English Language Teaching; Vol. 12, No.

6; 2019
ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

Using Constructive Alignment to Foster Teaching Learning Processes

Preeti Jaiswal1
1
English Language Centre, University of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bahrain
Correspondence: Preeti Jaiswal, English Language Centre, University of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bahrain.

Received: December 15, 2018 Accepted: May 2, 2019 Online Published: May 5, 2019
doi: 10.5539/elt.v12n6p10 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n6p10

Abstract
This paper delineates the process of constructively aligning course intended learning outcomes, teaching learning
activities, and assessment tasks to boost students’ accomplishments of intended learning outcomes. It, also
highlights, how the usage of two teaching tools, well-regarded by educators, emerged propitious in analyzing
students’ progression in learning and in augmenting their academic skills. Biggs’ model of constructive
alignment, Biggs’ SOLO taxonomy and Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives were used for this purpose.
Four factors emerged pivotal for efficacy and effectiveness of the process - creating positive learning
environments, linking academic content to real life situations, selecting appropriate teaching learning activities
and developing learning outcomes that are measurable and attainable, to facilitate the teaching and learning
processes.
Keywords: constructive alignment, biggs’ SOLO taxonomy, learner centered approaches, bloom’s taxonomy of
educational objectives
1. Introduction
In the teacher centred lecture approach, focus is on the teacher transferring knowledge while students learn
passively through rote learning and memorization, and emphasis is on the content coverage. This traditional
methodology draws a distinction between in class and out of class learning, and focuses on assessing learning by
using summative results as the only evidence of learning. However, since 2000, there have been significant
changes in the nature of higher education. Not only have the numbers of students enrolled in higher education
institutions sharply increased, resulting in higher variance in the students’ community but also many other
factors have changed the primary mission of higher education institutions as well as the teaching and learning
methods in tertiary education.Currently, one objective of higher education institutions is to prepare students to
become autonomous learners. In order to accomplish this goal, there must be a paradigm shift from teaching to
facilitating effective learning and an understanding of the notion of ownership and ‘reflection on learning’ as
well as the preparedness to take responsibility for not only one’s learning but also one’s continuous development.
Autonomous learning, also called student–centred learning is based on the constructivist theory of learning. Dam
(1995) suggests that a gradual move from teacher-centered teaching to a learner-centered class is needed in order
to foster learner autonomy in the classroom. Some eminent exponents of constructivist approach include Jerome
Bruner, Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky, and John Dewey. They are widely perceived in the academia as the
preeminent advocates of the constructivism philosophical paradigm (Honebein, 1996). Constructive refers to the
concept of learners constructing knowledge through relevant learning activities. Alignment ascribes to the
ambiance that educators create, to support active learning activities, for attaining the intended learning outcomes.
The essence of this approach, is that all segments - the methodologies, the learning resources, the in class
learning activities along with extended learning opportunities that support learning, the curriculum, the intended
learning outcomes, as well as the assessment tasks and rubrics for evaluating students’ learning – are aligned to
each other to facilitate the accomplishment of the intended learning outcomes. Therefore in constructivist
approach the relevance is on optimizing active learning opportunities by using student centred approaches and a
good functional curriculum design that aligns the teaching learning activities, assessment tasks to intended
learning outcomes to measure the level of ILO achieved. Two taxonomies namely Blooms’ taxonomy and Biggs’
taxonomy are particularly useful in understanding the progression of learning and in describing the structural
complexity of students’ responses when accomplishing many tasks. Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational
objectives is a useful tool in ascertaining a learner’s level of thinking. Bloom’s taxonomy is effective in
encouraging higher-order thinking in learners by developing from lower-level cognitive skills. This hierarchical

