Constructive Alignment of Higher Education Curricula

Keywords: Constructive alignment, institutional outcomes, program outcomes, performance indicators, assessment, and evaluation methods, standards


A constructive alignment is an approach to outcome-based education which involves examining curriculum, discipline, and/or course level initiatives. This research sought to assess the match among the institutional outcomes, program outcomes, performance indicators, assessment, evaluation methods, and standards (IPOPIAEMS) in 20 undergraduate curricula. The researchers mainly used qualitative research methods like document analysis, curriculum mapping, and online-focused group discussion. Findings revealed that there is a high alignment of the curricula in the University. This means that five out of six dimensions components are constructively aligned.  During the OFGD, the participants underscored the significance of using the institution's vision, mission, and goals as anchorage in crafting the institutional outcomes. Additionally, the majority of the participants highlighted that they based their performance indicators on CHED’s policies, standards, and guidelines (PSG). Regarding the participants' experiences in aligning their performance indicators and assessment methods, the programs' syllabi were valuable in determining their assessment methods for their PIs. One difficulty though was delineating between assessment and evaluation since both denote processes of learning measurement. However, while the former entails appraising a student's level of performance, the latter involves gauging the degree to which outcomes are attained based on a set of standards. In terms of the outcomes’ relevance to 21st century learning, they were found to be relevant to most of the seven cluster competencies except for computing technology which is given the least attention in higher education curricula. Since there is a high constructive curriculum alignment in the University, it is therefore concluded that the five elements of the curriculum, namely, the institutional outcomes (with the vision and mission of the HEI as an anchorage), program outcomes unique to a particular specialization, performance indicators, assessment, and standards are highly coherent except for the evaluation methods. It is recommended that evaluation method shall be continually calibrated to ensure its coherence with the other dimensions and that computing technology shall be mainstreamed in the curricula across all programs.  

Author Biographies

College of Arts and Sciences Professor 3 Vice President for Academic Affairs
College of Education Bachelor of Early Childhood Education Chairperson
College of Business Instructor I Executive Assistant to the OVPAA


Anderson, N. (2012). Achieving higher education graduate attributes in the area of creativity, innovation and problem solving through the use of design thinking. QS Apple Conference Proceedings, 16-18 November 2011, 7, 29–33. Manilla. [Google Scholar]

American Association of School Librarians. (2007). Standards for the 21st century learner. Retrieved from ASL_LearningStandard.pdf

Atkinson, P. A. & Coffey, A. (1997). Analysing documentary realities. In D. Silverman
(Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice, London: Sage, 45–62.

Bagban, T. I., Patil, S. R., Gat, A., & Shirgave, S. K. (2017). Selection of Assessment Methods in Outcome-Based Education (OBE). Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 30(3), 327–332.

Barrie, S. (2007). A conceptual framework for the teaching and learning of generic graduate attributes. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 439–458.10.1080/03075070701476100 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]

Barton, P. (2006). High school reform and work: Facing labor market realities. Retrieved from

Bath, D., Smith, C., Stein, S., & Swann, R. (2004). Beyond mapping and embedding graduate attributes: bringing together quality assurance and action learning to create a validated and living curriculum. Higher Education Research & Development, 23, 313–328. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]

Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347–364.10.1007/BF00138871 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]

Biggs, J. (2003). Constructing learning by aligning teaching: Constructive alignment. In J. Biggs & C. Tang (Eds.), Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd ed.). (pp. 11–33). Wiltshire: Open University Press. [Google Scholar]

Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (4th ed.). Maidenhead: McGraw –Hill/Open University Press/Society for Research into Higher Education
(10) (PDF) Constructive alignment and the curriculum: A call for improved pedagogical practices in higher education. Available from: [accessed Mar 19 2021].

Biggs, J. (2014). Constructive alignment in university teaching. HERDSA Review of Higher Education, 1, 5-22.

Blumberg, P. 2009. Maximizing learning through course alignment and experience with different types of knowledge. Innovative Higher Education 34:93-103.

Boud, D. (2010). Assessment 2020: Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council. [Google Scholar]

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative
Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. doi:10.3316/QRJ0902027

CHED (2014). Handbook on typology, outcomes-based education, and institutional sustainability assessment

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Edmunds, H. (1999). The focus group. Research handbook. Chicago, IL: American
Marketing Association and NTC Business Books.

Gallup Inc. (2013). 21st century skills and the workplace. Retrieved from
Hale, J. A. (2008). A guide to curriculum mapping: Planning, implementing, and sustaining the process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Harvey, L. (2000). New realities: The relationship between higher education and employment. Tertiary Education and Management, 6, 3–17.10.1080/13583883.2000.9967007 [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
Jervis, L, and Jervis, L. (2005) What is the Constructivism in Constructive Alignment?, BEE-j, 6 Retrieved from http://www.bioscience.heacademy journal/vol6/ Beej-6-5.pdf
Jacobs, H. H. (2010). Curriculum 21: Essential education for a changing world. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Kadir, A. A., Salleh, M. Z., Kadir, M. A. A., & Mohd.Ali, K. A. (2009). Menilai Perhubungan di Antara Hasil Pembelajaran Kursus (HPK) dan Hasil Pembelajaran Program (HPP) Dari Persepsi Pelajar. Jurnal Teknologi, 51(1), 1–18.
Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (2005). Focus groups: Strategic articulations of
pedagogy, politics, and inquiry. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed. (pp. 887– 907). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
McLoughlin, C. (2002). Learner support in distance and networked learning environments: Ten dimensions for successful design. Distance Education, 23, 149–162. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar]
McMahon, T. and Thakore, H. (2006). Achieving constructive alignment: putting outcomes first. The Quality of Higher Education (Aukštojo mokslo kokyb), 3, 10-19
Morgan, D. L., Krueger, R. A., & King, J. A. (1998). The focus group kit (Vols. 1–6).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

O’Leary, Z. (2014). The essential guide to doing your research project (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Parker, P.E., Fleming, P.D., Beyerlein, S., Apple, D., and Krumsieg, K. (2001) “Differentiating Assessment from Evaluation as Continuous Improvement Tools,” Abstract No. 1462, 31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, October 10 - 13, 2001 Reno, NV.
Payne, D. (2003). Applied Educational Assessment (2nd ed.). Wadsworth Group, USA.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). Framework for 21st Century Learning. Retrieved from
Rowley, J., Scanlon, L., Laing, L., Smith, L., & Treleaven, L. (2014). Improving professional learning and teaching through the development of a quality process. Journal of Education and Training, 1, 83–104. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]

Wang, X., Su, Y., Cheung, S., Wong, E., & Kwong, T. (2012). Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education An exploration of Biggs ’ constructive alignment in course design and its impact on students ’ learning approaches. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37–41.

Wang, X., Su, Y., Cheung, S., Wong, E., & Kwong, T. (2013). An exploration of Biggs’ constructive alignment in course design and its impact on students’ learning approaches. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38, 477–491. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]

Yusoff, Y. M., Fuaad, N. F. A., Yasin, R. B. M., & Tawil, N. M. (2014, January). Achievement of program outcomes in outcome-based education implementation—a metaanalysis. In Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on industrial engineering and operational management, Bali, Indonesia (pp. 7-9).