17 Constructive Alignment for Course Design

 

Why Does it Matter?

Constructive alignment is crucial because it enhances student motivation by directly linking both assessments and activities to learning outcomes, ensuring that students stay engaged with key concepts. Additionally, it improves teaching effectiveness by informing all teaching decisions, bridging the gap between what is taught and what is learned, ensuring coherence and clarity in educational practices. This approach not only supports deep learning but also avoids superficial learning strategies that result from misaligned assessments and teaching activities.

What does it look like in practice?

In this section:

• Understanding Constructive Alignment
• The Role of Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs)
• Characteristics of Good CLOs
• Examples of Good CLOs
• Developing a Course Rubric
• Designing Assessments Aligned with Learning Outcomes

Understanding Constructive Alignment

Constructive Alignment (Biggs, 2003) is what brings together, that is, aligns the educator’s desire for students to learn and the students’ focus on what they need to do to pass the course, i.e. assessment. This approach ensures that our students’ learning experiences are directly tied to what they will be assessed on, making the learning process more cohesive and purposeful.

“Constructive alignment” merges two concepts: Constructivism and Alignment.

• Constructivism views learners as active agents, rather than mere recipients of information (Piaget, 1952; Vygotsky, 1978). From this perspective, learning involves taking input and making sense of it in new and personal ways by relating it to existing mental schemata. Therefore, the focus is placed on what the learner does, with teaching facilitating learning and the learning environment providing opportunities for learning to occur.
• Alignment ensures that all aspects of the course (learning outcomes, teaching activities, and assessment tasks) are clearly interconnected to support optimal student learning.

Constructivism influences the expression of intended learning outcomes by requiring active verbs, since learning can only be evidenced through observable behaviours performed by the student. As educators, we often state that we aim to develop our students’ understanding of key concepts. While this may be appropriate for an aim, when it comes to writing learning outcomes, we must be explicit about observable behaviours or artefacts that we will use as proxies or evidence of students’ understanding. This is because we cannot observe ‘understanding’ given it is an internal process; we can only infer understanding from what a student does in a task.

Constructive Alignment is an effective framework for designing courses because it:

• Supports student motivation: Students often focus heavily on assessments, asking, “What’s in the assessment?” By aligning assessments with learning outcomes, we can ensure that students remain engaged with the key concepts we want them to learn.
• Enhances teaching effectiveness: As educators, we strive to engage students in meaningful learning. Constructive alignment bridges the gap between what we teach and what students are assessed on, ensuring both align seamlessly. Rather than designing learning activities that scaffold assessments, when we employ constructive alignment we design learning activities that scaffold attainment of the learning outcomes. Because assessments are also aligned with learning outcomes, there is still a strong link between learning activities and assessments, but this link is indirect and established via the CLOs. As a result, all course activities directly support intended learning outcomes, rather than preparing students for specific assessment tasks.
• Avoids unwanted backwash: Backwash is what students learn by interpreting assessment design as an index of what matters in the course. If assessment is well-aligned with learning outcomes, then this can be beneficial as it helps students focus on important aspects of the course. However, unwanted backwash may also happen when students focus exclusively on what they believe will be assessed, while ignoring everything else. This can lead to shallow approaches to learning, rather than deep engagement and understanding. Unwanted backwash can be especially troublesome when assessment is not fully aligned with CLOs. An example is when educators focus their assessment and feedback on aspects that are only marginally related to the CLOs, for example spelling and grammar in written tasks aimed at assessing critical thinking. Students then interpret this information as a sign of what is actually valued by the educator. The implicit lessons students learn about what is valued in assessments are often referred to as the ‘hidden curriculum’.
• Supports the validity and flexibility of assessments: Rather than being tied to specific tasks or assessment methods, when we have clarity over CLOs and the evidence that is required to demonstrate their attainment, we can use a variety of approaches as long as they provide validity. This enables flexibility and inclusive assessment practices.

While Constructive Alignment is a relatively simple and ultimately rewarding concept, it is often misunderstood and can be challenging to implement effectively. Let’s look into some of its practicalities.

Defining Course Learning Outcomes (CLO)

A key step in Constructive Alignment is to define Course Learning Outcomes (CLO) and pass standards, or levels of performance, for each learning outcome. From this perspective, the success of a study program hinges on students achieving pass standards in all courses. “Passing a course” essentially means that a student has demonstrated attainment of all the learning outcomes identified for a course. In Higher Education this alignment becomes even more complex as the same assessment task which is used for evidencing attainment of a CLO at a minimum standard (Pass) must also evidence higher-level and more aspirational standards relating to the same CLO. When a student achieves a Distinction or High Distinction level, for example, it means that their performance has exceeded the minimum expectation of learning expressed by one or more CLO.

CLOs are the most critical section of your course design. They:

• Clearly communicate the type and depth of learning students are expected to achieve by the end of your course.
• Provide a benchmark for prior learning assessment in subsequent courses.
• Clearly communicate graduates’ capabilities to prospective employers.
• Indicate to the students how they might organise their learning plan.

CLOs are initially best expressed as minimum standards required for passing a course and contribute to achieving Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs). Typically, PLOs are categorised to, or are derived from, the University’s Graduate Qualities and other relevant standards. CLOs articulate how PLOs are achieved through each student’s cumulative experience in a program of study.

Therefore, the first step in Alignment is to state what it means, explicitly and deliberately, for someone to “pass” a stated learning outcome. In other words, what evidence is required for us to be confident that a student has indeed achieved the minimum standard for a learning outcome to be considered ‘attained’?

If you are writing a completely new course, you will have to write CLOs from scratch. For this purpose, it is often useful to start from a ‘wish list’ of individual knowledges, skills, and dispositions that your students will need to evidence by the end of the course. You will also need to clearly identify what role your course plays within the program of study it sits in. This is important to ensure that the course clearly contributes to the PLOs by scaffolding the required learning while avoiding excessive repetition or duplication with other courses. Once you are clear about what students must learn in your course, and at what level, you can start synthesising your initial brainstorming list into clusters of competencies that can be expressed by the CLOs. For example, if your list contains specific competencies such as writing reports and giving oral presentations, these can be synthesised into a CLO about communication skills.

If you are called on designing a course for which the CLO have already been written, you may find that they are expressed in a short form: Verb and object. For example, “By the end of the course, students will be able to analyse learning outcomes”. While these short form CLOs provide some indication of the type of action (‘analyse’) and its object (‘learning outcomes’), they do not offer sufficient information on how or at what level the action should be performed. This leads to subjective interpretations of the standard, which compromise the validity of evidence gathered to demonstrate attainment of course and program outcomes. In other words, while the CLO writer may have had a clear standard of performance in mind, this information is not available from the CLO itself, which makes it impossible to determine exactly what is expected of students. Information about expected standards of performance must also be included in the CLOs, and ideally mapped across different levels through a course rubric.

Developing Standards and Course Rubric

A course rubric is simply a collection of all the course CLOs written in full, with all the relevant standards. It is quite literally a rubric for the whole course, in that it describes all levels of students’ performance that may be expected at the end of the course. A well-designed rubric provides clear criteria for evaluating student performance, making expectations transparent for both instructors and students.

A course rubric must not be confused with an “assessment rubric”, i.e. a rubric designed to facilitate grading of an individual assessment task, although the two rubrics will be very closely related. However, an assessment may evidence only some of the CLOs, or attainment of a subset of skills that form part of a CLO, especially if the assessment is completed early in the period of study.

Creating a course rubric is therefore helpful to ensure that all assessments are aligned with Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs). Course rubrics are also extremely helpful to map learning at the program level, as when all Course Rubrics relevant to a Program are brought together, it should be possible to identify how Program learning outcomes are cumulatively developed through the combination of learning in each course.

Steps to Develop a Course Rubric:

1. Articulate Course Learning Outcomes: Clearly define what you expect students to achieve by the end of the course. Avoid using a simple verb-object combination without specifying in what context and at what level the action must be performed. Also avoid verbs that describe internal processes, such as ‘understand’ or ‘appreciate’; the verbs used in the CLO should describe behaviours that are directly observable. There are many taxonomies we can use as guides to select appropriate verbs and articulate learning outcomes. These include Bloom et al. (1956), Bigg’s SOLO, and Wiggins & McTighe’s (2005) Six Facets of Understanding, among others.
2. Define Standards: Specify the standards you expect at different performance levels. Establish what a “pass” looks like and work up to higher distinctions (HD). This step can be challenging as it requires clarity on what minimum competencies look like. Through experience we have learned that a higher grade does not always involve a change in verb. For example, if using Bloom et al. (1956) taxonomy, we may think that higher-order thinking is required to move from Pass to High Distinction and therefore if ‘describe’ is a Pass, then High Distinction performance might need to evidence ‘critical evaluation’. While this may be true in some cases, it may also be that the same activity (i.e. ‘describe’ in this example) needs to be performed with greater breadth (i.e. describe more objects) or depth (i.e. describe in more detail), or both. The verb, in this case, does not change, however the context or standard do. Another example may be a course in Anatomy which requires surface identification of major organs at the Pass level. A High Distinction might require the surface identification of small anatomical structures.
3. Develop the Rubric: Your rubric should be a collection of course learning outcomes with defined standards for each level of achievement. This helps set clear expectations for students.

The course rubric will typically show the CLOs in the first column of a table as the assessment criteria, and then performance descriptors (i.e., standards) for each level will be provided in the following columns. For example, if a course learning outcome is “Explain the principles of supply and demand and demonstrate their application in real-world scenarios,” then the relevant row in the course rubric might be as shown in Table 1:

Table 1: Example of CLO with performance descriptors

CLO	High Distinction (HD)	Distinction (D)	Credit (C)	Pass (P)	Fail (F)
Explain the principles of supply and demand and demonstrate their application in real-world scenarios	Provides a comprehensive and precise explanation of the core principles of supply and demand, applies them to a variety of complex real-world scenarios with no errors, and delivers original and critical analysis that demonstrates advanced problem-solving skills and innovative thinking.	Explains the principles of supply and demand accurately, applies them to complex scenarios, and provides insightful analysis.	Explains the core principles of supply and demand accurately and applies them to simple real-world scenarios.	Explains the core principles of supply and demand and applies them to simple real-world scenarios with some minor errors.	Does not explain the core principles of supply and demand or work contains significant errors.

In the case of this CLO, there are actually two components: (a) explain and (b) apply. An example of how the standards for each level can be developed by focusing on key components of a CLO is provided below:

Table 2: Developing standards for CLO “Explain the principles of supply and demand and demonstrate their application in real-world scenarios”

Criterion	High Distinction (HD)	Distinction (D)	Credit (C)	Pass (P)	Fail (F)
Explanation of Principles	Provides a comprehensive and precise explanation of the core principles of supply and demand.	Explains the principles of supply and demand accurately and provides insightful analysis.	Explains the core principles of supply and demand accurately.	Explains the core principles of supply and demand with some minor errors.	Does not explain the core principles of supply and demand or contains significant errors.
Application to Real-World Scenarios	Applies the principles to a variety of complex real-world scenarios with no errors, delivering original and critical analysis that demonstrates advanced problem-solving skills and innovative thinking.	Applies the principles to complex real-world scenarios accurately, providing insightful analysis.	Applies the core principles to simple real-world scenarios accurately.	Applies the core principles to simple real-world scenarios with some minor errors.	Does not apply the core principles to real-world scenarios or contains significant errors.

The standards are then combined into a comprehensive descriptor of the standard for each CLO. This process should be repeated for all CLOs, to develop a full course rubric.

Once the course rubric has been developed, it can then be used to guide assessment design. For each CLO, or combinations of CLOs, we might ask, “What is the best way to gather evidence that students can do this, and to be able to observe performance at the different levels?” The answer to this question will enable us to identify types of tasks that can be developed into formative and summative assessments. By aligning assessments with CLOs, we ensure that students are tested on their ability to meet the stated learning outcomes, which promotes a cohesive and targeted learning experience.

The course rubric and assessment instructions for all tasks should be shared with students at the beginning of the course. This transparency helps students understand how they will be assessed and what is expected of them. The course rubric should also inform the grading process by anchoring assessment criteria to the course learning outcomes and performance standards, ensuring fairness and validity.

Finally, it is important to remember that developing an effective rubric is an iterative process. After using the rubric, gather feedback from students and reflect on its effectiveness. Make necessary revisions to improve clarity and alignment with the course objectives before using it in the next offering of the course.

Knowledge Check – What did you learn?

To reinforce your understanding of constructive alignment for course design, you may want to answer the following questions: 

 

What does it all mean for me?

Reflect on a course you are currently teaching or planning to teach. Consider the following activities to apply what you have learned about constructive alignment:

1. Review your current Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs).
   • Identify if the CLOs are clearly defined with active verbs and include the context and standard of performance.
   • Modify any CLOs that lack specificity or use vague verbs like “understand” or “appreciate”.
2. Develop or revise a course rubric for your course.
   • Write detailed performance descriptors for each CLO, specifying what constitutes a pass, credit, distinction, and high distinction.
   • Ensure that these descriptors align with the intended learning outcomes and provide clear criteria for evaluating student performance.
3. Align your assessments with the revised CLOs.
   • Evaluate whether your current assessments effectively measure the attainment of the CLOs.
   • Design new assessments or modify existing ones to ensure they provide valid evidence of students achieving the learning outcomes.
4. Gather feedback on your course rubric and assessments.
   • After implementing the rubric, solicit feedback from students on its clarity and fairness.
   • Reflect on the feedback and make necessary revisions to improve the alignment and effectiveness of your course design.

---

References

Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International Universities Press.

Surgenor, P. (2010) Teaching toolkit. Effect of Assessment on Learning. University College Dublin. https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/ucdtlt0031.pdf

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).

Further Resources

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman.

Knight, P. T. (2001). A briefing on key concepts: Formative and summative, criterion and norm-referenced assessment. LTSN Generic Centre Assessment Series No. 7.