Implementation of Constructive Alignment Approach

in Department of Electronic Engineering,

Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
D. N. S. D. A. Salleh, A. Lit, and K. Lias
Department of Electronic Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, UNIMAS,
94300 Kota Samarahan,
Sarawak, Malaysia
asdnsdharmiza@feng.unimas.my

Abstract—Graduates attributes plays a significant role in
determining career path of the students. These attributes are
widely recognized by learning institutions, governments,
industries, and accreditations bodies. Ensuring that the students
will graduate within allocated time does not necessarily indicate
that the students possess the elements required as a graduate
engineering student. This study presents the implementation of
constructive alignment in the Department of Electronics
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Malaysia
Sarawak (UNIMAS) in order to provide a tool to monitor
students achievement and overall programme outcomes and at
the same time as part of continual quality improvement
processes. This approach is in line with the requirement of
Engineering Accreditation Council (EAC) Malaysia to certify the
quality of our graduating students.
Keywords—constructive alignment; intended learning
outcomes, programme outcomes, continual quality improvement
I. INTRODUCTION
Learning in higher education is exposed to many challenges
faced by not only the students, but also the teachers. Unlike
high-school learning, the students are expected to be able to
study independently, achieve graduate attributes, assisted by
the teachers. Basically, there are two teaching methods as
mentioned in [1] which are Instruction Paradigm and Learning
Paradigm. Before entering universities, most of the students
went through the Instruction Paradigm, where the mission of
the learning institution is to provide instruction, to teach. The
method and the product are one and the same and the means is
the end. Meanwhile, in the Learning Paradigm, the mission of
the institution is to produce learning. The method and the
product are separate and the end governs the means [1].
John Biggs in [2] introduced constructive alignment
method as an educational model that may be generalized to
programs in higher education. This educational model
complements with the Learning Paradigm, in which the
learning activities and assessments methods are designed to
achieve the intended learning outcomes (ILOs) for the course.
Constructive alignment aims to build the confidence in students
so that they can manage their own learning in universities [2].
A research on constructive alignment for teaching model-
based design for concurrency had been conducted to answer
the question [3]:
“How can we make sure our students learn what we want
them to?”
The research highlights that the theory of constructive
alignment provides a solid and constructive answer for the
question. It provides insights on where and how to optimize the
teaching system for student learning in making sure the
students have the necessary incentive and support for learning
from the comparison of students satisfaction and proficiency
during pre-alignment and post-alignment[3].
Z.T Deng explained in [4] about developing assessment
tools for outcome-based engineering courses by adopting a
system approach for instruction and teaching, denoted by the
acronym SEAARK which stands for Knowledge, Repetition,
Application, Analysis, Evaluation and Synthesis in reverse
order, based on Bloom’s taxonomy. The system resulted in
improvement on the students’ overall performance from the
increase in number of students passing the exam. However, the
assessment for students’ achievement was made as whole and
did not reflect to each student.
This paper discusses on similar approach of constructive
alignment by Bigg’s model, but different implementation for
programmes offered in Electronic Engineering Department.
The implementation process is described in detail with
supporting examples, followed by the challenges observed
during implementation process, solutions and conclusions.
II. IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSTRUCTIVE ALIGNMENT
According to [5], a course is defined as constructively
aligned when:
x the ILOs are stated clearly;
x the ILOs are explicitly communicated to the students;
x the exam assessments match the ILOs; and
x the teaching forms match the ILOs.
Therefore, to achieve this, the implementation process of
constructive alignment in our department is divided into four

978-1-4673-6355-6/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 26-29 August 2013, Bali Dynasty Resort, Kuta, Indonesia
2013 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE)
Page 362
 TABLE I. PROGRAM OUTCOMES (POS)
PO Keywords
PO1 Apply knowledge of engineering fundamentals to solve problems
PO2 Identify, formulate, and analyze engineering problems
PO3 Design solutions for engineering problems
PO4 Conduct investigation into engineering problems to provide valid conclusions
PO5 Apply appropriate modern engineering and IT tools to engineering activities
PO6 Apply reasoning by contextual knowledge to assess societal, health, safety and cultural issues.
Understand the impact of engineering solutions in societal and environmental context and demonstrate
PO7
knowledge for sustainable development
PO8 Apply ethical principles of engineering practice
PO9 Communicate effectively and write effective reports to make effective presentations
PO10 Function effectively as a leader or member in teams and in multidisciplinary settings
PO11 Recognize the need for independent and life-long learning
Demonstrate knowledge of engineering and management principles to manage projects in multidisciplinary
PO12
environments and cultivate entrepreneurship skills

parts. The first part is for determining 1Programme Outcomes of 7 major categories that involves physical movement,
(POs) distribution among courses offered in the programme. coordination, and use of the motor-skill areas [9]. Psychomotor
Then, Course Plan and Course Syllabus are designed to domain is covered in the remaining POs - PO5, PO9, PO10,
provide the course outcomes which will be linked to the and PO12.
specific POs and in line with the delivery and assessment
methods used for the courses. At the end, students’
performance are assessed and continual quality improvement
(CQI) took place as to ensure the department meet the
stakeholders need and at the same time improve the process
involves in teaching, learning and assessment.
A. Programme Outcomes Distribution
As part of graduate attributes, there are 12 POs for each
programme that the students are expected to achieve upon
graduation. These POs acts as the end that determines the
means (delivery and assessment methods) for each course.
Thus, in order to make sure that the POs are well-distributed,
workshops had been held among the department members to
carry out the courses vs. POs mapping. Table I describes the
keywords for each PO of the programme.
The POs listed in Table I can be classified to three domains Fig. 1 Domains of learning [7]
of learning as explained in [6]. The domains with respective The result of POs mapping workshop for POs distribution
levels of the educational objectives taxonomy are listed from among courses in one of the offered programmes is illustrated
the simplest behavior to the most complex as presented in in Figure 2. Based on the chart, it can be concluded that during
Figure 1. Year 1 and Year 2 of study, the students are more engaged in
The cognitive domain introduced in Bloom’s Taxonomy [6] POs that are related to cognitive domain (PO1 and PO2) and
involves knowledge and the development of intellectual skills. partly psychomotor domain (PO5 and PO9) which is usually
There are 6 levels of cognitive domain and the most bottom practiced during laboratory activities. As the student academic
level must be mastered before the next one can take place. year increases, there is also a significant increase in PO3, PO4,
From the keywords in PO description, it shows that cognitive PO9 and PO10. Although PO3 and PO4 are included in
domain is covered by PO1 to PO4. Meanwhile, the affective cognitive domain, they are at a higher level where it requires
domain includes the manner in which students deal with thing critical thinking for the solutions design and problems
emotionally, such as feelings, values, appreciation, investigation. The students will learn from lower cognitive
enthusiasms, motivations and attitudes [8]. This is covered in level during the first year of study where PO1 is assessed
PO6 to PO8 and also in PO11 based on the keywords in the mostly by the courses taught in Year 1, and in Year 2, PO1
POs. The third domain is psychomotor domain which consists
1
Programme Outcomes (POs) in this context refers to the “intended learning
outcomes” (ILOs).

978-1-4673-6355-6/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 26-29 August 2013, Bali Dynasty Resort, Kuta, Indonesia
2013 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE)
Page 363
 Fig. 2. POs distribution according to year of study

shows a little decrease but an increase in PO2 which is at x Weekly teaching plan: includes COs, topics,
higher level of cognitive domain. Meanwhile, PO9 and PO10 teaching activities (delivery methods), and
involves psychomotor domain where the students are more assessment methods per week.
focused on team projects and individual Final Year Project.
This distribution becomes a support system for the students The most important part in a course plan is the COs. One
to have strong fundamental knowledge through cognitive course must have at least 3 COs and these COs will assess
domain learning and basic skills before proceed to the POs for the course. For instance, CO1 as shown in Figure 3
practical applications in later years of study that will develop involves level 3 of cognitive domain and assesses PO1.
their engineering skills as to shape Electronic Engineering Meanwhile, CO2 and CO3 assess PO2 (critical thinking) and
students become competitive graduates in the job markets. PO5 (level 3 of psychomotor), respectively. From these COs,
delivery methods and assessment methods are determined.
Since the students are required to fulfill the graduate CO that covers psychomotor domain will require delivery
attributes by ensuring they have successfully achieved all methods such as group project or laboratory activities and
POs before graduation, a single PO must be covered by at the assessment will be different from cognitive domain
least 3 courses in order to guarantee the achievement of the which is mainly assessed through written tests, quizzes,
PO even if the student failed to achieve the PO after the assignments, and exams.
assessment of the first course, he would still have chance to
achieve it in the other courses which measure similar PO.
The department will ensure the graduating students have
achieved all POs through achievement assessment system
which will be discussed later.
The discrepancy in learning domains for each PO when
mapped to the course contents determines which courses are
suitable for the PO and this will also affect the delivery
methods and assessment methods for the course. For
example, laboratory courses must assess PO5 if the students
are going to use engineering tools and PO9 since laboratory
reports will be part of the assessments.
B. Course Plan
The delivery methods and assessment methods for each
course are presented in course plan provided by course
coordinators. For each course offered throughout the year,
teachers will explain the course plan to the students during
course introduction. This is to clarify the students mainly
about:
x Course synopsis: explains the summary of what the
students are going to learn through the course. Fig. 3 Course plan sample

x Course outcomes (COs): states the objectives of the C. Course Syllabus

course, with respective level of domains. These The detailed contents of the course are presented in
COs are mapped to the assessed POs of the course. course structure section in the course syllabus. In the

978-1-4673-6355-6/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 26-29 August 2013, Bali Dynasty Resort, Kuta, Indonesia
2013 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE)
Page 364
section, content/topics and assessment criteria are provided they have achieved the CO, while 25% ~ 49% means not
for each CO. This is explained as in sample illustrated in achieved and less than 25% means that they strongly did not
Table II. achieve the CO. Besides, students’ individual PO
TABLE II. COURSE STRUCTURE
achievement can also be analyzed through the system. As a
consequence, the system facilitates in constructive alignment
Course Outcomes Contents/Topics Assessment Criteria approach where it measures the effectiveness of the
CO1: By the end of BJT Transistor 1) The students alignment between the constructed delivery and assessment
this course, students Modelling should be able to methods used for the courses to achieve the measured POs.
should be able to derive important
analyze basic circuit -Amplification in the parameters from a
AC DomainBJT
III. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
configurations to general two-port
construct low and high -Transistor Modelling system. This work presents the approach in implementing
frequency responses -Important Parameters
constructive alignment towards the offered programmes in
by applying BJT and
FET small signal
Bipolar Junction Department of Electronics Engineering. The department
Transistors (BJT) --- 2) The students must members had worked together to come out with systematic
analysis. Small-Signal Analysis be able to perform
-Common-emitter fixed small-signal ac way for the implementation. However, working in a group of
bias configuration analysis of a people with different education backgrounds and experiences
-Voltage-divider bias number of contributes to some challenges faced by the department
-Common-Emitter bias standard BJT during the implementation of constructive alignment
configuration network
configurations. approach in teaching and learning. These challenges and
actions taken are discussed as below:
x Lack of knowledge on constructive alignment and
Course evaluation that includes mark distribution for Bloom’s Taxonomy especially among young staffs
each CO and PO is also provided in course syllabus. This is caused confusions during the preparation of the
very convenient for the teacher to plan the covered topics course plan and course syllabus. This problem was
and total marks for certain assessment methods. Besides, the solved by having workshop series during semester
weightage for each PO can be seen from the mark break with senior staffs. There is also Post-graduate
percentage. An example of course evaluation is depicted in Diploma in Teaching and Learning compulsory for
Table III. all new staffs held by the university every year.
TABLE III. COURSE EVALUATION
x There were also cases where POs mapped to the
CO PO Assessment/Evaluation Assessment/Evaluation % course were not covered in course plan and course
Method Marks Distribution syllabus files. The department appointed a few
CO1 PO1 x Calculation-based Final Exam = 25% 50 staffs to do follow-up revision and this was also
question: quiz/ test/ Quiz/ Assignment =15%
assignment/ final exam addressed during exam questions moderation
Test = 10%
x Theoretical-based meeting.
question: quiz/ test/
assignment/ final exam x Courses vs. PO mapping is final and this results in
CO2 PO2 x Calculation-based Final Exam = 25% 40 inflexibility of the delivery and assessment methods
question: quiz/ test/ Test = 10% for certain courses in future semesters in which the
assignment/ final exam Quiz/ Assignment =5% courses might be taken over by other teacher. The
x Theoretical-based teachers need to be clarified that the assessed PO
question: quiz/ test/ for the courses does not strictly limit the delivery
assignment/ final exam
and assessment methods; it can be modified by
CO3 PO5 x Project Report =10% 10
other means as long as the POs are assessed.
Total 100
Despite of these challenges, the educational model
proposed by John Biggs is successfully implemented and
D. Assessment of Achievement then by applying constructive alignment in teaching and
Students’ achievement will reflect on the overall learning, the course structure is more aligned and the
programme achievement. In order to manage the assessments are more organized. Besides, this enables the
achievement data efficiently, Faculty of Engineering, teachers to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the
UNIMAS has a system as a tool to assess students courses from the assessment results which are aligned with
achievement in the semester and it is managed by Outcome the constructed learning activities. Therefore, this forms a
Based Education (OBE) Unit. loop for the teacher to improve course delivery method for
Students’ marks for every assessment (quizzes, better students’ achievement as part of CQI process.
assignments, tests, final exams, reports) are keyed-in the
End-Semester-Report (ESR) and from these marks,
achievement of CO and PO for the course is generated
automatically. Students are considered to have strongly
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
achieved of any given CO if they managed to get marks of
above 75% for that particular CO. 50% ~ 74% means that

978-1-4673-6355-6/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 26-29 August 2013, Bali Dynasty Resort, Kuta, Indonesia
2013 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE)
Page 365
 The author would like to thank Universiti Malaysia
Sarawak (UNIMAS) for providing the funding to publish
and present this paper.

REFERENCES

[1] R.B. Barr and J. Tagg, “From Teaching to Learning – A New

Paradigm for Undergraduate Education,” Change: the Magazine of
Higher Learning, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 12-26, 1995.
[2] J. B. Biggs, “Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment,”
Higher Educ., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 347–364, 1996.
[3] Brabrand, Claus. "Constructive alignment for teaching model-based
design for concurrency." In Transactions on Petri Nets and Other
Models of Concurrency I, pp. 1-18. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008.
[4] Z. T. Deng, R. R. Oviedo,and X. QIan, “Developing Assessment
Tools for Outcome Based Engineering Courses,” Proceedings of the
2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference & Exposition, American Society for Engineering
Education. 2002.
[5] J. Biggs, and C. Tang. “Teaching for quality learning at university.”
Open university press, 2011.
[6] M. D. Miller, R. L. Linn, and N. E. Gronlund. “Measurement and
assessment in teaching.” Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Pearson,
2009.
[7] B.S. Bloom, et al. "Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I:
Cognitive domain." New York: David McKay 19 (1956): 56.
[8] D.R Krathwohl, , B.S Bloom., and B.B Masia, “Taxonomy of
educational objectives: Handbook II: Affective domain. New York:
David McKay Co.” 1964.
[9] E. Simpson, “The classification of educational objectives in the
psychomotor domain: The psychomotor domain.” Vol. 3.
Washington, DC: Gryphon House. 1972.

978-1-4673-6355-6/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE 26-29 August 2013, Bali Dynasty Resort, Kuta, Indonesia
2013 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE)
Page 366