10
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 12, No. 6; 2019

taxonomy provides a useful framework in which to categorize test questions when assessing students’ learning.
Another efficient model of learning is SOLO taxonomy. It assists educators and students in categorizing learning
into three levels of knowledge- at surface, deep and conceptual levels and further classifying the learning
outcomes or understanding into five hierarchically arranged SOLO levels. This taxonomy gives learners an
insight into the level they are in their learning and a medium for gauging their progress in learning.
2. Material Studied
It is evident that Constructivist approach has emerged as one of the greatest influences on the practice of
education in recent years and educators have been adopting constructivist-based pedagogy eagerly. The
prominence given to each learner in the classroom, to the significance of constructing meaning, and to the active
participation of learners in the teaching learning process are evidently the very elements that make this
Constructivist model agreeable to educators. The formulation of the concept of constructivism is credited to Jean
Piaget, who drew attention to the mechanisms by which knowledge is internalized by students. “… all
knowledge is tied to action, and knowing an object or an event is to use it by assimilating it to an action
scheme…” Piaget, 1967, pp. 14-15). He claimed that through processes of accommodation and assimilation,
learners construct new knowledge from their experiences. When learners assimilate, they integrate the new
knowledge to pre-existing knowledge. Constructivists propose that “knowledge is not passively received but
built up by the cognizing subject” (Von Glasersfeld, 1995). Therefore in the viewpoint of constructivists, the
emphasis shifts from viewing knowledge as a commodity to knowing as a procedure, or an activity. The
Constructivist pedagogy advocates incorporation of learning activities that are meaningful to learners and which
arouse them to reflect and utilize their abilities in taking personal initiatives towards creativity in the learning
process. In this pedagogy, activities supplement lectures, and ample opportunities are offered to learners to
construct their own understanding on the basis of interaction between what they already know and the new
information. Constructive alignment, a prominently employed principle, for formulating teaching and learning
activities in higher education, was introduced by John Biggs in 2007. According to Biggs “Constructive
alignment is an outcome-based approach to teaching in which the learning outcomes that students are intended to
achieve, are defined before teaching takes place”. Later he appended that “Teaching and assessment methods are
then designed to best achieve those outcomes and to assess the standard at which they have been achieved”
(Biggs, 2014). Additionally, Biggs demonstrated that his model is based on the notion that a learner constructs
his/her own knowledge through active participation in engaging teaching/ learning activities (Biggs, 2014).
Recently, as awareness is increasing, that transmission of knowledge does not result in learning, there is a
paradigm shift from the teacher to the learners in the current educational environment. The increasingly popular
student centred approaches advocate that knowledge is constructed as a result of learners’ active engagement in
the learning activities. As learning progresses, it intensifies in complexity. One model that may assist educators
and learners in understanding the distinctive levels of growing complexity in the learning process is the Structure
of Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy of educational objectives. This taxonomy of Learning
objectives which was proposed by Biggs and Collis (1982) is based on the notion that in any ‘learning episode,
both qualitative and quantitative learning outcomes are influenced by a complex interaction between teaching
methodologies and student characteristics’ (p. 15). They stressed upon a few factors: the importance of the prior
knowledge the student has related to the content, the learners’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation about the
learning as well as the learner’s learning strategies. The SOLO model or taxonomy of learning makes clear to
students and educators alike what the learning outcomes of an activity, module or course programme are. It is a
useful tool, for assessing the learning outcomes of students, in terms of their quantity and quality attributes, by
classifying learners’ responses into anyone of the three levels of knowledge: surface knowledge, deep knowledge
conceptual (or constructed) knowledge. According to this cognitive processing taxonomy, a students’ learning
outcome may further be categorized at one of the five levels of complexity: no idea, one idea, unrelated ideas,
connected ideas, extended ideas. Another tool that educators may find useful in designing curriculum or
preparing assessments is Bloom’s taxonomy. Benjamin Bloom theorized that learning occurs in levels. “Bloom
developed a taxonomy for the cognitive domain of learning—a linear progression through knowledge,
comprehension, application, analysis, and synthesis to evaluation” (p. 18). Guiding learners to progress through
the six hierarchical levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy boosts intrinsic motivation and higher order thinking skills and
encourages students’ autonomy as they think critically and take ownership of their work in all areas of life. The
analysis, evaluation, and creation levels relate to knowledge, and educators can adjust learning to encourage
students to progress from the lower levels of learning to the higher levels. According to (Richard, 1985),
Bloom’s taxonomy is arguably one of the most influential works in field of education. Krathwohl (2002, p. 212),
claims that Bloom’s hierarchical taxonomy is a useful tool for providing a common language about learning
goals, to enhance interaction among learners, subject matter, and grade levels; for establishing a basis for a

11
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 12, No. 6; 2019

particular course or curriculum,or the specific meaning of broad educational goals, like those found in the
national, state, and local standards; or as a means for determining the coherence of educational objectives,
learning activities, and assessments in a module, course, or curriculum; and for providing an overview of the
range of educational possibilities against which the limited scope of any specific educational course or
curriculum could be contrasted. The study attempts to answer the following question: Does creating constructive
alignment of learning environment as a paradigm significantly enhance learners’ achievement of intended
learning outcomes?
A) Using Bloom’s Taxonomy for Enhancing Learners’ Accomplishments through Higher Order Thinking
The classification of educational objectives in Bloom’s Taxonomy serves as a process-oriented model that guides
educators to: write measurable students’ learning outcomes, structure engaging learning activities, delineate
goals for fostering learners’ thinking skills and finally assess students’ learning. Skill development and
development in learning can be categorized into six levels of progressive thought processes: Knowledge (which
is exhibited through the recall of facts and information), Comprehension (which is ascertained through the basic
understanding of information), Application (which can be evident through the utilization of knowledge and
information to tasks), Analysis (which can be measured through successfully dissecting information and
understanding of the relation of segments to the whole) Synthesis (which is attainable through the compilation of
information into either a new concept or creation), and Evaluation (which is manifested in the ability of making
judgments with reference to the worthiness and significance of information) (Ball & Garton, 2005). The four
uppermost levels (Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation) are contemplated as higher order thought
processes (Bloom et al., 1956; Anderson et al., 2001), and are the commended target for most higher education
courses (Ulmer & Torres, 2007; Ewing, 2006). Bloom’s taxonomy guides educators to formulate test questions to
determine higher-level thinking skills by outlining test questions as well as assessment prompts that vividly
indicate performances required of learners such as recall relevant facts, apply knowledge to do a specific task
make a prediction on a given text, solve an issue, evaluate a situation or compose an alternative solution.. The
verbs in each category in this taxonomy, illustrate a structured progression of cognitive skills. For instance, lower
levels of Bloom’s taxonomy verbs display basic thinking skills like memorization of facts. On the contrary,
measurable verbs at higher levels characterize complex thinking skills, such as implementing gained knowledge
to find practical solutions to issues, analyzing variant interpretations to find the best option, or creating a new
idea, pattern or alternative explanation of available findings.

Table 1. Applying bloom’s taxonomy for boosting competency

Levels of Learning with Description Measurable verbs with Possible Potential Activities
Question stems

Create The ability to Generate, What do you predict Compose a job

develop a new will be the ending? application for an advert.
Plan,
structure or pattern Judge Produce a resume
Produce,
from diverse whether……….is
Create a new report
components. Compose, good or bad.
Defend your opinion. Plan a proposal for a
Construct,
If you were given a business/service in future
Design, choice how would
Learners build Construct a role play
segments together to Develop, you solve
the …..Problem? Devise potential
construct a whole, Devise, solutions for a given
with focus on problem
Design
creating a new
Design a PPT
structure.
presentation

12
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 12, No. 6; 2019

Evaluate The ability to judge Evaluate, Which is the best Self/peers assess writing
the merit of ideas for a method to solve this tasks on basis of a set of
Recommend,
given purpose. problem? criterion.
Summarize,
Why would… be Assemble a portfolio of
Debate, better option? What writing tasks and
Learners assess
do you recommend? evaluate/reflect on
provided material Criticize,
progress using a rubric
using a rubric/criteria
Judge, and feedback.
or standard.
How effective is...?
Prioritize Give group feedback
using guidelines for
student presentations in
class

Analyze The ability to examine Analyze, How is this similar Prepare a report
the details of content to…? comparing a present
Distinguish,
material in order to situation with another
Subdivide, Examine the effects
interpret the past event?
of….
underlying idea. Differentiate,
Review this paragraph in
What could have
Examine, , terms of unity and
caused ….
structure
Learners distinguish Compare/
between facts and Contrast Differentiate a coherent
inferences. paragraph from an
Categorize,
incoherent one.
Classify

Apply The ability to put to Apply, Can you apply this Use the guidelines to
use, taught concepts, skill in your daily present an engaging
Modify,
in a new context or activities? class presentation.
real world experience. Demonstrate,
How would you Refer to sample models
This may entail the
Implement, prepare … by to write an academic
application of rules,
applying the paragraph.
methods learnt in Interpret
strategies you have
class. Use behavioral
studied?
interviewing strategies to
Can you use the interview your friend.
Learners practice comprehensive list of
Apply experiential based
transferring their writing prompts to
learning in class to
learning into authentic develop a list of
everyday situations.
or other situations. instructions for…?

13
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 12, No. 6; 2019

Comprehend The ability to grasp Restate, Rewrite the story in Make a flow chart to
new content material your own words show the sequence of
Illustrate,
by linking their events.
What is the main
understanding to prior Explain,
idea? Retell the story of an
taught material.
Discuss, intensive/extensive
Give examples
reading text in your own
Paraphrase,
Write a brief outline words
Learners focus on the
Select,
meaning of content Write and do a class
material Outline performance/play based
on a story.

Knowledge The ability to recall Define, Define the following Make a timeline of
previously learned terms…. events
Describe,
information and ideas.
Write true or false List the main events
List,
What/Where/ Identify the stages of…
Locate,
Learners recognize
Why/When/ Recall the key factors
facts and retrieve Memorize,
of…
memorized Who/How
information to exhibit Recognize, questions…. Match the terms with
their understanding of their definitions.
Name, State,
taught material.
Identify, Find,

B) Utilizing Biggs’ SOLO Taxonomy to Enhance Students’ Thinking and Learning

Structure of Observed Learning Outcomes (SOLO) taxonomy is not a hypothesis about knowledge based on
perceptions of educational administrators but a practical model about learning outcomes established on research
conducted on student learning (Biggs & Tang 2007, p. 80). The model categorizes learning outcomes into five
stages, which are organized hierarchically, from no knowledge (pre-structural), progressing to surface learning
(uni-structural and multi-structural) to developing deep learning (relational and extended abstract). A basic
understanding of the structure of SOLO taxonomy assists educators to review students’ productions differently –
do students have the basic knowledge and facts required( indicating accomplishment at surface learning) or are
they able to grasp the interconnectedness of the facts/issues before perceiving key concepts thereby (exhibiting
deep learning). So, educators can understand the learning process, by reviewing tasks composed by learners in
relation to this model. Likewise, it enables learners, to determine their current status regarding their learning
accomplishments, and indicates what they must do in order to make headway. Therefore, learners can utilize it to
enhance their thinking and learning level. Hattie and Brown propose that SOLO levels assist both learners and
educators to comprehend and classify learning experiences as well as learning outcomes according to ascending
levels of cognitive complexity (Hattie & Brown, 2004). At Uni-structural and Multi-structural stages, learners
understand one or several aspects of the content. At these levels, understanding is disconnected and at surface
level so assessment tasks are primarily quantitative in nature. At the Relational level, learners can link and
integrate different aspects of the content and present a more coherent, logically related answer. At this level,
understanding is at deep level, so assessment tasks are primarily qualitative in nature. In the highest or extended
abstract level, understanding is at a deeper level, and. the previously integrated understanding, may possibly be
conceptualized at a higher level of abstraction and generalized to a new topic or area. As at this level,
understanding is at a deeper level, so assessment tasks continue to be qualitative in nature.

14
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 12, No. 6; 2019

Table 2. Categorization of students’ learning outcomes according to five SOLO levels of understanding
5 SOLO LEVELS WITH Learner Attributes at Each Level In Writing Skills Lesson
DESCRIPTORS:

SOLO 1 Measurable This is the first stage .The learner does not have any knowledge .He
Prestructural level Verbs does not understand the content, being taught, so is unable to
demonstrate understanding. He has missed the point. His responses
indicate no recognition of appropriate concept or relevant processing
of information. He is yet to grasp the idea and/or needs assistance to
grasp the concept.

