A neutral toolkit? For a fundamental critique of constructive alignment

Abstract

This paper develops a systematic critique of the theory of constructive alignment (CA). It argues that CA is less a simple toolkit than a comprehensive philosophy of teaching and learning. Articulated by John Biggs between the 1970s and the 1990s, this philosophy contains a number of problematic theoretical positions on student ability, the nature of understanding, and the purpose of education. When mandated in university settings, this philosophy erodes student agency and delimits the use of alternative pedagogies. To support this critique, the paper reconstructs the philosophical underpinnings of CA by revisiting Biggs’s early theoretical work in cognitive psychology, focussing in particular on the way he theorised the relation between genetics and intelligence. The paper contends that the theory of CA is committed to a deeply problematic conception of student ability that places it squarely at odds with efforts to decolonise the curriculum or make the university more disability positive.