Who is responsible for embedding and maintaining the CoAl principles in the educational programme? Who is responsible for warranting them?

Constructive Alignment is a joint effort. Once embedded in the initial programme design, it needs to be maintained and warranted. This is a complex iterative – ideally yearly – exercise which involves various parties from the educational institution. The section below provides a brief overview of the main UM actors and their function:

• Programme Directors (also called Programme Coordinators / Directors of Studies): this is probably the most engaged person with CoAl in the educational programme. Based on the existing curriculum map/education plan the Director of Studies supports and manages the links between the intended learning outcomes (ILOs), the teaching methods, and the assessments of the whole programme. This is the linking pin between the strategic educational management: Faculty Board, External Quality Assurance institutions, the curriculum committee, and the “work-floor” i.e. the course coordinators, the examiners and the students.
• Course Coordinators (teachers): they have to implement in practice the coupling of the ILOs to teaching activities and to assessment formats. Moreover, they continuously maintain the balance of the CoAl triangle within the course, but also to reflect upon the position of their individual course in the context of the whole programme (relation to other courses and to the final qualifications/ ILOs). It is also advised to communicate this to students in the course book.
• Students: the student perspective on the achieved CoAl within the courses and the entire programme can be very insightful. This is why the students should be encouraged to submit evaluations and discuss the programme cohesion (via IWIO evaluations or student panel discussions).
• Educational policy advisors: continuously monitor that CoAl is observed in the creation and redesign of courses, and in revision of curricula. The educational policy advisors provide recommendations on how to implement and maintain CoAl on a course and programme level. Moreover, they draft the re-accreditation self-study reports and maintain the institutional database of education plans, curriculum maps, and other necessary CoAl documentation.

• Educational Programme Committee: this committee is charged with discussing the rationale of the programme and to evaluate its coherence. In its work the programme committee can use the CoAl as a guiding principle and as a point of departure to offer recommendations to change and to adjust educational processes, learning outcomes, didactic approaches, assessment formats, etc.
• Board of Examiners: this is one of the main actors when it comes to quality assurance of assessment practices. According to the WHW, this committee is expected to guarantee the quality of examinations within the institution, and to act as a warrant of the Faculty diploma certificates. It is therefore crucial to convince the BoE in its role of a watchdog to pursue and warrant the CoAl principles. Moreover, given the toolbox of instruments, which the BoE possesses with regard to the CoAl edge assessment – it can trigger change in the other 2 edges (ILOs and TLAs).
• Curriculum committee: this is a committee mainly charged with the curriculum (re-)design and therefore a potentially primary trigger of change when it comes to the principles of CoAl. Ideally, this committee was already led by CoAl in the initial stages of the curriculum design, but CoAl can be achieved also at a late stage. The curriculum committee could be a vital actor via its advices to the programme director and the Faculty Board.
• Faculty Board: this is a body for strategic management and steering, which is only indirectly involved in CoAl processes. Nevertheless, its support is crucial in order to launch the process (including financial back-up of the project) and to keep the momentum. Moreover, based on the monitoring of and the contacts with the external environment, the Faculty Board can provide input for CoAl by proposing new final qualifications or ILOs to enter the curricula of the educational institution.

The focus of Constructive Alignment lies with the design of education. However, we know that education programmes are dynamic – keeping up with changing society, new scientific insights, and changes in staffing. In other words, there is a tension between the orderliness of design and the messiness of reality.

One familiar example is problem-based learning (PBL), where it is felt by many that current PBL-practices are not always in line with the original intentions. To manage this need for change in a structural manner, the Maastricht University School of Business and Economics has developed an ‘Assurance of Learning’ (AoL) system. This AoL system distinguishes from other evaluation methods itself by its focus on education itself instead of surveys (student perceptions) and its cyclical nature.

A core feature of AoL is the triennial internal audit where a panel of peers evaluates whether and how the ILOs of the programme are achieved. In doing so, the audit panel reviews samples of student products (e.g. exams, papers) and other information from education (e.g. grade metrics, course manual). The audit is not intended to judge the performance of academic staff, rather the audit triggers a series of conversations about the curriculum: firstly, among the members of the audit panel, secondly between the audit panel and the programme coordinator and the programme director, and thirdly between the programme coordinator and the course coordinators. The value of these conversations should not be underestimated, sincea great deal

of informal learning takes place that reinforces the mind-set required for CoAl on programme level – like a refresher course in fundamentals of CoAl. The conversations result in a set of agreements which are documented and feed back in the annual educational renewal cycle. Because an audit takes place every three years, the education team is motivated to implement improvements in the next academic year.

What kind of internal instruments and processes facilitate the implementation and warranting of the CoAl principles?

In order to facilitate the communication between all the responsible actors outlined and to ensure the continuity of the CoAl principles, it is recommended to work with a well-documented education plan. An education plan focuses on how an academic programme is contributing to the learning, growth, and development of students as a group. A good education plan reflects all programme choices regarding the FQs, the measureable student learning outcomes per course, the teaching and learning activities, and the assessment methods. Thus, an education plan is the material evidence of CoAl both at course and at programme level.

The education plan (EP) provides a useful tool for different actors in the quality assurance system. Its systematic discussion every year is the most common way to warrant CoAl at programme level. This is the first step of the annual quality assurance cycle and the revision of the OER, and follows the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle.