Why should assessments, learning objectives, and instructional

strategies be aligned?
Assessments should reveal how well students have learned what
we want them to learn while instruction ensures that they learn it.
For this to occur, assessments, learning objectives, and
instructional strategies need to be closely aligned so that they
reinforce one another.
To ensure that these three components of your course are
aligned, ask yourself the following questions:
o Learning objectives: What do I want students to know how to do when they
leave this course?
o Assessments: What kinds of tasks will reveal whether students have achieved
the learning objectives I have identified?
o Instructional strategies: What kinds of activities in and out of class will
reinforce my learning objectives and prepare students for assessments?

What if the components of a course are misaligned?

If assessments are misaligned with learning objectives or instructional strategies,
it can undermine both student motivation and learning. Consider these two
scenarios:
Your objective is for students to learn to apply analytical skills, but your
assessment measures only factual recall. Consequently, students hone their
analytical skills and are frustrated that the exam does not measure what they
learned.
Your assessment measures students’ ability to compare and critique the
arguments of different authors, but your instructional strategies focus entirely
on summarizing the arguments of different authors. Consequently, students do
not learn or practice the skills of comparison and evaluation that will be
assessed.

What do well-aligned assessments look like?

This table presents examples of the kinds of activities that can be used to assess
different types of learning objectives (adapted from the revised Bloom’s
Taxonomy).
Type of learning Examples of appropriate assessments
objective

Objective test items such as fill-in-the-blank, matching,

Recall
labeling, or multiple-choice questions that require students
Recognize
to:
Identify
o recall or recognize terms, facts, and concepts

Interpret Activities such as papers, exams, problem sets, class

Exemplify discussions, or concept maps that require students to:
Classify o summarize readings, films, or speeches
Summarize o compare and contrast two or more theories, events, or
Infer processes
Compare o classify or categorize cases, elements, or events using
Explain established criteria
o paraphrase documents or speeches
o find or identify examples or illustrations of a concept or
principle

Apply Activities such as problem sets, performances, labs,

Execute prototyping, or simulations that require students to:
Implement o use procedures to solve or complete familiar or unfamiliar
tasks
o determine which procedure(s) are most appropriate for a
given task

Analyze Activities such as case studies, critiques, labs, papers,

Differentiate projects, debates, or concept maps that require students to:
Organize o discriminate or select relevant and irrelevant parts
Attribute o determine how elements function together
o determine bias, values, or underlying intent in presented
material
Evaluate Activities such as journals, diaries, critiques, problem sets,
Check product reviews, or studies that require students to:
Critique o test, monitor, judge, or critique readings, performances, or
Assess products against established criteria or standards

Create Activities such as research projects, musical compositions,

Generate performances, essays, business plans, website designs, or
Plan set designs that require students to:
Produce o make, build, design or generate something new
Design

This table does not list all possible examples of appropriate assessments. You
can develop and use other assessments – just make sure that they align with
your learning objectives and instructional strategies!
CONTACT US to talk with an Eberly colleague in person!
https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/assessment/basics/alignment.html

Why Is It Important to Align Instruction and Assessment?

Authentic assessment is aligned with the curriculum. It assesses what we teach

and what we value (Stiggins, 1994; Valencia, 1990; Wiggins, 1989). Deciding the
important outcomes is not always easy, but it is a critical first step in creating
authentic assessments. There are many helpful resources for teachers: state and
district curriculum guides, published instructional materials, national standards
documents, and professional colleagues (Au, 1994; Valencia & Place, 1994).

When assessment is aligned with instruction, both students and teachers benefit.
Students are more likely to learn because instruction is focused and because
they are assessed on what they are taught. Teachers are also able to focus,
making the best use of their time. Because assessment involves real learning,
they can integrate assessment into daily instruction and classroom activities. For
example, if students are studying a unit on natural disasters, reading accounts of
the experiences, and learning about cause and effect, the assessment might
include reading about a different catastrophe or writing a research report on how
it occurs.
iteracy Leadership for Grades 5–12
by Rosemarye Taylor and Valerie Doyle Collins

Chapter 3. Aligning Curriculum, Instruction, Learning Tools, and Assessment

To many school leaders, creating a curriculum system of aligned curriculum, instruction,

learning tools, and assessment may sound like an esoteric exercise that has little to do
with real school practice. But this task takes on significant meaning when we view it as
a way to provide school leadership for streamlining and simplifying the work of teachers,
while also ensuring that all students have equal access to a high-quality curriculum.
This equal access results from an officially aligned curriculum, available to all students,
and from daily, schoolwide incorporation of literacy processes and strategies that will
help all students to learn that curriculum.
When all students have this kind of equal access, both achievement and standardized
test results will improve. An aligned curriculum system will also result in more efficient
and effective daily teaching. It will make it easier for teachers to create meaningful
integrated (or “problem-based”) learning by bundling standards. Finally, the enhanced
curricular and instructional practices that follow alignment will help more students
become joyful, independent readers and writers.

The Critical Alignment of Standards, Curriculum,

Instruction and Assessment

Condition 1 – Standards are the foundation of coherent and aligned

educational practice.
Standards are statements of what students should know and be able to do in
their work, personal, and civic lives.
Condition 2 – Curriculum, the designed, locally approved, and
implemented instructional content must be aligned to standards.
 Curriculum encompasses the means, methods, and materials which
students will interact with for the purpose of achieving identified
educational outcomes that must be aligned with the standards.
 Effective curriculum may look different from district to district, but it is
always aligned to standards, progressing from one level to the next to
ensure growth in student skills and knowledge.
Condition 3 – Assessment must be aligned to the curriculum and
measure the degree of student proficiency of the standards.
 Measures of students learning should reflect the curriculum, indicating the
degree of student mastery of standards-based skills and knowledge, and
be used to help identify gaps in learning.
 Please reference the Michigan Assessment Consortium Standards
previously cited for additional information.
Condition 4 – Effective instruction is matched to student needs, aligned
to the curriculum, and used to support learners as they move toward the
identified target to be measured.
 Quality instructional frameworks are research-based and proven to
promote student growth and facilitate the learning process.
 Quality instruction involves assessing students’ prior knowledge,
implementing instruction and measuring the results, intentionally.
 Educators calibrate instructional decisions based on the needs of
individual and groups; students shift their performance based on
feedback.
Condition 5 – A quality system of assessment incorporates multiple
forms of assessments, and is used for multiple purposes.
 Classroom feedback is provided in a timely manner to help students and
inform educators about classroom practices.
 Feedback for the school, district, and state provides information and
accountability related to curriculum, instruction and assessment, and
informs organizational policies and decisions.
Condition 6 – A state educational system should be coherent beginning
with state adopted standards leading to a state aligned system of
measuring those standards.
 A quality state assessment system informs districts and the state of the
progress being made in achieving the standards through the intentional
alignment of the curriculum, instruction and assessment.
 Data used to make decisions related to student growth, policy and
evaluations must be accurate.
 The system needs to be efficient and adaptive.
 Adaptive assessments provide a more accurate measure of student
learning.
In summary, Michigan ASCD and GELN see critical implications related to the
conditions above in making a quality decision related to assessment practices
in our state.
1. Quality assessment impacts the quality of instruction.
2. Coherent systems are efficient and effective.
3. Clear alignment of curriculum, instruction and assessment practices
allows resources to be used intentionally and judiciously.
4. Student growth measures must be accurate and aligned to the states
adopted standards.
Indicator: Ensure that teachers align instruction with standards and benchmarks.

(974)

Evidence Review: Align Instruction with State Standards

In considering state standards, it is useful to remember that the No Child Left

Behind federal

legislation requires annual tests for all students in reading and mathematics in
grades 3-8 and

once in high school. With the goal of proficiency by 2013-2014, the data must be
disaggregated

for subgroups, and parents must be clearly informed about the quality of their
child’s school.

Schools failing to make “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP) for the various
subgroups face

escalating sanctions, such as having to inform parents that their child is in a

failing school, being

required to allow their students to transfer to successful schools, replacing the

staff, and, if failure

continues, possible closure. Thus, particularly in the later stages, restructuring is

a very serious

matter.

How can progress be made? Since progress in proficiency is measured on state

assessments of their own standards, they are the logical and most constructive
starting point for

planning improvements. District and school staff can make a careful analysis of
their state
standards for each grade level (Chubb, 2005; Just for Kids, 2006; Redding, 2006).
One useful

approach is for district authorities and those assigned to each grade to take
responsibility for a

given grade or combination of grades. They can first set forth knowledge, skill,
and other

standards requirements for that grade. They can then examine the degree to
which the standards

are covered in any special district and school requirements, in textbooks and
other instructional

materials, and in lesson plans of individual teachers or groups.

It is then helpful for staff to examine whether some of the standards

requirements are taught

in previous grades. If so, they can avoid unnecessary duplication or simply plan
to provide some

initial review and assessment of what students should know. Staff can also
review the

prerequisites to the requirements to be sure they are provided in previous grade

levels. To ensure

In all cases, for teachers to identify and activate the explicit connections between
instruction

and standards, and therefore improve student performance, they must be

involved in the process

of making those alignments (Applebee, 1996; Koppang, 2004; Langer, 2001).

When instruction that is aligned to standards is implemented in classrooms,

students should

be able to perform at higher levels of proficiency on assessments. Analysis of

student

performance data can then become a useful tool to provide powerful guidance
when schools
make resource allocations, introduce changes in curricular emphasis,
established connections

across grades and content areas, select instructional materials, and develop
processes for

building professional capacity (Bhola, Impara, & Buchendahl, 2003; Gamoran,

Porter, Smithson,

& White, 1997; LaMarca, Redfield, & Winter, 2000; Blank, Porter, & Smithson,
2001).

Action Principles

For State

1. Provide guidance about the alignment between state standards and

assessments

(e.g., areas of emphasis cognitive demand, use of data to determine degree of

alignment of instruction to standards) and provide examples, release test items,

and

disseminate policy interpretation (Bhola, Impara, & Buchendal, 2003; LaMarca,

Redfield, & Winter, 2000; Porter, 2002).

For District

1. Provide support (technical, expertise, and resources) for an alignment process

that

considers resources, local, context, and intended outcome (Bhola, Impara, &

Buchendahl, 2003; Porter, Smithson, Blank, & Ziedner, 2007).

2. Support capacity-building for school staff and faculty members to help them

understand the analysis and make strategic plans to implement action steps to

address instructional adjustments and needed resources (Bhola, Impara, &

Buchendahl, 2003; LaMarca, Redfield, & Winter, 2000; Porter, Smithson, Blank, &

Ziedner, 2007).

For School
1. Conduct investigation to align school/teacher enacted curriculum, state
standards,

and local curricula, including articulation across grade levels and content areas

(Bhola, Impara, & Buchendahl, 2003; Blank, Porter, & Smithson, 2001; English,

1980; Glatthorn, 1999; Kurz, Elliot, Wehby, & Smithson, 2009; McGehee & Griffith,

2001; Porter, Smithson, Blank, & Ziedner, 2007).

2. Provide resources (e.g., time, expertise, planning support, professional

development)

to enable teachers to incorporate changes required to align instruction with

standards

(Blank, Porter, & Smithson, 2001; English, 1980; Koppang, 2004).

3. Build capacity to monitor and maintain alignment between curriculum

standards and

classroom instruction, including use of formative data (Blank, Porter, &

Smithson,

2001).

References and Resources

Applebee, A. N. (1996). Curriculum as conversation: Transforming traditions of

teaching and

learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bhola, D. S., Impara, J. C., & Buchendahl, C. W. (2003). Aligning tests with states’
content

standards: Methods and issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices,

22(3), 21-

29.

Blank, R. K., Porter, A., & Smithson, J. (2001). New tools for analyzing teaching,
curriculum, and

standards in mathematics & science: Results from survey of enacted curriculum

final report.
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Offices. Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019
b/80/19/5d/

9a.pdf

English, F. W. (1980). Curriculum mapping. Educational Leadership, 37(7), 358-

359.

Gamoran, A., Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., & White, P. A. (1997). Upgrading high
school

mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-

income

youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(4), 325-338.

Glatthorn, A. A. (1999). Curriculum alignment revisited. Journal of Curriculum and

Supervision,

15(1), 26-34.

Koppang, A. (2004). Curriculum mapping: Building collaboration and

communication. Intervention

in School and Clinic, 39(3), 154-161.

Kurz, A., Elliot, S. N., Wehby, J. N., & Smithson, J. L. (2009). Alignment of the
intended, planned,

and enacted curriculum in general and special education and its relation to
student

achievement. The Journal of Special Education, 43(3), 1-15.

LaMarca, P. M., Redfield, D., Winter, P. C., Bailey, A., & Despriet, L. H. (2000). State
standards

and state assessment systems: A guide to alignment. Washington, DC: Council of

Chief

State School Officers. Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019
b/80/1a/33/
5d.pdf

Langer, J. A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students
to read and

write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 837-880. Retrieved from

http://cela.albany.edu/reports/langer/langerbeating12014.pdf

Martone, A., & Sireci, S. G. (2009). Evaluating alignment between curriculum,

assessment and

instruction. Review of Education Research, 79(3), 1-76.

McGehee, J. J., & Griffth, L. K. (2001). Large-scale assessments combined with

curriculum

alignment: Agents of change. Theory into Practice, 40(2), 137-144.

Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and

practice.

Educational Researcher, 31(3), 3-14.

Porter, A. C., Smithson, J. L., Blank, R. K., & Zeidner, T. (2007). Alignment as a
teacher variable.

Applied Measurement in Education, 20, 27-51.

►Aligning Instruction (Vertically and to Standards), COI, SIG Handbook, pp.109-

110,

Indicator: Ensure that teachers align instruction with standards and benchmarks. (974)

Evidence Review: Align Instruction with State Standards In considering state standards,
it is useful to remember that the No Child Left Behind federal legislation requires annual
tests for all students in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 and once in high school.
With the goal of proficiency by 2013-2014, the data must be disaggregated for
subgroups, and parents must be clearly informed about the quality of their child’s
school. Schools failing to make “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP) for the various
subgroups face escalating sanctions, such as having to inform parents that their child is
in a failing school, being required to allow their students to transfer to successful
schools, replacing the staff, and, if failure continues, possible closure. Thus, particularly
in the later stages, restructuring is a very serious matter. How can progress be made?
Since progress in proficiency is measured on state assessments of their own standards,
they are the logical and most constructive starting point for planning improvements.
District and school staff can make a careful analysis of their state standards for each
grade level (Chubb, 2005; Just for Kids, 2006; Redding, 2006). One useful approach is
for district authorities and those assigned to each grade to take responsibility for a given
grade or combination of grades. They can first set forth knowledge, skill, and other
standards requirements for that grade. They can then examine the degree to which the
standards are covered in any special district and school requirements, in textbooks and
other instructional materials, and in lesson plans of individual teachers or groups. It is
then helpful for staff to examine whether some of the standards requirements are taught
in previous grades. If so, they can avoid unnecessary duplication or simply plan to
provide some initial review and assessment of what students should know. Staff can
also review the prerequisites to the requirements to be sure they are provided in
previous grade levels. To ensure In all cases, for teachers to identify and activate the
explicit connections between instruction and standards, and therefore improve student
performance, they must be involved in the process of making those alignments
(Applebee, 1996; Koppang, 2004; Langer, 2001). When instruction that is aligned to
standards is implemented in classrooms, students should be able to perform at higher
levels of proficiency on assessments. Analysis of student performance data can then
become a useful tool to provide powerful guidance when schools make resource
allocations, introduce changes in curricular emphasis, established connections across
grades and content areas, select instructional materials, and develop processes for
building professional capacity (Bhola, Impara, & Buchendahl, 2003; Gamoran, Porter,
Smithson, & White, 1997; LaMarca, Redfield, & Winter, 2000; Blank, Porter, &
Smithson, 2001). Action Principles

For State 1. Provide guidance about the alignment between state standards and
assessments (e.g., areas of emphasis cognitive demand, use of data to determine
degree of alignment of instruction to standards) and provide examples, release test
items, and disseminate policy interpretation (Bhola, Impara, & Buchendal, 2003;
LaMarca, Redfield, & Winter, 2000; Porter, 2002).

For District 1. Provide support (technical, expertise, and resources) for an alignment
process that considers resources, local, context, and intended outcome (Bhola, Impara,
& Buchendahl, 2003; Porter, Smithson, Blank, & Ziedner, 2007). 2. Support capacity-
building for school staff and faculty members to help them understand the analysis and
make strategic plans to implement action steps to address instructional adjustments and
needed resources (Bhola, Impara, & Buchendahl, 2003; LaMarca, Redfield, & Winter,
2000; Porter, Smithson, Blank, & Ziedner, 2007).

For School
1. Conduct investigation to align school/teacher enacted curriculum, state standards,
and local curricula, including articulation across grade levels and content areas (Bhola,
Impara, & Buchendahl, 2003; Blank, Porter, & Smithson, 2001; English, 1980;
Glatthorn, 1999; Kurz, Elliot, Wehby, & Smithson, 2009; McGehee & Griffith, 2001;
Porter, Smithson, Blank, & Ziedner, 2007).

2. Provide resources (e.g., time, expertise, planning support, professional

development) to enable teachers to incorporate changes required to align instruction
with standards (Blank, Porter, & Smithson, 2001; English, 1980; Koppang, 2004). 3.
Build capacity to monitor and maintain alignment between curriculum standards and
classroom instruction, including use of formative data (Blank, Porter, & Smithson, 2001).

References and Resources

Applebee, A. N. (1996). Curriculum as conversation: Transforming traditions of

teaching and learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bhola, D. S., Impara, J. C., & Buchendahl, C. W. (2003). Aligning tests with states’
content standards: Methods and issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and
Practices, 22(3), 21- 29.

Blank, R. K., Porter, A., & Smithson, J. (2001). New tools for analyzing teaching,
curriculum, and standards in mathematics & science: Results from survey of enacted
curriculum final report. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Offices.
Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1
9/5d/ 9a.pdf English, F. W. (1980). Curriculum mapping. Educational Leadership, 37(7),
358-359.

Gamoran, A., Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., & White, P. A. (1997). Upgrading high school
mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income
youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(4), 325-338.

Glatthorn, A. A. (1999). Curriculum alignment revisited. Journal of Curriculum and

Supervision, 15(1), 26-34.

Koppang, A. (2004). Curriculum mapping: Building collaboration and communication.

Intervention in School and Clinic, 39(3), 154-161. Kurz, A., Elliot, S. N., Wehby, J. N., &
Smithson, J. L. (2009). Alignment of the intended, planned, and enacted curriculum in
general and special education and its relation to student achievement. The Journal of
Special Education, 43(3), 1-15. LaMarca, P. M., Redfield, D., Winter, P. C., Bailey, A., &
Despriet, L. H. (2000). State standards and state assessment systems: A guide to
alignment. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1
a/33/ 5d.pdf Langer, J. A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school
students to read and write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 837-880.
Retrieved from http://cela.albany.edu/reports/langer/langerbeating12014.pdf Martone,
A., & Sireci, S. G. (2009). Evaluating alignment between curriculum, assessment and
instruction. Review of Education Research, 79(3), 1-76. McGehee, J. J., & Griffth, L. K.
(2001). Large-scale assessments combined with curriculum alignment: Agents of
change. Theory into Practice, 40(2), 137-144. Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the
content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(3), 3-
14. Porter, A. C., Smithson, J. L., Blank, R. K., & Zeidner, T. (2007). Alignment as a
teacher variable. Applied Measurement in Education, 20, 27-51. ►Aligning Instruction
(Vertically and to Standards), COI, SIG Handbook, pp.109-110, www.centerii.org/survey