调查高年级数学内容标准与数字模式练习册活动之间的一致性

IF 0.3 Q4 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES Pythagoras Pub Date : 2020-12-17 DOI:10.4102/pythagoras.v41i1.569
Agnes D. Qhibi, Zwelithini Bongani Dhlamini, K. Chuene
{"title":"调查高年级数学内容标准与数字模式练习册活动之间的一致性","authors":"Agnes D. Qhibi, Zwelithini Bongani Dhlamini, K. Chuene","doi":"10.4102/pythagoras.v41i1.569","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The investigation of the strength of alignment ensures synergy between curriculum components’ main content standards, classroom instruction and assessment (Polikoff & Porter, 2014; Porter, 2002). The extent of agreement between these curriculum components is referred to as alignment (Roach, Niebling, & Kurz, 2008). The conceptualisation of alignment begins with common understanding of the educational components used in this discourse, content standards, classroom instruction and assessment. Kurtz, Elliott, Wehby and Smithson (2010) refer to these as follows: (1) the intended curriculum is reflective of the content standards as specified in the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) (Department of Basic Education [DBE], 2011); (2) the enacted curriculum refers to the content of instruction taught by teachers in classrooms; (3) the assessed curriculum is depicted by the content measured by the various forms of assessment or tests during the academic year. Hence, the conceptualisation between these three aspects of the curriculum in the alignment discourse is: the intended curriculum specifies content for instruction; the content taught by teachers during instruction portrays the enacted curriculum; the assessed curriculum depicts the assessed content that gauges levels of students’ achievement. The investigation of the strength of alignment normally begins with the determination of the content, the cognitive levels and representations of each of the documents (Porter, 2002; Webb, 1997). Frequent studies on alignment are necessary to improve the agreement of curricula expectations, classroom instruction and assessment (Russell & Moncaleano, 2020). Alignment is both horizontal and vertical. Horizontal is between curricula (intended and assessed) and assessments while vertical is between learning materials, classroom instruction, professional development and learner outcomes (enacted curriculum) (Webb, 1997). Hence, alignment has the potential to strengthen the connections between what is taught, what is tested and what is intended by the curriculum (Martone & Sireci, 2009).","PeriodicalId":43521,"journal":{"name":"Pythagoras","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigating the strength of alignment between Senior Phase mathematics content standards and workbook activities on number patterns\",\"authors\":\"Agnes D. Qhibi, Zwelithini Bongani Dhlamini, K. Chuene\",\"doi\":\"10.4102/pythagoras.v41i1.569\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The investigation of the strength of alignment ensures synergy between curriculum components’ main content standards, classroom instruction and assessment (Polikoff & Porter, 2014; Porter, 2002). The extent of agreement between these curriculum components is referred to as alignment (Roach, Niebling, & Kurz, 2008). The conceptualisation of alignment begins with common understanding of the educational components used in this discourse, content standards, classroom instruction and assessment. Kurtz, Elliott, Wehby and Smithson (2010) refer to these as follows: (1) the intended curriculum is reflective of the content standards as specified in the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) (Department of Basic Education [DBE], 2011); (2) the enacted curriculum refers to the content of instruction taught by teachers in classrooms; (3) the assessed curriculum is depicted by the content measured by the various forms of assessment or tests during the academic year. Hence, the conceptualisation between these three aspects of the curriculum in the alignment discourse is: the intended curriculum specifies content for instruction; the content taught by teachers during instruction portrays the enacted curriculum; the assessed curriculum depicts the assessed content that gauges levels of students’ achievement. The investigation of the strength of alignment normally begins with the determination of the content, the cognitive levels and representations of each of the documents (Porter, 2002; Webb, 1997). Frequent studies on alignment are necessary to improve the agreement of curricula expectations, classroom instruction and assessment (Russell & Moncaleano, 2020). Alignment is both horizontal and vertical. Horizontal is between curricula (intended and assessed) and assessments while vertical is between learning materials, classroom instruction, professional development and learner outcomes (enacted curriculum) (Webb, 1997). Hence, alignment has the potential to strengthen the connections between what is taught, what is tested and what is intended by the curriculum (Martone & Sireci, 2009).\",\"PeriodicalId\":43521,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pythagoras\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pythagoras\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v41i1.569\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pythagoras","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v41i1.569","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

