods to scaffold the

achievement of those outcomes, and evaluate learners based on demonstrated performance (Killen, 2007; Tyler,

1949). This orientation not only shifts the focus from teaching to learning but also introduces a form of

educational accountability grounded in transparency and coherence.

Philosophy of education provides essential grounding for understanding the transformative aspirations of OBE.

From Dewey’s (1938) experiential pragmatism to the constructivist insights of Piaget (1972) and Vygotsky

(1978), philosophical discourses have long shaped conceptions of how individuals learn and what aims education

ought to serve. Modern debates among essentialist, progressive, constructivist, and humanistic perspectives

continue to inform educational policymaking, particularly as nations seek to cultivate competencies aligned with

socioeconomic development and global participation (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2018). OBE, in many respects, can

Page 792

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

be viewed as a contemporary expression of these traditions—especially those emphasizing inquiry, social

relevance, and learner agency.

In the field of English language education, philosophical orientations carry particular weight. English functions

as a global medium of communication, and proficiency in the language is often linked to academic mobility,

employment opportunities, and intercultural engagement (Crystal, 2003). For beginners in non-English-speaking

contexts such as Thailand, a structured system like OBE offers a clear pathway to acquiring foundational

communicative abilities. Its emphasis on observable performance aligns closely with communicative, task-

based, and competency-based approaches to language teaching, which prioritize meaningful use of language

over rote grammatical memorization (Richards & Rodgers, 2014).

However, implementing OBE effectively requires more than technical compliance. Without an appreciation of

the philosophical assumptions embedded in OBE—such as the belief in learner potential, the value of reflective

practice, and the importance of contextualized outcomes—educators risk applying OBE as a procedural checklist

rather than as an integrated educational philosophy (Harden, 2007; Spady, 1994). Understanding the

philosophical foundations of education therefore offers crucial insight for interpreting, critiquing, and refining

OBE practices within English language classrooms.

This documentary research aims to:

1. explore the philosophical traditions that underpin contemporary educational models, and

2. analyze how these traditions inform the design and implementation of Outcome-Based Education in Basic

English instruction.

This inquiry is particularly significant in Southeast Asia, where OBE has been widely adopted as part of national

and regional quality assurance systems (Mishra, 2017; UNESCO, 2020). By linking philosophical foundations

with practical application, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of how OBE can support meaningful

language learning and foster learner autonomy in diverse educational contexts.

Philosophical Foundations of Education

Philosophy has long provided the conceptual scaffolding for educational theory and practice. Its inquiries into

the nature of knowledge, human development, values, and social purpose inform the assumptions that underlie

curriculum design, pedagogical choices, and assessment practices. Far from constituting abstract speculation,

philosophy shapes the practical decisions educators make about what counts as meaningful learning and how

such learning ought to be supported and evaluated (Ozmon & Craver, 2008). Understanding these foundations

is essential to interpreting Outcome-Based Education (OBE), whose principles are deeply rooted in multiple

philosophical traditions.

Classical and Modern Traditions Informing Educational Thought

Early philosophical orientations established enduring frameworks for thinking about education. In classical

idealism, associated most prominently with Plato, education is envisioned as a process of cultivating the intellect

and moral sensibilities through engagement with universal truths. Knowledge is perceived as inherent and

unchanging, and the educator’s function is to guide learners toward the realization of these internal forms through

reasoned reflection (Brubacher, 1982).

Realism, conversely, situates knowledge in the observable world. Emerging from the works ofAristotle and later

epistemological empiricists such as Locke, realism maintains that learning is grounded in sensory experience

and the systematic investigation of external reality (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2018). The realist teacher therefore

emphasizes structured inquiry, factual understanding, and scientific reasoning.

Both idealism and realism contributed foundational insights to education—idealism highlighting moral and

intellectual formation, realism foregrounding empirical rigor. However, the rapid industrial, political, and social

changes of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries challenged the adequacy of these traditions. Modern

Page 793

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

societies required schooling models that emphasized adaptability, democratic participation, and problem-

solving—aims that neither classical tradition fully addressed.

The emergence of pragmatism, particularly in John Dewey’s writings, signaled a pivotal reorientation. Dewey

(1938) argued that knowledge is reconstructed through experience and that education must be grounded in the

interaction between individuals and their environments. Learning, in this view, is not passive absorption but an

active, reflective process shaped by inquiry and purposeful engagement. Pragmatism thus laid a conceptual

foundation for outcome-oriented thinking, emphasizing learning as the development of functional competence

rather than mere acquisition of information.

Progressivism and the Reimagining of Educational Purpose

Progressivism, influenced strongly by Deweyan pragmatism, sought to challenge rigid, authoritarian schooling

by placing learners’ interests and experiences at the center of pedagogy. It proposed that education should

cultivate creativity, critical thinking, and social responsibility through experiential learning (Dewey, 1938;

Kilpatrick, 1925). Knowledge was reframed as something constructed in context rather than transmitted from

authority.

These progressive ideas resonate closely with OBE’s orientation. The emphasis on learner autonomy, authentic

performance, and contextual relevance directly reflects progressivism’s challenge to traditional didactic

instruction. OBE’s defining question—What should students be able to do?—emerges from this lineage,

repositioning education as preparation for meaningful participation in personal, social, and professional spheres

(Spady, 1994). In this respect, OBE represents not a departure from historical thought but an institutionalized

extension of progressive aims.

Existentialist and Humanistic Contributions to Learner-Centered Education

Another influential set of philosophical orientations—existentialism and humanism—emphasizes individuality,

agency, and the pursuit of meaning. Existentialist philosophers, including Sartre and Kierkegaard, argue that

individuals must create their own meanings through choice, responsibility, and authentic engagement with the

world. Educationally, this translates into pedagogies that cultivate autonomy and personal voice (Peterson, 2011).

Humanistic educators such as Rogers (1969) and Maslow (1970) expand these ideas by asserting that learners

thrive when provided with supportive environments that encourage self-direction, empathy, and intrinsic

motivation. Humanism reframes the educator’s task as facilitating personal growth rather than enforcing

standardized conformity.

OBE’s moral and pedagogical commitments draw heavily from these sources. The widely cited principle that all

learners can succeed, though not necessarily in the same way or at the same pace (Spady, 1994) reflects a

fundamentally humanistic belief in individual potential. The differentiated instruction and flexible assessment

inherent in OBE embody an existential respect for learner uniqueness and a humanistic concern for personal

development.

Constructivism and the Centrality of Meaning-Making

Constructivism provides perhaps the most direct theoretical foundation for modern learner-centered education.

Pioneered by Piaget (1972) and expanded through Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural perspective, constructivism

argues that learners actively build knowledge through interaction with prior understanding, social dialogue, and

meaningful experience. Learning is therefore viewed as a dynamic, interpretive process rather than a linear

transfer of information.

This epistemology aligns closely with OBE. Outcomes are designed to represent meaningful performances that

demonstrate understanding through application. Instructional activities are selected not for their content coverage

but for their capacity to enable learners to construct new meaning. Biggs and Tang’s (2011) model of constructive

alignment operationalizes this philosophy by linking intended learning outcomes, teaching strategies, and

assessment methods into a coherent system.

Page 794

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Thus, while OBE is often discussed in administrative or policy contexts, its intellectual roots lie firmly in the

constructivist belief that learning is evidenced through action, reflection, and integration of knowledge across

contexts.

Educational Axiology: Values, Ethics, and the Aims of Learning

Beyond epistemological assumptions, philosophy also addresses axiological concerns—questions about what

should be valued in education. These debates are critical for understanding both the promise and potential

limitations of OBE. Values shape decisions about which outcomes are prioritized, whose perspectives are

represented, and how learning is evaluated (Council of University Administrative Staff of Thailand, 2025;

Silpakorn University, 2025).

Critical theorists, most notably Freire (1970), caution against reducing education to technocratic efficiency.

When learning outcomes become overly prescriptive or narrowly utilitarian, education risks excluding broader

aims such as empowerment, social justice, and human flourishing. Ethical implementation of OBE therefore

requires attentiveness to diversity, inclusion, and the sociocultural contexts in which learners develop (Noddings,

2013).

In this sense, a philosophically grounded OBE framework must balance epistemological clarity with ethical

responsibility. Outcomes should guide learning without constraining intellectual curiosity or marginalizing

learners whose strengths may not be easily quantifiable.

Outcome-Based Education: Evolution, Principles, and Global Perspectives

Outcome-Based Education (OBE) has become one of the most influential educational reform movements of the

past several decades, prompting institutions worldwide to rethink how learning is defined, structured, and

evaluated. Although frequently treated as a contemporary innovation, OBE is rooted in a long intellectual history

that blends behaviorist insights on measurable performance, pragmatic ideas about functional learning, and

constructivist emphases on meaningful application. This section traces the development of OBE, outlines its

core principles, and situates its global diffusion within broader educational reforms.

