Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 373–383 | Cite as

Alignment Between the Science Curriculum and Assessment in Selected NY State Regents Exams



This article reports on an analysis of alignment between NY state core curricula and NY Regents tests in physics and chemistry. Both the curriculum and test were represented by a two dimensional table consisting of topics and cognitive demands. The cell values of the table were numbers of major understandings in the curriculum and points of test items in the test. The Porter alignment index was computed for each test. It was found that, overall, there was a high alignment between the NY core curriculum and the NY Regents test, and the alignment remained fairly stable from test to test. However, there were considerable discrepancies in emphases on different cognitive levels and topics between the core curriculum and the test. Issues related to the nature of alignment, and the nature and validity of content standards were raised, and implications for science curriculum and instructions were also discussed.


Curriculum standard Assessment Physics Chemistry Secondary education 


  1. AAAS (1993) Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. AAAS (2000) Designs for science literacy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Aikenhead GS (2006) Science education for everyday-life: evidence-based practice. Teachers College Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Bhola DS, Impara JC, Buckendahl CW (2003) Aligning tests with states’ content standards: methods and issues. Edu Meas Issues Pract 22(3):21–29Google Scholar
  6. CMEC (1997) Common framework of science learning outcomes. Council of Ministers of Education, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins A (1998) National science education standards: a political document. J Res Sci Teach 35(7):711–727Google Scholar
  8. Cornbleth C (1990) Curriculum in context. London: The Falmer PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Cornbleth C (2000) National standards and curriculum as cultural containment? In: Cornbleth C (ed) Curriculum, politics, policy, practice: cases in comparative context. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp 211–238Google Scholar
  10. Curriculum Planning & Development Division, Ministry of Education (2004) Primary science syllabus. Author, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  11. D’Agostino JV, Welsh ME, Corson NM (2007) Instructional sensitivity of a State’s standards-based assessment. Edu Assessment 12(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Department for Education and Employment (DEE) (1999) The National Curriculum for England. HMSO (available at
  13. Doran RL, Laurenz F, Helgeson S (1994) Research on assessment in science. In: Gabel DL (ed) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. Macmillan publishing company, New York, pp 388–442Google Scholar
  14. Gamoran A, Porter AC, Smithson J, White PA (1997) Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Edu Eval Policy Anal 19:325–338Google Scholar
  15. Horn RAJ (2001) The question of complexity: understanding the standards movement in Texas. In: Horn RAJ, Kincheloe JL (eds) American standards: quality education in a complex world––the Texas case. Peter Lang, New York, pp 73–104Google Scholar
  16. Horn RAJ (2004) Standards. Peter Lang, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu X, McKeough A (2005) Developmental growth in students’ concept of energy: an analysis of selected items from the TIMSS database. J Res Sci Teach 42(5):493–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu X, Zawick J, Arnold J (in press) Using data to reform science instruction. In: Gess-Newsome J (ed) Reforming secondary science instruction. NSF monographGoogle Scholar
  19. National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. National Research Council (2006) Systems for state science assessment. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Porter AC (2002) Measuring the content of instruction: uses in research and practice. Edu Res 31(7):3–14Google Scholar
  22. Ravitch D (1995) National standards in American education: a citizen’s guide. Brookings Institutions Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Roberts DA, Ostman L (1998) Problems of meaning in science curriculum. Teachers College Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Roth W-M, Calabrese A (2004) Rethinking scientific literacy. RoutledgeFalmer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Rothman R (2003) Imperfect matches: the alignment of standards and tests. National Research Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. Schmidt WH, Wang HA, McKnight CC (2005) Curriculum coherence: an examination of us mathematiccs and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies 37(5):525–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thomas RM (2005) High-stakes testing: coping with collateral damage. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  28. The University of the State of New York (1996) Learning standards for mathematics, science and technology. The author, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  29. van den Akker J (1998) The science curriculum: between ideas and outcomes. In: Tobin KG, Fraser BJ (eds) International handbook of science education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 421–447Google Scholar
  30. Wang J (1998) Opportunity to learn: the impacts and policy implications. Edu Eval Policy Anal 20:137–156Google Scholar
  31. Wei B, Thomas GP (2005) Rationale and approaches for embedding scientific literacy into the new junior secondary school chemistry curriculum in the people’s republic of china. Int J Sci Edu 27(12):1477–1493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wiggins G, McTighe J (1998) Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
  33. Wixson KK, Fisk MC, Dutro E, McDaniel J (2002) The alignment of state standards and assessments in elementary reading. CIERA Report #3-024. University of Michigan School of Education, Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University at BuffaloBuffaloUSA
  2. 2.WestatRockvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations