In curriculum design processes, the principle of constructive alignment represents an effective tool for aligning curricula, pedagogy and assessments to make curriculum content explicit. Yet there remain gaps in the achievement of constructive alignment in higher education. Curriculum mapping processes attempt to map the vertical and horizontal alignment between modules and courses; however, as we argue in this article, there may be gaps in these processes such that full constructive alignment is not adequately achieved. In this article, we present a framework that identifies all connecting relationships between module and course learning outcomes as required for comprehensive constructive alignment. The framework serves to highlight where these gaps (or what we call fracture points) may occur that are not adequately addressed by curriculum mapping processes. The utility of this framework comes not only in offering insight into the contributory roles of learning outcomes and constructive alignment processes (and thus providing the opportunity to reflect and address disparities that may lead to curricular misalignment in higher education); it also provides more coherence in approaches to understanding the why of learning outcome design.
Frost et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: