One of the most obvious benefits of a constructively aligned curriculum is that students will learn more. John Biggs explains why constructive alignment is essential for optimizing student learning. He writes, “Teaching and learning take place in a whole system, which embraces classroom, departmental and institutional levels. A poor system is one in which the components are not integrated, and are not tuned to support high-level learning” (1). In contrast, a well-designed system for learning allows students to move through a curriculum in a systematic, intentional way. Instructors and students understand why they are emphasizing certain outcomes and using certain methods during class and during assessment.
For an overview of previous scholarship that explains the value of curricular alignment efforts for student learning, see the Literature Review.
Funding and support are essential for the function of a successful writing program at any university. In “The Writing Program in the University,” Katherine Gottschalk notes that “too often, writing programs...are situated on the fringes of the university” in a “marginalized position,” resulting in a program that “will have trouble with long-term survival...and doing its job well at any point” (23). Gottschalk concludes this chapter by underscoring the importance of collaboration in writing programs.
Gottschalk’s observations point to two ways in which constructive alignment can be helpful in a writing program. First, it can help WPAs make a case for the existence and importance of their writing programs, moving them from the fringes to the center of a university. As noted in the Introduction, alignment is not only useful at the course or assignment level, but it is also important at the institutional level. If WPAs can use the principles of constructive alignment to align their program goals with the broader goals of their institutions, they may be able to secure vital support for the programs. This strategy can help WPAs carve out a niche for their programs, making them invaluable and establishing new stakeholders among higher level administration. Carter-Tod notes that curriculum change and development can even be a path toward increased funding for a writing program (75).
Gottschalk’s article also shows another way in which constructive alignment can help WPAs create buy-in for their programs. She writes that since a top-down structure in which a program “belongs” to one WPA can jeopardize its longevity, collaboration among faculty members in the program is essential. Giving faculty members a stake in the program through the opportunity to shape the curriculum alongside the WPA could improve the quality of teaching and learning in the program.
As mentioned above, WPA collaboration with faculty members in a writing program can increase buy-in for curriculum changes and improve the final product. While this process can result in an improved curriculum, it can also be a professional development opportunity for faculty members as well. Rutz and Wilhoit explain the significance of faculty development for writing programs: “Faculty development enhances instructors’ teaching skills, better enabling them to deliver the curriculum, achieve the program’s goals, and promote student learning” (194). Along with these benefits, Rutz and Wilhoit highlight the importance of creating a collaborative space to faculty through professional development activities, noting that “faculty development also promotes a sense of community in a writing program (194).
Including writing program faculty members in constructive alignment efforts and curriculum development can contribute to this culture of collaboration, as well as improve teaching quality. Understanding the theory behind constructive alignment at the program and course level can help instructors better understand the goals of the writing program and shape their teaching. Understanding constructive alignment at the assignment level can give instructors another tool to make decisions about how they spend their time in class and how they assess student learning.
Emphasizing constructive alignment in a writing program can be especially beneficial for preparation for Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) who are often tasked with teaching first-year writing courses. Since GTAs usually have limited classroom experience, beginning their teaching career in an environment that prioritizes constructive alignment can help them start out the right way.
Dively identifies GTA preparation as a “catalyst for change” in the writing program at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. While some senior faculty members thought it was valuable experience for GTAs to design their own courses from the ground up, Dively notes that “there existed considerable disparity between the course’s numerous sections, as was substantiated through classroom observations, collection of example syllabi, and Core Curriculum assessment” (5). Dively continues by identifying the problem with this disparity, stating that it limits transfer between first-year writing and other courses and contexts. This disparity also limited student learning in general, since GTAs were “all too often settling for syllabi that did not fully address course objectives and/or did not effectively cohere” (9).
Dively explains GTA preparation was a motivation for curriculum change at Southern Illinois University Carbondale’s writing program, but constructive alignment could be a generally useful tool in GTA training. Explaining the components of a course or program as a triangle in which all sides need to be aligned (see Definitions for the triangle analogy) could help GTAs plan appropriate learning activities and projects for their courses.
The small size of first-year writing courses, as well as the fact that most entering students take a first-year writing course, “makes writing classes an attractive site for assessment when campus administrators wonder how to get access to students” (Harrington, 161). As such, it can be helpful for WPAs to have many different tools for programmatic assessment. Constructive alignment can be a helpful framework for WPAs assessing the efficacy of their programs.
The centrality of learning outcomes or objectives in constructive alignment can give WPAs a place to start in assessing their programs. What should students be learning? What is happening in writing classrooms? How are students being assessed? Do these factors come together to form a cohesive experience for students?
See the Resources page for more tools for assessing the alignment of a writing program’s curriculum.
For WPAs entering a program without an established, consistent curriculum for writing courses, constructive alignment can be a solid starting point for enhancing or even building a program.
See the Resources page for more tools for using constructive alignment as a tool for creating a curriculum.
A strength of many writing programs is instructor expertise, and WPAs may worry that prioritizing constructive alignment will too rigidly control the way instructors choose to structure their courses. However, Gagné et al. explain why a consistent experience for students in all sections of a course is important: “The fact that professional or academic freedom is often offered to teachers and lecturers in higher education does not take away from the need to follow these guiding pedagogical principles and to offer optimal learning opportunities to students through the evaluation for equity purposes” (Gagné et al., 5).
Creating a more standard curriculum can improve learning outcomes and better prepare students for the rigors of college writing at a particular institution. Furthermore, faculty engagement in the processes of curriculum development and programmatic assessment can give instructors a voice in the program.
There can also be opportunities within a more standardized curriculum for instructors and even students to make choices about the design of the course and assignments. For example, though a standard curriculum may prescribe a certain type of assignment, allowing instructors or students to choose their topics for writing or to even choose the mode in which they complete an assignment can create some freedom (Dively, 10). The goal should be to support instructors as they teach constructively aligned courses, since “in the teaching of such writing courses...instructors express the autonomy of their own individual philosophy of teaching, merging their research, political and philosophical perspectives in a way that makes writing classrooms come alive” (Carter-Tod, 79).
See the Resources page for more on engaging faculty in constructive alignment.