Abstract
Institutions practising outcome-based education compute learning outcome attainment routinely, while reviews of curriculum analytics report an absence of evidence on how that computation informs decisions. This paper presents OBER+, an extension of a deployed institutional attainment platform that computes the step from a measured shortfall to an evaluated corrective action. Five connected stages accumulate attainment across deliveries of a course, signal a shortfall and a persistent shortfall, grade it on cutoffs the regulator already uses, record the decision against a catalogue of practices annotated with their evidence, log the change, and quantify the subsequent movement in the shortfall. A further rule compares successive statements of an outcome, so attainment is never read as a series across a point at which the outcome changed. Applying the rules to the live record of two real courses produced three results. Every outcome of a core course was substantively redefined between consecutive deliveries, with subject matter moving between outcome numbers, so a naive reading would have reported a twenty-five point collapse between quantities that do not refer to the same learning. Recomputing the platform's figures from its documented rule showed six of ten differing by more than rounding explains, in a pattern that identified a defect since reported to the institution. Across fifteen statement pairs from three transitions, five were identical character for character, and among the ten that were not, the outcome carrying a given number was nearest to a differently numbered earlier outcome in six, a result resting on an ordering of similarities and requiring no threshold and no labelling. The contribution is a computational design for outcome-based reporting, stated as rules any attainment platform can implement, with evidence of what they make visible in a live institutional record.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.03770
