This document summarizes a research study that explored the relationship between instructors' adoption of constructive alignment in course design and its impact on students' learning approaches. The study used a mixed-methods approach, collecting data through document analysis, interviews, and surveys. Course syllabi and interviews with instructors and students from two university programs were analyzed to assess the degree of constructive alignment in each program's courses. A pre-post survey was also administered to measure changes in students' deep and surface learning approaches. The researchers hypothesized that students in courses with higher constructive alignment would show increased deep learning approaches and decreased surface learning approaches after taking the courses.

1. This article was downloaded by: [ Hong Kong Baptist University] , [ xiaoyan wang]
On: 14 February 2012, At: 17: 35
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http:/ / www.tandfonline.com/ loi/ caeh20
An exploration of Biggs’ constructive
alignment in course design and
its impact on students’ learning
approaches
Xiaoyan Wang
a
, Yelin Su
a
, Stephen Cheung
a
, Eva Wong
a
&
Theresa Kwong
a
a
Centre for Holistic Teaching and Learning, Hong Kong Baptist
University, Hong Kong, China
Available online: 14 Feb 2012
To cite this article: Xiaoyan Wang, Yelin Su, Stephen Cheung, Eva Wong & Theresa
Kwong (2012): An exploration of Biggs’ constructive alignment in course design and its
impact on students’ learning approaches, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
DOI:10.1080/ 02602938.2012.658018
To link to this article: http:/ / dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/ 02602938.2012.658018
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http: / / www.tandfonline.com/ page/ terms-and-
conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,

2. demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded
by
[Hong
Kong
Baptist
University],
[xiaoyan
wang]
at
17:35
14
February
2012

3. An exploration of Biggs’ constructive alignment in course design
and its impact on students’ learning approaches
Xiaoyan Wang*, Yelin Su, Stephen Cheung, Eva Wong and Theresa Kwong
Centre for Holistic Teaching and Learning, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong,
China
This paper investigates whether instructors’ adoption of constructive alignment
has any impact on university students’ learning approaches, which are highly
correlated with students’ achievement of learning outcomes. A multi-method
model with a combination of qualitative and quantitative design was adopted,
using document analysis, interviews and survey. The analysis of covariance
results suggested that regardless of individual differences, students would adjust
their learning approaches and study behaviours in response to the classroom
teaching and learning environment. Students in more ‘constructively aligned
courses’ were more likely to adopt deep learning approaches and less likely to
use surface learning approaches in their study of a particular course.
Keywords: constructive alignment; course design; student learning approach;
student learning experience
Introduction
Teaching and learning activities (TLAs), which constitute one of the most important
pillars of the modern university, have been the focuses of educational research for
many decades. There is a rapidly growing body of studies regarding approaches,
strategies and techniques for enhancing teaching, learning and assessment (Conrad,
Johnson, and Gupta 2007). Among the many studies on the themes of pedagogical
approaches, John Biggs has proposed an integrative concept, constructive alignment
(CA) (Biggs and Tang 2007, 52), to enhance the quality of teaching and learning.
CA is a pedagogical approach that is embedded in the constructivist theory of learn-
ing, emphasising the alignment between the intended learning outcomes (ILOs),
TLAs and assessment tasks (ATs). It is believed that courses with the features of
CA will enhance student learning experiences and facilitate students’ achievement
of the ILOs (Biggs and Tang 2007).
Biggs and Tang (2007) stated that instructors adopting the CA approach should
clearly specify the ILOs, design the learning activities appropriate for the ILOs so
that students could construct their knowledge to achieve the outcomes, and establish
assessment criteria and provide feedback to the learners for students’ continuous
improvement. Biggs believed that ‘learning takes place through the active behavior
of the student’ (Tyler 1949, 63) and ‘what the student does is actually important in
determining what is learned than what the teacher does’ (Shuell 1986, 429).
*Corresponding author. Email: wangxi38@hkbu.edu.hk
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
2012, 1–15, iFirst Article
ISSN 0260-2938 print/ISSN 1469-297X online
Ó 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.658018
http://www.tandfonline.com
Downloaded
by
[Hong
Kong
Baptist
University],
[xiaoyan
wang]
at
17:35
14
February
2012