Delivery of Writing Task

The task is dealt inappropriately. The work produced has: a poor
structure, inconsequential details, poor examples with some
misapprehension of the assigned topic, and therefore displays minimal
logical relationship with the topic. The response of a prototypal
learner at pre-structural stage would likely be ‘I don’t understand
anything’.
Surface knowledge (loose ideas)
Quantitative phase
SOLO 2 VERBS At the second stage, categorized as unistructural, the learner has
Unistructural level Name limited knowledge. He can understand, one isolated aspect of the
content, being taught. His understanding is disconnected. The learner
Identify is progressing at a basic, preliminary level and has not tackled the task
Define appropriately.
State Delivery of Writing Task:
Tell The work produced has a poor structure. However, the learner can
Recall identify and grasp one single relevant idea related to the topic. The
work focuses largely on this single aspect. This idea is restated in
Recognize different ways. The response of a prototypal learner at unistructural
Match stage would likely be. ‘I have some understanding of this topic.’
Find
SOLO 3 VERBS At the next hierarchical stage, classified as Multistructural, the learner
Multistructural Describe knows a few facts, about the content, being taught. He can understand
level two or more aspects of a task, but fails to grasp their relationships to
List each other or the whole. At this level, the learner is simply annexing
Combine segments of unconnected information. The performance shows no
Classify organization; therefore, does not make sense to the learner.

Select Delivery of Writing Task:

Outline The work produced has a poor structure Although the learner selects a
range of material and most selected content is appropriate, but these
ideas are disconnected. The work focuses on a large number of facts
with very little attempt at linking ideas. The response of a prototypal
learner at Multistructural stage would likely be ‘I know a few things
about this topic’
Deep knowledge (connected ideas)
Qualitative phase
SOLO 4 VERBS As learners make headway towards the relational level, the divergent
Relational level Compare aspects are linked and integrated, and contribute to a deeper and more
coherent understanding of the composite whole. The whole task has a

15
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 12, No. 6; 2019

Contrast logical and consistent identifiable structure and meaning. At relational

Explain level, students begin to use higher level thinking skills – students are
able to link and explain several ideas around a related topic. So a
Analyze stereotypical student’s ‘relational response might be: ‘I can see the
Relate connections between the information I have gathered’.
Integrate Delivery of Writing Task:
Apply The work produced is well-structured with a clear introduction and
Sequence conclusion. The learner selects appropriate material. The content has
a logical flow, and ideas are expressed vividly. The response of a
Summarize prototypal learner at relational stage would likely be ‘I can see the
Categorize connections between the information I have gathered’.
Distinguish
Extended abstract (conceptual or constructed) knowledge
Qualitative phase
SOLO 5 VERBS Eventually, at the extended abstract level, which is the highest level,
Extended abstract Predict the new perception of concepts at the relational level, are amended, at
level yet another conceptual level. It is perceived in a novel manner, and
Reflect utilized as the premise for prediction, generalization, reflection, or
Hypothesize creation of new understanding (Hook and Mills 2011). The extended
Create abstract, is the final and most complex level. At this stage, not only are
students able to link lots of related ideas together, but they can also
Justify link these to other bigger ideas and concepts. So a quintessential
Imagine student’s response, at this level, might sound like: ‘By reflecting and
Design evaluating on my learning, I am able to look at the bigger picture and
link lots of different ideas together’.
Synthesize
Delivery of Writing Task:
Evaluate
The work produced is well-structured with a clear introduction and
conclusion. There is clear evidence of sophisticated analysis or
innovative thinking. The response of a prototypal learner at the
extended abstract stage would likely be ‘By reflecting and evaluating
my learning, I am able to look at the bigger picture and link lots of
different ideas together’.

Table 3. A sample of SOLO Task

SOLO TASK - What causes obesity in children?
SOLO Level of Learner response
Understanding:
SOLO 1 Prestructural Learner beats about the bush, repeats the question stem or is unable to tackle the
level question directly.
Many children are obese these days. Obesity is a problem nowadays. Children rush
to the cafeteria during lunch breaks.
SOLO 2 Unistructural Only one relevant aspect of the answer is tackled, answer is very opinionated and
level entails a limited conclusion.
Children are obese because they like fast food too much.
SOLO 3 Some aspects of task are addressed but there is no relationship of facts or concepts.
Multistructural level The quality of work does not provide a clear logical structure.
There are fast food restaurants on almost every street and nowadays both parents
are working and social media is addictive. The problem of obesity is increasing.
SOLO 4 At relational level, student’s performance exhibits higher level thinking. Many

16
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 12, No. 6; 2019

Relational level aspects are interspersed, so that the task has a coherent structure and meaning –
student is able to link and explain several ideas around a related topic.
So a typical student’s ‘relational response might be: ‘I can see the connections
between the ideas I have gathered’. Poor diet can cause obesity. Children gain
weight due to lack of physical activities. Also,eating too much of fast food can lead
to obesity Sometimes,working parents don’t get time to cook, so they give fast,
convenience store snacks, or high calorie food to children which consequently
makes them fat. Besides, many children are addicted to video games and social
media, so they don’t burn their calories.
SOLO 5 The final and most complex level is the extended abstract level. At this level, not
Extended abstract only is quintessential student, able to link lots of related ideas together, but he/she
level can also link them to other bigger ideas and concepts.
So a typical student’s response at this level might be: ‘By reflecting and evaluating
on my learning, I am able to look at the bigger picture and link lots of different
ideas together’. At this stage, the coherent answer is generalized to a higher level of
abstraction. It has a good framework and is well structured. The answer exhibits
extensive reading, innovative thinking and sophisticated analysis of the issue. It
delineates all the causes of obesity among children and indicates that a research
should be carried out in future to identify viable solutions to the problem. It
compares the current problem of obesity with the situation ten years ago. It
elaborates other related problems, children are facing and elucidates that the
solution lies in creating awareness about the effects of behavioral disorders, of the
dire need for consuming proper nutrition and of maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

C) Using Constructive Alignment to Burgeon the Learning Process

“Constructive alignment is a design for teaching in which what it is intended students should learn and how they
should express their learning is clearly stated before teaching takes place. Teaching is then designed to engage
students in learning activities that optimize their chances of achieving those outcomes, and assessment tasks are
designed to enable clear judgments as to how well those outcomes have been attained” (Biggs, 2014, pp. 5-6).
Alignment occurs only when the learning activities assigned to learners, engage them in constructing the
knowledge intended for the module and are measured by the assessment task. The constructive alignment
approach proposes “knowledge is constructed by the activities of the learner” (Biggs, 2014, p. 9) instead of being
directly transferred from teacher to student. ”Learning takes place through the active behavior of the student: it is
what he does that he learns, not what the teacher does.” (Tyler, 1949) The basic operational structure underlying
constructive alignment involves initially identifying and defining the intended learning outcomes using one verb
for each learning outcome. The ILO makes clear at the beginning of the course what learners should be able to
perform after the completion of the course. Next, educators create a positive learning environment using
interactive teaching/learning activities, (TLAs) that require learners to engage with each verb. TLAs help
activate the actionable verbs in ILO. So the verb in the ILO serves as the common element that creates alignment
between the ILO, the teaching learning activities, as well as the assessment tasks. Thereafter, educators select the
content (units, exercises, supplementary worksheets, online resources) required to support the learning, through
in class activities, and extended learning tasks. The topic of the unit serves as the object of this verb. Active
engagement in TLA’s makes learners develop the skills, knowledge and understandings outlined in the intended
learning outcomes. While some ILOs necessitate low level measurable verbs like name, state, describe, list, other
ILOs at mediocre level, require specific verbs such as explain, apply, analyze, compare, differentiate to complete
a task in connection with a familiar situation whereas ILOs at higher level include verbs like create, generate
new alternatives, hypothesize, design, compose to complete open ended tasks in connection with an unfamiliar
situation. These actionable verbs reflect various levels of understanding and differ according to each unit. Biggs
and Tang (2007) describe ILOs as “statements, written from the students’ perspective, indicating the level of
understanding and performance they are expected to achieve as a result of engaging in the teaching and learning
experience” (p. 55). Later, educators use those specific verbs while preparing assessment tasks in order to figure
out how competently learners’ have accomplished the intended learning outcomes. Finally, educators may
transform their judgments into summative grades by using standards-based grading system. The final grading
data may be transformed quantitatively or qualitatively. For Quantitative scoring, information is collected

17
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 12, No. 6; 2019

numerically as percentages and graded according to a scale. For example 90 marks = grade A. In the other
alternative, grading of learners’ accomplishments is done qualitatively, by using a rubric, consisting of
descriptors for high, medium or low achievements. In this way, learners’ answers to a set of question stems or a
specific academic skill such as reading comprehension skills may be analyzed. In this type of scoring, focus is on
a holistic judgment instead of numerical scores. In most cases, educators may find that final grades consisting of
a blend of both quantitative and qualitative data are useful in gaining a complete analysis of learners’
performances in order to determine their areas of strengths and weaknesses. The aligned system emphasizes on
the significance of linking learning concepts to learners’ prior knowledge and real life experiences and enables
learners to understand the relevance of learning by making them understand its utility in future workforce
environment through reflection. SOLO model also emphasizes on students’ motivation and engagement while
learning; as well as students’ learning strategies. Some useful instructional strategies for tapping into
learners’prior knowledge include incorporating KWL teaching model (Ogle, 1986) ( what I know-What I want to
learn-How can I learn this-What I learnt), or using if/then statements so learners can make connections between
new and previously taught materials and/or with relevant life experiences. Some other learning activities that
facilitate active engagement in class include using the jigsaw puzzles, think-pair-share activities, and
incorporating experiential learning activities and work readiness skills within curriculum. Linking the academic
content to real life situations encourages students to make connections between their current learning and their
utility and relevance to their future career paths. It encourages the big picture perspective. It boosts their intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation levels, promotes complete engagement in learning activities and paves the way for
higher accomplishments of intended learning outcomes.

Table 4. Implementation of constructive alignment (sample 1) intended learning outcomes for a writing course
On completion of this course, students should be able to:
• Exhibit basic knowledge of previously learned material by recalling terms and basic concepts.
• Demonstrate factual and practical knowledge of course content by organizing, comparing, interpreting,
giving descriptions, stating main ideas and looking for details.
• Apply acquired knowledge, facts, techniques, and rules to known practical contexts, by planning how
skills will be used to address set situations and adapting as necessary.
• Analyze and Evaluate information by drawing connections among ideas, comparing contrasting; making
inferences and finding evidence to support generalizations, drawing conclusions, and suggesting
solutions.
• Create independently a variety of business communication materials such as emails, and business letters
in both familiar and unfamiliar situations using academic writing style.

18
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 12, No. 6; 2019

Table 5. Implementation of constructive alignment (sample 2) aligning teaching for constructing learning by
applying Bloom’s Taxonomy to encourage higher-order thinking
Intended Learning Outcome with Methodology Action verbs and Activities Assessment Task
Create Used Constructive Alignment Create Construct formal Compose a job
independently a model by John Biggs. Why? letters application letter
variety of business • To align teaching strategies, Evaluate Summarize key for an authentic
communication its intended outcomes and elements for writing job advert
materials such as assessment tasks for constructing business letters. • The assessment
emails, and learning Analyze task measured the
business letters in Differentiate good,
mediocre and poor attainment of
both familiar and intended learning
unfamiliar Incorporated all levels of Bloom’s Apply samples of business
letter.(self/peer outcomes of a
situations using taxonomy to achieve intended writing skills
academic writing learning outcome. Why? review)
Understand Apply guidelines to course.
style. • To promote higher-order
write a formal letter • Used rubric as
thinking skills by developing evaluation
lower-level cognitive skills. Remember of enquiry. checklist to
• To bridge the gap between Identify differences identify strengths
knowledge and application. between a formal and weaknesses
email and business of learner
• To apply experiential letter
learning to workplace situations performances.
Recall layout and
cohesion, coherence
strategies for writing
a formal email.

3. Method
The study utilized quantitative method to analyze if there was a statistically significant difference between
learners’ performances in the test before and after constructively aligning learning environment and applying
Bigg’s SOLO taxonomy and Blooms’ taxonomy to enhance learners’ proficiency levels and accomplishments of
intended learning outcomes.
3.1 Sample
The sample comprised of 30 students (fifteen males and fifteen females) who were studying the course titled
Language Development (Level two) of the Associate Diploma in Office Management Program in the English
Language Centre, University of Bahrain, during the academic year 2018-19. Language Development (Level two)
is a credit bearing course which develops learners’ English language skills with emphasis on academic and
business writing skills, so that they can competently produce a variety of business-related correspondences.
3.2 Instrument
Pre- and post-tests were used to collect data in order to examine learners’ progression of academic skills.
Additionally, learners attainments of learning tasks during in class activities were observed, as well as learners’
opinions were converged through discussions.The test consisted of multiple-choice questions, cloze questions,
defining content words, sentence completions, locating pronoun references, determining the meaning of words
and phrases from the given alternatives of domain specific vocabulary, finding main idea and supporting details,
using text structure to comprehend the meaning from context, and composing academic paragraph and formal
email. The assessment analyzed learners’ competency in language skills by gauging their performance levels in
the tests. Pre- and post- tests were obtained from students and scores were entered into SPSS. A paired sample
t-test was used to investigate if there is a significant difference between learners’ achievement on the pretest and
post-test scores after the intervention.
4. Result
According to the evaluation analysis of quantitative data, the results showed that aligning the curriculum design
for constructing learning along with applying the educational objectives in Bloom’s Taxonomy and Biggs’
SOLO organizational taxonomy had a statistically significant positive impact on the academic achievement of

19
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 12, No. 6; 2019

learners as the student centred approaches enhanced learners’ proficiency in achieving the intended learning
outcomes, t(29) = 3.94, p < 0.05. The evaluation likewise displays that all cognitive domains of Bloom’s
taxonomy are significant and are applicable in classroom activities to foster active participation of students. The
findings also reveal that although the most significant cognitive domains in Bloom’s taxonomy are creation,
evaluation and knowledge; but the most applicable are remember, understand, analyze and apply as a lot of
emphasis is allocated to remembering and recalling the knowledge. The findings of this study further display that
educators should build a positive learning environment for active learning to happen by incorporating student
centred activities like discussions, brain storming sessions, encouraging text think aloud questions, asking open
ended questions, encouraging elaboration of texts, using logical reasoning in problem-solving strategies,
clarifying, implementing experiential learning activities, previewing structure, role playing, incorporating
students’ presentations, promoting self /peer review of learning tasks, using gamification, facilitating
collaborative and cooperative learning activities, as these kinds of instructional strategies boost opportunities for
students to attain ILOS. According to (Thomas, 2007) teachers “need to build a community in which students
experience their passion” A positive environment creates optimal learning opportunities for each student to attain
ILOS. Student centred approaches are useful in developing an environment supportive of learning with a focus
on the learner’s experience; offering a variety of teaching and student activities (Kember, 2009); emphasizing
creativity and discovery (Ewell, 2007), active rather than passive learning (Lea et al., 2003) and developing
holistic not fragmented understanding. A study by Smith (1977) revealed that three types of classroom
interactions: positive interactions between students and instructors, the frequency and cognitive level of student
participation, and peer-to-peer interactions among students in a course consistently and positively related to 31
critical thinking skills (Tsui, 2002). There are many other ways of encouraging appropriate learning activities
(Chapter 5, Biggs 2003), even in large classes (Chapter 6). Students’ involvement with active learning generates
high quality learning. Assignments and in-class discussions offer students the opportunities to develop higher
cognitive skills in a self-motivated environment. Research findings also indicated that incorporating cooperative
learning into assessments by encouraging interactions through assignments or in a cooperative peer-to peer
learning situation boost development of critical thinking skills (Tsui, 2001; 1999; Astin, 1993). The findings of
this study further suggested that instructors should ask higher levels questions. According to Lingard et al.
(2001), higher order thinking “occurs when students manipulate information and ideas in ways which transform
their meaning and applications” (p. 18). These variant levels of cognitive behavior display progressively
complex skills in a hierarchical order (Webb, 1970). Consequently, students must attain (lower level skills) like
understand and comprehend and use higher level skills to formulate the knowledge in composition or creation of
some new method (higher order).
5. Discussion
Constructive alignment is the underpinning concept for criterion based assessment as the model displays an
aligned design for outcome based teaching. It is useful,both, in coping with mixed-ability classes with learner
differences in terms of learning styles, motivation levels, attitudes, beliefs and differences of previous
educational experiences and accomplishments as well as in constructively aligning learning outcomes with
learning activities and assessment tasks. The assessment tasks, consist of outcome statements involving a
learning activity, a measurable and attainable verb, that learners need to perform to best achieve the outcome,
such as “apply the five step process to develop an academic paragraph,” or “explain the components of a
resume” The measurable verb, i.e “create a job application letter for an authentic job advert” illustrates a suitable
learning activity for students to perform in order to attain the intended learning outcome in the course design.
Learning is constructed by what activities the learners perform-while engaging in hands-on tasks. Learning
therefore is about what students do, not about what educators do. Likewise, assessment tasks display, not how
well learners are able to report back to educators what they have memorized, but how competently students have
accomplished the intended outcomes. Biggs and Collis (1982) claim that their model is the ‘only instrument
available for assessing quality retrospectively in an objective and systemic way that is easily understandable by
both teacher and student.’ (p. xi). High quality learning outcomes are associated with deep approaches, whereas
low quality outcomes are associated with surface ones (Biggs, 1987; Entwistle, 1988; Harper & Kember, 1989;
Marton & Säljö, 1984). At the extended abstract level, the new notion is observed in an innovative manner, and
applied as hypothesis for prediction, generalization, reflection, or creation of new understanding (Hook & Mills
2011)
6. Conclusion
Constructive alignment is a useful model for formulating teaching learning activities and assessment tasks that
directly address the intended learning outcomes in a manner not typically accomplished in traditional lectures.

