Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Anderson2002 Curricular Alignment - A Re-Examination
Anderson2002 Curricular Alignment - A Re-Examination
To cite this article: Lorin W. Anderson (2002) Curricular Alignment: A Re-Examination, Theory Into Practice, 41:4,
255-260, DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_9
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)
contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our
licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are
the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.
The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial
or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can
be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Anderson
Curricular Alignment
Lorin W. Anderson
Standards/Objectives (S/O)
Downloaded by ["Queen's University Libraries, Kingston"] at 22:16 05 September 2013
A B
C
Assessments/Tests (A/T) Instructional Activities
and Materials (IAM)
Figure 1. Relationships Among Standards/Objectives, Instructional Activities and Materials, and Assess-
ments/Tests.
include Good, Grouws, and Beckerman’s (1978) study ment test. In a related study, Leinhardt, Zigmond,
of the relationship of the number of textbook pages and Cooley (1981) asked teachers to indicate
covered with mathematics achievement test scores, whether each student or sample of students had
and Anderson, Evertson, and Brophy’s (1979) study been taught the information required to answer spe-
of the number of basal readers completed by first- cific test items. Similarly, Winfield (1993) asked
grade reading groups in relation to reading achieve- teachers to rate each of 34 test items on a five-
ment test scores. More recent studies of content point scale in terms of “(a) the number of times a
coverage have been reported by Elia (1994), Gamo- mathematics concept was taught, (b) the frequency
ran, Porter, Smithson, and White (1997), Kim of review or reteaching the concept, (c) the num-
(1993), Muthen et al. (1995), and Schmidt and ber of settings in which the particular test format
McKnight (1995). was used to teach the concept, (d) the frequency of
In contrast to content coverage, studies of usage of the format, (e) the extent to which the
the opportunity to learn typically begin with an concept was emphasized in the school reading pro-
examination of the assessment tasks or test items. gram, and (f) the teachers’ perceptions of students’
The question is, “Are we teaching what is being test- mastery of the concept” (p. 292).
ed?” Cooley and Leinhardt (1980), for example, asked If content validity studies focus on side A of
teachers to estimate the percentage of their students the triangle depicted in Figure 1, and content cov-
who had been taught the minimum material neces- erage and opportunity to learn studies focus on
sary to pass each item on a standardized achieve- side C of the triangle, then two questions remain.
256
Anderson
Curricular Alignment
First, what about side B of the triangle? Second, analytical frameworks exist for making sense of
where does curriculum alignment fit into all of this? the data collected from curricular alignment stud-
With respect to the first question, there have been ies. Without an appropriate framework, the inter-
several studies of the relationship of objectives to pretation of the data remains rather problematic.
instructional activities and materials. However, no Consider, for example, questions often asked of
general term has been used to group these studies. teachers in curricular alignment studies:
Ippolito (1990), for example, examined the rela-
• What percent of students have been taught the
tionship between instructional materials and “cri-
minimum material needed to pass this item?
terion objectives” (p. 1). Similarly, NC HELPS
(Cooley and Leinhardt, 1980)
(1999) focused on the way the curriculum was
Downloaded by ["Queen's University Libraries, Kingston"] at 22:16 05 September 2013
257
THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Autumn 2002
Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy
matters at virtually every grade or school level. It priately. Fourth, the three completed Taxonomy
addresses each of the three problems associated Tables, one each derived from the analysis of the
with the Gamoran et al. framework. First, it con- objectives, instructional activities and materials,
tains 24 cells (not 558). Furthermore, as illustrated and assessments, are compared. Complete align-
by the vignettes included in the revised Taxonomy ment is evidenced when there are common cells
volume and the Ferguson and Byrd articles (this included on all three completed Taxonomy Tables.
issue), teachers can use the framework to examine That is, the objective, instructional activities and
and enhance curriculum alignment. Second, because materials, and assessments all fall into the same
alignment is estimated in terms of the relation- cell (e.g., understand conceptual knowledge). Par-
ships of objectives, instructional activities and tial alignment also exists. For example, the objec-
Downloaded by ["Queen's University Libraries, Kingston"] at 22:16 05 September 2013
materials, and assessments with the Taxonomy tive, instructional activities and materials, and
Table, rather than with each other, the alignment assessments may all fall into the same row (i.e.,
process (a) focuses quite directly on student learn- type of knowledge), but differ in terms of the col-
ing and (b) yields reasonably valid estimates of umn in which they are classified (i.e., cognitive
alignment. Third, as mentioned earlier, the Taxon- process category). Similarly, the objective, instruc-
omy Table is generic. By replacing topics with tional activities and materials, and assessments may
types of knowledge, the Taxonomy Table can be all fall into the same column, but differ in terms of
used with all subject matters. the row in which they are classified. Partial align-
ment provides potentially useful diagnostic infor-
Using the Taxonomy Table to mation to teachers who want to improve their
Estimate Curriculum Alignment curricular alignment. Moving an instructional ac-
The vignettes included in the revised Taxono- tivity from an emphasis on factual knowledge to
my volume and the articles written by Ferguson and an emphasis on procedural knowledge, or from
Byrd (this issue) illustrate quite nicely the process understand to analyze may be worth the effort if
used to estimate curriculum alignment with the aid alignment is substantially improved.
of the Taxonomy Table. Before the process is de- Before concluding, two final points must be
scribed, it must be emphasized that alignment esti- made. First, there is increasing evidence that estimat-
mates using the Taxonomy Table are based on ing curriculum alignment based on both knowledge
curriculum units or entire courses, not individual les- and cognitive processes is superior to other methods
sons. Thus, the analysis involved a group of objectives, of estimating alignment. This research is summarized
a variety of instructional activities, and, generally, concisely by Gamoran and his colleagues (1997).
more than one assessment (both formal and infor- “Clearly, to predict student achievement gains from
mal). Having said this, the alignment process involves knowledge of the content of instruction, a micro-
four steps. level description of content that looks at cognitive
First, each objective is placed in its appro- demands by [type of knowledge] is the most use-
priate cell or cells of the Taxonomy Table. The ful approach considered to date” (p. 331).
verbs and nouns included in the statement of the Second, alignment, using the Taxonomy Ta-
objective are used to place the objective in the ble, is based on considering what teachers intend
proper cell. Second, each instructional activity (and in terms of student learning. This is particularly
accompanying support materials) is similarly placed important to keep in mind when analyzing instruc-
in its appropriate cell, based once again on clues tional activities. When examining instructional ac-
provided by verbs and nouns included in the de- tivities, one must ask, “What is the student
scription of the activity. Third, using clues from supposed to learn from his or her participation in
included verbs and nouns, each assessment task this activity? What knowledge is to be acquired or
(whether it be a performance assessment or one of constructed? What cognitive processes are to be
a series of test items) is placed in its appropriate employed?” Without answers to these questions, it
cell. In the case of traditional tests, each item is is impossible to properly classify instructional ac-
considered an assessment task and placed appro- tivities in terms of the Taxonomy Table.
258
Anderson
Curricular Alignment
The Value of Curriculum Alignment research, students learn more in the college-prepa-
Even if the reader is convinced that the Tax- ratory classes” (p. 333). Consequently, “low-
onomy Table is a useful tool for estimating and achieving high school students are capable of
increasing curriculum alignment, one question re- learning much more than is typically demanded of
mains: Why should teachers be concerned about them. The key is to provide a serious, meaningful
curriculum alignment? At least four answers to this curriculum: ‘hard content for all students’” (p. 336).
question can be given. A third reason for the importance of curricu-
The first is foreshadowed by the quotations with lum alignment is that poorly aligned curriculum
which this article began. Leigh Burstein was correct. results in our underestimating the effect of instruc-
We need to be more concerned with what students tion on learning. Simply stated, teachers may be
Downloaded by ["Queen's University Libraries, Kingston"] at 22:16 05 September 2013
have learned as a result of their schooling experience “teaching up a storm,” but if what they are teach-
than with what they know and can do regardless of ing is neither aligned with the state standards or
the source of that knowledge or those skills. Bill the state assessments, then their teaching is in vain.
Schmidt and Curtis McKnight also were right. Pro- This is the educational equivalent of a tree falling
viding or denying opportunities to learn results in a in the forest with no one around . . . no demon-
very different education for different students. In sum- strated learning, no recognized teaching.
marizing the results of their research in New Zealand, A fourth, and final, reason for the importance
Adrienne Alton-Lee and Graham Nuthall stated: of curriculum alignment stems from the current
“Our exploratory studies revealed that the curricu- concern for educational accountability. Actually,
lum excluded or marginalized people by race and current is probably not the correct word to use
gender . . . and that these processes led to different here. Over the past quarter century, the responsi-
experiences for different . . . students” (p. 6). Or, bility for accountability has shifted from students
in the words of Linda Winfield, opportunity to learn (and their home backgrounds) to schools. Regard-
“emphasizes the importance of instruction and less of the focus, however, curriculum alignment
school factors in student achievement, and it avoids is central to the success of accountability programs.
the ‘blame the victim’ mentality which focuses More than 20 years ago, the NAACP filed a law-
solely on students” (p. 307). In this regard, there is suit against the state of Florida (Debra P. v. Turl-
increasing evidence that the impact of opportunity ington, 1979) arguing that it was unconstitutional
to learn on student achievement is considerably to deny high school diplomas to students who had
greater for minority students than for their “advan- not been given the opportunity to learn the materi-
taged” counterparts (Elia, 1994). al covered on a test that was a requirement for
A second reason for the importance of cur- graduation. The court placed a four-year moratori-
riculum alignment is that proper curriculum align- um on administration of the test for diploma deni-
ment enables us to understand the differences in al, arguing that this additional period of time was
the effects of schooling on student achievement. necessary to allow students to have an opportunity
This is clearly evidenced by the research reported to learn the necessary knowledge and skills. Al-
by Gamoran and his colleagues. The study focused though the emphasis has shifted from student to
on the success of so-called “transition” mathemat- school, the issue has not changed substantially. As
ics courses in California and New York. These tran- Baratz-Snowden (1993) has asserted: “If students
sition courses were designed to bridge the gap are to be held accountable for their learning, then
between elementary and college-preparatory math- schools must be held accountable as well by dem-
ematics and to provide access to more challenging onstrating that they provide students with opportu-
and meaningful mathematics for students who en- nities to learn to meet the standards that have been
ter high school with poor skills. Based on their set” (p. 317).
study, Gamoran et al. conclude that: “More rigor-
ous content coverage distinguishes college-prepa- References
ratory math classes from general-track math classes, Alton-Lee, A., & Nuthall, G. (1992). Children’s learn-
and it also shows that, consistent with previous ing in classrooms: Challenges in developing a
259
THEORY INTO PRACTICE / Autumn 2002
Revising Bloom’s Taxonomy
methodology to explain “opportunity to learn.” Harskamp, E., & Suhre, C. (1994). Assessing the op-
Journal of Classroom Interaction, 27(2), 1-2. portunity to learn mathematics. Evaluation Review,
Anderson, L., Evertson, C., & Brophy, J. (1979). An 18, 627-642.
experimental study of effective teaching in first Ippolito, T.J. (1990). An instructional alignment pro-
grade reading groups. Elementary School Journal, gram for eighth grade criterion referenced math
79, 193-223. objectives. Unpublished manuscript. (ERIC Docu-
Baratz-Snowden, J.C. (1993). Opportunity to learn: ment Service No. ED326432)
Implications for professional development. Jour- Kendall, J.S. (1999). A report on the matches between
nal of Negro Education, 62, 311-323. the South Dakota standards in mathematics and
Breitsprecher, C.H. (1991). Relative effects of verbal selected Stanford Achievement Tests. Unpublished
mediation, feedback monitoring, and alignment on manuscript. (ERIC Document Service No.
community college learners’ achievement. Unpub- ED447170)
Downloaded by ["Queen's University Libraries, Kingston"] at 22:16 05 September 2013
lished doctoral dissertation, University of San Fran- Kim, H. (1993). A comparative study between an Amer-
cisco. (ERIC Document Service No. ED333914) ican and a Republic of Korean textbook series’
Buckendahl, C.W., Plake, B.S., Impara, J.C., & Irwin, coverage of measurement and geometry content in
P.M. (2000, April). Alignment of standardized first through eighth grades. School Science and
achievement tests to state content standards: A Mathematics, 93(3), 123-126.
comparison of publishers’ and teachers’ perspec- Leinhardt, G., Zigmond, N., & Cooley, W. (1981).
tives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Reading instruction and its effects. American Ed-
National Council on Measurement in Education, ucational Research Journal, 18, 343-361.
New Orleans. (ERIC Document Service No. McDonnell, L.M. (1995). Opportunity to learn as a re-
ED442829) search concept and a policy instrument. Educa-
Burstein, L. (1993). Studying learning, growth, and in- tional Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 305-322.
struction cross-nationally: Lessons learned about Muthen, B., Huang, L-C., Jo, B., Khoo, S-T, Goff, G.,
why and why not engage in cross-national studies. Novak, J., & Shih, J. (1995). Opportunity-to-learn
In L. Burstein (Ed.), The IEA study of mathemat- effects on achievement: Analytical aspects. Edu-
ics III: Student growth and classroom processes cational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 371-
(pp. 27-49). Oxford, England: Pergamon. 403.
Burstein, L., & Winters, L. (1994, June). Workshop on NC HELPS. (1999). Curriculum alignment. Unpub-
models for collecting and using opportunity to lished manuscript. (ERIC Document Service No.
learn at the state level. Unpublished material, Al- ED439526)
buquerque, NM. Pickreign, J., & Capps, L.R. (2000). Alignment of ele-
Cooley, W.W., & Leinhardt, G. (1980). The instruc- mentary geometry curriculum with current stan-
tional dimensions study. Educational Evaluation dards. School Science and Mathematics, 100,
and Policy Analysis, 2, 7-25. 243-245.
Elia, J. (1994). An alignment/transfer experiment with Schmidt, W.H., & McKnight, C.C.(1995). Surveying
low socioeonomic level students. Teacher Educa- educational opportunity in mathematics and sci-
tion Quarterly, 21, 113-124. ence: An international perspective. Educational
Gamoran, A., Porter, A.C., Smithson, J., & White, P.A. Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 337-353.
(1997). Upgrading high school mathematics in- Webb, N.L. (1999). Alignment of science and mathe-
struction: Improving learning opportunities for matics standards and assessments in four states.
low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Unpublished manuscript. (ERIC Document Service
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 325-338. No. ED440852)
Good, T., Grouws, D.A., & Beckerman, T. (1978). Winfield, L.F. (1993). Investigating test content and
Curriculum pacing: Some empirical data in math- curriculum content overlap to assess opportunity
ematics. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 10, 75- to learn. Journal of Negro Education, 62, 288-
82. 310.
260