CONSTRUCTIVE ALIGNMENT ADIBAH BINTI ABDUL LATIF QRi M

CONSTRUCTIVE ALIGNMENT ADIBAH BINTI ABDUL LATIF QRi. M UTM

• 1 Staff 1 Question • https: //padlet. com/p_adibah /gy 7 mljmg 7 zd 8

PROGRAMME EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES PEO PROGRAMME LEARNING OUTCOMES PLO Upon graduation COURSE LEARNING OUTCOME CLO After completing each course UNIT LEARNING OUTCOME ULO 3 to 5 years after graduation After completing each unit What students able to do Level Of Outcomes OUTCOMES

CONSTRUCTIVE ALIGNMENT

CONSTRUCTIVE ALIGNMENT • Constructive = Constructivist theory that learners using their own activity to construct their knowledge as interpreted through their own existing schemata. • Alignment = Principle in curriculum theory that assessment tasks should be aligned to what it is intended to be learned , as in criterion referenced assessment. What the student does is actually more important in determining what is learned Than what the teacher does

Adlina The good teaching is getting most students to use the level of cognitive processes needed to achieve the intended learning outcomes that the more academic students use spontaneously Zaquan Adapted, Biggs [2011]

3 What the student does? What the student does and how that relates to teaching 2 What the teacher does? What the teacher is doing rather than what student has to deal with 1 What the student is ? Differences in learning are attributed to differences between students. LEVELS OF THINKING ABOUT TEACHING

STEPS ON CONSTRUCTIVE ALIGNMENT Graduate Attribute Program Learning Outcome Course Learning Outcome Topic / Unit Learning Outcome

UTM GRADUATE ATTRIBUTE COMMUNICATING SKILLS (Kemahiran Berkomunikasi) CS Thinking Skills (Kemahiran Berfikir) TH Scholarship (Kesarjanaan) SC Team working skills (Kemahiran kerja berpasukan) TW Adaptability (Kebolehsuaian) AD Global Citizen (Warga Global) GC Enterprising Skills (Kemahiran Berdaya Usaha) ES

PLO Kluster Kejuruteraan

PLO kluster sains sosial dan Sains Teknologi(UG)

PLO bagi Pasca Siswazah Bil PLO Kod 1 Advanced Knowledge 2 Research Skills 3 Critical Thinking and Problem Solving 4 Ethics, values, professionalism EM 5 Communication CS 6 Lifelong Learning LL 7 Social Skills SS 8 Team working TS 9 Leadership LS 10 Information management IM 11 Managerial and Entrepreneurial ME AKW RS CTPS core Optional

Tambahan dan Taburan PLO

COURSE INFORMATION UTM 2018

COURSE INFORMATION UTM 2018 Dalam penulisan course synopsis dicadangkan supaya merumuskan intipati penting Kursus dan kemahiran generik yang ditaksir dalam kursus.

COURSE INFORMATION UTM 2018

DEVELOP COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES Graduate Attribute Scholarship Graduate Attribute Program Learning Outcome [SC] Pelajar berkebolehan mensintesis pengetahuan dalam bidang pengukuran dan penilaian secara sistematik Program Learning Outcome Program Learning Course Learning Outcome [CLO 3] Develop 2 sets of classroom test by applying the concept of validity and reliability Course Learning Outcome

DEVELOP COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES EASURABLE ; includes the criteria for success CTIONABLE; can be demonstrated with evidence / observable ELEVANT; to future experience or workplace IMED; to be achieved within certain time constraints CLO’S MUST BE S. M. A. R. T PESIFIC ; to one learning behaviour

DEVELOP COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES

DEVELOP COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES 3 COMPONENTS OF CLO • At the end of the course, students should be able to evaluate the quality of two examination papers for Multiple Choice Question and Essay question based on Classical Test Theory analysis. A B C D CONDITION AUDIENCE BEHAVIOR / VERB DEGREE/ STANDARD

DEVELOP COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES VERB CONDITION STANDARD

DEVELOP COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES

ISU PENULISAN CLO • Mempunyai terlalu banyak CLO dalam satu kursus. Ada sehingga 14 CLO • Pensyarah kurang kemahiran mensintesiskan silibus ke dalam bentuk outcome yang boleh diintegrasikan • Pensyarah tidak memulakan verb yang diukur sekurang-kurangnya dengan application level dalam taksonomi Bloom • Pensyarah yang menggunakan MCQ dalam final exam merasa sukar untuk mappingkan item dalam soalan exam dengan CLO.

