The document discusses the differences between objectivist and constructivist traditions of teaching and learning. It presents John Biggs' theory of constructive alignment, which argues that teaching methods and assessments should be aligned with learning outcomes. For students to learn effectively, learning activities must elicit the desired outcomes and students must provide evidence of meeting learning objectives. The key principles are: 1) understanding is demonstrated through performance, 2) activities address understanding, and 3) alignment among outcomes, assessments, and activities.

1. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment’, John
Biggs (1996), Higher Education, 32: 342-364
Objectivist tradition
• knowledge exists
independently of the
knower.
• understanding is coming to
know that which already
exists.
• knowledge is seen as
decontextualised.
• teaching is a matter of
transmitting this knowledge-
learning is a matter of
receiving it, storing it and
using it appropriately.
Constructivist tradition
• the learner is central in the
creation of meaning and not
the teacher as the transmitter
of knowledge.
• learners actively select and
cumulatively construct their
own knowledge through
individual and social activity.
• the learner brings an
accumulation of assumptions,
motives, intentions and
previous knowledge that
envelopes and determines the
quality of the learning that may
take place.

2. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment’, John
Biggs (1996), Higher Education, 32: 342-364
• If students are to learn
desired outcomes in a
reasonably effective
manner then the
teacher’s fundamental
task is to get students
to engage in learning
activities that are likely
to result in their
achieving these
outcomes...’’
• ‘It is helpful to
remember that what the
student does is actually
more important in
determining what is
learned than what the
teacher does.’ (Shuell
1986: 429 cited in
Biggs 1996)

3. The principles of constructive alignment
1. If you understand something properly
you act differently in contexts involving
the content understood.
2. Teaching and Learning Activities (TLAs) are
selected that specifically address a desired
performance of understanding and promote
active learning.
3. Alignment is sought between
aims/desired outcomes, assessment of
performance and teaching/learning
activities
Teachers need to
be clear about what
they want their
student to learn,
and how they
would manifest that
learning in terms of
“performances of
understanding”.’
Students need to
be placed in
situations that are
judged likely to
elicit the required
learning.’
‘Students are then
required to provide
evidence, either by
self-set or teacher
set tasks, as
appropriate, that
their learning can
match the set
outcomes

4. Constructive
alignment Aims
Outcomes/
intentions
Assessment
Method/
Criteria
Teaching and
Learning
Activities
Feedback
Activities
The greatest
enemy of
understanding is
coverage – I can’t
repeat that often
enough...’
(Gardner 1993:24
cited in Biggs
1996)
Video link

5. The difference between learning outcomes and aims is that aims are
written in terms of broad teaching intentions and learning outcomes are
descriptions of what the student is expected to learn.
• Verbs which require evidence of knowing.
– define, describe, identify, label
• Verbs which require evidence of comprehension.
– Interpret, translate, estimate, defend, distinguish, explain
• Verbs which require evidence of understanding.
– Apply, solve, construct, demonstrate, change, compute
• Verbs which require evidence of analysis.
– Recognise, distinguish between, evaluate, differentiate
• Verbs which require evidence of synthesis.
– Compose, assemble, organise, plan, prepare
• Verbs which require evidence of evaluation.
– Judge, appraise, revise, select, evaluate, conclude

6. References
• Biggs and Tang (2007) 2007. Teaching for Quality Learning at University
Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
• Gosling D., and Moon, J. (2001) How to use learning outcomes and assessment
criteria. SEEC (www.ssec-office.org.uk )
• Hussey, T. and Smith, P. (2002) ‘The trouble with learning outcomes.’ Active
Learning in Higher Education. Vol 3, No 3, pp 220-233.
• Hussey, T. and Smith, P. (2008) Learning outcomes: a conceptual analysis, Teaching
in Higher Education, Vol 13, No, 1, pp 107-115.
• Stefani, L. (2003) ‘Planning teaching and learning: Curriculum design and
development.’ In Fry,H., Ketteridge,S. and Marshall,S. (eds) A Handbook for
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, London: Routledge.
• Tusting K. and Barton D. (2006) Models of adult learning: a literature review NIACE.
• Indicative websites
• Learning theories.com Available at http://www.learning-theories.com/
An index of learning theories and models with a brief overview of each.
ATHERTON J S (2003) Learning and Teaching:
Available: http://www.learningandteaching.info/
An introduction to theories of learning and other resources.