Foundational Theories

This section will delve into a range of fundamental theories and concepts that will shape the creation and implementation of learning outcomes across diverse post-secondary educational settings. Theories explored in this section include:

Outcome based education was popularized by William Spady; however, its roots stem back to the 70s with Mastery-Based Education and the works of Bloom and Carrol in the 60s. OBE was seen as an alternative to traditional education. At the time, traditional education was time-based and focused on the material that instructors felt was important to impart to their students. Instructors had a prescribed amount of time with which to present the material of their choice. The material presented would change from instructor to instructor and semester to semester. Gaining a precise understanding of a student’s learning within a study program was notably difficult, as was ensuring that two students who completed the same program possessed identical content knowledge and proficiency levels.

Outcome based education focuses on identifying what the student needs to learn to be successful and providing it in a flexible enough manner to engage students with different learning preferences. Outcome based education has three key principles: Student-Centered, Clarity, and Flexibility (Spady, 1994).

Student-centered means the focus of the educational activity is on the students learning rather than on the instructor’s teaching. This means all aspects of the educational activity including the lesson plan, instruction, and assessment are all tied to “what the student learned” rather than “what was taught”.






Clarity comes from the articulation of learning goals and the articulated demonstration of these goals in advance of the educational activity. The clarity supports all participants involved in the learning activity. The students have clarity around what is expected of them, new instructors have clarity around the material they will be teaching, administrators understand what is transpiring in their institutions, and employers have clarity around the expected knowledge, skills, and attitudes of graduates from a particular program.

Flexibility is enhanced by student-centered focus. Since the intention, delivery, and assessment of the lesson is focused on what the student has learned, then the educational activity is only over after the student has learned the content. If an instructional approach is used during an educational activity and the student does not learn the content, then the instructional approach is changed, and the content is presented again until the student successfully learns the content.


These key principles suggest some assumptions around students and learning. The first of these is “all students can learn and succeed, but not on the same day in the same way” (Spady, 1994, p.10). If we accept this assumption it becomes clear that educators need to employ a dynamic approach with their learners. Delivering a 2-hour lecture and expecting it to be equally effective for every student every day is misguided.

“Successful learning promotes even more successful learning” (Spady, 1994, p. 9). The current material the student is learning is necessarily situated on a foundation built on previous learnings. Similarly, the current material the student is learning will be situated as a foundation for subsequent learning. Accepting this assumption helps recognize that learning is dynamic; It both impacts and is impacted by other learnings. For an instructor to plan a successful educational activity, they must have some insight into the learning foundations present in their current students.

“Schools [Institutions] control the conditions that directly affect successful school [institutional] learning” (Spady, 1994, p. 9). The accountability for learning rests with both the learner and the educator. The educator can make changes to the environment, the planning, the practice, the delivery, and the assessment of learning to maximize the success for the learner.

These principles and assumptions provide some insight into the intention and high-level value of learning outcomes and outcome-based education. This resource will now spend some time exploring the value and relevance of outcomes through an educator’s lens.

If we were to consider the process of education in an Outcome Based Education manner, it might look like this.

  • Step 01 – Create a clear and concise learning outcomes for students.
  • Step 02 – Articulate those learning outcomes to students.
  • Step 03 – Decide what your students should be able to do if they have met those learning outcomes.
  • Step 04 – Develop an assessment instrument and grading rubric that aligns with the complexity of an identified learning outcomes.
  • Step 05 – Develop instruction designed to have students meet these outcomes.
  • Step 06 – Administer the assessment instrument to your student.
  • Step 07 – Evaluate your students’ performance on the assessment instrument.
  • Step 08 – Assess your students’ mastery of learning outcomes given their performance on the assessment instrument.
  • Step 09 – Reflect on why your students did or did not achieve the learning outcomes and develop strategies to help them be as, or more successful in the future.

Steps one through three articulate the learning outcome, steps four, six, seven and eight refer to the development of assessments and step five speaks of the delivery of instruction. These three components, outcome, assessment and instruction, represent the three components required to achieve constructive alignment and curriculum.

Go to Constructive Alignment

John Biggs further develops concepts associated with outcomes-based education, shaping them into a framework referred to as constructive alignment (Biggs, 1999, p. 64). This framework delineates three essential elements. These key elements are:

  • Intended learning outcome – A demonstratable goal of the learning activity. What the student will be able to do, know or feel as a result of the lesson, course, program, etc.
  • Planned learning activity – The format and method for delivering the educational material that will lead to the student meeting the planned and communicated outcome.
  • Planned assessment – The format and type of assessment to determine that the learning articulated in the goal has been achieved.

