Abstract
Constructive alignment has emerged as a powerful curriculum design idea, but little is known of the extent to which the effectiveness of this idea is a function of qualitative variation. This article introduces a model of qualitative variation in constructive alignment, and uses the results from known alignment studies to test the model. The research reviewed reveals that university teachers have at least two qualitatively different experiences of the core elements of constructive alignment. The teachers who describe their approaches to teaching as involving conceptual change/development intentions with student-focused strategies were found to be likely to see the intended learning outcomes for students in more holistic terms, and assessment as an integral part of that teaching approach. When teachers had more of an intention to transfer information using teacher-focused strategies, they saw the object of study more in terms of parts (concepts, definitions, formulae) with assessment focused on those parts. The implications of this qualitative variation in constructive alignment for curriculum design and for the quality of the outcomes of student learning is discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Biggs, J. B. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 1–18.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
Biggs, J. B., & Colliss, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.). Maidenhead: SRHE and Open University Press.
Fanghanel, J. (2009). The role of ideology in shaping academics’ conceptions of their discipline. Teaching in Higher Education, 14, 565–577.
Frazer, S. P. (2006). Shaping the university curriculum through partnerships and critical conversation. International Journal for Academic Development, 11, 5–17. doi:10.1080/13601440600578748.
Frazer, S. P., & Bosanquet, A. M. (2006). The curriculum? That’s just a unit outline, isn’t it? Studies in Higher Education, 31, 269–284. doi:10.1080/03075070600680521.
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics’ conceptions of teaching. Learning and Instruction, 7, 255–275.
Kember, D., & Kwan, K.-P. (2002). Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching. In N. Hativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education, Chap. 9 (pp. 219–239). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (2009). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in context (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Lattuca, L. R., Terenzini, P. T., Harper, B. J., & Yin, A. C. (2010). Academic environments in detail: Holland’s theory at the subdiscipline Level. Research in Higher Education, 51, 21–39. doi:10.1007/s11162-009-9144-9.
Martin, E., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., Ramsden, P., & Benjamin, J. (2000). What university teachers teach and how they teach it. Instructional Science, 28, 387–412. doi:10.1023/A:1026559912774.
Martin, E., & Ramsden, P. (1998). Approaches to teaching creative writing. In B. Dart & G. Boulton-Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and learning in higher education. Melbourne: Australian Council for Education Research.
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Prosser, M., Martin, E., Trigwell, K., Ramsden, P., & Lueckenhausen, G. (2005). Academics’ experiences of understanding of their subject matter and the relationship of this to their experiences of teaching and learning. Instructional Science, 33, 137–157. doi:10.1007/s11251-004-7687-x.
Prosser, M., & Trigwell, K. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Approaches to Teaching Inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 405–419. doi:10.1348/000709905X43571.
Scouller, K., & Prosser, M. (1994). Students’ experiences in studying for multiple-choice question examinations. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 267–279.
Short, E. (2002). Knowledge and the educative functions of a university: Designing the curriculum of higher education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(2), 139–148. doi:10.1080/00220270110069181.
Stark, J. S. (2000). Planning introductory college courses. Instructional Science, 28, 413–438. doi:10.1023/A:1026516231429.
Stes, A., & van Petegem, P. (2012). Profiling approaches to teaching in higher education: A cluster-analytic study, Studies in Higher Education, Published on-line 26 September 2012, pp. 1–15. doi:10.1080/03075079.2012.729032.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., Marton, F., & Runesson, U. (2002). Views of learning, teaching practices and conceptions of problem solving in science. In N. Hativa & P. Goodyear (Eds.), Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education, Chap. 10 (pp. 241–264). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57–70. doi:10.1023/A:1003548313194.
Weimer, M. (1997). Assumptions that devalue university teaching. International Journal for Academic Development, 2, 52–59. doi:10.1080/1360144970020106.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. Qualitative variation in constructive alignment in curriculum design. High Educ 67, 141–154 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9701-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9701-1