Historical Development of Outcome-Based Education

The conceptual foundations of OBE can be traced to mid-twentieth-century efforts to bring greater clarity and

structure to curricular design. Early contributions include Tyler’s (1949) rational model, which proposed that

instructional planning should begin with clearly stated educational objectives, and Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy,

which provided a systematic classification of cognitive skills for assessment purposes. These early frameworks

emphasized observable behaviors as indicators of learning, thereby laying the groundwork for later outcomes-

based approaches.

However, OBE as an articulated educational movement was most clearly shaped by William Spady in the 1980s

and 1990s. Spady (1994) contended that traditional schooling—focused on coverage, content memorization, and

sorting learners by performance—failed to ensure mastery or meaningful learning. OBE, in his view, offered a

transformative alternative by beginning with a “clear picture of what is essential for students to be able to do”

and by structuring curriculum and instruction backward from those expectations (p. 12). This reframing marked

a shift from teaching as transmission to teaching as facilitation of demonstrated competence.

Central to OBE’s emergence was a critique of inequity within conventional systems. Spady argued that if schools

focused on essential outcomes rather than uniform pacing or one-size-fits-all instruction, they could

accommodate individual differences, support mastery learning, and reduce achievement disparities. Thus, from

its inception, OBE was not merely a pedagogical model but a moral response to concerns about student diversity,

social justice, and meaningful educational opportunity.

Core Principles of Outcome-Based Education

OBE’s conceptual framework is often summarized through four interdependent principles: clarity of focus,

design down, high expectations, and expanded opportunity. Together, they construct a coherent system that

positions demonstrated learning at the center of educational practice (Spady, 1994).

Page 795

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Clarity of Focus

OBE requires explicit articulation of the learning outcomes that students are expected to achieve. These

outcomes must be measurable, meaningful, and aligned with broader program goals. Clarity ensures that teachers

and learners understand the purpose of instruction and the criteria for success.

Design Down (Backward Design)

Curricular planning begins by identifying the desired end results rather than the content to be covered.

Instructional activities and assessments are then selected and sequenced to support learners in achieving those

outcomes (Tyler, 1949; Biggs & Tang, 2011). Design down creates coherence between goals, teaching methods,

and evaluations.

High Expectations

OBE maintains that all learners can succeed at significant learning tasks when provided with appropriate support.

Setting ambitious but realistic expectations challenges deficit-based assumptions and promotes equity.

Expanded Opportunity

Because learners differ in background, pace, and learning styles, OBE encourages flexible pathways to mastery.

This may include differentiated tasks, multiple opportunities for assessment, and varied instructional approaches

(Killen, 2007). Such flexibility is central to OBE’s commitment to inclusivity and learner empowerment.

Together, these principles shift the emphasis of education from what teachers present to what learners ultimately

demonstrate, highlighting performance, mastery, and actionable competence.

Philosophical Foundations of OBE

Although often associated with assessment reform, OBE has deep philosophical roots. Pragmatism shapes its

insistence that learning be connected to real-world application (Dewey, 1938). Constructivism supports the idea

that learners build understanding through engagement with meaningful tasks (Piaget, 1972; Vygotsky, 1978).

Humanistic psychology provides the ethical grounding for its belief in the potential of every learner (Rogers,

1969; Maslow, 1970).

OBE’s learner-centered stance redefines the role of teachers as facilitators who design learning experiences that

allow students to demonstrate complex performance. This shift challenges traditional hierarchical models of

instruction and aligns with Freire’s (1970) view of education as a process of empowerment rather than control.

Thus, despite common perceptions of OBE as a technical framework, its underlying assumptions reflect a

synthesis of long-standing philosophical traditions emphasizing agency, value-driven learning, and purposeful

action.

Global Adoption and Adaptation of OBE

Over the past three decades, OBE has been implemented across diverse educational systems, though with varying

levels of success. In the United States, outcomes-oriented reforms gained momentum during the accountability

movements of the 1980s and 1990s, as policymakers sought clearer standards and measurable indicators of

school performance (Marzano & Kendall, 1999). Australia and New Zealand institutionalized OBE principles

through competency-based qualifications frameworks, particularly in vocational and higher education (Killen,

2007). South Africa adopted OBE as part of its post-apartheid efforts to create a more democratic, equitable

education system (Jansen, 1998).

In Asia, OBE has been widely embraced as part of national strategies to increase educational competitiveness

and align with global benchmarks. The Philippines’ Commission on Higher Education (CHED, 2014) mandates

outcomes-based curriculum development, while Malaysia’s Ministry of Education (2018) integrates OBE within

Page 796

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

quality assurance systems. Thailand’s Office of the Higher Education Commission (OHEC, 2016) similarly

promotes OBE to strengthen alignment with the ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework (AQRF) and to

support graduate mobility.

Yet, the diffusion of OBE has not been uniformly smooth. Scholars warn that the wholesale importation of OBE

models without contextual adaptation can result in what Jansen (1998) terms “symbolic compliance”—where

institutions adopt OBE terminology but fail to transform practice. Successful implementation depends not only

on policy alignment but also on teacher understanding, assessment literacy, and sustained institutional support

(Harden, 2007; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2018).

OBE and Educational Quality

Advocates argue that OBE enhances educational quality by creating transparent expectations, coherent curricula,

and systematic alignment between teaching and assessment. Constructive alignment (Biggs & Tang, 2011) serves

as a key mechanism for strengthening instructional quality: when outcomes, activities, and assessments are

meaningfully linked, learning becomes more focused and purposeful.

OBE also supports ongoing improvement through its emphasis on formative assessment, self-evaluation, and

data-driven decision making (Killen, 2007). By prioritizing mastery and continuous progress, OBE shifts

evaluation from punitive judgments to developmental feedback.

Nonetheless, concerns persist. Some scholars argue that the emphasis on measurable outcomes risks narrowing

the curriculum to what can easily be quantified, thereby overshadowing aesthetic, ethical, or socioemotional

dimensions of learning (Biesta, 2009). Balancing accountability with holistic educational aims is therefore a

critical challenge for OBE-based systems.

Summary

The evolution of OBE reflects broader efforts to rethink the purpose and structure of education in an increasingly

complex and interconnected world. Rooted in pragmatist, constructivist, and humanistic traditions, OBE

reconceptualizes learning as the achievement of meaningful, demonstrable capabilities. Its global influence

attests to its promise, yet its effectiveness depends on thoughtful, context-sensitive implementation. When

interpreted as a philosophical as well as technical model, OBE holds the potential to deepen educational

relevance, strengthen learner agency, and support equitable learning opportunities.

Application of Outcome-Based Education in Basic English Language Learning

The application of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) in English language teaching demonstrates how

philosophical principles can be translated into concrete pedagogical practice. Because language learning is

inherently social, functional, and experiential, the alignment between OBE and communicative approaches to

English instruction is particularly strong. This section examines the philosophical rationale for applying OBE in

Basic English courses, outlines how outcomes are defined and implemented, and discusses both the benefits and

challenges of OBE in language learning contexts.

Philosophical Foundations for OBE in Language Education

Language learning is closely tied to many of the principles underpinning OBE. Pragmatism and constructivism

emphasize purposeful engagement, experience-based learning, and the construction of meaning—elements

central to communicative competence (Dewey, 1938; Vygotsky, 1978). Similarly, contemporary language

pedagogy views communication as a situated act, shaped by context, interaction, and learner identity (Richards

& Rodgers, 2014).

Within this philosophical landscape, OBE provides a coherent structure for focusing instruction on what learners

must eventually do with the language. Rather than emphasizing the memorization of discrete grammar rules,

OBE encourages teachers to design learning experiences that foster the use of English in real or simulated

communicative contexts. For beginners, especially in foreign-language environments such as Thailand, this

Page 797

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

alignment ensures that English learning develops functional skills—listening for meaning, expressing ideas,

interpreting texts, and participating in conversations—rather than abstract knowledge devoid of practical

application.

Moreover, OBE’s emphasis on learner agency and mastery supports the development of autonomy, motivation,

and confidence—all of which are essential components of successful language learning (Brown, 2007; Nunan,

2015). Thus, the philosophical foundations of OBE resonate deeply with the communicative, task-based, and

learner-centered orientations of modern ELT.

Defining Learning Outcomes for Basic English Courses

The effectiveness of OBE in English instruction depends on the clear articulation of learning outcomes that

reflect both linguistic accuracy and communicative functionality. Outcomes in Basic English courses typically

draw on established proficiency frameworks such as the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR)

or national language standards (Council of Europe, 2020). These outcomes generally encompass:

Linguistic Competence

Mastery of foundational grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation that enables learners to construct simple and

accurate sentences.

