Good Writing
Thoughts on Educational Technology
The Changing Dynamics of Education
Philosophical Underpinnings of Educational Technology
Constructive Alignment: Redesigning the Design Process *

Constructive Alignment: Redesigning the Design Process

Teaching and learning have undergone a profound metamorphosis within the last two decades led by the advent of the Internet and Web 2.0 tools. While an increasing number of students are now educated using new and innovative approaches some fundamental tenants of sound pedagogy have not changed. The ability to design a course of instruction effectively by leveraging learner interaction and internalization is among these basic tenants. John Briggs, noted educational psychologist, provides the framework for a dialog on how constructivism can guide the instructional design processes while allowing learners to perform at desired cognitive levels (Briggs, 1996).

     The premise of his argument does not depart from good teaching, instead he outlines a systematic process of aligning curriculum objectives with constructivist principles. The author characterizes this convergence of a predominantly objectivist instructional design process with constructivism as "Constructive alignment." Briggs highlights three primary areas in which constructivism provides the architecture for the instructional development. First, the derivation of curriculum objectives, next the teaching and learning objectives and third the assessments. In each instance there is a deliberate attempt to ensure the design incorporates appropriate rigor, format, and variety.

     Constructive alignment is described in the paper with meticulous examples from a teacher preparation course the author taught in Hong Kong. The learning outcomes through constructive alignment are supposed to provide evidence of learning occurring with high cognitive levels. Briggs points to a hierarchy of qualitative competences he terms as Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) that ranks performance. SOLO "provides a systematic way of describing how a learner's performance grows in complexity when mastering many academic tasks" (Briggs, 1996, p. 351).

     Another key component associated with constructivism that was ever present in Briggs' paper but not sufficiently articulated for me to cite is the implementation of "real world" activities. Throughout the paper Briggs' assessment accounts for integrating constructivist elements in the design process implying the need for activities that are relevant to the process, concept, or, procedures being learnt. While this may seem evident, it is what connects the theory to design and learning process and is worthy of an extended discussion. "Constructivism holds that in order to learn, learning needs to be situated in problem solving in real-life, authentic contexts (Brown et al., 1988) where the environment is rich in information and where there are no right answers" (Jeroen et al, 2001, p. 432). Therefore, in order for authentic learning experiences to occur the instructional design process must incorporate the needs of the learner but also provide relevance with the teaching and learning activities in the most practical manner. I find this thought significant!

     I also found a most profound argument purporting the ineffectiveness of standard assessments in favor of portfolios in which Briggs (1996) states, "The teacher sets the limits of what may fall within the purview of 'good learning', so many important or appropriate triggering questions are unlikely to be asked" (p. 357). This resonated with me because I feel guilty of the charge. However, I think even in ideal constructivist situations, in practice, teachers will inadvertently set limits on what is considered "good learning." This is done often as a practical matter in any given exercise. For instance, the use of portfolios as a superior approach to traditional assessments is still influenced by rubrics or other guidelines measuring student performance. It feels as though once these guidelines exist I am in fact installing barriers to expression. This will not deter me however from using this lesson as an opportunity to improve on my ability to create novel assessments that lead to the development of some kind of portfolio.

     There is another theme I have been harping on for a few semesters which I think is worth mentioning again in this medium. Constructivism is a group of theories which provides a perspective of how people learn. It has limitations like all theories do. In Briggs' commentary he amply describes both constructivism and objectivism. However, he leaves the line between constructivism and the application of some of its principles too indistinct. To be clear I am not adding to the din on whether constructivism is a theory, philosophy or set of rules for teaching. What I am advocating is the need to characterize constructivism so as not to pit it against objectivism as a superior construct-it is not. Constructivism is different but inherently flawed like all theories. That is why we label them as theories and not laws of science. They are meant to guide our practice not dictate the terms of our endeavors. Johannes Cronje (2006) masterfully articulates this and other related themes in examining a view toward the integration of objectivism and constructivism (pp. 387-389). I highly recommend this article http://www.springerlink.com.libproxy.boisestate.edu/content/f5r71244333n2816/fulltext.pdf

     What I take aware from this reflection is that there may be institutional, theoretical, personal biases or other limitations in practice for implementing principles of constructivism within the instructional design process. This however should not prevent me from appreciating the advantages nor applying strategies to implement them.

References

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher education, 32(3), 347–364. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.boisestate.edu/stable/info/3448076 on September 30, 2010.

Cronjé, J. (2006). Paradigms regained: Toward integrating objectivism and constructivism in instructional design and the learning sciences. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(4), 387–416. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com.libproxy.boisestate.edu/content/f5r71244333n2816/fulltext.pdf

van Merri\ënboer, J. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2001). Three worlds of instructional design: State of the art and future directions. Instructional Science, 29(4), 429–441.