What is a correct statement comparing constructive alignment and backward design?

• A. Both focus on aligning assessment and teaching with learning outcomes; backward design starts with outcomes; constructive alignment ensures coherence.
• B. They are unrelated concepts and serve different purposes.
• C. Backwards design focuses on pacing; constructive alignment excludes outcomes.
• D. Constructive alignment starts with outcomes; backward design ensures coherence.

Answer: (A)

Both constructive alignment and backward design aim for coherence among what students are expected to learn, how they are taught, and how their learning is assessed. In backward design, you begin by identifying the desired outcomes, then determine acceptable evidence of learning (assessments), and finally plan learning experiences that prepare students to demonstrate those outcomes. Constructive alignment brings the same idea into practice by explicitly linking the stated outcomes with the teaching activities and the assessments, so every part of the course supports the same targets. This is why the statement that both focus on aligning assessment and teaching with learning outcomes, that backward design starts with outcomes, and that constructive alignment ensures coherence is the best fit. The other options aren’t accurate because they either claim they’re unrelated, misstate the focus (such as pacing or excluding outcomes), or imply one approach ignores outcomes.