This document discusses a project to align reading lists with learning outcomes based on the theory of constructive alignment. The project team worked with module leaders to redesign two test case modules so that reading lists were activities rather than passive situations. For one business module, a survey found that less than half of students did the assigned reading and many struggled to explain how they would apply what they learned. A built environment module that paired readings with online forums saw low participation barriers. Future aims are to identify more test case modules, evaluate if new practices are embedded, create guidance for module leaders, and publish findings. Challenges include students' surface learning approaches and resources for large-scale redesign.

1. Reading lists and course design:
a gap and an opportunity
Dan Croft, Scholarly Communications and Research Team Leader
Linda Coombs, Academic Liaison Librarian

2. OUTLINE
● Constructive Alignment
● Implications for reading lists
● Project plan
● Progress so far
● Aims for the future

3. Constructive
Alignment

4. Constructive Alignment
● Biggs and Tang (2011)
● Constructivism: learning is building a framework of
knowledge
● Alignment: All learning activities and assessments on
a module directly contribute to students achieving a
specific set of Learning Outcomes

5. Learning Outcomes
● Learning Outcomes are constructed around a verb
● Describe what the student will be able to do after
successfully completing the module
e.g. Design a product from a brief using the
materials listed in the brief and appropriate to xxx
market.
Overall focus: what the student does, not what the
teacher does

6. Situations and Activities
● Biggs and Tang classify the traditional lecture as a
learning situation - i.e. focus on what the teacher
does
● In a situation learning may, or may not, take place
● Dedicate chapter to imaging ways to convert learning
situation of traditional lecture into learning activity - i.e.
re-focus lecture on what student does
Biggs and Tang also classify reading lists as a situation

7. Reading lists

8. Reading list literature
● Staff see reading lists as a starting point
● Student practice is to read only a few items primarily
for assessment purposes
● Staff want to avoid ‘spoon feeding’
● Students want more guidance and annotations how to
prioritise their reading
(Barnett et al, 2012; Brewerton, 2014; Franklin, 2012;
Siddall and Rose, 2014; Stokes and Martin, 2008)

9. Internal Oxford Brookes research (unpublished)
Module leader:
How much of the Reading
List are students meant to
have read by the end of the
module?
Students:
How much of the Reading
List do you think you are
meant to have read by the
end of the module?
Biology module 100% 40%
Built environment module 40% 90%
Education module 40% 40%

10. Does it matter?
● Much academic and library staff time invested in
creation, administration, and resourcing of reading
lists
● Large proportion of the library budget is directly
spent on buying resources on reading lists
● Un-aligned reading lists may not help, or may even
inhibit, students learning

11. IN SUM
Problem:
● The current approach to reading lists is an ineffective for
student learning and inefficient for institutions
Solution:
● Modules need to be redesigned so that reading lists are
activities that are Constructive Aligned to deliver Learning
Outcomes

12. Project plan

13. Objectives
● Support module leaders to redesign case study
modules so that the reading lists become:
○ Constructively Aligned
○ More like activities than situations
● Evaluate the continuation of that redesign in the case
study modules
● Create guidance for Oxford Brookes module leaders
on how to redesign their own modules so that the
reading lists become Constructively Aligned activities

14. Project team
● Dan Croft, Scholarly Communications and Research
Team Leader
● Linda Coombs, Academic Liaison Librarian
● Katherine Staples, Academic Liaison Librarian
● Rosa Teira Paz, Library Assistant
● Jane Knight, Academic Liaison Assistant
Support and funding from the Oxford Centre of Staff
and Learning and Development

15. Progress so far

16. Progress so far
● Year one of a two year project
● Five modules with four module leaders initially signed
up
● Two modules completed
● One module on-going
● One module exited project when module leader changed
● One module exited project when time could not be found
for redesign

17. Business test case module
● An UG module running over two Semesters
● 94 students enrolled
● Two module leaders
● Module aims to give students the skills for the rest of their
programme
● Weekly reading and teaching outcomes were established
before the semester to fit other modules
● Idea was to encourage...
○ Students to reflect on what they read
○ Apply what they read to their work

18. Business test case module
● All students came into the library for a session about
referencing
● They had been asked to read one of three chapters, all
covering presentation giving
● Before the session started we gave them a short online
questionnaire about their reading

19. Method
We used moodle to ask the students four questions and
record their answers.
1. Before this session, your lecturer asked you to do some reading, did you do
this reading?
2. You were given a choice of three items to read, which did you read?
3. Please write below one thing you learnt from your reading
4. Please write down one way in which you intend to use what you have learnt,
for example by changing your behaviour.

20. Results
71 respondents in total
What did you read?
26 students read something

21. Results
How will you use what you have learnt?
● 13 gave vague responses:
“learn more”, “to improve
on my mark”, “for assignments”
● 9 stated how they would
apply their learning:
“pace myself while reading”
“make eye contact”
“use key vocab”

22. Conclusion
● Nearly half of the students read something, but not
necessarily what they were asked to read
● Many don’t want to, or can’t clearly articulate how they
might apply what they learnt
● While keen on the idea of innovative practices, the
module leaders were reluctant to change the well
established module

23. Built environment test case modules
● Two PGT modules completed September to December
2016
● 19 and 7 students (some overlap)
● Same module leader
● Modules redesigned so that reading list partnered with
online forum discussion activity in the VLE
● Idea was to encourage...
○ debate between students
○ closer connection between reading list and Learning Outcomes

24. Built environment test case modules
Barriers to participating: 93% did not try to make a comment
on the forums
● “no responses on it to begin with, so it felt a bit
awkward posting something”
● “formality of Moodle” / “Prefer verbal discussion” /
“Already using other forms of social media”
● “already an overload of work” / “not compulsory”
Problems with communicating the new approach: only 64%
of students knew about the discussion forums

25. Challenges identified so far from test case modules
Resources for redesign:
● Module leader interest and/or time to redesign modules
● Librarian time to support redesign of modules
Experimenting with course design:
● Students may take surface or achieving approach to
learning (Biggs, 1987; Marton and Säljö, 1984)
All will be going into the guidance for module leaders

26. Future aims

27. Future aims
● Identify new test case modules for Year 2
● Support year 2 module leaders to redesign modules
● Evaluate whether new reading list practice embedded in
test case modules
● Investigate challenge to this project of surface/achieving
approaches to learning
● Create guidance for Oxford Brookes module leaders
● Publish findings

28. REFERENCES
Barnett, L. Halbert, H., Healey, E., Kinna, R. McKeating, S.,
Swinscoe, A., and Walton, G. (2012) Academic reading at
Loughborough University: exploring decision making, choices and
influences. Available at:
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/media/wwwlboroacuk/content/library/downl
oads/surveyresults/Academic_reading_at_Loughborough_Universi
ty_2012.pdf (Accessed: 30 March 2016).
Biggs, J. B. (1987) Student Approaches to Learning and Studying.
Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian
Council for Educational Research. Available at:
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED308201.pdf (Accessed 20 April
2017).
Biggs, J. B., and Tang, C. S. (2011) Teaching for quality learning
at university: what the student does. (4th edn). Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Brewerton, G. (2014) ‘Implications of student and lecturer
qualitative views on reading lists: a case study at Loughborough
University, UK’, New Review of Academic Librarianship, 20 (1),
pp.78-90.
Franklin, G. (2012) Staff survey on academic reading. Available at:
www.lboro.ac.uk/media/wwwlboroacuk/content/library/downloads/
projects/StaffReadingSurvey_Report_March2012.pdf (Accessed:
12 April 2016).
Marton, F. and Säljö, R. (1984) ‘The experience of learning’, in
Marton, F., Hounsell, D. & Entwistle, N. (eds.),
Approaches To Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press,
pp. 36-55.
Siddall, G., and Rose, H. (2014) ‘Reading lists - time for a reality
check? An investigation into the use of reading lists as a
pedagogical tool to support the development of information skills
amongst Foundation Degree students’, Library & Information
Research, 38 (118), pp.52-73.
Stokes, P., and Martin, L. (2008) ‘Reading lists: a study of tutor
and student perceptions, expectations and realities’, Studies In
Higher Education, 33(2), pp.113-125.

29. QUESTIONS?
dcroft@brookes.ac.uk