4. Constructive alignment reflects the shift of the paradigm from a teacher-centred
teaching and learning to a student-centred one, which emphasises encouraging and
supporting students’ construction of their own knowledge inside and outside the
classroom instead of teachers’ transmission of the knowledge in class (Tran, Ngu-
yen, and Nguyen 2010).
It was claimed that constructively aligned courses (CACs) would encourage stu-
dents to engage in a deep approach and discourage students from surface learning
activities (Biggs and Tang 2007), which was echoed by Walsh (2007), who asserted
that such an approach would be particularly useful for the work-based learning; and
by Blumberg (2009), who believed that it would enhance students’ level of cogni-
tive learning. Such a statement, although well articulated and elaborated by the
above-mentioned scholars, was underpinned neither by qualitative nor quantitative
empirical data. Nonetheless, CA has been increasingly adopted as a tool for course
design and delivery in recent years. Scholars also used it as a reflective framework
to measure teaching quality and students’ learning experience in different academic
fields of study, for example, in biochemistry (Hartfield 2010), social work (Molding
2010), marketing (Kuhn and Rundle-Thiele 2009), online teaching (Talay-Ongan
2003), etc. Moreover, despite the fact that CA was originally conceptualised as an
integrative model to improve teaching at the classroom level (Biggs 1996), quality
assurance agencies gradually sought to follow the systematic thinking of the princi-
ple and utilise it as a framework for programme evaluation in higher education in
different countries and regions, such as Australia (Barrie, Ginns, and Prosser 2005;
Treleaven and Voola 2008), the UK (Rust 2002), Vietnam (Tran, Nguyen, and Ngu-
yen 2010), Hong Kong (Wang et al. 2011) and the USA (Borrego and Cutler
2010).
Whether courses with constructively aligned ILOs, TLAs and ATs would bring
positive impacts on students’ learning in the real classroom environment remains a
question rarely unanswered. Hong Kong is undergoing a major educational reform,
one of the prominent features of which is to embrace the CA approach in higher
education. The evaluation of whether and how CA could promote academic
achievements is hence imperative. The purpose of the current study is to explore
the relationship between instructor’s adoption of CA and its impact on learning.
Biggs, Kember, and Leung (2001) proposed a ‘3P’ model to classify the teach-
ing and learning process into the stages of presage, process and product. For Biggs’
model (2001), ‘presage factors refer to what exists prior to engagement that affects
learning (135), and include personal factors such as motivation, conceptions of
learning, prior knowledge, ability, age and personality as well as situational factors
such as the teaching and learning environment. Process refers to the stage during
which learning takes place – students are engaged and involved in active learning
activities and instructors provide formative feedbacks for students to help them to
reach the ILOs. The product refers to various demonstrable learning outcomes, such
as course grades, demonstrable changes in skills and attitudes, students’ satisfaction
and students’ approaches to learning. The model depicts how various presage fac-
tors (personal and situational factors) influenced the product – students learning
through the ‘learning process complex’ (Biggs 1987).
Students’ approach to learning could be classified into deep and surface, and pre-
ferred and situational in terms of the level of cognition and learning styles (Biggs
1987). Students take a different approach to learning depending on how they per-
ceive the objectives of the course. Marton and Saljo (1976) found that students could
2 Xiaoyan Wang et al.
Downloaded
by
[Hong
Kong
Baptist
University],
[xiaoyan
wang]
at
17:35
14
February
2012

5. be divided into two groups in a context of a particular reading task: one took an
understanding approach to learning, and one took a reproduction approach to learn-
ing, which are referred to as deep and surface approaches to learning. Approaches to
learning were originally used to describe students learning in reading tasks, however,
scholars broadened the concept by including all the different sorts of tasks that stu-
dents carry out and apply to a course context (Ramsden 1992). A deep approach
‘arises from a felt need to engage the task appropriately and meaningfully, so the stu-
dent tries to use the most appropriate cognitive activities for handing it’ (Biggs and
Tang 2007, 24), while a surface approach ‘arises from an intention to get the task
out of the way with minimum trouble, while appearing to meet course requirements’
(Biggs and Tang 2007, 22). Students’ deep approach to studying is generally related
to high levels of academic achievement (Entwistle 2000) and relates well to mean-
ingful learning (Kember et al. 1997). For a deep approach, the quality of teaching,
the clarity of goals and independence in learning are the focuses of the attention,
while for a surface approach, the nature of the assessment and workload demands
are the focuses of the attention (Prosser and Trigwell 1997).
Schmeck (1988) took learning approach as an unchangeable style regardless of
immediate learning context and tasks, and Marton and Saljo (1976) regarded it as
entirely contextual and situational. Biggs, Kember, and Leung (2001) took the mid-
point and argued that students had both a preferred learning approach and a situa-
tional learning approach. The preferred learning approach is relatively stable and
determined by the learners’ individual characteristics. The situational approach or
the ‘on-task approach to learning’ is relatively unstable as it is determined by how
students modify their preferred approaches to fit the requirements of the teaching
context. Hence, irrespective of their underlying preferred learning approaches, stu-
dents might adopt a surface or deep approach in different contexts. Therefore, a
measure of students’ situational learning approaches could be indicators of the
immediate teaching context.
The indicators of students’ learning outcomes could be their grade point aver-
age, subject matter competencies, attitudes, values, changes of behaviours, retention
rates, degree completion, overall course satisfaction, etc. (Ramsden 1991; Thurmond
and Popkess-Vawter 2003). Among these indicators, students’ learning approaches
were selected as the measurement of learning outcomes for the present study as
they were directly associated with it and could be the indicators of both the teach-
ing context and students’ learning outcomes. Moreover, it is a general consensus
that a deep approach to learning is also a desirable outcome in higher education as
a deep approach to learning represents effective independent learners and appropri-
ate goals of higher education (Wilson and Fowler 2005). In this connection, the
present study measures students’ contextual approaches to learning as measures of
outcomes. The final grades were not chosen as an indicator of students’ achieve-
ment since most instructors graded to a curve to meet the norm-referenced assess-
ment requirement of the university.
The changes of learning approach has been utilised in various studies as an out-
come of student learning (Balasooriya et al. 2009; Jungert and Michael Rosander
2009; Kember et al. 1997; Rodriguez and Francisco Cano 2007; Wang et al. 2011).
Haggies (2003) suggested that such an approach portrayed the learner as a human
being without agency and failed to take account of the wider, social perspective on
learning. Marshall and Case (2005) argued that the theory of learning approaches
mainly focused on the role of reflection and metacognition. In the ‘3P’ model pro-
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 3
Downloaded
by
[Hong
Kong
Baptist
University],
[xiaoyan
wang]
at
17:35
14
February
2012

6. posed by Biggs and adopted by this study, students’ social perspective was taken
into consideration during the presage stage. However this study focuses on how
teaching and learning environment influence students’ change of learning
approaches while acknowledging students’ individual differences in social economic
status, gender and prior knowledge as manifested in their preferred learning
approaches.
The current study explored the relationship between instructor’s adoption of CA
and students’ learning approaches and tested the following two hypotheses:
• After taking courses, students in more CACs would have higher deep
approach scores than those in less CACs.
• After taking courses, students in more CACs would have lower surface
approach scores than those in less CACs.
Methodology
This study adopted a multi-method model with a combination of qualitative and
quantitative design, which consisted of two different sections. The first section
examined whether and how the instructors had applied CA in course delivery via
document analysis and semi-structured interviews with instructors and students. The
second section utilised a pre–post-intervention survey – Revised Study Process
Questionnaire (R-SPQ-2F), to examine whether students’ deep and surface approach
had significantly altered as a result of degrees of the CA.
Two academic programmes from a university in Hong Kong were included
in the study. One programme (programme A) has adopted CA in course design
and delivery systematically for a few years due to the requirement of external
accreditation. The other programme (programme B) was newly established and
claimed that all courses had adopted the CA approach in the curriculum design
and teaching practices by the time the data collection began. It was assumed
that courses offered by programme A were ‘more CA’ orientated than courses
offered by programme B.
Instructors of five courses and 343 students from programme A and instructors
of nine courses and 349 students from programme B consented to join the study,
respectively. All participants had taken undergraduate level courses. A total of 692
students participated in SPQ1 (the pre-test), and 477 of them participated in SPQ2
(the post-test) study.
The degree of CA in courses from programmes A and B
For Biggs and Tang (2007), the most important characteristic of the CA is the
intrinsic consistency and connections between ILOs, TLAs and ATs. They opera-
tionalised the CA by summarising four stages of CA curriculum design (Biggs and
Tang 2007) as:
• Defining the ILOs specifying activities needs to be activated in teaching by
using action verbs appropriate to the context and content of the course.
• Creating a learning environment facilitating students’ performances in desired
activities specified by the ILOs.
4 Xiaoyan Wang et al.
Downloaded
by
[Hong
Kong
Baptist
University],
[xiaoyan
wang]
at
17:35
14
February
2012

7. • Using ATs eliciting the target action verbs.
• Judging students’ performances using clearly stated grading criteria.
These four stages were adopted as the criteria to assess the degree of CA. To inves-
tigate the real classroom teaching and learning environment and to probe the degree
of the CA in individual courses, course syllabi were collected for document analy-
sis, and semi-structured interviews were carried out with five instructors and 20 stu-
dents from programme A and nine instructors and 24 students from programme B.
Participants were asked about their perspectives and experiences in whether, and
how, course intended learning outcomes (CILOs), TLAs and ATs were construc-
tively aligned, and whether and how classroom instructions, activities and assess-
ments provided clear CILOs, facilitated the achievement of the CILOs, and
effectively assessed the CILOs. All interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed and
analysed. The results of interviews from instructors and students for a particular
course were triangulated to assess the degree of the CA implementation in that spe-
cific course.
Changes in students’ learning approaches
To identify changes in students’ learning approaches, Biggs, Kember, and
Leung’s (2001) R-SPQ-2F questionnaire was selected as the research instrument
because it has been tested and validated in universities in Hong Kong. Com-
pared to other similar questionnaires, the R-SPQ-2F was also considered to be
more appropriate for this study as students’ perceptions and approaches towards
learning were highly context-dependent (Biggs, Kember, and Leung 2001). The
questionnaire contains 20 items measuring two scales: ‘Deep Approach (DA)’
and ‘Surface Approach (SA)’. The DA inquires students’ deep motive (DM)
and deep strategy (DS), and the SA enquires students’ surface motive (SM) and
surface strategy (SS). The following is a sample of the items from R-SPQ-2F:
‘I find that at times studying gives me a feeling of deep personal satisfaction
(DM)’, ‘I find most new topics interesting and often spend extra time trying to
obtain more information about them (DS)’, I do not find my course very inter-
esting so I keep my work to the minimum (SM)’ and ‘I only study seriously
what’s given out in class or in the course outlines’ (Biggs, Kember, and Leung
2001, 148).
R-SPQ-2F was administered both at the beginning (week 2 of the semester) and
toward the end of the semester (week 12 of the semester). Using the R-SPQ-2F, stu-
dents’ learning approaches were operationalised as ‘DA’ and ‘SA’ and calculated
based on students’ responses to the questionnaire. Students were instructed to fill in
the questionnaire based on their attitudes to, and ways of learning in general in the
pre-test and their attitudes to and ways of learning in a particular course in the
post-test, respectively. The scores from the pre-R-SPQ-2F were used to describe
pre-existing individual differences since it measures students’ preferred approach,
and the scores from the post-R-SPQ-2F were used to reveal the differences between
teaching contexts among courses as they measure students’ contextual approaches
(Biggs, Kember, and Leung 2001). In the current study, students’ pre-R-SPQ-2F
served as a control variable since as a presage factor, students’ preferred learning
approach had significant bearings on students’ learning outcomes, and their
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 5
Downloaded
by
[Hong
Kong
Baptist
University],
[xiaoyan
wang]
at
17:35
14
February
2012

8. situational learning approach (Biggs, Kember, and Leung 2001). Four hundred and
forty-seven students chose to complete both pre- and post-SPQ questionnaires for
this study (Table 1).
Results
Degrees of CA of the courses in programme A
The analysis of course syllabi and interview data from instructors and students
showed that courses from programme A were ‘more CA’ oriented than those from
programme B. The syllabi of the five courses from programme A contained clearly
defined and articulated ILOs. For example, all the courses listed three to five ILOs
and used appropriate action verbs such as analyse, apply or synthesise, which repre-
sented the expected achievements of a higher cognitive level and signified ‘highly
satisfactory outcomes’ (Biggs and Tang 2007) in terms of CA. Syllabi of the
courses from programme A also included diversified and engaging TLAs that mir-
rored the CILOs to activate the action verbs in the CILOs. A wide range of TLAs
were incorporated into the curricula, including lectures, presentations, in-class exer-
cises, group discussions to more student-centred TLAs such as case studies, field
trips and e-learning supported activities. As for the assessment, diversified ATs cor-
responding to the TLAs were employed for ongoing and continuous evaluations. In
addition, a mapping matrix from the course syllabi revealed how each TLA helped
students to achieve corresponding CILO; and how each AT measured what students
were supposed to achieve.
The analysis of course syllabi shed light on how instructors intended to con-
structively align the CILOs, TLAs and ATs. However, these course documents did
not adequately reveal the real classroom practices. Therefore, follow-up interviews
with instructors and students were conducted, regarding the CA of the ILOs, TLAs
Table 1. Distribution of valid survey responses by groups.
Groups Courses
Valid responses
Valid responses (%)
SPQ-1 SPQ-2
Programme A A1 53 49 83.1
A2 59 50 80.6
A3 132 121 75.6
A4 81 37 46.85
A5 18 17 89.5
Programme A valid responses 343 274 79.9
Programme B B1 34 13 26.5
B2 15 12 66.7
B3 10 10 100.0
B4 104 58 43.0
B5 10 8 66.7
B6 124 58 36.5
B7 16 16 88.9
B8 27 20 58.8
B9 9 8 44.4
Programme B valid responses 349 203 58.2
Total 692 477 57.3
6 Xiaoyan Wang et al.
Downloaded
by
[Hong
Kong
Baptist
University],
[xiaoyan
wang]
at
17:35
14
February
2012

9. and assessment methods. The following are two examples given by two instructors
to illustrate how they applied CA in their course design and delivery from pro-
gramme A.
If we want to nurture students to become successful leaders in this field, the single
objective and guiding principle is to design all the activities, exams, assignments and
even extra-curricular activities to achieve this. (An instructor from Programme A)
We make the learning outcomes and criteria very clear and transparent to students so
that students know the learning objectives and what would be tested. For example, one
of the learning outcomes of this course was that students should apply the theories in
complex situations. Students were required to reflect on and demonstrate in a real life
case, using the materials covered in the teaching, for example, by role playing. Students
shall digest and integrate all the theoretical parts and show them in the real life applica-
tions via a three page writing in the final exam. (Another instructor from Programme A)
The instructors’ claim of adopting CA in their teaching was further triangulated by
interviews with 20 students.
I think it’s clear about what we are going to learn, because our professor has told us
in the first lesson. (A student from Programme A)
One of the learning outcomes was to apply theory in real life situation. For example,
one of the teaching activities was to visit a company and see how the business com-
pany applies some of theories. Then, we will do a project on theory application. While
doing the project, we are able to apply what we have learnt in the class to the project.
(Another student from Programme A)
Student interviews also revealed that various TLAs were applied to activate the
CILOS, prompt feedback to students were provided by instructors, diversified and
continuous evaluation methods were applied in each course. We conclude that the
five courses from programme A were constructively aligned both in documentation
and classroom practices based on the analysis from course syllabi and interviews.
Degrees of CA of the courses in programme B
The syllabi from the nine courses of programme B have explicitly defined
CILOs, but with rather vague action verbs such as ‘understand’ and ‘demon-
strate’ to describe what students should be able to accomplish at certain compe-
tence level upon the completion of the course. Lectures were the major TLAs
and tests were the assessment method mainly including in-class quizzes, mid-term
and final examinations in most of the courses. The course designers did not pro-
vide any matrix concerning the alignment of CILOs, TLAs and AMs. With as
many as 18 CILOs from one course, it was quite a challenge to find out how
TLAs and AMs were aligned with the CILOs. The adoption of CA could not be
confirmed from reviewing the course syllabi. Therefore, interviews were con-
ducted to gain insights on whether and how the courses were constructively
aligned.
The following excerpts of interview data from instructors partially reflected their
teaching philosophy and classroom environment.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 7
Downloaded
by
[Hong
Kong
Baptist
University],
[xiaoyan
wang]
at
17:35
14
February
2012