对对齐强度的调查确保了课程组成部分的主要内容标准、课堂教学和评估之间的协同作用(Polikoff & Porter, 2014;波特,2002)。这些课程组成部分之间的一致程度被称为对齐(Roach, Niebling, & Kurz, 2008)。一致性的概念化始于对这一论述中使用的教育组成部分、内容标准、课堂教学和评估的共同理解。Kurtz, Elliott, Wehby和Smithson(2010)认为:(1)预期课程反映了课程和评估政策声明(CAPS)中规定的内容标准(基础教育部[DBE], 2011);(二)制定课程是指教师在课堂上讲授的教学内容;(3)经评估的课程由学年期间各种形式的评估或考试所衡量的内容来描述。因此,在一致性话语中,课程的这三个方面之间的概念化是:预期课程指定教学内容;教师在教学过程中讲授的内容描绘了制定的课程;评估课程描述了衡量学生成就水平的评估内容。对对齐强度的调查通常从确定每个文件的内容、认知水平和表示开始(Porter, 2002;韦伯,1997)。为了提高课程期望、课堂教学和评估的一致性,有必要频繁地研究一致性(Russell & Moncaleano, 2020)。对齐是水平和垂直的。横向是指课程(目标和评估)和评估之间的关系,而纵向是指学习材料、课堂教学、专业发展和学习者成果(制定的课程)之间的关系(Webb, 1997)。因此,一致性有可能加强教学内容、测试内容和课程意图之间的联系(Martone & Sireci, 2009)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Investigating the strength of alignment between Senior Phase mathematics content standards and workbook activities on number patterns
The investigation of the strength of alignment ensures synergy between curriculum components’ main content standards, classroom instruction and assessment (Polikoff & Porter, 2014; Porter, 2002). The extent of agreement between these curriculum components is referred to as alignment (Roach, Niebling, & Kurz, 2008). The conceptualisation of alignment begins with common understanding of the educational components used in this discourse, content standards, classroom instruction and assessment. Kurtz, Elliott, Wehby and Smithson (2010) refer to these as follows: (1) the intended curriculum is reflective of the content standards as specified in the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) (Department of Basic Education [DBE], 2011); (2) the enacted curriculum refers to the content of instruction taught by teachers in classrooms; (3) the assessed curriculum is depicted by the content measured by the various forms of assessment or tests during the academic year. Hence, the conceptualisation between these three aspects of the curriculum in the alignment discourse is: the intended curriculum specifies content for instruction; the content taught by teachers during instruction portrays the enacted curriculum; the assessed curriculum depicts the assessed content that gauges levels of students’ achievement. The investigation of the strength of alignment normally begins with the determination of the content, the cognitive levels and representations of each of the documents (Porter, 2002; Webb, 1997). Frequent studies on alignment are necessary to improve the agreement of curricula expectations, classroom instruction and assessment (Russell & Moncaleano, 2020). Alignment is both horizontal and vertical. Horizontal is between curricula (intended and assessed) and assessments while vertical is between learning materials, classroom instruction, professional development and learner outcomes (enacted curriculum) (Webb, 1997). Hence, alignment has the potential to strengthen the connections between what is taught, what is tested and what is intended by the curriculum (Martone & Sireci, 2009).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pythagoras
Pythagoras EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
16.70%
发文量
12
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Pythagoras is a scholarly research journal that provides a forum for the presentation and critical discussion of current research and developments in mathematics education at both national and international level. Pythagoras publishes articles that significantly contribute to our understanding of mathematics teaching, learning and curriculum studies, including reports of research (experiments, case studies, surveys, philosophical and historical studies, etc.), critical analyses of school mathematics curricular and teacher development initiatives, literature reviews, theoretical analyses, exposition of mathematical thinking (mathematical practices) and commentaries on issues relating to the teaching and learning of mathematics at all levels of education.
期刊最新文献
Developing undergraduate engineering mathematics students’ conceptual and procedural knowledge of complex numbers using GeoGebra Ascertaining Grade 10 learners’ levels of mathematical modelling competency through solving simultaneous equations word problems Solving quadratic equations by completing the square: Applying Newman’s Error Analysis Model to analyse Grade 11 errors The impact of artificial intelligence and the future of ChatGPT for mathematics teaching and learning in schools and higher education Talk that supports learners’ folding back for growth in understanding geometry
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1