Biggs felt that these three components influenced and were influenced by each of the other components. More importantly, each of these components needs to align with the other components.

By this, Biggs meant that the learning activity should be deliberately designed to support the student in achieving the intended learning outcome, that is the learning goal and how it is demonstrated, and the assessment should be deliberately designed to measure the demonstrated achievement of the goal.

Think of constructive alignment as a stool with three legs. If one of the legs on the stool is shorter than the other (misaligned), it cannot be used for its intended purpose.

Learning outcomes, assessments and learning activities are constructively aligned. Metaphorically, all three legs of the stool are of equal length.

Learning outcomes, assessments and learning activities are not constructively aligned. Metaphorically, notice the assessments of the leg of the stool is shorter than the other.

  • Lesson Learning Outcome – By the end of this lesson the learner will be able to recall all five stages of Piaget’s development theory.
  • Lesson Level Assessment – Fill in the blanks, short answer quiz, matching exercise to demonstrate learner’s ability to recall all 5 stages Piaget’s development theory.
  • Lesson Learning Activity – Introduction and definition of Piaget’s theory with a focus on recalling all five stages.

In this example we can see that, the intention is to introduce Piaget’s development theory in psychology. From the Learning Outcome, we can see that the learner needs to understand that Piaget’s development theory has five stages, and they will recall those stages. “Recalling” reveals this goal to be simple and an introductory level of complexity. This suggests that both the assessment and the instructional activities will be of a similar level if they are to be constructively aligned. To measure the recall of introduced information a “short answer quiz”, “fill in the blanks” or “matching exercise” are suggested as possible assessments. These assessments are consistent with the introductory level goals outlined in the outcome. To support the student being successful on this introductory level assessment, the lesson level learning activity introduces and defines Piaget’s theory with a focus on the identification of all 5 stages. Again, it is evident that this instructional activity is aligned in theme, topic, and complexity with both the assessment and the Learning Outcome.

The above example illustrated constructive alignment at the lesson level. It is important to note that the potential for constructive alignment appears at many different levels. The following will provide examples of constructive alignment at different levels. This is not a comprehensive or exhaustive list.

Here is an example of constructive alignment from a course level.

  • Course Learning Outcome – By the end of the course, the learner will be able to recommend a development theory that best describes an assigned scenario.
  • Course Assessments – Students will be provided with a unique fictional scenario describing the context of an individual and their behavior in a particular setting. The student will select from Piaget’s or Erikson’s stage development theory and make a recommendation of which one best describes the information given in their scenario. The student will describe which stage they feel the subject is in and why the theory they have chosen is a better fit than the alternate theory. The student will support their choice with evidence from both the theory and the scenario description.
  • Course Learning Activities – An in-class discussion of Piaget’s and Erickson’s stages of development, followed by a short question and answer session and ending with the learners splitting into groups and applying the theories to fictional case studies.

In this example, we can see that the intention is to learn about stage development theories in psychology. From the Learning Outcome, we can see that the goal is to make a recommendation of one theory over another. “Recommending” one theory over another reveals this goal to be on the higher level of complexity of cognitive learning. To engage this higher level of cognitive learning the stages are introduced, discussed, and then applied to fictional case studies. To assess the student’s ability to make recommendations of these theories, the assessment provides the learners with a fictitious scenario and asks the learner to identify the theory that best describes the given behavior and to support their opinions with information drawn from both the theory and the scenario document. The learning activity, intended Learning Outcome, and assessment are all aligned in content, level of complexity, and deliberate intention.

If the assessment were to change to a short answer or true and false quiz, the assessment would no longer be in alignment with either the learning activity or the intended learning outcome. Both the learning activity and the intended learning outcome suggest a complexity higher than that assessable by a short answer or true or false quiz.

If the learning activity ended with the discussion of the stage theories, then it would no longer be in alignment with either the goal or the assessment. In this case, the learning activity would not support the student in being successful on the assessment and does not support the complexity indicated by the intended Learning Outcome.

If the intended learning outcome stated the students will know stage theories, then the outcome is no longer aligned with either the learning activity or the assessment. In this case, both the assessment and the learning activity are significantly more complex than the goal outlined by the intended learning outcome.

For the educational activity to be its most effective and highest quality all three components must align with each other thematically, on topic, and in complexity.

Less understood but equally important is constructive alignment at different structural levels of education. These include the program level, the department level, the institution level, the ministry level, and others.  As these are less understood, they are more challenging to identify and define. In some cases, the component pieces for constructive alignment are only implied. 
To fully extend the advantages that result from the integration of outcomes and constructive alignment at the lesson and course levels of educational structure to other levels of the education system, a deliberate and purposeful approach is crucial. This involves meticulous attention to the elements of constructive alignment, outcomes, assessment, and instructional activities at these elevated tiers.

Programs have Learning Outcomes, also called Program Learning Outcomes or PLOs. Similar to the course and lesson examples, Program Learning Outcomes are focused on the student’s demonstration of learning; what the student will demonstrably be able to do, know or feel as a result of the instructional activity. In this case, the instructional activity is a formal educational program.  As a result, the outcome usually speaks to high level demonstrations such as the synthesis of information acquired from the learning across all courses and an application of this learning in new or complex situations.  While some programs have formal assessments such as comprehensive exams or exit exams, Program-Level Learning Outcomes are crafted to demonstrate learning upon culmination of the educational activity, in other words after the student has finished their studies. As a result, most Program-Level Learning Outcomes speak to the demonstration or assessment of learning through the application of graduate knowledge, skill, or ability in their career, in society, or in pursuing further education. In this way, both the outcome and the assessment are explicitly stated if nebulous in measurement.

The learning activity for most program learning outcomes is implied. That is, the learning activities required to support the student in being able to demonstrate their learning on the explicitly stated assessments are implied to take place throughout the program’s progression.

This could look like:

  • Program Level Learning Outcome – By the end of this program, graduates with a BA in psychology will be able to apply their knowledge of theories, concepts, and key findings in psychology to everyday issues and situations.
  • Program Level Assessment – The application of knowledge of theories, concepts, and key findings in psychology to everyday issues and situations graduates encounter ins their careers, education, and social lives after their studies are complete.
  • Program Level Learning Activities – Implied.

In this example it is evident that the outcome, and assessment are still related to the discipline of psychology, but at a much higher level. It is also evident that the Program-Level Learning Outcome and program-level assessment are constructively aligned. As the program level learning activities are only implied, it is impossible to judge whether they are constructively aligned or not.

This puts the program in a state of epistemic ambivalence. As the learning activities are not explicitly defined or stated, it is impossible to determine if the program is constructively aligned or not. This is the Schrodinger’s cat of Constructive Alignment. Obviously, the best practice would be to explicitly identify the learning progression through the duration of the program that speaks directly to the assessment of the Program Learning Outcomes.

Institutions may also have explicitly stated learning outcomes. For example, Kwantlen Polytechnic University has policy AC9 which details “Skills and Outcomes” that all learners are expected to demonstrate upon graduation from any program at KPU. It is also expected that institutions have implied, or unstated outcomes that they expect of their graduates. For example, “an increasing awareness or understanding of indigeneity in Canada” or “reasonable and reliable access to accommodations for students with accessibility needs” are likely examples of unstated institutional outcomes.

Many stated outcomes at the institutional level are not written with a standard outcome structure. As a result, the expectation around the demonstration or assessment of the outcome is unstated. Similarly, as unstated outcomes are not written at all, they too lack the learning outcome structure and language around assessments. As a result of this, assessments for Learning Outcomes at the institutional level are largely implied.

As assessments at the institutional level are largely implied so too are the learning activities required to support the students in achieving the assessment. The result of this is that it is extremely challenging to assess institutional level outcomes for constructive alignment as the assessment and learning activity components tend to be implied. Obviously, it would be a benefit to the understanding of the student and the service providers if these implicit components were made explicit and evaluated for constructive alignment.

Finally, the last education structural level discussed in this resource will be the ministry level. The ministry responsible for higher education in British Columbia. Currently, the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, has identified a series of outcomes for graduates of different credentials across British Columbia. These outcomes are referenced in the case of PU policy AC9 mentioned earlier.

The Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills assesses these series of outcomes through graduate outcomes surveys. These are formal tools used as assessments of learning.

The suggested learning activities that aid students in excelling on these assessments are implied. There is no indication of the specific learning activities developed or delivered to meet these assessments. Again, this leaves us in a position where we are not able to assess the constructive alignment of all the available components.

It is important to note that the further away from the lesson level, the more challenging and nebulous the assessments and the instruction can appear and whether stated or implied; assessments and instructions usually accompany outcomes. For the educational activity to be its most effective and highest quality, all three components must align with each other thematically on topic and in complexity.


Acknowledging the significance of the three components – the intended learning outcomes, the learning activities, and the intended assessments – and understanding how they mutually shape and are shaped by each other raises an evident inquiry. That question is: “where do we start?”. Wiggins and McTighe suggest that an effective approach to instructional design is to start with the end goal. This educational approach is called backward design.

Go to Backward Design
The first step in backward design is to identify the desired results. What are the big ideas and skills that a student should know do or feel and how do they demonstrate this learning? This aligns directly with the instructor’s intended Learning Outcome for a particular educational activity.
The next step is to determine acceptable levels of evidence that suggest that learning has occurred. What culminating assessment tasks are needed to provide evidence that the intended learning has taken place?
Finally, the instructor designs learning activities that seek to achieve the identified Learning Outcomes and will support the student to complete the assessment successfully. What are the necessary learning events? 

The strengths of this method lie in its intentional design, which involves delineating objectives, specifying assessments for those objectives, and creating activities that facilitate the attainment of those objectives. In this way, it comes much closer to achieving the instructor’s vision of student ability and their demonstration of that ability. Contrast this with a traditional learning approach.

In a traditional learning approach, the steps are usually:

  1. Identify a topic or content to be covered.
  2. Plan a sequence of educational experiences to convey this topic.
  3. Create an assessment to measure the learning that should have taken place.

In this traditional approach, the content may relate to the topic, and it may not be selected to meet a student’s learning goal. That is, it may support the instructor’s interests and it may not support the student’s needs.  The educational activities are more focused on delivering the content rather than supporting the student in achieving their learning goals. The lecture is often the choice for delivering content and is the least engaging instructional approach with the lowest student retention and recall.  Finally, the assessment is designed to measure the content delivered in the teaching rather than measure the students learning. The assessment will likely be weighted to the content delivered around the time of the assessment’s design and focus on rote memorization rather than understanding or demonstration of learning. This traditional approach often leads to a scenario where the instructor is asking the student to report back to the instructor about what the instructor told the student. This often results in a lack of durable transferable learning and leads to poor student engagement.

In contrast, the backward design approach, the steps are as follows:

  1. Identify the learning goal and how that goal will be demonstrated.
  2. Design an assessment that measures the demonstration of the learning goal.
  3. Plan a sequence of educational activities that will prepare students to successfully complete the assessment.

These steps put the students learning at the forefront of the educational activity. The learning goal is about what will be learned and demonstrated, not what content will be delivered. The assessment is designed to measure the achievement of this learning goal and its demonstration. It is directly relevant to the learning goal, student-focused, and has nothing to do with measuring the delivery of content. Finally, a sequence of educational activities is planned to support the student in successfully completing the assessment. The instructional activities are directly related to the assessment of the learning goal and supporting the student. As the focus is on student learning, all the components of the educational activity are directly focused on the student. This increases the likelihood that the student is engaged in their own education. Moreover, if the student lacks engagement this approach encourages the instructor to try something different to improve engagement. Students who are engaged in their own education have higher rates of retention and recall. Instructors may still use lecture for some educational activities and if lecture is not effective in supporting students to achieve the intended Learning Outcome, this will be abundantly evident based on student performance on the assessment, this will allow the instructor to adjust their instructional activities moving forward.

While it is possible instructors to design and deliver an effective lesson without using backward design, following this process will make it easier to regularly achieve effective educational design.

This is not the same thing as “teaching to the test”. “Teaching to the test” involves educational activities that are heavily focused on preparing students for performance on a standardized test. Activities often include rote memorization practices, drills, and a lack of understanding of the subject matter. Students subjected to “teaching to the test” practices often perform well on multiple-choice quizzes and are unable to demonstrate or express their learning in any other way.

With backward design the instructor acts as a subject matter expert, designing the outcome. The outcome may require memorization, it may require synthesis and application of a concept to a situation or anything in between. The assessment is designed to measure the students’ performance of the intended Learning Outcome. That assessment may be designed to measure a student’s memorization ability, their performance on a complex task, or their beliefs and values around sociocultural occurrences. The instructor is then able to choose the educational activities they feel will best support the student in a successful performance on the assessment. In “teaching to the test”, the instructor is restricted from teaching well. The content is predetermined the assessment is predetermined and the instructional activities are predetermined. In backward design, the instructor is seen as the subject matter expert who establishes the intended Learning Outcomes, the assessment, and the instructional activities. In backward design, the instructor is empowered to support the student in achieving the intended Learning Outcomes developed by the subject matter expert.

REady for next?

Developing Learning Outcomes

Go To Developing Learning Outcomes