Zhao et al.

Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary
[Link]
Science Education Research

RESEARCH Open Access

Alignment analysis of teaching–

learning-assessment within the classroom:
how teachers implement project-based learning
under the curriculum standards
Liu Zhao1, Bo Zhao1 and Chunmi Li1*

Abstract
This multi-case study examined the strengths and weaknesses of aligning teaching–learning-assessment of class-
room project-based learning to curriculum standards and offered suggestions for teacher training and instructional
improvement. The study constructed an alignment analysis framework for analyzing the cognitive dimension
of classroom project-based learning and analyzed the situation of two junior high schools in Zhejiang Province using
deductive and inductive content analysis. According to the results, the cognitive demands of classroom instruction
activities and classroom assessments were much higher than those of teaching objectives and curriculum stand-
ards. Simultaneously, classroom instruction paid insufficient attention to engineering topics, and all instructional
implementation elements exhibited content and cognitive deficiencies. The study suggests that teachers’ dearth
of engineering knowledge and the characteristics of project-based learning in the classroom are the primary reasons
for the lack of alignment among three instructional implementation elements with curriculum standards. Similarly, it
was discovered that classroom project-based learning has the characteristics of co-development of physical knowl-
edge and engineering content and that future research can focus on developing more effective forms of classroom
content organization and time distribution.
Keywords Alignment, Content analysis, Project-based learning, Curriculum standards, Teaching objectives, Classroom
instruction activities, Classroom assessments

Introduction by the American Association for the Advancement of

Science education reform emphasizes alignment (Jin Science (1993) and the NGSS Lead States (2013). Webb
et al., 2019). After U.S. national normative examinations (1999) defined alignment as the degree of conceptual,
failed to assess students’ knowledge and skills, Bloom procedural, and methodological congruence among the
focused on aligning academic assessment tasks with elements of a curriculum system. It explains that align-
behavioral goals in the 1960s. Alignment was originally ment analysis can be conducted on all curriculum system
used to investigate the assessment and instructional elements. State Standards and State Assessment Systems:
goals. And later, it was included in educational reforms A Guide to Alignment (Columbia, USA) defines align-
ment as two or more items aligning. Alignment also
means combining pieces into a suitable whole (Marca
*Correspondence: et al., 2000). All of these states clarified that two or
Chunmi Li more elements can be involved in congruent matching.
licm@[Link]
1 Achieving alignment in the classroom is a critical aspect
Department of Physics, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
of standards-based curriculum reform. (Yang, 2020).

© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit [Link]
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 2 of 23

The purpose of the curriculum is to enhance learning lead to teachers’ inability to understand students’ actual
outcomes (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), and alignment of learning in a timely and therefore unable to adjust their
teachers’ teaching objectives with the instructional activ- teaching content to promote students’ true understand-
ities students engage in assists students in achieving their ing of teaching objectives and implement core literacy
learning objectives (Cui & Lei, 2015; Duis et al., 2013). (Cui, 2013). In April 2022, the Ministry of Education
The alignment of teaching objectives with classroom of the People’s Republic of China revised the compul-
assessments helps reveal important aspects of student’s sory education curriculum and released new curricu-
learning process, understand students’ learning, and pro- lum standards that use core competencies as curriculum
mote the achievement of teaching objectives (Cui & Lei, goals, "content requirements" as a means to achieve
2015; Duncan & Hmelo-Silver, 2009). Aligning instruc- learning and knowledge goals, and "academic quality" as
tional activities with classroom assessments exposes a standard for student achievement performance. Ander-
teachers’ instruction and helps them give students feed- son, an educational researcher, suggests that to achieve
back that helps students meet instructional goals (Cui & curriculum goals, it is important to focus on learning,
Lei, 2015; Hall, 2002). When teachers’ instructional goals teaching, assessment, and adjustment. (Anderson et al.,
match student activities and classroom assessments, 2001). Thus, it is inevitable to make significant changes
teaching and learning are maximized and student learn- in teaching methods, learning approaches, and assess-
ing is promoted (Biggs, 1996; English & Larson, 1996; ment techniques to attain the newly required core com-
Krajcik et al., 2007; Liu, 2009). In addition to guiding petencies. At the same time, it is important to ensure that
instructional implementation, curriculum standards also those three elements are aligned with the new curricu-
define the scope of academic-level examinations (PRC, lum standards.
2022). Thus, aligning curriculum standards, instructional To understand the coherence of the elements of the
objectives, classroom teaching activities, and classroom curriculum system, various well-established paradigms
assessments helps implement curriculum standards, for coherence analysis have been developed so far
improve teaching, and improve student achievement (Näsström & Henriksson, 2017). Examples include the
(Krajcik et al., 2007; Porter, 1997). SEC model, the Webb model, the Achieve model, and
However, studies in some countries show that there are the revised Bloom Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.
still significant discrepancies between the current stage However, most of the existing research has focused on
of curriculum standards and actual curriculum imple- standardized tests, instructional materials, and alignment
mentation (Turan-Özpolat & Bay, 2017). Similar prob- with curriculum standards (Cui & Lei, 2015; Yang, 2020).
lems exist in the implementation of the curriculum in Although there are some instructional-related studies
China. First, for a long time, the objectives of exams in such as PISA, and TIMSS, they include questionnaires
China have been in a state of separation from the curric- related to the instructional process to understand the
ulum standards. As a result, for students to perform well alignment between curriculum standards, instructional
in exams, teachers have gradually developed a teaching process, and assessment. Most of these studies involve
philosophy of teaching to the test with trivia as the goal the relationship between instruction, curriculum stand-
(Lu & Jiang, 2022; Yang, 2017). Second, teachers’ teach- ards, and summative assessments during a school period
ing philosophy focuses on what should be taught rather (Yang, 2020). Meanwhile, the release of the new version
than what students should learn, resulting in students’ of the compulsory education curriculum program has
participation in classroom instructional activities that pushed challenges to physics teaching. It is necessary to
are mainly memory and cognitive-type activities used for understand the implementation of teaching objectives,
information transfer and lack of participation in various classroom instructional activities, and classroom assess-
higher-order cognitive activities required by the curricu- ments in junior high school physics classrooms under the
lum standards (Lu & Jiang, 2022). Finally, in-classroom core competency requirements, to identify inconsisten-
implementation, teachers focus only on the process and cies in the teaching process, and to make targeted sug-
strategies of teaching, not on the content and methods of gestions for teaching improvement.
assessment, resulting in the absence of classroom assess-
ments in the classroom, and even though some teach- Project-based learning
ers focus on student assessment, there is a discrepancy The twenty-first century is a time of opportunity
between classroom assessments and classroom instruc- and challenge, with economic, social, cultural, digi-
tional activities in terms of the content and depth of tal, demographic, environmental, and epidemiologi-
knowledge required of students (Lu & Jiang, 2022; Wu & cal forces shaping the lives of young people (OECD,
Gao, 2022). The inconsistency between classroom assess- 2019). In the face of challenges, traditional knowledge
ments and classroom instructional activities can further of memory no longer meets the demands of the new
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 3 of 23

century on young people. Developing their scientific Project-based learning allows students to study and
literacy has become a requirement for talent develop- solve real-world problems in a project. Students learn
ment in the new era. Project-based learning helps fos- and use scientific thinking through the process of asking
ter students’ curiosity, improve their understanding questions, processing and analyzing data, interpreting
of core scientific ideas, and empower them with prob- and evaluating results, and communicating with others to
lem-solving skills to become scientifically literate and improve project outcomes. This not only helps students
responsible citizens (Zhao & Wang, 2022). As a result, to understand the meaning of concepts and their inter-
this model of teaching and learning has received sup- connections and form scientific concepts, but also helps
port from many governments, researchers, and teach- them to discover the value of core concepts and their
ers (Markula & Aksela, 2022; Novak & Krajcik, 2019). relationship to technology, engineering, and society, and
The Chinese Science Curriculum Standards for Com- to develop attitude and responsibility (Guo et al., 2020;
pulsory Education (2022 Edition) states that teachers Thomas, 2000). Empirical studies also further illustrate
should be "guided to actively explore context-based, that project-based learning can be more effective than
problem-oriented, deep-thinking, and highly participa- traditional science instruction methods in promoting the
tory teaching models," which has led teachers in many development of students’ multidimensional competen-
parts of China, under the guidance of university experts cies (Ayaz & Söylemez, 2015; Barak & Raz, 2000; Hasni
and local researchers, to explore project-based learning et al., 2016). Research has shown that project-based
in their classroom teaching (Luo et al., 2021). learning can help students gain a deeper understanding
The new version of the compulsory science curricu- of core concepts in the subject and improve student per-
lum standards sets core competencies as curriculum formance (Santyasa et al., 2020; Harris et al., 2015), pro-
goals and divides the content into three parts: subject mote the development of multiple cognitive skills such
themes, engineering themes, and experimental investiga- as problem-solving (Hasni et al., 2016), critical thinking,
tions. The core competencies include scientific concepts, and creativity (Sasson et al., 2018), enhance emotions
scientific thinking, inquiry practice, and attitude and and attitudes, such as improving students’ motivation
responsibility. The scientific concept means that students (Holmes & Hwang, 2016), interest in learning (Bencze
need to form a general understanding of things based on & Bowen, 2007), and attitude toward learning (Kanter &
understanding the core concepts of the subject and engi- Konstantopoulos, 2010), and promote the development
neering technology concepts; scientific thinking refers of social skills, such as improving students’ interpersonal
to the way of understanding the essential properties, skills (Lee & Reigeluth, 2015). Project-based learning is
intrinsic laws, and interrelationships of objective things effective for implementing the core competencies of the
from a scientific perspective; inquiry practice refers to new version of the curriculum standards.
acquire scientific inquiry ability, technology, and engi- The depth of curriculum reform has led to the emer-
neering practice ability, and independent learning abil- gence of various teaching models, and besides project-
ity formed in the process of understanding and exploring based learning, problem-based learning has received a
nature, acquiring scientific knowledge, solving scientific lot of attention. Most of the core features of problem-
problems, and technology and engineering practice, and based learning and project-based learning are the same,
attitude and responsibility is the scientific attitude and both require solving contextualized problems to acquire
social responsibility gradually formed based on aware- subject knowledge and skills, both emphasize collabora-
ness of the nature and laws of science and understanding tion, the mediating role of the teacher, and active student
the relationship among science, technology, society, and participation and so on (Hasni et al., 2016; Steele, 2023).
the environment (PRC, 2022). Research has shown that However, project-based learning emphasizes the genera-
these four areas are whole and have a catalytic effect on tion of products by students (Hasni et al., 2016), students
each other, together influencing students’ understanding need to create engineering works and communicate with
of concepts, their perception of phenomena, and their other members of the learning group about the findings.
thoughts and approaches to problem-solving (Michaels Engineering works are the product of combining science
et al., 2008; Yang, 2022). Scientific concepts and scien- and engineering, and students can reflect on the rela-
tific thinking provide direction and operational guidance tionship among science, technology, and society, under-
for inquiry practices, and inquiry practices and scien- stand the nature of science, and promote the formation
tific thinking provide an environment for understanding of scientific attitudes and responsibilities in the process
and forming scientific concepts as well as attitude and of creating products and communicating them to oth-
responsibility (Krajcik & Czerniak, 2018). Project-based ers. Compared to problem-based learning, project-based
learning provides just the right conditions for the inte- learning creates a learning environment for the develop-
gration of the four dimensions of core competencies. ment of the nature of science and scientific attitudes and
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 4 of 23

