Search

The purpose of this follow-up article is twofold. Firstly, the article attempts to indicate how the teaching and learning of History in South Africa were influenced by the OBE History curriculum frameworks of the USA, Australia, England and New Zealand. Secondly, the article attempts to describe the impact that OBE had on the teaching and learning of History in South Africa, with specific reference to its effect on teachers and learners.Regarding the first objective, it was concluded that the design of the History curriculum frameworks of the mentioned overseas countries fundamentally influenced the design of the OBE History framework in South Africa. There are similarities with regard to not only the processes for acquiring the outcomes skills, but also the prescribed assessment practices. For instance, the requirements and expected levels of performance of learners in all the countries are determined by targets or standards that progressively increase in degree of difficulty for each year of schooling.As regards the second objective, it was found that the new teaching model was acceptable in principle to many teachers – as the implementers of the curriculum. These teachers therefore adapted their teaching and learning methods innovatively and in accordance with OBE directives. In contrast, there were teachers who had a negative attitude towards OBE, owing to difficulties in implementing OBE effectively. The obstacles centred on aspects such as the large number of learners in a class, the lack of sufficient physical resources and teaching and learning support materials, problems with assessment, and insufficient support of subject and curriculum advisers. Some of the History teachers were also of the opinion that the in-service training programmes intended to equip them to implement OBE effectively lacked practical relevance.

Over the past decades many countries experimented with the OutcomesBased Education (OBE) model. OBE was often accepted as a curriculum alternative when international curriculum transformation took place in various parts of the world. One possible reason for adopting and phasing in an OBEapproach may be attributed to the fact that the traditional curriculum did not meet the demands of a post-modernist world. The twofold purpose of this article is firstly, to offer a synoptic international-historical perspective on the establishment and course of implementation of OBE in four of the foremost implementers thereof, namely the USA, England, Australia and New Zealand and secondly, to focus on the influence of OBE on the teaching and learning of History in these countries. In a follow-up article (as Part 2), the particular influence that these international OBE History curriculum frameworks had on the teaching and learning of History in South Africa, will be investigated. Furthermore the general impact that OBE had on History education in South Africa, will be examined. One of the main conclusions with respect to this article is that, to a great extent, patterns of parallel similarities exist regarding the origin, establishment and impact of the OBE-model in all the countries discussed. For example, the quality of traditional education curricula had been questioned in most of these countries when doubt manifested in the ruling parties about the ability of the country to hold its own within a globally competitive economy. To ensure economic superiority a more competent and well trained labour force was considered as indispensable. Education was considered the key to economic growth and it thus had to develop certain knowledge, competencies and skills in learners in order for them to be able to think and act in a creative and problem-solving manner. During the initial implementation phase of the OBEcurriculum there were also more visible similarities than differences among the above-mentioned countries. The idea of curriculum transformation was an acceptable education practice for most educators. Common implementation obstacles were also experienced by most educators. For example, the excessive emphasis on learning outcomes contributed to cumbrous, time consuming and complicated assessment practices. This greatly increased the workload of the educator who tried to implement the OBE-model despite a lack of both adequate in-service training and quality teaching and learning support material. Strong centralised government interference was another common denominator in most of the countries where OBE had been introduced and this posed a particular threat to the autonomy and future of History in the school curriculum.