Andrew Cain
ABSTRACT
Constructive alignment is a student-centred approach to teaching and learning that aims to enhance student learning through a combination of constructivist learning theories and aligned curriculum. This paper presents two case studies where units have been developed to apply the principles of constructive alignment in the area of computer science and software engineering. It outlines the role of formative feedback and delayed summative assessment as a means of embedding constructivist learning theories in the application of constructive alignment. The discussion outlines some of the challenges and advantages gained from the greater focus on formative feedback during the teaching period, and presents some recommendations for others considering applying constructive alignment.
- J. R. Anderson, L. M. Reder, H. A. Simon, K. A. Ericsson, and R. Glaser. Radical constructivism and cognitive psychology. Brookings papers on education policy, (1):227--278, 1998.Google Scholar
- C. Argyris. Theories of action that inhibit individual learning. American Psychologist, 31(9):638:654, 1976.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Armarego. Constructive Alignment in SE education: aligning to what?, pages 15--37. ACM, 2009.Google Scholar
- C. Atkinson. Beyond Bullets Points: using Microsoft® Office PowerPoint® 2007 to create presentations that inform, motivate, and inspire. Microsoft Press, 2007. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Biggs. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32:347--364, 1996.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Biggs and C. Tang. Assessment by portfolio: Constructing learning and designing teaching. Research and Development in Higher Education, pages 79--87, 1997.Google Scholar
- J. B. Biggs and K. F. Collis. Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome). Academic Press New York, 1982.Google Scholar
- J. B. Biggs and C. Tang. Teaching for quality learning at university. McGraw-Hill Education, 4th edition, 2011.Google Scholar
- P. Black and D. Wiliam. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1):7--74, 1998.Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. S. Bloom. Some theoretical issues relating to educational evaluation. Educational Evaluation: New Roles, New Means (National Society for the Study of Evaluation Yearbook, Part II), 68:26--50, 1969.Google Scholar
- C. Brabrand. Constructive alignment for teaching model-based design for concurrency. Transactions on Petri Nets and Other Models of Concurrency I, pages 1--18, 2008. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Cain. Developing assessment criteria for portfolio assessed introductory programming. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering, pages 55--60. IEEE, 2013.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Cain and C. J. Woodward. Toward constructive alignment with portfolio assessment for introductory programming. In Proceedings of the first IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering, pages 345--350. IEEE, 2012.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. A. Cohen. Instructional alignment: Searching for a magic bullet. Educational Researcher, 16(8):16--20, 1987.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Q. F. Council. Australian qualifications framework. Australian Qualifications Framework Council, South Australia, second edition, 1 2013.Google Scholar
- A. Gaspar and S. Langevin. An experience report on improving constructive alignment in an introduction to programming. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 28(2):132--140, 12 2012. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Gharib, W. Phillips, and N. Mathew. Cheat sheet or open-book? a comparison of the effects of exam types on performance, retention, and anxiety. Psychology Research, 2(8):469--478, 8 2012.Google Scholar
- G. Gibbs and C. Simpson. Conditions under which assessment supports students learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1):3--31, 2004.Google Scholar
- M. Haigh. Writing successfully for the journal of geography in higher education. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 37(1):117--135, 6 2013.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. H. Jonassen. Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational technology research and development, 39(3):5--14, 1991.Google Scholar
- E. Martin, M. Prosser, K. Trigwell, P. Ramsden, and J. Benjamin. What university teachers teach and how they teach it. Instructional Science, 28:387--412, 2000.Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. Marton and R. Säljö. On qualitative differences in learning- II outcome as a function of the learner's conception of the task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(2):115--127, 6 1976.Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. Marton and R. Säljö. On qualitative differences in learning: I - outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46(1):4--11, 2 1976.Google ScholarCross Ref
- F. Marton and R. Säljö. Approaches to learning. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell, and N. Entwistle, editors, The Experience of Learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education, pages 39--58. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Teaching, Learning and Assessment, 3rd internet edition, 2005.Google Scholar
- R. E. Mayer. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press, 2005.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. C. Phillips. The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational researcher, 24(7):5--12, 1995.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Phillips. Challenging the primacy of lectures: The dissonance between theory and practice in university teaching. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 2(1), 2005.Google Scholar
- J. Piaget. Psychology of Intelligence. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1950.Google Scholar
- P. Ramsden. A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2):129--150, 1991.Google ScholarCross Ref
- P. Ramsden. Learning to Teach in Higher Education. Psychology Press, 1992.Google Scholar
- M. J. Rubin. The effectiveness of live-coding to teach introductory programming. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education, SIGCSE '13, pages 651--656, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Scriven. The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, and M. Scriven, editors, Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation, volume 1, pages 39--83. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, 1967.Google Scholar
- K. Skinner. Bridging gaps and jumping through hoops: First-year history students expectations and perceptions of assessment and feedback in a research-intensive uk university. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 13(4):359--376, 10 2014.Google ScholarCross Ref
- L. P. Steffe and J. E. Gale. Constructivism in education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NJ, 1995.Google Scholar
- I. Suto, G. Elliott, N. Rushton, and S. Mehta. Course struggle, exam stress, or a fear of the unknown? a study of a level students?' assessment preferences and the reasons behind them. Educational Futures, 6(2), 2014.Google Scholar
- N. Thota and R. Whitfield. Holistic approach to learning and teaching introductory object-oriented programming. Computer Science Education, 20(2):103--127, 2010.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. W. Tyler. Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. University of Chicago Press, 1969.Google Scholar
- C. Vrasidas. Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4):339--362, 2000.Google Scholar
- D. Wiliam. Formative assessment: Getting the focus right. Educational Assessment, 11(3-4):283--289, 2006.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. J. Woodward, A. Cain, S. Pace, and F. K. J. Jones, A. Helping students track learning progress using burn down charts. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering, pages 104--109. IEEE, 2013.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Reflections on applying constructive alignment with formative feedback for teaching introductory programming and software architecture
Recommendations
From deconstructive misalignment to constructive alignment
Becoming increasingly ubiquitous for students are the various uses of information and communication technologies (ICTs) within their wireless and networked learning environments. Many students use ICTs during lectures or tutorials for tasks unrelated to ...
Formative assessment in b-learning: effectively monitoring students learning
TEEM '14: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing MulticulturalityOne of the objectives of Higher Education is the development of learner autonomy so that students can become effective and efficient learners, with the capability for lifelong learning and for actively engage in the development of a knowledge society. ...
Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the literature
As online and blended learning has become common place educational strategy in higher education, educators need to reconceptualise fundamental issues of teaching, learning and assessment in non traditional spaces. These issues include concepts such as ...
Comments