Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Audit one curriculum unit for constructive alignment
2 weeks (3–4 hrs/week)
Select a real curriculum unit from your placement or professional context and audit it for constructive alignment — the degree to which stated learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and assessment tasks are coherently connected. Use Biggs and Tang's constructive alignment model as your framework. Map each learning outcome to the associated assessment tasks and rate the alignment strength (strong/partial/missing) with a written rationale for each rating.
Proof required
Submit your alignment audit in a structured mapping table (one row per learning outcome), showing the associated assessment task(s), alignment strength rating, and a 2–3 sentence rationale for each rating, plus a 400-word summary identifying the two most significant alignment gaps and their likely impact on learning.
What gets checked
- Every learning outcome in the unit is mapped — not a selective sample of the 'easy' or 'obvious' ones
- Alignment ratings are justified with reference to Biggs's SOLO taxonomy or equivalent framework, not just intuitive judgements
- The 400-word summary identifies specific alignment gaps (e.g., 'LO3 requires synthesis but the only assessment is a multiple-choice quiz testing recall') rather than generic observations
Common mistakes
- Rating all outcomes as 'partially aligned' to avoid making definitive judgements — the analysis must identify genuine strong and missing alignment cases
- Auditing only the assessment tasks without examining the learning activities — alignment requires all three elements to be checked
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- No direct learner contact required — conditional safeguarding note applies only if the curriculum unit includes real learner assessment data. Confirm this is not present or is anonymised.
- The audited unit must be a real curriculum document — not a hypothetical unit created for the task.
- Every learning outcome must be mapped — a selective audit is incomplete.
- Ratings must be justified with a named framework (SOLO taxonomy, Bloom's taxonomy, or equivalent) — intuitive judgements without a framework do not meet the standard.
Redesign assessment tasks to close alignment gaps
2 weeks (assessment design + rubric writing)
Address the two most significant alignment gaps identified in Milestone 1 by redesigning or adding assessment tasks. For each gap, produce: a revised or new assessment task specification (what learners submit, how it is marked, word length or format), a marking guide or rubric aligned to the learning outcome's verb level (using Bloom's or SOLO taxonomy), and a 200-word design rationale explaining how the new task closes the gap. The redesigned assessments must be feasible within the unit's existing timetable and resource constraints.
Proof required
Submit: (1) two redesigned assessment task specifications (format, length, submission requirements); (2) a marking rubric for each redesigned task, with criteria levels aligned to the learning outcome's taxonomy verb; (3) design rationale notes (200 words per task) explaining the alignment improvement and the taxonomy level targeted.
What gets checked
- Rubric criteria levels correspond to taxonomy verb levels in the learning outcome — e.g., an 'analyse' outcome has rubric levels distinguishing analysis from description
- Redesigned tasks are feasible within the unit's stated timetable and resource context — not theoretical ideals requiring unlimited time
- Design rationale references the audit gap explicitly — explains how the original assessment failed and how the redesign addresses it
Common mistakes
- Designing a rubric with criteria that all describe the same quality level at different lengths ('brief, moderate, thorough') rather than qualitatively different levels of thinking
- Redesigning assessments that require significantly more learner time than the original — the redesign must be implementable, not aspirational
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- No direct learner contact required — conditional safeguarding note applies if real learner submissions or data informed the redesign.
- Rubric criteria must be qualitatively distinct at each level — reject rubrics where levels differ only in quantity, not quality of thinking.
- Redesigned assessments must be feasible within the stated unit constraints — an idealised redesign that cannot be implemented does not satisfy the standard.
- Design rationale must explicitly reference the audit gap — a general argument for good assessment design without connecting to the specific gap identified in M1 is insufficient.
Peer-review and present the aligned curriculum unit
1 week (presentation + final revisions + write-up)
Present your redesigned curriculum unit (original + changes) to at least two curriculum or education specialists — for example, a module leader, curriculum coordinator, EdTech postgraduate supervisor, or experienced teacher with curriculum responsibility. Use a structured format: present the original alignment audit, explain each redesign decision, and invite critical review of whether the redesign genuinely closes the identified gaps. Document the feedback and write a 400-word critical response explaining what you revised and what you chose not to change.
Proof required
Submit: (1) the final version of your aligned curriculum unit (audit + redesigned assessments + rubrics); (2) written reviewer feedback (attributed to roles, minimum 300 words across both reviewers); (3) your critical response (400 words) explaining revision decisions with reasoning.
What gets checked
- Both reviewers hold specialist curriculum or education roles — not general class teachers reviewing out of goodwill
- Reviewer feedback captures specific critique of the alignment quality, not only general comments on the assessments
- Critical response shows independent judgement — where you chose not to implement suggested changes, you provide a reasoned argument, not just 'I disagreed'
Common mistakes
- Presenting only the redesigned assessments without explaining the original gaps and the rationale — reviewers cannot evaluate the alignment improvement without seeing the before-and-after
- Making all reviewer-suggested changes without critical evaluation — professional curriculum design requires informed judgement, not compliance
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Conditional safeguarding note — confirm no real learner data is present in the curriculum unit presented.
- Both reviewers must hold specialist curriculum or education roles — classroom teachers reviewing informally do not satisfy the standard.
- Critical response must demonstrate independent professional judgement — a submission that adopts all reviewer suggestions without reasoning is as weak as one that rejects all.
- Reviewer feedback must capture specific critique of alignment quality — generic positive feedback with no substantive critique is a red flag.
Part of