November 1: Constructive Alignment

Gist: If you want people to learn a thing, ensure that the process of teaching them that thing involves doing the thing, or engaging with it. Best example: if you seek to teach someone to drive a car, do so in the car, with them driving it. People don't learn to drive by listening to a lecture, and they don't demonstrate automotive competence or ability through a written test. The mode of teaching, the environment for learning and the method of assessing should all relate back to the intended learning outcome. ILO: student becomes better driver. Mode of teaching should be hands-on and practical. Environment for learning should allow the student to practice under realistic conditions. Method of assessment should be a demonstration of practical competence.

I'm not sure how well this can really apply to the more theoretical philosophies which may not have obvious applications. Maybe I'm missing something? It's all well and good to teach chemistry though opportunities to do your own practical demonstrations of chemical interactions and behaviours, but how do you do the same without a practical objective? How do you, for instance, teach Introductory Philosophy, the stated goal of which is to just provide the student information, and the only real point of assessment is to ensure that the content was absorbed? Can this be taught with Constructive Alignment? Or is the suggestion of CA that in order for learning to be meaningful the student must engage more thoroughly, and the desired learning outcome is not "to be full of facts" but to have some meaningful engagement with the facts, for the student to apply one or some of the concepts to something else in her life? (Ahh, the authors reject the idea of a class existing to 'cover' a topic.)

Of course it is a valid way to teach teaching. The whole point of raising issues, sending part-time learners back into their classrooms to explore them, try them out, and feed back on them is to help them engage critically with their practice, and hopefully improve upon it. It is absolutely applicable to This class. I can also see it being useful to much of what we do in drama school, where we train students rather than teach in the traditional sense.

----

In class we discussed some of the concerns I raised above. The idea of meaningful engagement with the facts is more advanced than the original text-writers indicated. At the BA level students should be able to identify, describe and explain concepts that have been imparted to them in class, but while they may as individuals be able and willing to engage in higher-level criticism and synthesis within the subject, it is not within the parameters of a BA to expect or assess this level of engagement. Sometimes you stop at Identify. When you get to the MA you may critique and analyse. When you reach PhD level you may theorise and create.