Constructive Alignment and Higher Order Thinking in Undergraduate Academic Writing Course Specification: A Descriptive Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65420/x2am8551Keywords:
constructive alignment, higher cognitive skills, course specificationAbstract
Drawing on Bloom’s revised taxonomy and Biggs’ Constructive Alignment Theory, this qualitative study uses document analysis to yield insights into the quality of an undergraduate core academic writing (1) course offered by the English Language Department at the University of Tripoli. The document specification was closely examined using a developed checklist to explore higher order thinking development through the observable action verbs that appear in the course general learning aims and the intended learning outcomes represented in the four domains: knowledge and understanding, intellectual skills, scientific and transferable skills and general skills. Then, intended learning outcomes (ILOs), teaching and learning activities (TLAs), and assessments were examined regarding their connection to the targeted learning goals. The findings reveal that the presence of higher order skills in the course document, specifically in the intended learning outcomes, is not enough as these skills must be supported with clearly defined learning activities and assessment tasks. Although several teaching methods were identified, the document doesn’t establish how those methods are used to develop the specific higher order processes identified in the outcomes. The course specification identifies two main summative examinations but provides no sufficiently clear description of the tasks or cognitive processes assessed. Thus, the analysis indicated partial documented alignment rather than fully demonstrable alignment. The study offers several implications on enhancing the alignment between intended learning outcomes (ILOs), teaching and learning activities (TLAs) and assessments tasks (ATs) to make course specifications more effective in achieving the intended goals and further promoting higher order thinking. The paper shows how document analysis can identify gaps in curriculum documentation and inform more clearly defined and sufficiently detailed course design.
Downloads
References
[1] Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
[2] Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364.
[3] Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 1, 5–22.
[4] Biggs, J. B., & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (4th ed.). Open University Press.
[5] Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. Longmans, Green.
[6] Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
[7] Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom. ASCD.
[8] Chatterjee, D., & Corral, J. (2017). How to write well-defined learning objectives. The Journal of Education in Perioperative Medicine, 19(4), E610. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5944406/
[9] Cammies, C., Cunningham, J. A., & Pike, R. K. (2024). Not all Bloom and gloom: Assessing constructive alignment, higher order cognitive skills, and their influence on students’ perceived learning within the practical components of an undergraduate biology course. Journal of Biological Education, 58(3), 588–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2022.2092191
[10] Duron, R., Limbach, B., & Waugh, W. (2006). Critical thinking framework for any discipline. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(2), 160–166.
[11] Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (2005). Constructivism: A psychological theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.
[12] Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293930180102
[13] Houghton, W. (2004). Engineering Subject Centre guide: Learning and teaching theory for engineering academics. Higher Education Academy, Engineering Subject Centre.
[14] Loughlin, C., Lygo-Baker, S., & Lindberg-Sand, Å. (2021). Reclaiming constructive alignment. European Journal of Higher Education, 11(2), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2020.1816197
[15] Schoepp, K. (2019). The state of course learning outcomes at leading universities. Studies in Higher Education, 44(4), 615–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1392500
[16] Saleh, S. E. (2019). Critical thinking as a 21st century skill: Conceptions, implementation and challenges in the EFL classroom. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2542838
[17] Harb, F., Al-Shredi, N., Balhouq, H., & Ethelb, H. (2022). The role of critical thinking in enhancing EFL MA students’ academic writing outcomes: A survey study. Faculty of Languages Journal, 1(25), 104–125. https://doi.org/10.56592/flj.v1i25.212
[18] Hadoud, B. T. (2020). Challenges of implementing critical thinking activities in Libyan higher education. University of Tripoli Journal of Education, 5(2), 88–104.
[19] Cammies, C., Cunningham, J. A., & Pike, R. K. (2024). Not all Bloom and gloom: Assessing constructive alignment, higher order cognitive skills, and their influence on students’ perceived learning within the practical components of an undergraduate biology course. Journal of Biological Education, 58(3), 588–608. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2022.2092191
