Higher Education

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 347–364 | Cite as

Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment

  • John Biggs


Two lines of thinking are becoming increasingly important in higher educational practice. The first derives from constructivist learning theory, and the second from the instructional design literature. Constructivism comprises a family of theories but all have in common the centrality of the learner's activities in creating meaning. These and related ideas have important implications for teaching and assessment. Instructional designers for their part have emphasised alignment between the objectives of a course or unit and the targets for assessing student performance. “Constructive alignment” represents a marriage of the two thrusts, constructivism being used as a framework to guide decision-making at all stages in instructional design: in deriving curriculum objectives in terms of performances that represent a suitably high cognitive level, in deciding teaching/learning activities judged to elicit those performances, and to assess and summatively report student performance. The “performances of understanding” nominated in the objectives are thus used to systematically align the teaching methods and the assessment. The process is illustrated with reference to a professional development unit in educational psychology for teachers, but the model may be generalized to most units or programs in higher education.


Professional Development Teaching Method Educational Psychology Instructional Design Student Performance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, R.C. (1972). ‘How to construct achievement tests to assess comprehension’, Review of Educational Research 42(2), 145–170.Google Scholar
  2. Archbald, D.A. and Newman, P.M. (1988). Beyond Standardised Testing: Assessing Authentic Achievement in the Secondary School. Reston: National Association of Secondary Principals.Google Scholar
  3. Argyris, C. (1976). ‘Theories of action that inhibit individual learning’, American Psychologist 31, 638–654.Google Scholar
  4. Biggs, J.B. (1987). ‘Process and outcome in essay writing’, Research and Development in Higher Education 9, 114–125.Google Scholar
  5. Biggs, J.B. (1992). ‘A qualitative approach to grading students’, HERDSA News 14(3), 3–6.Google Scholar
  6. Biggs, J.B. (1993). ‘From theory to practice: A cognitive systems approach’, Higher Education Research and Development 12, 73–86.Google Scholar
  7. Biggs, J.B. (1995). ‘Assessing for learning: Some dimensions underlying new approaches to educational assessment’, Alberta Journal of Educational Research 41, 1–18.Google Scholar
  8. Biggs, J.B. (1996a). ‘Assessing learning quality: Reconciling institutional, staff and educational demands’, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 21, 5–15.Google Scholar
  9. Biggs, J.B. (ed.) (1996b). Testing: To Educate or to Select? Education in Hong Kong at the Crossroads. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Educational Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  10. Biggs, J.B. and Collis, K.F. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: The SOLO Taxonomy. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Biggs, J.B. and Moore, P.J. (1993). The Process of Learning. Sydney: Prentice-Hall Australia.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, A.L., Bransford, J.D., Ferrara, R.A. and Campione, J.C. (1983). ‘Learning, remembering, nd understanding’, in Flavell, J. and Markman, E. (eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology: Cognitive Development (Vol. 3). New York: Wiley, pp. 77–166.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, J.S., Collins, A. and Duguid, P. (1989). ‘Situated cognition and the culture of learning’, Educational Researcher 18(1), 32–42.Google Scholar
  14. Chalmers, D. and Fuller, R. (in press). Teaching for Learning at University. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  15. Cobb, P. (1994). ‘Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on mathematical development’, Educational Researcher 23(7), 13–20.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, S.A. (1987). ‘Instructional alignment: Searching for a magic bullet’, Educational Researcher 16(8), 16–20.Google Scholar
  17. Cole, N.S. (1990). ‘Conceptions of educational achievement’, Educational Researcher 19(3), 2–7.Google Scholar
  18. Collier, K.G. (1985). ‘Teaching methods in higher education: The changing scene, with special reference to small-group work’, Higher Education Research and Development 4(1), 3–26.Google Scholar
  19. Driver, R. and Oldham, V. (1986). ‘A constructionist approach to curriculum development in science’ Studies in Science Education 13, 105–122.Google Scholar
  20. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E. and Scott, P. (1994). ‘Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom’, Educational Researcher 23(7), 5–12.Google Scholar
  21. Duffy, T.M. (1992). ‘New implications for instructional technology’ in Duffy, T.M. and D. Jonassen (eds), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation (pp. 1–16). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Duffy, T.M. and D. Jonassen (eds), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Entwistle, A. and Entwistle, N. (1992). ‘Experiences of understanding in revising for degree examinations’, Learning and Instruction 2, 1–22.Google Scholar
  24. Entwistle, N. and Percy, K. (1974). ‘Critical thinking or conformity? An investigation of the aims and outcomes of higher education’, in Research into Higher Education. London: Society for Research into Higher Education.Google Scholar
  25. Fleming, N. (1993). ‘What works and what doesn't in staff development’, HERDSA News15(2), 12–13.Google Scholar
  26. Frederiksen, J.R. and Collins, A. (1989). ‘A systems approach to educational testing’, Educational Researcher 18(9), 27–32.Google Scholar
  27. Gardner, H.W. (1993). ‘Educating for understanding’. The American School Board Journal, July, 20–24.Google Scholar
  28. Gibbs, G., Habeshaw, S. and Habeshaw, T. (1992). 53 Interesting Ways to Teach Large Classes. Bristol: Technical and Educational Services.Google Scholar
  29. Hidi, S. and Anderson, V. (1986). ‘Producing written summaries: Task demands, cognitive operations and implications for instruction’, Review of Educational Research, 56, 473–493.Google Scholar
  30. Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1990). Learning Together and Alone: Co-operation, Competition and Individualisation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Kirby, J. and Pedwell, D. (1991). ‘Students' approaches to summarization’, Educational Psychology, 11, 297–307.Google Scholar
  32. Lai, P. and Biggs, J.B. (1994). ‘Who benefits from mastery learning?’ Contemporary Educational Psychology 19, 13–23.Google Scholar
  33. Lohman, D. (1993). ‘Teaching and testing to develop fluid abilities’, Educational Researcher 22(7), 1–23.Google Scholar
  34. Marso, R.N. and Pigge, F.L. (1991). ‘An analysis of teacher-made tests: Item-types, cognitive demands, and item construction errors’, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 16, 279–286.Google Scholar
  35. Marton, F. (1981). ‘Phenomenography - Describing conceptions of the world around us’, Instructional Science, 10, 177–200.Google Scholar
  36. Marton, F. (in press). ‘Cognosco ergo sum’, Nordisk Pedagogik.Google Scholar
  37. Marton, F. and Booth, S.(in press). ‘The learner's experience of learning’, in Olsen, D.R. and Torrrance, N. (eds.), The Handbook of Education and Human Development: New models of Learning, Teaching and Schooling. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  38. Moss, P.A. (1992). ‘Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: Implications for performance assessment’, Review of Educational Research 62, 229–258.Google Scholar
  39. Nuthall, G.(in press). ‘Understanding student learning and thinking in the classroom’, in Biddle, B.J., Good, T.L. and Goodson, I.F. (eds.), The International Handbook of Teachers and Teaching. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  40. Perkins, D. and Blythe, T. (1993). ‘Understanding up front: A performance approach to testing for understanding’, paper presented to Annual Meeting, American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, April.Google Scholar
  41. Race, P. and Brown, S. (1993). 500 Tips for Tutors. London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  42. Ramsden, P. (1984). ‘The context of learning’, in Marton, F., Hounsell, D. and Entwistle, N. (eds.), The Experience of Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Ramsden, P., Beswick, D. and Bowden, J. (1986). ‘Effects of learning skills interventions on first year university students' learning’, Human Learning 5, 151–164.Google Scholar
  45. Saberton, S. (1985). ‘Learning partnerships’, HERDSA News 7(1), 3–5.Google Scholar
  46. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C. and Lamon, M. (1994). ‘CSILE: Trying to bring students intoWorld 3’, in McGilley, K. (ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 201–228.Google Scholar
  47. Shuell, T.J. (1986). ‘Cognitive conceptions of learning’, Review of Educational Research 56, 411–436.Google Scholar
  48. Slavin, R.E. (1990). ‘Mastery learning re-reconsidered’, Review of Educational Research 60, 300–302.Google Scholar
  49. Steffe, L. and Gale, J. (eds.) (1995). Constructivism in Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Tang, K.C.C. (1991). Effects of Different Assessment Methods on Tertiary Students' Approaches to Studying. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  51. Tang, K.C.C. (1993). ‘Spontaneous collaborative learning: A new dimension in student learning experience?’, Higher Education Research and Development 12, 115–130.Google Scholar
  52. Tang, K.C.C. and Biggs, J.B. (1995). ‘Letters to a friend: Assessing conceptual change in professional development’, paper given to Annual Conference, Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Rockhampton, July 3–7.Google Scholar
  53. Trigwell, K. and Presser, M. (1990). ‘Using student learning outcome measures in the evaluation of teaching’, Research and Development in Higher Education 13, 390–397.Google Scholar
  54. Unger, C. (1993). ‘A call for sensitivity: Taking into account students' perspectives of understanding and learning for understanding’, paper given to Annual Meeting, American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, 15 April.Google Scholar
  55. Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General Systems Theory. New York: Braziller.Google Scholar
  56. West, L. and Pines, A. (eds.) (1985). Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change. Orlando, FL.: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  57. Wood, T. (1995). ‘From alternative epistemologies to practice in education: Rethinking what it means to teach and learn’, in Steffe, L. and Gale, J. (eds.), Constructivism in Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 331–9).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Biggs
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Educational Psychology, Measurement, and Educational TechnologyUniversity of SydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations