Complete thesis - Murdoch University

alignment outlined by Biggs (1999). Student criticism of non-problem-related elements werealso made. They saw the problem as the driver for the unit (as they should) and thereforeexpressed dissatisfaction at completing ‘extraneous’ work.The need to ensure that teaching, assessment and every aspect of the teaching-learningenvironment are aligned to the main aims or intended learning outcomes of a unit has beenaccepted for many years, and were re-affirmed in the development of the curriculum mapdescribed earlier. But the term ‘constructive alignment’ goes beyond this to require that theaims of the unit are in line with constructivist principles of learning and the findings of studentlearning research. As noted in Elton (2000) we want students to learn with understandingand be assessed for it. The students did not perceive this to be true.Having said this, the framework was seen to have considerable merit – issues identified bythe literature were being tackled, although not necessarily in a way that was comfortable forstudents. In particular the more abstract issues identified by Thomas et al (2002) (issues inflexibility and creativity) were addressed (see Table 7.7) within the environment.Impact on student developmentThis section looks at the short-term impact of the intervention on students. Unlike 2002, itwas not possible to track students into subsequent SE units – as Figure 7.3 indicated, veryfew students were enrolled in the BE(SE) programme.Figure 7.14: Final mark for ENG260 2002-2003313