高中物理内容标准和学业水平考试的一致性研究
|
摘要
自20世纪80年代后期以来,许多国家在基础教育改革中都不约而同地将课程标准放在一个突出重要的位置上,普遍推行基于课程标准的课程改革。在这—背景下,学业评价与课程标准的一致性问题引起了全球范围内广泛的关注。中国的普通高中学业水平考试是随着高中新课程改革推进而建立的一项大型教育考试制度,从理论上来说各学科高中学业水平考试与学科课程标准应具备显著的一致性。研究高中学业水平考试和课程标准的一致性问题具有重要的理论意义和实践价值。
高中物理学业水平考试是依据普通高中物理课程标准,在教育部指导下由各省(市)组织实施的全面检测普通高中学生高中物理课程修习水平的标准参照考试,对于高中物理课程改革的顺利推进和深入发展具有重要的意义。与高中物理新课程结构的基础性和选择性相适应,各省(市)高中物理学业水平考试的模块选取呈现多样化特征。根据各类型学生需要选做哪些试题并取得合格分数才算完成高中物理课程的学习任务,将各省(市)的所有高中物理学业水平考试试卷分为四类,分别为共同必修模块试卷、含选修1-1的必修模块试卷、含选修2-1的必修模块试卷、含选修3-1的必修模块试卷。考试内容是考试的核心要素,而考试与内容标准的一致性则是基于标准的课程改革取得成功的关键。高中物理学业水平考试试卷与物理内容标准是否具备一致性?这是本研究的核心问题。
研究具体由以下3个问题构成：
(1)如何在借鉴已有研究的基础上构建本土化的高中物理学业水平考试和高中物理内容标准的一致性分析框架?
(2)如何根据一致性分析框架分析高中物理内容标准和高中物理学业水平考试试卷?
(3)各类型高中物理学业水平考试试卷和高中物理内容标准的一致性具体特征如何?
本研究采用量化研究为主,质性研究为辅的技术路线。研究方法主要包括：文献法、内容分析法、调查法,个案法。本论文主要包括五部分研究内容。
研究一：针对四类试卷,分别构建高中物理内容标准和学业水平考试的一致性分析框架。阐述运用一致性分析框架分析高中物理内容标准和高中物理学业水平考试试卷的方法和步骤,并以某份试卷为例阐述分析试卷和物理内容标准的一致性的方法和过程。
研究二：共同必修模块试卷和物理内容标准的一致性研究。数据分析表明：该类试卷与物理内容标准不具备显著的一致性。(1)总体比较表明两者不具备一致性。该类型试卷与物理内容标准的一致性系数明显低于临界值。(2)内容主题分布比较表明两者不具备一致性。总体而言,与内容标准相比,试卷加大了对“运动的描述”、“相互作用与运动规律”的考查力度,降低了对“经典力学的成就与局限性”的考查力度,对于“抛体运动与圆周运动”和“机械能和能源”考查力度合适。(3)认知水平分布比较表明两者不具备一致性。总体而言,与内容标准相比,试卷加大了对“认识”、“理解”、“应用”的考查力度,而降低了对“了解”的考查力度。
研究三：含选修1-1的必修模块试卷和物理内容标准的一致性研究。数据分析表明：该类试卷与物理内容标准不具备显著的一致性。(1)总体比较表明两者不具备一致性。该类型试卷与物理内容标准的一致性系数明显低于临界值。(2)内容主题分布比较表明两者不具备一致性。总体而言,与内容标准相比,试卷加大了对“运动的描述”、“相互作用与运动规律”、“抛体运动与圆周运动”的考查力度,降低了对“经典力学的成就与局限性”、“电磁现象与规律”、“电磁技术与社会发展”、“家用电器与日常生活”的考查力度,对于“机械能和能源”考查力度合适。(3)认知水平分布比较表明两者不具备一致性。总体而言,与内容标准相比,试卷加大了对“认识”和“理解”的考查力度,而降低了对“了解”和“应用”的考查力度。
研究四：含选修2-1的必修模块试卷和物理内容标准的一致性研究。数据分析表明：该类试卷与物理内容标准不具备显著的一致性。(1)总体比较表明两者不具备一致性。该类型试卷与物理内容标准的一致性系数明显低于临界值。(2)内容主题分布比较表明两者不具备一致性。总体而言,与内容标准相比,试卷加大了对“运动的描述”、“相互作用与运动规律”的考查力度,降低了对“经典力学的成就与局限性”、“电路与电工”、“电磁波与信息技术”的考查力度,对于“机械能和能源”和“抛体运动与圆周运动”考查力度合适。(3)认知水平分布比较表明两者不具备一致性。总体而言,与内容标准相比,试卷加大了对“认识”和“理解”的考查力度,降低了对“了解”的考查力度,对“应用”考查力度较合适。
研究五：含选修3-1的必修模块试卷和物理内容标准的一致性研究。数据分析表明：该类试卷与物理内容标准不具备显著的一致性。(1)总体比较表明两者不具备一致性。该类型试卷与物理内容标准的一致性系数明显低于临界值。(2)内容主题分布比较表明两者不具备一致性。总体而言,与内容标准相比,试卷加大了对“运动的描述”、“相互作用与运动规律”、“抛体运动与圆周运动”的考查力度,降低了对“经典力学的成就与局限性”、“电场”、“电路”、“磁场”的考查力度,对于“机械能和能源”考查力度合适。(3)认知水平分布比较表明两者不具备一致性。总体而言,与内容标准相比,试卷加大了对“认识”和“理解”的考查力度,降低了对“了解”的考查力度,对于“应用”的考查力度较合适。
在分类别研究的基础上,得出本论文研究总结论：
高中物理学业水平考试和高中物理内容标准不具备统计学意义上显著的一致性。
(1)试卷与物理内容标准的一致性的总体比较表明两者不具备一致性
所有试卷与物理内容标准的一致性系数均明显低于对应的临界值,4类试卷各自平均情况与物理内容标准的一致性系数也明显低于临界值。
(2)试卷与物理内容标准之间的内容主题分布比较表明两者不具备一致性
4类试卷对内容主题的侧重各有特点,但与物理内容标准相比均有偏差。总体而言,相对于内容标准,试卷加大了对共同必修模块的内容主题(“经典力学的成就与局限性”除外)的考查力度,而降低了对于必选模块内容主题的考查力度。
(3)试卷与物理内容标准之间的认知水平分布比较表明两者不具备一致性
4类试卷对认知水平的侧重各有特点,但与物理内容标准相比均有偏差。总体而言,相对于内容标准,试卷加大了对“认识”、“理解”的考查力度,而降低了对“了解”的考查力度；对于“应用”的考查力度相对较好。
最后,从考试和物理内容标准的不一致会影响课程标准教学目标的全面落实、考试评价标准的缺失导致考试内容的不规范等方面对高中物理学业水平考试进行反思；从完善“国家课程测验”制度立法、建立完备的高中物理教育质量监测机制、建构系统的高中物理学业水平考试评价体系等方面提出建议。
本研究对于丰富学业评价与课程标准的一致性研究理论、构建适合中国国情的一致性分析模型、推进国内一致性研究、促进课程改革的深入发展具有重要的意义,研究结果可以为高中物理学业水平考试命题的改进提供参考。同时,本研究与国家基础教育质量监测制度的实施相呼应,可为国家深入推进课程评价改革提供参考。
Since the late1980s,"Standard-based Curriculum Reform" has been implemented widely in many countries and curriculum standard has been put in a prominently important position in the basic education reform. Under this background, the issue of the alignment between curriculum standard and achievement assessment has caused wide attention throughout the world. China's regular senior high school academic achievement test is a comprehensive examination system established along with the new curriculum reform in senior high school. In theory, there should be a statistically significant alignment between all subject senior high school academic achievement tests and corresponding subject curriculum standards. Thus researching the issue of alignment between senior high school academic achievement test and curriculum standard has important theoretical and practical value.
Senior high school physics academic achievement test is a criterion--referenced test with regular senior high school physics curriculum standard as criterion, and it is implemented by each province (city) under the guidance of the ministry of education. The test's aim is to check the levels of senior high school students'physics academic achievement in the round, and it has great significance for smooth progress and further development of senior high school physics curriculum reform. To adapt with the foundation and selectivity characteristics of senior high school physics curriculum structure, different provinces'(cities') senior high school physics academic achie-vement tests present a diversified characteristic in the aspect of choosing modules. According to the questions that each type students need to choose to accomplish and get eligible mark in order to finish senior high school physics course study tasks, all provinces'(cities') senior high school physics academic achievement test papers are divided into four categories, including test papers combined with common compulsory modules, test papers combined with common compulsory modules and elective1-1module, test papers combined with common compulsory modules and elective2-1module, test papers combined with common compulsory modules and elective3-1module. As we know, the exam content is the key elements of the exam, meanwhile, the alignment between exam and conten standard is the key factors for the success of "Standard-based Curriculum Reform". Are there a significant alignment between senior high school physics academic achievement test papers and physics content standard? This is the key problem of this study.
Concretely, the study constitutes of3parts:
(1) How to construct a localization analysis framework to check the alignment between senior high school physics academic achievement test papers and senior high school physics content standard based on existed theory fruits?
(2) How to analyse senior high school physics content standard and senior high school physics academic achievement test papers according to the alignment analysis framework?
(3) What are the specific characteristics of the alignment between each type of senior high school physics academic achievement test papers and senior high school physics content standard?
The study has adopted the technical route which is a quantitative research primarily and is supplemented by a qualitative research. In addition, the major research methods include literature method, content analysis method, investigation method, case method. And this thesis is mainly divided inio five parts.
The first part of the study has constructed the alignment analysis frameworks to analyse the alignment between senior high school physics content standard and each type of academic achievement test papers, has introduced the method and step of applying the alignment analysis framework to analyse senior high school physics content standard and senior high school physics academic achievement test papers, has introduced the methods and processes of analysing the alignment between test papers and physics content standard taking a test paper as an example.
The second part of the study is the alignment analysis between physics content standard and test papers combined with common compulsory modules. The data analysis indicates that there is not a significant alignment between this kind of test papers and physics content standard.(1)the general comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them. The alignment indices between this kind of test papers and physics content standard are significantly lower than the corresponding critical values.(2) the content topics' distribution' comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them. In general, compared with content standard, this kind of test papers have increased the examinational degree of "the description of motion" and "the interactions and motion laws", have reduced the examinational degree of "the achievements and limitations of classical mechanics", and the examinational degree of "the projectile motion and circular motion" and "the mechanical energy and energy" are appropriate.(3)The cognitive levels'distribution' comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them.In general, compared with content standard, this kind of test papers have more emphasized "realize","understand" and "apply", but have de-emphasized "know"
The third part of the study is the alignment analysis between physics content standard and test papers combined with common compulsory modules and elective1-1module. The data analysis indicates that there is not a significant alignment between this kind of test papers and physics content standard.(1)the general comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them. The alignment indices between this kind of test papers and physics content standard are significantly lower than the corresponding critical values.(2) the content topics'distribution' comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them. In general, compared with content standard, this kind of test papers have increased the examinational degree of "the description of motion","the interactions and motion laws" and "the projectile motion and circular motion", have reduced the examinational degree of "the achievements and limitations of classical mechanics","the electromagnetic phenomenons and laws","the electromagnetic technologies and social development" and "the household appliances and daily life", and the examinational degree of "the mechanical energy and energy" is appropriate.(3)The cognitive levels'distribution' comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them.In general, compared with content standard, this kind of test papers have more emphasized "realize" and "understand", but have de-emphasized "know"and "apply".
The fourth part of the study is the alignment analysis between physics content standard and test papers combined with common compulsory modules and elective2-1module. The data analysis indicates that there is not a significant alignment between this kind of test papers and physics content standard.(1)the general comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them. The alignment indices between this kind of test papers and physics content standard are significantly lower than the corresponding critical values.(2) the content topics'distribution' comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them. In general, compared with content standard, this kind of test papers have increased the examinational degree of "the description of motion" and "the interactions and motion laws", have reduced the examinational degree of "the achievements and limitations of classical mechanics","the circuit and working principle" and "the electromagnetic waves and information technology ", and the examinational degree of "the mechanical energy and energy" and "the projectile motion and circular motion" are appropriate.(3)The cognitive levels' distribution' comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them.In general, compared with content standard, this kind of test papers have more emphasized "realize" and "understand", but have de-emphasized "know", and the examinational degree of "apply" is more appropriate respectively speaking.
The fiveth part of the study is the alignment analysis between physics content standard and test papers combined with common compulsory modules and elective3-1module. The data analysis indicates that there is not a significant alignment between this kind of test papers and physics content standard.(1)the general comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them. The alignment indices between this kind of test papers and physics content standard are significantly lower than the corresponding critical values.(2) the content topics'distribution' comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them. In general, compared with content standard, this kind of test papers have increased the examinational degree of "the description of motion" and "the interactions and motion laws" and "the projectile motion and circular motion", have reduced the examinational degree of "the achievements and limitations of classical mechanics","the electric field","the circuit" and "the magnetic field", and the examinational degree of "the mechanical energy and energy" is appropriate.(3)The cognitive levels'distribution' comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them.In general, compared with content standard, this kind of test papers have more emphasized "realize" and "understand", but have de-emphasized "know", and the examinational degree of "apply" is more appropriate respectively speaking.
Research conclusions are drawed according to the above five parts:
There is not a statistically significant alignment between senior high school physics academic achievement test and senior high school physics content standard,
(1)the general comparisons of the alignment between the test papers and physics content standard indicate that there is not a statistically significant alignment between them.
All alignment indices between the test papers and physics content standard are significantly lower than the corresponding critical values, and the alignment indices between the average of each type test papers and physics content standard are also significantly lower than the corresponding critical values.
(2) the content topics' distribution' comparisons of the alignment between the test papers and physics content standard indicate that there is not a statistically significant alignment between them.
4types of test papers have different features on the content topics' emphasis, but all of them are biased compared with physics content standard. In general, compared with content standard, the test papers have increased the examinational degree of common compulsory modules' content topics(except for "the achievements and limitations of classical mechanics"), and have reduced the examinational degree of elective modules' content topics.
(3)The cognitive levels' distribution'comparisons of the alignment between the test papers and physics content standard indicate that there is not a statistically significant alignment between them.
4types of test papers have different features on the cognitive levels' emphasis, but all of them are biased compared with physics content standard. In general, compared with content standard, the test papers have more emphasized "realize" and "understand", have de-emphasized "know", and the examinational degree of "apply" is more appropriate respectively speaking.