ISU PENULISAN CLO • Pensyarah tidak revised CLO, hanya menggunakan CLO sedia ada dan tidak menggunakan konsep OBE • CLO tidak align dengan Aktiviti dan Pentaksiran • CLO dibina tanpa sebarang data yang meyakinkan (contoh perbincangan degan panel luar/stakeholder dan tanpa data penyelidikan daripada pencapaian pelajar)

ISU PENULISAN CLO • Pensyarah menggunakan dua verb bagi satu domain pembelajaran yang sama • Pensyarah gagal membezakan setiap aras dalam domain pembelajaran samada kognitif, afektif dan psikomotor • Pensyarah terlalu terikat dengan “keyword” dalam Taksonomi pendidikan

Kajian Kes Tidak sejajar di antara CLO dan aras taksonomi

CADANGAN • Kuiz, test, dan peperiksaan akhir dirangkum dalam satu CLO sahaja. • CLO lain memfokuskan pentaksiran secara praktikal dan kemahiran generik

Kajian kes Bagaimanakah sebenarnya bilangan item ditetapkan? Berasarkan jam kuliah? Pemberat CLO? Ini kerana jumlah Item yang sama sahaja bagi jumlah jam kuliah yang berbeza

CADANGAN • Aplikasikan formula yang dicadangkan • Masukkan hanya topik yang paling signifikan terutama bagi soalan berbentuk subjektif

Kajian Kes Tidak salah sebenarnya bagi peringkat sijil / diploma untuk mempunyai CLO / aras item yang melebihi aras Aplikasi

CADANGAN • Gunakan satu sahaja CLO bagi mengukur PLO 1 (Pengetahuan) • Aplikasikan konsep penjajaran konstruktif.

Kajian Kes Soalan MCQ bukanlah dibina untuk aras mudah sahaja. Malah bagi ujian berbentuk sumatif seharusnya memenuhi konsep normal distribution

CADANGAN • Kemahiran dalam pembinaan item peperiksaan • Memenuhi prinsip pembinaan item

Kajian kes Antara contoh CLO yang tidak sesuai diukur dengan ujian bertulis

CADANGAN • Tidak semua CLO perlu diukur dengan peperiksaan • Bina satu CLO khas untuk pengetahuan (PLO 1)

Kajian Kes Item ini bukanlah item berbentuk struktur

CADANGAN • Pensyarah perlu dapat membezakan apa yang dimaksudkan dengan item jawapan pendek, respon terhad, respon terbuka dan soalan berstruktur.

Kajian Kes Bagaimana penetapan dan pemilihan topik bagi ujian berbentuk esei? Adakah perlu melibatkan semua topik? Bagaimana dari segi aras kesukaran?

Kajian Kes Instead of letakkan bilangan item, letakkan nombor soalan, Contohnya soalan 1 (a), 1(b), 2(a),

Kajian Kes Tiada jajaran dengan CLO Tiada pecahan aras kesukaran item

Practical skills should not be assessed by examination

COURSE INFORMATION UTM 2018

Student Learning Time • 1 kredit bersamaan dengan 40 jam kredit • Diagihkan mengikut kesesuaian perlaksanaan proses pengajaran dan pembelajaran • Penetapan jam kredit adalah selari dengan weight pentaksiran • Contoh: - CLO 2 menggunakan pentaksiran individual presentation dan diberi markah sebanyak 10 markah • Maka (10/100)*80 (jam kredit) = 8 jam • Maka agihkan 8 jam untuk F 2 F (L/T/P/O), NF 2 F secara guidance atau non guidance

KEMAHIRAN GENERIK • Bukan bersifat ordinal, maka satu CLO boleh lebih daripada 1 operational definition yang ada dalam kemahiran generic tersebut • Perlu diingatkan bahawa kemahiran generik bukan bersifat knowledge dan technical skills. • Contoh: Jika thinking skills bukan penyelesaian masalah dalam masalah matematik di dalam ujian. Tetapi thinking skills semasa melaksanakan kajian / projek / masalah di luar silibus pembelajaran.

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION PLO (UG)

CS (COMMUNICATING SKILLS)

TH (THINKING SKILLS)

SC (SCHOLARSHIP)

TW (TEAM WORKING)

AD (ADAPTABILITY)

GC (GLOBAL CITIZEN)

ES (ENTERPRISING SKILLS)

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION PLO (PG)

ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE

RESEARCH SKILLS

CRITICAL THINKING

ETHICS, VALUES, PROFESSIONALISME

COMMUNICATION

LIFE LONG LEARNING

SOCIAL SKILLS

TEAMWORKING

LEADERSHIP

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

MANAGERIAL AND ENTREPRENEURIAL

As conclusion…

Need to learn about Learning Taxonomies

Need to learn about Generic Skills

Need to learn about Teaching and Learning Methods

Need to learn about Assessment and Evaluation

• Distinguish between declarative knowledge and functioning knowledge Knowledge that can be declared exams Put the knowledge to work, to make it function Performance Based Assessment

What works best in higher education Factor Effect size Student self report grades 1. 44 Providing formative evaluation to lecturers 0. 90 Teacher clarity 0. 75 Feedback 0. 74 Spaced ‘vs’ mass practice 0. 73 Metacognitive strategies 0. 71 Creativity programmes 0. 69 Self verbalization 0. 65 Professional development 0. 64 Problem solving teaching 0. 62 Not labelling students 0. 61 Cooperative learning 0. 59 Study skills 0. 59 Mastery learning 0. 59 Worked examples 0. 58 Hattie [2009 a] synthesizes over 800 meta analyses Involving 50, 000+ studies and about 250+ millions students

Metacognitive control Teaching quality Social learning Relevant learner activity Seven characters of a good learning context Interconnected knowledge Formative feedback Appropriate motivation