Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Measuring constructive alignment: an alignment metric to guide good practice

By J Tepper


We present a computational model that represents and computes the level to which an educational design is constructively aligned. The model is able to provide ‘alignment metrics’ for both holistic and individual aspects of a programme or module design. A systemic and structural perspective of teaching and learning underpins the design of the computational model whereby Bloom’s taxonomy is used as a basis for categorising the core components of a teaching system and some basic principles of generative linguistics are borrowed for representing alignment structures and relationships. The degree of alignment is computed using Set theory and linear algebra. The model presented forms the main processing framework of a software tool currently being developed to facilitate teachers to systematically and consistently produce constructively aligned programmes of teaching and learning. It is envisaged that the model will have broad appeal as it allows the quality of educational designs to be measured and works on the principle of ‘practice techniques’ and ‘learning elicited’ as opposed to content

Publisher: HE Academy for Information and Computer Sciences
Year: 2005
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (2002). Aligning the curriculum to promote good learning. doi
  2. (2003). Education and Skills (DfES) doi
  3. (1991). Effects of two different assessment procedures on tertiary students’ approaches to learning, Ph.D. theses, University of Hong Kong. (cited by Biggs
  4. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. doi
  5. (1993). From theory to practice: a cognitive systems approach. doi
  6. (1997). Graduate Standards Programme: Final Report. London: Higher Education Quality Council.
  7. (1994). Guidance for Writing Learning Outcomes,
  8. (2004). HEFCE widening participation and fair access research strategy: consultation.
  9. Information on quality and standards in higher education: Final guidance
  10. (1987). Instructional alignment: Searching for a magic bullet. doi
  11. (1996). Introduction: Aspects of constructivism. In doi
  12. (2002). Law student wins £30,000 payout,
  13. (1992). Learning Outcomes in Higher Education, London: Unit for the Development of Adult and Continuing Education.
  14. (1985). Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories, Centre for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), doi
  15. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning I. Outcome and process. doi
  16. (1999). Organising Teaching and Learning: Outcomes-based Planning. In
  17. (1997). Schaum’s Outline Series: Beginning Linear Algebra,
  18. (1957). Syntactic Structures, The Hague:Mouton. doi
  19. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, doi
  20. (1999). Teaching for Quality Learning at University, The Society for Research into Higher Education, doi
  21. (1997). The Dearing Report: doi
  22. (1998). The influence of assessment method on students’ learning approaches: multiple choice question examination vs. essay assignment.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.