Curricular alignment is a dynamic process with the goal of achieving correspondence between the intended, enacted and assessed curriculum. Rather than focusing on the alignment of content, this study focused on the alignment of performance types using specific categories to classify these performance types in two Victorian mathematics classrooms.  Performance types can be defined as the cognitive processes required for specific tasks; for example, knowing, performing procedures, communicating, non-routine problem solving, reasoning and making connections. Since each classroom is impacted by national, state, school and classroom assessment requirements, this study provided the opportunity to interrogate in microcosm assessment practices with respect to those performance types that are privileged in assessment at all levels of the schooling system.

Historically, alignment studies have used categories as a way of classifying the types of performances that are evident in planning, instruction and those that are elicited through various assessment activities. Using carefully selected assessments provides students with the opportunity to demonstrate achievement in a wide range of performance types. If assessment practices focus primarily on one performance type, such as performing procedures, and these results are used to plan the curriculum, then the focus for the enacted curriculum can be significantly limited. In a well-aligned system, ‘the performances privileged by assessment should be precisely those performances that constitute the goal of curriculum’ (Barnes, Clarke & Stephens, 2000, p.624).

For the purposes of this project, categories and definitions of performance types were developed after a comprehensive review of the categories used in Porter’s Cognitive Categories (Porter, 2007), Webb’s Criteria for Alignment (Webb, 1997), TIMSS Performance Categories (Garden, 1997), PISA Key Competencies (2009) and Bloom’s Revised Taxomomy (Krathwohl (2002).  The categories are as follows:

Knowing: The ‘knowing’ category is based on declarative knowledge. The performance of ‘knowing’ specifically pertains to the recall and recognition of content knowledge. The emphasis of this performance type is on the ‘reproduction’ of content taught previously in verbal or non-verbal forms.

Performing Procedures: Similar to knowing, this performance type is also about reproduction, but of methods or procedures taught previously. ‘Students demonstrate fluency with basic skills by using these skills accurately and automatically, and demonstrate practical competence with other skills by using them effectively to accomplish a task’ (Porter, Smithson, Blank & Zeidner 2007, p. 37).

Communicating: Communicating refers to activities where the performance expectation requires students to describe, discuss and represent concepts. This includes the use of models and diagrams to represent mathematical concepts.

Reasoning: Reasoning involves forming inferences, framing, testing and refuting hypotheses, making judgments, developing generalisations or drawing conclusions.

Non-routine problem solving: Non-routine problem solving involves making decisions and developing logical strategies for solving unfamiliar problems.

Making connections: Making connections requires students to connect and integrate knowledge from different areas or sources. This includes the ability to apply knowledge to contexts outside the subject area or classroom.

This study sought to determine the scope of practice evident in classrooms and whether the performance types evident at the classroom level were reflected in the mandated curriculum and the national standardised testing program.

Research question:

What is the degree of alignment, as evidenced through the analysis of performance types, between the intended and enacted curriculum and assessment practices at all levels of the education system (classroom, school, state and national) for selected topics in mathematics and science?

Barnes, M., Clarke, D.J. & Stephens, W.M. (2000). Assessment as the Engine of Systemic Reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies 32(5), 623-650. Clarke, D.J. (1992). The role of assessment in performance in assessment and learning of mathematics. In Leder, G, (Ed.) Assessment of Learning and Mathematics (pp. 145-168). Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Research. Garden, R. (Ed). (1997) Mathematics and science performance in middle primary school. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. In Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212-218. Porter A. C., Smithson J., Blank R., & Zeider T. (2007). Alignment as a teacher variable. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 27-51. Programme for International Student Assessment & Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework : key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/40/44455820.pdf Webb, N. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education (NISE Brief, Vol.1, No. 2). Madison: University of Wisconsin, National Institute for Science Education Publications.