Professional Documents
Culture Documents
POLITEKNIK KPTM
Bil1/2010
CONSTRUCTIVE
ALIGNMENT
Main Aim
To assist educators and curriculum
implementers in ensuring a clear
alignment between:
learning outcomes
teaching and learning methods
and assessment
in the programmes they design.
INSTITUTIONAL
MISSION
PROGRAMME
AIMS
(PAI)
PRGRAMME
LEARNING
OUTCOMES
COURSE
LEARNING
OUTCOMES
(CLO)
7/8/2
010
1O
2O
Constructive alignment
Linking a constructivist learning
environment with curriculum alignment
(Biggs, 1999a)
Constructive Alignment
This approach was developed by Prof
John Biggs
(Biggs, 1999) as the underpinning
concept behind:
the
development
of
programme specifications
declarations
of
intended
learning outcomes (ILOs)
assessment criteria
the
use
of
criterion
assessment.
based
Constructive Alignment
Le
ar
ni
n
g
O
u
tc
o
m
e
s
Teaching and
Learning
Activities
(TLAs)
(LO
s)
E
e
r
b
s
c
h
o
s
e
n
t
o
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
l
e
v
e
l
Assessment
Tasks
(ATs)
Adapted
from Biggs, J
(1999)
Teaching for
quality
learning at
University
OU Press
Individual
Student
are guided by
Intended Learning
Outcomes
by
predetermined
CONSTRUC
T
Emer
ging
Learni
ng
Ou
tc
o
m
es
are guided by
tested by
LEARNING
designed to
produce
supported by
through
Appropriat
e
Learning
Activities
which also
produce
Aligned
Assessm
7/8/2010
Teaching activities
Assessment
Student:
Learning activities
Outcomes
Assessment
Implementing Outcomes-based
Teaching and Learning using
Constructive Alignment
Teaching:
ILO:
Engaging the What the student
student in the
has to learn
verb in the
ILO apply
(apply
Psychology)
Assessme
nt:
How well
the
student
has met
the
ILO apply
Constructive Alignment
Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs)
arative level:
verbs such as
elaborate,
classify, cover
topics a to n,
Understanding at
a low level :
low level
verbs, also
inadequate
but
salvageabl
e higher
level
attempts.
Assess
ment
Tasks
F
o
r
m
a
t
targe
t
verb
s are
elicit
ed
and
depl
oyed
in
contex
t.
s
Criteri
u a clearly
c allow
h judgement as
to the
t
q
h
u
a
a
t
l
i
t
t
h
y
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
'
s
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
Outcomes
Outcomes at the institutional level:
Declarative, Functioning, Value
the programme?
perspective
(as
Level of
Competency
Analyze
Apply
Argue Compare/
contrast Criticize
Explain causes Relate
Justify
Identify
Name
Follow simple
procedure
Fail
Incompetent
Misses point
Cr
eat
e
Fo
rm
ul
ate
Ge
ne
rat
e
Hy
pot
he
siz
e
Re
fle
ct
Th
eo
riz
e
.
.
.
.
Incompetence
Prestructural
One Relevant
Aspect
Unistructural
Level of Understanding
Several Relevant
Integrated Into a
Independent
Structure
Aspects
Relational
Multistructural
G
N
Ext
Pre-structural
Unistructural
Simple and obvious connections are made, but
their significance is not grasped.
Multistruct
ural
Structure of the
Observed Learning
Outcome
(SOLO)
Relational
Structure of the
Observed Learning
Outcome (SOLO)
Extended Abstract
Ty
pic
Describe
Explain
Integrate
Apply
Solve problem
Design, create
Hypothesise
Reflect
P
o
The point is not how you are going to teach but how and what you
want your students to learn.
NOTE! Many of these TLAs can be assessments tasks as well. Then
you have excellent alignment.
Teaching/Learning Activities
(TLAs) that will facilitate
students achieving the ILOs.
Remember:
There are many alternatives to
Teaching
Activities
Talk, explain,
LECTURE clarify
TUTORIA Set/answer
L
questions
provide feedback
PROJECT Set brief, provide
ongoing feedback
Learning Activities
Listen, take notes,
accept, query,
discuss with peers, oneminute
paper
Pre-read, prepare
questions,
learn from peers,
critique, analyse
Apply, create, selfmonitor,
communicate, teamwork
PBL
Set problems
provide feedback
7/8/20
10
Choice of The
Assessment Tasks
7/8/20
10
Choice of The
Assessment Tasks
1
7/8/20
10
Assessing Quantitatively
By Using
Marks
Or
Qualitatively By
Using Rubrics?
Assessing by Marks
For:
Used to it.
. Seems to be the logical way to assess in
certain courses.
. Logistically easy.
1.
Against:
1.
1.
Defines
quality
in
terms
of
accumulating small quantities.
Measurement error also accumulates,
thus invalidating
fine discriminations. E.g. there is no
valid difference between 74 and 75, yet
1.
Extende
d
TOTAL
PERCENTAG
E
< Relational
>
Relational
12
18
13
16
21
31
23
68%
32%
Extende
d
TOTAL
PERCENTAG
E
< Relational
<
Relational
11
15
22
27
38
10
87%
13%
2
3
Against:
1
teachers.
Initially more work in designing ILOs,
suitable assessment tasks and rubrics, but
once established is no more extra work
than marking.
Marginal Pass
D
1.00
Satisfactory
C- C C+
1.70
2.00
2.30
Good
B- B B+
Excellent
A- A
3.70 4.00
45 - 49
50 - 64
65 - 79
80 - 100
As in Good but
provides views on
possible alternative
causes and/or results
under changing
conditions. Able to
link current
reasoning to
situations in reallife professional
contexts.
self-evaluation and
limited suggestions of
ways to improve
performance.
ILOs
Able to use
available
eflect Able to use available information to self-evaluate and identify information
limited aspects of own strengths and weaknesses in a general to selfsense. No evidence of suggestions of ways to improve
evaluate and
performance. No evidence of theory being used in selfidentify
evaluation.
more aspects
of own
strengths
and
weaknesses
in a general
sense. Little
application
of theory in
nesses. Selfevaluation
improving
performis based on
theory.
ance to reallife
Increasingly
able to
professional
suggest ways to
contest.
improve performance
in a specific context.
Adequate
C- C C+
50% - 64%
Good
B- B B+
65 % - 79 %
The pieces of
evidence
The evidence is
relevant,
The evidence
presents a
good appreciation of
the general thrust of
the
course. Good
coverage
Excellent
A- A
80 % - 100 %
As in B but
with
higher degree
of
originality and
evidence of
internalization into
personalized
model
of practice.
Good
evidence of
acceptable
way. Poor
coverage, no
originality, weak
justification of
portfolio
items.
Inappropriate
self-evaluation.
amount of
content. Able to
discuss
content
meaningfully.
Good coverage but
little
application or
integration.
Fair justification of
items.
Attempted realistic
selfevaluation
course
reflect-
integrate to form a
ion on own
performance
based
thrust or purpose.
Good evidence of
application of
course
Content to practice.
Portfolio items well
justified. Realistic
self-evaluation.
on theory.
Generalizes
course
content to new
and
unfamiliar
reallife contexts.