Finally, senior high school physics academic achievement test has been reflected from such aspects as follows:the inconsistence of test with physics content standard will influence the teaching aims of curriculum standard to carry out fully, the absence of evaluation criterion results in the lack of standardization of exam content, and so on. Moreover, some suggestions are served:perfecting legislation for national curriculum examinations, founding perfect senior high school physics education quality monitoring system, constructing scientific senior high school physics academic achievement test evaluation system, and so on.
This research is of great significance for riching the research theory of the alignment between academic assessment papers and curriculum standard, building the alignment analysis patterns suited for the chinese situation, promoting the domestic alignment research, promoting the in-depth development of the curriculum reform. And the research results can provide a reference for the improvement of senior high school physics academic achievement test-making. At the same time, the research echoes with the implementation of the national basic education quality monitoring system, so that it can provide a reference for our country to promote the curriculum evaluation reform deeply.
高中物理学业水平考试是依据普通高中物理课程标准,在教育部指导下由各省(市)组织实施的全面检测普通高中学生高中物理课程修习水平的标准参照考试,对于高中物理课程改革的顺利推进和深入发展具有重要的意义。与高中物理新课程结构的基础性和选择性相适应,各省(市)高中物理学业水平考试的模块选取呈现多样化特征。根据各类型学生需要选做哪些试题并取得合格分数才算完成高中物理课程的学习任务,将各省(市)的所有高中物理学业水平考试试卷分为四类,分别为共同必修模块试卷、含选修1-1的必修模块试卷、含选修2-1的必修模块试卷、含选修3-1的必修模块试卷。考试内容是考试的核心要素,而考试与内容标准的一致性则是基于标准的课程改革取得成功的关键。高中物理学业水平考试试卷与物理内容标准是否具备一致性?这是本研究的核心问题。
研究具体由以下3个问题构成：
(1)如何在借鉴已有研究的基础上构建本土化的高中物理学业水平考试和高中物理内容标准的一致性分析框架?
(2)如何根据一致性分析框架分析高中物理内容标准和高中物理学业水平考试试卷?
(3)各类型高中物理学业水平考试试卷和高中物理内容标准的一致性具体特征如何?
本研究采用量化研究为主,质性研究为辅的技术路线。研究方法主要包括：文献法、内容分析法、调查法,个案法。本论文主要包括五部分研究内容。
研究一：针对四类试卷,分别构建高中物理内容标准和学业水平考试的一致性分析框架。阐述运用一致性分析框架分析高中物理内容标准和高中物理学业水平考试试卷的方法和步骤,并以某份试卷为例阐述分析试卷和物理内容标准的一致性的方法和过程。
研究二：共同必修模块试卷和物理内容标准的一致性研究。数据分析表明：该类试卷与物理内容标准不具备显著的一致性。(1)总体比较表明两者不具备一致性。该类型试卷与物理内容标准的一致性系数明显低于临界值。(2)内容主题分布比较表明两者不具备一致性。总体而言,与内容标准相比,试卷加大了对“运动的描述”、“相互作用与运动规律”的考查力度,降低了对“经典力学的成就与局限性”的考查力度,对于“抛体运动与圆周运动”和“机械能和能源”考查力度合适。(3)认知水平分布比较表明两者不具备一致性。总体而言,与内容标准相比,试卷加大了对“认识”、“理解”、“应用”的考查力度,而降低了对“了解”的考查力度。
研究三：含选修1-1的必修模块试卷和物理内容标准的一致性研究。数据分析表明：该类试卷与物理内容标准不具备显著的一致性。(1)总体比较表明两者不具备一致性。该类型试卷与物理内容标准的一致性系数明显低于临界值。(2)内容主题分布比较表明两者不具备一致性。总体而言,与内容标准相比,试卷加大了对“运动的描述”、“相互作用与运动规律”、“抛体运动与圆周运动”的考查力度,降低了对“经典力学的成就与局限性”、“电磁现象与规律”、“电磁技术与社会发展”、“家用电器与日常生活”的考查力度,对于“机械能和能源”考查力度合适。(3)认知水平分布比较表明两者不具备一致性。总体而言,与内容标准相比,试卷加大了对“认识”和“理解”的考查力度,而降低了对“了解”和“应用”的考查力度。
研究四：含选修2-1的必修模块试卷和物理内容标准的一致性研究。数据分析表明：该类试卷与物理内容标准不具备显著的一致性。(1)总体比较表明两者不具备一致性。该类型试卷与物理内容标准的一致性系数明显低于临界值。(2)内容主题分布比较表明两者不具备一致性。总体而言,与内容标准相比,试卷加大了对“运动的描述”、“相互作用与运动规律”的考查力度,降低了对“经典力学的成就与局限性”、“电路与电工”、“电磁波与信息技术”的考查力度,对于“机械能和能源”和“抛体运动与圆周运动”考查力度合适。(3)认知水平分布比较表明两者不具备一致性。总体而言,与内容标准相比,试卷加大了对“认识”和“理解”的考查力度,降低了对“了解”的考查力度,对“应用”考查力度较合适。
研究五：含选修3-1的必修模块试卷和物理内容标准的一致性研究。数据分析表明：该类试卷与物理内容标准不具备显著的一致性。(1)总体比较表明两者不具备一致性。该类型试卷与物理内容标准的一致性系数明显低于临界值。(2)内容主题分布比较表明两者不具备一致性。总体而言,与内容标准相比,试卷加大了对“运动的描述”、“相互作用与运动规律”、“抛体运动与圆周运动”的考查力度,降低了对“经典力学的成就与局限性”、“电场”、“电路”、“磁场”的考查力度,对于“机械能和能源”考查力度合适。(3)认知水平分布比较表明两者不具备一致性。总体而言,与内容标准相比,试卷加大了对“认识”和“理解”的考查力度,降低了对“了解”的考查力度,对于“应用”的考查力度较合适。
在分类别研究的基础上,得出本论文研究总结论：
高中物理学业水平考试和高中物理内容标准不具备统计学意义上显著的一致性。
(1)试卷与物理内容标准的一致性的总体比较表明两者不具备一致性
所有试卷与物理内容标准的一致性系数均明显低于对应的临界值,4类试卷各自平均情况与物理内容标准的一致性系数也明显低于临界值。
(2)试卷与物理内容标准之间的内容主题分布比较表明两者不具备一致性
4类试卷对内容主题的侧重各有特点,但与物理内容标准相比均有偏差。总体而言,相对于内容标准,试卷加大了对共同必修模块的内容主题(“经典力学的成就与局限性”除外)的考查力度,而降低了对于必选模块内容主题的考查力度。
(3)试卷与物理内容标准之间的认知水平分布比较表明两者不具备一致性
4类试卷对认知水平的侧重各有特点,但与物理内容标准相比均有偏差。总体而言,相对于内容标准,试卷加大了对“认识”、“理解”的考查力度,而降低了对“了解”的考查力度；对于“应用”的考查力度相对较好。
最后,从考试和物理内容标准的不一致会影响课程标准教学目标的全面落实、考试评价标准的缺失导致考试内容的不规范等方面对高中物理学业水平考试进行反思；从完善“国家课程测验”制度立法、建立完备的高中物理教育质量监测机制、建构系统的高中物理学业水平考试评价体系等方面提出建议。
本研究对于丰富学业评价与课程标准的一致性研究理论、构建适合中国国情的一致性分析模型、推进国内一致性研究、促进课程改革的深入发展具有重要的意义,研究结果可以为高中物理学业水平考试命题的改进提供参考。同时,本研究与国家基础教育质量监测制度的实施相呼应,可为国家深入推进课程评价改革提供参考。
Since the late1980s,"Standard-based Curriculum Reform" has been implemented widely in many countries and curriculum standard has been put in a prominently important position in the basic education reform. Under this background, the issue of the alignment between curriculum standard and achievement assessment has caused wide attention throughout the world. China's regular senior high school academic achievement test is a comprehensive examination system established along with the new curriculum reform in senior high school. In theory, there should be a statistically significant alignment between all subject senior high school academic achievement tests and corresponding subject curriculum standards. Thus researching the issue of alignment between senior high school academic achievement test and curriculum standard has important theoretical and practical value.
Senior high school physics academic achievement test is a criterion--referenced test with regular senior high school physics curriculum standard as criterion, and it is implemented by each province (city) under the guidance of the ministry of education. The test's aim is to check the levels of senior high school students'physics academic achievement in the round, and it has great significance for smooth progress and further development of senior high school physics curriculum reform. To adapt with the foundation and selectivity characteristics of senior high school physics curriculum structure, different provinces'(cities') senior high school physics academic achie-vement tests present a diversified characteristic in the aspect of choosing modules. According to the questions that each type students need to choose to accomplish and get eligible mark in order to finish senior high school physics course study tasks, all provinces'(cities') senior high school physics academic achievement test papers are divided into four categories, including test papers combined with common compulsory modules, test papers combined with common compulsory modules and elective1-1module, test papers combined with common compulsory modules and elective2-1module, test papers combined with common compulsory modules and elective3-1module. As we know, the exam content is the key elements of the exam, meanwhile, the alignment between exam and conten standard is the key factors for the success of "Standard-based Curriculum Reform". Are there a significant alignment between senior high school physics academic achievement test papers and physics content standard? This is the key problem of this study.
Concretely, the study constitutes of3parts:
(1) How to construct a localization analysis framework to check the alignment between senior high school physics academic achievement test papers and senior high school physics content standard based on existed theory fruits?
(2) How to analyse senior high school physics content standard and senior high school physics academic achievement test papers according to the alignment analysis framework?
(3) What are the specific characteristics of the alignment between each type of senior high school physics academic achievement test papers and senior high school physics content standard?
The study has adopted the technical route which is a quantitative research primarily and is supplemented by a qualitative research. In addition, the major research methods include literature method, content analysis method, investigation method, case method. And this thesis is mainly divided inio five parts.
The first part of the study has constructed the alignment analysis frameworks to analyse the alignment between senior high school physics content standard and each type of academic achievement test papers, has introduced the method and step of applying the alignment analysis framework to analyse senior high school physics content standard and senior high school physics academic achievement test papers, has introduced the methods and processes of analysing the alignment between test papers and physics content standard taking a test paper as an example.
The second part of the study is the alignment analysis between physics content standard and test papers combined with common compulsory modules. The data analysis indicates that there is not a significant alignment between this kind of test papers and physics content standard.(1)the general comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them. The alignment indices between this kind of test papers and physics content standard are significantly lower than the corresponding critical values.(2) the content topics' distribution' comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them. In general, compared with content standard, this kind of test papers have increased the examinational degree of "the description of motion" and "the interactions and motion laws", have reduced the examinational degree of "the achievements and limitations of classical mechanics", and the examinational degree of "the projectile motion and circular motion" and "the mechanical energy and energy" are appropriate.(3)The cognitive levels'distribution' comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them.In general, compared with content standard, this kind of test papers have more emphasized "realize","understand" and "apply", but have de-emphasized "know"
The third part of the study is the alignment analysis between physics content standard and test papers combined with common compulsory modules and elective1-1module. The data analysis indicates that there is not a significant alignment between this kind of test papers and physics content standard.(1)the general comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them. The alignment indices between this kind of test papers and physics content standard are significantly lower than the corresponding critical values.(2) the content topics'distribution' comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them. In general, compared with content standard, this kind of test papers have increased the examinational degree of "the description of motion","the interactions and motion laws" and "the projectile motion and circular motion", have reduced the examinational degree of "the achievements and limitations of classical mechanics","the electromagnetic phenomenons and laws","the electromagnetic technologies and social development" and "the household appliances and daily life", and the examinational degree of "the mechanical energy and energy" is appropriate.(3)The cognitive levels'distribution' comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them.In general, compared with content standard, this kind of test papers have more emphasized "realize" and "understand", but have de-emphasized "know"and "apply".
The fourth part of the study is the alignment analysis between physics content standard and test papers combined with common compulsory modules and elective2-1module. The data analysis indicates that there is not a significant alignment between this kind of test papers and physics content standard.(1)the general comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them. The alignment indices between this kind of test papers and physics content standard are significantly lower than the corresponding critical values.(2) the content topics'distribution' comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them. In general, compared with content standard, this kind of test papers have increased the examinational degree of "the description of motion" and "the interactions and motion laws", have reduced the examinational degree of "the achievements and limitations of classical mechanics","the circuit and working principle" and "the electromagnetic waves and information technology ", and the examinational degree of "the mechanical energy and energy" and "the projectile motion and circular motion" are appropriate.(3)The cognitive levels' distribution' comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them.In general, compared with content standard, this kind of test papers have more emphasized "realize" and "understand", but have de-emphasized "know", and the examinational degree of "apply" is more appropriate respectively speaking.
The fiveth part of the study is the alignment analysis between physics content standard and test papers combined with common compulsory modules and elective3-1module. The data analysis indicates that there is not a significant alignment between this kind of test papers and physics content standard.(1)the general comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them. The alignment indices between this kind of test papers and physics content standard are significantly lower than the corresponding critical values.(2) the content topics'distribution' comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them. In general, compared with content standard, this kind of test papers have increased the examinational degree of "the description of motion" and "the interactions and motion laws" and "the projectile motion and circular motion", have reduced the examinational degree of "the achievements and limitations of classical mechanics","the electric field","the circuit" and "the magnetic field", and the examinational degree of "the mechanical energy and energy" is appropriate.(3)The cognitive levels'distribution' comparisons indicate that there is not a significant alignment between them.In general, compared with content standard, this kind of test papers have more emphasized "realize" and "understand", but have de-emphasized "know", and the examinational degree of "apply" is more appropriate respectively speaking.
Research conclusions are drawed according to the above five parts:
There is not a statistically significant alignment between senior high school physics academic achievement test and senior high school physics content standard,
(1)the general comparisons of the alignment between the test papers and physics content standard indicate that there is not a statistically significant alignment between them.
All alignment indices between the test papers and physics content standard are significantly lower than the corresponding critical values, and the alignment indices between the average of each type test papers and physics content standard are also significantly lower than the corresponding critical values.
(2) the content topics' distribution' comparisons of the alignment between the test papers and physics content standard indicate that there is not a statistically significant alignment between them.
4types of test papers have different features on the content topics' emphasis, but all of them are biased compared with physics content standard. In general, compared with content standard, the test papers have increased the examinational degree of common compulsory modules' content topics(except for "the achievements and limitations of classical mechanics"), and have reduced the examinational degree of elective modules' content topics.