10. I don’t make the learning outcome explicit to them (the students). I don’t let them
know what my criteria are because I do not want them to be exam oriented. I just
taught them what I would like them to learn and they are supposed to learn whatever
I taught. TLAs include lectures or in-class assignments. I used exams a lot for evalua-
tion. (An instructor from Programme B)
I usually test students’ pre-class reading by conducting a quiz at the beginning of the
class, and then lecture, in-class assignment, and question and answer time. (Another
instructor from Programme B)
Interviews with the 24 students further verified the instructors’ teaching philosophy
and provided insights in the teaching and learning environment.
They (The instructors) are supposed to spell out what I shall achieve so that I do not
have to guess. I know what they intend to teach, but I am not very clear what kind of
outcomes they want us to achieve. For example, to what level are we going to apply
the knowledge we have learnt. It is like there is a transaction between a seller and a
buyer, but that transaction is not transparent. (A student from Programme B)
The instructors had very good attitude to us, but there is a gap about the knowledge
we learnt and what has been tested. It seems that they tested our English and terminol-
ogy, not about our understanding of the knowledge. It is not consistent. My learning
outcomes were not reflected in the tests. (Another student from Programme B)
From the analysis of the course syllabi and interviews with students and instructors,
we conclude that the ILOs, TLAs and assessment in courses from programme B are
less constructively aligned in comparison with those from programme A, given that
the CILOs were not very clearly articulated, the teaching and learning environment
was teacher-centred, and there was minimum student engagement in the TLAs with
almost no feedback from the instructors.
In view of the above analysis, it was reasonable to conclude that there were sub-
stantial differences in terms of the teaching and learning environments and students’
experiences between courses from programme A and courses from programme B.
Therefore, it was justifiable to retain the assumption that CILOs, TLAs and ATS of
courses from programme A were more constructively aligned than those from pro-
gramme B.
Hypothesis test
A total of 343 students from programme A and 349 from programme B participated
in the SPQ1, 274 and 203 students from the corresponding programmes completed
both SPQ1 and SPQ2, which was displayed in Table 1. As 215 students dropped
from the study after completing of the SPQ-1, one concern was the reason for the
dropout could be these are students who had different learning approaches than
those who participate in both SPQ1 and SPQ2. An independent sample t-test was
conducted to investigate whether students’ preferred learning approaches were sig-
nificantly different between those who participate in SPQ2 and those who dropped.
With t=0.374, p=0.708 for the test of deep approach, and t=−1.300, p=0.194 for
surface approach, we concluded that there was no statistically significant difference
between the two groups in terms of their preferred learning approaches. Hence, sta-
tistically analysis was conducted with data obtained from students who participated
8 Xiaoyan Wang et al.
Downloaded
by
[Hong
Kong
Baptist
University],
[xiaoyan
wang]
at
17:35
14
February
2012

11. in both SPQ1 and SPQ2. A brief summary of students’ deep approach scores and
surface scores are shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
Two hypotheses were tested to examine whether students in courses with differ-
ent degrees of the CA would adopt deep approach and surface approach differently
in their studies.
• After taking courses, students in more CACs would have higher deep
approach scores than those in less CACs.
• After taking courses, students in more CACs would have lower surface
approach scores than those in less CACs.
Two analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) at 0.05 probability level were con-
ducted using students’ deep approach (DA) scores and surface scores (SA) in
the post-R-SPQ-2F (SPQ-2) as dependent variable and their DA scores and SA
scores in the pre-R-SPQ-2F (SPQ-1) as the covariate, respectively.
Table 4 shows that with FSPQ-1 DA (1, 458)=140.50, p<.05, the null hypothesis
that there was no relationship between students’ SPQ-1 DA scores and SPQ-2 DA
scores was rejected. It suggested that student’s DA scores in SPQ-2 were signifi-
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for students’ SA scores by groups.
More CAC (programme A) Less CAC (programme B)
SA
n
SA
n
M SD M SD
SPQ-1 26.31 5.60 274 26.71 5.22 203
SPQ-2 25.51 7.04 29.35 5.74
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for students’ DA scores by groups.
More CAC (programme A) Less CAC (programme B)
DA
n
DA
n
M SD M SD
SPQ-1 31.93 5.08 274 31.99 5.76 203
SPQ-2 34.35 5.66 32.41 4.95
Table 4. ANCOVA for students’ SPQ-2 DA.
Source SS df MS F
SPQ-1 DA 3100.90 1 3100.90 140.50*
Group 414.65 1 414.65 18.79*
Error 10,108.28 458 22.07
Corrected total 53,1615.00 461
*p<.05
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 9
Downloaded
by
[Hong
Kong
Baptist
University],
[xiaoyan
wang]
at
17:35
14
February
2012

12. cantly influenced by their DA scores in SPQ-1 and hence was an appropriate covar-
iate.
After being adjusted by the covariate, students’ DA scores in SPQ-1, with
FGroup (1, 458)=18.79, p<.05, the null hypothesis that there was no difference in
students’ SPQ-2 DA scores between students in more CACs and less CACs was
rejected. The follow-up pairwise comparisons as shown in Table 5 indicated that
students in programme A courses had significant higher DA scores than students in
programme B courses.
Table 6 shows that with FSPQ-1 SA (1, 456)=157.21, p<.05, the null hypothesis
that there was no relationship between students’ SPQ-1 SA scores and SPQ-2 SA
scores was rejected. It suggested that students’ SA scores in SPQ-2 were signifi-
cantly influenced by their SA scores in SPQ-1 and hence it was an appropriate
covariate.
After being adjusted by the covariate, students’ SA scores in SPQ-1, with FGroup
(1, 456)=45.40, p<.05, the null hypothesis that there was no difference in students’
SPQ-2 DA scores between students in more CACs and less CACs was rejected.
The follow-up pairwise comparisons as shown in Table 7 (as follows) indicated that
students in courses from programme A had significant lower SA scores than stu-
dents in programme B courses.
Table 5. Pairwise comparison for students’ DA scores.
Group Estimated marginal means Mean differences (A−B)
More CACs (programme A) 34.34a
1.92*
Less CACs (programme B) 32.42a
−1.92⁄
a
Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: DA SPQ-1=31.87.
⁄
p<.05
Table 6. ANCOVA for students’ SPQ-2 SA.
Source SS df MS F
SPQ-1 SA 4962.20 1 4962.20 157.21*
Group 14,33.08 1 1433.08 45.40*
Error 14,393.60 456 31.56
Corrected total 359,604.00 459
⁄
p<.05
Table 7. Pairwise comparison for students’ SA scores.
Group Estimated marginal means Mean differences (A−B)
More CACs (programme A) 25.63a
−3.58*
Less CACs (programme B) 29.21a
3.58*
a
Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: SA SPQ-1=26.40.
*p<.05
10 Xiaoyan Wang et al.
Downloaded
by
[Hong
Kong
Baptist
University],
[xiaoyan
wang]
at
17:35
14
February
2012

13. Discussion
The present study investigated whether a more constructively aligned teaching and
learning environment would encourage students to employ a ‘more’ deep approach
and a ‘less’ surface approach in their study. By comparing students’ learning
approaches in courses from two programmes with different degrees of the CA, this
study provided evidence that a more constructively aligned teaching and learning
environment would lead students to adjust their learning approaches in a way that a
more deep situational learning approach and a less surface situational learning
approach would be employed in their study, despite their pre-existing individual dif-
ferences in the preferred learning approaches. Consistent with results of other recent
studies regarding the CA (Blumberg 2009; Thota and Whitfield 2010), this study
provides further empirical data for the CA theory (Biggs and Tang 2007) and the
‘3P’ model (Biggs 1987; Biggs, Kember, and Leung 2001).
Learning is a highly complicated process, the outcomes of which are results of
direct and indirect impacts and complicated interactions among various individual
and environmental factors (Astin 1993; Biggs 1979; Law and Meyer 2011; Sadlo
and Richardson 2003; Trigwell, Prosser, and Waterhouse 1999). For Biggs, Kember,
and Leung (2001), students’ learning approaches in a particular course, i.e. their sit-
uational learning approaches, is one of the important outcomes of the learning. And
regardless of individual differences, students’ situational learning approaches are
products of their responses to the classroom teaching and learning environments
(Biggs, Kember, and Leung 2001). Hence, students’ situational learning approaches
in a particular course, similar to their course grades, could be regarded as one of
the outcomes of the teaching and one of the indicators of the quality of teaching
and learning environment (Biggs, Kember, and Leung 2001). From this perspective,
results from the present study indicate that CA of the CILOs, TLAs and ATs in the
course design and delivery is one of the best educational practices in promoting stu-
dent learning.
The design of CILOs, TLAs and ATs are three key elements in the curriculum
design of any course. As explained by Biggs and Tang (2007), the meaning of the
CA is twofold: it involves constructivist teaching and learning, and alignment with
explicit specification of CILOs and appropriate and consistent TLAs and ATs. Con-
structivist teaching and learning emphasises creating an active and engaging teach-
ing and learning environment which utilises engaging pedagogies to provide
students with rich experiences and opportunities to construct and internalise knowl-
edge in context. Engaging pedagogies and active learning environments have been
widely acknowledged to effectively facilitate students learning (Hartfield 2010; Mar-
ton and Saljo 1976). However, it is not until recently that the CA of the CILOs,
TLAs and ATs has been recognised and emphasised as a key feature of the effective
teaching and learning environment in curriculum design practices and educational
studies. Biggs and Tang (2007) argued that systematic employment of this align-
ment would lead to more effective and efficient learning because it helped students
recognise the expectation of the instructor and the learning priorities and build up
the links among CILOs, TLAs and ATs so that they understand why they needed to
take the course and how the course was related to other courses and even the pro-
gramme goals. In other words, the alignment could help promote students’ percep-
tion of the learning environment.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 11
Downloaded
by
[Hong
Kong
Baptist
University],
[xiaoyan
wang]
at
17:35
14
February
2012