Communicative Competence

Ability to understand and convey meaning appropriately in familiar situations, consistent with Canale and

Swain’s (1980) framework.

Listening and Reading Comprehension

Capacity to interpret short spoken and written texts, follow instructions, and extract essential information.

Speaking and Writing Skills

Production of brief, coherent, and context-appropriate oral and written messages.

Affective and Strategic Competence

Development of motivation, confidence, self-regulation, and learning strategies to support continued growth.

Clearly defined outcomes enable teachers to design backward-aligned curricula, select instructional materials

purposefully, and create assessments that measure authentic performance. For learners, explicit outcomes

provide a roadmap that clarifies expectations and supports self-directed learning.

Curriculum Design Through Constructive Alignment

Applying OBE to English teaching requires the careful alignment of outcomes, instructional strategies, and

assessment methods. Biggs and Tang’s (2011) model of constructive alignment is particularly relevant: once

outcomes are established, educators design learning experiences that allow students to practice and demonstrate

the targeted competencies.

For example, if the desired outcome is the ability to conduct simple self-introductions or exchange personal

information, the curriculum may incorporate role-plays, interactive dialogues, listening activities, and guided

pair work. These tasks reflect authentic social communication and provide opportunities for scaffolded practice.

The role of the teacher shifts from delivering content to facilitating interactive learning environments in which

students negotiate meaning, test hypotheses, and receive feedback—an approach consistent with both OBE and

communicative language teaching.

Page 798

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Through alignment, classroom activities and assessments become purposeful rather than incidental, ensuring

that every instructional decision contributes directly to the achievement of intended learning outcomes.

Assessment in OBE-Oriented English Language Learning

Assessment occupies a central place in OBE, as it provides evidence of whether learners have achieved intended

outcomes. In language education, authentic assessments—such as oral presentations, role-plays, portfolios,

writing tasks, and project-based assignments—align more closely with OBE principles than traditional multiple-

choice tests.

According to Spady (1994), assessments should be criterion-referenced, transparent, and formative, enabling

learners to understand what quality performance looks like and how they can improve. This view corresponds

with Brown’s (2007) perspective that language assessments should primarily support learning rather than merely

evaluate it.

Basic English courses can employ multiple forms of assessment to capture different aspects of communicative

competence:



Performance tasks demonstrate real-world language use.

Self- and peer-assessments cultivate learner autonomy.

Teacher conferences provide individualized feedback.

Portfolios document progress over time.

Assessment under OBE thus functions as a continuous feedback mechanism that shapes instruction, supports

mastery learning, and reinforces the humanistic commitment to learner growth.

Benefits and Challenges of OBE in Basic English Instruction

Benefits

Research suggests that OBE-based approaches enhance learner motivation, participation, and confidence by

making expectations explicit and by valuing demonstrated achievement (Harden, 2007; Nunan, 2015). OBE also

facilitates differentiated instruction, allowing teachers to accommodate diverse learning needs while maintaining

academic standards aligned with global frameworks such as CEFR.

Additionally, the focus on performance-based outcomes strengthens communicative competence, which is

essential for learners in multilingual and multicultural contexts such as Thailand (UNESCO, 2020).

Challenges

Despite these advantages, implementing OBE in English classrooms also presents challenges. Many teachers

report difficulty shifting from content-focused instruction to performance-focused learning, particularly when

they lack professional development in outcome-based curriculum design (Killen, 2007). Other concerns include:



The risk of narrowing language instruction to easily measurable skills (Biesta, 2009).

Difficulties in assessing higher-order communicative abilities such as intercultural competence or creativity.

Institutional pressures that may reduce OBE to procedural compliance rather than meaningful practice.

Addressing these challenges requires sustained teacher training, adequate resources, and an institutional culture

that values reflective pedagogy.

Page 799

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Philosophical Reflections on the Role of OBE in Basic English Learning

When examined philosophically, the application of OBE to English language learning underscores the broader

educational shift toward learner-centered, socially relevant pedagogy. OBE positions learners as active agents

who construct linguistic knowledge through interaction, performance, and reflection—echoing Dewey’s (1938)

vision of education as experience and Vygotsky’s (1978) emphasis on social learning.

At the same time, OBE embodies a moral stance: that all learners deserve equitable opportunities to develop

meaningful competence, and that teaching must be responsive to diverse pathways toward mastery. Spady’s

(1994) notion that success is achievable for every learner given time and support aligns deeply with

humanistic values and challenges traditional meritocratic assumptions.