(3)The cognitive levels' distribution'comparisons of the alignment between the test papers and physics content standard indicate that there is not a statistically significant alignment between them.
4types of test papers have different features on the cognitive levels' emphasis, but all of them are biased compared with physics content standard. In general, compared with content standard, the test papers have more emphasized "realize" and "understand", have de-emphasized "know", and the examinational degree of "apply" is more appropriate respectively speaking.
Finally, senior high school physics academic achievement test has been reflected from such aspects as follows:the inconsistence of test with physics content standard will influence the teaching aims of curriculum standard to carry out fully, the absence of evaluation criterion results in the lack of standardization of exam content, and so on. Moreover, some suggestions are served:perfecting legislation for national curriculum examinations, founding perfect senior high school physics education quality monitoring system, constructing scientific senior high school physics academic achievement test evaluation system, and so on.
This research is of great significance for riching the research theory of the alignment between academic assessment papers and curriculum standard, building the alignment analysis patterns suited for the chinese situation, promoting the domestic alignment research, promoting the in-depth development of the curriculum reform. And the research results can provide a reference for the improvement of senior high school physics academic achievement test-making. At the same time, the research echoes with the implementation of the national basic education quality monitoring system, so that it can provide a reference for our country to promote the curriculum evaluation reform deeply.
引文
[1]不同国家对课程标准称谓不尽相同,有些国家称其为课程大纲、课程纲要等。
[2]汪贤泽.基于课程标准的学业成就评价的比较研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2010：3.
[3]这里的“基于课程标准的教育改革”和“基于标准的教育改革(standards-based education reform)"、“基于标准的改革(standards-based reform)"“标准驱动的教育改革(standards-driven education reform)"等具有相同的涵义。
[4]中华人民共和国教育部.基础教育课程改革纲要(试行)[S].教基[2001]17号,2001-06-08.
[5] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.The condition of education,2000.NCES 2000-062.Washington,DC:Author,2000.
[6]黄思记.普通高中学业水平考试定位研究[D].开封：河南大学.2011：1.
[7]王焕霞,廖伯琴.我国高中学业水平考试的实践困境与制度审思[J].教育学报,2011(12)：77-83.
[8] J. L. Herman, N. M.Webb. Alignment Methodologies[J]. Applied Measurement in Education.2007,20(1):1-5.
[9]L. B. Resnick, D. P. Resnick. Assessing the Thinking Curriculum:New Tools for Educational Reform in Changing Assessment. In:B. K. Gifford, M. C. O'Connor. Changing Assessment:Alternative Views of Aptitude, Achievement and Instruction. Boston:National Commission on Testing and Public Policy,1992:37-75.
[10] X. Liu, G. Fulmer. Alignment Between the Science Curriculum and Assessmentin Selected NY State Regents Exams[J]. Jouranal of science education technology.2008,17:373-383.
[11]雷新勇.基于标准的教育考试—命题、标准设置和学业评价[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社,2011：4249.
[12]雷新勇.基于标准的教育考试—命题、标准设置和学业评价[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社,2011：183-189.
[13]黄政杰著.课程评鉴[M].台北：师大书苑有限公司,1987：14.
[14]钟启泉,李雁冰.课程设计基础[M].济南：山东教育出版社,2000：404.
[15]黄政杰著.课程评鉴[M].台北：师大书苑有限公司,1987：15.
[16]黄政杰著.课程评鉴[M].台北：师大书苑有限公司,1987：16-18.
[17]黄政杰著.课程评鉴[M].台北：师大书苑有限公司,1987：20-21.
[18]陈玉馄.教育评价学[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1998：7.
[19]钟启泉,李雁冰.课程设计基础[M].济南：山东教育出版社,2000：404.
[20]陈玉馄.教育评价学[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1998：7.
[21]刘志军.课堂评价论[M].南宁：广西师范大学出版社,2002：16-17.
[22]沈玉顺.现代教育评价[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社.2002：65-66.
[23]蔡敏.当代学生课业评价[M].上海：上海教育出版社.2006：3-4.
[24]蔡敏.当代学生课业评价[M].上海：上海教育出版社.2006：5-8.
[25]刘学智.小学数学学业评价与课程标准一致性的研究[D].长春：东北师范大学.2008：16.
[26]杨向东,崔允漷.关于高中学业水平考试的比较研究[J].全球教育展望,2010(4)：7-14.
[27]Ohio Department of Education Office of Assessment. Ohio Statewide Assessment Program Rules Book[EB/OL].[2010-09-24]http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicR elationID=9&ContentID=43712.
[28]姜英敏.从“学业水平测试”制度管窥韩国的基础教育质量保障体系[J].比较教育研究,2011(10)：82-85.
[29]刘丽群,周娟.英国高中学业水平考试的特点及启示[J].教育测量与评价,2011(1)：56-60.
[30]何珊云.法国高中学业水平测试及启示[J].教育测量与评价,2010(7)：49-53.
[31] ACE Manual [EB/OL]. [2010-09-16] http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/manuals/acemanual.html
[32]教育部.教育部关于深化基础教育课程改革进一步推进素质教育的意见[Z].教基二[2010]3号,2010-04-27.
[33]王焕霞,廖伯琴.我国高中学业水平考试的实践困境与制度审思[J1].教育学报,2011(12)：77-83.
[34]刘决生.聚焦普通高中学业水平考试[N].中国教育报,2008-10-29(6).
[35]山东省教育厅.关于印发《山东省普通高中学生学业水平考试工作管理暂行规定》的通知[Z].鲁教基字[2005]16号,2005-11-23.
[36]上海市教育委员会.上海市教育委员会关于实施上海市普通高中学业水平考试的通知[Z].沪教委基[2009]53号,2009-06-23.
[37]李欣.中美高中学业水平考试多维比较研究[D].上海：华东师范大学.2011：72-76.
[38]山东省教育厅.关于印发《山东省普通高中学生学业水平考试工作管理暂行规定》的通知[Z].鲁教基字[2005]16号,2005-11-23.
[39]海南省教育厅.关于印发《海南省2007年普通高中毕业生基础会考考务实施细则》的通知[z],琼教[2007]19号,2007-03-09
[40]吉林省教育厅.关于实行普通高中学业考试制度的意见[Z],吉教基[2007]24号,2007-08-26.
[41]江西省教育厅.关于印发《江西省普通高中学业水平考试实施方案(试行)》的通知[Z],赣教基[2009]25号,2009-05-08.
[42]新疆维吾尔自治区教育厅.关于印发《新疆维吾尔自治区、新疆生产建设兵团高中学业水平考试实施方案》的通知[Z],新教基[2008]37号,2008-08-29.
[43]河北省教育厅.关于印发《河北省普通高中学业水平考试实施意见(试行)》的通知[Z],冀教基[2010]25号,2010-05-31.
[44]云南省教育厅.云南省普通高中学业水平考试方案(试行)[Z],课程教材教学研究(中教研究),2010(3)：2-4.
[45]河南省教育厅.河南省教育厅关于印发《河南省普通高中学业水平考试方案》的通知[Z],豫教基[2009]105号,2009-06-05.
[46]贵州省教育厅.省教育厅关于印发《贵州省普通高中学业水平考试实施方案(试行)》的通知[Z],黔教基发[2010]236号,2010-09-10.
[47]四川省教育厅.四川省教育厅关于印发《四川省普通高中学业水平考试实施办法(试行)》的通知[Z],川教[2010]230号,2010-12-07.
[48]辽宁省教育厅.辽宁省教育厅关于印发《辽宁省普通高中学生学业水平考试实施方案》的通知[Z],辽教发[2011]1号,2011-01-08.
[49]甘肃省教育厅.甘肃省教育厅关于印发《甘肃省普通高中学业水平考试方案(试行)》的通知[Z],甘教基[2011]47号,2011-10-10.
[50]青海省教育厅.青海省教育厅关于印发《青海省普通高中学业水平考试实施方案》的通知[Z],青教基[2011]44号,2011-05-16.
[51]江苏省教育厅.江苏省普通高中学业水平测试方案[Z],2006-09-22.
[52]福建省教育厅.关于印发《福建省普通高中学生学业基础会考方案(试行)》的通知[Z],闽教基[2006]76号,2006-11-13.
[53]天津市教育委员会.关于印发《天津市普通高中学业水平考试方案》的通知[Z],津教委中[2007]4号,2007-01-26.
[54]黑龙江省教育厅.关于印发《黑龙江省普通高中学业水平考试实施方案(试行)》的通知[Z],黑教基[2008]111号,2008-05-16.
[55]湖南省教育厅.关于印发《湖南省普通高中学业水平考试实施方案(试行)》的通知[Z],湘教发[2008]79号,2008-11-13.
[56]陕西省教育厅.陕西省教育厅关于印发《陕西省普通高中学生学业水平考试实施意见(试行)》的通知[Z],陕教基[2008]18号,2008-04-12.
[57]上海市教育委员会.上海市教育委员会关于实施上海市普通高中学业水平考试的通知[Z].沪教委基[2009]53号,2009-06-23.
[58]山西省教育厅.山西省教育厅关于印发《实施普通高中学业水平考试制度的意见(试行)》的通知[Z],晋教基[2010]4号,2010-01-14.
[59]重庆市教育委员会.重庆市教育委员会《关于实施普通高中学生学业水平考试的试行意见》[Z],渝教基[2011]74号,2011-11-07.
[60]王焕霞,廖伯琴.我国高中学业水平考试的实践困境与制度审思[J].教育学报,2011(12)：77-83.
[61]黄思记.普通高中学业水平考试定位研究[D].开封：河南大学,2011：23-26.
[62]王焕霞,廖伯琴.我国高中学业水平考试的实践困境与制度审思[J].教育学报,20I1(12)：77-83.
[63]刘决生.我国普通高中学业水平考试存在的问题与对策[J].上海教育科研,2010(3)：39-42.
[64]普通高校招生考试时拟报考文史类、艺术类的考生须参加物理、化学、生物、信息技术和通用技术学科的基础会考；拟报考理工类、体育类的考生须参加思想政治、历史、地理、信息技术和通用技术学科的基础会考。
[65]雷新勇.我国学业水平考试的基本问题及反思[J].教育测量与评价.2010(1)：4-14.
[66]王焕霞,廖伯琴.我国高中学业水平考试的实践困境与制度审思[J].教育学报,2011(12)：77-83.
[67]顾明远主编.教育大辞典(第一卷)[M].上海：上海教育出版社.1990：280.
[68]中华人民共和国教育部.基础教育课程改革纲要(试行)[S].教基[2001]17号,2001-06-08.
[69]国家教委与联合国儿童基金会1990-1993周期合作调研项目：《学习质量和基本标准》[M].广西：广西教育出版社.1995：280-281.
[70]钟启泉,崔允漷.新课程的理念与创新——师范生读本[Ml.北京：高等教育出版社,2003：67-68.
[71]Goals 2000:Educate America Act [EB/OL].[2011-03-16] http://www.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/index.html.
[72]崔允漷,王少非,夏雪梅.基于标准的学生学业成就评价[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008：11.
[73]汪贤泽.基于课程标准的学业成就评价的比较研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2010：56-57.
[74]汪贤泽.基于课程标准的学业成就评价程序研究[D].上海：华东师范大学,2008：10.
[75]埃利斯.美国基础教育标准化运动分析[J].张文军,译.教育发展研究,2008(2)：52-56.
[76]雷新勇.基于标准的教育考试——命题、标准设置和学业评价[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社,2011：64-65.
[77]中华人民共和国教育部.普通高中物理课程标准(实验)[s].北京：人民教育出版社,2003：1-72.
[78]中华人民共和国教育部.普通高中物理课程标准(实验)[S].北京：人民教育出版社,2003：1.
[79]刘学智.小学数学学业评价与课程标准一致性的研究[D].长春：东北师范大学.2008：17.
[80]NormanL.Webb. Alignment of Science and Mathematics Standards and Assessments in Four States. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers,1999.
[81] La Marca, P. M., Redfield, D.,& Winter, P.C.. State Standards and State Assessment Systems:A Guide to Alignment. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers.2000.
[82]刘学智.小学数学学业评价与课程标准一致性的研究[D].长春：东北师范大学.2008：18.
[83]刘学智.小学数学学业评价与课程标准一致性的研究[D].长春：东北师范大学.2008：18.
[84] Madaus,G.F..The courts,validity,and minimum competency testing. Boston:Kluwer-Nijhoff.1983.
[85] NormanL.Webb. Alignment of Science and Mathematics Standards and Assessments in Four States. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers,1999.
[86] Long, V.M.& Benson, C.. Re:Alignment[J]. The Mathematics Teacher,1998,91(6):503-508.
[87]刘学智.小学数学学业评价与课程标准一致性的研究[D].长春：东北师范大学.2008：25.
[88] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Remedial education at higher education institutions. NCES97-584. Washington,DC:Author,1996.
[89] NormanL.Webb. Alignment of Science and Mathematics Standards and Assessments in Four States. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers,1999.
[90] Blank, R.. Models for alignment analysis and assistance to states. Council of Chief State School Officers Summary Document. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers,2002.
[91]Webb, N. L.. Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education. Madison:University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers,1997.
[92]Webb, N. L.. Alignment study in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies of state standards and assessments for four states. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers.2002.
[93] Webb, N. L.Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments[J]. Applied Measurement in Education,2007,20(1),7-25.
[94]诺曼·韦伯著,张雨强编译.判断评价与课程标准一致性的若干问题[J].比较教育研究,2011(12)：83-89.
[95]刘学智.论评价与课程标准一致性的建构：美国的经验[J].全球教育展望,2006(9)：35-39.
[96]刘学智,张雷.学业评价与课程标准的一致性：韦伯模式本土化探究[J].外国教育研究,2009(12)：13-17.
[97]岳喜腾,张雨强.基于课程标准的学业成就评价：韦伯模式之研究[J].全球教育展望,2011(10)：79-85.
[98]Porter,A.C. and Smithson, J.L.Standards-based reform in the states Chicago-.National Society for the.study of Education. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2001:61.
[99]Porter, A. C., Smithson, J. Defining, Developing, and Using Curriculum Indicators[EB/OL]. [2010-05-06] http://jsmithson.wceruw.org/Reference/rr48.pdf
[100] Andrew C. Porter. Curriculum Assessment[EB/OL]. [2010-05-06] http://www.andyporter.org/papers/CurriculumAssessment.pdf
[101] Porter, A.C..How SEC.Measures Alignment[J].Educational Researcher,1997(5):2.
[102] Porter, A.C..How SEC.Measures Alignment[J].Educational Researcher,1997(5):9.
[103]Blank, R.K., Porter, A.C.,& Smithson, J. New tools for analyzing teaching, curriculum and standards in mathematics & science[EB/OL]. [2010-05-06] http://seconline.wceruw.org/Reference/SECnewToolsreport.pdf
[104]Porter,A.C.Measuring the content of instruction:Uses in research and practice[J]. Educational Researcher, 2002,31(7),3-14.
[105] Porter, A. C., Smithson, J. Blank, R. K.,& Zeidner, T. Alignment as a teacher variable[J]. Applied Measurement in Education,2007,20(1):27-51.
[1061 Porter, A.C., Smithson, J.L.. Are content standards being implemented in the classroom? A methodology and some tentative answers. In S.H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom:Standards-based reform in the states-One hundredth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part Ⅱ. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2001.
[107] Porter,A.C.Measuring the content of instruction:Uses in research and practice[J]. Educational Researcher, 2002,31(7),3-14.
[108] Fulmer, G. W.. Estimating critical values for strength of alignment among curriculum, assessments, and instruction[J]. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics.2011,36(6):381-402.
[109]刘学智,马云鹏.美国“SEC”一致性分析范式的诠释与启示——基础教育中评价与课程标准一致性的视角[J].比较教育研究,2007(5)：64-68.
[110]崔允漷,夏雪梅.试论基于课程标准的学生学业成就评价[J].课程·教材·教法,2007(1)：13-18.
[111]Rothman, R., Slattery, J. B., Vranek, J. L., and Resnick, L. B. Benchmarking and alignment of standards and testing[EB/OL]. [2010-04-16] http://achieve.org/files/TR566.pdf
[112]Andrew T. Roach, Bradley C. Niebling, Alexander Kurz. Evaluating Alignment Among Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessments:Implications and Applications for Research And Practice[J].Psychology in the Schools,2008,45(2):158-176.
[113]范立双,刘学智.美国“成功分析模式”的诠释与启示——学业评价与课程标准一致性的视角[J].比较教育研究,2010(8)：77-80.
[114]杨玉琴,张新宇,占小红.美国Achieve "测验——标准”一致性分析工具的研究及启示[J].外国中小学教育,2011(9)：22-27.
[115]Rothman,R.Imperfect matches:The alignment of standards and tests[EB/OL]. [2010-04-16] http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=+Imperfect+matches%3A+The+alignment+of+standards+and+tests&hl=zh-C N&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&lr
[116]崔允漷,王少非,夏雪梅.基于标准的学生学业成就评价[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008：112-115.
[117]Andrea Martone, Stephen G Sireci. Evaluating Alignment Between Curriculum, Assessment, and Instruction[J]. Review of Educational Research,2009,79(4):1332-1361.
[118]Gunilla Nasstrom, Widar Henriksson. Alignment of Standards and Assessment:A theoretical and empirical study of methods for alignment[J]. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology,2008,6(3):667-690.
[119] Porter,A.C, Smithson,J. Blank, R. K., Zeidner, T. Alignment as a teacher variable[J]. Applied Measurement in Education,2007,20(1):27-51.
[120]Abdinur Mohamud, Dan Fleck. Alignment of Standards, Assessment and Instruction:Implications for English Language Learners in Ohio[J]. Theory Into Practice,2010(49):129-136.
[121] Dennison S.Bhola, James C.Impara,and Chad W.Buckendahl. Aligning Tests with States'Content Standards: Methods and Issues[J]. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practice,2003(3):21-29.
[122] Joan L. Herman, Noreen M. Webb,Stephen A. Zuniga. Measurement Issues in the Alignment of Standards and Assessments:A Case Study[J]. Applied Measurement in Education,2007,20(1),101-126.
[123] Webb, N. L.Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments[J]. Applied Measurement in Education,2007,20(1),7-25.
[124]诺曼·韦伯著,张雨强编译.判断评价与课程标准一致性的若干问题[J].比较教育研究,2011(12)：83-89.
[125] Dennison S.Bhola, James C.Impara,and Chad W.Buckendahl. Aligning Tests with States' Content Standards: Methods and Issues[J]. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practice,2003(3):21-29.
[126] Richard S. Brown, David T. Conley. Comparing State High School Assessments to Standards for Success in Entry-Level University Courses[J]. Educational Assessment,2007,12(2):137-160.
[127] Andrew C. Porter, Morgan S. Polikoff, Tim Zeidner, John Smithson. The Quality of Content Analyses of State Student Achievement Tests and Content Standards[J]. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practice, 2008,27(4):2-14.
[1281刘学智.小学数学学业评价与课程标准一致性的研究[J].吉林省教育学院学报,2008(1)：26-31.
[129]刘学智.小学数学学业评价与课程标准一致性的研究[D].长春：东北师范大学.2008：107-117.
[130]刘建海,康淑敏,张雨强.英语开放性学业成就评价与课程标准的匹配策略[J].教育科学研究,2010(4)：36-41.
[131]刘学智,曹小旭.小学数学学业水平测试与课程标准一致性水平探究[J].当代教育科学,2011(14)：21-24.
[132]曹小旭,张庆霞.基于标准的小学语文学业水平考试试卷质量分析——学业评价与课程标准一致性的视角[J].教育测量与评价,2011(7)：57-61.
[133] Liu, X., Fulmer, G. W.. Alignment between science curriculum and assessments in selected New York State Regents exams[J]. Journal of Science Education and Technology,2008,17(4),373-383.
[134]所选样本为美国2006年纽约州物理摄政考试和纽约州物理核心课程标准,江苏省2006年物理会考和中国物理教学大纲,新加坡2006年普通水平(O-Level)物理考试和普通水平物理考试大纲。
[135] Liu, X., Zhang, B. H., Liang, L. L., Fulmer, G. W., Kim, B., and Yuan, H.Q. Alignment between the physics content standards and standardized tests:A comparison among US-NY, Singapore, and China-Jiangsu[J]. Science Education,2008,22(12):777-797.
[136] Liang, L. L.,& Yuan, H.. Examining the alignment of Chinese national physics curriculum guidelines and 12th-grade exit examinations:A case study[J]. International Journal of Science Education,2008,30 (13):1823-1825.
[137]陈娴,郏璨璨等.物理内容标准与考试之间的一致性研究[J].课程·教材·教法,2010,30(7)：67-71.
[138]罗莹,王宏博,张薇薇,希望.2010年中考物理试卷与课程标准一致性分析[J].基础教育课程,2011(3)：70-75.
[139] Liu enshan, Liu qun. Alignment Between High-school Biology Content Standard and the Standardized Test of Four Provinces in China. Paper presented at the 2010 Sino-Europe General Education forum.2010.
[140]焦少珍,陈淳.2009年课改实验区高考生物试卷与课程标准的一致性研究[J].教育测量与评价,2010(5)：54-58.
[141]刘恩山,卢群,张颖之.2010年高考生物试卷与课程标准一致性分析[J].基础教育课程,2010(9)：61-67.
[1421王磊,黄琼,刘东方.中考命题与化学课程标准的一致性研究——基于九省市中等学校招生考试概念原理知识的比较[J].基础教育课程,2010(3)：75-80.
[143]张志红,张雨强,周传昌.化学中考试题与课程标准的一致性初探[J].化学教育,2010(9)：44-46.
[1441李嫩.化学课程标准与上海中考化学试题的一致性研究[D],上海：上海师范大学,2010：51-52.
[145]王磊,刘东方.中考化学试卷探究题的评价内容与水平要求设置研究——基于与义务教育化学课程标准的一致性分析[J].基础教育课程,2011(3)：76-80.
[146]焦传玲,张雨强.高考化学试题与课程标准的一致性初探[J].化学教育,2011(8)：32-33.
[147] Liu, X., Zhang, B. H., Liang, L. L., Fulmer, G. W., Kim, B., and Yuan, H.Q. Alignment between the physics content standards and standardized tests:A comparison among US-NY, Singapore, and China-Jiangsu[J]. Science Education,2008,22(12):777-797.
[148] Liu, X., Zhang, B. H., Liang, L. L., Fulmer, G. W., Kim, B., and Yuan, H.Q. Alignment between the physics content standards and standardized tests:A comparison among US-NY Singapore, and China-Jiangsu[J]. Science Education,2008,22(12):777-797.
[149] Andrew T. Roach, Bradley C. Niebling, Alexander Kurz. Evaluating Alignment Among Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessments:Implications and Applications for Research And Practice[J].Psychology in the Schools,2008,45(2):158-176.
[150]仲扣庄,郭玉英.高中物理课程标准教科书内容难度定量分析——以“量子理论”为例[J],课程·教材·教法,2010(4)：67-71.
[151]王磊,刘东方.中考化学试卷探究题的评价内容与水平要求设置研究——基于与义务教育化学课程标准的一致性分析[J].基础教育课程,2011(3)：76-80.
[152]雷新勇.基于标准的教育考试——命题、标准设置和学业评价[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社,2011：87.
[153]中华人民共和国教育部.普通高中物理课程标准(实验)[S].北京：人民教育出版社,2003：6.
[154]杨小微.教育研究方法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005：96-100.
[155]中华人民共和国教育部.普通高中物理课程标准(实验)[S].北京：人民教育出版社,2003：5.
[156]中华人民共和国教育部.普通高中物理课程标准(实验)[S].北京：人民教育出版社,2003：5-6.
[157]中华人民共和国教育部.普通高中物理课程标准(实验)[S].北京：人民教育出版社,2003：6.
[158]杨小微.教育研究方法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005：96-100.
[159] Fulmer, G. W.. Estimating critical values for strength of alignment among curriculum, assessments, and instruction[J]. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics.2011,36(6):395.
[160] Porter,A.C.Measuring the content of instruction:Uses in research and practice[J]. Educational Researcher, 2002,31(7),3-14.
[161]杨小微.教育研究方法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005：96-100.
[162] Fulmer, G. W.. Estimating critical values for strength of alignment among curriculum, assessments, and instruction[J]. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics.2011,36(6):394.
[163]综观物理内容标准比率表(表4-3)中各个内容主题包含的知识点数目所占比例和共同必修模块试卷中考查各个内容主题的分数比例(见附录3),规定比率数据之差小于或等于0.030时,称为“基本吻合”、比率数据之差介于0.030—0.060之间时(含0.060),称为“略微高于(或略微低于)”、比率数据之差介于0.060—0.090之间时(含0.090),称为“高于(或低于)”、比率数据之差大于0.090时,称为“大幅度高于(或大幅度低于)”。
[164]杨小微.教育研究方法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005：96-100.
[165] Fulmer, G. W.. Estimating critical values for strength of alignment among curriculum, assessments, and instruction[J]. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics.2011,36(6):395.
[166]综观物理内容标准比率表(表3-13)中各个内容主题包含的知识点数目所占比例和含选修1-1的必修模块试卷中考查各个内容主题的分数比例(见附录4),规定比率数据之差小于或等于0.030时,称为“基本吻合”、比率数据之差介于0.0300.060之间时(含0.060),称为“略微高于(或略微低于)”、比率数据之差介于0.0600.090之间时(含0.090),称为“高于(或低于)”、比率数据之差大于0.090时,称为“大幅度高于(或大幅度低于)”。
[167]杨小微.教育研究方法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005：96-100.
[168] Fulmer, G. W.. Estimating critical values for strength of alignment among curriculum, assessments, and instruction[J]. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics.2011,36(6):395.
[170]杨小微.教育研究方法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005：96-100.
[171] Fulmer, G. W.. Estimating critical values for strength of alignment among curriculum, assessments, and instruction[J]. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics.2011,36(6):395-396.
[173]汪贤泽.基于课程标准的学业成就评价的比较研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2010：18-50.
[174]杨向东,崔允漷.关于高中学业水平考试的比较研究[J].全球教育展望.2010,39(4)：7-14.
[175]肖燃,乐国林.新课改背景下高中学业水平考试组织管理创新探析[J].河北师范大学学报(教育科学版),2009,11(3)：124-129.
[1]汪贤泽.基于课程标准的学业成就评价的比较研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2010：3,18-50,56-57.
[2]中华人民共和国教育部.基础教育课程改革纲要(试行)[S].教基[2001]17号,2001-06-08.
[3]黄思记.普通高中学业水平考试定位研究[D].开封：河南大学.2011：1,23-26.
[4]王焕霞,廖伯琴.我国高中学业水平考试的实践困境与制度审思[J].教育学报,2011(12)：77-83.
[5]雷新勇.基于标准的教育考试——命题、标准设置和学业评价[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社,2011：42-49,64-65,87,183-189.
[6]黄政杰著.课程评鉴[M].台北：师大书苑有限公司,1987：14-18,20-21.
[7]钟启泉,李雁冰.课程设计基础[M].济南：山东教育出版社,2000：404.
[8]陈玉馄.教育评价学[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1998：7.
[9]刘志军.课堂评价论[M].南宁：广西师范大学出版社,2002：16-17.
[10]沈玉顺.现代教育评价[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社.2002：65-66.
[11]蔡敏.当代学生课业评价[M].上海：上海教育出版社.2006：3-4,5-8.
[12]刘学智.小学数学学业评价与课程标准一致性的研究[D].长春：东北师范大学.2008：16-18,25-31,107-117.
[13]杨向东,崔允漷.关于高中学业水平考试的比较研究[J].全球教育展望,2010(4)：7-14.
[14]姜英敏.从“学业水平测试”制度管窥韩国的基础教育质量保障体系[J].比较教育研究,2011(10)：82-85.
[15]刘丽群,周娟.英国高中学业水平考试的特点及启示[J].教育测量与评价,2011(1)：56-60.
[16]何珊云.法国高中学业水平测试及启示[J].教育测量与评价,2010(7)：49-53.
[17]教育部.教育部关于深化基础教育课程改革进一步推进素质教育的意见[Z].教基二[2010]3号,2010-04-27.
[18]刘决生.聚焦普通高中学业水平考试[N].中国教育报,2008-10-29(6).
[19]山东省教育厅.关于印发《山东省普通高中学生学业水平考试工作管理暂行规定》的通知[Z].鲁教基字[2005]16号,2005-11-23.