20
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 12, No. 6; 2019

While learning outcomes outline what learners should be able to do, assessment criteria demonstrate how well
learners should be able to perform it. Ramsden (1992) states that for the learner the assessment is the curriculum.
Learners learn what they believe they are likely to be assessed on, rather than all content in the curriculum. One
way of tackling this is by ensuring that the assessment tasks mirror the ILOs. If the curriculum is reflected in the
assessment, then the teaching activities of the educators and the learning activities of the learner focus on the
same goal. Hence, while doing preparations for the assessments, learners will in fact be studying the subject
information. It is suggested that learning outcomes should be clearly visible in course outline, and learners
should know the ILOS at the beginning of any course. It is pivotal to write clear and constructively aligned
learning outcomes that indicate what a learner is expected to accomplish at the end of a program of study, as well
as what standard or level of achievement is anticipated and how they are expected to demonstrate their learning.
It is suggested that learning outcomes be comprehensible, specific, measurable, and attainable, so learners are
able to accomplish ILOs with appropriate efforts. Also, learning outcomes must be relevant to learners’ goals and
future careers. One may prefer to use Blooms’ taxonomy, in selecting action words in ILOs for aligning
curriculum design, as it provides a very operational approach for classifying test questions when assessing
students’ learning by listing measurable verbs to describe and classify observable knowledge and skills at all six
hierarchical levels. This enables educators to easily phrase questions for all cognitive levels and augment
students’ higher thinking levels by assigning questions that initially demand simple, basic thinking skills and
eventually bloom into complex questions demanding engagement with questions through inference, reasoning,
evaluating, and composing, demonstrating deeper cognitive learning and skill (Barr & Tagg, 1995). Hence,
Bloom’s Taxonomy can be a very powerful tool in assisting students to learn at higher and more critical levels.
On the other hand, SOLO Taxonomy is effective in outlining different levels of understanding built into intended
learning outcomes, as well as in creating rubrics or criteria of assessment. Educators may also find SOLO
taxonomy very applicable and convenient in depicting students’ learning experiences and their assessments, and
in further outlining the follow-up learning experiences at appropriate levels of cognitive complexities with the
aim of challenging rather than overwhelming learners. The structural framework of this taxonomy proves
favorable in preparing questions at one level of cognitive complexity and at the same time ascertaining different
levels of cognitive complexities in student’s answers within that level. For instance, while assessing a students’
learning outcome the verb – ‘compare’ can be used at Unistructural, Multistructural, relational or extended
abstract levels. SOLO provides a lot of clarity while writing a course ILOs. For example, measurable verbs such
as demonstrate, discuss, explain classify, report, interpret, paraphrase, predict compare, exemplify, conclude,
identify, and illustrate demonstrate learners’ competency at the ‘understanding’ category in Blooms’ taxonomy
(Anderson and Krathwohl 2001). Furthermore, SOLO taxonomy characterizes these measurable verbs, from one
generic category ,as given in Bloom’s taxonomy, to three distinct levels of learning outcomes, facilitating not
only greater clarity when assisting students’ learning but also assisting in formulating more specific ILO’s (Biggs
& Tang 2007, p. 80). Interestingly, the categories in both taxonomies are not content specific and can be applied
to any experience that involves learning, and shifts in levels of understanding.
7. Limitations of the Study
This study is limited by the relatively small sample size used for the purpose. Thirty students studying the course
titled Language Development (Level two) of the Associate Diploma in Office Management Program in the
English Language Centre, University of Bahrain, participated in this study during the academic year 2018-19.
8. Recommendation
Based on the findings, this study recommends that student centred approaches such as the model of Constructive
alignment and Blooms’ taxonomy and Biggs’ SOLO taxonomy are useful in enhancing teaching learning
processes and in developing learners’ competencies. Constructive alignment provides a framework that displays
an aligned design for outcome based teaching. And both taxonomies are effective for educators in explaining to
students, their progress in learning, by categorizing their learning outcomes from simple to complex levels.
While applying Bloom’s taxonomy, educators would look for the relationship between the task questions asked
and learners’ responses obtained; on the other hand while using SOLO taxonomy educators may prepare questions
for different levels of complexity as well as categorize learners’ responses according to whether the learner has
only basic knowledge and facts required, indicating learning at surface level,or if they can recognize the
relationships of the facts/issues and understand the essence of the content demonstrating deep learning. This
framework is comprehensive and classified into distinct levels which may be applied to different subjects as well
as a variety of assignments (Hattie & Purdie, 1998).

