Alignment of Assessments, Standards and Instruction Using Curriculum Indicator Data

The approach to alignment discussed here uses a systematic and detailed language to describe curricular content in a manner that can be applied to multiple components of the standards-based, accountability-driven educational system. By employing a rich but systematic language for describing curricular content, it becomes possible to make detailed, quantitative comparisons of the instructional content emphasized in standards, assessments and instruction. The comparison process employed yields a measure that is best described as representing the “intersect” of the two descriptions being compared. Thus, an alignment measure of ‘1’ would indicate the two descriptive ‘sets’ were identical to one another, while a ‘0’ would indicate the two had no content emphasis in common at all. In order to better understand the power of this approach for considering alignment between key elements of the standards-based system, the nature of the descriptive language is first described, and then a real-world example of an alignment analysis is considered. Content languages have been developed for mathematics and science. Each language employs a two-dimensional grid for organizing content descriptors. A particular content unit is described in terms of 1) a topic and 2) an ‘expectation for student performance’. Examples of topics for middle school math include “place value”, “fractions”, “decimals”, “use of measuring instruments”. The number of topics employed in a given language varies by subject and grade level. In mathematics there are 57 topic descriptors at the elementary level, 90 at the middle school level (grades 6-8), and 160 at the high school level. For science, the number of topics employed is consistently higher, ranging from 80 in elementary science, to 200 in high school science. Topics are organized into content ‘areas’ representing logical groupings of topics. The number of broad content areas also varies by grade and subject, ranging from a minimum of six (middle school mathematics) up to twenty-five content areas (high school science). The “expectations for student performance” dimension (sometimes called cognitive demand), consists of five categories for both mathematics and science, though the descriptors used in each subject differ. In mathematics the five categories are: 1) Memorize facts, definitions, formulas, 2) Perform procedures, 3) Demonstrate Understanding of Mathematical Concepts, 4) Conjecture, Generalize, Prove, and 5) Solve non-routine problems, make connections. In science the five categories are; 1) Memorize facts, definitions, formulas, 2) Perform procedures, conduct investigations, 3) Communicate understanding of science concepts, 4) Analyze information, and 5) Apply Concepts/Make connections. Each expectation is defined using 3 to 8 examples.