[20]上海市教育委员会.上海市教育委员会关于实施上海市普通高中学业水平考试 的通知[z].沪教委基[2009]53号,2009-06-23.
[21]李欣.中美高中学业水平考试多维比较研究[D].上海：华东师范大学.2011：72-76.
[22]海南省教育厅.关于印发《海南省2007年普通高中毕业生基础会考考务实施细则》的通知[Z],琼教[2007]19号,2007-03-09
[23]吉林省教育厅.关于实行普通高中学业考试制度的意见[Z],吉教基[2007]24号,2007-08-26.
[24]江西省教育厅.关于印发《江西省普通高中学业水平考试实施方案(试行)》的通知[Z],赣教基[2009]25号,2009-05-08.
[25]新疆维吾尔自治区教育厅.关于印发《新疆维吾尔自治区、新疆生产建设兵团高中学业水平考试实施方案》的通知[Z],新教基[2008]37号,2008-08-29.
[26]河北省教育厅.关于印发《河北省普通高中学业水平考试实施意见(试行)》的通知[Z],冀教基[2010]25号,2010-05-31.
[27]云南省教育厅.云南省普通高中学业水平考试方案(试行)[Z],课程教材教学研究(中教研究),2010(3)：2-4.
[28]河南省教育厅.河南省教育厅关于印发《河南省普通高中学业水平考试方案》的通知[Z],豫教基[2009]105号,2009-06-05.
[29]贵州省教育厅.省教育厅关于印发《贵州省普通高中学业水平考试实施方案(试行)》的通知[z],黔教基发[2010]236号,2010-09-10.
[30]四川省教育厅.四川省教育厅关于印发《四川省普通高中学业水平考试实施办法(试行)》的通知[Z],川教[2010]230号,2010-12-07.
[31]辽宁省教育厅.辽宁省教育厅关于印发《辽宁省普通高中学生学业水平考试实施方案》的通知[Z],辽教发[2011]1号,2011-01-08.
[32]甘肃省教育厅.甘肃省教育厅关于印发《甘肃省普通高中学业水平考试方案(试行)》的通知[Z],甘教基[2011]47号.2011-10-10.
[33]青海省教育厅.青海省教育厅关于印发《青海省普通高中学业水平考试实施方案》的通知[Z],青教基[2011]44号,2011-05-16.
[34]江苏省教育厅.江苏省普通高中学业水平测试方案[Z],2006-09-22.
[35]福建省教育厅.关于印发《福建省普通高中学生学业基础会考方案(试行)》的通知[Z],闽教基[2006]76号.2006-11-13.
[36]天津市教育委员会.关于印发《天津市普通高中学业水平考试方案》的通知[Z],津教委中(2007]4号,2007-01-26.
[37]黑龙江省教育厅.关于印发《黑龙江省普通高中学业水平考试实施方案(试行)》的通知[Z],黑教基[2008]111号,2008-05-16.
[38]湖南省教育厅.关于印发《湖南省普通高中学业水平考试实施方案(试行)》的 通知[Z],湘教发[2008]79号,2008-11-13.
[39]陕西省教育厅.陕西省教育厅关于印发《陕西省普通高中学生学业水平考试实施意见(试行)》的通知[Z],陕教基[2008]18号,2008-04-12.
[40]山西省教育厅.山西省教育厅关于印发《实施普通高中学业水平考试制度的意见(试行)》的通知[Z],晋教基[2010]4号.2010-01-14.
[41]重庆市教育委员会.重庆市教育委员会《关于实施普通高中学生学业水平考试的试行意见》[Z],渝教基[2011]74号,2011-11-07.
[42]刘决生.我国普通高中学业水平考试存在的问题与对策[J].上海教育科研,2010(3)：39-42.
[43]雷新勇.我国学业水平考试的基本问题及反思[J].教育测量与评价.2010(1)：4-14.
[44]顾明远主编.教育大辞典(第一卷)[M].上海：上海教育出版社.1990：280.
[45]国家教委与联合国儿童基金会1990—1993周期合作调研项目：《学习质量和基本标准》[M].广西：广西教育出版社.1995：280-281.
[46]钟启泉,崔允漷.新课程的理念与创新——师范生读本[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2003：67-68.
[47]崔允漷,王少非,夏雪梅.基于标准的学生学业成就评价[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008：11,112-115.
[48]汪贤泽.基于课程标准的学业成就评价程序研究[D].上海：华东师范大学,2008：10.
[49]埃利斯.美国基础教育标准化运动分析[J].张文军,译.教育发展研究,2008(2)：52-56.
[50]中华人民共和国教育部.普通高中物理课程标准(实验)[S].北京：人民教育出版社,2003：1-72.
[51]诺曼·韦伯著,张雨强编译.判断评价与课程标准一致性的若干问题[J].比较教育研究,2011(12)：83-89.
[52]刘学智.论评价与课程标准一致性的建构：美国的经验[J].全球教育展望,2006(9)：35-39.
[53]刘学智,张雷.学业评价与课程标准的一致性：韦伯模式本土化探究[J].外国教育研究,2009(12)：13-17.
[54]岳喜腾,张雨强.基于课程标准的学业成就评价：韦伯模式之研究[J].全球教育展望,2011(10)：79-85.
[55]刘学智,马云鹏.美国“SEC”一致性分析范式的诠释与启示——基础教育中评价与课程标准一致性的视角[J].比较教育研究,2007(5)：64-68.
[56]崔允漷,夏雪梅.试论基于课程标准的学生学业成就评价[J].课程·教材·教 法,2007(1)：13-18.
[57]范立双,刘学智.美国“成功分析模式”的诠释与启示——学业评价与课程标准一致性的视角[J].比较教育研究,2010(8)：77-80.
[58]杨玉琴,张新宇,占小红.美国Achieve“测验——标准”一致性分析工具的研究及启示[J].外国中小学教育,2011(9)：22-27.
[59]诺曼·韦伯著,张雨强编译.判断评价与课程标准一致性的若干问题[J].比较教育研究,2011(12)：83-89.
[60]刘学智.小学数学学业评价与课程标准一致性的研究[J].吉林省教育学院学报,2008(1)：26-31.
[61]刘建海,康淑敏,张雨强.英语开放性学业成就评价与课程标准的匹配策略[J].教育科学研究,2010(4)：36-41.
[62]刘学智,曹小旭.小学数学学业水平测试与课程标准一致性水平探究[J].当代教育科学,2011(14)：21-24.
[63]曹小旭,张庆霞.基于标准的小学语文学业水平考试试卷质量分析——学业评价与课程标准一致性的视角[J].教育测量与评价,2011(7)：57-61.
[64]陈娴,郏璨璨等.物理内容标准与考试之间的一致性研究[J].课程·教材·教法,2010,30(7)：67-71.
[65]罗莹,王宏博,张薇薇,希望.2010年中考物理试卷与课程标准一致性分析[J].基础教育课程,2011(3)：70-75.
[66]焦少珍,陈淳.2009年课改实验区高考生物试卷与课程标准的一致性研究[J].教育测量与评价,2010(5)：54-58.
[67]刘恩山,卢群,张颖之.2010年高考生物试卷与课程标准一致性分析[J].基础教育课程,2010(9)：61-67.
[68]王磊,黄琼,刘东方.中考命题与化学课程标准的一致性研究——基于九省市中等学校招生考试概念原理知识的比较[J].基础教育课程,2010(3)：75-80.
[69]张志红,张雨强,周传昌.化学中考试题与课程标准的一致性初探[J].化学教育,2010(9)：44-46.
[70]李嫩.化学课程标准与上海中考化学试题的一致性研究[D],上海：上海师范大学,2010：51-52.
[71]王磊,刘东方.中考化学试卷探究题的评价内容与水平要求设置研究——基于与义务教育化学课程标准的一致性分析[J].基础教育课程,2011(3)：76-80.
[72]焦传玲,张雨强.高考化学试题与课程标准的一致性初探[J].化学教育,2011(8)：32-33.
[73]仲扣庄,郭玉英.高中物理课程标准教科书内容难度定量分析——以“量子理论” 为例[J],课程·教材·教法,2010(4)：67-71.
[74]杨小微.教育研究方法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005：96-100.
[75]肖燃,乐国林.新课改背景下高中学业水平考试组织管理创新探析[J].河北师范大学学报(教育科学版),2009,11(3)：124-129.
[1]U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.The condition of education,2000.NCES 2000-062.Washington,DC:Author,2000.
[2]J. L. Herman, N. M.Webb. Alignment Methodologies[J]. Applied Measurement in Education.2007,20(1):1-5.
[3]L. B. Resnick, D. P. Resnick. Assessing the Thinking Curriculum:New Tools for Educational Reform in Changing Assessment. In:B. K. Gifford, M. C. O'Connor. Changing Assessment:Alternative Views of Aptitude, Achievement and Instruction. Boston:National Commission on Testing and Public Policy,1992:37-75.
[4]X. Liu, G. Fulmer. Alignment Between the Science Curriculum and Assessmentin Selected NY State Regents Exams[J]. Jouranal of science education technology. 2008,17:373-383.
[5]Ohio Department of Education Office of Assessment. Ohio Statewide Assessment Program Rules Book[EB/OL].[2010-09-24] http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail. aspx?page=3&Top icRelationID=9&ContentID=43712.
[6]ACE Manual[EB/OL].[2010-09-16]. http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/manuals/acemanual.html
[7]Goals 2000:Educate America Act [EB/OL].[2011-03-16] http://www.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/index.html.
[8]NormanL.Webb. Alignment of Science and Mathematics Standards and Assessments in Four States. Madison:University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers,1999.
[9]La Marca, P. M., Redfield, D.,& Winter, P.C.. State Standards and State Assessment Systems:A Guide to Alignment. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers.2000.
[10]Madaus,G.F..The courts,validity,and minimum competency testing. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.1983.
[11]Long, V.M.& Benson, C.. Re:Alignment[J]. The Mathematics Teacher,1998, 91(6):503-508.
[12]U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Remedial education at higher education institutions. NCES97-584. Washington, DC:Author, 1996.
[13]Blank, R.. Models for alignment analysis and assistance to states. Council of Chief State School Officers Summary Document. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers,2002.
[14]Webb, N. L.. Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathem-atics and science education. Madison:University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers,1997.
[15]Webb, N. L.. Alignment study in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies of state standards and assessments for four states. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers.2002.
[16]Webb, N. L.Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments[J]. Applied Measurement in Education,2007,20(1),7-25.
[17]Porter,A.C. and Smithson, J.L.Standards-based reform in the states Chicago: National Society for the.study of Education. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2001:61.
[18]Porter, A. C., Smithson, J. Defining, Developing, and Using Curriculum Indicators [EB/OL]. [2010-05-06] http://jsmithson.wceruw.org/Reference/rr48.pdf
[19]Andrew C. Porter. Curriculum Assessment[EB/OL]. [2010-05-06] http://www.andyporter.org/papers/CurriculumAssessment.pdf
[20]Porter, A.C..How SEC.Measures Alignment[J].Educational Researcher,1997(5): 2-9.
[21]Blank, R.K., Porter, A.C.,& Smithson, J. New tools for analyzing teaching, curriculum and standards in mathematics & science [EB/OL]. [2010-05-06] http://seconline.wceruw.org/Reference/SECnewToolsreport.pdf
[22]Porter,A.C.Measuring the content of instruction:Uses in research and practice[J]. Educational Researcher,2002,31(7),3-14.
[23]Porter, A. C., Smithson, J. Blank, R. K.,& Zeidner, T. Alignment as a teacher variable[J]. Applied Measurement in Education,2007,20(1):27-51.
[24]Porter, A.C., Smithson, J.L.. Are content standards being implemented in the classroom? A methodology and some tentative answers. In S.H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom:Standards-based reform in the states-One hundredth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part Ⅱ. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2001.
[25]Fulmer, G. W.. Estimating critical values for strength of alignment among curriculum, assessments, and instruction[J]. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics.2011,36(6):381-402.
[26]Rothman, R., Slattery, J. B., Vranek, J. L., and Resnick, L. B. Benchmarking and alignment of standards and testing[EB/OL]. [2010-04-16] http://achieve.org/files/TR566.pdf
[27]Andrew T. Roach, Bradley C. Niebling, Alexander Kurz. Evaluating Alignment Among Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessments:Implications and Applications for Research And Practice[J].Psychology in the Schools,2008,45(2):158-176.
[28]Rothman,R.Imperfect matches:The alignment of standards and tests[EB/OL]. [2010-04-16]http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=+Imperfect+matches%3A+The+a lignment+of+standards+and+tests&hl=zh-CN&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2 &lr
[29]Andrea Martone, Stephen G. Sireci. Evaluating Alignment Between Curriculum, Assessment, and Instruction [J]. Review of Educational Research,2009,79(4): 1332-1361.
[30]Gunilla Nasstrom, Widar Henriksson.Alignment of Standards and Assessment:A theoretical and empirical study of methods for alignment[J]. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology,2008,6(3):667-690.
[31]Abdinur Mohamud, Dan Fleck. Alignment of Standards, Assessment and Instruction:Implications for English Language Learners in Ohio[J]. Theory Into Practice,2010(49):129-136.
[32]Dennison S.Bhola, James C.Impara,and Chad W.Buckendahl. Aligning Tests with States' Content Standards:Methods and Issues[J]. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practice,2003(3):21-29.
[33]Joan L. Herman, Noreen M. Webb,Stephen A. Zuniga. Measurement Issues in the Alignment of Standards and Assessments:A Case Study[J]. Applied Measurement in Education,2007,20(1),101-126.
[34]Webb, N. L.Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments [J]. Applied Measurement in Education,2007,20(1),7-25.
[35]Dennison S.Bhola, James C.Impara,and Chad W.Buckendahl. Aligning Tests with States'Content Standards:Methods and Issues[J]. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practice,2003(3):21-29.
[36]Richard S. Brown, David T. Conlcy. Comparing State High School Assessments to Standards for Success in Entry-Level University Courses [J]. Educational Assessment,2007,12(2):137-160.
[37]Andrew C. Porter, Morgan S. Polikoff, Tim Zeidner, John Smithson. The Quality of Content Analyses of State Student Achievement Tests and Content Standards [J]. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practice,2008,27(4):2-14.
[38]Liu, X., Fulmer, G. W.. Alignment between science curriculum and assessments in selected New York State Regents exams [J]. Journal of Science Education and Technology,2008,17(4),373-383.
