Learning Outcomes & Assessment Alignment

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

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.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

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

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.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

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

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.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.