Aligning Teaching and Assessment to Course Objectives: The Case of Preparatory Year English Program at King Abdulaziz University

Abstract

This research paper discusses the concept of constructive alignment theory (Biggs, 1996) with the learning outcomes in teaching of English at a Saudi university. The Saudi context has received no empirical attention in the professional literature. Thus, this paper uses constructive alignment framework to examine the Foundation Year English Program (FYEP) curriculum at King Abdul-Aziz University, Saudi Arabia. More specifically, one of the major components of this program, namely, the speaking course, was used as an example to evaluate the extent to which intended learning outcomes, assessment practices, and teaching methods are aligned in this course. It should be mentioned that the 104 speaking course has been selected as an example for two main reasons, which will be discussed in the paper. Therefore, some suggestions are provided to help solve this issue constructively. The paper also highlights the importance of using the constructive alignment framework to enhance teaching, learning, and assessment in English Language Institute (hereafter ELI).This paper is divided into four sections. Following the introduction, it reviews the existing literature on the notion of constructive alignment theory and its pedagogical outcomes in EFL instruction. It then briefly describes the ELI English program and pinpoints the incongruity between the program objectives and the intended learning outcomes. The second section focuses on analysis of the components of the speaking course through Constructive Alignment Framework. The next section identifies some factors, which negatively affect the speaking course. The last section of this paper discusses the implications of constructive alignment for learning and teaching in ELI.

Aligning Theory and Practice: Developing the Concept of Curriculum Alignment through Faculty Education

“…The reasons behind the minimal application of the concepts learned, as described by participants, included the lack of authority to make a program/course change or reluctance of faculty members and leaders to change the current approach to curriculum design. This concurs with the idea that often, higher education institutions in the region use a top-down approach (El-Okda, 2005) which is not in large part constructed by the teaching faculty or coconstructed by the students (Kabouha & Elyas, 2015). This also supports the point of Biggs (2014) that CA needs supportive and visionary leaders at all levels: "for CA to work properly, then, it needs to be embedded in a supportive culture, at each of departmental, faculty, institutional levels and even national levels (p. 10).…”

“…Hence, participants are often learning about Backward Design for the first-time in the CA sessions. Kabouha and Elyas (2015) studied the constructive alignment of assessment and teaching to course objectives in an English language program at a Saudi university. The authors, in agreement with Biggs and Tang (2011), emphasized the importance of the learner in the constructive part of the curriculum and the role of the educator in alignment to create the appropriate learning opportunities and assessment tasks.…”

Alignment of Assessment Tasks with the Intended Learning Outcomes in “EPP” and “EMS” courses of ELESP UNJ: A Content Analysis

“…As all the results previously discussed the alignment between ATs with ILOs in EPP and EMS courses, also happened in the research from Jideani & Jideani (2012), FitzPatrick, Hawboldt, Doyle, & Genge (2015, and Kabouha & Elyas (2015) on the alignment of curricula and subject units of the study programs that are the focus of their respective research shows that the alignment between the objectives and assessment of learning in subject units still do not meet the minimum expectations. The ILOs and ATs in the courses do not fully meet the concept of constructive alignment, considering that the alignment between ATs and ILOs as discussed above are not all well-aligned.…”

“…They did not correlate with the objectives in the course syllabus. Moreover, the results of research from Jideani & Jideani (2012), FitzPatrick, Hawboldt, Doyle, & Genge (2015, and Kabouha & Elyas (2015) on the alignment of curricula and subject units of the study programs are the focus of their respective research shows that the alignment between the objectives and assessment of learning in subject units still do not meet the minimum expectations. OECD/ADB (2015) found that despite the need for urgent changes in the quality of higher education instructional facilities, relatively little attention is given to conducting empirical studies on teaching and learning processes in Indonesian higher education institutions.…”

Systematic Review: Approaches in Improving English Literature Teaching and Learning in ESL Classrooms

“…Literature circles involve small groups of students who read and discuss a shared piece of literature. Each student takes on a specific role within the group, such as discussion leader or connector (Kabouha, R., & Elyas, T., 2015) [11] . This approach promotes collaborative learning, encourages active participation, and allows for in-depth exploration of literary texts.…”