[39]Liu, X., Zhang, B. H., Liang, L. L., Fulmer, G. W., Kim, B., and Yuan, H.Q. Alignment between the physics content standards and standardized tests:A comparison among US-NY, Singapore, and China-Jiangsu[J]. Science Education,2008,22(12):777-797.
[40]Liang, L. L.,& Yuan, H.. Examining the alignment of Chinese national physics curriculum guidelines and 12th-grade exit examinations:A case study [J]. International Journal of Science Education,2008,30 (13):1823-1825.
[41]Liu enshan, Liu qun. Alignment Between High-school Biology Content Standard and the Standardized Test of Four Provinces in China. Paper presented at the 2010 Sino-Europe General Education forum.2010.
[2]汪贤泽.基于课程标准的学业成就评价的比较研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2010：3.
[3]这里的“基于课程标准的教育改革”和“基于标准的教育改革(standards-based education reform)"、“基于标准的改革(standards-based reform)"“标准驱动的教育改革(standards-driven education reform)"等具有相同的涵义。
[4]中华人民共和国教育部.基础教育课程改革纲要(试行)[S].教基[2001]17号,2001-06-08.
[5] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.The condition of education,2000.NCES 2000-062.Washington,DC:Author,2000.
[6]黄思记.普通高中学业水平考试定位研究[D].开封：河南大学.2011：1.
[7]王焕霞,廖伯琴.我国高中学业水平考试的实践困境与制度审思[J].教育学报,2011(12)：77-83.
[8] J. L. Herman, N. M.Webb. Alignment Methodologies[J]. Applied Measurement in Education.2007,20(1):1-5.
[9]L. B. Resnick, D. P. Resnick. Assessing the Thinking Curriculum:New Tools for Educational Reform in Changing Assessment. In:B. K. Gifford, M. C. O'Connor. Changing Assessment:Alternative Views of Aptitude, Achievement and Instruction. Boston:National Commission on Testing and Public Policy,1992:37-75.
[10] X. Liu, G. Fulmer. Alignment Between the Science Curriculum and Assessmentin Selected NY State Regents Exams[J]. Jouranal of science education technology.2008,17:373-383.
[11]雷新勇.基于标准的教育考试—命题、标准设置和学业评价[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社,2011：4249.
[12]雷新勇.基于标准的教育考试—命题、标准设置和学业评价[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社,2011：183-189.
[13]黄政杰著.课程评鉴[M].台北：师大书苑有限公司,1987：14.
[14]钟启泉,李雁冰.课程设计基础[M].济南：山东教育出版社,2000：404.
[15]黄政杰著.课程评鉴[M].台北：师大书苑有限公司,1987：15.
[16]黄政杰著.课程评鉴[M].台北：师大书苑有限公司,1987：16-18.
[17]黄政杰著.课程评鉴[M].台北：师大书苑有限公司,1987：20-21.
[18]陈玉馄.教育评价学[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1998：7.
[19]钟启泉,李雁冰.课程设计基础[M].济南：山东教育出版社,2000：404.
[20]陈玉馄.教育评价学[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1998：7.
[21]刘志军.课堂评价论[M].南宁：广西师范大学出版社,2002：16-17.
[22]沈玉顺.现代教育评价[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社.2002：65-66.
[23]蔡敏.当代学生课业评价[M].上海：上海教育出版社.2006：3-4.
[24]蔡敏.当代学生课业评价[M].上海：上海教育出版社.2006：5-8.
[25]刘学智.小学数学学业评价与课程标准一致性的研究[D].长春：东北师范大学.2008：16.
[26]杨向东,崔允漷.关于高中学业水平考试的比较研究[J].全球教育展望,2010(4)：7-14.
[27]Ohio Department of Education Office of Assessment. Ohio Statewide Assessment Program Rules Book[EB/OL].[2010-09-24]http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicR elationID=9&ContentID=43712.
[28]姜英敏.从“学业水平测试”制度管窥韩国的基础教育质量保障体系[J].比较教育研究,2011(10)：82-85.
[29]刘丽群,周娟.英国高中学业水平考试的特点及启示[J].教育测量与评价,2011(1)：56-60.
[30]何珊云.法国高中学业水平测试及启示[J].教育测量与评价,2010(7)：49-53.
[31] ACE Manual [EB/OL]. [2010-09-16] http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/manuals/acemanual.html
[32]教育部.教育部关于深化基础教育课程改革进一步推进素质教育的意见[Z].教基二[2010]3号,2010-04-27.
[33]王焕霞,廖伯琴.我国高中学业水平考试的实践困境与制度审思[J1].教育学报,2011(12)：77-83.
[34]刘决生.聚焦普通高中学业水平考试[N].中国教育报,2008-10-29(6).
[35]山东省教育厅.关于印发《山东省普通高中学生学业水平考试工作管理暂行规定》的通知[Z].鲁教基字[2005]16号,2005-11-23.
[36]上海市教育委员会.上海市教育委员会关于实施上海市普通高中学业水平考试的通知[Z].沪教委基[2009]53号,2009-06-23.
[37]李欣.中美高中学业水平考试多维比较研究[D].上海：华东师范大学.2011：72-76.
[38]山东省教育厅.关于印发《山东省普通高中学生学业水平考试工作管理暂行规定》的通知[Z].鲁教基字[2005]16号,2005-11-23.
[39]海南省教育厅.关于印发《海南省2007年普通高中毕业生基础会考考务实施细则》的通知[z],琼教[2007]19号,2007-03-09
[40]吉林省教育厅.关于实行普通高中学业考试制度的意见[Z],吉教基[2007]24号,2007-08-26.
[41]江西省教育厅.关于印发《江西省普通高中学业水平考试实施方案(试行)》的通知[Z],赣教基[2009]25号,2009-05-08.
[42]新疆维吾尔自治区教育厅.关于印发《新疆维吾尔自治区、新疆生产建设兵团高中学业水平考试实施方案》的通知[Z],新教基[2008]37号,2008-08-29.
[43]河北省教育厅.关于印发《河北省普通高中学业水平考试实施意见(试行)》的通知[Z],冀教基[2010]25号,2010-05-31.
[44]云南省教育厅.云南省普通高中学业水平考试方案(试行)[Z],课程教材教学研究(中教研究),2010(3)：2-4.
[45]河南省教育厅.河南省教育厅关于印发《河南省普通高中学业水平考试方案》的通知[Z],豫教基[2009]105号,2009-06-05.
[46]贵州省教育厅.省教育厅关于印发《贵州省普通高中学业水平考试实施方案(试行)》的通知[Z],黔教基发[2010]236号,2010-09-10.
[47]四川省教育厅.四川省教育厅关于印发《四川省普通高中学业水平考试实施办法(试行)》的通知[Z],川教[2010]230号,2010-12-07.
[48]辽宁省教育厅.辽宁省教育厅关于印发《辽宁省普通高中学生学业水平考试实施方案》的通知[Z],辽教发[2011]1号,2011-01-08.
[49]甘肃省教育厅.甘肃省教育厅关于印发《甘肃省普通高中学业水平考试方案(试行)》的通知[Z],甘教基[2011]47号,2011-10-10.
[50]青海省教育厅.青海省教育厅关于印发《青海省普通高中学业水平考试实施方案》的通知[Z],青教基[2011]44号,2011-05-16.
[51]江苏省教育厅.江苏省普通高中学业水平测试方案[Z],2006-09-22.
[52]福建省教育厅.关于印发《福建省普通高中学生学业基础会考方案(试行)》的通知[Z],闽教基[2006]76号,2006-11-13.
[53]天津市教育委员会.关于印发《天津市普通高中学业水平考试方案》的通知[Z],津教委中[2007]4号,2007-01-26.
[54]黑龙江省教育厅.关于印发《黑龙江省普通高中学业水平考试实施方案(试行)》的通知[Z],黑教基[2008]111号,2008-05-16.
[55]湖南省教育厅.关于印发《湖南省普通高中学业水平考试实施方案(试行)》的通知[Z],湘教发[2008]79号,2008-11-13.
[56]陕西省教育厅.陕西省教育厅关于印发《陕西省普通高中学生学业水平考试实施意见(试行)》的通知[Z],陕教基[2008]18号,2008-04-12.
[57]上海市教育委员会.上海市教育委员会关于实施上海市普通高中学业水平考试的通知[Z].沪教委基[2009]53号,2009-06-23.
[58]山西省教育厅.山西省教育厅关于印发《实施普通高中学业水平考试制度的意见(试行)》的通知[Z],晋教基[2010]4号,2010-01-14.
[59]重庆市教育委员会.重庆市教育委员会《关于实施普通高中学生学业水平考试的试行意见》[Z],渝教基[2011]74号,2011-11-07.
[60]王焕霞,廖伯琴.我国高中学业水平考试的实践困境与制度审思[J].教育学报,2011(12)：77-83.
[61]黄思记.普通高中学业水平考试定位研究[D].开封：河南大学,2011：23-26.
[62]王焕霞,廖伯琴.我国高中学业水平考试的实践困境与制度审思[J].教育学报,20I1(12)：77-83.
[63]刘决生.我国普通高中学业水平考试存在的问题与对策[J].上海教育科研,2010(3)：39-42.
[64]普通高校招生考试时拟报考文史类、艺术类的考生须参加物理、化学、生物、信息技术和通用技术学科的基础会考；拟报考理工类、体育类的考生须参加思想政治、历史、地理、信息技术和通用技术学科的基础会考。
[65]雷新勇.我国学业水平考试的基本问题及反思[J].教育测量与评价.2010(1)：4-14.
[66]王焕霞,廖伯琴.我国高中学业水平考试的实践困境与制度审思[J].教育学报,2011(12)：77-83.
[67]顾明远主编.教育大辞典(第一卷)[M].上海：上海教育出版社.1990：280.
[68]中华人民共和国教育部.基础教育课程改革纲要(试行)[S].教基[2001]17号,2001-06-08.
[69]国家教委与联合国儿童基金会1990-1993周期合作调研项目：《学习质量和基本标准》[M].广西：广西教育出版社.1995：280-281.
[70]钟启泉,崔允漷.新课程的理念与创新——师范生读本[Ml.北京：高等教育出版社,2003：67-68.
[71]Goals 2000:Educate America Act [EB/OL].[2011-03-16] http://www.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/index.html.
[72]崔允漷,王少非,夏雪梅.基于标准的学生学业成就评价[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008：11.
[73]汪贤泽.基于课程标准的学业成就评价的比较研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2010：56-57.
[74]汪贤泽.基于课程标准的学业成就评价程序研究[D].上海：华东师范大学,2008：10.
[75]埃利斯.美国基础教育标准化运动分析[J].张文军,译.教育发展研究,2008(2)：52-56.
[76]雷新勇.基于标准的教育考试——命题、标准设置和学业评价[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社,2011：64-65.
[77]中华人民共和国教育部.普通高中物理课程标准(实验)[s].北京：人民教育出版社,2003：1-72.
[78]中华人民共和国教育部.普通高中物理课程标准(实验)[S].北京：人民教育出版社,2003：1.
[79]刘学智.小学数学学业评价与课程标准一致性的研究[D].长春：东北师范大学.2008：17.
[80]NormanL.Webb. Alignment of Science and Mathematics Standards and Assessments in Four States. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers,1999.
[81] La Marca, P. M., Redfield, D.,& Winter, P.C.. State Standards and State Assessment Systems:A Guide to Alignment. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers.2000.
[82]刘学智.小学数学学业评价与课程标准一致性的研究[D].长春：东北师范大学.2008：18.
[83]刘学智.小学数学学业评价与课程标准一致性的研究[D].长春：东北师范大学.2008：18.
[84] Madaus,G.F..The courts,validity,and minimum competency testing. Boston:Kluwer-Nijhoff.1983.
[85] NormanL.Webb. Alignment of Science and Mathematics Standards and Assessments in Four States. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers,1999.
[86] Long, V.M.& Benson, C.. Re:Alignment[J]. The Mathematics Teacher,1998,91(6):503-508.
[87]刘学智.小学数学学业评价与课程标准一致性的研究[D].长春：东北师范大学.2008：25.
[88] U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Remedial education at higher education institutions. NCES97-584. Washington,DC:Author,1996.
[89] NormanL.Webb. Alignment of Science and Mathematics Standards and Assessments in Four States. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers,1999.
[90] Blank, R.. Models for alignment analysis and assistance to states. Council of Chief State School Officers Summary Document. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers,2002.
[91]Webb, N. L.. Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education. Madison:University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers,1997.
[92]Webb, N. L.. Alignment study in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies of state standards and assessments for four states. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers.2002.
[93] Webb, N. L.Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments[J]. Applied Measurement in Education,2007,20(1),7-25.
[94]诺曼·韦伯著,张雨强编译.判断评价与课程标准一致性的若干问题[J].比较教育研究,2011(12)：83-89.
[95]刘学智.论评价与课程标准一致性的建构：美国的经验[J].全球教育展望,2006(9)：35-39.
[96]刘学智,张雷.学业评价与课程标准的一致性：韦伯模式本土化探究[J].外国教育研究,2009(12)：13-17.
[97]岳喜腾,张雨强.基于课程标准的学业成就评价：韦伯模式之研究[J].全球教育展望,2011(10)：79-85.
[98]Porter,A.C. and Smithson, J.L.Standards-based reform in the states Chicago-.National Society for the.study of Education. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2001:61.
[99]Porter, A. C., Smithson, J. Defining, Developing, and Using Curriculum Indicators[EB/OL]. [2010-05-06] http://jsmithson.wceruw.org/Reference/rr48.pdf
[100] Andrew C. Porter. Curriculum Assessment[EB/OL]. [2010-05-06] http://www.andyporter.org/papers/CurriculumAssessment.pdf
[101] Porter, A.C..How SEC.Measures Alignment[J].Educational Researcher,1997(5):2.
[102] Porter, A.C..How SEC.Measures Alignment[J].Educational Researcher,1997(5):9.
[103]Blank, R.K., Porter, A.C.,& Smithson, J. New tools for analyzing teaching, curriculum and standards in mathematics & science[EB/OL]. [2010-05-06] http://seconline.wceruw.org/Reference/SECnewToolsreport.pdf
[104]Porter,A.C.Measuring the content of instruction:Uses in research and practice[J]. Educational Researcher, 2002,31(7),3-14.
[105] Porter, A. C., Smithson, J. Blank, R. K.,& Zeidner, T. Alignment as a teacher variable[J]. Applied Measurement in Education,2007,20(1):27-51.
[1061 Porter, A.C., Smithson, J.L.. Are content standards being implemented in the classroom? A methodology and some tentative answers. In S.H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom:Standards-based reform in the states-One hundredth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part Ⅱ. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2001.
[107] Porter,A.C.Measuring the content of instruction:Uses in research and practice[J]. Educational Researcher, 2002,31(7),3-14.
[108] Fulmer, G. W.. Estimating critical values for strength of alignment among curriculum, assessments, and instruction[J]. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics.2011,36(6):381-402.
[109]刘学智,马云鹏.美国“SEC”一致性分析范式的诠释与启示——基础教育中评价与课程标准一致性的视角[J].比较教育研究,2007(5)：64-68.
[110]崔允漷,夏雪梅.试论基于课程标准的学生学业成就评价[J].课程·教材·教法,2007(1)：13-18.
[111]Rothman, R., Slattery, J. B., Vranek, J. L., and Resnick, L. B. Benchmarking and alignment of standards and testing[EB/OL]. [2010-04-16] http://achieve.org/files/TR566.pdf
[112]Andrew T. Roach, Bradley C. Niebling, Alexander Kurz. Evaluating Alignment Among Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessments:Implications and Applications for Research And Practice[J].Psychology in the Schools,2008,45(2):158-176.
[113]范立双,刘学智.美国“成功分析模式”的诠释与启示——学业评价与课程标准一致性的视角[J].比较教育研究,2010(8)：77-80.
[114]杨玉琴,张新宇,占小红.美国Achieve "测验——标准”一致性分析工具的研究及启示[J].外国中小学教育,2011(9)：22-27.
[115]Rothman,R.Imperfect matches:The alignment of standards and tests[EB/OL]. [2010-04-16] http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=+Imperfect+matches%3A+The+alignment+of+standards+and+tests&hl=zh-C N&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&lr
[116]崔允漷,王少非,夏雪梅.基于标准的学生学业成就评价[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008：112-115.
[117]Andrea Martone, Stephen G Sireci. Evaluating Alignment Between Curriculum, Assessment, and Instruction[J]. Review of Educational Research,2009,79(4):1332-1361.
[118]Gunilla Nasstrom, Widar Henriksson. Alignment of Standards and Assessment:A theoretical and empirical study of methods for alignment[J]. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology,2008,6(3):667-690.
[119] Porter,A.C, Smithson,J. Blank, R. K., Zeidner, T. Alignment as a teacher variable[J]. Applied Measurement in Education,2007,20(1):27-51.
[120]Abdinur Mohamud, Dan Fleck. Alignment of Standards, Assessment and Instruction:Implications for English Language Learners in Ohio[J]. Theory Into Practice,2010(49):129-136.
[121] Dennison S.Bhola, James C.Impara,and Chad W.Buckendahl. Aligning Tests with States'Content Standards: Methods and Issues[J]. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practice,2003(3):21-29.
[122] Joan L. Herman, Noreen M. Webb,Stephen A. Zuniga. Measurement Issues in the Alignment of Standards and Assessments:A Case Study[J]. Applied Measurement in Education,2007,20(1),101-126.
[123] Webb, N. L.Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments[J]. Applied Measurement in Education,2007,20(1),7-25.
[124]诺曼·韦伯著,张雨强编译.判断评价与课程标准一致性的若干问题[J].比较教育研究,2011(12)：83-89.
[125] Dennison S.Bhola, James C.Impara,and Chad W.Buckendahl. Aligning Tests with States' Content Standards: Methods and Issues[J]. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practice,2003(3):21-29.
[126] Richard S. Brown, David T. Conley. Comparing State High School Assessments to Standards for Success in Entry-Level University Courses[J]. Educational Assessment,2007,12(2):137-160.
[127] Andrew C. Porter, Morgan S. Polikoff, Tim Zeidner, John Smithson. The Quality of Content Analyses of State Student Achievement Tests and Content Standards[J]. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practice, 2008,27(4):2-14.
[1281刘学智.小学数学学业评价与课程标准一致性的研究[J].吉林省教育学院学报,2008(1)：26-31.
[129]刘学智.小学数学学业评价与课程标准一致性的研究[D].长春：东北师范大学.2008：107-117.
[130]刘建海,康淑敏,张雨强.英语开放性学业成就评价与课程标准的匹配策略[J].教育科学研究,2010(4)：36-41.
[131]刘学智,曹小旭.小学数学学业水平测试与课程标准一致性水平探究[J].当代教育科学,2011(14)：21-24.
[132]曹小旭,张庆霞.基于标准的小学语文学业水平考试试卷质量分析——学业评价与课程标准一致性的视角[J].教育测量与评价,2011(7)：57-61.
[133] Liu, X., Fulmer, G. W.. Alignment between science curriculum and assessments in selected New York State Regents exams[J]. Journal of Science Education and Technology,2008,17(4),373-383.
[134]所选样本为美国2006年纽约州物理摄政考试和纽约州物理核心课程标准,江苏省2006年物理会考和中国物理教学大纲,新加坡2006年普通水平(O-Level)物理考试和普通水平物理考试大纲。
[135] Liu, X., Zhang, B. H., Liang, L. L., Fulmer, G. W., Kim, B., and Yuan, H.Q. Alignment between the physics content standards and standardized tests:A comparison among US-NY, Singapore, and China-Jiangsu[J]. Science Education,2008,22(12):777-797.
[136] Liang, L. L.,& Yuan, H.. Examining the alignment of Chinese national physics curriculum guidelines and 12th-grade exit examinations:A case study[J]. International Journal of Science Education,2008,30 (13):1823-1825.
[137]陈娴,郏璨璨等.物理内容标准与考试之间的一致性研究[J].课程·教材·教法,2010,30(7)：67-71.
[138]罗莹,王宏博,张薇薇,希望.2010年中考物理试卷与课程标准一致性分析[J].基础教育课程,2011(3)：70-75.
[139] Liu enshan, Liu qun. Alignment Between High-school Biology Content Standard and the Standardized Test of Four Provinces in China. Paper presented at the 2010 Sino-Europe General Education forum.2010.
[140]焦少珍,陈淳.2009年课改实验区高考生物试卷与课程标准的一致性研究[J].教育测量与评价,2010(5)：54-58.
[141]刘恩山,卢群,张颖之.2010年高考生物试卷与课程标准一致性分析[J].基础教育课程,2010(9)：61-67.
[1421王磊,黄琼,刘东方.中考命题与化学课程标准的一致性研究——基于九省市中等学校招生考试概念原理知识的比较[J].基础教育课程,2010(3)：75-80.
[143]张志红,张雨强,周传昌.化学中考试题与课程标准的一致性初探[J].化学教育,2010(9)：44-46.
[1441李嫩.化学课程标准与上海中考化学试题的一致性研究[D],上海：上海师范大学,2010：51-52.
[145]王磊,刘东方.中考化学试卷探究题的评价内容与水平要求设置研究——基于与义务教育化学课程标准的一致性分析[J].基础教育课程,2011(3)：76-80.
[146]焦传玲,张雨强.高考化学试题与课程标准的一致性初探[J].化学教育,2011(8)：32-33.
[147] Liu, X., Zhang, B. H., Liang, L. L., Fulmer, G. W., Kim, B., and Yuan, H.Q. Alignment between the physics content standards and standardized tests:A comparison among US-NY, Singapore, and China-Jiangsu[J]. Science Education,2008,22(12):777-797.
[148] Liu, X., Zhang, B. H., Liang, L. L., Fulmer, G. W., Kim, B., and Yuan, H.Q. Alignment between the physics content standards and standardized tests:A comparison among US-NY Singapore, and China-Jiangsu[J]. Science Education,2008,22(12):777-797.
[149] Andrew T. Roach, Bradley C. Niebling, Alexander Kurz. Evaluating Alignment Among Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessments:Implications and Applications for Research And Practice[J].Psychology in the Schools,2008,45(2):158-176.
[150]仲扣庄,郭玉英.高中物理课程标准教科书内容难度定量分析——以“量子理论”为例[J],课程·教材·教法,2010(4)：67-71.
[151]王磊,刘东方.中考化学试卷探究题的评价内容与水平要求设置研究——基于与义务教育化学课程标准的一致性分析[J].基础教育课程,2011(3)：76-80.
[152]雷新勇.基于标准的教育考试——命题、标准设置和学业评价[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社,2011：87.
[153]中华人民共和国教育部.普通高中物理课程标准(实验)[S].北京：人民教育出版社,2003：6.
[154]杨小微.教育研究方法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005：96-100.
[155]中华人民共和国教育部.普通高中物理课程标准(实验)[S].北京：人民教育出版社,2003：5.
[156]中华人民共和国教育部.普通高中物理课程标准(实验)[S].北京：人民教育出版社,2003：5-6.
[157]中华人民共和国教育部.普通高中物理课程标准(实验)[S].北京：人民教育出版社,2003：6.
[158]杨小微.教育研究方法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005：96-100.
[159] Fulmer, G. W.. Estimating critical values for strength of alignment among curriculum, assessments, and instruction[J]. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics.2011,36(6):395.
[160] Porter,A.C.Measuring the content of instruction:Uses in research and practice[J]. Educational Researcher, 2002,31(7),3-14.
[161]杨小微.教育研究方法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005：96-100.
[162] Fulmer, G. W.. Estimating critical values for strength of alignment among curriculum, assessments, and instruction[J]. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics.2011,36(6):394.
[163]综观物理内容标准比率表(表4-3)中各个内容主题包含的知识点数目所占比例和共同必修模块试卷中考查各个内容主题的分数比例(见附录3),规定比率数据之差小于或等于0.030时,称为“基本吻合”、比率数据之差介于0.030—0.060之间时(含0.060),称为“略微高于(或略微低于)”、比率数据之差介于0.060—0.090之间时(含0.090),称为“高于(或低于)”、比率数据之差大于0.090时,称为“大幅度高于(或大幅度低于)”。
[164]杨小微.教育研究方法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005：96-100.
[165] Fulmer, G. W.. Estimating critical values for strength of alignment among curriculum, assessments, and instruction[J]. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics.2011,36(6):395.
[166]综观物理内容标准比率表(表3-13)中各个内容主题包含的知识点数目所占比例和含选修1-1的必修模块试卷中考查各个内容主题的分数比例(见附录4),规定比率数据之差小于或等于0.030时,称为“基本吻合”、比率数据之差介于0.0300.060之间时(含0.060),称为“略微高于(或略微低于)”、比率数据之差介于0.0600.090之间时(含0.090),称为“高于(或低于)”、比率数据之差大于0.090时,称为“大幅度高于(或大幅度低于)”。
[167]杨小微.教育研究方法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005：96-100.
[168] Fulmer, G. W.. Estimating critical values for strength of alignment among curriculum, assessments, and instruction[J]. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics.2011,36(6):395.
[170]杨小微.教育研究方法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005：96-100.
[171] Fulmer, G. W.. Estimating critical values for strength of alignment among curriculum, assessments, and instruction[J]. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics.2011,36(6):395-396.
[173]汪贤泽.基于课程标准的学业成就评价的比较研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2010：18-50.
[174]杨向东,崔允漷.关于高中学业水平考试的比较研究[J].全球教育展望.2010,39(4)：7-14.
[175]肖燃,乐国林.新课改背景下高中学业水平考试组织管理创新探析[J].河北师范大学学报(教育科学版),2009,11(3)：124-129.
[1]汪贤泽.基于课程标准的学业成就评价的比较研究[M].北京：教育科学出版社,2010：3,18-50,56-57.
[2]中华人民共和国教育部.基础教育课程改革纲要(试行)[S].教基[2001]17号,2001-06-08.
[3]黄思记.普通高中学业水平考试定位研究[D].开封：河南大学.2011：1,23-26.
[4]王焕霞,廖伯琴.我国高中学业水平考试的实践困境与制度审思[J].教育学报,2011(12)：77-83.
[5]雷新勇.基于标准的教育考试——命题、标准设置和学业评价[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社,2011：42-49,64-65,87,183-189.
[6]黄政杰著.课程评鉴[M].台北：师大书苑有限公司,1987：14-18,20-21.
[7]钟启泉,李雁冰.课程设计基础[M].济南：山东教育出版社,2000：404.
[8]陈玉馄.教育评价学[M].北京：人民教育出版社,1998：7.
[9]刘志军.课堂评价论[M].南宁：广西师范大学出版社,2002：16-17.
[10]沈玉顺.现代教育评价[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社.2002：65-66.
[11]蔡敏.当代学生课业评价[M].上海：上海教育出版社.2006：3-4,5-8.
[12]刘学智.小学数学学业评价与课程标准一致性的研究[D].长春：东北师范大学.2008：16-18,25-31,107-117.
[13]杨向东,崔允漷.关于高中学业水平考试的比较研究[J].全球教育展望,2010(4)：7-14.
[14]姜英敏.从“学业水平测试”制度管窥韩国的基础教育质量保障体系[J].比较教育研究,2011(10)：82-85.
[15]刘丽群,周娟.英国高中学业水平考试的特点及启示[J].教育测量与评价,2011(1)：56-60.
[16]何珊云.法国高中学业水平测试及启示[J].教育测量与评价,2010(7)：49-53.
[17]教育部.教育部关于深化基础教育课程改革进一步推进素质教育的意见[Z].教基二[2010]3号,2010-04-27.
[18]刘决生.聚焦普通高中学业水平考试[N].中国教育报,2008-10-29(6).
[19]山东省教育厅.关于印发《山东省普通高中学生学业水平考试工作管理暂行规定》的通知[Z].鲁教基字[2005]16号,2005-11-23.
[20]上海市教育委员会.上海市教育委员会关于实施上海市普通高中学业水平考试 的通知[z].沪教委基[2009]53号,2009-06-23.
[21]李欣.中美高中学业水平考试多维比较研究[D].上海：华东师范大学.2011：72-76.
[22]海南省教育厅.关于印发《海南省2007年普通高中毕业生基础会考考务实施细则》的通知[Z],琼教[2007]19号,2007-03-09
[23]吉林省教育厅.关于实行普通高中学业考试制度的意见[Z],吉教基[2007]24号,2007-08-26.
[24]江西省教育厅.关于印发《江西省普通高中学业水平考试实施方案(试行)》的通知[Z],赣教基[2009]25号,2009-05-08.
