Abstract
This study examines the alignment between the standardized physics exit exams and the national curriculum standards at the secondary school level. We selected the tests from multiple regions in 2010 to represent areas with various levels of economic development in the country. We also examined the exams from one region for 5 years (2007–2011) to identify patterns and trends. Using a method similar to the Surveys of Enacted Curriculum (SEC) model, both the curriculum standards and test content were represented using two-dimensional matrices (i.e., by topic and by level of cognitive demands), and the Porter alignment indices were reported. The alignment indices between the curriculum standards and individual exit exams appear to be consistent across region and time, but not statistically significant (p > 0.05). All exams consistently overrepresented the curriculum content standards at higher cognitive levels such as “apply” and “analyze.” In addition, there is a mismatch between the content distribution of the test items and what is emphasized in the curriculum standards. Furthermore, our alignment results seem to be independent of the economic development level of a region. Implications of the current study and recommendations for future research are also discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
Beck, M. D. (2007). Review and other views: “Alignment” as a psychometric issue. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 127–135. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame2001_7.
Bhola, D. S., Impara, J.C., & Buckendahl, C. W. (2003). Aligning tests with states’ content standards: Methods and issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice (fall), 22, 21–29.
Buckendahl, C. W., Plake, B. S., Impara, J. C., & Irwin, P. M. (2000). Alignment of standardized achievement tests to state content standards: A comparison of publishers’ and teachers’ perspectives. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, New Orleans.
Chen, X., Jia, C. C., & Chen, N. (2010). Alignment between the physics content standard and the exam. Curriculum, Teaching Material and Method (课程·教材·教法), 30(7), 67–71 (In Chinese).
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2004). Surveys of enacted curriculum. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
Fulmer, G. W. (2011). Estimating critical values for strength of alignment among curriculum, assessments, and instruction. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 36(3), 381–402.
Fulmer, G. W., & Liang, L. L. (2013). Measuring model-based high school science instruction: Development and application of a student survey. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(1), 37–46. doi:10.1007/s10956-012-9374-z.
Guo, Y. Y., Xing, T., Xu, G. Q., & Zheng, C. Y. Alignment between physics curriculum standard and physics achievement qualifying examination of senior high school in China. 2010 NARST annual international conference.
Jiao, & Chen (2010). Alignment between the biology curriculum standards and the 2009 college entrance biology exams in selected curriculum reform experimental sites. Measurement and Evaluation in Education (教育测量与评价), 3(5), 54–58 (In Chinese).
Liang, L. L., & Yuan, H. Q. (2008). Examining the alignment of Chinese national physics curriculum guidelines and 12th-grade exit examinations: A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1823–1835.
Liu, X., Zhang, B. H., Liang, L. L., Fulmer, G., Kim, B., & Yuan, H. Q. (2009). Alignment between the physics content standard and standardized test: A comparison among US-NY, Singapore, and China-Jiangsu. Science Education, 93, 777–797.
Martone, A., & Sireci, S. G. (2009). Evaluating alignment between curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Review of Educational Research, 79(4), 1332–1361.
Ministry of Education (MOE). (2001). National physics curriculum standards for the full-time compulsory education (grades 7–9). (trial version). (初中物理课程标准(实验稿)). Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press (In Chinese).
Ministry of Education (MOE). (2003). National physics curriculum standards for senior secondary school (Grades 10-12). (trial version). (高中物理课程标准(实验稿)). Beijing: People’s Education Press (In Chinese).
Ministry of Education (MOE). (2011). National physics curriculum standards for the full-time compulsory education (Grades 7-9). (义务教育物理课程标准). Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press (In Chinese).
Polikoff, M. S., Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. (2011). How well aligned are state assessments of student achievement with state content standards? American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 965–995. doi:10.3102/0002831211410684.
Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3–14.
Wang, L., Huang, Q., & Liu, D. F. (2010) Alignment between the chemical curriculum standard (Gr.7-9) and the exams: A case study on chemical concepts. Basic Education Curriculum (基础教育课程), 3, 75–80 (In Chinese).
Webb, N. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education (Council of Chief State School Officers and National Institute for Science Education Research Monograph No.6). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
Webb, N. L. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states (Research Monograph No. 18). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Webb, N. L. (2007). Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 7–25.
Yuan, Y. K., Zhao Z., & Yu, Z. Q. (2002). Commentate on science curriculum standard for compulsory education (7th–9th grade.) (p. 159) (全日制义务教育科学(7–9年级)课程标准(实验稿)解读). Wuhan: Hubei Education Press (In Chinese).
Zhao, Y. (2009). Catching up or leading the way: American education in the age of globalization. Alexandria: ASCD.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank Dr. Guo Yuying for her help provided during the preparation of this chapter. The authors also thank Drs. Xiufeng Liu and Gavin Fulmer for their insightful comments and many graduate students in Nanjing Normal University including Jia Cancan, Chen Nin, She Yafang, and Chen Hongli for their assistance in data collection and analysis. The population density and the map of China were provided by Drs. Liyun Lu and Changchun Huang. The authors appreciate it greatly.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chen, X., Jiang, M., Cai, L., Liang, L.L., Du, J., Zhou, Y. (2017). Alignment Between the National Science Curriculum Standards and Standardized Exams at Secondary School Gateways. In: Liang, L., Liu, X., Fulmer, G. (eds) Chinese Science Education in the 21st Century: Policy, Practice, and Research. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 45. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9864-8_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9864-8_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9863-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9864-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)