Alignment between Turkish middle school science curriculum standards and high school entrance examination

Emine  Çil

doi:10.36681/

Authors

Emine Çil Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Faculty of Education, Muğla-TURKEY

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36681/

Keywords:

Alignment, Science Curriculum, High School Entrance Examination, Porter Model

Abstract

The standards-based approach to science education has been implemented worldwide. The standardsbased approach requires developing content standards and examinations to measure students’ mastery of the content standards. Alignment between curriculum standards and examinations is crucial for providing accurate information about achievement of students, teachers, schools and educational reforms. The aim of this study is to examine the alignment between Middle School Science Curriculum Standards and High School Entrance Examination in Turkey. In this study Porters’ alignment model was used. It was found that there was a moderate alignment between the examination and science curriculum standards. This study indicated that both curriculum standards and examination mostly emphasizes understanding at cognitive level. The examinations generally require higher level cognitive skills such as applying, analysing, and evaluating than curriculum standards. The findings of this study can provide some quantitative evidence and instructive information for Turkish standards based education. Also they can be used to compare curriculum standards and assessment systems in different countries.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Akınbobolo, A. O., & Afolobi, F. (2010). Analaysis of science process skills in west african senior secondary school certificate physics practical examination in Nigeria. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy, 4, 32-47.

American Association for the Advancement of Science AAAS (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy. New York. Longman Publishing.

Ayas, A., Çepni, S., & Akdeniz, A. R. (1993). Development of the secondary science curriculum. Science Education, 70, 433-440.

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.

Bishop, J. (1998). Do curriculum-based external exit exam systems enhance student achievement. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Research Report Series Report, 40. CPRE Publications.

Bjork, C., & Tsuneyoshi, R. (2005). Education reform in Japan: Competing visions for the future, a special section on international education. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 619-626.

Brualdi, A. C. (1998). Classroom questions, Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation. 6.

Council of Ministers of Education of Canada (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes. Toronto: Author. Curriculum.

Çepni, S., & Çil, E. (2009). Scinece and technology programme (recognition, planning, practice and its association with LDE) teacher’s handbook of primary education 1st and 2nd level. Ankara: Pegema Publishing.

Çepni, S., & Kara, Y. (2011). Investigation the alignment between school learning and entrance examinations thorough ıtem analysis. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 10(2), 73-86.

Edwards, N. (2010). An analysis of the alignment of the grade 12 physical sciences examination and the Core Curriculum in South Africa. South Africa Journal of Education, 30, 571-590.

Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., & Klein, S. P. (2002). Making sense of test-based accountability in education. Santa Monica: RAND Education.

Herman, J. L., Webb, N. M., & Zuniga, S. A. (2007). Measurement issues in the alignment of standards and assessments: A case study. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 101 – 126.

Kasanen, K., & Raty, H. (2008). “Do the very best you can”: The third-grade class test. Soc Psychology of Education, 11, 193–208.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–264.

La Marca, P. M. (2001). Alignment of standards and assessments as an accountability criterion. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation College Park MD. ERIC Digest. ED458288.

Leigh, A. (2013). The economisc and politics of teacher merit pay. CESifo Economic Studies, 59(1), 1-33.

Liang, L. L., & Yuan, H. (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.

Lisle, J. D., Smith, P., & Jules, V. (2005). Which males or females are most at risk and on what? An analysis of gender differences within the primary school system of Trinidad and Tobago. Educational Studies, 31, 393–418.

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, 373-383.

Liu, X., Zhang, B., Liang, L. L., Fulmer, G., Kim, B., & Yuan, H. (2009). 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, 93, 777–797.

Lu, Q., & Liu, E. (2012). Alignment between high school biology curriculum standard and the standardised tests of four provinces in china. Journal of Biological Education, 46(3), 149-164.

Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2002). National high school physics syllabus. Beijing, China: The People’s Education Press.

Ministry of National Education NME (2013). Turkey science curriculum for primary school. Ankara: National Ministry of Education Press.

Näsström, G. (2008). Measurement of alignment between standards and assessment. Umea, Sweden: Umea University. Available from http://umu.divaportal. org/smash/get/diva2:142244/FULLTEXT01

National Research Council NRC (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council NRC (2013). The next generation science standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Özsevgeç, T., & Çepni, S. (2006). Relation between science teachers’ assessment tools and students’ cognitive development. Educational Research and Reviews, 1, 222–226.

Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3–14.

Porter, A. C., Blank, R., & Zeidner, T. (2007). Alignment as a teacher variable. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 27 – 51.

United States Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

(2002). No Child Left Behind: A Desktop Reference. Washington, D.C.

Vendlinski, T. P., Nagashima, S., & Herman, J. L. (2007). creating accurate science benchmark assessments to ınform ınstruction, Cresst Report 730, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Graduate School of Education & Information Studies UCLA University of California, Los Angeles.

Webb, N. L. (2007). Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 7 – 25.

Wößmann, L. (2005). The effect heterogeneity of central examinations: Evidence from TIMSS, TIMSS-Repeat and PISA. Education Economics, 13, 143–169.

Youell, B. (2005). Assessment, evaluation and inspection in schools: A psychodynamic perspective. Infant Observation, 8, 59-68.