Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Teaching Anatomy pp 31–38Cite as

Constructive Alignment: An Outcomes-Based Approach to Teaching Anatomy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Constructive alignment is an outcomes-based approach to teaching that we describe here, illustrating with examples from the teaching of anatomy. Constructive alignment is based on two principles: constructivist psychology, which posits that students construct their knowledge through appropriate learning activities; and curriculum theory, which posits that optimal learning is achieved when teaching and assessment methods are aligned to the learning outcomes that it is intended students are to achieve. Students are thus encouraged to engage in learning activities that are relevant in achieving that outcome. Teaching here is not topic-based, as is traditional teaching, but focuses on what students are intended to do after they have learned the curriculum topics. The outcome statements contain a verb or verbs that specify these intended outcome activities, and these verbs are specifically addressed both in teaching and in assessment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Miller MA, Ewell P. Measuring up on college-level learning. San Jose, CA: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Shuell TJ. Cognitive conceptions of learning. Rev Educ Res. 1986;56:411–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Biggs JB. Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. High Educ. 1996;32:1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Biggs J, Tang C. Teaching for quality learning at university. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill and Open University Press; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Colvin J, Phelan A. Evaluating student opinion of constructivist learning activities on computing undergraduate degrees. In: 1st annual workshop on constructive alignment, February 2006, Nottingham Trent University.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boyle A. Using alignment and reflection to improve student learning. Elements. 2007;3(2):113–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lebrun M. Quality towards an expected harmony: Pedagogy and technology speaking together about innovation. Assoc Adv Comput Educ J. 2007;15(2):115–30.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nightingale S, Carew A, Fung J. Application of constructive alignment principles to engineering education: Have we really changed? In: Proceedings of the 2007 Australasian association for engineering education conference, Melbourne; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Raeburn P, Muldoon N, Bookallil C. Blended spaces, work-based learning and constructive alignment: Impacts on student engagement. In: Same places, different spaces. 2009. pp. 820–31. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/procs/

  10. Hoddinott J. Biggs’ constructive alignment: Evaluation of a pedagogical model applied to a web course. In: Bourdeau J, Heller R, editors. In: Proceedings of world conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications, Chesapeake, VA; 2000. pp. 1666–7.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ladyshewsky R. Aligning assessment, rewards, behaviours and outcomes in group learning tasks. In: Evaluation and assessment conference: enhancing student learning. Bentley, WA: Curtin University; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Moulding NT. Intelligent design: student perceptions of teaching and learning in large social work classes. High Educ Res Dev. 2010;29(2):151–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Morris MM. Evaluating university teaching and learning in an outcome-based model: replanting Bloom. PhD Thesis. Wollongong: University of Wollongong; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Brook V. Learning-focused curriculum development: the redesign of elements of a PGCE Science (Subject Year) Programme. Investig Univ Teach Learn. 2006;3(2):27–35.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Taylor R, Canfield P. Learning to be a scholarly teaching faculty: cultural change through shared leadership. In: Brew A, Sachs J, editors. The transformed university: scholarship of teaching and learning in action. Sydney: Sydney University Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rust C. The impact of assessment on student learning: how can the research literature practically help to inform the development of departmental assessment strategies and learner-centred assessment practices? Act Learn High Educ. 2002;3:145–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Edström K. Doing course evaluation as if learning matters most. High Educ Res Dev. 2008;27(2):95–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kandlbinder P, Peseta T. Key concepts in postgraduate certificates in higher education teaching and learning in Australasia and the United Kingdom. Int J Acad Dev. 2009;14(1):19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Harris D, Bell C. Evaluating and assessing for learning. London: Kogan Page; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Boud D. Enhancing learning through self-assessment. London: Kogan Page; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Boud D. Implementing student self-assessment. Green Guide No. 5. Sydney: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tasmanian Institute of Learning and Teaching, University of Tasmanian, Hobart, TAS, Australia

    John Biggs PhD & Catherine Tang PhD

Authors
  1. John Biggs PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine Tang PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Biggs PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anatomy, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Medical and Health Sciences Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

    Lap Ki Chan

  2. Department of Anatomy, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota, USA

    Wojciech Pawlina

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Biggs, J., Tang, C. (2015). Constructive Alignment: An Outcomes-Based Approach to Teaching Anatomy. In: Chan, L., Pawlina, W. (eds) Teaching Anatomy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08930-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08930-0_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-08929-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-08930-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation