Deconstructive Misalignment: Archives, Events, and Humanities Approaches in Academic Development

Abstract

Using poetry, role play, readers’ theatre, and creative manipulations of space through yarn and paper weaving, a workshop in 2008 challenged one of educational development’s more pervasive and least questioned notions (“constructive alignment” associated most often with the work of John Biggs). This paper describes the reasoning behind using humanities approaches specifically in this case and more generally in the Challenging Academic Development Collective’s work, as well as problematising the notions of “experiment” and “results” by unarchiving and re-archiving such a nonce-event. The critical stakes in using an anti-empirical method are broached, and readers are encouraged to experience their own version of the emergent truths of such approaches by drawing their own conclusions. En 2008, par le biais de la poésie, du jeu de rôles, du théâtre lu et de manipulations créatrices de l’espace avec de la laine et des tissages en papier, un atelier a mis au défi une des notions les plus généralisées et les moins remises en question du développement éducatif, l’alignement constructif, le plus souvent associé aux travaux de John Biggs. Cet article décrit le raisonnement qui se cache sous l’utilisation des approches des humanités tout spécialement dans ce cas et de manière plus générale dans les travaux du Collectif sur le développement académique stimulant. L’article traite également de la problématique sur les notions d’« expérience » et de « résultats » en désarchivant et en réarchivant une telle circonstance. Les enjeux principaux de l’utilisation de cette méthode anti-empirique sont abordés et les lecteurs sont encouragés à faire l’expérience de leur propre version des vérités qui émergent de telles approches en tirant leurs propres conclusions.

Re-considering the ontoepistemology of student engagement in higher education

“…In such a view, outcomes mark the final destination of the journey of learning in which the higher education institution is the powerful agent, owning the design. Although we, like Holmes and Sutherland (2015), are not denying the impact or power of constructive aligned learning processes, we question what happens to education, learners and teachers in such linear and causal processes. In addition, perspectives that focus mainly on conscious effects risk to neglect the unconscious affects, and the unknown aspects of learning, i.e.…”

“…In higher education, the theory and method of constructive alignment, mostly associated with the work of John Biggs (Biggs, 2003;Biggs & Tang, 2011), has become a dominant discourse that often is used for neo-liberal purposes as it is argued to be effective. According to Holmes and Sutherland (2015), it is 'one of educational development's more pervasive and least questioned notions' (abstract). As the concept of alignment reveals, learning is seen as a linear process where the outcomes of the courses denote the alignment between learning activities, teaching and assessment of student performance.…”

3 or 4 things I know about the audiovisual essay, or the pedagogical perils of constructive alignment

“…I remain sceptical about the ability of this model to foster affective pedagogical goals. Of course, I am not alone in questioning the universal applicability of the Biggs regimesee Holmes and Sutherland (2015) for instance. Here are some of the most obvious limitations of constructive alignment.…”