The content match of two elementary mathematics curricula (Distar Arithmetic and Scott Foresman Mathematics) and two arithmetic tests (KeyMath and the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills) was examined for Grades I through 3. Correspondence was assessed for content (material and operation) as well as the types of learning that were required of the student (i.e., knowledge, computation, comprehension, application). Eighty-one of the 90 comparisons were significant at the .001 level. Thus, a consistent lack of content correspondence was found among curricula and tests at all levels.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AirasianP., & MadausG. (1983). Linking testing and instruction: Policy issues. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 10–118.
2.
ArmbrusterB.StevensR., & RosenshineB. (1977). Analysing content coverage and emphasis: A study of three curricula and two tests. (Technical Report No. 26). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
BrandtR., (Ed.) (1981). Applied strategies for curriculum evaluation. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
7.
ConnollyA.NatchmanW., & PritchettR. (1976). KeyMath Diagnostic Arithmetic Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
8.
EnglemannS., & CarnineD. (1976). Distar arithmetic I, II, & III. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
9.
FreemanD.KuhsT.PorterA.FlodenR.SchmidtW., & SchwilleJ. (1983). Do textbooks and tests define a national curriculum in elementary school mathematics?The Elementary School Journal, 83, 501–513.
10.
GagneR. (1971). The conditions of learning (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
11.
GuilfordJ. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
JenkinsJ., & PanyD. (1976). Curriculum biases in reading achievement tests. (Technical Report No. 16). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.
14.
JenkinsJ., & PanyD. (1978a). Curriculum biases in reading achievement tests. Journal of Reading Behavior, 10, 345–357.
15.
JenkinsJ., & PanyD. (1978b). Standardized achievement tests: How useful for special education?Exceptional Children, 44, 448–453.
16.
KuhsT.SchmidtW.PortenA.FlodenR.FreemanD., & SchwilleJ. (1979). A taxonony for classifying elementary school mathematics content. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
McNeilJ. (1977). Curriculum: A comprehensive introduction. Boston: Little, Brown.
19.
SalviaJ. & YsseldykeJ. (1985). Assessment in special and remedial education (3rd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
20.
SchmidtW. (1978). Measuring the content of instruction. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
21.
SiegelS. (1956). Nonparametric statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
22.
TannerD., & TannerL. (1980). Curriculum development (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
23.
UnruhG. (1975). Responsive curriculum development: Theory and action. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
24.
WilsonJ. (1971). Secondary school mathematics. In BloomB.HastingsJ., & MadausG. (eds.), Handbook of formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
