The relation between what many students desire and how the nature of the teaching is related to the core notion in Entwistle's paper -- the need for teachers to consider the constructive alignment in the interactions between teaching and learning. First proposed by John Biggs (1996), the claim is that there should be alignment between the outcomes we intend students to learn, our manner of teaching, and the assessments of that learning. While this interaction is powerful, there can be a hierarchy in their respective importance. Students in higher education often succeed by listening not so much to what the teacher claims is important (in their teaching), but noting how they assess. When teachers espouse deep thinking but their assessments command surface factual knowledge then 'successful' students are those who provide the facts. So, not only are there outcomes, course materials, teaching methods, assessments, but strategies of learning that need to considered in providing constructive alignment. [This is in response to the article, "Contributions of Educational Psychology to Understanding Student Learning: What Has Been Discovered -- What More Could Be Done?" For that article, see EJ1247419.]