Aligned

Alignment refers to intentionally linking the performance specified in the subject learning outcomes, the opportunity to learn and practice this performance during the teaching/learning activities, and assessment tasks that verify whether the student has achieved the specified performance.

Overview

Alignment refers to intentionally linking the performance specified in the subject learning outcomes, the opportunity to learn and practice this performance during the teaching/learning activities, and assessment tasks that verify whether the student has achieved the specified performance (Biggs & Tang, 2003).  David Boud expresses this as: ‘These are the learning outcomes we want, we pursue them through various teaching and learning practices and then we assess them. Alignment is simply: have we got these three things so they match each other? Do our activities match what we desire students can achieve and are we judging them on the basis of what we say we want?’ (Boud & Rust, 2015).  

Alignment is a fundamental consideration in effective assessment.  If assessment is not verifying student attainment of the subject learning outcomes what is it really doing?  How can we be sure that students are achieving the program learning outcomes, subject learning outcomes, AQF specifications if the alignment between assessment criteria and subject learning outcomes is not clear? 

Added to the Assessment Policy: 

  • Alignment 
  • Equivalence of digital formats 

This section provides: 

  • Brief overview of research (above) 
  • Alignment for a subject 
  • Implementation process 
  • Alignment for online subjects 
  • Whole of degree curriculum alignment 

Alignment for a subject 

For a subject, alignment means achieving by design: 

  1. Subject learning outcomes (SLOs) that specify the capabilities and the level of performance students should be able to achieve from studying the subject 
  1. Learning activities that enable the students to learn the subject topics and attain the required level of performance 
  1. Assessment tasks that enable the student to demonstrate they have attained the level of performance specified in the SLOs. 

With clear alignment we can validly assess that the student has attained the learning outcomes (Biggs & Tang, 2007). 

If SLOs need to be written from scratch, take into consideration: 

  • Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) 
  • The year level – subject learning outcomes should either introduce, develop, or assure PLOs depending on the subject’s level of study  
  • Competency standards specified by the external advisory committee 
  • The performance required – Bloom’s Taxonomy of learning outcomes may be used as a guide.  This can assist with the language used to specify learning outcomes 

Why is this important? 

SLOs are an assertion that the students will be able to do certain things as a result of their study for the subject.  The assertion can be validated if the assessment criteria relate to the performance criteria specified in the learning outcomes, in such a way that attainment of the learning outcomes is clear from the assessment results. 

In program or subject reviews it may be important to clearly demonstrate that students are achieving the performance claimed in the learning outcomes, at the subject and at the program level.  This is the focus of validation of learning. 

Implementation 

What you will need 

  • Subject learning outcomes 
  • Topic material 
  • Weekly lecture/tutorial plan 
  • Professional Association competencies, or External Advisory Group requirements that affect the subject 
  • Bloom’s Taxonomy (See Figure 1) 
  • Existing subject assessment tasks 

Process 

  1. Clarify the performance levels, such as the cognitive levels specified in the SLOs.  You may need to carefully consider what the real performance level requirement is if this is not immediately clear.  For example, an Ancient History subject could have a learning outcome that reads: ‘Explain the causes of the Punic Wars and their consequences for the Roman state’.  This learning outcome is misleading.  ‘Explain’ is associated with a lower order cognitive level of ‘Understanding’.  The actual learning outcome, which requires deconstructing causes and effects and consequences, is at the cognitive level of analysis and should be stated as such.  It is sometimes necessary to extrapolate on the real cognitive level implied by the learning outcome statement.  It may be beneficial to revise the SLOs if this is possible, to clarify performance requirements.  See Figure 1 for more detail on the cognitive level of learning outcomes.  
  1. Consider/review the learning activities.  Ask yourself where and how the students develop the performance capabilities specified in the SLOs.   
  1. Also consider whether there is a more effective way of developing performance capabilities through active engagement with the subject material. 
  1. Consider the assessment tasks in relation to the performance requirements specified in the SLOs.  Do the tasks enable the students to develop their capabilities and to demonstrate attainment of skills?  Are the tasks more about assessing knowledge than capability to apply knowledge?  Are there different types of assessment task that will more effectively assess the required capabilities?  See Table 1 for a range of assessment methods suited to measuring student achievement of learning outcomes. 
  1. Carefully consider the criteria used for assessments in relation to the SLOs.  While a one-to-one relationship between assessment criteria and SLOs is unlikely, there should be a clear relationship between assessment criteria and the performance specified in the SLO.  This is what alignment is all about. 
  1. Develop rubrics or marking guides to specify the criteria for each assessment task, and the range of standards that will define whether the performance is HD, D, C, P, or F.  Rubrics or marking guides are included in the subject learning guide so that students and tutors can clearly identify and relate to assessment criteria. 

Professional development opportunities are available to assist you with writing rubrics that clearly specify criteria and standards. 

Figure 1.  Bloom’s Taxonomy of cognitive learning outcomes.

Table 1.  Learning outcomes and assessment methods.  WSU Assessment Guide: Implementing criteria and standards-based assessment (Armstrong et al, 2015) 

Digital Assessment Formats 

The above discussion on alignment and validation of learning applies equally to online subjects.  The assessment tasks should validate that the student has attained the performance specified in the subject learning outcomes. 

Subjects may use technology in innovative ways, which means learning activities and assessment may take different forms to traditionally accepted modes and formats.  While learning outcomes may be equivalent, academic staff have options for ongoing engagement with students in ways that ensure active participation with minimal options for cheating, and students may use different formats for presenting assessment tasks.  While forms of expression and presentation may differ, alignment between the performance specified in subject learning outcomes and assessment in accordance with criteria and standards ensure that online subjects meet the same requirements for academic performance and accountability. 

Alternative Assessments 

Alternative assessment is a term that has been used extensively to refer to a shift away from standardised examinations and more traditional assessment tools towards more authentic tasks that focus on performance and are embedded into the learning process (Gipps & Stobart, 2003; Reeves, 2000; Ahmad, Sultana, & Jamil, 2020). Currently, with COVID-19 restrictions forcing universities to replace invigilated examinations with online tasks, the term alternative assessment is also being utilised to describe these changes. At WSU Unit Coordinators are encouraged to design alternative assessment tasks that measure the students’ achievement of learning outcomes and can be delivered in an online environment without invigilation. Ideally, these alternative assessments should be authentic and support students to develop the skills they need in their chosen disciplinary areas.  It is important to ensure that alternative assessments align with the subject learning outcomes. 

Program Level Assessment Design 

An important issue for assessment at program level is validation of the program learning outcomes (PLOs).  All program learning outcomes should have subject learning outcomes that align with them, usually in more than one subject.  In this way, assessment that confirms the subject learning outcomes have been attained, also assures that the student has attained the program learning outcomes.  Alignment with the performance specified by the program learning outcomes is usually in subjects at level 3, however a particular program learning outcome may be assured by a specialised subject at level 2. 

Program learning outcomes should themselves align with the Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) specification for the program level (e.g. Bachelor or Masters) and, if relevant, with the specifications of the professional association that has oversight of the course. 

In terms of assurance of learning for a program, the PLOs should be: 

  • Introduced in subjects (usually but not necessarily at Level 1) 
  • Developed (usually but not necessarily at Level 2) 
  • Assured (usually but not necessarily at Level 3) 

By mapping SLOs and assessment in relation to the PLOs at each level, it can validly be claimed that student attainment of PLOs has been assured.  For post-graduate courses, it is usual to map the development and assurance stages for PLOs. 

In the example illustrated in Figure 2, a Level 1 subject learning outcome and assessment task is aligned with a program learning outcome.  Graduate Attributes are also considered.  As this is a Level 1 subject, the alignment is at an introductory level.  A more complex assessment task would be needed to assess a learning outcome that aligns with a program learning outcome such as this at Level 3, to validly assure student attainment of the PLO. 

Figure 2.  Illustration of the alignment and assurance of a contextualised Western Sydney University Graduate Attribute Example taken from: Bachelor of Health Science 4656.1/300361 Introduction to Human Biology 

Resources 

Below is a list of resources that may help you to ensure your teaching team is working towards an effective assessment design. 

Ahmad, S., Sultana, N., & Jamil, S. (2020). Behaviorism vs Constructivism: A Paradigm Shift from Traditional to Alternative Assessment Techniques. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 7(2), 19-33. 

Armstrong, S., Chan, S., Malfroy, J., and Thomson, R.  (2015).  Assessment Guide: Implementing criteria and standards-based assessment. 2nd Edition, University of Western Sydney. 

Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007).  Teaching for Quality Learning at University.  Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, Maidenhead. 

Gipps, C., & Stobart, G. (2003). Alternative Assessment. In T. Kellaghan, & D. L. Stufflebeam, International Handbook of Educational Evaluation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0309-4_33 

Reeves, T. (2000). Alternative assessment approaches for online learning environments in higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research,, 101-111. doi:https://doi.org/10.2190/GYMQ-78FA-WMTX-J06C. 

Office for Learning and Teaching. (n.d.) Assuring learning.  Retrieved December 1, 2015 from http://www.assuringlearning.com/teaching-and-assessing  

Boud, D. & Rust, C. (2015, Nov. 8) Principles of Assessment & Feedback: Aligned.  Video posted to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGvTaobDRHY  

Case Study: Designing Assessment, Tibi Codilean and EESC103: The reasons for change (2) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THvvxKNGwUQ  

Case Study: Designing Assessment, Tibi Codilean and EESC103: Constructive Alignment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2ruMWU6PF4  

Biggs J., () Constructive alignment in university teaching.  Retrieved from http://www.herdsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/HERDSARHE2014v01p05.pdf  

Lawson, R., Bajada, C., Lee, J. (2010) SOS: a tool to support assessment practice across degree courses.  Retrieved from https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/LAWSON.pdf  

Sambell, K. and Brown, S.  COVID-19 Assessment Collection. https://www.seda.ac.uk/index.php?p=5_10