Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are often confronted by the following question: "How can you prove that your curriculum is actually producing the graduates you claim it produces?" The evidence cannot consist merely in a course outline or a list of topics covered in a programme; rather, the proof resides in what the graduates can do vis-à-vis what the programme stipulated that they would be able to do after completing their studies. HEIs design attractive academic programmes, invest time and resources in teaching and assessing the students, yet gaps are still discovered when graduates are assimilated into the industry. The gaps are often attributed to the misalignment between the Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs), Assessment Tasks (ATs) and Teaching and Learning Activities (TLAs) on both programme and course level.
To bridge this gap, an Australian educational psychologist Professor John Biggs crafted a framework called Constructive Alignment (CA) which argues that a curriculum is constructively aligned when the relationship between expected outcomes, learning activities and assessment is deliberate and demonstrable (Biggs & Tang, 2011). This essay explains what Constructive Alignment is all about, why it matters in curriculum design, its application to curriculum design, challenges facing its implementation and the way forward.
A curriculum is constructively aligned if there is a deliberate and demonstrable relationship between what graduates are expected to achieve, the learning activities through which they develop those capabilities, and the assessment tasks through which achievement is demonstrated.
Biggs & Tang, 2011
Constructive Alignment
CA is an outcome-based approach to curriculum design that integrates the constructivist theory of learning promoted by Jean Piaget in the middle of the 20th century. Constructivists believed that the learning process is an active construction of the students. Accordingly, pedagogical and curriculum design must incorporate different modes and methods of learning that give impulses to the construction of learning to different learners. Further, the model explains that teaching is effective when it supports activities appropriate to achieving curriculum objectives, thereby encouraging students to adopt a deeper approach to learning. For Biggs, students are central to the creation of learning; as such they must be provided with opportunities to actively engage and select information to construct their own knowledge. This can be done by aligning teaching and assessment with expected learning outcomes. In other words, the curriculum must be designed in such a way that outcomes, activities and assessments are consistently aligned so that what students are expected to learn is clearly articulated, taught and assessed.
ILOs · TLAs · ATs
Programme & Course
CMM & CAM
To Implementation
Why CA Matters in Curriculum Design
CA is crucial in the design of study curriculum because it offers a systematic way to guarantee coherence and quality in a curriculum. When ILOs, ATs and TLAs are aligned, gaps, overlaps, duplications and sequencing issues that frequently arise in programme development are identified and addressed. CA also fosters deep learning since it promotes active construction of student knowledge through various teaching and learning activities (O'Neill & McMahon, 2004). Furthermore, CA promotes transparency and clarity for both students and staff by clearly showing what the students will learn, how they learn it and how they will be assessed.
CA promotes transparency and clarity for both students and staff by clearly showing what the students will learn, how they learn it and how they will be assessed.
In addition, CA strengthens quality assurance and accountability since it provides documented evidence that the programme will walk the talk by delivering what it states it will deliver (Diamond, 2008). For these reasons, CA is widely embraced as a fundamental approach to outcome-based education and a quality assurance framework for improving curriculum design, student learning experiences and institutional credibility.
Applying Constructive Alignment to Curriculum Design
To align assessment tasks, teaching and learning activities with intended learning outcomes when developing study programmes, it is crucial to employ Backward Design methodology both on programme- and course levels. In other words, expected learning outcomes must be developed first, followed by the corresponding assessment tasks and teaching and learning activities.
Programme Level
Kennedy & Hyland (2007) stipulated that when developing study programmes, developers should ensure that all courses within the programme complement one another in order to achieve the overall Programme Intended Learning Outcomes. The process begins by defining the expected outcomes with reference to national qualification level descriptors and professional competency frameworks. At this stage, developers respond to two key questions: what qualifications and competencies is the programme aiming to produce, and what will graduates be able to do upon completing the programme? The answers to these questions form the Programme Intended Learning Outcomes (PILOs). Thereafter, the whole programme structure is designed by determining the courses that will help to deliver the programme intended outcomes. Following this, acceptable evidence of successful learning is determined by selecting appropriate assessment methods that will demonstrate whether the PILOs have been achieved. The final stage involves operationalizing the design at course level, by breaking down Programme ILOs into Course ILOs, and then aligning, for each course, the teaching and learning activities, content topics and assessment tasks so that they are mutually supportive and directly contribute to the achievement of the intended outcomes.
It is critical for developers to use a Curriculum Mapping Matrix (CMM) to ascertain that CA has been achieved on programme level (Cox & Imrie, 2004). This tool maps PILOs across courses in the programme since it clearly indicates where, how and in which course each Programme ILO is addressed and assessed. In addition, it provides visible evidence to curriculum developers, Senate, Quality Assurance and programme accreditation bodies that the study programme "walks the talk" — that is, it delivers what it claims it will deliver.
Course Level
On course level, programme developers clearly define what students are expected to be able to do by the end of the course or module. At this stage, the course ILOs — specific, clear, realistic and aligned to the programme intended learning outcomes — are developed. Secondly, the course or module is designed by identifying study topics that will facilitate the achievement of the ILOs. Thirdly, teaching and learning activities are selected to actively engage students in the very processes required to meet the ILOs. Finally, appropriate assessment methods are developed to provide evidence of whether the ILOs have been achieved.
To check CA on course level, curriculum developers should use a Course Alignment Matrix (CAM) which translates the contribution of a particular course into a more detailed learning design. This tool serves as documentary evidence for the content to be covered by students, the teaching methods to be employed and the assessment methods to be used. It shows that the alignment in a course is explicit and auditable, for reviewers can draw a straight line from the ILOs to the TLAs and the ATs.
Challenges
Regardless of its significant role in study curriculum design, effective implementation of Constructive Alignment is faced with numerous challenges. Firstly, lack of knowledge and skills among curriculum developers poses a great constraint. Where such knowledge gaps exist, it becomes difficult for developers to formulate appropriate ILOs and align them coherently with ATs and TLAs (Biggs & Tang, 2011).
Secondly, institutional resistance to change limits the application of the CA model. HEIs have preconceived patterns of programme design and may prefer their own established practices of teaching and learning instead of embracing a curriculum that is outcome-based (Case & Gunston, 2003).
Thirdly, lack of adequate support from HEI leadership, Curriculum Committees, and Quality Assurance units can undermine the implementation of CA when designing study programmes (O'Naill, 2010).
Way Forward
In light of the foregoing discussion, the effective operationalization of Biggs' CA Model in study curriculum design calls for collective efforts of academic staff, curriculum developers and Quality Assurance Departments. It is also essential that HEIs provide continuous development training to curriculum developers to equip them with knowledge and skills in CA and its practical application in curriculum design. There is a common narrative by most students that "ntchito tikaphunzira ku ntchito konko", which literally means that they will acquire the needed skills in industry. As trivial as it may sound, this saying points to a mismatch between curriculum design and industry requirements. By aligning ILOs, TLAs and ATs, students are afforded structured opportunities to develop required competencies during their studies. Therefore, at the time of graduation, they already demonstrate the attributes required by industry. It is, therefore, important for HEIs to develop or adopt tools for auditing CA at both programme- and course levels. HEIs should also institutionalize the production of alignment matrices as a policy or standard procedure for Senate approval of a programme. This move would shift CA from being an individual practice by lecturers or programme developers to an institutional practice advocated by HEIs to enhance the quality and coherence of programme design.
Conclusion
Applying Biggs' CA model to curriculum design helps HEIs to develop curricula that meet stakeholder satisfaction and accreditation requirements by regulatory bodies. CA also increases the likelihood that HEIs will produce quality graduates that the programme promises to produce. However, effective application of the model requires capacity building among academic staff, availability of practical tools and organized quality assurance procedures for tracking curriculum alignment.