[25]新疆维吾尔自治区教育厅.关于印发《新疆维吾尔自治区、新疆生产建设兵团高中学业水平考试实施方案》的通知[Z],新教基[2008]37号,2008-08-29.
[26]河北省教育厅.关于印发《河北省普通高中学业水平考试实施意见(试行)》的通知[Z],冀教基[2010]25号,2010-05-31.
[27]云南省教育厅.云南省普通高中学业水平考试方案(试行)[Z],课程教材教学研究(中教研究),2010(3)：2-4.
[28]河南省教育厅.河南省教育厅关于印发《河南省普通高中学业水平考试方案》的通知[Z],豫教基[2009]105号,2009-06-05.
[29]贵州省教育厅.省教育厅关于印发《贵州省普通高中学业水平考试实施方案(试行)》的通知[z],黔教基发[2010]236号,2010-09-10.
[30]四川省教育厅.四川省教育厅关于印发《四川省普通高中学业水平考试实施办法(试行)》的通知[Z],川教[2010]230号,2010-12-07.
[31]辽宁省教育厅.辽宁省教育厅关于印发《辽宁省普通高中学生学业水平考试实施方案》的通知[Z],辽教发[2011]1号,2011-01-08.
[32]甘肃省教育厅.甘肃省教育厅关于印发《甘肃省普通高中学业水平考试方案(试行)》的通知[Z],甘教基[2011]47号.2011-10-10.
[33]青海省教育厅.青海省教育厅关于印发《青海省普通高中学业水平考试实施方案》的通知[Z],青教基[2011]44号,2011-05-16.
[34]江苏省教育厅.江苏省普通高中学业水平测试方案[Z],2006-09-22.
[35]福建省教育厅.关于印发《福建省普通高中学生学业基础会考方案(试行)》的通知[Z],闽教基[2006]76号.2006-11-13.
[36]天津市教育委员会.关于印发《天津市普通高中学业水平考试方案》的通知[Z],津教委中(2007]4号,2007-01-26.
[37]黑龙江省教育厅.关于印发《黑龙江省普通高中学业水平考试实施方案(试行)》的通知[Z],黑教基[2008]111号,2008-05-16.
[38]湖南省教育厅.关于印发《湖南省普通高中学业水平考试实施方案(试行)》的 通知[Z],湘教发[2008]79号,2008-11-13.
[39]陕西省教育厅.陕西省教育厅关于印发《陕西省普通高中学生学业水平考试实施意见(试行)》的通知[Z],陕教基[2008]18号,2008-04-12.
[40]山西省教育厅.山西省教育厅关于印发《实施普通高中学业水平考试制度的意见(试行)》的通知[Z],晋教基[2010]4号.2010-01-14.
[41]重庆市教育委员会.重庆市教育委员会《关于实施普通高中学生学业水平考试的试行意见》[Z],渝教基[2011]74号,2011-11-07.
[42]刘决生.我国普通高中学业水平考试存在的问题与对策[J].上海教育科研,2010(3)：39-42.
[43]雷新勇.我国学业水平考试的基本问题及反思[J].教育测量与评价.2010(1)：4-14.
[44]顾明远主编.教育大辞典(第一卷)[M].上海：上海教育出版社.1990：280.
[45]国家教委与联合国儿童基金会1990—1993周期合作调研项目：《学习质量和基本标准》[M].广西：广西教育出版社.1995：280-281.
[46]钟启泉,崔允漷.新课程的理念与创新——师范生读本[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2003：67-68.
[47]崔允漷,王少非,夏雪梅.基于标准的学生学业成就评价[M].上海：华东师范大学出版社,2008：11,112-115.
[48]汪贤泽.基于课程标准的学业成就评价程序研究[D].上海：华东师范大学,2008：10.
[49]埃利斯.美国基础教育标准化运动分析[J].张文军,译.教育发展研究,2008(2)：52-56.
[50]中华人民共和国教育部.普通高中物理课程标准(实验)[S].北京：人民教育出版社,2003：1-72.
[51]诺曼·韦伯著,张雨强编译.判断评价与课程标准一致性的若干问题[J].比较教育研究,2011(12)：83-89.
[52]刘学智.论评价与课程标准一致性的建构：美国的经验[J].全球教育展望,2006(9)：35-39.
[53]刘学智,张雷.学业评价与课程标准的一致性：韦伯模式本土化探究[J].外国教育研究,2009(12)：13-17.
[54]岳喜腾,张雨强.基于课程标准的学业成就评价：韦伯模式之研究[J].全球教育展望,2011(10)：79-85.
[55]刘学智,马云鹏.美国“SEC”一致性分析范式的诠释与启示——基础教育中评价与课程标准一致性的视角[J].比较教育研究,2007(5)：64-68.
[56]崔允漷,夏雪梅.试论基于课程标准的学生学业成就评价[J].课程·教材·教 法,2007(1)：13-18.
[57]范立双,刘学智.美国“成功分析模式”的诠释与启示——学业评价与课程标准一致性的视角[J].比较教育研究,2010(8)：77-80.
[58]杨玉琴,张新宇,占小红.美国Achieve“测验——标准”一致性分析工具的研究及启示[J].外国中小学教育,2011(9)：22-27.
[59]诺曼·韦伯著,张雨强编译.判断评价与课程标准一致性的若干问题[J].比较教育研究,2011(12)：83-89.
[60]刘学智.小学数学学业评价与课程标准一致性的研究[J].吉林省教育学院学报,2008(1)：26-31.
[61]刘建海,康淑敏,张雨强.英语开放性学业成就评价与课程标准的匹配策略[J].教育科学研究,2010(4)：36-41.
[62]刘学智,曹小旭.小学数学学业水平测试与课程标准一致性水平探究[J].当代教育科学,2011(14)：21-24.
[63]曹小旭,张庆霞.基于标准的小学语文学业水平考试试卷质量分析——学业评价与课程标准一致性的视角[J].教育测量与评价,2011(7)：57-61.
[64]陈娴,郏璨璨等.物理内容标准与考试之间的一致性研究[J].课程·教材·教法,2010,30(7)：67-71.
[65]罗莹,王宏博,张薇薇,希望.2010年中考物理试卷与课程标准一致性分析[J].基础教育课程,2011(3)：70-75.
[66]焦少珍,陈淳.2009年课改实验区高考生物试卷与课程标准的一致性研究[J].教育测量与评价,2010(5)：54-58.
[67]刘恩山,卢群,张颖之.2010年高考生物试卷与课程标准一致性分析[J].基础教育课程,2010(9)：61-67.
[68]王磊,黄琼,刘东方.中考命题与化学课程标准的一致性研究——基于九省市中等学校招生考试概念原理知识的比较[J].基础教育课程,2010(3)：75-80.
[69]张志红,张雨强,周传昌.化学中考试题与课程标准的一致性初探[J].化学教育,2010(9)：44-46.
[70]李嫩.化学课程标准与上海中考化学试题的一致性研究[D],上海：上海师范大学,2010：51-52.
[71]王磊,刘东方.中考化学试卷探究题的评价内容与水平要求设置研究——基于与义务教育化学课程标准的一致性分析[J].基础教育课程,2011(3)：76-80.
[72]焦传玲,张雨强.高考化学试题与课程标准的一致性初探[J].化学教育,2011(8)：32-33.
[73]仲扣庄,郭玉英.高中物理课程标准教科书内容难度定量分析——以“量子理论” 为例[J],课程·教材·教法,2010(4)：67-71.
[74]杨小微.教育研究方法[M].北京：人民教育出版社,2005：96-100.
[75]肖燃,乐国林.新课改背景下高中学业水平考试组织管理创新探析[J].河北师范大学学报(教育科学版),2009,11(3)：124-129.
[1]U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.The condition of education,2000.NCES 2000-062.Washington,DC:Author,2000.
[2]J. L. Herman, N. M.Webb. Alignment Methodologies[J]. Applied Measurement in Education.2007,20(1):1-5.
[3]L. B. Resnick, D. P. Resnick. Assessing the Thinking Curriculum:New Tools for Educational Reform in Changing Assessment. In:B. K. Gifford, M. C. O'Connor. Changing Assessment:Alternative Views of Aptitude, Achievement and Instruction. Boston:National Commission on Testing and Public Policy,1992:37-75.
[4]X. Liu, G. Fulmer. Alignment Between the Science Curriculum and Assessmentin Selected NY State Regents Exams[J]. Jouranal of science education technology. 2008,17:373-383.
[5]Ohio Department of Education Office of Assessment. Ohio Statewide Assessment Program Rules Book[EB/OL].[2010-09-24] http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail. aspx?page=3&Top icRelationID=9&ContentID=43712.
[6]ACE Manual[EB/OL].[2010-09-16]. http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/manuals/acemanual.html
[7]Goals 2000:Educate America Act [EB/OL].[2011-03-16] http://www.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/index.html.
[8]NormanL.Webb. Alignment of Science and Mathematics Standards and Assessments in Four States. Madison:University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers,1999.
[9]La Marca, P. M., Redfield, D.,& Winter, P.C.. State Standards and State Assessment Systems:A Guide to Alignment. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers.2000.
[10]Madaus,G.F..The courts,validity,and minimum competency testing. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.1983.
[11]Long, V.M.& Benson, C.. Re:Alignment[J]. The Mathematics Teacher,1998, 91(6):503-508.
[12]U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Remedial education at higher education institutions. NCES97-584. Washington, DC:Author, 1996.
[13]Blank, R.. Models for alignment analysis and assistance to states. Council of Chief State School Officers Summary Document. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers,2002.
[14]Webb, N. L.. Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathem-atics and science education. Madison:University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers,1997.
[15]Webb, N. L.. Alignment study in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies of state standards and assessments for four states. Washington, DC:Council of Chief State School Officers.2002.
[16]Webb, N. L.Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments[J]. Applied Measurement in Education,2007,20(1),7-25.
[17]Porter,A.C. and Smithson, J.L.Standards-based reform in the states Chicago: National Society for the.study of Education. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2001:61.
[18]Porter, A. C., Smithson, J. Defining, Developing, and Using Curriculum Indicators [EB/OL]. [2010-05-06] http://jsmithson.wceruw.org/Reference/rr48.pdf
[19]Andrew C. Porter. Curriculum Assessment[EB/OL]. [2010-05-06] http://www.andyporter.org/papers/CurriculumAssessment.pdf
[20]Porter, A.C..How SEC.Measures Alignment[J].Educational Researcher,1997(5): 2-9.
[21]Blank, R.K., Porter, A.C.,& Smithson, J. New tools for analyzing teaching, curriculum and standards in mathematics & science [EB/OL]. [2010-05-06] http://seconline.wceruw.org/Reference/SECnewToolsreport.pdf
[22]Porter,A.C.Measuring the content of instruction:Uses in research and practice[J]. Educational Researcher,2002,31(7),3-14.
[23]Porter, A. C., Smithson, J. Blank, R. K.,& Zeidner, T. Alignment as a teacher variable[J]. Applied Measurement in Education,2007,20(1):27-51.
[24]Porter, A.C., Smithson, J.L.. Are content standards being implemented in the classroom? A methodology and some tentative answers. In S.H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom:Standards-based reform in the states-One hundredth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part Ⅱ. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2001.
[25]Fulmer, G. W.. Estimating critical values for strength of alignment among curriculum, assessments, and instruction[J]. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics.2011,36(6):381-402.
[26]Rothman, R., Slattery, J. B., Vranek, J. L., and Resnick, L. B. Benchmarking and alignment of standards and testing[EB/OL]. [2010-04-16] http://achieve.org/files/TR566.pdf
[27]Andrew T. Roach, Bradley C. Niebling, Alexander Kurz. Evaluating Alignment Among Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessments:Implications and Applications for Research And Practice[J].Psychology in the Schools,2008,45(2):158-176.
[28]Rothman,R.Imperfect matches:The alignment of standards and tests[EB/OL]. [2010-04-16]http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=+Imperfect+matches%3A+The+a lignment+of+standards+and+tests&hl=zh-CN&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2 &lr
[29]Andrea Martone, Stephen G. Sireci. Evaluating Alignment Between Curriculum, Assessment, and Instruction [J]. Review of Educational Research,2009,79(4): 1332-1361.
[30]Gunilla Nasstrom, Widar Henriksson.Alignment of Standards and Assessment:A theoretical and empirical study of methods for alignment[J]. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology,2008,6(3):667-690.
[31]Abdinur Mohamud, Dan Fleck. Alignment of Standards, Assessment and Instruction:Implications for English Language Learners in Ohio[J]. Theory Into Practice,2010(49):129-136.
[32]Dennison S.Bhola, James C.Impara,and Chad W.Buckendahl. Aligning Tests with States' Content Standards:Methods and Issues[J]. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practice,2003(3):21-29.
[33]Joan L. Herman, Noreen M. Webb,Stephen A. Zuniga. Measurement Issues in the Alignment of Standards and Assessments:A Case Study[J]. Applied Measurement in Education,2007,20(1),101-126.
[34]Webb, N. L.Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments [J]. Applied Measurement in Education,2007,20(1),7-25.
[35]Dennison S.Bhola, James C.Impara,and Chad W.Buckendahl. Aligning Tests with States'Content Standards:Methods and Issues[J]. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practice,2003(3):21-29.
[36]Richard S. Brown, David T. Conlcy. Comparing State High School Assessments to Standards for Success in Entry-Level University Courses [J]. Educational Assessment,2007,12(2):137-160.
[37]Andrew C. Porter, Morgan S. Polikoff, Tim Zeidner, John Smithson. The Quality of Content Analyses of State Student Achievement Tests and Content Standards [J]. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practice,2008,27(4):2-14.
[38]Liu, X., Fulmer, G. W.. Alignment between science curriculum and assessments in selected New York State Regents exams [J]. Journal of Science Education and Technology,2008,17(4),373-383.
[39]Liu, X., Zhang, B. H., Liang, L. L., Fulmer, G. W., Kim, B., and Yuan, H.Q. Alignment between the physics content standards and standardized tests:A comparison among US-NY, Singapore, and China-Jiangsu[J]. Science Education,2008,22(12):777-797.
[40]Liang, L. L.,& Yuan, H.. Examining the alignment of Chinese national physics curriculum guidelines and 12th-grade exit examinations:A case study [J]. International Journal of Science Education,2008,30 (13):1823-1825.
[41]Liu enshan, Liu qun. Alignment Between High-school Biology Content Standard and the Standardized Test of Four Provinces in China. Paper presented at the 2010 Sino-Europe General Education forum.2010.