ALIGNMENT BETWEEN CURRICULUM STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENT IN UNDERSTANDING CHEMICAL REACTION PRINCIPLES AT UPPER-SECONDARY SCHOOLS-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

ALIGNMENT BETWEEN CURRICULUM STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENT IN UNDERSTANDING CHEMICAL REACTION PRINCIPLES AT UPPER-SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Published:2024-06-25 Issue:3 Volume:23 Page:550-569
ISSN:2538-7138
Container-title:Journal of Baltic Science Education
language:en
Short-container-title:JBSE

Author:

Tian Peiyao¹^ORCID,Fan Yanhua¹,Sun Daner²^ORCID,Bai Yan¹

Affiliation:

1. Henan University, China

2. The Education University of Hong Kong, China

Abstract

This study utilized the SEC (Survey of Enacted Curriculum) method to examine the alignment between Chinese high school chemistry curriculum standards (HSCCS) and the assessment of ‘Chemical Reaction Principles’ in the National College Entrance Examinations (NCEEs). The HSCCS and NCEEs were coded into two-dimensional matrices separately using SPSS, MATLAB, and EXCEL. The alignment coefficients were analyzed both macroscopically and specifically based on two dimensions: themes and cognitive levels. The findings indicated a generally low alignment between NCEEs and HSCCS in the ‘Chemical Reaction Principles’ domain, and no statistically significant alignment was observed. Comparing Porter alignment coefficients revealed a gradual increase in the overall alignment level between 2018–2022 NCEEs and HSCCS due to curricular reforms. Further specific analyses and comparisons highlighted significant discrepancies between NCEEs and HSCCS concerning themes and cognitive levels. Regarding themes, ‘Ionic Reactions and Equilibrium in Aqueous Solutions’ showed substantial alignment between NCEEs and HSCCS. However, for ‘Application of Ionic Reactions and Equilibrium’ and ‘Systems and Energy,’ NCEEs diverged significantly from or exceeded HSCCS requirements. Concerning cognitive levels, NCEEs demanded higher levels of student cognition compared to HSCCS. Keywords: alignment, chemical reaction principles, content analysis, curriculum standards, upper-secondary schools

Publisher

Scientia Socialis Ltd

Reference60 articles.

1. Bai, C. E., Chi, W., & Qian, X. (2014). Do college entrance examination scores predict undergraduate GPAs? A tale of two universities. China Economic Review, 30, 632–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2013.08.005

2. Asio, J. M. R., & Gadia, E. D. (2019). Awareness and understanding of college students towards teacher bullying: Basis for policy inclusion in the student handbook (ED595107). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED595107

3. Balcı, C. (2006). Conceptual change text-oriented instruction to facilitate conceptual change in rate of reaction concepts [Master’s thesis]. Middle East Technical University. https://open.metu.edu.tr/handle/11511/16005

4. U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology (2002). No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

5. Blank, R. K., Porter, A., & Smithson, J. (2001). New tools for analyzing teaching, curriculum and standards in mathematics & science. Results from survey of enacted curriculum project. Final report (ED458275). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED458275