Outcome-Based Redesign of an International Supply Chain and Trade Course: Authentic Tasks, Individual Evidence, and Assessment Rubrics
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63808/acde.v2i4.573Keywords:
Outcome-based education, International trade education, Supply chain learning, Authentic assessment, Curriculum design, Learning outcomes, Performance rubricsAbstract
Background: International supply chain and trade courses require learners to connect sourcing, transport, contractual delivery, payment, documentation and risk rather than recall isolated definitions. Purpose: This paper develops a course-level outcome-based education (OBE) design that links interdisciplinary business tasks to observable and individually attributable learning evidence. Methods: A design-oriented curriculum analysis synthesized OBE, constructive alignment, authentic assessment, rubric research and feedback theory. The analysis specified course learning outcomes, mapped them to tasks and evidence, and constructed an assessment and improvement protocol. No student performance data were analyzed. Design results: Four outcomes address business-process analysis, fulfilment verification, alternative decision making, and communication with professional responsibility. A staged cross-border order project joins independent process mapping, document checking, solution comparison, team synthesis and individual oral defence. The proposed grade structure assigns 60% to process work and 40% to a final individual assessment, while a separate outcome-attainment model prioritizes individual evidence. A four-level analytic rubric and an evidence-to-action protocol provide practical criteria for scoring, diagnosis and course revision. Implications: The framework offers a transparent way to link authentic business decisions with evaluable learning outcomes without confusing team performance with individual competence. It remains a design proposition: future classroom cycles must test feasibility, scoring reliability and learning effects.
References
[1] Spady, W. G. (1994). Outcome-based education: Critical issues and answers. American Association of School Administrators.
[2] Harden, R. M. (2007). Outcome-based education: The future is today. Medical Teacher, 29(7), 625–629. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701729930
[3] Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138871
[4] Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
[5] Li, Z. Y. (2014a). Interpreting the outcome-oriented concept of engineering education accreditation. Zhongguo Gaodeng Jiaoyu, (17), 7–10. [In Chinese].
[6] Li, Z. Y. (2014b). Guiding higher engineering education reform with outcome-based education. Gaodeng Gongcheng Jiaoyu Yanjiu, (2), 29–34. [In Chinese].
[7] Shen, T. E., & Locke, S. (2016). On the concept of outcome-based education. Gaoxiao Jiaoyu Guanli, 10(5), 47–51. [In Chinese].
[8] Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, T. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(3), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504676
[9] Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415
[10] Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00809.x
[11] Brookhart, S. M. (2018). Appropriate criteria: Key to effective rubrics. Frontiers in Education, 3, Article 22. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00022
[12] Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002
[13] Dawson, P. (2017). Assessment rubrics: Towards clearer and more replicable design, research and practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1111294
[14] Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714
[15] Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
[16] Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
[17] Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
[18] Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
[19] The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005
[20] Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600679050
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ruihui Yu
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.