Investigating the Alignment of University Entrance Exams, Textbooks and Official Standards of TEFL in terms of Anderson and Krathwohl's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives

Authors

• R Rezvani
• GH Zamani

Abstract

This study attempted to investigate the alignment between Iran's B.A. official curriculum standards, M.A. state university entrance exams of TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) and SAMT (The Organization for Researching and Composing University Textbooks in the Humanities) official textbooks. The official standards, exam questions and activities in the textbooks were content analyzed using a checklist developed by the researchers based on Anderson and Krathwohl's taxonomy of educational objectives. After specifying the cognitive processes and types of knowledge using a two dimensional taxonomy, they were converted into separate matrices and porter's alignment index was calculated to determine the extent to which standards, assessments and textbooks are aligned. The results of this study, most importantly, indicated that in all the components lower-order thinking skills with the frequency 83.5% were more frequently represented than higher-order processes which involved only 16. 3% of the objectives. Moreover, the alignment index indicated a low level of balance between the curriculum components; whereas, there was a higher level of balance between standards and assessments
 

Keywords

• Curriculum Alignment
• Anderson & Krathwohl's Taxonomy of Educational Objective
• Cognitive Process Dimension
• Types of Knowledge
• Porter's Alignment index

20.1001.1.20086369.1391.3.11.6.9

---

References

Anderson L.W. (2005). Objectives, Evaluation, and the improvement of

education. Studies in

Educational Evaluation, (31), 102-113.

Anderson, L.W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning,

teaching, and assessing:

A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York:

Longman.

Bhola, D. S., Impara, J. C., & Buckendahl, C. W. (2003). Aligning Tests

with content Standards:

Methods and Issues. Educational Measurement, Issues and Practice,

(22), 21-29.

Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university. Glasgow:

the Society for Research

in to Higher Education & Open University Press.

English, F. (1992). Deciding what to teach and test: Developing,

aligning, and auditing the

curriculum. Newbury. Park, CA: Corwin Press

Guskey, T. R. (2007). Closing achievement gaps: Revisiting Benjamin S.

Bloom’s “Learning for

mastery”. Journal of Advance Academics, 19(1), 8-31.

Leitzel, Thomas, C., Vogler, Daniel, E. (1994). Curriculum Alignment:

Theory to Practice

Martone A & Sireci S.G. (2009). Evaluating alignment between

curriculum, assessment, and

Instruction. Review of Educational Research, (79), 1332-1361.

Olson L., (2003). Standards and tests: Keeping them aligned. Research

Points: Essential

Information for Education Policy, (1),1-4.

Porter, A. C. (2002).Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in

research and practice.

Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3 - 14.

Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. L. (2001b). Defining, developing, and using

curriculum indicators.

Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy

Research in Education.

Porter AC, Smithson J, Blank R & Zeidner T 2007. Alignment as a

teacher variable. Applied

Measurement in Education, (20), 27-51.

Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview.

Theory in to Practice. 

Smith, M. S., & O’Day, J. (1990). Systematic school reform. In S. H.

Furhman & B. Malen (Eds.), The

politics of curriculum and testing. 233-267. The 1990 yearbook of the

Politics of Education

Association. London: The Falmer Press.

 Webb, N. L. (1997). Criteria for Alignment of Expectations and

Assessments in Mathematics and Science Education. Research Monograph,

(6). Washington DC: Council of Chief State Officers.

Webb, N.L. (2007). Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum

standards and ssessments. Applied Measurement in Education, (20),7-25.