Enhancing Teaching through Constructive Alignment

Author(s): John Biggs

Source: Higher Education, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Oct., 1996), pp. 347-364
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3448076 .
Accessed: 01/10/2013 11:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Higher Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.197.251.158 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:47:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Higher Education 32: 347-364, 1996. 347
) 1996 KluwerAcademic Publishers. Printedin the Netherlands.

Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment

JOHNBIGGS
Departmentof EducationalPsychology,Measurement,and EducationalTechnology,
Universityof Sydney,NSW2006, Australia

Abstract. Two lines of thinking are becoming increasingly importantin higher education-
al practice. The first derives from constructivistlearning theory, and the second from the
instructionaldesign literature.Constructivismcomprises a family of theories but all have in
common the centralityof the learner'sactivities in creatingmeaning.These and relatedideas
have importantimplicationsfor teachingand assessment.Instructionaldesigners for theirpart
have emphasised alignment between the objectives of a course or unit and the targets for
assessing student performance."Constructivealignment"representsa marriageof the two
thru'sts,constructivismbeing used as a frameworkto guide decision-makingat all stages in
instructionaldesign: in derivingcurriculumobjectivesin termsof performancesthatrepresent
a suitably high cognitive level, in deciding teaching/learningactivitiesjudged to elicit those
performances,and to assess and summativelyreportstudentperformance.The "performances
of understanding"nominatedin the objectives are thus used to systematicallyalign the teach-
ing methods and the assessment. The process is illustratedwith reference to a professional
developmentunit in educationalpsychology for teachers,butthe model may be generalizedto
most units or programsin higher education.

Thinkingabout teachingand learning

Teachersgenerally enact their teaching decisions in line with some kind of
explicit or, more usually, implicit theory of teaching and learning (Argyris
1976, Ramsden 1992). Argyris(1976) distinguishesbetween espoused theo-
ries, that are held to be those underlyingprofessionalpractice,and theories-
in-use, thatguide practicein the event;professionalismrequiresthe espoused
theory to be the theory-in-use.
Espousedtheoriesas they applyto highereducationare broad,encompass-
ing not only theories of teaching and learning,but also theories of the nature
of knowledge. Two broad theoretical traditionscan be distinguished. The
first,objectivist,traditionis based on a dualismbetween knowerand known;
knowledge exists independentlyof the knower,and understandingis coming
to know that which already exists (Duffy 1992, Marton in press). Knowledge
is seen as decontextualised, so that it can be learned, tested, and applied more
or less independently of particular contexts (Brown, Collins & Duguid 1989).
Teaching is a matter of transmitting this knowledge, learning of receiving
it accurately, storing it, and using it appropriately. This view comprised the

This content downloaded from 147.197.251.158 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:47:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
348

espousedtheoryof teachingfor manyyears,and one whenlooks at much

currentpractice,it is still the dominanttheory-in-use. Objectivistictheories,
with theirlinks with positivism,are also greatlyconcernedwith quantita-
tive measurement(Cole 1990),a concernthatleadsto assessmentpolicies
andpracticesthatoftendistortthe qualityof teachingandlearning,anddo
violenceto assumptionsaboutthenatureof knowledge(Biggs 1995, 1996a,
1996b,Frederiksen& Collins,1989;see alsobelow).
Thesecondtraditionrejectsdualism,claimingratherthatmeaningis created
by thelearner,notimposedbyrealityortransmitted by directinstruction.This
traditionhas two streams:constructivism (Duffy & Jonassen 1992, Steffe
& Gale 1995), andphenomenography (Marton1981, in press;Marton&
Booth,in press).Constructivism andphenomenography aredifferentin many
importantrespects, but for presentpurposesthey are similarin thatboth
see learningin qualitativenot quantitative terms(Cole 1990),andbothsee
the learneras centralin the creationof meaning,not the teacher,as the
transmitter of knowledge.Phenomenography hashadimportant influenceson
theimprovement of tertiaryteaching,butit is conceptually isolatedfromother
developments. Constructivism hasa longhistoryin cognitivepsychology,and
is rapidlybecomingthe dominantespousedtheoryin education;it remains,
however,to see it as a commontheory-in-usein highereducation.In this
paper,I concentrateon theimplicationsof constructivism forteaching.
Steffe and Gale (1995) referto six differentschools of constructivism,
includingcognitive,social constructionism, andpostmodernism, each with
differentimplicationsforeducational practice. Nuthall (in press)bringssome
that
orderto bearby suggesting cognitiveconstructivism refersto whatgoes
on in individualminds,with socio-culturaland linguisticversionsof con-
structivismreferringmoreto thecontextsandwaysin whichmindsconstruct
knowledge,whichis the viewtakenhere.All of theseareto be distinguished
fromnaiveconstructivism, whichconfusesa theoryof learningwitha way
of classifyingteachingmethods("groupwork leadsto constructive learning,
butlecturingonly involvestransmission").
Butwhateverparticular constructivist
theoriesmayvariouslyemphasize,a
consensuswouldbe thatlearnersarriveat meaningby activelyselecting,and
cumulativelyconstructing, theirownknowledge,throughbothindividual and
socialactivity.The learnerbringsan accumulation of assumptions, motives,
intentions,and previousknowledgethatenvelopeseveryteaching/learning
situationanddeterminesthecourseandqualityof the learningthatmaytake
place.The teachermayignoreor use this learner-structured framework, but
the centralityof the learneris given.Shuell'sdeceptivelymildexpressionof
this perspectivebeliesits radicalismandits profundity:

This content downloaded from 147.197.251.158 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:47:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 349
If studentsareto learndesiredoutcomesin a reasonablyeffectivemanner,
thentheteacher'sfundamental taskis to get studentsto engagein learning
activitiesthatarelikelyto resultin theirachievingthoseoutcomes...Itis
helpfulto remember thatwhatthestudentdoesis actuallymoreimportant
in determining whatis learnedthanwhattheteacherdoes. (Shuell1986:
429)
In thispaper,I suggesta frameworkthattranslatessome importantfeatures
of constructivismintoclassroomdecisionson teachingandassessment.

Constructivismand instructionaldesign

Therehavebeenmanyvaluableapplications of constructivism, to
particularly
scienceandmathteaching(e.g. Cobb1994,Driver& Oldham1986,Driver,
Asoko,Leach,Mortimer & Scott1994,Scardamalia, Bereiter& Lamon1994,
West& Pines1985),buttherehavebeenfew attemptsto providea framework
thatwould generalisebeyondthe contextsor topics for which they were
designed.One needsto be carefulaboutthis as a prescriptive "constructive
method"is contraryto theprinciplesof constructivism.Whatis involvedhere
methodbutan attitudetowardsteachingwhichimplies
is not a particular
a focal awareness of the learnerandthe learner'sworld... eachteacher
hasto tackletheprinciplesandappropriate themwithinthecontextof his
or herownteaching.(Marton& Booth,in press)
Buthow is the teacherto movefroma "focalawareness... of the learner's
world",andappropriating principles,to doingthingsdifferently? Thisis the
familiarhiatusbetweenespousedtheoryandtheory-in-use. Thereis currently
muchconcernaboutactualisingtheprinciplesof constructivism in a nonpre-
scriptiveway.Duffy and Jonassen (1992) claim to be the firstto addressthe
linkbetweenconstructive learningtheoryandinstructional design(ID)(Note
2), butin theeventthecontributions in thatpublicationtendto be meta-level,
exploringtheextentto whichID anddifferentversionsof constructivism may
or maynot sharecommonassumptions. The contributors to SteffeandGale
(1995) reportspecificapplicationsof this or thatversionof constructivism,
whichWood(1995) attemptsto bringtogetherin an unexceptionable list of
do.
whatteachersshould They should:
* provideinstructional situationsthatelicit subjectappropriate activities
* view students'conceptionsfromtheir(thestudents')perspectives
* see "errors"
as reflectingthe(their)currentlevel of development
* recognisethatsubstantive learningoccursin periodsof conflict,surprise,
overperiods time,andthroughsocialinteraction.
of

This content downloaded from 147.197.251.158 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:47:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
350

And so they should,but thereis still a largestep in puttingthis to use, in

context.

Instructionas an internallyaligned system

Teachingformsa complexsystemembracing,attheclassroomlevel,teacher,
students,the teachingcontext,studentlearningactivities,andthe outcome;
that classroomsystemis thennestedwithinthe largerinstitutionalsystem
(Biggs 1993). In a system,the componentsinteractwith each other,work-
ing towardsa stableequilibrium(von Bertallanffy1968). Thus,if the set
assessmenttasksaddresslowercognitivelevelactivitiesthanthosenominat-
ed in thecurriculum objectives,equilibriumwill be achievedat a lowerlevel;
the systemwill be drivenby backwashfromtesting,not by the curriculum
(Frederiksen & Collins1989).Attemptsto enhanceteachingneedto address
the systemas a whole, not simplyadd "good"components,such as a new
curriculum or methods.
In designingan instructional
systemthatsupportsthe sortof outcomesthe
curriculumnominates,Cohen's(1987) idea of "instructional alignment"is
useful; when curriculumand assessment methods are aligned,the resultsof
instructionare massivelyimproved;effect sizes basedon achievementtests
havebeen reportedup to fourtimesgreaterthanin non-alignedinstruction
(Cohen1987).Masterylearningis a particularly interestingexample.While
masterylearningproducespositiveresultswhendealingwithnarrow,quan-
titativelydefinedperformances, thereis no evidencethatmasterylearning
is of valueto thoseinterestedin achievingbroaderoutcomes(Slavin1990).
Rather,the evidenceis thatstudentswho areorientedtowardsdeeplearning
performbadlyundermasterylearning(Lai& Biggs 1994),becausethe sys-
tem supportsnarrow,low cognitivelevel goals.Thecrucialquestionis: Will
the benefitsof alignmentbe so markedwhenthe systemis alignedto high
cognitive level goals?
Thestartingpointis to defineteachingobjectivesat a highcognitivelevel.

From aims to objectives:The descentfrom rhetoric

Tertiaryteachersalmostuniversallyespousehighlevel aimsfor the courses

theyteach(Entwistle& Percy1974).However,generalitiessuchas "Tothink
like a mathematician",
or "Tobecomea student-centred teacher,sensitiveto
individualstudent'sneeds",do not implyanyparticular teachingdecisions,
whichleavesotherfactors,suchas studentnumbers,or administrative con-
venience,to determineteachingandassessmentmethods.The masslecture,
andformalexaminations, thuscontinueas thedefaultmodes.

This content downloaded from 147.197.251.158 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:47:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 351
All teacherssay they"teachforunderstanding", butfew do in anysustain-
ableway(Perkins& Blythe1993).Onereasonis thattheydo notknowhow
to descendfromtherhetoricof theiraimsto thespecificobjectivesof a given
courseor unit(theterm"unit"is usedhenceforward to describea semester-
length,free-standingcomponentin a program,the summativeassessments
of whichmarkstudentprogressthroughthe program).Todo so, theyneeda
frameworkof some kindto helpthemoperationalise what"understanding"
mightmeanin theirparticular case.
Many studies point to the hierarchicalnatureof understanding. Thehierar-
chiesof conceptionsproducedbyphenomenographic research(Marton1981)
representtopicby topicdescriptions rangingfrommisunderstanding to artic-
ulatedunderstandings of a highorder.EntwistleandEntwistle(1992)referto
the"formsof understanding" constructedby studentswhenstudyingfortheir
examinations, most forms depending on theframework createdin thecontext
of the expectedmodeof assessment.Unger(1993), in askinghigh school
studentswhatit was like to "really"understand something,founda general
of
hierarchy understanding, ranging from "understanding by remembering"
to "performing in novel situations",the lattera formof understanding not
reportedas occurringin schoolcontexts.
The HarvardProjectZeroteam(Gardner1993, Perkins& Blythe 1993,
Unger1993)focuson theperformative aspectof understanding; thatif you
understand somethingproperlyyou act differentlyin contextsinvolvingthe
contentunderstood,particularly unfamilarcontexts.Such"performances of
as
understanding", they term them,require students to interactthoughtfully
witha noveltask,to reflecton appropriate feedback,to searchto see howthey
canimprove.Theseperformances arenotrequiredin mosttaskspresentedin
school or even in university.If the courseobjectivesdid requiresuch high
level understandings, teachingandassessmenttaskswouldneedto address
themon theprincipleof alignment,as theperformance assessmentliterature
emphasises(e.g. Archbald & Newman 1988, Biggs 1995, Moss 1992).
Biggs and Collis(1982) describe thegrowth competenceintermsof, first,
of
a quantitativeaccrualof thecomponentsof a task,whichthenbecomequali-
tativelyrestructured. SOLO,whichstandsfor the Structure of the Observed
LearningOutcome,provides systematicway describinghowa learner's
a of
performance growsincomplexitywhenmasteringmanyacademictasks.Five
levelsmaybe distinguished:

the studenthasn't
The taskis not attackedappropriately;
1. Prestructural.
understoodthepoint.

One or a few aspectsof the taskarepickedup andused

2. Unistructural.
as nominal).
(understanding

This content downloaded from 147.197.251.158 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:47:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
352

3. Multistructural. Severalaspectsof the taskare learnedbut are treated

separately (understanding as knowingabout).
4. Relational.The componentsare integratedinto a coherentwhole, with
eachpartcontributing to the overallmeaning(understanding as appreci-
atingrelationships).
5. Extendedabstract.The integratedwholeat the relationallevel is recon-
ceptualisedat a higherlevelof abstraction,whichenablesgeneralisation
to a new topicor area,or is turnedreflexivelyon oneself(understanding
as fartransfer,andas involvingmetacognition).
Levelsof understanding suchas thesemaybe usedfor structuring curricu-
lumobjectiveshierarchically.

Example

I will illustratewitha psychologyunitin thethirdyearof a fouryearpart-time

Bachelorof EducationprogramattheUniversityof HongKong,designedfor
in-serviceprimaryandsecondaryteacherswishingto upgradetheirTeachers'
Collegequalifications.82 studentswereenrolledin the presentunit,which
wastaughtby myselfanda teachingassistant(Note3). Thegeneralaimwas
notto teachstudentsaboutpsychology,butto getthemto thinkaboutteaching
andlearning,andto enactclassroomdecision-making, in a wayenrichedby
psychologicalknowledge.Mostunitsin professionalprograms couldprovide
parallels.
It was necessarythen to set up a hierarchicallist of "performances of
understanding" from most desirableto barelysatisfactory.This was done
usingSOLOas a baseline,focusingon verbs(italicisedbelow)to denotea
particular qualityof performance:
(a) Most desirable (extendedabstract):metacognitive understanding, stu-
dents able to use the taughtcontentin orderto reflecton theirown
teaching,evaluatetheirdecisionsmade in the classroomin termsof
theory,andtherebyimprovetheirdecision-making andpractice.Other
outcomes:formulatinga personaltheoryof teachingthatdemonstra-
bly drivesdecision-making andpractice,generatingnew approaches to
teachingon the basisof taughtprinciplesandcontent.
(b) Very satisfactory(relational):studentscan applycoursecontent,and
recognisegood andpoorapplicationsof principles.They"understand"
in thatcoursecontentis usedas a theoryof teachingthatdrivesaction.
(c) Moderatelysatisfactory(multistructural): studentsunderstand declara-
tively,in thattheycan discusscontentmeaningfully, they know abouta
reasonableamountof content,butdon'ttransferor applyit easily.

This content downloaded from 147.197.251.158 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:47:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 353

(d) Barely satisfactory(unistructural): sparseunderstandings,evidenceof

someeffortin theacquisitionof terminology; higherlevelunderstanding
offsetby somemisunderstandings.
(e) Unsatisfactory outcomes: fundamentalmisunderstandings, lack of
effort/involvement in theunit.
Theaboveobjectivesformcategoriesthatmaybeusedforgradingpurposes:
(a)through(e) becoming"A","B","C","D",and"F',respectively, thehighest
levelexemplifiedina studentperformance becoming thatstudent'sfinalgrade.
If finergradingwithina categoryis desired,thiscaneasilybe accommodated
(Biggs 1992).
In sum,a performative notionof understanding
enablesteachersto specify
the thingsthe studentsneed to do in orderto demonstrateparticularlev-
els of understanding. A competentteachershouldbe able to say in what
waysa studentshouldperformin orderto specificallyexemplifythedeepest
understanding of the contenttaught,andless satisfactorylevels. Criterion-
referencing in these termssets bothteachingandassessmentagendas.
Whatdoes the teacherneedto do in orderto facilitatethe appearance of
thesedesiredperformances?

Teaching/learningactivities(TLAs)

The teachingmethodswe chooseneedto engagestudentsin activitiesthat

arelikelyto requirethemto performin thewaynominatedin thecurriculum
objectives.Let us startby turningthe questionaround.Whatactivitiesare
standardteachingmethodsmostlikelyto elicit?
The activitiescommonlyassociatedwithlecturesare:listening,interpret-
ing,comprehending, note-taking,reflecting(?).Thecommonthreadis receiv-
ing in an isolatedcontext. Lecturingitselfdoes littleto challengeorquestion
student'sinterpretations; indeed,studentsoftensee implicitencouragement
to acceptthecontentandthe interpretation given.
Aretheseperformances onesthatuniversityteacherswantfromtheirstu-
dents?Comprehending and summarising certainlyare,butonly to a point.
The real problemwith lecturingis thatit is normallylow on studentactiv-
ity; the studentis passive,preciselyin the sense that a narrowrangeof
learning-related activitiesis usuallyelicited,dependingon individualabil-
ity and interest.Whileone studentmay findin a lecturethe keystonefor
a particulararchof knowledgeshe is constructing, herneighbourperceives
just anotherbrick,whichhe dulyrecordsin his lecturenotes.However,high
level engagementoughtnotto be left to serendipity, or to individualstudent
brilliance,butshouldbe activelyencouraged by the teacher. In short,if good

This content downloaded from 147.197.251.158 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:47:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
354

teachingis to stimulatecompetenceratherthanto reflectit, teachersneedto

activatean appropriately widerangeof learning-related activities.
Afterlecturing,the nextmostcommonmethodis thetutorial,whichcom-
monlyelicits:elaborating, clarifying,removingmisconceptions, challenging
establishedinterpretations, seeinghow otherstudentsinterpretconceptsor
applytheirinterpretations. Thereare here the beginningsof a long list of
activitiesnot addressedin the lecture,but whetheror not the appropriate
ones areeliciteddependson the groupsize, andthecompetenceof thetutor.
Indeed,it is likelythatin mostunitstherewouldbe plentyof highcognitive
level activitiesyet to be activated.
Intheory,it shouldbe possibleto selectteaching/learning activities(TLAs)
thatspecificallyaddressa desiredperformance of understanding. It is easier
to be negativethan positiveaboutthis, as a researchbase does not exist
relatingTLAsto targetperformances; it is easierto say whatlecturing,for
example,does not encourage than what it does. Selectingappropriate TLAs
is a matterof experienceandjudgement.Ideasmightbe gainedfroma lookat
the literatureon alternative teachingproceduresandtechniques(e.g. Gibbs,
Habeshaw& Habeshaw1992;Race & Brown1993);the HigherEducation
BulletinsandNewsletterscontainshortarticlesof the "Thisworkedfor me;
whydon'tyou havea go?"variety(e.g. Fleming1993;Saberton1985)(both
of whichalso workedforme, see below).It mustbe emphasised,though,that
thisshouldnotinvolvethesimpleadditionof a "good"technique;it is chosen
becauseits functionandpurposecoherewithone'stotalteachingsystem.
It also helps to recallthatthe teacheris not the only agentresponsible
for settingup TLAs.Both individualand social activityplay a role in the
constructionof knowledge:
1. The teacherhas majorcontroloverformalteachingactivities:lectures,
tutorials,laboratories, field excursions,etc. The teachercan also set up
formalcooperative activities involvingpeers,suchas discussiongroups,
brainstorming, or learningpartnerships (Saberton1985), and once the
activityhas been initiated,the role of peersbecomesincreasinglyimpor-
tant.
2. Peer-controlled activitiesrangefromformalones,initiatedby theteacher,
such as variouskindsof groupwork(Collier1985;Johnson& Johnson
1990), or instructionsto use learningpartners,to informalandsponta-
neouscollaborationby studentsoutsidethe classroom,whichmayhave
positiveeffectson learning(Tang1993).
3. Self-controlledactivities,whichincludesanythingthat goes underthe
headingof independentlearningandstudy,includingspecificstrategies
for extractingmeaningfromtext such as summarizing andnote-taking
(Hidi & Anderson1986, Kirby& Pedwell 1991),generalstudyskills,

This content downloaded from 147.197.251.158 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:47:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 355
andmetacognitive strategyuse (Brown,Bransford, Ferrara& Campione
1983).
Clearly,the learner'sspontaneousactivitiesarejust as crucialin a con-
structivistinstructionalframework as thoseactivitiesthatarein reactionto
teaching;the term"teaching/learning activity"or TLA is meantto empha-
sisejust this point.Conventionally,teacherssee studyskillstraining,skilled
note-taking,andtrainedor spontaneous use of suchmetacognitive strategies
as planning,monitoring,andself-questioning, as simplynot theirbusiness.
However,studentsdeploytheirstudystrategieswithinandwithreferenceto
a particularteachingcontext.Teachingstudyskillswithoutreferenceto that
contextmay even be counter-productive if it is not supportedby the teach-
ing environment (Ramsden,Beswick& Bowden1986).Thissuggestswe go
further,as do ChalmersandFuller(in press),andembedthe learning/study
skills relevantto learningparticularcontentin the teachingof thatcontent.
This mustbecomean increasinglyimportantissue in distanceor "flexible"
learningmodes.

Example

In the B.Ed. psychologyunit, teachingwas alignedto the performances

italicisedin theobjectives(see above)withthefollowingTLAs(italicised):
1. to understandcertain psychologicalconcepts (such as expectancy-
valuetheoryof motivation, andqualitative
quantitative assessmenttheory,
constructivist notes
learningtheory): and readingsto be readbeforeeach
class, takenfromthe recommended text,Biggs andMoore(1993).Self-
addressedquestionson basiccontent:Whatdo I mostwantto findoutin
thenextclass?Whatis themainpointI learnedtoday?Whatwasthemain
pointleft unanswered in today'ssession?(Fleming1993).Classtimewas
used for clarificationand elaboration,sometimes for mass lecture. Each
student chose a learning partner to help in clarifying and elaborating
(Saberton1985);partnerssat next to each otherin class, and commu-
nicatedregularlywith each otheroutsideclass, in whateverways they
thoughtmightbe helpful.
2. to apply to own teaching: the learningpartner, and to extend the range
of exposureto differentviews andprofessionalexperiences,groupsof
around10students,teachingin thesamegeneralcontentarea.Eachgroup
hada questionto address,butwas basicallyself-directed,and students
hadto drawtheirownconclusions.
3. to reflect on own teaching: a diary, to record critical learning related
incidents, and to reflect upon them. The diary also contained the self-
addressed questions and was part of the assessment. Reflection might
also be manifestedin a varietyof TLAs.

This content downloaded from 147.197.251.158 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:47:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
356
Thepointis thata constructivistperspectivehighlightsthe needfor intro-
ducinga rangeof TLAs,involvingteacher,peers,andthe individualstudent
so thatthehigherlevelobjectiveshavea greaterprobability
as appropriate, of
beingaddressedthan if only one teachingmethod, suchas is
lecturing, used.

Assessmentand grading

In decidingthe assessmenttasks,it is necessaryto judgethe extentto which

theyembodythetargetperformances of understanding,andhowwelltheylend
themselvesto evaluatingindividualstudentperformances. Again,it wouldbe
usefulto reversethe questionandask whatlevels of understanding typical
assessmenttasksarelikelyto call out.

Examinations

Tang(1991) askedphysiotherapy studentswhatpreparation strategiesthey

an
usedfor essayexam. The followingweretypicallyreported: rotelearning,
questionspotting,going throughpastpapers,underlining,organisingstudy
timeandmaterials,memorisingin meaningfulcontext,relatinginformation,
visualisingpatients'conditions,discussingwithotherstudents.Few of these
activitiesappearto addresshighlevelcurriculum objectives.
Thepracticeof markingexaminations (byaggregating
"analytically" marks
as pointsaremade),whichis commonin largeclasseswithmultiplemarkers,
meansthathigherlevel understanding performances tendnotto be in focus;
studentsknowthis,andpresentwithwhatwill be in focus.One studentin a
grade11 AncientHistoryclass answereda "compare-and-contrast" question
("Inwhatways were the reignsof Tutenkhmen andAkhnatenalikeandin
whatways weretheydifferent?") simplyby listingthe life historiesof each
(Biggs 1987).She didn'tanswer the question,butmademanypoints,thereby
in
obtainingthe highestmark the class. Becauseof the familiarproblemof
backwash,essay examstypicallyelicit lowercognitivelevel performances
thanmosttertiaryaimswouldnominate.The followingquotationby a Psy-
chologyundergraduate makesthisveryclear:
I hateto say it, butwhatyou havegot to do is to havea list of 'facts';you
writedownthe importantpointsandmemorizethose,thenyou'll do all
right in the test ... If you can give a bit of factualinformation- so and so
did that,andconcludedthat- for two sides of writing,thenyou'll get a
goodmark.Quotedin Ramsden(1984: 144)

This content downloaded from 147.197.251.158 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:47:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 357

Short answer and multiple-choice

Shortanswerexaminations,allowingonly brief sentencesor phrases,are

even less likely to elicit high level engagementthanthe essay.An assumed
advantageof the shortanswer,andthe multiplechoicetest, is thatcoverage
can be extendedover moreof the unitcontent,butwe shouldconsiderthe
following:
Thegreatestenemyof understanding is coverage- I can'trepeatthatoften
enough ....Obviously, if peopletookthis aphorismseriously,therewould
be a totalrevolutionin education,and95 percent of whateducatorsdo
everydaywouldhaveto be changed.(Gardner1993:24)
Individualitems in objective/multiple-choicetests can assess high level
thinking,butin practicetheyrarelygo beyondBloom'scomprehension level
(Anderson1972,Marso& Pigge 1991).Indeed,if theyareassessingknowl-
edge,it is in termsof the leastdemanding process,recognitionof thecorrect
answer, not even its recall.
Both andshortanswertestsfurther
multiple-choice
exemplifyaninsurmountable problemwithquantitativeapproaches to assess-
ment:thecontentsof knowledgearetreatedas havingbeenlearnedin binary
units (correct/incorrect),whichare then summed,each unit being seen as
equivalentto anyotherunit.Notonlydoesthisreflecta bizarreepistemology,
it nudgesthe studentto focuson details:
Thereis no needto separatemainideasfromdetails;all are worthone
point.Andthereis no needto assembletheseideasintoa coherentsum-
maryor to integratethemwithanythingelse becausethatis notrequired.
(Lohman1993:19)

All the abovemodesof assessment,then,areinadequate for muchtertiary

teaching.Apart from the ease with which creditis given for lower level
performances thanare intended,they sufferfromat leasttwo fundamental
defects,in termsof constructivist theory:
* the performances are limitedto dealings(be they neverso high level)
withdeclarativeorpropositional knowledge,notwithprocedural knowl-
edge. This maymatterless in tertiarycoursesthatfocusexclusivelyon
declarative knowledge,butinprofessional coursesdeclarative knowledge
thenbecomesthesurrogate forprocedural orfunctioning knowledge;the
theory-to-practiceshiftis left upto the studentto achieveunaided.
* the teachersets the limitsof whatmayfall withinthepurviewof "good
learning",so many importantor appropriate triggeringquestionsare
unlikely to be asked, and much goodlearning likelyto go unnoticed.
is
If the studentis constructing the knowledge,clearlythe studentis in a

This content downloaded from 147.197.251.158 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:47:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
358

betterpositionthantheteacherto selectandreportonthoseconstructions.
Respondingonly to highlyfocusedandclosedquestionsposedby the
teacheris too limiting.
In sum,a teachercannotalwaysanticipatewhatvalidformsstudents'con-
structionsmaytake.Thisis explainedin a splendidmetaphorfor assessment,
suppliedrecentlyby a student(notfromtheB.Ed.unitunderdiscussion):
WhenI standin frontof a class,I don'tsee stupidorunteachable
learners,
but boxes of treasureswaitingfor us to open. (CheungChin-ming,a
part-timeP.C.Ed.student,Universityof HongKong)

Letus takethisa littlefurther:

Teacher:Howmanydiamondshaveyou got?
Student:I don'thaveanydiamonds.
Teacher:Thenyou fail!
Student:Butyou didn'taskme aboutmyjade!
Learnersamasstreasure,notjustdiamonds.
Constructivismstronglyimplicatesthe use of an assessmentportfolio,
wherethe studentsselect at least some of the evidencethatthey consider
matchesthe unitobjectives.Thisfurtherimplicatestheuse of self- andpeer-
assessment.In decidingsuitablemodesof assessment,then,the following
issueshaveto be considered:
1. Whatqualitiesof learningarewe lookingfor;whatperformances needto
beconfirmedintheassessment? Thisquestionshouldalreadybeanswered
in the curriculumobjectives the teachingactivities.
and
2. Shouldthe assessmentbe decontextualized or situated?Theanswerhere
dependson the natureof the knowledge;procedural knowledgeclearly
requires enactment in context, whiledeclarativeknowledgemayor may
on
not,depending why it is beingtaught(Biggs 1995).
3. Whoshouldset thecriteriaforlearning,providetheevidence,andassess
howwell theevidenceaddressestheobjectives?All threeissuescouldbe
addressedby teacher,by peers,by the student,or by all collaboratively.
Thepermutations andcombinations heregeneratea widevarietyof assess-
menttechniques.The finalexamination, objectivetest,andstandardassign-
are
ment, obviously not the for
only options assessinglearning.

Example

In the B.Ed.unit,the assessmentstasksneededto addressa rangeof levels

fromcomprehension,
of understanding: to reflectionata
throughapplication,
highandpersonallevel;andto produceevidenceshowingconceptualchange
andif andhow professionaldecision-making hadchanged.A portfoliowas

This content downloaded from 147.197.251.158 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:47:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 359

indicated.The studentswere askedto providefour items giving evidence that

learningrelevant to the unit objectives had taken place, with a justification
for the selection (which in turnprovidesevidence of the depthof the learer's
metacognitive understandingof his or her learning), the remaining items
comprisingthe diary and answers to the self-addressedquestions.
A brief indication of how well constructivealignmentseemed to work in
this unit should be given. The best index is the evidence providedby students
that their conceptions and teaching practices had changed. Such evidence
came in three main kinds:
1. Diaryentries,anda popularportfolioitem, the letter-to-a-friend(Trigwell
& Prosser 1990), which gives clear indicationsof conceptualchange and
of the quality of reflection(Tang& Biggs 1995).
2. Evidence of changed classroom practice: portfolio items comprising
lessons and lesson plans, assessment items, reportsof critical incidents
in the classroom, assessmentsby their own students,etc.
3. Declarativeknowledgeaboutteachingandlearning:reviewsandcritiques
of relevantarticles, originalconcept maps of the unit.
On this basis, 37 percent of the 82 students producedevidence meeting
the criteria for "A"(extended abstract),a further40 per cent the criterion
for "B" (relational), level learning. In other words, over three-quartersof
the students were able to demonstratea level of understandingthat went
beyond understandingpropositionalor declarative knowledge as such, to
demonstratingthat the knowledge changed performancesin their everyday
professional lives. There may be many reasons why this happened,but the
most obvious is that they were requiredto do so by the design of the unit:
the objectives defined the performances,the teachingmethodselicited them,
and the assessment tasks both confirmed (and no doubt motivated) those
performances.
Space allows only two quotationsfrom students' portfolios to illustrate:
considerably more detailed evidence of desired change is given in Biggs
(1996b, Chapter9) and Tang and Biggs (1995). The first is an example of
high level professionalreflection:
The biggest point I have learnedfrom this course is my biggest flaw as a
teacher,that is, I did not trustmy studentsto be able to behavethemselves
... (or)... capableof being responsiblefor theirown learning;and because
of this flaw, I made numerousrules in class for them to follow so as to
make sure that they "behaved",did all the preparationsand planningfor
them, giving them mountainsof homeworkand shorttests to make sure
that they revise for their lessons and so on - all rooted from my lack
of trust in them! And I dared to blame them for being so passive and
dependentwhen all along I helped to encouragethem to be so!

This content downloaded from 147.197.251.158 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:47:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
360
Thenextquotationis a gratifyingconfirmation
of alignmentattheconceptual
level:
As Ronald,one of my classmates,said,'They arepractisingwhatthey
preach."His wordsrecallmy memoryof MichaelFullan'spremisein his
book Changeforces:
Faculties of education should not be advocating thingsfor teachers
or schools that they are not capable of practising themselves.

Discussionand conclusions

The principleof "constructive alignment"evolvedwith the decisionto use

a portfolioto assess the extent to whichstudentsfelt they hadmet the unit
objectives.This forcedthemto reflecton whatthey wantedfromthe unit,
andhow they thoughttheygoingto get it, whichin turnputpressureon the
teacherto provideappropriate teaching/learning activitiesto helpthemdo so.
In thisway,all componentsin thesystembecamealignedto theobjectives.
Thequestionis: Cantheprincipleof constructive alignmentbe generalised
fromthe contextof in-serviceteachereducation?I believe so. In fact, the
authorsof ProjectZeroaredoingexactlythat(Gardner 1993,Perkins&Blythe
1993).Thekey issueis whethertheteachercanoperationalise desirablyhigh
levelsof understanding in waysthatdenoteperformances thatcanbe elicited
by teaching/learningactivities,andthatcanbe assessedauthentically. Itis then
a matterof applyingtheprinciplesof alignment,andof criterion-referencing,
thatarealreadywell establishedin the instructional designliterature. Tothe
criticismthatcriterion-referenced assessmentis closed, andinimicalto the
spiritof constructivism(Duffy& Jonassen1992),one pointsto theportfolio,
whereevery encouragementis given to studentsto be divergentandsurprising,
andindeedtheywouldnothavemetthe"A"criterionhadtheynotbeenso.
The model of instructionthatemergesis simple,and it makesintuitive
sense:
* teachersneed to be clearaboutwhatthey wanttheirstudentsto learn,
and how they wouldmanifestthatlearningin termsof "performances
of understanding".Forexample,memorisingandparaphrasing arenot
performancesof understanding, recognisingan applicationin a novel
contextis.
* theperformance objectivesthusemergingneedto be arranged ina hierar-
chy from most to
acceptable barelysatisfactory, whichhierarchy becomes
the gradingsystem.
* studentsneedto be placedin situationsthatarejudgedlikelyto elicitthe
requiredlearnings.

This content downloaded from 147.197.251.158 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:47:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 361
* studentsare then requiredto provideevidence,eitherby self-set or
teacher-settasks,as appropriate,
thattheirlearningcan matchthe stat-
ed objectives.Theirgradebecomesthe highestlevel they can match
convincingly.

Somethinglike an alignmentmodelis assumedin any discussionsabout

goodteaching.Coursevalidation, thequalityenhancement of tertiaryteaching
a
(now general concern in and
manycountries), generalproceduresof staff
development use at least implicitlythe principlesof constructive alignment.
Goodteachersareexpectedto be clearaboutwhattheywantstudentsto learn
andwhatstudentsshouldhaveto do in orderto demonstrate thattheyhave
learnedat the appropriate level;they should know and enact waysof getting
theirstudentsto learneffectivelyat the desiredcognitivelevel, to be more
student-centred in theirteaching-learning activities,and moreauthenticin
theirassessments.Thepresentmodelprovidesa framework forsystematically
operationalising thesedesiderata.
Thereis howeveran institutionalside to this, not to say obligation.The
quantitative framework of institutional control,as realisedin the managerial
modelthathasrecentlybeenimposedon universitiesin manycountries,fre-
quentlyrequiresassessmentrelatedpracticesthatmakethekindof qualitative
criterion-referencing thatis basicto constructive alignmentdifficultto imple-
ment (Biggs 1996a).Economicrationalismmeanslargerclasses, whichin
conventional thinkingmeansmorelecturingandmorefinalexams,especially
multiple-choice, ratherthangroupwork andassignmentsorotherformatsthat
are time-consumingto mark;it need not be so, but it is easy to thinkthat
it must.Managerialthinkingincreasinglyrequiresthe reportingof student
performancein termsof percentagesratherthanof lettergradesor other
qualitativecategories;in Australia,manyinstitutionseven requiregrading-
on-the-curve. Suchprocedures stronglydiscouragequalitativeapproaches to
assessment.Thereis a realtensionherebetweenadministrative andacademic
requirements (Biggs 1996a, 1996b). Academics need to become moreproac-
tive, positivelyinsisting that educational considerations should prevailover
administrative convenience.
However,these considerations lead to a differentset of issues, which it
wouldbe inappropriate to pursuehere.My mainpointis thata workingver-
sion of constructivism can be integratedwith instructional designat three
crucialpoints:thecurriculum or unitobjectivesareclearlystatedin termsof
contentspecificlevelsof understanding thatimplyappropriate performances,
the teachingmethodsrequirestudentsto be placedin contextsthatwill like-
ly elicit those performances, andthe assessmenttasksaddressthose same
performances. On the basis of at leastthe examplegiven,andof the infer-

This content downloaded from 147.197.251.158 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:47:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
362
entialevidencefromthe researchliterature,the modelprovidesa powerful
context.
teaching/learning

Notes

' This paper is elaboratedfrom presentationsto the 20th InternationalConference,Improving

UniversityTeaching, Hong Kong, 10-13 July, 1995, and to the Annual Meeting, Hong Kong
EducationalResearch Association, 11-12 November, 1995. I am indebted to Mark Constas
and CatherineTang for discussions helpful in constructingthe ideas presentedhere.
2 "Instruction"is used hereand
throughoutthis paperin the NorthAmericansense of systematic
teaching, including curriculumand assessment, not in the English sense of direct instruction
or training.
31 acknowledge my great debt to Mabel Sieh, who assisted particularlyin the groupworkand
the assessmentof portfolios, and who providedvaluableongoing feedbackduringthe teaching
of the unit. For a more complete descriptionof the unit and its rationale,see Chapter9, Biggs
(1996b).

References

Anderson,R.C. (1972). 'How to constructachievementtests to assess comprehension',Review

of Educational Research42(2), 145-170.
Archbald,D.A. and Newman, F.M. (1988). BeyondStandardisedTesting:Assessing Authentic
Achievementin the SecondarySchool. Reston: NationalAssociation of SecondaryPrinci-
pals.
Argyris,C. (1976). 'Theoriesof action thatinhibitindividuallearning',AmericanPsychologist
31,638-654.
Biggs, J.B. (1987). 'Process and outcome in essay writing', Research and Development in
Higher Education 9, 114-125.
Biggs, J.B. (1992). 'A qualitativeapproachto gradingstudents',HERDSANews 14(3), 3-6.
Biggs, J.B. (1993). 'Fromtheoryto practice:A cognitive systems approach',HigherEducation
Research and Development 12, 73-86.
Biggs, J.B. (1995). 'Assessing for learning:Some dimensions underlyingnew approachesto
educationalassessment', Alberta Journalof EducationalResearch41, 1-18.
Biggs, J.B. (1996a). 'Assessing learningquality:Reconcilinginstitutional,staffandeducational
demands',Assessment & Evaluationin Higher Education21, 5-15.
Biggs, J.B. (ed.) (1996b). Testing:To Educate or to Select? Educationin Hong Kong at the
Crossroads.Hong Kong: Hong Kong EducationalPublishingCo.
Biggs, J.B. and Collis, K.F. (1982). Evaluatingthe Qualityof Learning:TheSOLOTaxonomy.
New York:Academic Press.
Biggs, J.B. and Moore, P.J.(1993). The Process of Learning. Sydney:Prentice-HallAustralia.
Brown, A.L., Bransford,J.D., Ferrara,R.A. and Campione,J.C. (1983). 'Learning,remem-
bering, nd understanding',in Flavell, J. and Markman,E. (eds.), Handbook of Child
Psychology: CognitiveDevelopment(Vol. 3). New York:Wiley, pp. 77-166.
Brown,J.S., Collins, A. and Duguid, P. (1989). 'Situatedcognitionandthe cultureof learning',
Educational Researcher 18(1), 32-42.
Chalmers, D. and Fuller, R. (in press). Teachingfor Learningat University.London: Kogan
Page.
Cobb, P. (1994). 'Where is the mind? Constructivistand socioculturalperspectiveson mathe-
matical development', EducationalResearcher23(7), 13-20.

This content downloaded from 147.197.251.158 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:47:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 363

Cohen, S.A. (1987). 'Instructionalalignment: Searching for a magic bullet', Educational

Researcher 16(8), 16-20.
Cole, N.S. (1990). 'Conceptionsof educationalachievement',EducationalResearcher 19(3),
2-7.
Collier, K.G. (1985). 'Teachingmethodsin highereducation:The changingscene, with special
referenceto small-groupwork', HigherEducationResearchand Development4(1), 3-26.
Driver,R. and Oldham,V. (1986). 'A constructionistapproachto curriculumdevelopmentin
science' Studies in Science Education 13, 105-122.
Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer,E. and Scott, P. (1994). 'Constructingscientific
knowledge in the classroom', EducationalResearcher23(7), 5-12.
Duffy, T.M. (1992). 'New implications for instructionaltechnology' in Duffy, T.M. and D.
Jonassen (eds), Constructivismand the Technologyof Instruction:A Conversation(pp.
1-16). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Duffy, T.M. and D. Jonassen (eds), Constructivismand the Technologyof Instruction:A
Conversation.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Entwistle, A. and Entwistle, N. (1992). 'Experiencesof understandingin revising for degree
examinations',Learningand Instruction2, 1-22.
Entwistle, N. and Percy, K. (1974). 'Criticalthinkingor conformity?An investigationof the
aims and outcomes of higher education', in Research into Higher Education. London:
Society for Researchinto HigherEducation.
Fleming, N. (1993). 'What works and what doesn't in staff development', HERDSANews
15(2), 12-13.
Frederiksen,J.R. and Collins, A. (1989). 'A systems approachto educationaltesting', Educa-
tional Researcher 18(9), 27-32.
Gardner,H.W. (1993). 'Educatingfor understanding'.The American School Board Journal,
July, 20-24.
Gibbs, G., Habeshaw,S. and Habeshaw,T. (1992). 53 InterestingWaysto TeachLargeClasses.
Bristol:Technicaland EducationalServices.
Hidi, S. and Anderson, V. (1986). 'Producingwritten summaries:Task demands, cognitive
operations and implications for instruction',Review of Educational Research, 56, 473-
493.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson,R.T. (1990). LearningTogetherand Alone: Co-operation,Com-
petition and Individualisation.EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kirby,J. and Pedwell, D. (1991). 'Students'approachesto summarization',EducationalPsy-
chology, 11, 297-307.
Lai, P. and Biggs, J.B. (1994). 'Who benefitsfrom masterylearning?'ContemporaryEduca-
tional Psychology 19, 13-23.
Lohman, D. (1993). 'Teachingand testing to develop fluid abilities', EducationalResearcher
22(7), 1-23.
Marso, R.N. and Pigge, FL. (1991). 'An analysis of teacher-madetests: Item-types,cognitive
demands,and item constructionerrors',ContemporaryEducationalPsychology, 16, 279-
286.
Marton, F (1981). 'Phenomenography- Describing conceptions of the world around us',
InstructionalScience, 10, 177-200.
Marton,F. (in press). 'Cognosco ergo sum', NordiskPedagogik.
Marton,F. and Booth, S. (in press). 'The learner'sexperienceof learning',in Olsen, D.R. and
Torrrance,N. (eds.), The Handbookof Educationand HumanDevelopment:New models
of Learning,Teachingand Schooling.Oxford:Blackwell.
Moss, P.A. (1992). 'Shiftingconceptionsof validityin educationalmeasurement:Implications
for performanceassessment', Reviewof EducationalResearch62, 229-258.
Nuthall, G. (in press). 'Understandingstudent learning and thinking in the classroom', in
Biddle, B.J., Good, T.L. and Goodson,I.F.(eds.), TheInternationalHandbookof Teachers
and Teaching.Dordrecht:Kluwer.

This content downloaded from 147.197.251.158 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:47:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
364

Perkins,D. and Blythe, T. (1993). 'Understandingup front:A performanceapproachto testing

for understanding',paper presentedto Annual Meeting, AmericanEducationalResearch
Association, Atlanta,April.
Race, P. and Brown, S. (1993). 500 Tipsfor Tutors.London:Kogan Page.
Ramsden, P. (1984). 'The context of learning', in Marton,F., Hounsell, D. and Entwistle, N.
(eds.), The Experience of Learning.Edinburgh:Scottish Academic Press.
Ramsden,P. (1992). Learning to Teachin Higher Education.London:Routledge.
Ramsden, P., Beswick, D. and Bowden, J. (1986). 'Effects of learningskills interventionson
firstyear universitystudents' learning',HumanLearning5, 151-164.
Saberton,S. (1985). 'Learningpartnerships',HERDSANews 7(1), 3-5.
Scardamalia,M., Bereiter,C. and Lamon, M. (1994). 'CSILE:Trying to bring studentsinto
World 3', in McGilley, K. (ed.), Classroom Lessons: IntegratingCognitive Theoryand
ClassroomPractice. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press, pp. 201-228.
Shuell, T.J. (1986). 'Cognitive conceptions of learning',Reviewof EducationalResearch56,
411-436.
Slavin, R.E. (1990). 'Mastery learningre-reconsidered',Reviewof EducationalResearch60,
300-302.
Steffe, L. and Gale, J. (eds.) (1995). Constructivismin Education.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tang,K.C.C.(1991). EffectsofDifferentAssessmentMethodson TertiaryStudents'Approaches
to Studying.UnpublishedPhD Dissertation,Universityof Hong Kong.
Tang,K.C.C.(1993). 'Spontaneouscollaborativelearning:A new dimensionin studentlearning
experience?', Higher Education Researchand Development12, 115-130.
Tang, K.C.C. and Biggs, J.B. (1995). 'Letters to a friend: Assessing conceptual change in
professionaldevelopment',papergiven to AnnualConference,HigherF-ucation Research
and Development Society of Australasia,Rockhampton,July 3-7.
Trigwell, K. and Prosser,M. (1990). 'Using studentlearningoutcome measuresin the evalua-
tion of teaching', Researchand Developmentin Higher Education 13, 390-397.
Unger, C. (1993). 'A call for sensitivity: Takinginto account students' perspectivesof under-
standingand learningfor understanding',papergiven to AnnualMeeting, AmericanEdu-
cational ResearchAssociation, Atlanta, 15 April.
Von Bertalanffy,L. (1968). General Systems Theory.New York:Braziller.
West, L. and Pines, A. (eds.) (1985). Cognitive Structureand Conceptual Change. Orlando,
FL.: Academic Press.
Wood, T. (1995). 'From alternativeepistemologies to practicein education:Rethinkingwhat
it means to teach and learn', in Steffe, L. and Gale, J. (eds.), Constructivismin Education.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum,pp. 331-9).

This content downloaded from 147.197.251.158 on Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:47:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions