Aligning teaching and assessment

to curriculum objectives
Purpose
This Guide, one of a series produced by the
John Biggs
Imaginative Curriculum project, provides an
introduction to how teaching and assessing
learning outcomes might be aligned to Introduction
curriculum objectives.
The expansion, restructuring, and refinancing
Audiences of the tertiary sector that began in the 1990s
The Guide is written primarily for:
has meant that universities are severely under-
 teachers looking for ways to resourced. Classes are not only larger than
improve the quality of their students’
they were a few years ago, but much more
learning;
diversified in terms of student ability and
 course leaders/coordinators who
lead whole course curriculum design motivation. Yet market forces demand quality
and/or who help other academics to teaching. Teachers have difficulty in
develop the curriculum; maintaining standards, let alone improving
 staff developers and others who them. They are stressed.
help academics to develop their
knowledge and skills about curriculum Teaching and learning take place in a whole
design, for example, Tutors for PG Cert system, which embraces classroom, department
HE teaching and learning courses;
and institutional levels. In a poor system, in
 LTSN Subject Centres who are which the components are not necessarily
growing disciplinary knowledge of
integrated and tuned to support learning, only
practice.
 university administrators and ‘academic’ students spontaneously use higher-
others engaged in quality assurance order learning processes. In an integrated
system, on the other hand, all aspects of
The Author teaching and assessment are tuned to support
John is Honorary Professor of Psychology at high level learning. Constructive alignment (CA)
the University of Hong Kong, previously is such a system. It is an approach to
Professor of Education at HKU, and is an curriculum design that optimizes the conditions
educational consultant, now residing in
for quality learning.
Hobart, Tasmania. His research interest is in
student learning and tertiary teaching
And he has authored many books and papers Something very like CA was proposed over 50
in these areas. His work with portfolio years ago by Tyler (1949), but the time was not
assessment crystallised his thinking about ripe, partly for reasons alluded to in the
learning and teaching, by taking the form of assessment sections below.
constructive alignment, which is outlined
here and explained in detail in his
book,Teaching for quality learning at
An example of a poor system

Here is what a psychology undergraduate said

about his teaching:

I hate to say it, but what you have got to do is

to have a list of ‘facts’; you write down ten
important points and memorize those, then
you’ll do all right in the test ... If you can give a
bit of factual information -- so and so did that, way through, from objectives through teaching
and concluded that -- for two sides of writing, method, to assessment: all involve focusing on
then you’ll get a good mark. Quoted in Ramsden students doing what they should be doing, solving
(1984: 144) professional problems. Telling them the history of
architectural problem solving, or giving them
If the teacher of this student thought that a multiple choice tests on the knowledge needed to
critical evaluation of psychological theories could solve problems, or learning the principles of
be handled by selectively memorizing, there would problem solving, might be interesting and useful,
be no problem. But surely the teacher didn’t think but they are not the central issue. The central
that. I hope not! As it happened, this particular issue is putting knowledge to work.
student graduated with First Class Honours. He
liked writing extended essays, and held these PBL is an excellent example of an aligned system,
quick and snappy assessments in contempt. He probably the purest example, but most approaches
made a strategic decision to memorise, knowing to teaching can be aligned more effectively than
that it was enough to get him through. they are already.

The problem here? The assessment was not

aligned to the aims of teaching. So often the What is constructive alignment?
rhetoric in courses and programmes is all that it
should be: students will graduate with a deep CA has two aspects. The ‘constructive’ aspect
understanding of the discipline, and the ability to refers to what the learner does, which is to
solve problems creatively. Then they are told construct meaning through relevant learning
about creative problem solving in packed lecture activities. The ‘alignment’ aspect refers to what
halls, and tested with multiple choice tests. It’s all the teacher does, which is to set up a learning
out of kilter, but such a situation is not, I strongly environment that supports the learning activities
suspect, all that uncommon. appropriate to achieving the desired learning
outcomes. The key is that the components in the
A good teaching environment is consistent. teaching system, especially the teaching methods
Teaching and assessment practices are aligned to used and the assessment tasks, are aligned to the
the aims of teaching. learning activities assumed in the intended
outcomes. The learner is in a sense ‘trapped’, and
finds it difficult to escape without learning what is
So what does a good intended should be learned.
system look like?
In this Guide, let us focus on aligning a semester
Problem-based learning (PBL) is a very good length unit or course. There are four major steps.
example of aligned teaching. PBL is most commonly
used in professional degree programmes, such as 1. Defining the intended outcomes
architecture, medicine, and nursing, but it is also (the objectives)
used on more ‘academic’ programmes. The idea is 2. Choosing teaching/learning
that graduates should be able to perform activities likely to lead to attaining the
differently in the area of study on graduation, for objectives
example to solve professionally related problems. 3. Assessing students’ learning
In PBL, the main teaching method is to get the outcomes to see how well they match what
students to solve professional problems was intended
themselves (carefully selected as to difficulty and 4. Arriving at a final grade
content), while the assessment is judging how well
they have solved them. There is alignment all the
Defining the objectives: As to (b), our curriculum is usually listed in topics
the intended outcomes to be covered. Once you’ve told them about it,
that’s it: topic covered. But some topics are more
When we teach: important than others, they require a deeper level
of understanding. Students only need to know
a. we must have a clear idea of what about some topics – they know where to go to look
we want our students to learn. it up in future if they have to – while other topics
b. on a topic by topic basis, we must must be understood at a level that allows them to
have a further idea as to how well we want put that topic to work, perhaps in a new context
each topic to be understood. they haven’t experienced before. So, again, those
topics need to be stated in terms of what the
As to (a), we should distinguish between students are required to do, not what you the
declarative knowledge and functioning knowledge. teacher have to ‘cover’ in class, or set as required
reading.
Declarative knowledge is knowledge that we can
‘declare’: tell somebody, read about. Libraries are Overall objectives, and topic objectives, are thus
full of the stuff. It is the basis of academic about what the student has to do. Think verbs.
disciplines. But it is usually only the first part of
the story. We don’t acquire knowledge only so that Following are four levels of understanding, with
we can tell other people about; more importantly, some illustrative verbs for each level. Of course,
we need to put knowledge to work, to make it each discipline will have its own verbs as well, and
function. To really understand something, you see remember that each verb has a topic object. The
the world differently, and behave differently following is a general framework, based on the
towards that part of the world. This is obviously SOLO Taxonomy (Biggs, 2003).
the case in professional faculties; we want lawyers
to make good legal decisions, doctors to make Minimal understanding, sufficient to deal with
accurate diagnoses. But we also want physicists to terminology, basic facts: Memorize, identify,
think and behave like physicists. After graduation, recognize
all our students, whatever their degree program,
should see a section of their world differently, Descriptive understanding, knowing about several
and to behave differently, expertly and wisely. topics: Classify, describe, list.
Thus, if these are our objectives, then simply
telling our students about that part of the world, Integrative understanding, relating facts together
getting them to read about it, and then getting and understanding basic theory: apply to known
them to tell all that back to you – in their own contexts, integrate, analyse, explain the aetiology.
words, of course! – is not likely to achieve our
intended outcomes. Not for the majority of Extended understanding, being able to go beyond
students. The good ones, the ‘academic’ ones, will what has been taught, deal creatively with new
themselves turn declarative into functioning situations: Apply to novel contexts, hypothesize,
knowledge in time, but most will not if they are not reflect, generate.
required to.
The first step in designing the curriculum
We have to require them to. We have to state our objectives, then, is to make clear what levels of
objectives in terms of what we want students to understanding we want from our students in what
do. We should require them to perform their topics.
understanding, not just tell us about it.
Once we have done that, we need to decide how we
are going to get them to do it. Those verbs, and
others that suit your own discipline, become the The trick is, then, to make sure the assessment
markers throughout the system. They need to be tasks mirror what you intended them to learn.
embedded in the teaching/learning activities, and That pre-empts the sort of cynical game-playing
in the assessment tasks. They keep us on track. we saw in our psychology undergraduate, above,
with his ‘two pages of writing’.