responsibilities (Krajcik & Czerniak, 2018), which is in performance (Guo & Ma, 2012; NGSS Lead States,
line with core competencies (PRC, 2022). This shows that 2013; Wang, 2016; Xu, 2013). However, the existing
project-based learning is the most functional and com- research suffers from the separation of subject compe-
prehensive teaching model nowadays to implement the tence and knowledge experience, the lack of coherence
new version of the curriculum standards. between the competencies of each subject area, and
However, research has shown that project-based learn- the disconnect between the theory and performance
ing can increase teachers’ instructional difficulties. First, assessment of subject competence and the teaching
the problem context of project-based learning can lead to practice of subject competence (Wang, 2016). For this
discrepancies between the choice of content of instruc- reason, the disciplinary team of Beijing Normal Uni-
tional activities and the "content requirements" of the versity (physics, chemistry, and biology) constructed
curriculum standards, as well as between the depth of a model of the composition of disciplinary competen-
instructional activities and the "academic quality" of the cies with common cognitive dimensions (learning and
curriculum standards (Krajcik et al., 2007; Xue, 2022). understanding, application and practice, and migra-
Secondly, the actual scaffolding provided by the teacher tion and innovation) based on theories of competencies
in discussions with students can also result in discrepan- such as generalized experience theory of ability and
cies between the instructional activities and the instruc- based on a systematic psychological analysis of the core
tional objectives (Alozie et al., 2010; Hong et al., 2010; cognitive and problem-solving activities of the subjects
Xue, 2022). Finally, although teachers design formative (Wang, 2016). The specific indicators of each dimen-
assessments, they are often used at the end of the project, sion and their meaning were developed independently
reducing the function of assessments in promoting learn- by each disciplinary team.
ing (Xue, 2022). Therefore, it is necessary to understand The Physics Subject Competence was developed by
the differences and connections between curriculum Professor Guo’s team in the Department of Physics at
standards, teaching objectives, classroom instructional Beijing Normal University. After synthesizing various
activities, and classroom assessments in the implemen- national and international studies on scientific thinking
tation of project-based learning by Chinese teachers at competencies (Duan & Wu, 1988; Klahr, 2002; Lawson,
the time of the implement of new curriculum standards, 1985; Li, 2002; Yan et al., 1991; Zimmerman, 2007) and
to summarize the shortcomings and characteristics of combing various national and international educational
teachers’ project-based learning implementation, and to programmatic documents (NGSS Leading States, 2013;
provide empirical evidence and suggestions for improve- OECD, 2013; PRC, 2003), they develop a framework of
ment in teacher training and teaching (Hasni et al., 2016; competency indicators pointing to core competence.
Krajcik et al., 2007). This framework is characterized by first integrating theo-
The Beijing Normal University’s "Core Competen- retical and performance assessments of subject compe-
cies Oriented Project-based Learning Regional Reform tence, using behavioral performance to describe students’
Project" uses a three-stage interaction among subject cognitive profiles. Research has shown that students’
experts, regional teaching researchers, and school teach- intrinsic psychological traits can be reasonably inferred
ers to guide the implementation of project-based learn- using their external performance in solving physics
ing in junior high schools in many provinces, cities, and problems (Guo et al., 2017). Second, the use of specific
regions of China. Schools participating in this project physics knowledge and physics problem situations to
were selected for this study. describe physics subject competence meaning reflects
the uniqueness of physics subject competence (Guo et al.,
Physics subject competence 2017). Finally, the physics subject competence is used to
Subject competence is a hot topic of attention in the describe the core competencies of students. Core compe-
field of international and domestic basic education tencies are psychological traits that students internalize
in recent years. Subject competence has been defined through learning physics, and this trait is expressed in
in large-scale assessments such as TIMSS and PISA, problem-solving behaviors. Physics subject competence
and documents such as the Next Generation Science integrates various national and international core compe-
Standards. However, most of them take mathematics, tencies measured about physics subjects, and therefore,
language and reading, and science as the major sub- it provides a practical pathway to describe the behavioral
ject competence areas, and classify subject competence performances of students’ core competencies in China
in terms of content attributes and process attributes (Guo et al., 2017). Synthesizing the above analysis, to
such as core knowledge, competence activities, and achieve a localized study of curriculum alignment, this
cognitive level. At the same time, there is more focus study selected physics subject competence as the level of
on developing criteria to measure subject competency the cognitive dimension.
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 5 of 23

Physics subject competence is constructed from three However, physics subject competence meaning describes
main activities (cognitive dimensions) at the basic educa- the cognitive processes of students rather than the instruc-
tion stage: learning and understanding, application and tional processes of teachers, which limits the function of
practice, and migration and innovation, and nine spe- physics subject competence in guiding teachers in practice
cific cognitive levels are used to describe students’ cogni- (Wang, 2016), especially for interdisciplinary project-based
tive competence indicators. Among them, "learning and learning instructional practices with engineering char-
understanding" point to the internalization and absorp- acteristics (Krajcik & Shin, 2014). To examine classroom
tion of students’ physics knowledge, "application and teaching of project-based learning in deeper detail and to
practice" point to the routine use of physics knowledge, expand the value of physics subject competence in prac-
and "migration and innovation" point to the transfer and tice. This study further developed the characterization of
use of physics knowledge and methods as well as innova- cognitive indicators of physics subject competence regard-
tion and creativity (Guo et al., 2016). The specific indica- ing teaching behavioral performance based on the teaching
tors and meanings are described as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Physics subject competence (Guo et al., 2017)

Cognitive dimension Cognitive level Meaning

A. Learning and Understanding A1 Observation and Memory ·Observation and Information Extraction: Be able to observe physical phenomena
and extract valid information from them, and memorize phenomena and pro-
cesses related to physical concepts
·Information and Knowledge Correspondence: Be able to make connections
between information obtained through observation and existing knowledge
A2 Generalization and Argument ·Abstract generalization: To be able to extract the common essential features
of things or processes from real experience, form physical concepts, construct
physical models, and discover physical laws
·Reasoning directed to knowledge acquisition: Can acquire new knowledge
through logical reasoning based on existing knowledge
A3 Association and Integration ·Knowledge Relationship Construction: Establish connections between knowledge
based on understanding the connotations and extensions of knowledge
·Core Concept Integration: Be able to explain the relationship between knowl-
edge and core concepts and the place of knowledge in the core concept system
and construct physical concepts around core concepts
B. Application and Practice B1 Analysis and Interpretation ·Analyze problem situations: Be able to describe and analyze problem situations
by invoking appropriate physical concepts, models, and laws
·Explain physical phenomena: Be able to provide reasonable explanations of physi-
cal phenomena based on analyzing the problem situation
B2 Inference and Prediction ·Argue based on inference: Be able to make reasonable inferences based
on the description and analysis of a physical problem, based on existing models
and laws, to support their views or refute opposing views
·Reasonable predictions based on reasoning: Be able to make reasonable con-
jectures and assumptions about the development of things or processes based
on inferences and in the context of specific physical problem situations
B3 Comprehensive Application · Problem-Solving in Multi-Process Contexts: Be able to analyze multi-process
physics contextual problems and solve contextual problems based on multi-step
reasoning
·Extraction and integrated use of multiple knowledge: be able to integrate various
knowledge aspects to solve physics problems in more complex contexts
C. Migration and Innovation C1 Intuitive Association ·Remote association: Be able to relate unfamiliar situational problems to learned
knowledge
·Estimation Judgment: Be able to make reasonable estimates and initial judgments
about unfamiliar contextual problems based on learned Knowledge
C2 Migration and questioning ·Application in new contexts: Be able to transfer and apply learned knowledge
and methods to new contexts to analyze and solve relevant problems
·Evaluation based on critical thinking: be able to form critical evaluations or identify
scientific problems based on questioning
C3 Construct a new Model ·Creative Design: Be able to develop a degree of actionable, creative, and more
detailed design, including improvements to the function of experiments or com-
ponents and inventions
·Construct models for new contexts: Be able to take the initiative to construct mod-
els in unfamiliar physics problem situations rationally to solve problems effectively
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 6 of 23