14. Literature suggested that it was students’ perception of the learning environment
that exerted more direct influences on students’ learning (Diseth et al. 2006; Entwis-
tle 1989; Kember and Leung 1998; Ramsden 1991). The students’ interview of this
study provided elaborations on how the CA approaches and the associated students’
perceptions of learning environment could affect students’ learning experience and
their achievement of learning outcomes. One of the interviewees from a less CAC
reflected how his/her learning experience and outcomes were influenced by the
degree of the CA of the curriculum:
I felt the instruction was not well organized and structured and it made me feel con-
fused. The curriculum among different course sections were compartmentized and
sometimes overlapped and the lecture made me so sleepy … I thought I understood
the learning objectives … but it was not until the examination that I realized the level
of learning required … I felt there was a gap between my previous understanding and
teacher’s expectation. I was upset and frustrated because I worked hard towards my
perceived learning objectives but only got 60% of total scores.
The interviewee’s experience described above depicted the teaching practice and
teaching and learning environment of one course from programme B. The compart-
mentalised/overlapped instructions and the gap between the assessment criteria and
students’ perceived learning objectives revealed misaligned curriculum design and
teaching practices, which led to a negative perception of the learning environment
and impeded the students’ engagement and performance in class. Qualitative data
revealed that this misalignment in curriculum design and course delivery was
indeed not uncommon in programme B. Though most of the instructors would
agree that it is essential for the course ILOs, TLAs and ATs to be consistent and
support each other during the course design and delivery process, oftentimes the
alignment is taken for granted and receives little attention (Blumberg 2009). CA
involves both the constructivist teaching and learning and alignment. However, the
alignment part has been ignored sometimes in course design and in real classroom
teaching. This suggests that apart from emphasising engaging pedagogies, profes-
sional development for instructors, course designers and administrators should give
alignment the long over-due attention to raise more conscious awareness about the
its crucial role so that proper implementation of the CA can be ensured in practice.
Limitations
This study attempted to explore the question whether the CAC design would bring
positive impacts on students’ learning approaches. Document analysis of course syl-
labi and interviews with instructors and students were used as indicators to deter-
mine the level of CA. As some course syllabi were very brief, one limitation of this
study is that such indicators might not adequately reflect the degree of the align-
ment between CILOs, TLAs and ATs. Moreover, with only 44 students volunteering
for the focus group interviews, the representativeness of the data was limited.
Hence, an instrument designed to differentiate the degree of CA in individual
courses/programmes is highly desirable to provide more representative, objective
and generalisable data.
The process and outcomes of learning are influenced by a variety of different
types of factors existing prior to, during and after the curriculum design and deliv-
ery. Although it is generally acknowledged that students’ learning approaches can
12 Xiaoyan Wang et al.
Downloaded
by
[Hong
Kong
Baptist
University],
[xiaoyan
wang]
at
17:35
14
February
2012

15. be perceived as a learning outcome, the direct measure of students’ academic
achievements is the most important indicator of the teaching quality. This study
attempted to take a simplified approach to obtain an initial insight into the teaching
and learning process by focusing the attention on CA and students’ learning
approaches. To gain a more comprehensive, accurate and deeper understanding of
what and how the learning process are influenced and determined, future studies
with more representative data, regarding more inclusive factors, and on students’
academic achievement are warranted.
Notes on contributors
Xiaoyan Wang is a research fellow at Centre for Holistic Teaching and Learning at HKBU.
Her research interests include assessment of student learning and academic achievement,
pedagogical approaches in higher education, and higher education expansion and economic
development.
Yelin Su is a teaching and learning officer at Centre for Holistic Teaching and Learning at
HKBU. Her research interests include learning approaches, learning experience, motivation,
self-efficacy, assessment, and students’ academic achievement.
Stephen Cheung is a senior research assistant at Centre for Holistic Teaching and Learning
at HKBU. His research interests include student learning and engagement, and academic
achievement.
Eva Wong is the director of Centre for Holistic Teaching and Learning at HKBU. Her
research interests include e-learning and outcomes-based approach to teaching and learning.
Theresa Kwong is a senior teaching and learning officer at Centre for Holistic Teaching and
Learning at HKBU. Her research interests include faculty development, service learning and
academic integrity.
References
Astin, A.W. 1993. Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment
and evaluation in higher education. Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press.
Balasooriya, C.D., S. Toohey, and C. Hughes. 2009. The cross-over phenomenon: Unex-
pected patterns of change in students’ approaches to learning. Studies in Higher Educa-
tion 34, no. 7: 781–94.
Barrie, S., P. Ginns, and M. Prosser. 2005. Early impact and outcomes of an institutionally
aligned, student focused learning perspective on teaching quality assurance. Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education 30, no. 6: 641–56.
Biggs, J.B. 1979. Individual differences in study processes and the quality of learning out-
comes. Higher Education 8: 381–94.
Biggs, J.B. 1987. Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian
Council for Educational Research.
Biggs, J. 1996. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education 32:
347–64.
Biggs, J., D. Kember, and D.Y.P. Leung. 2001. The revised two-factor study process ques-
tionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology 71: 133–49.
Biggs, J., and C. Tang. 2007. Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student
does. 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Blumberg, P. 2009. Maximizing learning through course alignment and experience with dif-
ferent types of knowledge. Innovative Higher Education 34, no. 2: 93–103.
Borrego, M., and S. Cutler. 2010. Constructive alignment of interdisciplinary graduate cur-
riculum in engineering and science. An analysis of successful IGERT proposals. Journal
of Engineering Education 99, no. 4: 355–69.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 13
Downloaded
by
[Hong
Kong
Baptist
University],
[xiaoyan
wang]
at
17:35
14
February
2012

16. Conrad, C.F., J. Johnson, and D.M. Gupta. 2007. Teaching-for-learning (TFL): A model for
faculty to advance student learning. Innovative Higher Education 32: 153–65.
Diseth, A., S. Pallesen, G.S. Brunborg, and S. Larsen. 2006. Course experience, approaches
to learning and academic achievement. Education & Training 48: 156–69.
Entwistle, N.J. 1989. Approaches to studying and course perceptions: The case of the disap-
pearing relationship. Studies in Higher Education 14, no. 2: 155–6.
Entwistle, N. 2000. Promoting deep learning through teaching and assessment:
Conceptual frameworks and educational context. Paper presented to the teaching
and learning research programme (TLRP) Conference, November, in Leicester.
http://www.ed.ac.uk/etl/docs/entwistle2000.pdf.
Haggies, T. 2003. Constructing images of ourselves? A critical investigation into ‘approaches
to learning’ research in higher education. British Educational Research Journal 29, no.
1: 89–104.
Hartfield, P. 2010. Reinforcing constructivist teaching in advanced level biochemistry
through the introduction of case-based learning activities. Journal of Learning Design 3,
no. 3: 20–31.
Jungert, T., and M. Michael Rosander. 2009. Relationships between students’ strategies for
influencing their study environment and their strategic approach to studying. Studies in
Higher Education 34, no. 2: 139–52.
Kember, D., M. Charlesworth, H. Davies, J. McKay, and V. Storr. 1997. Evaluating the
effectiveness of educational innovations: Using the study process questionnaire to show
that meaningful learning occurs. Studies in Educational Evaluation 23, no. 2: 141–57.
Kember, D., and D.Y.P. Leung. 1998. Influences upon students’ perception of workload.
Educational Psychology 18, no. 3: 293–307.
Kuhn, K.A., and S. Rundle-Thiele. 2009. Curriculum alignment: Exploring student percep-
tion of learning achievement measures. International Journal of Teaching and Learning
in Higher Education 21, no. 3: 351–61.
Law, D.C.S., and J.H.F. Meyer. 2011. Relationships between Hong Kong students’ percep-
tions of the learning environment and their learning patters in post-secondary education.
Higher Education 62, no. 1: 27–47.
Marshall, D., and J. Case. 2005. ‘Approaches to Learning’ research in higher education: A
response to Haggies. British Educational Research Journal 21, no. 2: 257–67.
Marton, F., and R. Saljo. 1976. On qualitative differences in learning-1: Outcome and pro-
cess. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46: 4–11.
Molding, N.T. 2010. Intelligent design: Student perceptions of teaching and learning in large
social work classes. Higher Education Research and Development 29, no. 2: 151–65.
Prosser, M., and K. Trigwell. 1997. Relations between perceptions of the teaching environ-
ment and approaches to teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology 67, no. 1:
25–35.
Ramsden, P. 1991. A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The
course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education 16, no. 2: 129–50.
Ramsden, P. 1992. Learning to teaching in higher education. London: Routledge.
Rodriguez, L., and F. Francisco Cano. 2007. The learning approaches and epistemological
beliefs of university students: A cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Studies in Higher
Education 32, no. 5: 647–67.
Rust, C. 2002. The impact of assessment on student learning: How can the research litera-
ture practically help to inform the development of departmental assessment strategies
and learner-centred assessment practices? Active Learning in Higher Education 3:
145–58.
Sadlo, G., and J.T.E. Richardson. 2003. Approaches to studying and perceptions of the aca-
demic environment in students following problem-based and subject-based curricula.
Higher Education Research and Development 22: 253–74.
Schmeck, R., ed. 1988. Learning strategies and learning styles. New York, NY: Plenum
Press.
Shuell, T.J. 1986. Cognitive conceptions of learning. Review of Education Research 56:
411–36.
Talay-Ongan, A. 2003. Online teaching as a reflective tool in constructive alignment. http://
www.aare.edu.au/03pap/tal03051.pdf.
14 Xiaoyan Wang et al.
Downloaded
by
[Hong
Kong
Baptist
University],
[xiaoyan
wang]
at
17:35
14
February
2012

17. Thota, N., and R. Whitfield. 2010. Holistic approach to learning and teaching introductory
object-oriented programming. Computer Science Education 20, no. 2: 103–27.
Thurmond, V.A., and S. Popkess-Vawter. 2003. Examination of a middle range theory:
Applying Astin’s input–environment–outcome (I-E-O) model to web-based education.
http://ojni.org/7_2/thurmond.htm (Accessed April 20, 2011).
Tran, N.D., T.T. Nguyen, and M.T.N. Nguyen. 2010. The standard of quality for HEIs in
Vietnam: A step in the right direction? Quality Assurance in Education 19, no. 2:
130–40.
Treleaven, L., and R. Voola. 2008. Integrating the development of graduate attributes
through constructive alignment. Journal of Marketing Education 30, no. 2: 160–73.
Trigwell, K., M. Prosser, and F. Waterhouse. 1999. Relations between teachers’ approaches
to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education 37: 57–70.
Tyler, R.W. 1949. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Walsh, A. 2007. An exploration of Bigg’s constructive alignment in the context of work-
based learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 32, no. 1: 79–87.
Wang, X., Y. Su, S. Cheung, E. Wong, T. Kwong, and K.T. Tan. 2011. Does outcomes
based teaching and learning make a difference in students’ learning approach. Lecture
Notes of Computer Science 6837: 83–97.
Wilson, K., and J. Fowler. 2005. Assessing the impact of learning environments on students’
approaches to learning: Comparing conventional and action learning designs. Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education 30, no. 1: 87–101.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 15
Downloaded
by
[Hong
Kong
Baptist
University],
[xiaoyan
wang]
at
17:35
14
February
2012