Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 62–72 | Cite as

A Case Study of the Alignment between Curriculum and Assessment in the New York State Earth Science Standards-Based System

  • Julie Contino


In a standards-based system, it is important for all components of the system to align in order to achieve the intended goals. No Child Left Behind law mandates that assessments be fully aligned with state standards, be valid, reliable and fair, be reported to all stakeholders, and provide evidence that all students in the state are meeting the standards. This study reports an analysis of the alignment between the National Science Education Standards (NSES), New York State Physical Setting/Earth Science Core Curriculum (Core Curriculum) and New York State Physical Setting/Earth Science Regents Examination (Regents Exam)—the sources teachers use for creating Earth Science curricula in New York State. The NSES were found to have a 49 % overlap with the Core Curriculum and a 27 % overlap with the Regents Exam. The Core Curriculum and Regents Exam, represented by matrices consisting of performance indicators and cognitive demands, were compared using the Porter Alignment Index. The alignment was 0.35, categorized as slightly aligned, due to the different emphases on cognitive levels. The Core focused on cognitive skills of Understand and Apply while the Regents concentrated more on Apply followed by Understand and Remember. It is suggested that the NSES be revised and the Core updated to include quantifiable emphasis on the major understandings such as percentage of time.


Achievement Secondary education Regents Porter index 


  1. Achieve (2011) Next generation science standards.
  2. Black PJ (1998) Testing friend or foe: theory and practice of assessment and testing. Falmer Press, Bristonl, PAGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20(1):37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. D’Agostino JV, Welsh ME, Corson NM (2007) Instructional sensitivity of a state’s standards-based assessment. Educ Assess 12(1):1–22Google Scholar
  5. Gamoran A, Porter AC, Smithson J, White PA (1997) Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educ Eval Policy An 19:325–338Google Scholar
  6. Indiana University—Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) Center for Teaching and Learning (2002) Bloom’s taxonomy “revised:” key words, model questions, and instructional strategies.
  7. La Marca PM, Redfield D, Winter PC (2000) State standards and state assessment systems: a guide to alignment. Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Ladd GT (1972) An analysis of the inquiry level of New York State Earth Science Regents Examinations (1960–1971). Sci Educ 56(1):97–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Liu X, Fulmer G (2008) Alignment between the science curriculum and assessment in selected NY State Regents Examinations. J Sci Educ Technol 17:373–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Liu X, Zhang B, Ling L, Fulmer G, Kim B, Yuan H (2009) Alignment between the physics content standard and standardized test: a comparison among US–NY, Singapore, and China-Jiangsu. Sci Educ 93(5):777–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. National Research Council (1996) National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. New York State Education Department (1991) New York State Earth Science program modifications. University of the State of New York, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  13. New York State Education Department (1996) Learning standards for mathematics, science, and technology. University of the State of New York, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  14. New York State Education Department (2001) Physical setting/earth science core curriculum. University of the State of New York, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  15. New York State Education Department (2008) Physical setting/Earth Science scoring key and rating guide.
  16. Porter AC (2002) Measuring the content of instruction: uses in research and practice. Educ Res 31(7):3–14Google Scholar
  17. Porter AC, Polikoff M, Zeidner T, Smithson J (2008) The quality of content analyses of state students achievement tests and content standards. Educ Meas Issues Pract 27(4):2–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Porter AC, McMaken J, Hwang J, Yang R (2011) Common core standards: the new U.S. intended curriculum. Educ Res 40(3):103–116Google Scholar
  19. Rabinowitz S, Roeber E, Schroeder C, Sheinker J (2006) Creating aligned standards and assessment systems. Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Rothman R (2003) Imperfect matches: the alignment of standards and tests. Paper commissioned by the Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement, March 2003Google Scholar
  21. Webb NL (1997) Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education. Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Webb NL (1999) Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states. National Institute for Science Education, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  23. Westerlund JF, West SS (2001) The use of the National Science Education Standards to critique a standardized high school biology examination. Electron J Sci Educ 6(2).
  24. Wilson MR, Bertenthal MW (2006) Systems for state science assessment. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics, Science and Technology, Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.American Museum of Natural History200 Central Park WestNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations