ACT National Curriculum Survey 2002-2003

Overview

ACT™ continuously performs research designed tosupport the content validity of its educational achievementtests. This report presents the results of the 2002–2003 ACTNational Curriculum Survey®, ACT’s most recent compre-hensive review of state educational standards documents,survey of educators, and consultation with content areaexperts across the curriculum.

The present report devotes one chapter each to English,reading, mathematics, and science, and a fifth chapter to theStandards for Transition® ACT introduced in 1997. Thisreport is the fourth in a series that began with ContentValidity of ACT’s Educational Achievement Tests (1992).That report described ACT’s Project Silver researchprogram, a major initiative that underlies ACT’sEPAS/Educational Planning and Assessment System®. Wereported subsequent research in Maintaining the ContentValidity of ACT’s Educational Achievement Tests (1998) andContent Validity Evidence in Support of ACT’s EducationalAchievement Tests: ACT’s 1998-1999 National CurriculumStudy (2000).

Together, this series of reports confirms that the EPAS testspecifications closely align with school curricula. Thoughstate standards vary in details, they unite in the intention ofpreparing and encouraging all students to set and reachworthy academic goals, to explore their options for fulfillingwork, and to realize their potential for a lifetime of learning.While the approaches vary, their themes are clear: schoolsshould nurture all students’ ability to think critically, to com-municate cogently and appropriately, to read for informationand pleasure, and to achieve literacy in mathematics and sci-ence. These are the themes addressed in the present report.

When we go beyond themes to details, we must ask,What should high school students be expected to know, andto be able to do with what they know, across the contentareas? What knowledge and abilities do college facultyexpect of incoming students? ACT’s recent research indi-cates that the answers to these questions continue to varyamong states, schools, and individual educators. Nationalstandards documents also express diverse priorities andemphases. ACT therefore seeks the commonalities amongthe curricula and standards, and we find broad areas ofagreement about what skills and knowledge are important.We also poll large numbers of educators to gain the benefitof their sense of instructional priorities. And we confer withcontent and curriculum experts to help us interpret theresults.

Most of the ACT staff members who contributed to thisreport have teaching experience. They all stay informedabout content-validity issues by following the relevant

literature, communicating with teachers and test item writers,visiting schools to observe classes, actively participating inprofessional organizations, and meeting regularly withcontent-area experts from outside ACT to review in detail allcurrent EPAS test materials under development. Content-validity research is, in short, integral to the work of those whodevelop the EPAS tests.

ACT’s EPAS/Educational Planning and Assessment System

In the 1980s, ACT developed through its Project Silverresearch program a system that would respond to theeducational planning and assessment needs of students,parents, teachers, and administrators. To identify categoriesof essential information, ACT studied curricula being usedin schools nationwide from Grade 7 through the collegesophomore level. Completing this comprehensive studyincluded:

• seeking the advice and counsel of college instructors,secondary school teachers, administrators, subject-area experts, and curriculum specialists.

• studying various critiques of education in the UnitedStates.

• reviewing state curriculum documents.• analyzing textbooks widely used in middle school, high

school, and college.• surveying practicing educators across the United

States about what is taught in their classrooms.The study confirmed that there are skills and understand-

ings, developed over time, that are vital to students’ successin post-high school careers, whether the students choose toenter the workplace or to pursue a postsecondary education.The results of this study laid the foundation for the designand development of EPAS.

ACT conceives of growth in a student’s educational devel-opment not as a series of discrete steps but as a continualprocess. Therefore, ACT’s goal in EPAS is to produce anintegrated system of assessments each of which is appro-priate for a critical transition point in the continuum of astudent’s educational growth. EXPLORE®, for 8th and 9thgraders, focuses on assisting in the transition to high school.PLAN®, for 10th graders, serves as a midpoint assessmentof high school progress. And the ACT Assessment®, for 11thand 12th graders, assists in the transition to college.

EXPLORE is designed for use by all 8th and 9th graders.These students need to plan for high school, and EXPLOREhelps them see and understand the opportunities openbefore them. EXPLORE gives educators the means to struc-ture high school planning and career exploration and

1

Introduction

provides a baseline to monitor students’ progress. ThroughEXPLORE, a student’s strengths and weaknesses can beidentified early, and an appropriate learning plan can bedeveloped.

PLAN provides a midpoint review of progress made inhigh school. Designed for all 10th graders, PLAN providesdirection for educational and career planning and allows stu-dents to choose courses wisely to prepare to achieve theirgoals after high school.

The ACT Assessment is designed for 11th and 12thgraders who are considering attending a college or univer-sity. By using the ACT Assessment, schools not only helpthose students who are going on to a college or university,but also receive a measure of the outcomes these studentshave attained by the time they reach their last two years ofhigh school.

Evaluating students’ strengths and weaknesses early inGrade 8 and continuing to assess progress throughGrade 12, educators gain information necessary to guidestudents as they prepare for their high school and post-highschool goals. As outlined in Table I.1, EPAS providesschools, parents, and students with:

• a student planning component, which engages stu-dents in a long-term planning process that begins withcareer exploration and educational planning inGrade 8, moves to career and educational planning inGrade 10, and concludes with students activelypreparing for life after high school.

• an assessment component, which measures whatstudents can do with what they know in English,mathematics, reading, and science. A fourth EPAS

program, WorkKeys®, assesses the skills employersare looking for and helps students develop the work-place skills necessary to obtain the jobs they wantafter high school.

• an instructional support component, which offersteachers support in the classroom. For example, ACTpublishes a set of instructional support guides tied tothe EPAS programs (one each for Language Arts,Mathematics, and Science) and a series of interpretiveguides related to ACT’s Standards for Transition.

• an evaluation component, which provides informationthat allows schools to monitor and analyze studentperformance over time and to assess the effectivenessof school programs.

It is in keeping with ACT cofounder Dr. E. F. Lindquist’sphilosophy that each EPAS assessment is intended anddesigned to provide information for multiple purposes,including the evaluation of educational programs, the coun-seling of students about their course selections, the explo-ration of and planning for students’ career choices, and (forthe ACT Assessment) the selection of an institution and anacademic area for postsecondary study or an area ofemployment. Again in keeping with Dr. Lindquist’s thinking,although the EPAS test specifications necessarily list thecontent areas and skills tested, each assessment isdesigned to assess, not discrete skills in isolation, but theintegration of skills and content knowledge. That is, all theassessments are designed to focus not on narrow objectivesor course-specific knowledge, but on broad educationalachievement and critical thinking developed over time acrossthe curricular areas.

2

Table I.1Overview of EXPLORE, PLAN, and the ACT Assessment

Testing program Target grade Components Content areas

• Student Planning • EnglishTransition to High School • Assessment • Mathematics

EXPLORE Grades 8–9 • Instructional Support • Reading• Evaluation • Science

• Student Planning • EnglishMidpoint High School Review • Assessment • Mathematics

PLAN Grade 10 • Instructional Support • Reading• Evaluation • Science

• Student Planning • EnglishTransition to High School • Assessment • MathematicsACT AssessmentGrades 11–12 • Instructional Support • Reading

• Evaluation • Science

Philosophical Basis for ACT’s Tests of Educational Development

In conducting its research, ACT observes the guidingprinciples that Dr. E. F. Lindquist applied in developing ACT’sfirst program, the ACT Assessment Program, in 1959:

• The purposes of testing batteries should not be con-ceived too narrowly. A testing battery should comprisetests that provide information useful for many con-stituencies and many purposes: educational planning,career counseling, course planning and placement,instructional planning, program evaluation, and institu-tional planning at both the secondary and postsec-ondary levels. The needs to which well-constructedtests respond are hardly narrow: the need to enrichand improve students’ educational experiences andthe need to motivate student achievement.

• Tests of educational development should measure thestudent’s readiness for further learning, by reproducingas faithfully as possible the complexity of the work stu-dents have done and will be expected to do in theirfuture learning, both in and out of school. Such testsshould be realistic and practical, and they shoulddemand critical reasoning and thinking.

• Tests of educational development should focus not oninnate abilities, but rather on the developed abilitiesthat teachers nourish with their instruction and stu-dents cultivate by their own efforts. Such developedabilities, by their complex nature, cannot be measuredin isolation. Valid measures of them must elicit acts ofjudgment that integrate many abilities working in com-bination. The tests must therefore be based upon thestudents’ learning experiences in the core contentareas of high school and college instructional pro-grams, and they must determine what students can dowith what they have learned, not simply ask for whatwas learned.

• Tests of educational development, rather than tests ofaptitude, are the most useful tests for making courseplacement and other such decisions based uponinstructional programs, precisely because such testsare linked to instruction. It is therefore incumbent onthe test developer to design testing batteries that accu-rately reflect widely accepted educational goals judgedimportant by educators for future learning both in andout of school.

The usefulness of Dr. Lindquist’s guideposts continuesto impress itself upon us as we survey the educationallandscape. During the 2002–2003 ACT National CurriculumSurvey, we found many opportunities to reaffirmDr. Lindquist’s propositions that tests of academic develop-ment should be versatile, complex, curriculum-based ratherthan aptitude-based, and consistent with widely acceptededucational goals.

Observant of public policies such as the federal No ChildLeft Behind Act of 2001, and in accord with policy statementssuch as the Council of Chief State School Officers’ recom-

mendation that “schools, previously asked to ensure thedevelopment of basic skills, now be required to teach all stu-dents a new, broad range of cognitive skills demanded by thechanging contexts in which students live,” American schoolshave developed high academic standards and designed flex-ible curricula and instructional methods to match these stan-dards. In the light of these initiatives, ACT intends to continueto provide information useful to students, parents, educators,and decision makers about individual learners’ progress andthe progress of the school, district, or state in the subjectmatter areas most critical to success in high school, college,and work.

Thus, underlying the EPAS tests of educational develop-ment is ACT’s belief that students’ preparation for furtherlearning is best assessed by measuring, as directly as pos-sible, the academic skills that students have acquired andthat they will need to perform at the next level of learning.The required academic skills can be most directly assessedby reproducing as faithfully as possible the complexity of thestudents’ schoolwork. Therefore, the tests of educationaldevelopment are designed to determine how skillfully stu-dents solve problems, grasp implied meanings, draw infer-ences, evaluate ideas, and make judgments insubject-matter areas important to success in intellectualwork both inside and outside of school.

Accordingly, the tests of educational development are ori-ented toward the general content areas of high school andcollege instructional programs. The test questions requirestudents to integrate the knowledge and skills they possessin major curriculum areas with the information provided bythe test. Thus, scores on the tests have a direct and obviousrelationship to the students’ educational progress in curricu-lum-related areas and possess a meaning that is readilygrasped by students, parents, and educators.

Tests of general educational development are used in theEPAS testing batteries because, when compared to othertypes of tests, they best satisfy the diverse requirements oftests used to facilitate transitions from one educational levelto the next. By contrast, measures of examinee knowledgeof specific course content (as opposed to curriculum areas)do not readily provide a common baseline for comparingstudents’ educational development for such purposes asadvising, admission, selection, or the awarding of scholar-ships, because school courses vary so widely. In addition,course-specific tests might not measure students’ skills inproblem solving and in the integration of knowledge from avariety of courses.

Tests of educational development can also be contrastedwith tests of academic aptitude. The stimuli and test ques-tions for aptitude tests are often chosen precisely for theirdissimilarity to instructional materials, and each test within abattery of aptitude tests is designed to be homogeneous inpsychological structure. With such an approach, these testsmight not reflect the complexity of academic work or theinteractions among the skills measured. Moreover, becauseaptitude tests are not directly related to instruction, they may

3

not be as useful as tests of educational development forinforming school counseling, course selection, and place-ment decisions.

The advantage of tests of educational development overother types of tests for use in school transitions becomesevident in the context of the changing educational system.Because many of the same complex skills that are taught inthe schools are being measured, the best preparation fortests of educational development is school coursework.Long-term learning in school, rather than short-term cram-ming and coaching, becomes the best form of test prepara-tion. Thus, tests of educational development tend to serve asmotivators by sending students a clear message that hightest scores are not simply a matter of innate ability but reflecta level of achievement that has been earned as a result ofhard work and dedication.

Because the EPAS tests stress the complexity of intellec-tual work and the integration of knowledge from a variety ofsources, students may be influenced to acquire the complexskills necessary to deal with these concerns. In this way, theEPAS tests may serve to aid schools in developing in theirstudents the critical reasoning and thinking skills that areimportant for success in later learning and in life.

The tests of the EPAS testing batteries therefore not onlyare designed to accurately reflect educational goals that arewidely accepted and judged by educators to be important,but are designed with educational considerations, as well asstatistical and empirical techniques, given the first rank inimportance.

Recognizing the growing importance of reporting detailedassessment results, ACT developed Standards for Transitionfor the EXPLORE, PLAN, and ACT Assessment programs in1997. These Standards for Transition, which are presentedfully in chapter 5, describe what students who score in vari-ous score ranges on the tests of educational developmentare likely to know and to be able to do in each academic areaassessed in the EPAS tests: English, mathematics, reading,and science. The Standards for Transition are made widelyavailable, free of charge, through schools and on the ACTwebsite (www.act.org). ACT also offers, through itsStandards for Transition Information Services (alsodescribed in chapter 5), reporting and instructional supportservices that can help teachers, curriculum coordinators, andothers to interpret their schools’ test results and use themappropriately in their teaching plans.

Investigative Process

The foundational evidence for the content validity ofACT’s EPAS tests of educational development was obtainedthrough Project Silver in the mid-1980s as described in detailin the 1992 report. This foundation was established with gen-erous help from the many teachers who answered ACT’squestionnaires, reviewed draft documents, and came toACT’s national office to meet and discuss testing plans with

ACT staff. The foundation is built upon by the many teacherswho write ACT EPAS test questions, which are then editedby ACT for administration. And the foundation is, in effect,subjected to scrupulous inspection several times everyyear—that is, each time ACT’s regular test development pro-cedures call for an extensive and stringent review of thetests. In the course of these reviews, conducted by ACT staffand by expert consultants (many of whom are themselvesteachers) from outside ACT, each test question is criticallyexamined more than twenty times. Moreover, all EPAS testbattery forms are reviewed in detail to ensure that theymatch current test specifications and thus that their test con-tent is representative of current high school and universitycurricula.

ACT pursues extensive additional research in the interestof assuring that the EPAS tests continue to be strongly sup-ported by content validity evidence. In 2002–2003, thisresearch took the form of a review of state standards, a cur-riculum survey, and consultation with content-area and cur-riculum experts.

In a curriculum review process similar to that described inthe 1992 and 1998 reports, ACT (1) synthesized informationgathered from state educational standards, (2) surveyededucators as to the skills they deem most important, and (3)consulted with content and curriculum experts about theresults from (1) and (2) and to receive the experts’ adviceabout the current status of the curriculum, of instructionalpractices, and of the appropriateness of the EPAS tests asmeasures of educational development.

ACT reviewed the latest standards available from thestate departments of education (all states but Iowa, whichdoes not publish state standards), most of which were pub-lished in 1995 or later. Some were prepublication drafts.

In the spring of 2002, ACT developed 22 surveys (15 formiddle/junior high and high school levels, 7 for the postsec-ondary level) and sent them to 28,926 educators distributedamong the four content areas included in the EPAS tests.Because many colleges and universities use ACTAssessment scores to help place students into entry-levelcourses, the postsecondary surveys were sent to instructorsof typical entry-level courses. The surveys sent to teachersand instructors listed both process skills and content skillsand asked respondents to rate each skill’s level of impor-tance on a scale of 1 through 5. The surveys sent to depart-ment chairs listed process skills, with the request thatrespondents rate each skill’s level of importance on a scaleof 1 through 5, and included questions about the curriculumin the department chair’s school district.

The primary source ACT used in selecting these sampleswas Market Data Retrieval (MDR), a firm that provides mail-ing lists, database marketing services, and state-by-stateelementary, secondary, and postsecondary school directo-ries to the education market. Among MDR’s services is adatabase of faculty members teaching in primary, secondary,and postsecondary institutions nationwide, indexed by the

4

courses they teach (e.g., English Language Arts, FreshmanEnglish, Composition). MDR updates this database yearlythrough the collection of class schedules and surveys of aca-demic departments.

The ACT survey recipients were sampled from the MDRdatabase, using selection criteria provided by ACT to ensurethat a variety of geographic regions and schools were repre-sented. First, ACT requested individuals who were identifiedby MDR as teaching specific secondary courses or fresh-man-level postsecondary courses. The courses selectedwere ones that had some of the largest numbers of entries inthe MDR database, indicating that they (or their equivalents)were among the most widely taught courses nationwide.Second, ACT requested that 90% of the middle/junior highand high school recipients come from public schools, withthe rest coming from private/parochial schools. This was tosafeguard against the recipient pool being biased in favor ofsmall, select institutions. Third, ACT requested that, withineach of the four content areas, no more than one individualper school district (for middle/junior high and high school)and no more than one individual per postsecondary institu-tion be included in the sample, so as to ensure that a wideassortment of school districts and institutions were repre-sented in the recipient pool. (The only exception was that thethird criterion was waived for lists obtained from the NationalCouncil of Teachers of English for use with the Writing sur-vey.) Together, these three criteria were meant to ensure thatsurvey recipients would represent a large number of schoolsand a variety of geographic locations. Neither the race, eth-nicity, gender, nor socioeconomic status of recipients wasconsidered in the selection of these samples. ACT receiveda total of 6,632 completed surveys, for an overall responserate of almost 23%. The results are analyzed in the content-area chapters of this report. These analyses incorporate thefindings of the content experts with whom ACT consulted.

Special Concerns: Fairness, Cultural Diversity,and Effects on Instruction

ACT test developers continue to address three specialconcerns that bear on test content validity: the fairness of thetest passages and test questions, the extent to which thediverse cultures of the United States are represented in thetests, and the influence of the tests on instruction.

A test of educational development must avoid privileging,or discriminating against, any group on any basis other thanknowledge and skill in the content domain being measured.For example, if a test question required specialized back-ground knowledge only certain groups would have, then thatquestion would be unfair because it privileged some groupsat the expense of others, and it would be technically flawedbecause it tested something (specialized background knowl-edge) other than the content construct purportedly beingmeasured. ACT always has been sensitive to issues of fair-ness in testing. Statistical checks against unfair questions,

and independent reviews intended to cull out unfair pas-sages or questions, long have been integral parts of ACT’stest development and test evaluation procedures. ACT con-tinually refines its procedures so as to support the contentvalidity of the EPAS tests by guarding against real and per-ceived sources of unfairness in the tests.

The United States has always contained a vibrant mixtureof cultures. Our country’s vitality has sometimes been meas-ured by the very rivalries among its constituent cultures,while at other times it has been strengthened by the dignityand heroism with which these cultures have cooperated. Inany event, it is a fact of cultural history that persons of manycolors, origins, and creeds make up this land. Ignoring orslighting any group or groups misrepresents the culturallandscape. Justice and accuracy require that all culturalgroups be represented in educational materials. Accordingly,ACT acquires test materials that reflect our national culturaldiversity, and thus is able to ensure multicultural representa-tion in its EPAS testing battery forms. ACT also brings promi-nent teachers and writers to ACT’s national office to adviseACT test development staff on matters of cultural diversity.The content validity of the EPAS tests requires accuracy, andaccuracy requires inclusiveness.

The effect that tests may have on instruction is a point ofdebate and concern for many educators and test developers.It is widely believed that tests inevitably influence instruc-tional practices, and it is often feared that narrow tests mayconstrict curriculum and teaching. Some critics of standard-ized tests contend that such tests cannot measure criticalreasoning and thinking and that they therefore discourageteachers from tackling challenging subject matter and createan incentive for teachers and students to stick to basic skills.However, ACT is confident that its EPAS tests of educationaldevelopment do measure critical reasoning and thinking, andthat these tests should encourage both teachers and stu-dents to reach into the most challenging subjects andinstructional modes. ACT’s Standards for Transition—descriptions of the skills and knowledge associated withEXPLORE, PLAN, and ACT Assessment scores—are anexpression of that confidence. Described fully in chapter 5,the Standards are statements that describe what studentswho score in specified score ranges typically know and areable to do in English, mathematics, reading, and science. Inaddition, a series of ACT instructional support booklets indi-cate, in more detail and for each content area, how the EPAStests require critical reasoning and thinking skills. Thesebooklets both clarify the connections between critical think-ing and the EPAS tests and suggest learning activities con-ducive to critical thinking. ACT knows that teachers knowhow to teach. In preparing these booklets we are not offeringteaching advice, but sharing some interesting teaching ideasand resources. The booklets demonstrate that the EPAStests measure critical thinking and that the best way to pre-pare for EXPLORE, PLAN, and the ACT Assessment is sus-tained and active learning.

5

7

Chapter 1English and Writing

State Standards

State English language arts standards exhibit wide vari-ability in specificity, from the highly particularized to thebroadly generalized, and in emphasis, from those that pre-scribe basic skills to be mastered, to those that describelarge cultural and communications concepts to be explored.This variability in approach and philosophy echoes what ACThas observed in its curriculum reviews during the redevelop-ment of the ACT Assessment in the 1980s (i.e., ProjectSilver) and in subsequence ACT National CurriculumSurveys. Similarly, the areas of commonality, which underliethe EPAS English Tests, remain in place. While each set ofstate standards is expressed in language that the particularstate’s educators believe best articulate what it is their stu-dents should know and/or be able to do, the various states’standards agree in fostering students’ knowledge of, andease in using, standard written English (i.e., “the language ofwider communication,” NCTE/IRA Standards for the EnglishLanguage Arts; or, in the nomenclature of the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress Writing Framework,the “appropriate conventions of written English”). The statestandards also share with national standards documents

such as the two just mentioned a continued emphasis on stu-dents’ abilities to organize, revise, and edit writing—that is,on the complex and interrelated sets of skills and knowledgethat are examined in the EPAS English Tests.

Educator Surveys

ACT developed four Writing surveys (three for the middleschool/junior high and high school levels and one for thepostsecondary level) and sent them to 5,570 middleschool/junior high and high school teachers, 500 secondaryEnglish department chairs, and 5,365 postsecondary facultyteaching entry-level courses. The primary source used inselecting these samples was Market Data Retrieval (MDR),a company specializing in the education market. Surveyrecipients were sampled from the MDR database usingselection criteria provided by ACT to ensure that a variety ofgeographic regions and schools were represented.

Table 1.1 lists the English and Writing courses that ACTrequested MDR use as selection criteria. ACT mailedcurriculum surveys to the number of MDR-identified facultymembers indicated in the table.

Table 1.1Writing Courses Used as MDR Sample Selection Criteria

Sample Courses Sample Size

Middle School/Junior High English Language Arts 1,200

High School English Language Arts, 2,400Writing/Composition

Postsecondary Entry-Level CoursesComposition 1,000Freshman English 750Survey of American Literature 300

Developmental Writing 475English as a Second Language 475

Department Chairs Middle School/Junior High English Language Arts, 500High School English Language Arts

8

A second source of recipient names for the Writing surveywas the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE).NCTE provides external agencies with mailing lists of itsmembers. Member names and addresses may be requestedaccording to types of courses and level of students taught.ACT requested from NCTE a random sample of high schoolEnglish Language Arts and Composition teachers and a ran-dom sample of postsecondary College Composition andCommunication instructors. As was the case with the MDRsamples, neither race, ethnicity, gender, nor socioeconomicstatus was considered as a selection criterion. After check-ing for and removing duplicates between these samples andthe MDR samples, ACT mailed an additional 1,970 highschool surveys and 2,365 postsecondary surveys to NCTEmembers. Altogether, 11,435 Writing surveys were mailedacross the four sample groups.

The purpose of the surveys was to determine the skillsand knowledge deemed important by secondary instructorsand postsecondary faculty members teaching entry-levelcourses. The instructions for completing each survey madethis explicit. Middle school/junior high and high school teach-ers were asked to base their responses on one course theywere currently teaching. Postsecondary faculty were askedto base their responses on one entry-level course they werecurrently teaching. If a postsecondary survey was mailed toa recipient who was not currently teaching a freshman-levelcourse, the instructions asked that the recipient forward thesurvey to a faculty member who was currently teaching sucha course. In order to ensure a good response rate, surveyresponses were kept confidential; apart from a five-digitidentification number linking each survey to a record in eitherthe MDR or NCTE samples, the survey instrument containedno way of identifying the respondent.

A total of 2,360 surveys were returned completed, yield-ing an overall response rate of 21% for the four surveys. Theresponse rates varied slightly across the four sample groups.Response rates for all four surveys are listed in Table 1.2.

The survey respondents included individuals from all 50states and the District of Columbia. The representation of thetotal respondent pool by region was 34.2% from the East (20states and the District of Columbia), 29.4% from the Midwest(9 states), 12.4% from the Southwest (5 states), and 24.0%from the West (16 states). Analyses of the middle school/jun-ior high, high school, and postsecondary respondent poolsdetermined that they represented a wide variety of geo-graphic locations and institutions. The respondent pool forthe department chair survey, however, was found to bebiased toward smaller schools. For this reason, surveyresults for the department chairs are not included in the dis-cussion that follows.

Respondents to all Writing surveys were asked to con-sider lists of process and content skills. Middle school/juniorhigh and high school respondents were asked to indicatewhether they taught each skill in their courses. All respon-dents were asked to indicate the level of importance of eachskill on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represented not important,3 represented moderately important, and 5 represented veryimportant. Middle school/junior high and high school respon-dents were to rate the importance of each skill to the classesthey taught. Postsecondary faculty were to rate each skill asa prerequisite for entry-level coursework.

Included in the Writing surveys was a list of 10 Writing asProcess skills and 13 Purposes of Writing. Respondentswere also asked to indicate the relative importance of 37content skills grouped into six categories: Writing Strategy,Organization, Style, Sentence Structure, Punctuation, andGrammar and Usage. These six general categories coverthe skills measured by the EPAS English Tests. In addition tothese content and process skills, respondents were asked toconsider 3 Research Skills and 10 criteria for the Evaluationof Writing.

Table 1.2Writing Survey Types and Response Rates

Number Number ResponseSurvey type mailed returned rate

Middle School/Junior High 1,200 292 24%

High School 4,370 828 19%

Postsecondary 5,365 1,099 20%

Department Chairs 500 141 28%

Total 11,435 2,360 21%

The Writing surveys also asked respondents a variety ofbackground questions related to the course on which theybased their responses. The middle school/junior high andhigh school respondents were asked to describe the stu-dents enrolled in that course as primarily college bound, pri-marily non-college bound, or a combination of both. Theywere also asked to name the primary textbook they wereusing in that course, and to state how many years they hadbeen teaching. Postsecondary respondents were asked todescribe that course as either remedial, entry-level, or hon-ors/advanced placement, and to name the primary textbookthey were using.

Middle school and junior high school teachers indi-cated that the skills listed under Writing as Process were allmore than moderately important, with a median rating of4.34. Seven of the 10 skills were taught in 89% or more ofthe courses identified. The respondents ranked the 3 mostimportant process skills as Editing and proofreading;Prewriting, brainstorming or other techniques of invention;and Selecting a topic, formulating a thesis, in that order. The13 Purposes of Writing were also all rated as more thanmoderately important, with a median rating of 3.91, althoughonly 6 of those purposes were taught in 76% or more of thecourses. See Table 1.3 for a listing of the top-rated writingpurposes. The respondents rated Writing to express one’sfeelings as the 4th most important skill, but the high schoolteachers rated it 10th on their list and the college instructorsrated it 8th on theirs.

The items in the next six sections, which represent thecontent of the EPAS English Tests, all were rated highly—between 3.68 and 4.74, except for Using a colon to introducean example or an elaboration, which was given a mean rat-ing of 1.81. That rating confirms our sense that this skill is notappropriate to test on the EXPLORE English Test. All but 5of these 37 skills were taught in 71% or more of the coursesindicated. The 7 skills listed under Grammar and Usage weretaught, on average, in 79% of the courses, the lowest per-centage of all six categories. See Table 1.4 for the medianratings and percentages taught for these six main groups ofskills.

These teachers indicated that the three most importantcriteria used in the evaluation of student writing were Usinga clear beginning, middle, and ending; Writing unified andcoherent text; and Using correct grammar, usage, andmechanics, in that order. See Table 1.5 for a listing of the top-rated criteria.

Of the 78 skills listed, the middle school and junior highschool teachers rated the following as the 3 most importantskills in their courses: Punctuating end of sentence, Avoidingsentence fragments, and Editing and proofreading, in thatorder. See Table 1.9 for the full response data.

High school teachers indicated that the skills listedunder Writing as Process were all more than moderatelyimportant, with a median rating of 4.20. All the skills weretaught in 81% or more of the courses identified. High schoolteachers ranked the 3 most important process skills as

Selecting a topic, Formulating a thesis; Editing and proof-reading; and Revising focusing on content rather thanmechanics, in that order. The 13 Purposes of Writing werealso all rated as at least moderately important, with a medianrating of 4.23, although only 8 of those purposes were taughtin 76% or more of the courses. See Table 1.3 for a listing ofthe top-rated writing purposes.

The items in the next six sections, which represent thecontent of the EPAS English Tests, were all rated highly—between 3.99 and 4.69. All but 4 of these 35 skills weretaught in 74% or more of the courses. The 7 skills listedunder Grammar and Usage were taught, on average, in 69%of the courses, the lowest percentage of all six categories.See Table 1.4 for the median ratings and percentages taughtfor these six groups of skills.

These teachers indicated that the three most importantcriteria used in the evaluation of student writing wereDeveloping ideas using relevant examples and details; Usinga clear beginning, middle, and ending; and Writing unifiedand coherent text, in that order. See Table 1.5 for a listing ofthe top-rated criteria.

Of the 76 skills listed, the high school teachers rated thefollowing as the 4 most important skills in their courses:Developing logical arguments and supporting them withvalid evidence; Making decisions about introductions, con-clusions, or transitional devices; Selecting a topic, formulat-ing a thesis; and Editing and proofreading, in that order. SeeTable 1.9 for the full response data.

College faculty indicated that the skills listed underWriting as Process were all more than moderately importantas prerequisites to their courses, with the entry-level-courseinstructors giving them a median rating of 3.64 and theESL/Developmental instructors giving them a median ratingof 3.77. As the high school teachers did, the college instruc-tors ranked the 3 most important process skills as Selectinga topic, formulating a thesis; Editing and proofreading; andRevising focusing on content rather than mechanics. Thecollege instructors rated only 7 of the 13 Purposes of Writingas at least moderately important as prerequisites to theircourses. The entry-level-course instructors gave the group amedian rating of 3.38, and the ESL/Developmental instruc-tors gave them a median rating of 3.44. See Table 1.3 for alisting of the top-rated writing purposes. The college instruc-tors rated Evaluating source materials critically as the 5thmost important skill, but the high school teachers rated it 7thon their list and the middle and junior high school teachersrated it 11th on theirs.

The items in the next six sections, which represent thecontent of the EPAS English Tests, were all rated highly—between 3.46 and 4.41 by the entry-level-course instructorsand between 3.67 and 4.43 by the ESL/Developmentalinstructors. See Table 1.4 for the median ratings for these sixgroups of skills.

9

The entry-level-course instructors indicated that the threemost important criteria used in the evaluation of student writ-ing were Developing ideas using relevant examples anddetails; Writing unified and coherent text; and Developingideas using appropriate organizational strategy, in that order.The ESL/Developmental instructors came up with the samegroup but switched the order of the top two criteria. SeeTable 1.5 for a listing of the top-rated criteria.

Of the 78 skills listed, the entry-level-course instructorsrated the following as the most important prerequisite skill fortheir courses: Using word processing software programs towrite, synthesize, analyze, manipulate, and present informa-tion. The ESL/Developmental instructors rated that skill asthe second most important one for their courses, afterPunctuating end of sentence. See Table 1.9 for the fullresponse data.

10

Table 1.3Mean Ratings (and Ranks) of the Top Purposes of Writing, by Respondent Group

Middle school & junior high High school College entry- College ESL/

school language language arts level-course developmentalCriteria arts teachers teachers instructors instructors

Developing logical 4.41 (3) 4.69 (1) 4.06 (1) 4.23 (1)arguments & supportingthem with valid evidence

Writing an argumentative 4.49 (2) 4.53 (2) 3.78 (4) 3.97 (3)or persuasive essay

Writing expository prose 4.55 (1) 4.51 (3) 3.86 (3) 3.90 (4)

Interpreting literary texts 4.22 (5) 4.46 (4) 2.68 (11) 2.81 (9)

Analyzing an issue 4.14 (6) 4.38 (5) 3.87 (2) 4.07 (2)or problem

Table 1.4Ranking of Major Writing Skill Categories, by Respondent Group

(Mean Rating, Median % Taught at Secondary School Level)

Middle school & Rank junior high High school College entry- College ESL/

(1 = most school language language arts level-course developmentalimportant) arts teachers teachers instructors instructors

1 Writing (4.60, 92%) Writing (4.58, 96%) Grammar & (4.07) Sentence (4.15)Strategy Strategy Usage Structure

2 Organization (4.55, 92%) Sentence (4.47, 90%) Sentence (4.05) Grammar & (4.13)Structure Structure Usage

3 Punctuation (4.45, 88%) Organization (4.46, 92%) Writing (3.99) Organization (4.11)Strategy

4 Grammar & (4.38, 79%) Style (4.37, 92%) Organization (3.96) Writing (4.01)Usage Strategy

5 Sentence (4.36, 84%) Punctuation (4.36, 83%) Punctuation (3.85) Punctuation (3.95)Structure

6 Style (4.25, 84%) Grammar & (4.26, 69%) Style (3.66) Style (3.81)Usage

The survey results support the importance of all six majoraspects of writing measured in the EPAS English Tests—punctuation, grammar and usage, sentence structure, strat-egy, organization, and style—at all grade levels. Theseappraisals echoed those of ACT’s 1995 and 1998 surveys. Italso supports the importance of the general construct of thetest: to measure students’ abilities to edit (for standard writ-ten English) and revise (on the basis of content and rhetori-cal effect) given pieces of short writing. ACT believes that itscurrent EPAS English Test specifications achieve a balance,across all six aspects of writing measured, appropriate forthe purposes of the tests.

These survey results also support the development of theACT Writing Test, a new optional component that will providea direct measure of students’ writing. In particular, theresponses summarized in Table 1.3 support the appropriate-ness of a test that will encourage students to develop logicalarguments and support them with valid evidence and to ana-lyze issues or problems. The survey responses support theimportance of these writing purposes as indicators of readi-ness for success at the college level. Similarly, theresponses summarized in Table 1.5 provide strong evidenceof agreement across secondary and postsecondary levelsconcerning the importance of these writing skills in terms ofevaluating student writing, and as features of a scoringrubric.

11

Table 1.5Mean Ratings (and Ranks) of the Top Criteria for Evaluating Student Writing, by Respondent Group

Middle school & junior high High school College entry- College ESL/

school language language arts level-course developmentalCriteria arts teachers teachers instructors instructors

Developing ideas using 4.69 (4) 4.78 (1) 4.60 (1) 4.55 (2)relevant examples & details

Writing unified & coherent 4.70 (2) 4.77 (2) 4.56 (2) 4.60 (1)text

Using a clear beginning, 4.82 (1) 4.77 (2) 4.26 (4) 4.34 (5)middle, and ending

Developing ideas using 4.62 (5) 4.65 (4) 4.36 (3) 4.42 (3)appropriate organizationalstrategy

Using correct grammar, 4.70 (3) 4.63 (5) 4.21 (6) 4.35 (4)usage, & mechanics

Writing appropriately 4.41 (6) 4.46 (6) 4.22 (5) 4.16 (6)for purpose & audience

Panel Discussions

In early December 2002, ACT convened a NationalWriting Curriculum Advisory Panel in Iowa City. The panelmembers were selected to ensure a broad representation ofsecondary and postsecondary institutions and organizationssuch as the National Council of Teachers of English and theNational Writing Project. The panel included some of theforemost experts in writing instruction, writing assessment,and ESL and developmental writing. (See Table 1.6.) ACTstaff discussed the curriculum survey results and otherresearch of state standards and assessments with thesepanelists, who agreed that the EPAS English Tests provide auseful estimate of students’ writing skills for the purposes forwhich the tests are used. At the same time, they agreed withthe recommendations of the 1998 panel that a direct meas-ure of writing would provide additional important informationabout students’ readiness for college-level work. Theyapproved of ACT’s Standards for Transition, which they feelprovide valuable information that can have a beneficial influ-ence on classroom instruction.

Prior to the panel meeting, each panelist wrote a shortpaper in response to the following request: Please describesome of the key features of what you would consider an ideal

direct writing assessment to be used for the purpose of sup-porting decisions about college admissions and/or place-ment into beginning college writing courses. There weremany common themes or threads in those papers, and thosethemes coincided with some of the key findings that thepanel drew from the survey results and ACT’s otherresearch. The discussions of these common themes andthreads resulted in a draft of descriptors of what studentsshould be able to do to succeed in first-year college writingcourses. (See Table 1.8.) The panel also worked to developa writing prompt format that would be fair to all students,encourage college-level writing, and give students the oppor-tunity to perform to the best of their abilities in the designated30-minute time period.

ACT took from the panel meeting a consensus that theEPAS English Test construct maintains its relevancy, thatthere continues to be strong evidence supporting the EPASEnglish Tests as valid measures of the construct, and thatthe Writing Test conceptualized by the panel would comple-ment and enhance the information already provided by theEnglish Tests.

12

Table 1.6ACT’s 2002 National Writing Curriculum Advisory Panelists

Name Title and affiliation

Mr. Dale Allender Associate Executive Director, National Council of Teachers of English

Dr. Bonne August Professor of English, Kingsborough Community College, City University of New York

Dr. Beverly Ann Chin Professor of English, University of Montana

Ms. Jan Clinard Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education in Montana

Ms. Mary Carmen Cruz English Language Arts Teacher, Cholla High Magnet High School, Tucson, Arizona

Dr. Elyse Eidman-Aadahl Professor of English, University of California at Berkeley

Ms. Bobbi Ciriza Houtchens English Language Arts Teacher, Arroyo Valley High School, San Bernardino,California

Dr. Brian Huot Associate Professor of English, University of Louisville, Kentucky

Dr. Barbara Kroll Professor of English, California State University, Northridge

Dr. Sandra Murphy Associate Professor of English Education, University of California at Davis

Mr. Christopher Saheed English Language Arts Teacher, Cambridge Rindge and Latin High School,Cambridge, Massachusetts

English Test Specifications

Table 1.7 summarizes the specifications for theEXPLORE, PLAN, and ACT Assessment English Tests byshowing the number (and proportion) of test questions ineach test.

Several features of this coordinated set of English testingprograms can be seen in this summary of test specifications.First, as the tests assess higher levels along the content con-tinua, the emphasis of the assessment shifts fromusage/mechanics skills like punctuation to more complex,global skills related to strategy, organization, and style. Also,as the target grade level of the testing program increases, so

do the number of questions, the number of passages, andthe length of the passages. These shifts reflect the expectedchange in level of sophistication of the examinee population.

The multiple-choice test questions derive from a domainof specific language components that educators agree areimportant to clear communication. The language compo-nents are not tested in isolation, but rather within the contextof a passage; their listing here is not meant to be a prescrip-tion for language arts education, but merely a means ofdescribing the kinds of writing abilities indirectly measuredby the tests.

13

Table 1.7English Test Specifications

Testing program

Content area EXPLORE PLAN ACT Assessment

Punctuation 6 (.15) 7 (.14) 10 (.13)

Grammar & Usage 8 (.20) 9 (.18) 12 (.16)

Sentence Structure 11 (.28) 14 (.28) 18 (.24)

Strategy 5 (.12) 6 (.12) 12 (.16)

Organization 5 (.12) 7 (.14) 11 (.15)

Style 5 (.12) 7 (.14) 12 (.16)

Total 40 50 75

Passages 4 4 5

Passage Length 300 words 300 words 325 words

English Language Continuum Content Descriptions

Punctuation. The items in this category test the exami-nee’s understanding of the conventions of internal and end-of-sentence punctuation, with emphasis on the capabilities ofpunctuation to remove ambiguity and clarify meaning.

Punctuating breaks in thoughtEnd of a sentence (period, exclamation point,

question mark)Between clauses of compound sentences when

conjunction is omitted or when clauses containcommas

Before a conjunctive adverb joining clauses of acompound sentence

Parenthetical elements (comma, dash, parentheses)

Punctuating relationships and sequencesAvoiding ambiguityIndicating possessivesIndicating items or simple phrases in a seriesIndicating restrictive/essential or

nonrestrictive/nonessential elements (e.g.,participial phrases, subordinate clauses,appositives)

Avoiding unnecessary punctuationBetween subject and predicateBetween verb and objectBetween adjective and noun (modifier and modified

element)Between noun and prepositionBetween preposition and objectBetween two coordinate elements or correlativesWithin series already linked by conjunctionsBetween intensive and antecedent

Grammar and Usage. The items in this category test theexaminee’s understanding of agreement between subjectand verb, between pronoun and antecedent, and betweenmodifiers and the words modified; formation of verb tenses;pronoun case; formation of comparative and superlativeadjectives and adverbs; and idiomatic usage.

Assuring grammatical agreementPredicate with subjects of varying complexity

(including compound subjects, collective nouns,sentences beginning with there or where)

Pronoun with antecedent (only when the relationshipis clear)

Adjectives and adverbs with their correspondingnouns and verbs

Forming verbsTenses of regular and irregular verbsCompound tenses

Using pronounsUsing the proper form of the possessives and

distinguishing them from adverbs (there) andcontractions (it’s and who’s)

Using the appropriate case of a pronoun

Forming modifiersForming comparatives and superlatives of adjectives

and adverbsUsing the appropriate comparative or superlative form

depending on the context

Observing usage conventionsUsing the idioms of standard written English

Sentence Structure. The items in this category test theexaminee’s understanding of relationships between andamong clauses, management and placement of modifiers,and shifts in construction.

Relating clausesAvoiding faulty subordination, coordination, and

parallelismAvoiding run-on and fused sentencesAvoiding comma splicesAvoiding sentence fragments (except those required

in dialogue or otherwise defensible as rhetoricallyappropriate in their context)

Using modifiersConstructing sentences so that antecedents are clear

and unambiguous (avoiding squinters anddanglers)

Placing modifiers so that they modify the appropriateelement

Avoiding unnecessary or inappropriate shifts inconstruction

Person or number of pronounVoice of verbTense of verbMood of verb

Strategy. The items in this category test the examinee’sunderstanding of the appropriateness of expression in rela-tion to audience and purpose; the effect of adding, revising,or deleting supporting material (e.g., the strengthening ofcompositions with appropriate supporting material); and theeffective choice of opening, transitional, and closing sen-tences. These items focus on the processes of writing: thechoices made and strategies employed by a writer in the actof composing or revising.

Making decisions about the appropriateness ofexpression for audience and purpose

Making decisions about adding, revising, or deletingsupporting material

Making decisions about cohesion devices: openings,transitions, and closings

Selecting an effective statement relative to the essayas a whole

Selecting an effective statement relative to a specificparagraph or paragraphs

14

Organization. The items in this category test the exami-nee’s understanding of the organization of ideas and the rel-evance of statements in context (order, coherence, unity).

Establishing logical orderChoosing the appropriate conjunctive adverb or

transitional expressionPlacing sentences in a logical locationOrdering sentences in a logical sequence (orderly

movement within paragraphs)Ordering a series of phrases in a logical wayBeginning a paragraph in the appropriate placeOrdering paragraphs in a logical sequence

Judging relevancyOmitting irrelevant material (or retaining relevant

material)

Style. The items in this category test the examinee’s under-standing of rhetorically effective management of sentenceelements, clarity of pronoun references, economy in writing,and precision and appropriateness of words and images.

Managing sentence elements effectivelyRhetorically effective and logical subordination,

coordination, and parallelismAvoiding ambiguity of pronoun reference (only when

the relationship is problematic)

Editing and revising effectivelyAvoiding clearly excessive or inappropriate wordinessAvoiding redundancy

Choosing words to fit meaning and functionMaintaining the level of style and toneChoosing words and images that are specific, precise,

and clear in terms of their context and connotation;recognizing and avoiding mixed metaphors andawkward or nonsensical expressions

No single test form is expected to assess the student’sunderstanding of all of these areas. Rather, the content ofthe test is sampled from the domain described above and ismeasured in the context of the passages. Also, the tests donot assess memorized rules of grammar. The emphasis is onthe application of sound writing practices to the revising andediting of prose that is typical of that encountered in schooland in life in general.

Writing Test Specifications

The new ACT Writing Test will be introduced nationally asan optional component to the ACT Assessment in the2004–05 school year. It will be an achievement test designedto measure students’ writing proficiency and to complementthe information currently provided by the ACT English Test.Students will have 30 minutes to write on a single writingprompt. The prompt will provide a rhetorical situation—anissue or a problem with two alternative positions or solutions.The examinees will then be asked to develop and support,through their writing, one of those positions or solutions or topropose a third alternative. The features embedded in the 6-point holistic scoring rubric will be based on a set of descrip-tors of what students should be able to do in order tosucceed in first-year college writing courses. (See Table 1.8.)

15

Table 1.8ACT Writing Test Descriptors (What Students Should Be Able to Do)

1. Show the ability to make and articulate judgments by• taking a position on an issue or problem.• demonstrating the ability to grasp the complexity of issues or problems by considering implications or

complications.

2. Sustain a position by focusing on the topic throughout the writing.

3. Develop a position by• presenting support or evidence using specific details.• using logical reasoning that shows the writer’s ability to distinguish between assertions and evidence

and to make inferences based on support or evidence.

4. Organize and present ideas in a logical way by• logically grouping and sequencing ideas.• using transitional devices to identify logical connections and tie ideas together.

5. Communicate clearly by using language effectively and by observing the conventions of standard writtenEnglish.

16

Tabl

e 1.

9W

riti

ng

Cu

rric

ulu

m S

urv

ey R

esu

lts:

Per

cen

t Tau

gh

t,M

ean

Rat

ing

,an

d R

ank

for

Eac

h C

on

ten

t/S

kill,

by R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p

Mid

dle

/jun

ior

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e 1

Co

lleg

e 2

%M

ean

%M

ean

Mea

nM

ean

Wri

tin

g s

kills

an

d c

lass

roo

m t

ech

niq

ues

Taug

htra

ting

SD

Ran

kTa

ught

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

Wri

tin

g a

s p

roce

ss

Pre

writ

ing,

bra

inst

orm

ing

or o

ther

tec

hniq

ues

of in

vent

ion

964.

590.

792

944.

330.

894

3.79

1.16

53.

901.

165

Map

ping

, cl

uste

ring,

out

linin

g, o

r ot

her

orga

niza

tiona

l too

ls96

4.45

0.84

490

4.09

1.03

63.

481.

156

3.63

1.18

6

Sel

ectin

g a

topi

c, f

orm

ulat

ing

a th

esis

914.

540.

793

974.

680.

651

4.21

1.01

14.

251.

021

Col

labo

ratin

g w

ith p

eers

in r

evie

ws

of d

rafts

893.

991.

088

913.

891.

0710

3.31

1.22

93.

221.

2610

Edi

ting

and

proo

frea

ding

984.

720.

611

984.

670.

642

4.08

1.00

24.

081.

082

Rev

isin

g fo

cusi

ng o

n co

nten

t ra

ther

tha

n m

echa

nics

914.

320.

866

944.

340.

893

4.04

1.05

33.

991.

093

Ref

lect

ing

on a

nd e

valu

atin

g on

e’s

own

writ

ing

934.

370.

905

924.

310.

925

3.95

1.06

43.

971.

084

Dev

elop

ing

one’

s ow

n vo

ice

as a

writ

er79

4.08

1.10

781

4.06

1.07

73.

311.

169

3.33

1.21

7

Cha

ngin

g di

ctio

n or

ton

e of

writ

ing

depe

ndin

g on

aud

ienc

e ad

dres

sed

723.

811.

1710

863.

981.

038

3.33

1.15

83.

301.

198

Cha

ngin

g fo

cus

of p

aper

dep

endi

ng o

n au

dien

ce a

ddre

ssed

743.

901.

099

823.

921.

089

3.35

1.14

73.

281.

229

Wri

tin

g a

s p

roce

ss m

edia

n r

atin

g91

4.34

914.

203.

643.

77

Pu

rpo

ses

of

wri

tin

g

Writ

ing

to e

xpre

ss o

ne’s

fee

lings

934.

400.

904

854.

031.

0810

2.81

1.19

82.

981.

298

Writ

ing

expo

sito

ry p

rose

914.

550.

801

934.

510.

843

3.86

1.06

33.

901.

154

Writ

ing

an a

rgum

enta

tive

or p

ersu

asiv

e es

say

854.

490.

822

904.

530.

832

3.78

1.17

43.

971.

123

Writ

ing

a pr

oces

s or

“ho

w-t

o” p

aper

633.

971.

177

493.

391.

3511

2.69

1.18

102.

721.

2611

Writ

ing

a re

sear

ch p

aper

593.

901.

289

724.

251.

106

3.39

1.34

63.

441.

347

Writ

ing

fictio

n, t

ellin

g a

stor

y76

3.91

1.15

859

3.38

1.27

121.

971.

0413

2.17

1.25

13

Writ

ing

a pa

per

expl

aini

ng a

tec

hnic

al p

roce

ss30

3.34

1.33

1327

2.98

1.33

132.

161.

0912

2.28

1.16

12

Writ

ing

liter

ary

or m

edia

ana

lysi

s55

3.70

1.25

1286

4.23

1.00

72.

711.

289

2.80

1.32

10

Dev

elop

ing

logi

cal a

rgum

ents

and

sup

port

ing

them

with

val

id e

vide

nce

874.

410.

883

944.

690.

701

4.06

1.11

14.

231.

091

Eva

luat

ing

and

criti

quin

g lo

gica

l pro

ofs

and

supp

ortin

g m

ater

ial

433.

811.

3010

654.

191.

119

3.38

1.28

73.

631.

336

in t

heir

own

argu

men

tativ

e pa

pers

Eva

luat

ing

sour

ce m

ater

ials

crit

ical

ly49

3.79

1.22

1176

4.23

1.04

73.

651.

265

3.67

1.29

5

Ana

lyzi

ng a

n is

sue

or p

robl

em69

4.14

0.98

681

4.38

0.94

53.

871.

092

4.07

1.07

2

Inte

rpre

ting

liter

ary

text

s80

4.22

1.05

591

4.46

0.88

42.

681.

3211

2.81

1.40

9

Pu

rpo

ses

of

wri

tin

g m

edia

n r

atin

g63

3.91

764.

233.

383.

44

17

Tabl

e 1.

9W

riti

ng

Cu

rric

ulu

m S

urv

ey R

esu

lts:

Per

cen

t Tau

gh

t,M

ean

Rat

ing

,an

d R

ank

for

Eac

h C

on

ten

t/S

kill,

by R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p (

con

tin

ued

)

Mid

dle

/jun

ior

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e 1

Co

lleg

e 2

%M

ean

%M

ean

Mea

nM

ean

Wri

tin

g s

kills

an

d c

lass

roo

m t

ech

niq

ues

Taug

htra

ting

SD

Ran

kTa

ught

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

Wri

tin

g s

trat

egy

Mak

ing

deci

sion

s ab

out

the

appr

opria

tene

ss o

f ex

pres

sion

79

4.25

0.98

1188

4.28

0.93

123.

691.

059

3.67

1.22

14

for

audi

ence

and

pur

pose

Mak

ing

deci

sion

s ab

out

addi

ng,

revi

sing

, or

del

etin

g su

ppor

ting

mat

eria

ls92

4.60

0.69

496

4.58

0.69

34.

000.

993

4.01

1.06

7

Mak

ing

deci

sion

s ab

out

intr

oduc

tions

, co

nclu

sion

s, o

r tr

ansi

tiona

l dev

ices

964.

680.

671

984.

690.

611

3.99

1.01

44.

091.

054

Wri

tin

g s

trat

egy

med

ian

rat

ing

924.

6096

4.58

3.99

4.01

Org

aniz

atio

n o

f w

riti

ng

Judg

ing

the

rele

vanc

y of

mat

eria

l80

4.27

1.03

1088

4.46

0.78

63.

960.

965

4.11

0.97

3

Beg

inni

ng a

par

agra

ph in

the

app

ropr

iate

pla

ce92

4.55

0.79

587

4.43

0.84

73.

841.

077

4.08

1.03

5

Cho

osin

g th

e ap

prop

riate

tra

nsiti

on w

ord

or p

hras

e92

4.50

0.81

693

4.39

0.79

93.

651.

0511

3.98

0.98

8

Ord

erin

g se

nten

ces

in a

logi

cal w

ay93

4.65

0.71

392

4.55

0.74

44.

180.

892

4.38

0.88

1

Ord

erin

g pa

ragr

aphs

in a

logi

cal s

eque

nce

934.

670.

722

934.

620.

672

4.21

0.90

14.

370.

872

Org

aniz

atio

n o

f w

riti

ng

med

ian

rat

ing

924.

5592

4.46

3.96

4.11

Sty

le

Cho

osin

g w

ords

and

imag

es t

hat

are

spec

ific,

pre

cise

, an

d 88

4.49

0.84

794

4.55

0.73

43.

920.

966

4.06

0.93

6

clea

r in

ter

ms

of t

heir

cont

ext

Mai

ntai

ning

con

sist

ency

of

styl

e an

d to

ne73

4.14

1.03

1384

4.27

0.90

133.

601.

0013

3.76

1.01

13

Avo

idin

g am

bigu

ity o

f pr

onou

n re

fere

nce

834.

211.

0112

924.

380.

8510

3.79

1.06

83.

911.

049

Avo

idin

g w

ordi

ness

854.

280.

939

924.

350.

8511

3.63

1.03

123.

791.

0311

Avo

idin

g re

dund

ancy

874.

330.

888

934.

410.

828

3.68

1.02

103.

821.

0610

Usi

ng r

heto

rical

ly e

ffect

ive

subo

rdin

atio

n, c

oord

inat

ion,

and

par

alle

lism

453.

681.

2114

764.

071.

0414

3.58

1.07

143.

771.

0512

Sty

le m

edia

n r

atin

g84

4.25

924.

373.

663.

81

Rh

eto

rica

l ski

lls m

ean

imp

ort

ance

rat

ing

4.38

4.43

3.84

3.99

18

Tabl

e 1.

9W

riti

ng

Cu

rric

ulu

m S

urv

ey R

esu

lts:

Per

cen

t Tau

gh

t,M

ean

Rat

ing

,an

d R

ank

for

Eac

h C

on

ten

t/S

kill,

by R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p (

con

tin

ued

)

Mid

dle

/jun

ior

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e 1

Co

lleg

e 2

%M

ean

%M

ean

Mea

nM

ean

Wri

tin

g s

kills

an

d c

lass

roo

m t

ech

niq

ues

Taug

htra

ting

SD

Ran

kTa

ught

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

Sen

ten

ce s

tru

ctu

re

Avo

idin

g fa

ulty

sub

ordi

natio

n an

d co

ordi

natio

n of

cla

uses

553.

861.

2021

744.

120.

9918

3.77

1.05

164.

010.

9312

Avo

idin

g ru

n-on

and

fus

ed s

ente

nces

964.

670.

663

944.

600.

742

4.28

0.96

24.

380.

882

Avo

idin

g co

mm

a sp

lices

814.

290.

9214

874.

430.

857

4.13

1.05

64.

201.

007

Avo

idin

g se

nten

ce f

ragm

ents

984.

730.

642

944.

630.

711

4.25

1.02

34.

350.

883

Avo

idin

g da

nglin

g or

mis

plac

ed m

odifi

ers

643.

981.

1220

784.

220.

9517

3.71

1.10

193.

841.

0818

Avo

idin

g in

appr

opria

te s

hifts

in t

ense

, vo

ice,

moo

d, n

umbe

r, or

per

son

874.

430.

839

934.

500.

754

3.97

1.02

104.

091.

0110

Sen

ten

ce s

tru

ctu

re m

edia

n r

atin

g84

4.36

904.

474.

054.

15

Pu

nct

uat

ion

Pun

ctua

ting

end

of s

ente

nce

964.

740.

661

774.

570.

873

4.41

0.98

14.

430.

991

Pun

ctua

ting

betw

een

clau

ses

of c

ompo

und

sent

ence

s 88

4.50

0.78

784

4.43

0.83

73.

941.

0811

4.04

1.06

11

whe

n co

njun

ctio

n is

om

itted

Pun

ctua

ting

befo

re a

con

junc

tive

adve

rb jo

inin

g cl

ause

s 72

4.25

1.01

1679

4.31

0.90

143.

771.

1116

3.82

1.10

19

of a

com

poun

d se

nten

ce

Pun

ctua

ting

pare

nthe

tical

ele

men

ts (

com

mas

, pa

rent

hese

s)80

4.23

1.00

1783

4.29

0.94

153.

691.

0821

3.78

1.08

20

Pun

ctua

ting

to in

dica

te p

osse

ssio

n93

4.58

0.75

583

4.48

0.84

54.

121.

057

4.23

1.01

4

Pun

ctua

ting

esse

ntia

l/non

esse

ntia

l ele

men

ts,

844.

310.

9013

834.

330.

8812

3.70

1.08

203.

851.

0517

subo

rdin

ate

clau

ses,

app

ositi

ves

Pun

ctua

ting

item

s in

a s

erie

s93

4.60

0.73

482

4.39

0.91

93.

921.

0913

4.01

1.07

12

Avo

idin

g un

nece

ssar

y pu

nctu

atio

n (c

omm

as)

874.

400.

8311

844.

320.

9013

3.74

1.09

183.

891.

0816

Usi

ng a

sem

icol

on t

o in

dica

te a

rel

atio

nshi

p be

twee

n 86

4.28

0.94

153.

601.

1622

3.74

1.13

22

clos

ely

rela

ted

inde

pend

ent

clau

ses

Usi

ng a

col

on t

o in

trod

uce

an e

xam

ple

or a

n el

abor

atio

n80

1.81

0.97

233.

461.

1423

3.67

1.17

23

Pu

nct

uat

ion

med

ian

rat

ing

*88

4.45

834.

363.

853.

95

* M

edia

n ra

tings

do

not

incl

ude

the

final

tw

o sk

ills,

whi

ch w

ere

not

aske

d of

all

resp

onde

nt g

roup

s.

Gra

mm

ar a

nd

usa

ge

Ass

urin

g gr

amm

atic

al a

gree

men

t91

4.57

0.74

689

4.48

0.83

54.

160.

995

4.21

1.01

6

For

min

g te

nses

of

regu

lar

and

irreg

ular

ver

bs79

4.42

0.86

1069

4.26

0.98

164.

201.

024

4.23

1.03

4

For

min

g co

mpo

und

tens

es59

4.03

1.12

1957

3.99

1.10

213.

911.

0914

3.93

1.08

15

Usi

ng t

he p

rope

r fo

rm o

f po

sses

sive

pro

noun

s89

4.44

0.84

879

4.38

0.90

104.

101.

028

4.16

1.05

8

Usi

ng t

he a

ppro

pria

te c

ase

of a

pro

noun

874.

380.

9212

794.

370.

9011

4.07

1.04

94.

131.

059

For

min

g m

odifi

ers

714.

181.

0018

674.

101.

0319

3.82

1.07

153.

781.

0720

Usi

ng t

he id

iom

s of

sta

ndar

d w

ritte

n E

nglis

h65

3.83

1.14

2269

4.04

1.05

203.

941.

0511

3.99

1.08

14

Gra

mm

ar a

nd

usa

ge

med

ian

rat

ing

794.

3869

4.26

4.07

4.13

Usa

ge/

mec

han

ics

mea

n im

po

rtan

ce r

atin

g4.

354.

343.

944.

03

19

Tabl

e 1.

9W

riti

ng

Cu

rric

ulu

m S

urv

ey R

esu

lts:

Per

cen

t Tau

gh

t,M

ean

Rat

ing

,an

d R

ank

for

Eac

h C

on

ten

t/S

kill,

by R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p (

con

tin

ued

)

Mid

dle

/jun

ior

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e 1

Co

lleg

e 2

%M

ean

%M

ean

Mea

nM

ean

Wri

tin

g s

kills

an

d c

lass

roo

m t

ech

niq

ues

Taug

htra

ting

SD

Ran

kTa

ught

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

Res

earc

h s

kills

Gat

herin

g an

d sy

nthe

sizi

ng r

esou

rces

694.

231.

052

834.

450.

911

3.48

1.30

23.

601.

322

Inte

grat

ing

own

idea

s w

ith o

ther

s68

4.24

1.02

183

4.41

0.91

23.

681.

271

3.77

1.25

1

For

mul

atin

g op

en-e

nded

res

earc

h qu

estio

ns45

3.77

1.24

362

4.05

1.17

33.

221.

293

3.25

1.30

3

Res

earc

h s

kills

med

ian

rat

ing

684.

2383

4.41

3.48

3.60

Mid

dle

/jun

ior

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e 1

Co

lleg

e 2

%M

ean

%M

ean

Mea

nM

ean

Eva

luat

ion

of

wri

tin

gTa

ught

ratin

gS

DR

ank

Taug

htra

ting

SD

Ran

kra

ting

SD

Ran

kra

ting

SD

Ran

k

Cri

teri

on

Writ

ing

appr

opria

tely

for

pur

pose

and

aud

ienc

e4.

410.

846

4.46

0.73

64.

220.

885

4.16

0.93

6

Writ

ing

unifi

ed a

nd c

oher

ent

text

4.70

0.66

24.

770.

482

4.56

0.72

24.

600.

731

Dev

elop

ing

idea

s us

ing

appr

opria

te o

rgan

izat

iona

l str

ateg

y4.

620.

675

4.65

0.60

44.

360.

823

4.42

0.83

3

Dev

elop

ing

idea

s us

ing

rele

vant

exa

mpl

es a

nd d

etai

ls4.

690.

624

4.78

0.47

14.

600.

701

4.55

0.75

2

Usi

ng a

cle

ar b

egin

ning

, m

iddl

e, a

nd e

ndin

g4.

820.

571

4.77

0.52

24.

260.

934

4.34

0.93

5

Usi

ng v

oice

4.05

1.02

94.

050.

9110

3.51

1.04

103.

671.

0210

Usi

ng p

reci

se w

ord

choi

ce4.

310.

838

4.33

0.80

83.

830.

917

3.95

0.95

7

Usi

ng a

ppro

pria

te w

ord

tone

3.91

1.03

104.

120.

869

3.72

0.91

83.

720.

949

Usi

ng s

ente

nce

varie

ty4.

370.

817

4.37

0.76

73.

710.

999

3.83

1.01

8

Usi

ng c

orre

ct g

ram

mar

, us

age,

and

mec

hani

cs4.

700.

603

4.63

0.63

54.

210.

916

4.35

0.86

4

Eva

luat

ion

of

wri

tin

g m

edia

n r

atin

g4.

524.

554.

224.

25

State Standards

All state standards documents include a common core ofstandards within mathematics influenced by the NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics’ Curriculum andEvaluation Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM, 1989)and Principles and Standards for School Mathematics(NCTM, 2000). While the state standards differ in emphasisand manner of organization, they typically include mathe-matical reasoning, problem solving, and integration ofmathematics topics. The skills and knowledge measured on ACT’s EPAS Mathematics Tests align well with thecommonalties of skills and knowledge covered within thestate standards documents and also with the NationalAssessment of Educational Progress MathematicsFramework. In other words, the design of the MathematicsTests, which was based on ACT’s Project Silver researchproject of the 1980s and has been regularly reviewed andrefined in light of subsequent ACT National CurriculumSurveys, continues to accurately reflect school curricula.

Educator Surveys

ACT developed four Mathematics surveys and sent themto a total of 5,296 mathematics teachers (middle school/jun-ior high, high school, and college) and department chairs(middle school/junior high and high school). The primarysource for these samples was Market Data Retrieval (MDR),a company specializing in the education market. Surveyrecipients were sampled from the MDR database usingselection criteria provided by ACT to ensure that a variety ofgeographic regions and schools were represented. Furthercriteria were based on whether the recipient taught one ofthe eligible courses, or, for the fourth sample, whether therecipient was a mathematics chair in middle school/juniorhigh or high school. Table 3.1 lists the Mathematics coursesused as selection criteria. ACT mailed curriculum surveys tothe number of teachers and department chairs indicated inthe table.

37

Chapter 3Mathematics

Table 3.1Mathematics Courses Used as MDR Sample Selection Criteria


Middle School/Junior High Mathematics, Pre-Algebra, Algebra, Geometry 1,197

High School Mathematics, Pre-Algebra, Algebra, Pre-Calculus, 2,400Calculus, Geometry, Statistics, Trigonometry

Postsecondary Finite Math, Introduction to College Math, 400Discrete Math, Introduction to Probability,Introduction to Statistics, Probability and Statistics

Algebra, College Algebra, Precalculus, College Geometry, 400Geometry

Calculus and Analytic Geometry, Calculus and 400Functional Analysis, Calculus I, II, and III

Department Chairs Middle School/Junior High Mathematics, 499High School Mathematics

A total of 1,174 surveys were returned completed, yield-ing an overall response rate of 22% for the four surveys. Theresponse rates varied slightly across the four sample groups.Response rates for all four surveys are listed in Table 3.2.

The survey respondents included individuals from all50 states and the District of Columbia. The representation ofthe total respondent pool by region was 30.7% from the East,32.5% from the Midwest, 16.2% from the Southwest, and20.6% from the West. Analyses of the middle school/juniorhigh, high school, and postsecondary respondent poolsdetermined that they represented a wide variety ofgeographic locations and institutions. The department chairrespondent pool, however, was found to be biased towardsmaller schools. For this reason, survey results for thedepartment chairs are not included in the discussion thatfollows.

Respondents to the Mathematics surveys were asked toconsider lists of process and content skills. Middleschool/junior high and high school respondents were askedto indicate at what grade level each skill was first taught(introduced) to the typical college-bound student in theirschool districts. All respondents were asked to indicate thelevel of importance of each skill on a scale of 1 to 5, where1 represented not important, 3 represented moderatelyimportant, and 5 represented very important. Middleschool/junior high teachers were asked to rate the impor-tance of each skill as preparation for high school college-prep courses. High school teachers were to rate each skill aspreparation for college. Finally, postsecondary faculty wereto rate the importance of each skill as a prerequisite forentry-level coursework for one particular course—the coursethey taught that had the highest percentage of freshmen.

Middle school/junior high respondents were asked to con-sider a list of 65 content skills that span the core contentcovered in middle school/junior high math courses. Highschool and postsecondary respondents were asked to con-sider a list of 83 content skills that span the range of contentcovered in high school and college entry-level math courses

(a broader range than is covered by the ACT AssessmentMathematics Test). Both lists of skills were identical to thelists of content skills used in the 1998 survey.

All respondents were also asked to consider a list of20 process skills related to the processing of mathematicalinformation (e.g., Choosing an appropriate method for cal-culating, Using estimation to approximate solutions) that alsowere listed in the 1998 survey.

The Mathematics surveys also asked respondents a vari-ety of background questions. The middle school/junior highrespondents were asked to indicate the grade level of thestudents they taught and which of the course types theytaught (7th-grade General Math, 8th-grade General Math,Pre-Algebra, Algebra, and/or Geometry). High schoolrespondents were also asked to indicate the grade level oftheir students and which of the course types they taught(Algebra, Geometry, Advanced Algebra, Trigonometry, Pre-Calculus/Calculus, Probability/Statistics, and/or DiscreteMath). Both middle school/junior high and high schoolrespondents were also asked how many years they hadbeen teaching, the title of the primary textbook series theyused, and a series of questions about the use of calculatorsin their classes and the types of calculators students used.Postsecondary mathematics faculty responded about thecourse they taught that had the highest percentage of fresh-men, listing the course type (Algebra, Geometry, Pre-Calculus, Calculus, Probability/Statistics, or Finite/DiscreteMath) and the course level (remedial, entry-level, or acceler-ated/honors/advanced placement). They were also asked to name the primary textbook they used, whether theypermitted or required the use of calculators in the course,and what type of calculator they permitted/required.

The middle school/junior high teachers indicated thatall 20 of the process skills were at least moderately importantas preparation for college-prep coursework in high school,with 15 of the process skills rated 4.0 or higher. Thoseprocess skills receiving the lowest ratings tended to be onesinvolving theorems and proofs and more sophisticated use of

38

Table 3.2Mathematics Survey Types and Response Rates




Postsecondary 1,200 324 27%


Total 5,296 1,174 22%

calculators. There were 11 of the process skills introducedbefore Grade 8 in at least 70% of the school systems repre-sented, and 14 of the process skills introduced before Grade9 in at least 70% of the school systems. The rank order of theprocess skills was essentially the same as in 1998.

The middle school/junior high teachers rated each of the65 content skills as at least moderately important, with 47 ofthe content skills rated 4.0 or higher. There were 21 of thecontent skills introduced before Grade 8 in at least 70% of theschools systems represented, and 41 of the content skillsintroduced before Grade 9 in at least 70% of the schoolsystems. The ranking of the content skills is very close to thatin 1998. Only 5 skills changed by at least 10 places in therankings. The 4 skills becoming more important are Findingthe slope of a line, Finding the median and mode, Solvingsystems of two linear equations in two variables algebraically,and Working with equations of parallel and perpendicularlines. The content skill Classifying plane geometric figuresbecame less important in the rankings by 10 places.

Approximately 40% of respondents require calculators inone of their classes, 55% make calculators optional in one oftheir classes, and 25% do not permit calculators in one oftheir classes. These percentages do not add up to 100%because teachers sometimes have different calculator poli-cies for the different classes that they teach. The most com-mon type of calculator recommended/required is a scientificcalculator, with significant percentages also for 4-functioncalculators and graphing calculators. Table 3.8 summarizescalculator-related responses for the middle school/juniorhigh teachers.

The high school teachers indicated that all 20 of theprocess skills were at least moderately important as prepa-ration for college mathematics courses, with 14 of theprocess skills rated 4.0 or higher. Those process skillsreceiving the lowest ratings tended to be the ones involvingtheorems and proofs, manipulatives, and more sophisticateduses of calculators. There were 12 of the process skills intro-duced before Grade 10 in at least 70% of the school systemsrepresented and 18 of the process skills introduced beforeGrade 12 in at least 70% of the school systems. The rankorder of the process skills was essentially the same as in1998. A notable exception was Recalling quickly basic facts,definitions, formulas, and algebraic procedures then usingthem correctly to solve a problem, which went from 13th in1998 to 5th in 2003.

The high school teachers rated each of the 83 contentskills as at least moderately important, with 41 of the contentskills rated 4.0 or higher. There were 15 of the content skillsintroduced before Grade 10 in at least 70% of the school sys-tems represented and 66 of the content skills introducedbefore Grade 12. The ranking of the content skills is veryclose to that in 1998. Only 8 skills changed by at least10 places in the rankings. The 6 skills becoming more impor-tant are Solving quadratic equations by factoring; Performing

polynomial long division; Using the discriminant; Finding themean, median, and mode; Determining the line of best-fit byeye for a set of data; and Working with correlations. The2 skills that became less important by at least 10 places areUsing the midpoint formula and Working with sigma notation.

Approximately 65% of respondents require calculators inone of their classes, 40% make calculators optional in one oftheir classes, and 5% do not permit calculators in one of theirclasses. These percentages do not add up to 100% becauseteachers sometimes have different calculator policies for thedifferent classes that they teach. The most common type ofcalculator recommended/required is a graphing calculator,with a significant percentage for scientific calculators andless than 10% for basic 4-function calculators. Table 3.8summarizes calculator-related responses for the high schoolteachers.

The college faculty, each having chosen a specific entry-level course on which to base their responses, indicated that11 of the 20 process skills were at least moderately importantas prerequisite for the course they chose. Those processskills receiving the lowest ratings tended to be the onesinvolving constructing proofs, using manipulatives and/orpictorial representations, and using the more sophisticatedcapabilities of calculators. The ranking of the process skillswas essentially the same as in 1998. Notable exceptionswere Recalling quickly basic facts, definitions, formulas, andalgebraic procedures then using them correctly to solve aproblem, which went from 8th in 1998 to 2nd in 2003, andApplying theorems to solve a problem, which went from 17thto 12th.

The college faculty rated 25 of the 83 content skills as atleast moderately important, with 8 of the content skills rated4.0 or higher. The ranking of the content skills is very closeto that in 1998. Only 4 skills changed by at least 10 places inthe rankings. The 2 becoming more important are Under-standing continuity and Determining maxima, minima, andpoints of inflection for functions. The 2 skills that became lessimportant by at least 10 places are Using counting tech-niques and Working with Venn diagrams.

Approximately 50% of respondents require calculators inthe course on which they based their responses, 40% makecalculators optional in that course, and 10% do not permitcalculators in that course. The most common type of calcu-lator recommended/required is a graphing calculator, with asignificant percentage for scientific calculators and less than10% for basic 4-function calculators. Table 3.8 summarizescalculator-related responses for the college faculty.

Tables 3.3 and 3.4 present the 5 process skills and the12 content skills, respectively, receiving the highest meanimportance ratings by respondent group. A skill is italicized ifall 3 groups ranked it high enough to be in the table. SeeTables 3.9 and 3.10 for the full response data.

39

40

Table 3.3Mathematics Process Skills Receiving the Highest Mean Importance Ratings, by Respondent Group

Rank(1 = most Middle school/important) junior high school teachers High school teachers College faculty

1 Solving problems posed in real-world Planning and carrying out a strategy Performing basic operations with settings and interpreting the solution for solving multistep problems a calculator

2 Reading and interpreting graphs, charts, Solving problems posed in real-world Recalling quickly basic facts, definitions,and other data representations settings and interpreting the solution formulas, and algebraic procedures then

using them correctly to solve a problem

3 Planning and carrying out a strategy Performing basic operations with Planning and carrying out a strategy for solving multistep problems a calculator for solving multistep problems

4 Recognizing and using patterns to Reading and interpreting graphs, charts, Solving problems posed in real-world solve problems and other data representations settings and interpreting the solution

5 Applying mathematical ideas to Recalling quickly basic facts, definitions, Recognizing and using patterns new contexts formulas, and algebraic procedures then to solve problems

using them correctly to solve a problem

Table 3.4Mathematics Content Skills Receiving the Highest Mean Importance Ratings, by Respondent Group


1 Performing addition, subtraction, Performing addition, subtraction, Performing addition, subtraction,multiplication, and division on signed multiplication, and division on signed multiplication, and division on signedrational numbers rational numbers rational numbers

2 Working with ratios and proportions Finding the slope of a line Evaluating algebraic expressionsby substitution

3 Working with percent (e.g., simple interest, Using the Pythagorean theorem Simplifying algebraic expressionstax, and markdowns)

4 Locating points in the coordinate plane† Solving linear equations and inequalities Solving linear equations andin one variable inequalities in one variable

5 Simplifying algebraic expressions Simplifying algebraic expressions Performing operations with integerexponents

6 Converting fractions to decimals and Evaluating algebraic expressions Finding the slope of a linedecimals to fractions† by substitution

7 Evaluating algebraic expressions Working with ratios and proportions Working with ratios and proportionsby substitution

8 Finding the mean* Working with linear relationships Working with number properties (e.g., divisibility, even/odd, and positive/negative)

9 Solving linear equations in one variable* Graphing linear equations in two variables Performing addition, subtraction, and multiplication of polynomials

10 Computing the area and perimeter Using the quadratic formula Computing a particular value of of polygons* a function

11 Finding the slope of a line Solving systems of two linear equations Working with linear relationshipsin two variables algebraically

12 Using the Pythagorean theorem Working with right triangle trigonometry Using the Pythagorean theorem

*The skill is a subset of a skill listed on the high school and college faculty surveys.

†The skill was included on the middle school/junior high survey only.

Curriculum Consultants

ACT asked eight mathematics educators, representingvarious teaching levels and areas of the country, to respondwith a short essay to each of five questions about theMathematics survey results, the EPAS Mathematics Tests,and the mathematics curriculum. Table 3.5 identifies theseeight consultants.

The consultants generally agreed that the survey resultsaccorded with their sense of the curriculum. They furtherconcurred that the results would provide helpful guidance totest development if interpreted with care, that is, with dueallowance for the perspective of each of the respondentgroups.

The EPAS Mathematics Tests are, in the consultants’opinions, well matched to school curricula and to college-level expectations. For example, the consultants found item

sets (which present examinees with a problem situation and2–4 items about it) and items couched in real-world contextsto be in line with the curriculum and to constitute an appro-priate proportion of the tests.

The consultants identified several trends in the mathe-matics curriculum. One instance is increased emphasis onprobability/statistics/data analysis topics. ACT will continueto monitor such changes and weigh the evidence to deter-mine whether changes in the EPAS Mathematics Test spec-ifications might be warranted.

At this time, ACT’s analysis of the survey results, togetherwith the consultants’ consensus, supports the generalapproach and the specific test specifications of the EPASMathematics Tests.

41

Table 3.5Mathematics Curriculum Consultants


Ms. Cindy J. Boyd Mathematics Teacher, Abilene High School, Abilene, Texas

Dr. Stan Chadick Professor of Mathematics, Northwestern State University, Natchitoches, Louisiana

Dr. Luis Ortiz-Franco Associate Professor, Department of Computer Science, Mathematics, and Physics,Chapman University, Orange, California

Mr. Dave Robathan Mathematics Teacher, Shasta High School, Redding, California

Mr. David J. Tschiggfrie Mathematics Teacher (recently retired), Washington Junior High School, Dubuque, Iowa Adjunct Professor of Mathematics, Northeast Iowa Community College

Dr. Zalman Usiskin Professor of Education, University of Chicago, Chicago, IllinoisDirector, University of Chicago School Mathematics Project

Ms. Stacey Weinand Mathematics and Science Partnership Coordinator, Oklahoma State Regents forHigher Education, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Dr. Rose Mary Zbiek Associate Professor of Mathematics Education, Pennsylvania State University,University Park, Pennsylvania

42

Mathematics Test Specifications

The content areas for the EXPLORE, PLAN, and ACTAssessment Mathematics Tests are summarized inTable 3.6. Included in this table is the number (and propor-tion) of questions in each content area. As can be seen fromthe table, there is a clear progression in the content cover-age of the tests from the 8th- to the 10th- to the 12th-grade-level programs.

Several points need to be made about the labeling of thecontent areas, especially at the 8th-grade level. At Grade 8,consistent with the National Council of Teachers ofMathematics (NCTM) Standards, “Basic Statistical/Probability Concepts” does not refer to the content of a for-mal statistics course, but to the ability to process data.

Similarly, 8th-grade “Pre-Geometry” deals with use of figuresand diagrams to solve mathematical problems. At levelshigher than Grade 8, content definitions are consistent withstandard course titles in high school.

The cognitive levels assessed by the Mathematics Testsare summarized in Table 3.7. The numbers (and proportions)of questions at each cognitive level are reported in this table.Although at first sight the increase in the proportion of“Knowledge and Skills” questions, and the decline in the pro-portion of “Understanding Concepts/Integrating ConceptualUnderstanding” questions, with increasing grade level mayseem surprising, it must be remembered that at the highergrade levels the content areas are more challenging.

Table 3.6Mathematics Test Specifications

Testing program


Basic Statistical/Probability Concepts 4 (.13) * *

Pre-Algebra 10 (.33) 14 (.35) 14 (.23)

Elementary Algebra 9 (.30) 8 (.20) 10 (.17)

Pre-Geometry 7 (.23)

Plane Geometry 11 (.27) 14 (.23)

Coordinate Geometry 7 (.18) 9 (.15)

Intermediate Algebra 9 (.15)

Trigonometry 4 (.07)

Total 30 40 60

*On PLAN and the ACT Assessment, questions involving statistics/probability are included in the Pre-Algebra category.

