Restructuring the Assessment System for the Course “Practical Administrative Law and Administrative Litigation Law” Based on the OBE Approach

Abstract

Currently, assessment for the course “Practical Administrative Law and Administrative Litigation Law” primarily consists of a closed-book final exam, which emphasizes memorization of legal provisions and struggles to measure students’ practical analytical abilities in real-world scenarios. Formative assessments often become mere formalities, lacking diagnostic and improvement functions. The root cause is that the assessment system lacks systematic, outcomes-based design. This paper introduces the concept of OBE (Outcomes-Based Education) and reconstructs the course’s assessment and evaluation system based on the principles governing the development of practical administrative legal skills. Building upon an explanation of the core principles of OBE—student-centeredness, learning outcomes, and continuous improvement—this paper proposes that the evaluation logic must shift from “teaching what is tested” to “what outcomes should be achieved—what evidence is required—what tasks should be designed.” The function of evaluation should transition from mere grading and classification to diagnosis and promotion, and evaluation methods should move from single-exam assessments to diverse forms of evidence. Accordingly, a four-dimensional framework is constructed, comprising “outcome decomposition—task vehicles—multiple evaluators—feedback loop”: expected learning outcomes are broken down into measurable indicators such as knowledge application, practical operations, critical thinking development, and professional literacy; diverse task vehicles covering the entire learning process—including regular assessments, interim outcomes, and summative assessments (such as open-case analysis)—are designed; a multi-stakeholder evaluation system is introduced, led by faculty assessment and supplemented by student self- and peer-assessment; and a closed-loop system of immediate feedback and instructional improvement is established for both students and faculty. The paper also proposes implementation safeguards regarding faculty assessment literacy, the integrated design of teaching and assessment, and a differentiated, phased implementation approach. This framework aims to transform assessment from a “terminator” of learning into a “booster” for competency development, driving a fundamental transformation in the assessment logic of legal education.