Discussion: Building constructive alignment, some policy constraints

Based on the idea of constructive alignment, learning and teaching operates within a system which consists of three central components namely, learning objectives, teaching and learning activities and assessment (Biggs, 2003). To facilitate desirable learning outcomes, these three components must be aligned, in particular the teaching methods used and the assessment tasks are aligned to the learning activities assumed in the intended outcomes. Biggs (2003) explains that constructive alignment has two aspects in that the constructive aspect refers to what the learner does, which is to 'construct meaning' through relevant learning activities. The alignment aspect, on the other hand, refers to what the teacher does. The teacher sets up a learning environment that supports the learning activities appropriate to achieving the desired learning outcomes (Biggs, 2003).

So, what are the impacts of using the principles of constructive alignment on institutional policies and vice versa?

The management of subjects within the Faculty of Commerce at this University is such that subject convenors, who are located in particular teaching schools where the subjects are convened, take full responsibility in the design of the curriculum and assessment. Therefore, decisions on curriculum issues are centralized. The decision-making rests highly with the particular convening schools and ultimately with the subject convenor. Campus-based subject coordinators may have some input, if consulted in the curriculum design process, but tutors generally do not take part in curriculum development. The problem here is that the teaching goals of individual academic staff differ significantly at times, but in most cases the philosophical orientation of the subject convenor responsible for preparing the curriculum often underpins its design. When there is a number of staff involved in teaching a centrally-convened subject and they have competing philosophical orientations, it clearly becomes problematic when building constructive alignment because the whole idea is to link all components of the curriculum with each other. Teaching using problem-based approaches, for example, requires an approach to assessment that differs significantly with traditional assessment that is most common in directed instruction approaches (Hendry & Murphy, 1995). While the results in this first cycle of the research show that it is possible for the tutor to meet her own teaching goals where her teaching methods have contributed to students deeper engagement with the subject, the lack of involvement in curriculum design, particularly on assessment issues posed a barrier in achieving a truly constructively aligned teaching. Mladenovic (2000) warns that simply introducing various innovative teaching methods as the main intervention of changing students' perceptions of accounting is not enough. As the findings in Mladenovic's study (Mladenovic, 2000) suggest, alignment in all components of the curriculum is the key factor if change in students' perception were to occur.

The more significant policy issue, however, that poses a bigger obstacle in building constructive alignment in accounting education is the compliance requirements of the accreditation bodies. The CPA Australia (CPAA) and Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia (ICAA) have prescribed in their accreditation guidelines that at least 50% of summative assessment of an accredited subject must be in the form of invigilated examination (CPA Australia & The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia, 2005). The Faculty of Commerce on the other hand also requires written assignments to form part of summative assessment. It can be argued that these policies place some limitations on the types of assessment that can be used in accounting education. Moreover, in the accreditation guidelines, both the CPAA and ICAA have also put a heavy emphasis on the development of higher order skills and other generic business attributes. If this is one of the intended learning outcomes for accounting students, is the use of invigilated examination (as the major means of assessing student performance) the suitable assessment system that can test such skills? Put another way, can standardized conditions involving highly structured problems that are common in examination format allow students to demonstrate the development of higher order skills necessary for the accounting profession? Given the constraints discussed above, is there a place for alternative assessment in accounting education that gives credence to the necessity and appropriateness of assessment methods, based on what is being assessed in the intended learning outcomes?

مواضيع ذات صلة

Modalities of the portfolio for the student teachers

Research methodology Participants

Assessment in the Context of Professional Development: The Implementation of a Portfolio Project

Formative and Summative Assessment and the Notion of Constructive Alignment Conclusions

Reflection on and result of the first cycle

Results, analysis and discussions Facilitating active-learning through formative assessment in a collaborative learning environment

Research methodology

Students perceptions of accounting

Literature review Pedagogical practices in accounting education

Formative and Summative Assessment and the Notion of Constructive Alignment

Concluding remarks

Alignment of curriculum, teaching and assessment