objectives of the case schools and the characteristics of pro- instructional design was developed through in-school
ject-based learning instructional activities. discussions. Subject experts from Beijing Normal Uni-
versity reviewed the submitted designs, made modifi-
Aims of the study cations, and provided on-site training on the designs.
This study developed an analytical framework for under- Subsequently, teachers from participating schools revised
standing the implementation of physics subject compe- the design, developed a list of tasks and teaching mate-
tence in project-based learning classroom instruction rials for student learning, conducted instructional activi-
and expanded the research methods and elements of ties, and recorded videos of a class participating in the
alignment in classroom research, which to understand complete project-based learning process. Finally, through
the characteristics and disadvantages of alignment of the personal reflection and expert teaching training, teachers
three elements of Teaching–Learning-Assessment with developed pedagogical reflections and questions, which
the curriculum standards at this stage of project-based they discussed with experts during the third training to
learning classroom instruction. promote the team’s overall understanding of project-
The detailed research questions are as follows: based learning and to improve project-based learning
design and implementation skills. In general, schools
RQ-1:What are the characteristics of teachers’ imple- provide instructional videos along with corresponding
mentation of classroom teaching–learning-assess- instructional designs, student learning task sheets, and
ment in alignment with curriculum standards under instructional PowerPoints. Also, to understand the use-
project-based learning? fulness and effectiveness of project-based learning for
RQ-2: How do teachers implement classroom teach- students and teachers, the subject improvement pro-
ing–learning-assessment in alignment with curricu- ject team collects information on student pre and post-
lum standards in practice? test learning in the improvement classes and interviews
with teachers and students about project-based learning.
Methods Because the purpose of this study was to understand the
This study used a multi-case study approach (Yin, 2014) alignment of teachers’ designed instructional objectives,
to analyze the instructional situation in schools with classroom instruction activities, and classroom assess-
Project-based learning. Multi-case studies allow for ments with the curriculum standards, student-specific
comparing similarities and differences between cases to information was not used for the study. At the same time,
understand the similarities and differences in teaching since the information from teacher interviews focused on
and learning across schools(Yin, 2014). The data sources understanding the cognitive and non-cognitive effects of
used in the case studies were project-based learning expert guidance on teachers’ professional development,
instructional designs, instructional videos, classroom teacher interviews were also not used as research mate-
PowerPoints, and students’ task sheets. The instructional rials. Finally, instructional videos, instructional designs,
videos and instructional designs were the primary mate- student learning task sheets, and instructional Power-
rials analyzed. At the same time, the classroom Power- Points were selected as this study’s materials.
Points and students’ task sheets were used to supplement The characteristics of project-based learning as a good
and validate the information that was not adequately way to implement core competencies at this stage have
provided in the instructional videos and instructional been understood differently by different research teams
designs. These study materials came from two Zhejiang (Condliffe et al., 2017; Markula & Aksela, 2022). How-
Province schools participating in the project-based learn- ever, in general, project-based learning shares some com-
ing Instructional Improvement Project at Beijing Normal mon characteristics: (1) driving questions, (2) learning
University. goals, (3) scientific practices, (4) collaboration, (5) use
of technological tools, and (6) creation of artifacts. (Kra-
Core competencies oriented project-based learning jcik & Shin, 2014; Markula & Aksela, 2022). The project-
regional reform project based learning improvement team at Beijing Normal
The Core Competencies Oriented Project-based Learn- University developed a classroom project-based learning
ing Regional Reform Project, initiated by Beijing Normal instructional model based on the recognition of these
University, provided three pieces of training for par- common characteristics for classroom instruction in var-
ticipating schools to enhance their ability to implement ious courses (physics, chemistry, and biology). Teachers
project-based learning in the classroom. At the beginning implement each project in the classroom through three
of the semester, the participating schools first identi- types of lessons, the introductory lesson, the process les-
fied the grade levels, knowledge topics, and project con- son, and the presentation lesson. In the introductory les-
tent. The first version of the project-based learning unit son, the teacher arouses students’ interest in learning by
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 7 of 23

creating a context close to their lives, which leads to driv- Table 2 Schools’ information
ing questions and learning objectives by the teacher or by School Project Number of School level Number
the teacher and students to help students understand the lessons of
value and context of the project. In the process class, the students
teacher designs a series of subtasks that allow students M Making school 8 Junior High 30
to carry out hands-on science activities in collaboration logo projection
with others to solve problems. The subtasks that students light
engage in are disassembled inquiry problems that involve N Making school 5 Junior High 28
logo projection
the development of many physics subject competence light
indicators. Also, in the problem-solving process, students
and teachers can use a variety of information technol-
ogy tools to facilitate problem-solving. In the presenta-
Specifically, the school N project lacked the content of
tion class, groups of students present their artifacts and
straight line propagation of light, the law of light reflec-
explain the principles, process, and reflections of the
tion, plane mirror imaging, and light refraction.
artifacts through PowerPoint (Zhao & Wang, 2022). It
is important to note that this study uses a school-based
Alignment
physics curriculum.
Since Webb’s first model of curriculum alignment anal-
ysis, various alignment analysis tools have emerged as
Participants independent analytical frameworks (Rothman, 2003).
The project-based learning materials cover March–July The Surveys of enacted curriculum (SEC), a tool devel-
2022. The materials were submitted after one semester of oped by Porter (2002) to examine the implementation
project-based learning and expert guidance. Thus, teach- of the U.S. curriculum, was designed to understand the
ers in the schools concerned understand the process of level of alignment between what teachers teach, the
project-based learning and have some experience in its practical activities students experience, and the assess-
implementation, and they can follow the same model for ments. According to Polikoff ’s findings, the SEC analysis
instructional design and classroom activities, which can method’s content and cognitive dimensions can be modi-
fully reflect the actual situation of teachers’ implementa- fied (Polikoff et al., 2019). To better localize the study, the
tion and allow for easy analysis and comparison. physics subject competence was used in the cognitive
Eight Wenzhou City, Zhejiang Province, schools par- levels (Guo et al., 2017), which aligns with the require-
ticipated in project-based learning. Two schools offered ments of physics subject core competencies in China,
entire project-based learning materials (instructional with nine cognitive levels. In the content areas, the analy-
videos, task sheets, instructional designs, and classroom sis content is mainly classroom teaching videos, the con-
PowerPoints). The case study chose these two schools. tent topics involved are relatively few, and they all follow
The new compulsory science curriculum standards in the requirements of the Compulsory Science Curriculum
Zhejiang Province were employed for this alignment Standards. So the content areas are designed according to
analysis. the curriculum standards "content requirements," gener-
The new version of the science curriculum standards ating nine content topics for analysis. It is important to
requires students to "understand interdisciplinary con- note that since project-based learning integrates knowl-
cepts and apply them in authentic contexts" (PRC, 2022), edge learning into producing engineering products (Kra-
whereas the scientific practices and production artifacts jcik & Shin, 2014), the content includes engineering and
that define project-based learning foreshadow its inter- light phenomena topics. The two dimensions form the
disciplinary nature (Krajcik & Czerniak, 2018). Thus, this vertical and horizontal axes of the matrix, respectively, to
study proposes that project-based learning implementa- form the framework for alignment analysis (Table 3). The
tion can only be reflected by interdisciplinary concepts. calculation was performed using the SEC alignment indi-
|X−Y |
The case study assignment, "Making school logo projec- ces, P = 1 − 2 , where X denotes the proportion of
tion light," focused on "light phenomena" in physics and standard cells in one matrix and Y denotes the propor-
"engineering." Thus, these two interdisciplinary concepts tion of standard cells in the other matrix.
were case study content analysis themes. In addition, due to the complexity of the factors influ-
The students involved were all seventh graders, one encing classroom instruction, besides the curriculum
class from each school (Table 2). It is essential to note standards, other factors, such as the student’s instruction
that although the two schools conducted the same pro- environments, must be considered. Therefore, the defini-
ject, the subject content and number of hours of the tion of the degree of alignment indices by John Smith-
project differed due to differences in project design. son et al., director of the SEC program, was used, with
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 8 of 23

Table 3 Alignment analysis framework

cognition A1 A2 A3 B1 Analysis B2 Inference B3 C1 Intuitive C2 Migration C3
indicators Observation Generalization Association and and Comprehensive Association and Construct
content and Memory and Argument and Interpretation Prediction Application questioning a new
dimensions Integration Model

I1 Straight line
propagation of light
I2 The law of light
reflection
I3 Plane mirror
imaging
I4 Light Refraction
I5 Convex lens
imaging
I6 Dispersion of light
and mixing of differ-
ent light
E1 Define the pro-
ject
E2 Project Design
E3 Engineering
Products

0.5 as the optimal value to reflect the alignment between then the corresponding physics subject competence was
the curriculum standards and the elements of classroom determined by analyzing the corresponding students’
instruction (Zhen, 2017). behavioral performance to form a coding table. Finally,
the teaching objectives and classroom videos of teach-
Content analysis ers with the same physics subject competence were sum-
The purpose of deductive content analysis is to inves- marized in terms of teaching instructions and activities
tigate existing models or theories (Hsieh & Shannon, characterizing the teaching behavior performance. In
2005). Two dimensions under the SEC analysis para- this study, curriculum standards, teaching objectives,
digm were used as the basis for the content analysis. classroom activities, and classroom assessments were
After deductive analysis, the cognitive dimension was coded and placed in separate SEC coding sheets for the
ultimately used in the categories of teaching behavior cognitive and content dimensions, and the overall coding
performance shown in Table 4. It was shown that stu- procedure was conducted independently by two gradu-
dents’ performance in physics subject activities can be ate students. According to Porter’s study, the analysts
used to represent students’ physics subject competence for the analysis of the comparison should be 2–6 (Porter,
(Guo et al., 2016), while in instructional implementation, 2002). The Cohens Kappa value for both coders was 0.781
students’ activity performance is derived from teachers’ (p = 0.000). Discrepancies were discussed and negotiated
instructional instructions and activities, which means to reach a consensus.
teachers’ performance of instructional behaviors. From The study analyzed the "content requirements" and
this, it can be seen that students’ learning behavior per- " achievement requirements" of the new curriculum
formance can be inferred from teacher teaching behavior standards. The "content requirements" are the third-
performance, which points to the corresponding physics level themes of the learning content, which provide the
subject competence indicators. All the teaching behav- learning content and the learning level. The " achieve-
ioral performances used in this study were derived from ment requirements" are the specificity of the achieve-
the analysis of the teaching objectives in the instructional ment quality in the first-level themes, which reflect
design and classroom videos of the case schools. For the the achievement of the students after completing the
teaching objectives, the study derived the corresponding first-level themes (Li et at., 2022), namely, the level of
student activities and physics subject competence based thinking, competence, and emotional and attitudinal
on the teacher’s instruction, which constituted a cod- performance expectations of students in terms of knowl-
ing list. For the classroom videos, the classroom videos edge. Content requirements point to the process of learn-
were firstly decoded according to the teacher’s instruc- ing knowledge, while achievement requirements point to
tion and students’ corresponding learning activities, and the performance of applying knowledge. Each selected
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 9 of 23

Table 4 Coding framework of cognition dimension for content analysis

Cognitive dimension Cognitive level Teaching behavioral performance

A. Learning and Understanding A1 Observation and Memory 1. memorize or describe experimental phenomena and processes through obser-
vation or experience
2. memorize relevant content through teacher lectures
3. determine the correlation with existing knowledge based on the phenomenon
A2 Generalization and Argument 1. state the scope of application and conditions of use of the laws of physics
2. obtain physical concepts, laws, or physical models through induction of evi-
dence or theoretical derivation or observation of phenomena;
3. classify the functional value of engineering products by finding information
A3 Association and Integration 1. relate different pieces of knowledge together to form a knowledge system
2. summarize knowledge or associations between physical quantity using the con-
trolled variable method
B. Application and Practice B1 Analysis and Interpretation 1. perform simple experimental operations to reach experimental requirements
2. use physical concepts, laws, and models to describe or explain physical phenomena
3. record experimental data (words, figures, mathematical formulas)
4. record the experimental process and summarize the experimental Notes
B2 Inference and Prediction 1. write a complete investigation report that includes the process and conclusions
2. use physical concepts, laws, and physical models to deduce conclusions or pre-
dict phenomena
B3 Comprehensive Application 1. analyze problems in one’s own or others’ experiments and explain the results
2. solve problems in their own or others’ experiments
C. Migration and Innovation C1 Intuitive Association 1. find knowledge related to engineering or unfamiliar problem situations
2. analyze and make judgments about unfamiliar problem situations
3. propose or select engineering problems that need to be solved and analyze
engineering feasibility
C2 Migration and questioning 1. propose criteria for the evaluation of engineering products
2. evaluate their own or others’ project or inquiry design
3. evaluate their own or others’ engineering products
4. design experiments of inquiry or project
5. use a single piece of knowledge to make a simple product or a part of a product
6. ask or choose scientific questions that can be explored
C3 Construct a new Model 1. make suggestions for improving project design or inquiry methods
2. make iterative improvements to products
3. use multiple knowledge to make complex products

item was split according to the form of an action verb + a referenced Porter’s (2002) investigation of classroom
noun or phrase, coded separately and counted as 1, and instruction by calculating the proportion of instructional
placed in the cell corresponding to the alignment analysis time allocated to each content area and cognitive level.
framework. This method was also used for the analysis of Each instructional video’s teacher’s instructions and stu-
teaching objectives. In addition, the non-cognitive objec- dents’ learning activities were segmented according to the
tives, such as "care about the typical cases of light tech- Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) using
nology changing production and life, and pay attention the 30 s as the fundamental unit. Teacher and student
to light pollution" (Ministry of Education of the People’s behaviors and language were integrated to form the final
Republic of China, 2022), were deleted as emotional- instructional activity codes and incorporated into the
attitudinal objectives. According to the new curriculum corresponding alignment analysis framework based on
standards definition, the engineering theme’s content is the principles of a single content area and cognitive level.
interdisciplinary and practical. Its purpose is to develop It is crucial to notice that certain instructional activities
students’ ability to apply knowledge interdisciplinar- incorporate multiple content areas or cognitive levels.
ily and their comprehensive ability to analyze and solve For instance, the activity "The teacher instructs students
problems (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic to observe experimental phenomena and has them draw
of China, 2022). Therefore, the cognitive levels of the cur- various light propagation phenomena in the experiment"
riculum standards for engineering topics are put into the incorporates three fundamental ideas: straight-line prop-
dimension of "migration and innovation". agation of light, the law of light reflection, and plane mir-
Due to the continuity of the instructional videos, it was ror imaging. The total amount of time is divided evenly
impossible to divide the coded items directly. The study between each cell. For classroom assessments, because
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 10 of 23

effective assessment requires assessment criteria, this and N Schools were larger than 0.5, suggesting a high
study only considers classroom activities with assessment level of alignment. In contrast, the alignment indices of
criteria in the instructional design as classroom assess- the remaining analysis topics were all less than 0.5, indi-
ment activities and only considers assessment indicators cating a lack of alignment.
that can be found in the content and cognitive dimen- Figure 1 shows relationship topographs of curriculum
sions of the SEC analysis framework for the analysis. standards, teaching objectives, classroom instruction
And in the same way as for multi-content or cognitive activities, and teaching assessments for N and M Schools.
instructional activities, classroom assessments use the The red color represents School M and the blue color
total time averaged into the corresponding cells. Notably, represents School N. The different thicknesses of the
to compare data between the four elements of curricu- lines represent different ranges of alignment index val-
lum standards, teaching objectives, instructional activi- ues, and the thicker the line is, the higher the alignment
ties, and classroom assessments, the SEC data obtained index P is. In both schools, there is a lack of alignment
under each element were normalized to obtain the per- with the curriculum standards, especially between the
centage of each cell in that element, which means the curriculum standards and classroom assessments. As for
degree of importance. the elements of instructional implementation, the align-
ment between classroom assessments and instructional
Analysis of classroom teaching behaviors activities was achieved in both schools, but the alignment
The Flanders interaction analysis category (FIAC) is a between teaching objectives and classroom assessments
widely used method for analyzing interactions in the and between teaching objectives and instructional activi-
classroom (Zhang, 2014). Researchers identify, catego- ties was lacking, especially the alignment between teach-
rize, and record classroom speech acts by recording a ing objectives and classroom assessments.
code that best describes teacher and student behavior
every 3 s to enable observation and study of the class- Topographs analysis
room (Zhang, 2014). However, FIAC’s coding inter- Figures 2 and 3 show the corresponding topographs
val is too short and difficult to implement. Since the of curriculum standards, teaching objectives, teaching
primary purpose of this study was to split classroom instruction activities, and classroom assessments for M
activities through the analysis of instructional videos, and N Schools. The horizontal axis of the topographs
the 30 s was chosen as the minimum essential time indicates the core concepts of the content areas, and the
interval for the content analysis of teacher and student vertical axis indicates the nine cognitive levels. The colors
behaviors and language. at the intersections of the horizontal and vertical axes
indicate the different ratio distributions. The different
Results ratio levels are indicated by dark blue (0.00–0.03), orange
Comparison of alignment (0.03–0.06), gray (0.06–0.09), yellow (0.09–0.12), light
Based on the calculation method of Porter’s alignment blue (0.12–0.15), and green (0.15–0.18), respectively.
indices described in the previous sections, the P-values According to the topographs of the teaching objectives
between the curriculum standards, teaching objectives, and curriculum standards in M School, both emphasize
teaching instruction activities, and classroom assess- the I6-A1 intersection. And although both emphasize
ments were calculated for M and N Schools, respectively the engineering topics on the C cognitive dimension, the
(Table 5). Only the alignment indices P for teaching teaching objectives only emphasize E3-C1 and E3-C2
instruction activities and classroom assessments in M intersections, which is inconsistent with the curriculum

Table 5 Statistic of alignment indices

Analysis objects M School N School

Two-dimensional alignment indices (P) Two-dimensional alignment indices (P)

matrix matrix

Curriculum Standards & Teaching Objectives 9*9 0.448275862 5*9 0.225490196

Curriculum Standards & Classroom Instruction Activities 9*9 0.438730187 5*9 0.297562819
Curriculum Standards & Classroom Assessments 9*9 0.396295671 5*9 0.250455546
Teaching Objectives & Classroom Instruction Activities 9*9 0.371414498 5*9 0.421393602
Teaching Objectives & Classroom Assessments 9*9 0.363837239 5*9 0.327006184
Classroom Instruction Activities & Classroom Assessments 9*9 0.725141557 5*9 0.573201677
*
This is multiplication. 9*9 means that the matrix has nine horizontal and nine vertical rows, with 81 cells
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 11 of 23

Fig. 1 Relationship diagram of curriculum standards, teaching objectives, classroom instruction activities, and teaching assessments for M and N
Schools

standards’ emphasis on the E3-C3 intersection and the E3-C3 intersection, which falls within the require-
ignores the E1 and E2 contents. The teaching objectives ments of the curriculum standards.
at N School differ marginally from those at M School According to the topographs of teaching objectives
in that it emphasizes the I6-A2 intersection. In both and instructional activities in M School, the instructional
schools, the differences between the teaching objectives activities emphasize the I6-A2 intersection and the teach-
and curriculum standards are primarily due to the real- ing objectives emphasize the I6-A1 intersection, while N
ity that the teaching objectives do not accurately reflect School differs slightly from M School in that its instruc-
engineering themes. tional activities emphasize I5-A2, I5-A3, and I5-C3 inter-
According to the topographs of instructional activi- sections and the teaching objectives emphasize I5-A1,
ties and curriculum standards in M School, the instruc- I5-A2, and I5-B1 intersections. Overall, the cognitive
tional activities emphasize the I6-A2 intersection and demands of the instructional activities in both schools
do not emphasize the engineering thematic content. The are slightly higher than the teaching objectives they set.
situation in N School is slightly different from M School, According to the topographs of teaching objectives
mainly in its emphasis on the E2-C1 and E3-C3 intersec- and classroom assessments in M School, the classroom
tions, which meet some of the requirements of the cur- assessments emphasize I6-A2, I6-C3, and E3-C3 inter-
riculum standards. In general, the differences between sections, which are above the requirements of the teach-
the instructional activities of the two schools and the cur- ing objectives. The situation in N School is similar to that
riculum standards mainly lie in the fact that the cogni- of M School. Overall, the cognitive requirements of the
tive requirements of the physics curriculum content are classroom assessments in both schools are higher than
higher than the curriculum standards and the lack of the teaching objectives they set.
attention to the engineering topics in the instruction. According to the topographs of instructional activities
According to the topographs of classroom assessments and classroom assessments in the two schools, there is a
and curriculum standards in M School, the classroom high degree of consistency in the focus of instructional
assessments emphasize I6-A2 and I6-C3 intersections activities and classroom assessments, but classroom
and the engineering theme emphasizes E1-C2 and E3-C3 assessments focus more on engineering topics and their
intersections, which are both requirements of the cur- corresponding C cognitive dimension.
riculum standards. The situation in N School is slightly
different from M School, mainly because it emphasizes Histogram analysis
only I6-C3 and E3-C3 intersections. Overall, the class- Figures 4 and 5 display the histograms of curriculum
room assessments in both schools have higher cognitive standards, teaching objectives, instructional activi-
requirements for physical content than the curriculum ties, and classroom assessments for M and N schools in
standards, and the engineering themes both emphasize the content dimension and cognitive dimension, with
four colors representing each of the four elements. The
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 12 of 23

height of the histogram is proportional to the horizontal

axis’s weight.
In the content dimension, both schools emphasize I5,
I6, and E3, which include both physical and engineering
knowledge. Compared to the curriculum standards, N
School emphasizes I5 and I6 content significantly more.
In addition, both schools lack E1 and E2 related teach-
ing objectives, classroom assessments, and instructional
activities.
In the cognitive dimension, the two schools share a lack
of or insufficient emphasis on teaching objectives in the
C3 indicator and the same issue in instructional activities
and classroom assessments in the C1 indicator, as com-
pared to the curriculum standards.
In particular, teaching objectives at M School are cen-
tered on A2 indicators, while teaching activities and
classroom evaluations are centered on A2, B1, and C2,
respectively. The cognitive demands of teaching objec-
tives, instructional activities, and classroom assessments
increase sequentially, and N School demonstrates the
same trend.
Figure 4 reveals an intriguing phenomenon: accord-
ing to the analysis, the project from N School con-
tains less physical knowledge than M School. Figure 5
demonstrates, however, that both schools place the most
emphasis on teaching objectives, instructional activities,
and classroom assessments for the A2 indicator, followed
by the C2 and C3 indicators. The curriculum standards
do not affect this pattern, regardless of the weight they
assigned to these cognitive indicators. Thus, it is evi-
dent that the information emphasizes on the cognitive
and content dimensions of the elements of project-based
learning instructional implementation is distinct and
stable.

Implementation of alignment in the projects

Since the content dimension of the two schools meet the
requirements of the curriculum standards, the cognitive
dimension primarily reflects the alignment situation of
the instructional implementation elements. The cogni-
tive dimensional emphasis is ultimately obtained through
normalization by integrating the total data on the cogni-
tive dimension of each element of instructional imple-
mentation in the two case schools, as depicted in Table 6.
The teaching objectives for A2 and A1 emphasize
teaching behavioral performances to help students to
understand physical concepts through observation,
deduction, and summarization, as well as to help stu-
dents to remember and describe experimental phenom-
ena. The instructional activities and assessments focus on
Fig. 2 Topographs of curriculum standards, teaching objectives, A2 as well as to help students to use multiple knowledge
classroom instruction activities, and teaching assessments for M
School
to create complex products, which is emphasized in C3.
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 13 of 23

Fig. 3 Topographs of curriculum standards, teaching objectives, classroom instruction activities, and teaching assessments for N School
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 14 of 23

Fig. 4 Histogram of the content dimension of curriculum standards, teaching objectives, classroom instruction activities, and classroom
assessments for M and N Schools

In addition, the B1 indicators required by the cur- cognitive dimension required by the curriculum stand-
riculum standards mainly include four experiment- ards, there are primarily 12 engineering-related teach-
related teaching behaviors, which are basically ing behaviors, among which there is a severe lack of
reflected in all elements of teaching implementation, teaching objectives.
but the actual attention is relatively low. For the C
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 15 of 23

Fig. 5 Histogram of the cognition dimension of curriculum standards, teaching objectives, classroom instruction activities, and classroom
assessments for M and N Schools

Discussion classroom assessments, as well as the characteristics

The primary purpose of this study is to understand and disadvantages of implementation for Project-based
the alignment between curriculum standards, teach- Learning. These aims will be discussed concerning the
ing objectives, classroom instruction activities, and two questions of the study.
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 16 of 23

Table 6 Teaching behavioral performance ratio of case Schools of curriculum standards, teaching objectives, classroom instruction
activities, and classroom assessments
Teaching behavioral performance of Physics subject competence Coding Result Ratio
Cognition dimension Cognition level Teaching behavioral Teaching Objectives Classroom Classroom Assessments
performance Instruction
Activities

A. Learning and Under- A1 Observation 1. memorize or describe 0.119047619 0.02226699 0

standing and Memory experimental phe-
nomena and processes
through observation
or experience
2. memorize relevant 0.047619048 0.005348356 0
content through teacher
lectures
3. determine the cor- 0 0.03298153 0.029544716
relation with existing
knowledge based
on the phenomenon
A2 Generalization 1. state the scope 0.023809524 0.027597518 0
and Argument of application and condi-
tions of use of the laws
of physics
2. obtain physical con- 0.238095238 0.242672752 0.267793305
cepts, laws, or physical
models through induc-
tion of evidence
or theoretical derivation
or observation of phe-
nomena;
3. classify the functional 0 0.008022534 0
value of engineering
products by finding
information
A3 Association and Inte- 1. relate different pieces 0.023809524 0.009627041 0.015954147
gration of knowledge together
to form a knowledge
system
2. summarize knowl- 0.023809524 0.043678243 0
edge or associations
between physical quan-
tity using the controlled
variable method
B. Application and Practice B1 Analysis and Interpre- 1. perform simple 0.023809524 0.049472296 0.043578456
tation experimental operations
to reach experimental
requirements
2. use physical concepts, 0.023809524 0.04278685 0.031021952
laws, and models
to describe or explain
physical phenomena
3. record experimental 0.095238095 0.049026599 0.081247969
data (words, figures,
mathematical formulas)
4. record the experimen- 0 0.009627041 0.015954147
tal process and sum-
marize the experimental
Notes
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 17 of 23

Table 6 (continued)
Teaching behavioral performance of Physics subject competence Coding Result Ratio
Cognition dimension Cognition level Teaching behavioral Teaching Objectives Classroom Classroom Assessments
performance Instruction
Activities

B2 Inference and Predic- 1. write a complete 0.023809524 0 0

tion investigation report
that includes the process
and conclusions
2. use physical concepts, 0 0.028524567 0
laws, and physical
models to deduce
conclusions or predict
phenomena
B3 Comprehensive 1. analyze problems 0 0.009627041 0.015954147
Application in one’s own or others’
experiments and explain
the results
2. solve problems in their 0.071428571 0.036547101 0.016249594
own or others’ experi-
ments
C. Migration and Innova- C1 Intuitive Association 1. find knowledge 0.047619048 0.002674178 0
tion related to engineering
or unfamiliar problem
situations
2. analyze and make 0.071428571 0 0
judgments about unfa-
miliar problem situations
3. propose or select 0 0.06239749 0
engineering problems
that need to be solved
and analyze engineering
feasibility
C2 Migration and ques- 1. propose criteria 0 0.004439136 0.007356634
tioning for the evaluation
of engineering products
2. evaluate their own 0.023809524 0 0
or others’ project
or inquiry design
3. evaluate their own 0.047619048 0.015135848 0.025083464
or others’ engineering
products
4. design experiments 0.023809524 0.040112672 0.039885367
of inquiry or project
5. use a single piece 0.047619048 0.050809385 0.076816261
of knowledge to make
a simple product
or a part of a product
6. ask or choose scientific 0 0.034764316 0.048748781
questions that can be
explored
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 18 of 23

Table 6 (continued)
Teaching behavioral performance of Physics subject competence Coding Result Ratio
Cognition dimension Cognition level Teaching behavioral Teaching Objectives Classroom Classroom Assessments
performance Instruction
Activities

C3 Construct a new 1. make suggestions 0.023809524 0.009627041 0.015954147

Model for improving project
design or inquiry
methods
2. make iterative 0 0.007131142 0.011817886
improvements to prod-
ucts
3. use multiple knowl- 0 0.155102332 0.257039029
edge to make complex
products

Comparison of alignment implemented by the teachers and curriculum standards. By analyzing the findings of
The study reveals that the various instructional imple- previous studies, this study concludes that, in addition
mentation elements of project-based learning in the two to the teacher’s design abilities, this is due to two other
case schools cover the physical concepts and their cog- factors. On one hand, it is associated with the charac-
nitive dimension required by the curriculum standards teristics of project-based learning (Krajcik et al., 2007;
and emphasized the development of higher-order cog- Xue, 2022). Project-based learning develops students’
nitive indicators, but the level of attention to engineer- various higher-order thinking skills by creating instruc-
ing topics is insufficient, and the cognitive and content tional activities with higher-order cognitive requirements
dimensions are absent from both the teaching objectives (Hasni et al., 2016; Sasson et al., 2018), thus indicating
and classroom assessments. The Compulsory Science that instructional activities under project-based learn-
Curriculum Standards (2022 Edition) were published in ing emphasize higher-order cognition more. On the
March 2022, and the project-based learning case that this other hand, it relates to students’ genuine cognitive situ-
study used was developed in May of the same year. As a ation (Alozie et al., 2010; Hong et al., 2010; Xue, 2022).
result, teachers have limited time to learn about the engi- In this study, classroom videos are analyzed to determine
neering topics added to the new curriculum standards, the instructional activities, with each teacher’s problem
which results in a lack of emphasis on teachers’ teaching. scaffolding considered a separate activity. Therefore, the
Simultaneous, the implementing teachers, in this case, results of the analysis reflect the actual teacher-student
have only implemented one semester of project-based interaction, which means the cognitive understanding
learning before carrying out the project, and the teachers process of the students (Doyle, 1983).
are unable to fully integrate engineering into classroom The alignment between instructional activities and
instruction, confirming Mentzer et al.’s (2017) conclusion classroom assessments is greater than that of other ele-
that teachers need three years to truly master the project- ments. This is directly related to the characteristic of
based learning approach to instruction. classroom project-based learning that combines assess-
In light of the preceding analysis, it is essential to ment activities into core instructional activities. The
improve teachers’ knowledge of engineering-themed cur- specific analysis reveals that the cognitive demands of
riculum standards and the implementation of engineer- classroom assessments are slightly higher than those
ing-themed project-based learning. In teacher training, of instructional activities, indicating that the C cogni-
for instance, teachers can be permitted to participate in tive dimension is emphasized. This is closely related to
the project-based learning engineering production pro- the project-based learning characteristics of presenting
cess to help them comprehend the relationship between and communicating engineering products (Krajcik &
engineering and physical knowledge as well as the steps Shin, 2014; Markula & Akela, 2022). However, the cogni-
and processes of engineering practice in practice (Hasni tive demands of classroom assessments that exceed the
et al., 2016). instructional activities and teaching objectives can also
In the case Schools, the cognitive demands of the lead to difficulties in project-based learning for students
instructional activities exceed the teaching objectives of intermediate and below ability, ultimately diminishing
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 19 of 23

their desire to learn science (Kennedy et al., 2007; Sew- the content carrying capacity of a project, it is necessary
agegn, 2020). Therefore, on the one hand, teachers should to consider not only the logical organization of the con-
provide some scaffolding to help these students par- tent but also the cognitive complexity and difficulty of the
ticipate in project-based learning effectively, such as by content for the students.
adding extracurricular club activities to assist students The preceding analysis shows that characteristics
with product creation or by summarizing the problems of project-based learning in the classroom are related
students encounter when creating products and provid- to the alignment of instructional implementation situa-
ing uniform classroom responses. On the other hand, tions. Given that the characteristics of classroom project-
teachers can use backward design to improve the effec- based learning are primarily reflected through teachers’
tiveness of instruction by designing classroom assess- activities, a specific analysis of the relationship between
ments first according to the teaching objectives and then the performance characteristics of teachers’ teaching
designing instructional activities to increase the align- behaviors and cognitive indicators of classroom project-
ment among teaching objectives, instructional activities, based learning can be used not only to understand the
and classroom assessments (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005; current situation of teachers’ implementation of project-
Hargreaves, 2005). based learning but also to provide recommendations for
The analysis of histograms reveals that project-based consistent instructional improvement in teaching. Con-
learning of different knowledge capacities has similar sequently, this study investigates the behavioral teaching
cognitive dimensional characteristics, which reflects performance of the case institutions at various cognitive
the unique characteristics of classroom project-based levels for the second problem.
learning, namely the ability to balance the cognitive
requirements of disciplinary instruction and the cogni- Teachers’ implementation of alignment
tive requirements of engineering topics of project-based The teaching objectives of project-based learning for
learning. From the perspective of pedagogical practice, it teachers appear to necessitate an emphasis on the con-
has been demonstrated that project-based learning can tent design of engineering topics. Nowadays, principal
be developed in the classroom (Tal et al., 2006) and that teaching objectives include memorization and generali-
it can ensure that the core instructional requirements of zation of physical concepts and laws. Understanding the
both disciplinary instruction and project-based learn- value of engineering, designing engineering solutions,
ing are developed within similar periods. While previ- manufacturing products (using single knowledge), evalu-
ous study finds that project-based learning should be ating products, and enhancing engineering solutions are
developed in the classroom (Thomas, 2000), scheduling the main aspects of engineering topics. Attention should
and organizational challenges in the classroom (Aksela be devoted to the design of the integration of engineering
& Haatainen, 2019; Viro et al., 2020) lead teachers to content and physical knowledge when developing educa-
conduct project-based learning aimed at developing tional objectives. Making engineering products is one of
students’ soft skills outside of the regular courses. This the characteristics of project-based learning (Markula &
study presents the temporal organization characteris- Aksela, 2022), and ensuring the design of teaching objec-
tics of project-based learning on engineering topics in tives for engineering content promotes alignment among
the classroom (Markula & Aksela, 2022), demonstrating the instructional implementation elements of project-
not only the feasibility of project-based learning in the based learning.
classroom to develop students’ core content and cogni- According to the previous analysis, classroom project-
tion from the perspective of data but also presents the based learning exhibits both learning physical knowledge
temporal organization characteristics of project-based and project-based learning traits. Moreover, the specific
learning on engineering topics in the classroom. In addi- analysis of the teaching behavioral performance reveals
tion, the histogram analysis reveals that the elements of that it emphasizes the process of students’ generalization
project-based learning practices that carry less physics of physical concepts and laws and the application of mul-
knowledge do not reduce the proportion of time spent tiple knowledge to produce complex products, indicating
on the cognitive dimension of learning understanding, a that classroom project-based learning has two core char-
feature that assists students in comprehending core phys- acteristics: engineering product creation and the gener-
ics concepts, but rather lengthen classroom instruc- alization of physical knowledge.
tion. Similarly, if a project contains a greater number of Experimentation, a crucial physics research method, is
core physics concepts, it can integrate knowledge and also a crucial requirement of the curriculum standards.
enhance classroom utilization, but it can also increase Although the case schools include experimental content
the cognitive load for students and decrease their learn- in three elements of curriculum implementation, experi-
ing efficiency (Sweller et al., 2019). When determining ments are not emphasized in three elements. According
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 20 of 23

to the curriculum standards, physics experiments are research (Wang, 2016), and other researchers or teach-
viewed as an important means of developing students’ ers can use this framework to analyze classroom project-
core competencies (PRC, 2022), and the emphasis on based learning alignment on the cognitive dimension.
experiments is reflected primarily in the ability to design This study provides empirical evidence to enhance pro-
simple experimental procedures, conduct experimental ject-based learning instruction and teacher training. This
operations, and record data. Therefore, project-based is because it describes the similarities and distinctions
learning should emphasize providing physics experiment between the implementation of project-based learn-
learning opportunities and incorporating more physics ing and the new version of the curriculum standards, as
experiment activities in project-based learning. well as the characteristics of classroom project-based
learning implementation. The authors concluded, based
Limitations on the findings and discussion, that three areas should
Content analysis can only focus on what is visible in the be emphasized. The first is to improve teachers’ com-
materials (Cohen et al., 2007). The study only includes prehension of the new version of the curriculum stand-
what is happening in the two schools’ classrooms. The ards, particularly the content about interdisciplinary
materials could not represent the teacher’s instruction practices (engineering). This will allow them to acquire
and interaction with students outside of the classroom. a deeper understanding of the engineering implemen-
However, classroom instruction is the primary vehicle tation process, the value of each step, and the relation-
for project-based learning, so it can be assumed that the ship between engineering and physical knowledge to
teachers’ primary instructional activities are completed provide a more integrated solution for project-based
in class, and the materials provided emphasize important learning in the classroom. Second, we investigate the
instructional content. traits and advantages of classroom project-based learn-
Because submitting the Project-based Learning mate- ing, the structure of classroom project-based learning
rials is voluntary, the sample of schools and teachers required by the new version of curriculum standards,
included in the study is likely to represent only schools and the content and time distribution of physics knowl-
that actively participated in and implemented Project- edge, engineering content, and classroom experiments.
based Learning. Therefore, the results are not necessarily According to research (Markula & Aksela, 2022), project-
representative of the general implementation of Project- based learning is still a challenging instructional method
based Learning, which limits the generalizability of the that requires further development. Third, project-based
results. learning test questions should be developed under the
In addition, the materials used in the study only include requirements of the new version of the curriculum stand-
teachers’ Project-based Learning instructional designs, ards to standardize classroom instruction and clarify the
instructional videos, classroom Power points, and stu- key content and cognitive level of project-based learning,
dents’ task sheets. The data could only be analyzed at particularly in the field of engineering.
an objective level, and future studies could add teacher In addition, this study provides new insights into
interview sessions to obtain a more in-depth analysis of research on curriculum alignment. From the perspective
the results. of flexible implementation, alignment of teaching objec-
tives, instructional activities, and classroom assessments
Conclusion with curriculum standards does not necessarily imply
This study examines the implementation of project-based strict alignment. Misalignment is not necessarily negative
learning aligned with curriculum standards for teaching if it involves and emphasizes higher-order cognitive skills
objectives, instructional activities, and classroom assess- (Liu et al., 2009). Rather, it facilitates the development of
ments. Due to the short time that project-based learn- core competencies among students. According to curric-
ing has been promoted in regular classes in China and ulum level theory, teaching objectives are part of the per-
the new version of curriculum standards that have been ceived curriculum, which is developed by teachers based
proposed, no systematic analyses of the alignment of pro- on their understanding of curriculum standards, whereas
ject-based learning in Chinese classrooms have been con- instructional activities and classroom assessments are
ducted. This study devised a framework for analyzing the part of the operational curriculum, which is based on the
cognitive dimension of classroom project-based learn- actual teaching and learning process and student perfor-
ing to analyze cognitive indicators of teaching behav- mance (Goodlad et al., 1979). In project-based learning,
ioral performance to analyze classroom alignment. It knowledge is constructed through teacher and student
correlates the theory of physics subject competence with participation, interaction, and discussion of artifacts
project-based learning instructional practices, which (Sawyer, 2006). This implies that the actual teaching pro-
is relatively uncommon in existing subject competence cess of the teacher adapts and generates new instructional
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 21 of 23

activities based on the student’s situation, resulting in Classes in Turkey: A Meta-Analysis Study. TED EĞİTİM ve BİLİM, 40(178).
[Link]
higher cognitive demands of instructional activities and Barak, M., & Raz, E. (2000). Hot-air balloons: Project-centered study as a
classroom assessments than teaching objectives when bridge between science and technology education. Science Educa-
students are more capable. It is evident that the imple- tion,84(1), 27–42. [Link]
3C27::aid-sce3%[Link];2-8
mentation of a curriculum under project-based learn- Bencze, J. L., & Bowen, G. M. (2007). Student-teachers’ Dialectically Devel-
ing is oriented towards enactment(Jackson & American oped Motivation for Promoting Student-led Science Projects. Inter-
Association for the Advancement of Science, 1992). This national Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,7(1), 133–159.
[Link]
study contends that teaching objectives can be viewed as Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher
the minimum standards that should be met in the class- Education,32(3), 347–364. [Link]
room and that the enactment orientation of curriculum Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education,
(6th ed., ). London: Taylor & Francis. [Link]
implementation can be used to conduct research on cur- 03029053.
riculum alignment in an era of core competencies. Condliffe, B., Quint, J., Visher, M. G., Bangser, M. R., Drohojowska, S., Saco, L., &
Nelson, E. (2017). Project-based learning: A literature review. MDRC: Working
Acknowledgements Paper.
This work was supported through funding and materials by project-based Cui, Y. H. (2013). Inquiring “What Students Have Learnt”—— Concurrently
learning regional holistic reform projects that point to core literacy, Beijing Discussing Three-dimensional Object(追问“学生学会了什么”——兼论
Normal University. 三维目标). Educational Research,34(07), 98–104.
Cui, Y. H., & Lei, H. (2015). Constructing a Three-factor Model of Teaching-Learn-
Authors’ contributions ing-Assessment Alignment (教-学-评一致性三因素理论模型的建构).
LZ carried out the research, analyzed and interpreted the data, and wrote the Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences),33(04), 15–22.
manuscript. BZ analyzed the data. CML guided the teacher’s PBL teaching, Doyle, W. (1983). Academic Work. Review of Educational Research,53(2),
contributed to writing the manuscript, and gave advice. The authors read and 159–199. [Link]
approved the final manuscript. Duan, J. M., & Wu, J. S. (1988). Physical educational psychology(物理教学心理
学). Beijing Normal University press.
Funding Duis, J. M., Schafer, L. L., Nussbaum, S., & Stewart, J. J. (2013). A Process for
Funded by the project-based learning regional holistic reform projects that Developing Introductory Science Laboratory Learning Goals To Enhance
point to core literacy, Beijing Normal University. Student Learning and Instructional Alignment. Journal of Chemical Educa-
tion,90(9), 1144–1150. [Link]
Availability of data and materials Duncan, R. G., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2009). Learning progressions: Aligning
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Journal of Research in Science
article and its supplementary information files. Teaching,46(6), 606–609. [Link]
English, F. W., & Larson, R. L. (1996). Curriculum Management for Educational and
Social Service Organizations. Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Declarations
Goodlad, J. I., Klein, M. F., & Tye, K. A. (1979). The domains of curriculum and their
study. In J. I. Goodlad (Ed.), Curriculum inquiry (pp. 43–76). McGrawHill.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Guo, P., Saab, N., Post, L. S., & Admiraal, W. (2020). A review of project-based
Not applicable.
learning in higher education: Student outcomes and measures. Inter-
national Journal of Educational Research,102, 101586. [Link]
Consent for publication
1016/[Link].2020.101586
Not applicable.
Guo, Y. X., & Ma, Y. P. (2012). Subject Ability Performance: Significance, Element
and Type(学科能力表现:意义、要素与类型). Research in Educational
Competing interests
Development,32(Z2), 29–34. [Link]
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
2012.z2.016
Guo, Y. Y., Yao, J. X., & Zhang, Y. F. (2017). A study of physics subject competence
based on students’ core literacy(基于学生核心素养的物理学科能力研
Received: 10 January 2023 Accepted: 21 July 2023
究). Beijing Normal University Press.
Guo, Y. Y., Zhang, Y. F., & Yao, J. X. (2016). Composition and Performance of
Physics Competency (物理学科能力及其表现研究). Journal of Educa-
tional Studies,12(04), 57–63. [Link]
2016.04.009
References Hall, R. (2002). Aligning learning, teaching and assessment using the web: An
Aksela, M., & Haatainen, O. (2019). Project-based learning (PBL) in practice: evaluation of pedagogic approaches. British Journal of Educational Tech-
Active Teachers’ Views of Its Advantages and Challenges. Integrated nology,33(2), 149–158. [Link]
Education for the Real World: 5th International STEM in Education Confer- Hargreaves, E. (2005). Assessment for learning? Thinking outside the (black)
ence Post-Conference Proceedings. Queensland University of Technology. box. Cambridge Journal of Education,35(2), 213–224. [Link]
Alozie, N. M., Moje, E. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). An analysis of the supports 1080/03057640500146880
and constraints for scientific discussion in high school project-based Harris, C. J., Penuel, W. R., D’Angelo, C. M., DeBarger, A. H., Gallagher, L. P., Ken-
science. Science Education,94(3), 395–427. [Link] nedy, C. A., Cheng, B. H., & Krajcik, J. S. (2015). Impact of project-based cur-
20365 riculum materials on student learning in science: Results of a randomized
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks controlled trial. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,52(10), 1362–1385.
for science literacy. Oxford University Press. [Link]
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., et al. (2001). Taxonomy for Hasni, A., Bousadra, F., Belletête, V., Benabdallah, A., Nicole, M.-C., & Dumais,
Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of N. (2016). Trends in research on project-based science and technology
Educational Objectives. Addison Wesley Longman. teaching and learning at K–12 levels: A systematic review. Studies in Sci-
Ayaz, M. F., & Söylemez, M. (2015). The Effect of the Project-Based Learning ence Education,52(2), 199–231. [Link]
Approach on the Academic Achievements of the Students in Science 1226573
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 22 of 23

Holmes, V.-L., & Hwang, Y. (2016). Exploring the effects of project-based learn- Implementation: Teacher Extended PBS PD. School Science and Math-
ing in secondary mathematics education. The Journal of Educational ematics,117(1–2), 76–86. [Link]
Research,109(5), 449–463. [Link] Michaels, S., Shouse, A. W., Schweingruber, H. A., & Council, R. (2008). Ready,
Hong, J.-C., Yu, K.-C., & Chen, M.-Y. (2010). Collaborative learning in technologi- Set, Science! : Putting Research To Work In K-8 Science Classrooms. National
cal project design. International Journal of Technology and Design Educa- Academies Press.
tion,21(3), 335–347. [Link] Ministry of Education, & PRC. (2003). The Curriculum Standards for Physics of
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Senior High School (Experiment)(普通高中物理课程标准 (实验) ). People’s
Analysis. Qualitative Health Research,15(9), 1277–1288. [Link] Education Press.
1177/1049732305276687 Ministry of Education PRC. (2022). Compulsory Education Science Curriculum
Jackson, P. W., American Educational Research Association. (1992). Handbook Standards (2022 Edition)(义务教育科学课程标准 (2022年版) ). Beijing
of research on curriculum: A Project of the American Educational Research Normal University Press.
Association (pp. 402–435). Macmillan Library Reference Usa. Näsström, G., & Henriksson, W. (2017). Alignment of Standards and Assess-
Jin, H., Mikeska, J. N., Hokayem, H., & Mavronikolas, E. (2019). Toward coherence ment: A theoretical and empirical study of methods for alignment.
in curriculum, instruction, and assessment: A review of learning progres- Electronic Journal of Research in Education Psychology, 6(16). [Link]
sion literature. Science Education,103(5), 1206–1234. [Link] org/10.25115/ejrep.v6i16.1296
1002/sce.21525 NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states.
Kanter, D. E., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2010). The impact of a project-based sci- The National Academies Press.
ence curriculum on minority student achievement, attitudes, and careers: Novak, A. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2019). A Case Study of Project-Based Learning of
The effects of teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge and Middle School Students Exploring Water Quality. The Wiley Handbook of
inquiry-based practices: Impact of Project-Based Science on Minority Stu- Problem-Based Learning, 551–572. [Link]
dents. Science Education,94(5), 855–887. [Link] 243.ch24
Kennedy, D., Hyland, Á., & Ryan, N. (2007). Writing and Using Learning Outcomes: OECD. (2013). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literay: A framework
A Practical Guide. University College Cork. for PISA 2015. OECD.
Klahr, D. (2002). Exploring science : the cognition and development of discovery OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 results (volume III): What school life means for students’
processes. Mit. lives. OECD Publishing, Paris. [Link]
Krajcik, J. S., & Shin, N. (2014). Project-Based Learning. The Cambridge Handbook Polikoff, M. S., Gasparian, H., Korn, S., Gamboa, M., Porter, A. C., Smith, T., & Garet,
of the Learning Sciences, 275–297. [Link] M. S. (2019b). Flexibly Using the Surveys of Enacted Curriculum to Study
519526.018 Alignment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39(2). [Link]
Krajcik, J. S., & Czerniak, C. M. (2018). Teaching Science in Elementary and Middle org/10.1111/emip.12292
School. Routledge. Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the Content of Instruction: Uses in Research
Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2007). Learning-goals-driven design and Practice. Educational Researcher,31(7), 3–14. [Link]
model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national stand- 0013189X031007003
ards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education,92(1), Porter.(1997). How SEC. Measures Alignment. Educational Researcher
1–32. [Link] ,5(2),12,9,5,8.
Lawson, A. E. (1985). A review of research on formal reasoning and science Rothman, R. (2003). Imperfect Matches: The Alignment of Standards and Tests.
teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,22(7), 569–617. https:// National Research Council.
[Link]/10.1002/tea.3660220702 Santyasa, I & Rapi, Ni & Sara, I.(2020). Project Based Learning and Academic
Lee, D., Huh, Y., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2015). Collaboration, intragroup conflict, and Procrastination of Students in Learning Physics. International Journal of
social skills in project-based learning. Instructional Science,43(5), 561–590. Instruction, 13(1), 489–508. [Link]
[Link] Sasson, I., Yehuda, I., & Malkinson, N. (2018). Fostering the skills of critical
Li, C. M. (2002). The structure model of physics experiment manipulativeability thinking and question-posing in a project-based learning environment.
for high school student(物理实验操作能力的结构模型初探). Journal of Thinking Skills and Creativity,29, 203–212. [Link]
Educational Studies,06, 39–42. 2018.08.001
Li, C. M., & Zhang, X. (2022). Analysis of the changes in the Compulsory Educa- Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences.
tion Physics Curriculum Standards (2022 Edition)(《义务教育物理课程 Cambridge University Press.
标准(2022年版)》的变化分析). Physics Teacher,43(06), 35–44. Sewagegn, A. A. (2020). Learning Objective and Assessment Linkage: Its Con-
Liu, H. (2009). The road to excellence in classroom assessment - On classroom tribution to Meaningful Student Learning. Universal Journal of Educational
assessment that points to the promotion of learning(追求卓越的课堂 Research,8(11), 5044–5052. [Link]
评价之路——论指向促进学习的课堂评价). Contemporary Education Steele, A. L. (2023). Experiential Learning in Engineering Education. CRC Press.
Sciences,24, 25–28. [Link]
Liu, X., Zhang, B., Liang, L. L., Fulmer, G., Kim, B., & Yuan, H. (2009). Alignment Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive Architecture and
between the physics content standard and the standardized test: A Instructional Design: 20 Years Later. Educational Psychology Review,31(2),
comparison among the United States-New York State, Singapore, and 261–292. [Link]
China-Jiangsu: Content Standard and Standardized Test. Science Educa- Tal, T., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Urban schools’ teachers enact-
tion,93(5), 777–797. [Link] ing project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,43(7),
Lu, M., & Jiang, Y. Y. (2022). Implementing the Core Competencies of Curricu- 722–745. [Link]
lum: The Design and Practice of Unit Learning Program(落实学科核心素 Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Autodesk
养: 单元学历案的设计与实践). Global Education,51(04), 71–83. Foundation.
Luo, Y., Xie, X. Y., Han, S. S., & Guo, Y. Y.(2021). New Physics Teaching Model in Turan-Özpolat, E., & Bay, E. (2017). Analyzing the Curriculum Alignment of
Middle School: Project-based Instruction(中学物理教学新模式:基于 Teachers. Universal Journal of Educational Research,5, 1161–1181.
项目的教学). Curriculum, Teaching Material and Method,41(06),103–109. Viro, E., Lehtonen, D., Joutsenlahti, J., & Tahvanainen, V. (2020). Teachers’ per-
doi:[Link] spectives on project-based learning in mathematics and science. Euro-
Marca, P., Redfield, D. L., & Winter, P. C. (2000). State Standards and State Assess- pean Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,8(1), 12–31. https://
ment Systems: A Guide to Alignment. Series on Standards and Assessments. [Link]/10.30935/scimath/9544
Markula, A., & Aksela, M. (2022). The key characteristics of project-based Wang, L. (2016). Exploring Performance and Intrinsic Composition of Disci-
learning: How teachers implement projects in K-12 science education. plinary CompetenceBased on the Multi-integrative Model of “Learning-
Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research,4(1), 2. https:// Applying-Innovating”(学科能力构成及其表现研究——基于学习
[Link]/10.1186/s43031-021-00042-x 理解、应用实践与迁移创新导向的多维整合模型). Educational
Mentzer, G. A., Czerniak, C. M., & Brooks, L. (2017). An Examination of Teacher Research,37(9), 83–92+125.
Understanding of Project Based Science as a Result of Participating Webb, N. L. (1999). Alignment of Science and Mathematics Standards and Assess-
in an Extended Professional Development Program: Implications for ments in Four States. Research Monograph No. 18.
Zhao et al. Discip Interdscip Sci Educ Res (2023) 5:13 Page 23 of 23

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Associa-
tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wu, H. Q., & Gao, X. D. (2022). The Deviation, Practical Dilemma and Its Tran-
scendence of the Integrated Concept of “Teaching, Learning, and Evalu-
ation” (“教·学·评”一体化理念偏差与实践困境及其超越). Educational
Science Research,02, 54–58+66.
Xu, B. Y. (2013). Research on Core Competencies in School Mathematics(数学
学科核心能力研究). Global Education,42(06), 67–74+95.
Xue, H. X. (2022). Integrated Design and Implementation: Cracking the Practi-
cal Misunderstandings of Project Learning(一体化设计与实施: 破解项
目学习的实践误区). Primary and secondary school management(中小学
管理),06, 37–40.
Yan, J. D., Duan, J. M., Xu, P. J., & Huo, L. L. (1991). Physics Teaching Theor. Jiangsu
Education press(江苏教育出版社).
Yang,J.D.(2020). Research on Competency-Oriented High School Chemistry Teach-
ing-Learning-Assessment Alignment(“素养为本”的高中化学“教、学、
评”一致性研究). (Published doctoral dissertation, Central China Normal
University). [Link]
AST2021&filename=[Link]
Yang, X. D. (2017). Competence-based Curriculum Standards Development
for Basic Education(基于核心素养的基础教育课程标准研制). Global
Education,46(10), 34–48.
Yang, X. D. (2022). On the Conceptualization and Standard Development of
Competency-based Academic Achievement(素养本位学业质量的内涵
及意义). Global Education,51(05), 79–93.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Zhang, H. (2014). The Technique and Features of Flanders Interaction Analysis
System(弗兰德斯互动分析系统的方法与特点). Contemporary Educa-
tion and Culture,6(02), 68–73. [Link]
g4.2014.02.012
Zhao, Y., & Wang, L. (2022). A case study of student development across
project-based learning units in middle school chemistry. Disciplinary and
Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 4(1). [Link]
s43031-021-00045-8
Zhen, L., & Lei, H. (2017). Progress and Operation Mechanism of the “Imple-
mentation of Course Investigation” Program in the United States –- An
Interview with Dr. John Smithson, Director of the SEC Program(美国"实
施课程调查"项目进展及运作机制——SEC项目主任约翰·史密森博士
专访). Global Education,46(10), 11–23.
Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elemen-
tary and middle school. Developmental Review,27(2), 172–223. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2006.12.001

Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub-
lished maps and institutional affiliations.