Choosing teaching/learning But there’s a much broader problem, which must

activities (TLAs) be addressed full-on. The fact is, the most
common assessment practices make such alignment
We usually take TLAs for granted. The default all but impossible.
TLAs in many courses are lecture and tutorial: Two approaches to assessment
lecture to expound and package, and tutorial to
clarify and extend. However, the verbs these Two approaches to assessment underlie current
contexts elicit are not necessarily high level if the educational practice. The first is the traditional
student is not so inclined. Students can get away model. We teach, then we test. Next, we order
with being passive, whereas high level learning students along a quantitative scale, usually a
requires them to be active in their learning. percentage scale, which is done by the familiar
There are many options for creating appropriate process of ‘marking’, and then we allocate grades.
learning contexts (Chapter 5, Biggs 2003) but even Grading can be carried out by stipulating arbitrary
the large class allows a wide range of relevant cut-off points: 75+ becomes an A, 65 – 74, B, and
student activity – if only the lecturer stops talking so on. A common alternative is to grade on the
now and then, and requires students to question curve or to norm-reference. That is, the top 15
each other about just taught content, to reflect, per cent, say, are awarded A; the next 25 per cent
to swap notes, to do exercises, to self-test, and so B, and so on.
on (see Chapter 6, op. cit.). Then of course there is
a range of activities that can be scheduled outside In either method of grading, the common feature
the classroom, especially but not only using IT is that the students’ performances have to be
(Chapter 10, op cit.). In fact, problems of quantified. Quantification is achieved in one or
resourcing conventional on campus teaching, and both of two ways. First, knowledge is broken down
the changing nature of HE, are coming to be into units that are classified as correct or
blessings in disguise, forcing learning to take place incorrect, and the correct units are added or
outside the class, with group and peer teaching, averaged. Second, a performance, such as an essay
independent learning and work-based learning, all or a problem solution, is reduced to independent
of which are a rich source of relevant learning components (such as content, style, originality,
activities. etc.), which are then rated on separate rating
scales, the maxima of which are frequently chosen
to add up to 100. The final performance is then
Assessing students’ learning outcomes assessed as the sum of the separate ratings. It is
then assumed that we have a clear, ‘objective’
It is no exaggeration to say that faulty scale along which we can compare students’
assumptions and practices about assessment do performances.
more damage than any other single factor. As
Ramsden (1992) puts it, the assessment is the The second approach to assessment is criterion-
curriculum, as far as the students are concerned. referenced. That is, the score an individual obtains
They’ll learn what they think they’ll be assessed reflects how well the individual meets preset
on, not what’s in the curriculum, or what’s been criteria, those being the objectives of teaching.
‘covered’ in class. This is what I am talking about here: alignment
between objectives and assessment. But before I
deal with this, let me outline some of the problems the course in which that student has already
with the traditional model. failed is difficult to grasp.
3. Tests should be unidimensional, and have a
high test-retest reliability. Complex
What’s wrong with the traditional approach performances are however not unidimensional,
to assessment? and teaching is supposed to produce change in
what is being measured, a change usually called
Underlying the quantitative approach to ‘learning’. Measuring change, using a model
assessment is what Taylor (1994) calls the that assumes that what is being measured is
‘measurement model’, which derives from individual stable, seems somewhat peculiar.
differences psychology. Psychologists were 4. The effects of quantitative assessments on
concerned about how individuals differed from student learning (‘backwash’) negative.
each other on fixed traits. They created Quantifying sends the wrong messages to
sophisticated test procedures, which relied on students. For example:
several assumptions. For example, traits are
normally distributed, and so therefore test scores  Ideas are equally important
should be too. Thus, an ability test is constructed  Individual trees are more
on the assumption that very few are really bright, important than the wood
most fall in the middle and a few really dull, in the  You can skip or slack on certain
familiar bell shape. Unfortunately, the educational areas if you are doing well elsewhere
fraternity pounced on psychometric-type tests,  Written tests make declarative
watered them down, and used them knowledge more important than application
inappropriately in the classroom.  Verbatim responses must gain
some credit
There are many problems with this approach.  Grading on the curve makes
Underlying them all is that there is no essential success and failure depend on
alignment between what outcomes are intended, uncontrollable factors such as relative
what is taught, and what is assessed. Any quick and ability and luck
dirty test with a modicum of face validity (‘two  As there is no intrinsic connection
pages of writing’, for instance) can be used to between the curriculum and assessment,
produce an ordering of students. just focus on what will get you through
the assessment.
Here are only some of the particular problems:
For a further treatment of this controversial
1. Expressing performances as percentages is topic see Biggs (2003, Chapters 8, 9).
assumed to create a universal currency that is
equivalent across subjects areas, and across
students. This assumption is completely
unsustainable. How can 50% in English be So what’s the alternative?
equivalent to 50% in History? How then can
scores on these different scales be averaged? The alternative is an assessment system that tells
Think about it. you how well each individual student’s assessed
2. A high average in most components of a course performances match what is required. Surely this
covers failure in other components. The is the aim of all teaching. It requires teachers to
reasoning here – that the student clearly had state desired outcomes in the form of standards
the ability to pass, so an overall pass is or criteria that students are to attain. How well
justified – is also unsustainable. The logic of they attain them, minimally or beyond reasonable
awarding a pass to a student on a section of expectations, is reflected in the grading system.
Most students should be able to reach them at an 1. demonstrate that you correctly understand and
‘acceptable’ level. can apply the principles of good teaching and
assessment to chosen contexts.
Matching individual performances against the 1. demonstrate a knowledge of selected aspects
criteria is not a matter of counting marks but of of curriculum design and management and how they
relate to the educational system in Hong Kong.
making holistic judgments. And this is where
teachers start to worry. Judgment is ‘subjective’,
2. show how the content and experiences in this
course may enhance your effectiveness as an EP.
isn’t it?, while quantitative marking is precise and
3. show evidence of reflective decision-making
objective. In case of dispute you can point to a
number, a score: You didn’t get enough marks, Final grades will depend on how well you can
sorry. Isn’t that much easier than justifying a demonstrate that you have met all objectives:
holistic judgment?
A: awarded if you have clearly met all the objectives,
No. Those ‘marks’ are themselves an accumulation displaying deep knowledge of the base content,
of mini-subjective judgments. The residual error original and creative thinking, perhaps going beyond
is probably greater than that in an holistic established practice.

judgment that can be justified by argument and

B: awarded when all objectives have been met very well
reference to the criteria. Rather, I would ask you
and effectively.
to justify why 75 and over should be an A. Why
not 70? Or 90? It is almost universally accepted C: awarded when the objectives have been addressed
that getting half right, 50 per cent, should be a satisfactorily, or where the evidence is strong for
pass. Why? Numbers, and arbitrary cutting points, some objectives, weaker but acceptable in others.
only appear to make the process objective and
precise. It is not at all. F: less than C, work plagiarised or not submitted.

So we come back to holistic judgment. Teachers

should be able to justify their judgments. And
this is so much easier if the criteria to be met are The students were given the above, and the final
spelled out in the initial objectives. Dealing with assessment was based on a portfolio they
student disputes then becomes a seminar on the submitted comprising: a paper, a report, a
nature of good learning, not a demeaning quibble rationale of a group presentation, and a self-
over a mark here, a mark there. evaluation in which they made their case as to how
An example: Arriving at a final grade they thought they had addressed each of the
objectives. On an assessment sheet handed back
Let us look at an example of qualitative grading. to the students, each item was discussed in terms
The following were the grading criteria I used in a of what objectives it met and how well. The grade
unit in a Master’s programme for educational was immediately apparent. No counting, no
psychologists. arbitrary, unsustainable decisions. It took a little
longer than marking a final exam, but not much
longer.

There’s a postscript. The university required

CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION
reporting in percentages, otherwise the computer
system could not calculate final grades. So I simply
Course Objectives and Grade Criteria used the existing arbitrary percentage cut-offs,
but after the event. That is, my qualitatively
Grading will be based on your attaining the following allocated grades determined the percentage
objectives: reported, not vice versa: a percentage did not
determine the grade. The backwash to students What is more likely is that the Board of Examiners
was therefore qualitative, not quantitative; they would throw up their arms and demand a regrade:
knew what they had to do to get an A,. On the No more than fifteen percent should be A’s,
other hand, knowing that they had to accrue 70 twenty at absolute most! Otherwise, whatever will
marks to get an A is not very helpful, except they they think of us!
had to scrabble for marks wherever they could.
So, in my case, if 70+ was an A, and I had judged This is measurement model thinking. Because
the portfolio to meet the requirements for A, ability is distributed along the normal curve, the
then if it was a bare A, I awarded 72 of these majority of the class must, by a law of nature, be
mark things; if it was a good A, I gave 78, and so awarded middle grades, a few top grades, a few
on. The final irony was that final grades were low passes or fail. That argument assumes that
reported in? Yes, A, B, C, and F categories! So I ability determines learning outcomes, not that
graded in categories, converted into marks, only to good learning is facilitated by good teaching. My
be converted back into categories again. Just why definition of good teaching, on the other hand, is
teachers were not required to report in categories where we started. If we can provide an
in the first place is one of those eternal mysteries environment in which unpromising students display
of university administration. The effect on most the quality of work that only good students had
staff was, unfortunately, to mark in percentages displayed hitherto, that’s good teaching. Good
from the start, with all the attendant problems teaching beats the distribution of ability, it does
mentioned above. not follow it.

So we can get around many bureaucratic obstacles Anyway, the student intake is certainly not
to aligned teaching and assessment. The important normally distributed with respect to ability. Even
thing in an aligned qualitative approach is that the these days, we’re still only accepting less than half
criteria for differentially acceptable levels of the upper ability end of the age range.
performance are there for all to see, and the
determination of a student’s performance is In short, there is absolutely no justification on
completely transparent, as criterion-referenced educational grounds for prescribing fixed
assessments are, or should be. Norm-referenced proportions of grade categories. Such a policy,
assessments cannot be transparent in the nature which is not uncommon, is adopted for cosmetic
of the case, because it depends on how clever the reasons: it’s good PR to show even grade
other students are as much as on how clever you distributions across department, across years.
the student are. But it cuts right across any attempt to set up
aligned teaching, and must therefore be resisted.
Some might perceive a difficulty at this point.
What if most of my students, say eighteen out of
a class of twenty, met the criteria for A? Wouldn’t Another example:
I be seen as a soft touch? Wouldn’t others look at The learning portfolio
the results and say: The standard is obviously too
low? Well, yes, I’m sure many would say that. The When I first used portfolio assessment in another
important thing is how I derived those criteria for unit in an undergraduate programme, the
an A. If I derived them by judging, perhaps in backwash took over, and in effect dictated the
consultation with the profession, that a graduating TLAs (and in fact what led me to CA). In this case,
psychologist needed to meet certain criteria, and alignment was created bottom up.
they were those I’d adopted for a grade of A,
then it’s party time, surely. Congratulations all The unit in question was a compulsory semester-
round. long unit in the third year of a four year part-time
evening Bachelor of Education programme at the
University of Hong Kong. The students were
primary and secondary teachers in Government In the first class of the semester, I circulated
schools. The general aim of the unit was not to the above objectives and discussed them, making
teach students about psychology (they already had sure the students knew the standards they would
completed a first year unit in educational have to meet. They were told that they had to
psychology), but to get them to demonstrate that convince me that their learning in the unit met the
they could drive their classroom decision-making objectives. They were to decide on the evidence
with their psychological knowledge, based on for their learning in the form of items for their
reflective practice. Such an aim would be portfolio, and to explain where they thought the
appropriate to advanced units in most professional portfolio as a whole met the objectives.
programmes. Specifically, the requirements were:

Once the topics were decided, it was necessary to 1. Four pieces of evidence selected by the
define the levels of understanding that were to be student
attained. This was done in terms of the verbs 2. A reflective journal, including answers to
indicating the level of understanding required for the main idea questions for each plenary
each letter-grade: session.
3. A justification for selecting the items, and
A. Reflect on their own teaching, the overall case they were supposed to make
evaluate their classroom decisions in terms as a learning package. This provided very good
of theory, and thereby improve their evidence of students’ metacognitive
teaching, formulate a theory of teaching awareness of their learning.
that demonstrably drives decision-making
and practice, generate new approaches to A list of possible item types suggested items was
teaching on that basis. provided by request, but original item types were
B. Apply course content, recognize encouraged.
good and poor applications of principles.
‘Missed A’, that is, had a good try at The portfolio was a completely new task to them,
reflecting but didn’t quite make it. to which most initially reacted very negatively.
C. Understand declarative; discuss They demanded guidelines, examples of possible
content meaningfully, know about content items, and complained bitterly about the perceived
topics. Also include ‘missed B’. workload. In the event, I have to admit that their
D. Understand in a minimally initial complaints about the workload were
acceptable way: essentially ‘missed C’, or justified. Four items, apart the journal and the
‘badly missed B’. justifications, were too many. Three would have
E. ‘Missed D’; plagiarised; didn’t been better.
participate satisfactorily; didn’t hand in
work. The following dialogue, condensed from several
sessions, illustrates how this happened (S are
If students could unequivocally demonstrate in the students, T is teacher):
items chosen for their portfolios the level of
performance indicated by the verbs in the S: What sort of items do we select?
category, that category grade would be awarded, T: That’s up to you. Think hard about the
given that the other performance tasks were all objectives. Here’s a list of sample items you
satisfactory. Thus, formulating the actual might include. (I take a few and explain how
objectives was not at all complicated, and the they might work).
ensuing assessment procedures were also S: Can we have a trial run?
straightforward.
T: Yes, and if you’re happy with my assessment of
it you can submit it as an item.
S: How do we show we can reflect? The students’ experience
T: Use your journal.
S: What do we put in it?
T: What you think are critical incidents in your
teaching. Talk it over with your colleagues. Student reactions gave an interesting insight into
Form a learning partnership.
Sit next to your partner in class, get their the way alignment worked. One student referred
phone number or email. You can help each
other. to the portfolio as ‘a learning tool’. In fact, it is
S: Wouldn’t it be better if we had discussion
groups of students teaching the same difficult to separate what is a TLA and what an
subjects as we do? Then we can share
experiences on similar problems. assessment task in an aligned system. Students
T: Certainly. You can form groups in the room next
door. learn what they are supposed to learn, and they
S: We need direct teaching on the topics. Will you
lecture us? are graded on how well they learn it. What could
T: Only if I really need to. There’s a topic for
each session. The pre-reading should do, just be simpler?
a few pages, before each session. I’ll then
meet half the class at a time, while the other
having are in discussion groups. We can clarify The negotiated teaching activities stimulated the
each topic in the lecture, as necessary. And so
on. students to respond in the way required, as the

In short, the assessment task drove the students’ following quotations from their portfolios
learning activities, which had to address the
objectives, and the TLAs evolved around that. indicate::

What (we are expected) to prepare for the

portfolio undoubtedly provide me a chance to

reflect on my daily teaching. This would never

happen if this module proceeds in the same

way as the other modules. I would not be so

alert about my own teaching and eager to

make changes and improvements.

 Instead of bombing us with lengthy lectures You will be willing to do more than what the
lecturers want you to do. The circumstance is
and lecture notes, we have to reflect on our like a little kid who has learnt something new
in school and can't wait to tell his/her
own learning experiences and to respond parents.

critically ...I feel quite excited as this course I learn more from the portfolio than in the
lesson.
is gradually leading me to do something
All (the teacher) said was ‘show me the
positive to my teaching career and to evidence of your learning that has taken place’
and we have to ponder, reflect and project
experience real growth. the theories we have learnt into our own
teaching …How brilliant! If it had only been an
exam or an essay, we would have probably just
Student reactions to the portfolio were initially repeated his ideas to him and continued to
negative: teach the same way as we always do!

Another example of alignment in an engineering

How about the assessment? Aiyaa! ANXIETY! program is given by Houghton (2002), which is
designed specifically to fit within existing QAA
ANXIETY! ANXIETY! I was so puzzled and procedures.

worried about it when I received the handout

Conceptions of teaching,
on the first meeting. of the curriculum

It is now well accepted that teachers teach

according to their beliefs about the nature of
And a backhander to me: teaching and of what the curriculum is about.
Some see the curriculum as being entirely
This (the portfolio) is going to be a concerned with content the students have to take
nightmare! At least, if it had been an essay, I on board, the ‘transfer’ conception: knowledge
would have known what is expected of me being transferred from the teacher’s head to the
...Have I ever caused the same kind of fear students’ heads (I would rather see this as
among my students? I must bear in mind to ‘reduplication’, otherwise the teacher is left a
be more reasonable and careful when giving babbling ignoramus after each lecture). Others
my students assignments from now on ... only see the curriculum as process, as the experience
give them assignments that are well designed the students have, which includes the values that
and really necessary to help them in their are transferred in the so-called ‘hidden’
learning ... make sure they understand what is curriculum. Where does CA stand on these issues?
expected of them ... make sure sufficient
time is given for completing .... Actually, I think CA is neutral on most. It is a
meta-principle of curriculum design, which can
By the end of the unit, however, reactions were incorporate a variety of particular conceptions.
more positive: The only aspect it cannot incorporate is, as I say,
norm-referencing. But you can criterion reference
anything. For example, say I am a very stern
traditionalist. Here are the topics to be covered, we mean by ‘understanding’, and how we can
and they have to be learned exactly right, foster it.
verbatim. Very well, the objectives are clear, the  The students see that what they are
TLA is exposition, the assessment is based on learning is real. They’re being required to show
verbatim recall. It does not tap the upper reaches that they can operate more effectively with
of constructive learning (memorisation is a narrow- what they have learned, not just talk about it.
band constructive activity), but it is one, and the Cynicism, that enemy of deep learning, is much
design is aligned throughout. less likely.
 The outcomes on graduation translate into
CA does emphasise process, however. The verbs informed action, which is what the community
are really ways of requiring students to think in expects.
required ways, not just to achieve outcomes. But
again, the processes are built into the objectives
and they can be high level or low level. Disadvantages and impediments

The value of CA in addressing the hidden  Although the approach is common sense, it
curriculum came out beautifully in many of the requires a different way of thinking about
student comments, some of which are quoted teaching, and in particular about defining levels
above. All were teachers, and the experience of of understanding.
being required to reflect on their own learning,  It requires a theory of teaching your
enabled them to reassess their teaching, as is seen discipline over and above knowledge of the
in the following: discipline itself; and knowledge about options
for teaching and assessment. This is where
When I am a learner, I expect the teachers LTSN centres and staff developers can be
to provide me with good learning. When I am a vital resources and supports.
teacher, I just neglect the learners. Is this  Time. Academics are more stressed than
fair? ever, and in the initial stages setting up an
aligned system requires thought, and the
As Ronald, one of my classmates, said , ‘They redesign curriculum, teaching methods, and
are practising what they preach’. His words assessments.
recall my memory of Michael Fullan’s premise  Institutional requirements, such as
in his book Change Forces: ‘Faculties of quantitative reporting, and grading on a curve,
education should not be advocating things for make aligned teaching difficult.
teachers or schools that they are not capable
of practising themselves. It looks like the negatives outweigh the positives,
but that’s only if you think quantitatively.
Constructive alignment is precisely that: practising
what you preach. The medium is the message. Why not try it for yourself.

Advantages of aligned teaching References and Further Reading

The advantages of teaching and assessing in this Biggs, J.B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at
way have been emphasised already. In sum: university. Buckingham: The Open University
Press.
 It’s more rewarding as a teacher, and more
enriching. We are forced to reflect on what
Houghton, W. (2002) Using QAA subject Taylor, C. (1994). Assessment for measurement or
benchmark information: an academic teachers standards: The peril and promise of large scale
perspective. assessment reform. American Educational
Ramsden, P. (1984). The context of learning. In F. Research Journal, 31, 231-262.
Marton, D. Hounsell, and N. Entwistle, N. (eds), Tyler, R.W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum
The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh: and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago
Scottish Academic Press. Press
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher
education. London: Routledge.

September 2003