Constructive alignment and assessment validity in design and engineering higher education: an expert-informed small-scale study.

Abstract

This study examines expert perspectives on the validity of task alignment in higher education assessment within the University of Cambridge’s Faculty of Education. It is motivated by concerns arising from Terence Crooks et al.’s framework on threats to validity, including unclear task design, misalignment with Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs), vague marking criteria, and limited use of rubrics. Using qualitative interviews with academics across different levels of seniority, the study explores how constructive alignment is understood and implemented in practice, and what factors influence assessment validity. A thematic analysis approach is employed to identify patterns in expert perspectives. Findings are interpreted in relation to existing scholarship and Crooks et al.’s framework, leading to the development of an alignment-enhancement model to support more coherent and valid assessment design. The study addresses key research questions concerning challenges and strategies for improving task alignment in higher education.