Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS)

Vol. 35, No. 1 (2015), pp. 261-272

Analysis of Alignment between Curriculum and Biology

Textbook at Secondary Level in Punjab

Abdul Jabbar Bhatti

Research Fellow,
International Islamic University Islamabad, Pakistan
ajbinzoo@yahoo.com

Nabi Bux Jumani, PhD

Dean, Faculty of Social Sciences
International Islamic University Islamabad, Pakistan
nbjumani@yahoo.com

Muhammad Bilal
Lecturer,
Govt. Postgraduate College Layyah
mbilalwandar@yahoo.com

Abstract
A textbook plays a key role in achieving the learning outcomes
specified in the curriculum if it is well aligned with the curriculum.
This well aligned textbook also contributes towards effective
instruction and valid assessment. The present study investigated if the
Biology textbook at secondary level in Punjab was aligned with the
curriculum. In the Curriculum students learning outcomes [SLO] were
outlined in five categories viz. (a) Knowledge, (b) Comprehension, (c)
Higher order, (e) Skills, and (f) STS connection. Textbook’s content
was analyzed to find out if it was congruent with the curriculum with
respect to these five categories of SLO. Two panelists evaluated the
content of the textbook on the self-developed alignment protocol. The
data were analyzed through simple percentages and comparisons were
displayed through graphs. It was found that textbook provided more
content about Knowledge category of cognitive level and less content
for Comprehension and other Higher Order categories of cognitive
level. It is recommended that more content for higher order categories
of cognitive level may make the textbook more aligned with the
curriculum.

Keywords: Alignment, curriculum, textbook, students learning outcomes

I. Introduction
Curriculum alignment has got considerable significance among the educationists
(Porter, Smithson, Blank, & Zeidner, 2007, p.1) because curriculum alignment is among
basic factors that contribute to high performance of schools in the public examinations
(Murphy, 2007, p. 75). Moreover, curriculum alignment also enhances students’ learning
(McFadden, 2009; EdSource, 2006, p. 2; Zavadsky, 2006; Kercheval, 2001). Therefore,
classroom instruction as well as the educational resources must be aligned with
curriculum (Kuhn & Rundle-Thiesle, 2009, p. 352).
262 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 35, No. 1

The textbooks play a key role in bringing the alignment of written, taught, and
assessed curricula. If the textbooks are aligned to the curriculum, the classroom
instruction is more likely to be aligned to the curriculum. Similarly, the examinations
would also be more aligned to the curriculum. Fan (2010, p.2) thinks that a well aligned
textbook is basic requirement for the implementation of curriculum.

Alignment of textbooks with curriculum becomes more important as the external

examinations are assumed to be based on the curriculum. The poor quality of textbooks is
a major factor of students’ low achievement in external examinations (Oakes & Saunders,
2002, p.3). The students perform well in external examination if the textbooks are aligned
with the curriculum. For example, Singapore students’ excellent performance in the
international exams is thought to be due to the well aligned textbooks (Fan, 2010).

In Pakistan, textbooks are crucial material used in classroom instruction as the

external examinations are based on these textbooks (Shah, 2012, p.37). He recommends
that textbooks aligned with curriculum would ensure quality of instruction in Pakistan.
However, the process of textbook development in Pakistan indicates that there may be
gap between the textbooks and the curriculum. There are multiple layers of curriculum
and textbook development in Pakistan as the curriculum has been developed by Federal
Government in 2006 and the textbooks have been developed by the Provincial
Governments. This assortment of curriculum development and interpretation, as Hume
and Coll (2010, p. 43) suggest, affects curriculum alignment negatively.

While textbook publishers claim that they develop textbooks that are aligned with
the curriculum (Sawchuk, 2012), the research does not support this claim (Schmidt et al.,
2001). Moreover, the studies (e.g. American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 2005; Edvantia, 2005) indicate that there may be gaps between the curriculum
and the textbooks. Therefore, it is essential to know how much the textbooks taught in
schools are aligned with curriculum. Some studies have been undertaken to analyze the
textbooks taught in schools in Punjab. However, these studies have not analyzed
textbooks in relation to curriculum up to students learning outcomes [SLO] level, which
is being employed in most of the developed countries of the world. Therefore, the present
study was undertaken to analyze the alignment level of Biology textbook with the
curriculum at secondary level in Punjab.

II. Literature Review

Curriculum is the product of mutual consensus among all the stake holders such as
curriculum specialists, educational managers, parents, students, and teachers. It specifies
the learning outcomes to be achieved after classroom instruction. It guides the teacher,
educational manger, textbook/instructional material developer, and examiner. However,
instructions given in curriculum are mostly not followed (Goodson, 2010, p. 193).
Therefore, the curriculum specialists stress on curriculum alignment. Roach, Niebling
and Kurz (2028, p. 158) define curriculum alignment as the degree of coordination
among curriculum, instruction, and assessment to facilitate students’ learning. Martone
and Sireci (2009, p. 24) think that alignment occurs when various components of
education system work harmoniously in order to achieve collective goal.

Curriculum alignment is a method of “educational quality control” where the

“process of teaching and learning is predetermined, pre-paced, and pre-structured”
 Abdul Jabbar Bhatti, Nabi Bux Jumani, Muhammad Bilal 263
(Rubin & Kazanjian, 2011, p. 94). It requires teachers to teach “a standards-based
curriculum with depth and complexity”. The instruction that is aligned with the
curriculum results in students’ high performance in external examinations (Schuenemann,
Jones, & Brown, 2011, p. 64). Studies conducted on underprivileged students (e.g.
Blankstein, 2004; Evans, 2005; Lavin-Loucks, 2006) demonstrate that instruction aligned
with the curriculum also results in significant academic improvement and increased
intellectual abilities of even underprivileged students.

On the other hand, complete alignment of instruction with curriculum is not so

simple. According to Karvonen, Wakeman and Flowers (2006) one of the major obstacles
in achieving alignment is employing different parties for carrying out different
educational tasks (e.g. developing curriculum, teachers training, evaluation, etc.). So,
Penuel, Fishman, Gallagher, Korbak and Lopez-Prado (2009) recommend harmonizing
the curriculum, professional development of teachers and assessment. Similarly,
misaligned examinations also put teachers in conflicting situation of following the
curriculum or examination (Fuhrman, 1993). Moreover, sufficient level of alignment
among curriculum, instruction and assessment is not possible without availability of
proper educational resources.

The educationists all over the world admit that textbooks are vital educational
resources (Oakes & Saunders, 2002, pp.3-5). The significance of textbooks is evident
from the fact that the organizations like Organization of Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO), and World Bank consider availability of textbooks for students as an
indicator of quality education.

Quality of textbooks and other instructional material is an important factor of

curriculum alignment (Hill, 2001; Spillane, 2004). Classroom instruction is deeply
associated with textbooks as it involves the interaction of teacher and students with the
textbooks (Brown, 2009). Textbooks influence content delivered by teacher and the
content learnt by the students (Schmidt, Houang, & Cogan, 2002). Stein, Remillard, and
Smith (2007) contend that content which is not included in textbooks is usually not
taught. English (1986, p. 50), on the basis of several surveys, concludes that teachers use
textbooks and their own ideas as basis for selecting content of instruction.

Quality of textbooks has direct bearing upon students’ learning (Allington, 2002).
Textbooks make students aware of the knowledge and skills to be achieved stipulated in
curriculum. Carney (2011, p. 11) rightly asserts that many students cannot master the
content which is not included in the textbooks as students are not taught that particular
content.

But, mostly the exams in the developing countries are content centered as the test
items cover the content in the textbook (Çepni & Karab, 2011, p. 3226). In spite of
widespread use of and dependence on the textbooks, the textbooks are not satisfactorily
aligned with the standards (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2005;
Edvantia, 2005). Shah and Tariq (1986-87) analyzed the relationship between the biology
textbook and examination for secondary level and found that questions are set from the
specific (only 20%) part of textbook. They also found that paper setters had not given
proper representation of content from every chapter (p.45).
264 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 35, No. 1

So, for alignment of instruction and assessment with the curriculum it is essential
that textbook should be aligned with the curriculum. Glatthorn (2000, pp. 86-87)
contends that analysis of the textbooks is a key step in the process of curriculum
alignment. It is essential because the textbooks may treat topics too deeply to attract
teacher and learners.

III. Statement of Problem

Studies (e.g. Shah, 2012; Shah and Tariq, 1986-87) have shown that in Pakistan
textbooks are extensively used by the teachers in their classroom instruction and by
examiners for developing question papers of the external examinations. Similarly,
research (e.g. Naeem-Ullah, 2007; Rehman, 2004) also indicates that external
examinations in Pakistan encourage cramming and rote memorization. Moreover, the
textbook developers claim to develop the textbook according to curriculum. Therefore, it
is essential to know if the textbooks’ content is congruent with the curriculum. Present
study analyzed if the Biology (IX) textbook’s content was aligned with the curriculum at
secondary level in Punjab.

IV. Research Question

The study was undertaken to investigate if the content of Biology (IX) textbook
was aligned with curriculum with respect to (a) Knowledge (b) Comprehension (c)
Higher order (e) Skills (f) STS connection categories.

V. Method
The present study employed quantitative research method which is suitable for
relationship studies (Creswell, 2009, p. 4). Biology–IX textbook developed by Punjab
Textbook Board Lahore was analyzed. The surveys of enacted curriculum [SEC] protocol
is “a practical research tool for collecting consistent, reliable data on math and science”
as it provides data which are objective, dependable and comparable for evaluation
(Blank, 2002, p. 87). Moreover, it employs a uniform language for analysis of content
and it is being used for alignment studies in several states of United States (Porter, 2002,
pp. 3-4). Therefore, an alignment protocol was developed on the pattern of SEC protocol
and it was used as tool of study.

There were total 270 students learning outcomes [SLO] in curriculum. In the
curriculum, students learning outcomes have been divided into three levels:

 Understanding (173 SLO)

 Skills (72 SLO)
 STS connections (25 SLO) (GOP, 2006, p. 6)

The learning outcomes in Understanding belonged to cognitive domain of Bloom’s

classification of objectives. The 173 SLO of Understanding level were further related to
Knowledge (109), Comprehension (52) and higher order (12) categories of cognitive
level of Bloom’s taxonomy.

The alignment protocol consisted of 19 rows (for topics) and five columns for
categories of SLO which were:
 Abdul Jabbar Bhatti, Nabi Bux Jumani, Muhammad Bilal 265
(a) Knowledge
(b) Comprehension
(c) Higher order
(e) Skills
(f) STS connection

Two subject matter experts (panelists) were employed to analyze the content of the
textbook. These panelists had good knowledge of content and curriculum. The validity
and reliability of the instrument were ensured by (i) seeking experts’ opinion, (ii) pilot-
testing, (iii) applying Davis-Becker and Buckendahl’s model for evaluating the
curriculum-alignment studies, and (iv) ensuring high inter-raters correlation.

The data were analyzed, simple percentages were calculated and comparison was
displayed through graphs.

VI. Findings
Figure 1 shows the chapter wise class period comparison between textbook and
curriculum. It shows that there is complete mismatch (except chapter 2) in percentage of
class periods between textbook and curriculum. Curriculum requires more time for
different chapters but textbook demands less time for its content. The range of difference
is from 2.5% to 12.5%.

Figure 1: Chapter-wise Class Period (in percentage)

Figure 2 compares textbook and curriculum with respect to category Knowledge.

It shows that except that of topic 7b, content of all the topics in textbook is misaligned
with the curriculum. Moreover, Textbook gives more (difference of SLO percentage
ranges from 5% to 67%) emphasis to remember category as compared to curriculum
(except topic 8b where it is 11% less). This gap is relatively more evident in the topics
2a, 3a, 4a, and 6b (differences of SLO percentage are 67%, 40%, 47%, and 40%
respectively).
266 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 35, No. 1

Figure 2: Alignment between Textbook and Curriculum: Category Knowledge

100
71 75 76 73 71 75 73
80 67 63 64 65
57 5760 62 62
57 60 60 58
60 53
43 44 43 44
4442
38 36 36
40 33 30 27 32
20 20
20 8 11
S
L 0
O 1a 1b 2a 3a 3b 4a 4b 4c 4d 5a 5b 6a 6b 7a 7b 8a 8b 9a 9b

TOPIC NUMBER
Curriculum Textbook
Figure 3 compares textbook and curriculum with respect to category
Comprehension. It shows that, except that of topic 7b, content of all topics in textbook is
misaligned with curriculum with respect to Comprehension category (the difference of
SLO percentage ranges from 2% to 40%). Moreover, SLO percentage of most of the
topics in textbook is much less than that of given in curriculum. This gap is more evident
in topics 4b, 6b, and 9a where the differences of curriculum and textbook are 31%, 40%,
and 27% respectively.

Figure 3: Alignment between Curriculum and Textbook: Category Comprehension

50 44 44
40
40 36
3333
29 2930 29 2732
30 25 2325 26
2321
20 20 18 1820
20 14 17 14 15
13 13 14
9 8
10 6 5 8
S 0 0 0
L 0
1a 1b 2a 3a 3b 4a 4b 4c 4d 5a 5b 6a 6b 7a 7b 8a 8b 9a 9b
O
TOPIC NUMBER

Figure 4 compares textbook Curriculum

and curriculumTextbook
with respect to category Higher
Order. It shows that textbook is completely misaligned with curriculum with respect to
category Higher Order. Misalignment is because textbook provides no content with
respect to the category Higher Order contrary to that of curriculum that has 0% to 28%
SLOs for various topics.
 Abdul Jabbar Bhatti, Nabi Bux Jumani, Muhammad Bilal 267
Figure 4: Alignment between Curriculum and Textbook: Category Higher Order
30 27.77777778
25
20
13.33333333
15 10
7.692307692 9.090909091
10 5.882352941
4
5 00 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 00 00 0 00 00 00 00 00
S 0
L 1a 1b 2a 3a 3b 4a 4b 4c 4d 5a 5b 6a 6b 7a 7b 8a 8b 9a 9b
O
TOPIC NUMBER
Figure 5 compares textbook Curriculum
and curriculumTextbook
with respect to category skills. It
indicates that textbook and curriculum are comparatively more aligned with respect to
category skills. Topics 1a, 3b, 4b, 4d, 5a, 7b, 9a, and 9b of textbook are significantly
aligned (difference of SLO percentage ranges from 0% to 3%) with those of curriculum.
However, topics 2a and 7b are significantly misaligned (difference of SLO percentage is
17% and 67% respectively).

Figure 5: Alignment between Curriculum and Textbook: Category Skills

80 69
60
444445 4040
38 3737
40 29 3029 2927292727 29
2018 2017 2123 20222217
20 1415 11 8 9
1514
S 00 0
L 0
O 1a 1b 2a 3a 3b 4a 4b 4c 4d 5a 5b 6a 6b 7a 7b 8a 8b 9a 9b
TOPIC NUMBER
Curriculum
Figure 6 compares textbook and curriculum with respect to category STS
Connection. It shows that textbook is completely misaligned with curriculum with respect
to STS Connection. Misalignment is because textbook provides no content with respect
to the STS connection contrary to that of curriculum that has 0% to 30% SLOs for
various topics.
268 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 35, No. 1

Figure 6: Alignment between Curriculum and Textbook: Category STS Connection

35 30
30 27
24
25 22 20
20
15 13 12
S 10 9 8
7
L 5
0 00 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 0 0
O 0
1a 1b 2a 3a 3b 4a 4b 4c 4d 5a 5b 6a 6b 7a 7b 8a 8b 9a 9b
TOPIC NUMBER
VII. Discussion Curriculum Textbook
Curriculum alignment demands a teacher to facilitate the learners in achieving the
learning outcomes mentioned in the curriculum. Textbook aligned with the curriculum
helps the teacher in this Endeavour. Alignment requires that the content of textbook
matches the expectations of curriculum. It is not enough that textbook provides content
about the topics mentioned in the curriculum. Besides, it must provide the content in
accordance with the cognitive level as specified in the curriculum.

The mismatch between textbook and curriculum begins with number of allotted
class periods for topics. The textbook has provided content for less class periods as
compared to the requirements of curriculum. The reason for less time allocation for the
topics by the textbook may be due to more content in the textbook on Knowledge
category of cognitive demand. The textbook’s content for nearly all topics is related to
learning outcomes belonging to Knowledge category of cognitive demand is greater than
that of demanded in curriculum. On the other hand, textbook provides less content with
respect to Comprehension category of cognitive demand.

Moreover, textbook is completely misaligned with curriculum with respect to SLO

of Higher order categories of cognitive domain and STS Connection. Misalignment is
because textbook provides no content with respect to SLO of Higher order categories of
cognitive domain and the STS connection contrary to that of curriculum. It shows that
textbook does not treat topics deeply contrary to demands of curriculum. Curriculum
suggests achieving higher order learning outcomes for a topic, but textbook’s content is
limited to lower order learning outcomes of Knowledge category and to some extent
Comprehension category. However, textbook and curriculum are comparatively more
aligned, with a few exceptions, with respect to category skills.

This misalignment between the content of textbook and curriculum may have
serious consequences upon instruction and assessment. Considering the facts that in
Pakistan (a) teachers and the examiners depend much on textbook, (b) teaching and
assessment encourage rote memorization and cramming, and (c) external assessment
lacks validity (Hina, 2008; Shah, 1998; Rehman, 2004), it may be inferred that textbooks
with insufficient content for SLO related to comprehension and higher order categories of
 Abdul Jabbar Bhatti, Nabi Bux Jumani, Muhammad Bilal 269
cognitive are important factor of ineffective instruction and poor assessment. However,
an experimental study is needed to prove this inference.

References
Allington, R. L. (2002). You Can't Learn Much from Books You Can't Read. Educational
Leadership, 60(3), 16-19. Retrieved from http://www.westcler.net/
public_html/files/allingtonarticle.pdf
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2005). High school biology
textbooks: A benchmarks-based evaluation. Washington, DC: American
Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved from
http://www.project2061.org/publications/textbook/hsbio/report/default.htm
Blank, R. L. (2002). Reinventing Evaluation: Using Surveys of Enacted Curriculum to
Advance Evaluation of Instruction in Relation to Standards. Peabody Journal of
Education, 77(4), 86-121. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1493219
Blankstein, A. M. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student
achievement in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-
Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics Teachers at Work: Connecting
Curriculum Materials and Classroom Instruction (pp. 17-36). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Carney, K. (2011).Think outside the book. Learning & Leading with Technology; August
2011, 10-14. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ941904.pdf
Çepni, S. & Karab, Y. (2011). Aligning large-scale examinations to the curriculum
guidelines: student selection examination and Turkish biology curriculum. Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences 1, 3222–3226. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.275
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method
approaches, (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
EdSource. (2006). Similar students, different results (SSDR): Why do some schools do
better? Retrieved from http://www.edsource.org/pub_abs_simstu05.cfm
Edvantia. (2005). Aligned curriculum and student achievement: Research brief.
Charleston; Edvantia. Retrieved from http://sites.edvantia.org/pdta/pdf/ Aligned.pdf
English, F. W. (1986). It’s time to abolish conventional curriculum guides. Educational
Leadership, December 1986/January 1987, 50-52. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198612_english.pdf
Evans, R. (2005). Reframing the achievement gap. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(8), 582-589.
Retrieved from http://www.pdkintl.org/.
Fan, L. (2010). Principles and Processes for Publishing Textbooks and Alignment with
Standards: A Case in Singapore. Paper presented at APEC Conference on
Replicating Exemplary Practices in Mathematics Education, Koh Samui, Thailand,
7‐12 Mar. 2010 [APEC#210‐HR‐01.4]. Retrieved from
http://publications.apec.org/file-
download.php?filename=2b%20Fan_210_hrd_exemplaryMaths.pdf&id=1047_toc
270 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 35, No. 1

Fuhrman, S. H. (1993). The politics of coherence. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing

coherent educational policy: Improving the system (pp. 1 – 34). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Glatthorn, A. A. (2000).The Principal as curriculum leader: Shaping what is taught &
tested (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks; Corwin Press.
Goodson, I. F. (2010). Curriculum reform and curriculum theory, in J. Arthur & I. Davies
(Eds.) The Routledge education studies reader. London: Routledge.
GOP. (2006). National Curriculum 2006 for Biology Grades IX-X. Islamabad: GOP,
Ministry of Education.
Hill, H. C. (2001). Policy is not enough: Language and the interpretation of state
standards. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 289-318.
Hina, N. (2009). Analysis of last five year (2003-2007) English papers of SSC of Federal
Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Islamabad (Unpublished Master’s
thesis). International Islamic University, Islamabad.
Hume, A., & Coll, R. (2010). Authentic student inquiry: the mismatch between the
intended curriculum and the student‐experienced curriculum. Research in Science &
Technological Education, 28(1), 43-62. doi:10.1080/02635140903513565
Karvonen, M., Wakeman, S. & Flowers, C. (2006). Alignment of Standards, Large-scale
Assessments, and Curriculum: A Review of the Methodological and Empirical
Literature. Downloaded from http://coedpages.uncc.edu/cpflower/
AERA2006LitReviewAlignment.doc
Kercheval, A. (2001). A case study of key effective practices in Ohio’s improved school
districts. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Center for Evaluation. Retrieved from
http://www.indiana.edu/~ceep/projects/PDF/200107_Key_Effec_Prac_Interim_Rep
ort.pdf
Kuhn, K.-A. L. & Rundle-Thiele, S. R. (2009). Curriculum alignment: Exploring student
perception of learning achievement measures. International Journal of Teaching
and Learning in Higher Education, 21 (3), pp. 351-361. Retrieved from
http://eprints. qut.edu.au/39467/1/39467.pdf
Lavin-Loucks, D. (2006). The academic achievement gap. The Foundation for
Community Empowerment Research Brief. Retrieved from http://www.the
williamsinstitute.com/Portals/10/DefiningWhatWeDo/DefiningCommunityEmpowe
rment.pdf
Martone, A. & Sireci, S. G. (2009). Evaluating alignment between curriculum,
assessment, and instruction. Review of Educational Research. 79(4), 1332.
McFadden, L. (2009). District learning tied to student learning, Phi Delta Kappan,(90)
545-553.
Murphy, J. (2007). Restructuring through learning-focused leadership. In H. J. Walberg
(Ed.), Handbook on restructuring and substantial school improvement (pp. 63–75).
Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation and Improvement.
 Abdul Jabbar Bhatti, Nabi Bux Jumani, Muhammad Bilal 271
Naeem Ullah, M. (2007). Comparative study of curricula, teaching methodology and
examination system of GCE (A-level) and F.SC. level in basic sciences.
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi.
Oakes, J. & Saunders, M. (2002). Access to textbooks, instructional materials,
equipment, and technology: Inadequacy and inequality in California’s public
schools. Los Angeles; University of California. Retrieved from
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4ht4z71v
Penuel, W., Fishman, B. J., Gallagher, L. P., Korbak, C. & Lopez-Prado, B. (2009). Is
alignment enough? Investigating the effects of state policies and professional
development on science curriculum implementation. Science Education,
93(4): 656–677. doi: 10.1002/sce.20321
Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice.
Educational Researcher, 31, 3–14. Retrieved from http://seconline.
wceruw.org/Reference/Porter-InstrContent-AERA02.pdf.
Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., Blank, R., & Zeidner, T. (2007). Alignment as a teacher
variable. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 27-51. Retrieved from
http://www.andyporter.org/papers/Alignment.pdf.
Rehman, F. (2004). Analysis of National science curriculum (chemistry) at secondary
level in Pakistan (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arid
Agriculture, Rawalpindi.
Roach, A. T., Niebling, B. C. and Kurz, A. (2008). Evaluating the alignment among
curriculum, instruction, and assessments: Implications and applications for research
and practice. Psychol. Schs., 45, 158–176. doi: 10.1002/pits.20282
Rubin, I. R. & Kazanjian, C. J. (2011). Just another brick in the wall: Standardization and
the devaluing of education. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction (JoCI), 5 (2),
November 2011, 94-108. doi:10.3776/joci.2011.v5n2p94-108
Sawchuk, S. (2012). New texts aim to capture standards. Education Week, 32(12), s21-
s22.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H. A., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L.
S., & Wolfe, R. G. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of
curriculum and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schmidt, W., Houang, R., & Cogan, L. (2002). A coherent curriculum: A case of
mathematics. American Educator, 26, 10–26.
Schuenemann, D., Jones, D. & Brown, M. (2011). The impact of a curriculum model on
the mathematics and science achievement of economically disadvantaged students.
National Forum of Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 29 (1), 63-
87.
Shah, J. H. & Tariq, R. H. (1986-87). Examination-textbook relationship in the subject of
biology for secondary classes. Journal of Research (Humanities), 3-4; 43-48.
Shah, S. F. (2012). An investigation into the alignment between the Government’s
dictated English language curriculum and the textbook mediated classroom practice
at the secondary level in Pakistan. A Master of Philosophy thesis at Nottingham
272 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 35, No. 1

Trent University. Retrieved from http://irep.ntu.ac.uk:1801/webclient/StreamGate?

folder_id=0&dvs=1411145301587~702
Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stein, M., Remillard, J., & Smith, M. (2007). How curriculum influences students’
learning. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching
and learning (pp. 557–628). Charlotte: Information Age.
Zavadsky, H. (2006). How NLCB drives success in urban schools. Educational
Leadership, 64(3), 69–73.