21
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 12, No. 6; 2019

References
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Liberal Education, 79(4), 4-15.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., …
Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A revision of Bloom’s
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
Ball, A. L., & Garton, B. L. (2005). Modeling higher order thinking in teacher preparation: Relationships
between objectives, classroom discourse, and assessments. Journal of Agricultural Education, 46(2), 59-69.
https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2005.02058
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education.
Journal of Change, Research Library Core, 12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.1995.10544672
Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the Quality of Learning: the SOLO taxonomy. New York,
Academic Press
Biggs, J. B. (1987). Student approaches to learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Biggs, J. B. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press/Society for
Research into Higher Education.
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university. What the student does. Berkshire:
Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 1, 5-22.
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, by a committee of college and university examiners.
Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans.
Bloom’s Taxomony Action Verbs. Retrieved from http://www.clemson.edu/assessment/assessmentpractices/
referencematerials/documents/Blooms%20Taxonomy%20Action%20Verbs.pdf
Dam, L. (1995). Learner Autonomy 3: From Theory to Classroom Practice. Dublin: Authentik.
Entwistle, N. J., & Kozeki. (1988). Dimensions of motivation and approaches to laerning in Eintish and
Hungarian secondary schools. International Journal of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0883-0355(88)90003-1
Ewell, P. (2007). The “Quality Game”: External Review and Institutional Reaction over Three Decades in the
United States. In D. Westerheijden, B. Stensaker, & M. Rosa (Eds.), Quality Assurance In Higher
Education. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6012-0_5
Ewing, J. C. (2006). Teaching techniques and cognitive level of discourse, questions, and course objectives, and
their relationship to student cognition in College of Agriculture class sessions. (Doctoral Dissertation).
Harper, G., & Kember, D. (1989). Interpretation of factor analyses from the Approaches to Studying Inventory.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 59(1), 66-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1989.
tb03077.x
Hattie, J., & Purdie, N. (1998). The SOLO model: Addressing fundamental measurement issues. In B. Dart, & G.
Boulton-Lewis (Eds.), Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (pp. 145-176). Acer Press.
Hattie, J. A. C., & Brown, G. T. L. (2004, September). Cognitive processes in asTTle: The SOLO Taxonomy.
asTTle Tech. Rep. #43, University of Auckland/Ministry of Education.
Hook, P., & Mills, J. (2011). SOLO Taxonomy: A guide for schools – A common language for learning Book 1
Essential Resources Educational Publishers NZ
Honebein, P. C. (1996). Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. In G. W. Brent (Ed.).
Constructivist learning environments: case studies in instructional design. Educational Technology
Publications. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs
Kember, D. (2009). Promoting Student-Centered Forms of Learning across an Entire University. Higher
Education, 58, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9177-6
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41(4), 212-218.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

22
elt.ccsenet.org English Language Teaching Vol. 12, No. 6; 2019

Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher Education Students’ Attitudes to Student-centered Learning:
Beyond ‘educational bulimia’. Studies in Higher Education 28(3), 321-334. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03075070309293
Lingard, B., Ladwig, J., Mills, M., Bahr, M., Chant, D., & Warry, M. (2001). The Queensland school reform
longitudinal study. Brisbane: The State of Queensland (Department of Education).
Marton, F., & Saljo, R. (1984). Approaches.to learning. In F. Marton, D. J. Hounsell, & N. J. Entwistle (Eds.),
The experience of learning (pp. 36- 55). Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Ogle, D. (1986). K-W-L: A teaching model that develops active reading of expository text. The Reading Teacher,
39, 564-570. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.39.6.11
Piaget, J. (1967). Biologie et connaissance (Biology and knowledge). Paris, Gallimard.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203413937_chapter_8
Richard, P. (1985). Bloom’s taxonomy and critical thinking instruction. Educational Leadership, 42(8), 36-39.
Smith, D. G. (1977). College classroom interactions and critical thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69,
180-190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.69.2.180
Thomas, J. (2007). Teaching with passion. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review,
73(3), 63-65.
Tsui, L. (1999). Courses and instruction affecting critical thinking. Research in Higher Education, 40, 185-200.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018734630124
Tsui, L. (2000). Effects of campus culture on students’ critical thinking. Review of Higher Education, 23,
421-441. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2000.0020
Tsui, L. (2001). Faculty attitudes and the development of students’ critical thinking. Journal of General
Education, 50, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1353/jge.2001.0008
Tsui, L. (2002). Fostering critical thinking through effective pedagogy: Evidence from four institutional case
studies. Journal of Higher Education, 73(6), 740-763. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2002.0056
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Webb, J. N. (1970). The Florida taxonomy of cognitive behavior. In A. Simon, & E.G. Boyer, (Eds.), Mirrors
for behavior: An anthology of classroom observation instruments.
Ulmer, J. D., & Torres, R. M. (2007). A classroom assessment of agricultural teachers’ cognitive behaviors. In
G. E. Briers, & T. G. Roberts (Eds.). 2007 AAAE Research Conference: 43, Minneapolis, MN.
VonGlasersfeld, E. (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L. P. Steffe, & J. Gale (Eds.),
Constructivism in education (pp. 3-15). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

23