Aligning Teaching, Learning and Assessment Essay Example

style="text-align: justify">Reece and Walker (2004 pg 320) Describe norm referencing as assessment due to its relationship with the curve of normal distribution (that is, a small percentage achieve distinctions and a small amount fail, but the majority of the learners obtain average marks), employed in external examination to ensure that standards are maintained (especially where large numbers take the examination). Criterion referencing applies to continuous assessment so that many more of the outcomes and competences are assessed.

Reece and Walker (2004 pg 320) Suggest the marking of criterion referenced assessment relates to the criteria (outcomes and competences) based on individual performance. Formative assessment is implemented in my teaching and learning as our scheme of learning is broken down into a schedule of topics which incorporates the curriculum and ensures SMART targets. There is more than one assessment per module, usually three, and this I feel assist the students to spread their workload over an adequate timescale. This also allows me to give the student more constructive feedback to enable them to become informative.

Biggs applies this idea as feed forward as it give the students the opportunity to see their individual strengths and weaknesses and to build on these. John Biggs (2003) believed that learning takes place in a constructive way, and sees each piece of knowledge, regardless of subject, as a building block, or “construct”. Whatever we are learning, we begin by collecting separate blocks of knowledge. As we add to our collection of blocks, we find that connections start to become clearer and we can begin to join certain blocks with each other.

As the blocks come together we can

see meaning in the connection, therefore we build understanding. In applying this concept to my Scheme of learning and assessments I cover the curriculum requirements in constructs, building the knowledge required. Each module has a set number of weeks in which to ensure the learner has understanding of the academic relevance and competency of the module. This is followed by an assignment to ensure the teaching and learning has been achieved to a satisfactory standard.

Biggs 2003 also claimed that “A common mistake in curriculum design is to go for coverage rather than for understanding. ” In this as a tutor I think it important to ensure that learners have had a reasonable amount of time to interpret and decipher the information you are applying. They must understand the concept you are conveying! Petty(2009 p482) says “if learners don’t know what they are trying to do, they are most unlikely to do it! Students must understand the task- for example the difference between ‘evaluate’, ‘analyse’ ands ‘describe.

They must also understand the criteria for a good piece of work which includes the assessment criteria. They need to know what they are aiming for”. Biggs also developed a taxonomy, or “hierarchy of types”, which demonstrates how learning occurs. It is named the ‘Solo’ The Structure of the Observed Learning Outcomes Solo taxonomy offers a way of describing the growing complexity of a learner’s activity. It can be used in two ways. To set learning objectives appropriate to where a student should be at a particular stage of their program To assess the learning outcomes attained by each student

Biggs suggests that, in order to

facilitate deep learning for every student, all teaching should be “Constructively aligned”. This means that the Learning Outcomes given throughout the curriculum are appropriate and relevant to the Assessment they will be given. In short, constructive alignment is about ensuring that assessment, teaching, learning and feedback are all in harmony with each other. The scheme of learning that I will analyse in this assignment is Public Health. (Appendix 1) This is taught to level three health and social care students.

I must state that this is the first scheme of learning that I have compiled unaided and feel that this assignment has been and will continue to be a good learning curve. My first session to be dissected and evaluated for it constructive alignment is lesson seven. This lesson was the run through for the first assignment which was a presentation of a time line. I had followed a humanistic approach, and placed the students in small groups to work together researching a specific period in time and secondly to gain information regarding a current health issue.

The learning outcome was to present their findings in an agreed format, to summarise their research and identify where it sat on the Public Health time line. Students were also to explain and evaluate the given current health issue. I believed that the level of learning in the cognitive domain was correct due to previous learning on research techniques. However as bloom identifies “that within the group there will be a mixture of learners who grasp the topic at different levels (Wilson 2009) I also believed that my placing the less able students with brighter students

would motivate them and support learning from their peers.

The reality was the brighter students worked at a higher level on Blooms taxonomy, completing most of the research, while other students worked at lower levels. The outcome moved from the humanistic school to the behaviourist school. “ The passive learners reacted to the teaching/assignment and others participated more”( Wilson 2009) The constructive alignment of this lesson was certainly not in harmony. After the run through was completed I had discussions with a learning mentor to move forward with this.

It was agreed that if the presentation went ahead and was marked as a group effort then some students would achieve a higher mark without completing the work to the desired standard. This would jeopardise the reliability and validity of the assessment and have no value for any of the students. ‘The validity of an assessment depends on whether it actually measures the knowledge or skills’ (Petty 2009 p351) It was agreed that the assessment would be modified and a period of time would be allowed for the students to complete further research before completing the assessment.

The second lesson analysed was eventeen. This lesson was exploring and identifying probable causes of health inequalities. The students were given the task of researching a given health inequality. They then had to return to the group and discuss their findings. The assessment for this activity was a group discussion. Both learning outcomes and assessment type were in alignment and both were of the cognitive school. The third session I have looked at in this assignment was twenty seven. The learning outcomes were that the student

would be able to describe methods of promoting a public health campaign.

However the actual activity would be investigating public health campaigns and choosing which campaign to research. This is also the lesson where the needs of the assignment is identified and discussed in depth for students to gain understanding. I appreciate the need to give the students clear guidance on assessment by giving them measurable outcomes following the cognitive and behaviourist approach. By giving this assignment I am getting them to take responsibility for their own learning and the students can share responsibility of achieving the set outcomes.

I have a clear idea of what I want students to be able to do at the end of this assignment by making the outcomes clear the students also have a clear understanding of what is expected. Again the learning outcomes and assessment type were not in any kind of harmony, being somewhat vague and unclear. There certainly is no constructive alignment apparent. In conclusion I have found this assignment to be very challenging but very informative. It has allowed me to step back and take an in-depth look at the assessment process being aligned with learning outcomes.

I have discussed my finding with my learning mentor and steps are in place to complete more training as a department on aligning our teaching. My last quote is from a web site where I gained some interesting information on constructive alignment. “Constructive alignment is actually extremely difficult to achieve: it is virtually impossible to get it right first time. Of great importance is the reflective practitioner; the teacher who constantly modifies course design and

delivery, constantly trying to work closer to the perfect constructive alignment.

Moreover, this is not simply a matter of modifying learning activities and assessment. Sometimes, in the delivery of a module, assessment outcomes, or our work with students, reveal learning outcomes we had not anticipated but that we nevertheless recognise as valuable. These emergent learning outcomes need to be identified and incorporated into the intended learning outcomes. Constructive alignment cannot be achieved or maintained in an institutional system that does not allow frequent modification of module descriptions”