Development of the Constructive Alignment Evaluation Instrument for Lecturers of Teachers Education Institutes

Md Daud Md Jani; Adibah Abdul Latif; Rohaya Talib

doi:10.61841/1f1rpk39

Authors

Md Daud Md Jani PhD Student, School of Education, Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia Author
Adibah Abdul Latif Senior Lecturer, School of Education, Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia Author
Rohaya Talib Senior Lecturer, School of Education, Faculty of Social Science and Humanities, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61841/1f1rpk39

Keywords:

Instrument, Constructive Alignment, Teachers Education Institutes, Interview, Experts

Abstract

This study was conducted to build the constructs and sub-constructs for the Constructive Alignment Evaluation Instrument (CAEI) for lecturers of Teachers Education Institutes (TEIs) based on the experts' views. Interviews involving a total of five experts from TEIs in Malaysia were conducted using purposive sampling. The experts involved were the chairman of the TEI Assessment Committee, the internal examiner expert, the chairman of the MQA Committee, the chairman of the ISO Secretariat, and the assessment coordinator of the department. The interview data was analyzed thematically using NVivo software. Based on the interview, it was found that there were certain shortcomings to be addressed in the implementation of constructive alignment among TEIs’ lecturers. The constructs driven from the interview were knowledge and practice, comprising a total of six sub-constructs, namely, learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, assessment of assignment, evaluation and grading, learning context, and students learning time. The sub-construct of learning outcomes consists of four elements: Program Educational Objectives, Program Learning Outcomes, Teaching Taxonomy, and Course Learning Outcomes. The sub-construct of teaching and learning activities is also divided into four elements: teaching and learning planning, mapping of knowledge type, interactive teaching, and class management. Meanwhile, the subconstruct of assessment assignment contains elements such as formative and summative, authenticating, converging and diverging assessments, and Bloom's Taxonomy. As for students learning time, its sub-construct includes elements of implementation of learning hours, credit, and learning load. The sub-construct of evaluation and grading contains elements of validity and reliability, criterion references, norm references, and evaluation based on learning outcomes. Finally, the sub-construct of learning context is divided into five elements: metacognitive control, reflective learning, teaching quality and student activity, formative feedback, and motivational approach. Based on the results obtained, the constructive alignment evaluation instrument should include all the constructs and sub-constructs identified.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] J. B. Biggs and C. S. Tang, Teaching For Quality Learning At University, 4th ed. Two Penn Plaza, New

York, NY 10121-2289, USA. First, 2011.

[2] J. Biggs, “Enhancing Teaching Through Constructive Alignment,” High. Educ., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 347–

364, 1996.

[3] Rusmawati binti Othman, Mohd Fadzil bin Mohd Salleh, and Mohd. Isha bin Awang, “Pentaksiran Dalam

Kelas Melalui Pendekatan Outcome Based Education (OBE): Satu Analisis Terhadap Pengetahuan Dan

Amalan Pensyarah,” Int. Semin. Gener. Knowl. Through Res. UUM-UMSIDA, 25-27 Oct. 2016, Univ.

Utara Malaysia, Malaysia, vol. 1, pp. 59–68, 2016.

[4] Pusat Pembangunan Akademik IPGM, Buku Panduan Akademik Program Ijazah Sarjana Muda Perguruan

Dengan Kepujian PISMP. Cyberjaya: Institut Pendidikan Guru Malaysia, 2017.

[5] Rohaya Talib, Mohd Najib Abd Ghafar, “Pembinaan Dan Pengesahan Instrumen Bagi Mengukur Tahap

Literasi Pentaksiran Guru Sekolah Menengah di Malaysia,” Semin. Penyelid. Pendidik. Pasca Ijazah 2008,

25-27 Novemb. 2008, Univ. Teknol. Malaysia., pp. 109–125, 2008.

[6] C. A. Mertler, C. Campbell, “Measuring Teachers‟ Knowledge & Application of Classroom Assessment

Concepts: Development of the Assessment Literacy Inventory,” Am. Educ. Res. Assoc., pp. 1–16, 2005.

[7] Nor Hasnida Md Ghazali, “A Reliability and Validity of an Instrument to Evaluate the School-Based

Assessment System: A Pilot Study,” Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 148–157, 2016.

[8] J. S. Addington, R. A. Johnson, “Incorporating The Design And Use of Surveys With Other Engineering

Assessment Methods Under Criteria 2000 Guidelines,” Proc. 1999 Am. Soc. Eng. Educ. Annu. Conf. Expo.

June 20-23, Sess. 1332, 1999.

[9] E. Akib, M. Najib, “Assessment for Learning Instrumentation in Higher Education,” Int. Educ. Stud., vol.

8, no. 4, pp. 166–172, 2015.

[10] J. Biggs, E. Medland, I. Vardi, “Aligning Teaching and Assessing to Course Objectives,” Assess. Eval.

High. Educ., vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 1–16, 2003.

[11] J. Biggs, C. Tang, Teaching for Quality Learning at University, 3rd ed. New York: Open University Press,

2007.

[12] G. Gallagher, “Aligning for Learning: Including Feedback in the Constructive Alignment Model *,”

AISHE-J All Irel. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 3011–30112, 2017.

[13] Jawatankuasa Pembangunan Garis Panduan, Garis Panduan Penulisan Program Akademik. Batu Pahat:

UTHM, 2010.

[14] J. Leber, A. Renkl, M. Nückles, K. Wäschle, “When The Type Of Assessment Counteracts Teaching For

Understanding,” Learn. Res. Pract., vol. 00, no. 00, pp. 1–19, 2017.

[15] N. Lee, “Studies in Higher Education Systems Models in Educational Research : A Review and

Realignment in The Context of Curriculum in the Context of Curriculum,” Stud. High. Educ., vol. 40, no.

10, pp. 1844–1858, 2015.

[16] L. Treleaven, R. Voola, “Attributes Through Constructive Alignment,” J. Mark. Educ., vol. 30, no. 2, pp.

160–173, 2008.

[17] A. Walsh, “An Exploration of Biggs‟ Constructive Alignment in the Context of Work-Based Learning,”

Assess. Eval. High. Educ., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 79–87, 2007.

[18] R. J. Cohen, M. E. Swerdlik, Psychological Testing and Assessment: An introduction to Test and

Measurement, 5th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2002.

[19] T. Kline, Psychological Testing: A Practical Approach to Design and Evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications, 2005.

[20] R. Czaja, J. Blair, Designing Surveys: A Guide to Decisions and Procedures. California: Pine Forge, 1996.

[21] J. Collentine and B. F. Freed, “Learning Context and its Effects on Second Language Acquisition,” in Second Language Acquisition, United States of America: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 153–171.

[22] J. A. C. Hattie, Visible Learning: A Synthesis of 800+ Meta-analyses on Achievement. London: Routledge, 2009.

[23] N. Ismail, J. Aurani, S. Isa, Z. M. Zain, M. A. Abdullah, “Learning Time Management Practices Among Students in UiTM Perlis Branch,” Proc. of ofthe Second Int. Conf. Futur. of ASEAN 2017, vol. 1, pp. 189–197, 2017.

[24] H. Kearns, Gardiner M., “Is It Time Well Spent? The Relationship Between Time Management Behaviors, Perceived Effectiveness, and Work-Related Moral and Distress in a University Context,” High Educ Res Dev, vol. 2, no. 26, pp. 235–247, 2007.

[25] A. Alias, N. A. M. Noor, N. M. Bhkari, and K. Ariffin, “Student Learning Time: A Needs Analysis for University Students’ Time Management Skills,” Proc. Reg. Conf. Sci. Technol. Soc. Sci., no. 12, pp. 125–134, 2019.

[26] Newbold JJ, Mehta SS, Forbus P, “A Study of Non-Traditional and Traditional Students in Terms of Their Time Management Behaviors, Stress Factors, and Coping Strategies,” Proc Acad Educ Leadersh, vol. 2, no. 15, pp. 67–72, 2010.

[27] F. Z. Z.Miqdadi, A. F. Al Momani, M. T., and N. M. Elmousel, “The Relationship between Time Management and the Academic Performance of Students from the Petroleum Institute in Abu Dhabi , the UAE,” ASEE 2014 Zo. I Conf., pp. 1–5, 2014.

[28] Kementerian Pendidikan Tinggi Malaysia, Rubrik PNGK Bersepadu iCGPA Panduan Pentaksiran Hasil Pembelajaran. Kementerian Pendidikan Tinggi Malaysia, Putrajaya, Malaysia, 2016.

[29] Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, “Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia 2015-2025 (Pendidikan Tinggi),” Kementeri. Pendidik. Malaysia., vol. 2025, no. 1, pp. 1–240, 2015.