Thus, the philosophical rationale for applying OBE in Basic English extends beyond pedagogical effectiveness.

It positions language education as a transformative process that cultivates communication, confidence, and

empowerment—qualities essential for learners navigating an increasingly interconnected world.

DISCUSSION AND EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

The analysis presented in the preceding sections illustrates that Outcome-Based Education (OBE) emerges not

merely as a policy mechanism or instructional technique but as a philosophical synthesis grounded in

pragmatism, constructivism, and humanism. When applied to Basic English language learning, OBE reshapes

both the aims and processes of instruction, linking theoretical foundations with pedagogical practice. This section

integrates these insights, examines the philosophical significance of learning outcomes, and considers the

implications of OBE for English language teaching, teacher preparation, and future educational directions.

Integrating Philosophical Foundations with Pedagogical Practice

OBE embodies a blend of philosophical traditions that collectively redefine how learning is conceived.

Pragmatism contributes the idea that knowledge becomes meaningful when applied to real-life contexts (Dewey,

1938). Constructivism reinforces the view that learners develop understanding through active engagement with

tasks and social interaction (Piaget, 1972; Vygotsky, 1978). Humanism provides the ethical foundation for

respecting individual differences and fostering learner growth (Rogers, 1969; Maslow, 1970).

These traditions are operationalized in OBE through explicit learning outcomes, performance-based learning

experiences, and continuous feedback. In Basic English instruction, such operationalization means that teachers

must design communicative activities, scaffolded practice, and authentic assessments that allow learners to

demonstrate their developing linguistic competence. The alignment between philosophical commitments and

practical strategies suggests that OBE is not simply an administrative model but a way of enacting long-standing

educational ideals in systematic, measurable ways.

The Philosophical Significance of Learning Outcomes

While often treated as technical tools, learning outcomes carry significant philosophical implications. They

signal a shift in educational purpose from the transmission of canonical knowledge to the development of

demonstrable capabilities that integrate knowledge, skills, and values. This reconceptualization aligns with

Dewey’s (1938) assertion that education is inseparable from lived experience.

Learning outcomes in OBE assert that understanding is meaningful only when it can be applied—whether

through communication, problem-solving, or interaction with others. Such an orientation challenges traditional

academic models that prioritize content coverage or hierarchical knowledge structures. It also reflects a moral

commitment to equity: by identifying what learners should be able to demonstrate, OBE rejects deterministic

assumptions about innate ability and affirms that all learners can succeed when provided with appropriate

support (Spady, 1994).

Thus, outcomes are not merely benchmarks; they represent normative claims about the aims of schooling and

the potential of learners.

Page 800

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Reconciling Measurement and Meaning

Despite its strengths, OBE raises enduring tensions between assessment measurement and educational meaning.

The emphasis on observable performance can lead institutions to privilege what is easily measurable over aspects

of learning that are discursive, relational, or affective (Biesta, 2009). This concern is particularly relevant to

language learning, where communicative competence involves cultural sensitivity, empathy, creativity, and the

ability to navigate complex social contexts—skills that are not always readily quantifiable.

Freire (1970) cautioned against educational systems that prioritize technical efficiency over humanization. OBE

must therefore be implemented with careful consideration to ensure that the pursuit of measurable outcomes

does not eclipse broader educational purposes. This requires teachers to design assessments that capture the

richness of communicative competence and institutions to value qualitative dimensions of learning alongside

quantitative indicators.

Pedagogical and Institutional Implications for Basic English Learning

The application of OBE to Basic English learning carries several implications for teaching, curriculum design,

assessment, and institutional support.

Teacher Reprofessionalization

Successful implementation requires teachers who are not only trained in outcome design but also versed in the

philosophical assumptions that underpin OBE. Without such grounding, OBE risks becoming a bureaucratic

exercise focused on documentation rather than meaningful instruction (Harden, 2007). Professional development

must therefore address both the conceptual and practical dimensions of OBE.

Curriculum Realignment

English programs must reorient curricula toward competency-based models. This involves integrating listening,

speaking, reading, and writing in meaningful communicative contexts rather than organizing instruction around

isolated grammar topics. Such realignment supports transfer of learning and ensures coherence between

outcomes and instructional content (Brown, 2007; Nunan, 2015).

Assessment Literacy

Teachers need a solid understanding of authentic, criterion-referenced assessment. Mastery of rubrics,

performance tasks, portfolios, and formative evaluation methods is crucial for capturing the complexity of

language learning. Assessment under OBE should be designed to nurture learner confidence while providing

actionable feedback.

Contextual and Cultural Adaptation

As Jansen (1998) argues, educational reforms fail when they are adopted without regard to local realities. OBE

principles must be interpreted through the cultural, institutional, and linguistic contexts of Thai classrooms. This

may involve integrating local discourse patterns, accommodating Thai-English code-switching, or modifying

assessment tasks to reflect culturally relevant communication scenarios.

Together, these implications highlight that OBE is not a ready-made formula but a framework requiring

reflective, context-sensitive translation into practice.

Future Directions for OBE as an Educational Philosophy

Looking ahead, OBE’s sustainability as a guiding educational model will depend on its ability to balance

accountability with authenticity. Technological advancements, including adaptive learning platforms and digital

assessment tools, offer new opportunities to tailor OBE to individual learner needs while maintaining coherence

Page 801

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

with intended outcomes (OECD, 2022). These tools can enhance feedback, personalize instruction, and track

learner progress more effectively.

However, the most pressing challenge is philosophical rather than technological. As Biesta (2013) emphasizes,

education must continually grapple with the question of purpose—what it means to educate and for what ends.

OBE will remain relevant only if it is treated as a living philosophy that invites ongoing reflection on values,

learner agency, and the social purposes of education. When implemented thoughtfully, OBE has the capacity to

support not only competence but also curiosity, ethical judgment, and human flourishing.

Visual Model 1 – Constructive Alignment Framework (OBE + ELT)

Table 1. Constructive Alignment in Basic English Courses

OBE Component

Description

Example in Basic English

Competencies learners must “Students can introduce themselves and

Intended

Learning

demonstrate

exchange personal information.”

Outcomes (ILOs)

Activities designed to achieve Role-plays, guided dialogues, listening tasks,

Teaching

&

Learning

the ILOs pair conversations

Activities (TLAs)

Evidence showing learners Oral performance task, recorded self-

achieved the ILOs introduction, teacher-student interview

Assessment Tasks (ATs)

Feedback Mechanisms

How learners receive input to Rubrics, teacher conferences, peer evaluation

improve

The expanded analysis reinforces that Outcome-Based Education (OBE) emerges not merely as a policy

mechanism but as a philosophically grounded paradigm shaped by pragmatism, constructivism, and humanism.

Applied to Basic English language learning, OBE reshapes instructional aims, assessment practices, and the

teacher’s professional role. This revised section integrates expanded discussions on teacher preparedness,

assessment alignment, and local adaptation strategies, and provides a clearer thematic structure for practical

application.

Visual Model 2 – Challenges and Solutions in Implementing OBE in ELT

Table 2. Implementation Challenges and Actionable Strategies

Challenge

Teacher

Explanation

Recommended Strategy

Many teachers lack outcome-design Continuous professional development;

and assessment skills

collaborative curriculum design

Preparedness

Difficulty

communicative skills

assessing

complex Use rubrics, portfolios, oral tasks; provide

assessment literacy training

Assessment

Alignment

Local norms may conflict with active, Adapt tasks to local cultural contexts;

and

Cultural

communicative learning

bilingual scaffolding

Contextual Fit

Performance-based

requires more time

assessment Streamline rubrics; rotate assessment

formats; integrate self-assessment

Time & Workload

Constraints

CONCLUSION

This documentary research set out to examine the philosophical traditions underpinning contemporary

educational thought and to analyze how these foundations inform the implementation of Outcome-Based

Page 802

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Education (OBE) in Basic English language learning. By synthesizing international literature, the study

demonstrates that OBE is not simply a procedural curriculum model but a deeply rooted educational paradigm

shaped by pragmatism, constructivism, and humanism. These traditions collectively reinforce the view that

learning is most meaningful when it is purposeful, experiential, and grounded in the lived realities of learners.

The philosophical foundations reviewed in this study highlight a significant shift in educational priorities—from

the transmission of fixed knowledge to the cultivation of demonstrable competence. This shift aligns closely

with Dewey’s (1938) conception of education as an experiential and socially embedded process. Within Basic

English language learning, these philosophical orientations translate into instructional practices that focus on

communicative competence, contextual use of language, and learner autonomy. OBE operationalizes these ideals

by articulating explicit outcomes, aligning instruction to support their achievement, and evaluating learning

through authentic performance.

The findings underscore that OBE’s strength lies in its conceptual clarity and its insistence on the coherence of

curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment. When applied effectively, OBE provides a structured yet flexible

framework that enables learners to acquire functional English skills while developing confidence, motivation,

and self-regulation. However, the study also acknowledges that successful implementation requires more than

technical compliance. Teachers, curriculum designers, and policymakers must cultivate a deep understanding of

OBE’s philosophical roots to avoid reducing it to a bureaucratic exercise driven solely by assessment.

Thus, the study calls for a balanced approach—one that values accountability without diminishing the holistic,

ethical, and humanistic dimensions of education. OBE must be implemented in ways that honor its philosophical

commitments to equity, learner empowerment, and meaningful engagement with learning. When grounded in

reflective practice and contextual sensitivity, OBE has the potential to serve as a transformative paradigm for

English language education, supporting not only what learners can do but also who they can become (Google;

Faculty of Education: Chulalongkorn University; OBEC, 2025).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I extend my sincere gratitude to my family, colleagues, and friends for their ongoing encouragement throughout

the development of this research. I am also thankful to my institution, Rajamangala University of Technology

Phra Nakhon (RMUTP), for providing both academic support and an environment that fosters scholarly growth.

Their contributions were instrumental in completing this study.

About the Author Sarinrat Eiamworawuttikul is a lecturer in English at the Faculty of Liberal Arts,

Rajamangala University of Technology Phra Nakhon (RMUTP). She is a licensed professional educator

specializing in Educational Administration, with certification from the Faculty of Industrial Education at

RMUTP. She also holds a Teacher Leadership credential from the British Council. Sarinrat earned her Bachelor

of Arts in English Language from Mae Fah Luang University and completed her Master’s degree in English as

an International Language (EIL) at Chulalongkorn University with distinction, specializing in TESOL, TEFL,

and intercultural communication.

Her academic and professional development extends internationally, including training and expertise gained

from institutions such as the University of Auckland (New Zealand) and the Baptist Student Center (BSC) in

Thailand and Australia. Her research interests include language pedagogy, cross-cultural communication, and

educational philosophy.

Page 803

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

REFERENCES

1. Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.).

McGraw-Hill Education.

2. Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the question

of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 33–46.

3. Biesta,

G.

(2013).

The

beautiful

risk

of

education.

Routledge.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals.

Longman.

4. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). Pearson Education.

Brubacher, J. S. (1982). On the philosophy of higher education. Jossey-Bass.

5. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language

teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.

6. Council of Europe. (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning,

teaching, assessment—Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing.

7. Council of University Administrative Staff of Thailand. (2025). Using AI in Literature Review

8. for Ethical Research (Batch 2). Professional Training. The Center for Higher Education Support Staff

Promotion

https://lookerstudio.google.com/s/qynwmO6X7yY

9. Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.

10. Google. (2025). Google Gemini AI for Education. Professional Training. Faculty of Education:

Chulalongkorn University. OBEC: Bangkok, Thailand.

and

Development.

Retrieved

on

November

9,

2025

from

Harden, R. M. (2007). Outcome-based education—The future is today. Medical Teacher, 29(7), 625–629.

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

Cambridge Journal of Education, 28(3), 321–331.

11. Killen, R. (2007). Teaching strategies for outcomes-based education. Juta & Company.

12. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). Harper

&

Row.

Mishra, S. (2017). Outcome-based education: Concept, history and implementation. International Journal

of Research and Development in Technology & Management Science, 24(1), 1–12.

13. Noddings, N. (2013). Education and democracy in the 21st century. Teachers College Press.

14. Nunan, D. (2015). Teaching English to speakers of other languages: An introduction. Routledge.

15. OECD. (2022). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD Publishing.

16. Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2018). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (8th ed.).

Pearson Education.

17. Ozmon, H. A., & Craver, S. M. (2008). Philosophical foundations of education (8th ed.). Pearson Merrill

Prentice Hall. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. Basic Books.

18. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd ed.).

Cambridge University Press.

19. Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn: A view of what education might become. Merrill. Silpakorn

University. (2025). Creative Learning: AI for Research Development. Artificial

20. Intelligence for Enhancing the Quality of Research and International Academic Publications.

Professional Training. SULIB THAPRA PALACE CAMPUS. Bangkok, Thailand.

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

School Administrators.

22. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. University of Chicago Press.

23. UNESCO. (2020). The futures of education: Learning to become. UNESCO Publishing.

24. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard

University Press.

Page 804

ww w .rsisinternational.org