Alignment between the physics content standard and the standardized test: A comparison among the United States-New York State, Singapore, and China-Jiangsu

Science Education

Volumn 93, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 777-797

  Liu, Xiufeng ^a   Zhang, Baohui ^d   Liang, Ling L ^b   Fulmer, Gavin ^c   Kim, Beaumie ^d   Yuan, Haiquan ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^b LA SALLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION   (United States)

^d NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

^e SOOCHOW UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 71749119750     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20330     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Angell, C., Guttersrud, O., & Henriksen, E. K. (2004). Physics: Frightful, but fun. Science Education, 88(5), 683 - 706.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2000). Designs for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. 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.
5. Asia Society. (2006).Math and science education in a global age:What the U.S. can learn from China. New York: Author.
6. Au, W. (2007). High-stake testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258 - 267.
7. Beck, M. D. (2007). Review and other views: "Alignment"as a psychometric issue. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 127 - 135.
8. Bhola, D. S., Impara, J. C., & Buckendahl, C. W. (2003, Fall). Aligning tests with states' content standards: Methods and issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(3), 21 - 29.
9. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2004). Surveys of enacted curriculum. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
10. Council of Ministers of Education of Canada. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes. Toronto: Author.
11. Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of Education. (2001). Singapore Lower Secondary Science Syllabus. Retrieved July 31, 2007, from www.moe.gov.sg/cpdd/doc/Science LowSec All.pdf
12. D'Agostino, J. V., Welsh, M. E., & Corson, N. M. (2007). Instructional sensitivity of a state's standards-based assessment. Educational Assessment, 12(1), 1 - 22.
13. Department for Education and Employment. (1999). The national curriculum for England. London: HMSO. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/schemes2/science/
14. Gamoran, A., Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., & White, P. A. (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 325 - 338.
15. Herman, J. L., & Webb, N. M. (2007). Alignment methodologies. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 1-5.
16. Herman, J. L., Webb, N. M., & Zuniga, S. A. (2007). Measurement issues n the alignment of standards and assessments: A case study. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 101 - 126.
17. Horn, R. A. J.,& Kincheloe, J. L. (Eds.). (2001). American standards: Quality education in a complex world-The Texas case. New York: Peter Lang.
18. Institute of Physics. (2001). Physics-Building a flourishing future. Report of the inquiry into undergraduate physics. London: Author. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Projects/Archive/file6418.pdf)
19. Liu, X. (1996). Mathematics and science curriculum change in the People's Republic of China. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen.
20. Liu, X., & Fulmer, G. (2008). Alignment between the Science curriculum and assessment in selected NY State Regents exams. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(17), 373 - 383.
21. Maloney, D. P. (1996). Research on problem solving: Physics. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 327 - 354). New York: Macmillan.
22. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2002). Curriculum Planning and Development Division. Intranet Web site. Retrieved August 15, 2005, from http://intranet.moe.edu.sg/cpdd/
23. Ministry of Education, Singapore. (2008). Singapore 2008 GCE O-Level Exam Syllabus: Physics (New syllabus with SPA). Retrieved October 28, 2008, from http://www.seab.gov.sg/SEAB/oLevel/syllabus/2008_GCE_O_Level_Syllabuses/5058_2008.pdf
24. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Beaton, A., Gonzalez, E. J., Kelly, D., & Smith, T. A. (1998). Mathematics and science achievement in the final year of secondary school. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College, TIMSS International Study Center.
25. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, §120 et seq.
26. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards.Washington, DC: National Academies Press
27. National Research Council. (2006). Systems for state science assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
28. National Research Council. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
29. Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3 - 14.
30. Porter,A. C., Blank, R., & Zeidner, T. (2007).Alignment as a teacher variable. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 27 - 51.
31. Pullin, D. C., & Haertel, E. H. (2008). Assessment through the lens of "opportunity to learn." In P. A. Moss, D. C. Pullin, J. P. Gee, E. H. Haertel, & L. J. Young (Eds.), Assessment, equity, and opportunity to learn. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. Rothman, R. (2003). Imperfect matches: The alignment of standards and tests.Washington, DC:National Research Council.
33. Schmidt, W., McKnight, C., & Raizen, S. (Eds.). (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education (Vol. 1). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
34. Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. A., & McKnight, C. C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 35.
35. Sellan, R., Chong, K., & Tay, C. (2006, May 21 - 26). Assessment shifts in the Singapore education system. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Conference of International Association for Educational Assessment, Singapore.
36. Stevens, F. I. (1997). Opportunity to learn science: Connecting research knowledge to classroom practices. Philadelphia: Mid-Atlantic Lab for Student Success.
37. Sunal, D. W., & Wright, E. L. (Ed.) (2006). The impact of state and national standards on K-12 science teaching. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
38. Tan, K. C. D. (2006). Sequences of teaching and learning matter in the science curriculum: The Singapore perspectives. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
39. Tan, A. L.,&Towndrow, P. A. (2006, May 21 - 26). Giving students a voice in science practical assessments. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual Conference of International Association for Educational Assessment, Singapore.
40. Thomas, R. M. (2005). High-stakes testing: Coping with collateral damage. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
41. University of the State of New York. (1996). Learning standards for mathematics, science, and technology. Albany, NY: The State Education Department.
42. Wang, J. (1998). Opportunity to learn: The impacts and policy implications. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 137 - 156.
43. Webb, N. L. (2007). Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 7 - 25.
44. Wei, B., & Thomas, G. P. (2005). Rationale and approaches for embedding scientific literacy into the new junior secondary school chemistry curriculum in the people's republic of china. International Journal of Science Education, 27(12), 1477 - 1493.
45. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.