Constructive Alignment

Planning teaching at university according to constructive alignment is executed in three steps:

Step 1: Defining learning outcomes

Effective learning units are conceived of with the outcome as the starting point (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). Therefore, the first task when planning learning units is to determine what students should know by the end. On no account does defining learning outcomes precisely mean that students cannot and should not achieve outcomes beyond that. Instead, you focus on the most important core competencies students should have by the end of a learning unit. The post “From knowledge to expertise: Define learning outcomes” provides tips to help you define learning outcomes for a wide range of academic competencies. 

Step 2: Planning the exam

For the next step, determine how you and the students themselves can tell the learning outcome has been achieved. Here, the key thing is for students to get an idea of the competencies expected of them by already doing formative tests during the semester. That is the only way they themselves can establish the points they could and need to improve on and adapt their learning process accordingly.

In order for exams like this to be effective for learning, it is important for them to really test whether the learning outcomes have been achieved and to what extent. If one learning outcome is to connect up different theories but it is enough in the exam for students just to render facts, some students will presumably put in no more effort than to demonstrate that particular skill.

In traditional types of exams, the requirement for a stronger orientation towards competencies frequently conflicts with the manageability or economy of exams (Schaper, 2024). One solution could be a portfolio approach (Biggs & Tang, 2011), where students themselves choose which examples of their work illustrate their performance best. This approach enables different learning activities to come to the fore – not just those prescribed by lecturers.

Step 3: Selecting learning activities

To conclude, the teaching and learning activities are planned in a way that helps the students achieve these objectives. Student activities like listening and thinking for themselves are very suitable for understanding terminology or gaining an initial idea of the different connections. Active forms of learning like discussions, group work or project work can inspire learners to think about the material in more depth and apply it. 

Regardless of teaching format, effective teachers confront their students with key problems and authentic tasks that challenge them to deal with ideas, reconsider their assumptions and review their mental model of reality (Bain, 2004). Illustrating the relevance of the subject matter to you as a lecturer or demonstrating practical fields of application are also two of the many other ways to succeed in motivating students to deal with the subject matter in more depth. Sometimes motivation is not just a requirement, it is also the result of learning processes.

Constructive Alignment in practice

It is not always easy to implement these three steps in practice due to the following aspects: What teaching methods are suitable for achieving specific learning outcomes? How can exams be prepared in traditional systems as well so that they test the learning outcomes in a way that is as valid as possible? On his website, Atkinson (2022) offers good reference points for the teaching methods and exam types that are suitable for achieving learning outcomes at different skill levels at universities.

AI can help

When it is a question of fostering and testing cognitive processes of comprehension, artificial intelligence can also be helpful. 

In practice, one objective that is frequently formulated is for students to understand certain contents. What initially sounds banal and something that goes without saying holds a key question in higher education: how can you discern whether the subject matter in question has been understood? The answer will presumably vary depending on the degree of expertise of the person asked. To make the term “understand” more comprehensible for teaching purposes, Biggs and Collins (1982) use the SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome) to differentiate between different depths of understanding.

At level 1 (uni-structural), learners concentrate on one individual aspect of the task or topic. They can name a fact or describe an individual concept without linking it up to a bigger picture. At the next level (multi-structural), learners identify several relevant aspects of the topic, but largely see these as independent and unconnected units. Starting from the third, relational level, knowledge changes not only quantitatively but also qualitatively. Learners discern how different aspects of the topic are connected to each other and are then able to put them into a context. It is not until the last level (extended abstract) that learners are able to generalise knowledge gained and transfer what they have learned to unfamiliar situations, develop hypotheses and formulate abstract principles.

With the help of the PPT to SOLO Taxonomy Tasks (aieducator.tools) application, lecturers can create tasks for all competency levels in the SOLO taxonomy in just a few clicks.

Just upload a file that fits the topic (e.g. slides from a lecture) and enter a simple prompt, such as “Create test questions for the uploaded slides”. The application will deliver suitable tasks in seconds. You can provide these as exercises for self-learning phases, for example, or use them as stimuli for activations or discussions in in-person lectures or seminars. 

With the additional prompt “Write detailed criteria for the tasks that can be used to evaluate the answers”, for example, you convert the tasks into formative or summative exam questions. The evaluation criteria that are also provided make marking significantly easier. 

Even though tools like this are extremely helpful, a clear research basis linking teaching and learning activities directly to specific learning outcomes is still largely lacking. What is more important than the choice of a particular teaching method is how well the method selected is applied (Renkl, 2015). In practice, this is often a question of the lecturer’s experience and discernment. An ongoing evaluation of the learning processes (e.g. with the Teaching Analysis Poll) or intense reflection on your own teaching behaviour help you to understand and foster the students’ learning processes specific to the context.