Table 3.7Cognitive Specifications for the Mathematics Tests

Testing program

Cognitive level EXPLORE PLAN ACT Assessment

Knowledge and Skills 8 (.267) 14 (.350) 30 (.500)

Direct Application 8 (.267) 12 (.300) 17 (.283)

Understanding Concepts/Integrating 14 (.467) 14 (.350) 13 (.217)Conceptual Understanding

Total 30 40 60

Although a detailed description of the mathematicscontinuum is provided in the next section, it must be stressedthat Mathematics Test forms are produced by sampling fromthe domains, rather than by testing every specific skill onevery form. Students are advised to prepare for these testsby obtaining a thorough grounding in the full content domainrather than by trying to guess the specific content that willappear on a test form. Each form is a unique sample from thebroad content domain; no particular topic in the content areasis guaranteed to appear on a given test form.

Mathematics Continuum Content andCognitive Level Descriptions

Cognitive Levels

Knowledge and skills. Questions at this level require thestudent to use one or more facts, definitions, formulas, orprocedures to solve problems that are presented in purelymathematical terms.

Direct application. Questions at this level require thestudent to use one or more facts, definitions, formulas, orprocedures to solve straightforward problems set in real-world situations.

Understanding concepts. Questions at this level testthe student’s depth of understanding of major concepts byrequiring reasoning from a concept to reach an inference ora conclusion.

Integrating conceptual understanding. Questions atthis level test the student’s ability to achieve an integratedunderstanding of two or more major concepts so as to solvenonroutine problems.

Content Areas

Basic Statistical/Probability Concepts. Questions inthis content area (which is treated explicitly in EXPLORE,and implicitly as part of the Pre-Algebra content area in PLANand the ACT Assessment) involve elementary counting andrudimentary probability; data collection, representation, andinterpretation; reading and relating graphs, charts, and otherrepresentations of data; and other appropriate topics. All ofthese topics are addressed at a level preceding formal statis-tics. Questions in this content area cover the following topics:

Counting and counting techniquesThe concept of probabilityMean, median, and modeData collection and representationReading and interpreting graphs, charts, and other

representations of data

Pre-Algebra. Questions in this content area are based(as appropriate for the grade levels across EXPLORE,PLAN, and the ACT Assessment) on basic operations usingwhole numbers, decimals, fractions, and integers; placevalue; square roots and approximations; the concept ofexponents; scientific notation; factors; ratio, proportion, andpercent; linear equations in one variable; absolute value andordering numbers by value; elementary counting techniquesand simple probability; data collection, representation, andinterpretation; and understanding simple descriptive statis-tics. Questions in pre-algebra cover the following topics:

Addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division ofwhole numbers, decimals, fractions, and integers

Positive integer exponentsPrime factorizationComparison of fractionsRatio and proportionConversion of fractions to decimals, and conversion of

decimals to fractionsAbsolute valueSolution of linear equations in one variable (This is an

Elementary Algebra topic for EXPLORE.)PercentScientific notationSquare roots and irrational numbersOperations with real numbers (field axioms)Order properties for real numbersCommon factors and common multiples

Elementary Algebra. Questions in this content area arebased (as appropriate for the grade levels acrossEXPLORE, PLAN, and the ACT Assessment) on propertiesof exponents and square roots, evaluation of algebraicexpressions through substitution, using variables to expressfunctional relationships, understanding algebraic operations,and the solution of quadratic equations by factoring.Questions in elementary algebra cover the following topics:

Evaluation of algebraic expressions by substitutionSimplification of algebraic expressionsAddition, subtraction, and multiplication of polynomialsFactorization of polynomialsSolution of quadratic equations by factoringFormula manipulation and field properties of algebraic

expressions

43

Pre-Geometry. Questions in this category (which appliesto EXPLORE only) involve the use of scales and measure-ment systems, plane and solid geometric figures and asso-ciated relationships and concepts, the concept of angles andtheir measures, parallelism, relationships of triangles, prop-erties of a circle, the Pythagorean theorem, and other appro-priate topics. All of these topics are addressed at a levelpreceding formal geometry. Questions in pre-geometrycover the following topics:

Using measurement systemsUsing rulers and other scalesConcepts and relationships for plane and solid geometric

figuresCalculation of perimeter, area, and volume with formulas

for selected geometric figuresThe concept of angle and angle measureParallelismProperties of trianglesProperties of circlesPythagorean theorem

Plane Geometry. Questions in this content area arebased (as appropriate for the grade levels across PLAN andthe ACT Assessment) on the properties and relations ofplane figures, including angles and relations among perpen-dicular and parallel lines; properties of circles, triangles, rec-tangles, parallelograms, and trapezoids; transformations;the concept of proof and proof techniques; volume; andapplications of geometry to three dimensions. Items in planegeometry cover the following topics:

Identification of plane geometric figuresBasic properties of a circle: radius, diameter, and circum-

ferenceMeasurement and construction of right, acute, and obtuse

anglesParallel lines and transversalsCongruent and similar trianglesAreas of circles, triangles, rectangles, parallelograms,

trapezoids, and, with formulas, other figuresPythagorean theoremLines, segments, and raysPerpendicular linesProperties of trianglesRatio of sides in 45°-45°-90° triangles and 30°-60°-90°

trianglesCircumference and arc length

Coordinate Geometry. Questions in this content areaare based (as appropriate for the grade levels across PLANand the ACT Assessment) on graphing and the relationsbetween equations and graphs, including points, lines, poly-

nomials, circles, and other curves; graphing inequalities;slope; parallel and perpendicular lines; distance; midpoints;and conics. Questions in coordinate geometry cover the fol-lowing topics:

Graphing on the number lineIdentification and location of points in the coordinate

planeDetermination of graphs of functions and relations in the

plane by plotting pointsGraphs of linear equations in two variablesSlope of a lineDistance formula for points in the plane

Intermediate Algebra. Questions in this content area(which applies to the ACT Assessment only) are based on anunderstanding of the quadratic formula, rational and radicalexpressions, absolute value equations and inequalities,sequences and patterns, systems of equations, quadraticinequalities, functions, modeling, matrices, roots of polyno-mials, and complex numbers. Questions in intermediatealgebra cover the following topics:

Solution of linear inequalities in one variableOperations with integer exponentsOperations with rational expressionsSlope-intercept form of a linear equationOperations with radical expressionsQuadratic formulaGraphs of parabolas, circles, ellipses, and hyperbolasZeros of polynomialsRational exponentsEquations of circlesSolution of systems of two linear equations in two variablesSimple absolute value equations and inequalitiesGraphical solutions to systems of equations and/or

inequalitiesEquations of parallel and perpendicular lines

Trigonometry. Questions in this content area (whichapplies to the ACT Assessment only) are based on under-standing trigonometric relations in right triangles; values andproperties of trigonometric functions; graphing trigonometricfunctions; modeling using trigonometric functions; use oftrigonometric identities; and solving trigonometric equations.Questions in trigonometry cover the following topics:

Right triangle trigonometryTrigonometric functionsGraphs of trigonometric functions, including amplitude,

period, and phase shiftTrigonometric identitiesAddition formulas for sine and cosineSimple trigonometric equations

44

45

Table 3.8Mathematics Curriculum Survey Results: Calculators in the Classroom, by Academic Level

Middle school/ Highjunior high* school* College

Use of calculators in mathematics coursesRequired 39% 67% 49%Optional 57% 39% 41%Not permitted 26% 6% 10%

Type of calculator recommended or required, as a percentage of respondents who indicated calculatorsare required or optional in one of their classes

Basic (4-function) 33% 8% 7%Scientific 61% 52% 29%Graphing 28% 71% 54%Statistical N/A† N/A† 3%Symbolic Manipulator 1% 3% 3%

*Percentages for middle school/junior high and high school may not total 100% because respondents were allowed tocheck all that applied.

†Middle school/junior high respondents were not given this option.

46

Tabl

e 3.

9M

ath

emat

ics

Cu

rric

ulu

m S

urv

ey R

esu

lts:

Per

cen

t Tau

gh

t,M

ean

Rat

ing

,an

d R

ank

for

Eac

h P

roce

ss S

kill,

by R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p

Mid

dle

sch

oo

l/ju

nio

r h

igh

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e

% T

augh

t%

Tau

ght

Mea

n%

Tau

ght

% T

augh

tM

ean

Mea

n

befo

rebe

fore

impo

rtan

cebe

fore

befo

reim

port

ance

Impo

rtan

ce

Pro

cess

ski

llG

rade

8G

rade

9ra

ting

Ran

kG

rade

10

Gra

de 1

2ra

ting

Ran

kra

ting

Ran

k

Per

form

ing

basi

c op

erat

ions

with

a c

alcu

lato

r83

894.

3311

9598

4.56

33.

901

Rec

allin

g qu

ickl

y ba

sic

fact

s, d

efin

ition

s, f

orm

ulas

, 62

874.

4310

7997

4.47

53.

792

and

alge

brai

c pr

oced

ures

the

n us

ing

them

cor

rect

ly

to s

olve

a p

robl

em

Pla

nnin

g an

d ca

rryi

ng o

ut a

str

ateg

y fo

r so

lvin

g 81

944.

633

8596

4.63

13.

743

mul

tiste

p pr

oble

ms

Sol

ving

pro

blem

s po

sed

in r

eal-w

orld

set

tings

and

86

934.

671

8696

4.61

23.

704

inte

rpre

ting

the

solu

tion

Rec

ogni

zing

and

usi

ng p

atte

rns

to s

olve

pro

blem

s84

934.

584

8095

4.41

83.

695

Cho

osin

g an

app

ropr

iate

met

hod

for

calc

ulat

ing

8793

4.49

776

864.

427

3.58

6(e

.g.,

men

tal,

pape

r an

d pe

ncil,

cal

cula

tor,

or e

stim

atio

n)

App

lyin

g m

athe

mat

ical

idea

s to

new

con

text

s74

884.

515

7393

4.42

63.

567

Rea

ding

and

inte

rpre

ting

grap

hs,

char

ts,

and

othe

r 88

944.

652

8796

4.52

43.

558

data

rep

rese

ntat

ions

Rec

ogni

zing

gen

eral

izat

ions

of

mat

hem

atic

al id

eas

7388

4.48

974

924.

3310

3.49

9

Rec

ogni

zing

whe

n es

sent

ial d

ata

are

mis

sing

8192

4.51

678

884.

369

3.20

10

Usi

ng e

stim

atio

n to

app

roxi

mat

e so

lutio

ns89

954.

488

8090

4.33

113.

1911

App

lyin

g th

eore

ms

to s

olve

a p

robl

em12

384.

0215

1997

4.12

142.

9412

Sol

ving

sev

eral

pro

blem

s re

pres

entin

g di

ffere

nt a

spec

ts/

4675

4.23

1252

844.

1513

2.93

13co

mpo

nent

s of

a la

rger

pro

blem

or

scen

ario

For

mul

atin

g ne

w p

atte

rns

or s

truc

ture

s57

794.

1014

5785

3.97

152.

8614

Usi

ng t

he g

raph

ical

cap

abili

ties

of a

cal

cula

tor

1043

3.80

1742

884.

1912

2.82

15

Rec

allin

g th

eore

ms

and

mor

e co

mpl

ex f

orm

ulas

13

423.

9116

1894

3.92

162.

8116

whe

n ne

eded

to

solv

e a

prob

lem

Dem

onst

ratin

g co

ncep

ts u

sing

man

ipul

ativ

es

8693

4.10

1380

893.

8517

2.75

17an

d/or

pic

toria

l rep

rese

ntat

ions

Con

stru

ctin

g an

d/or

crit

iqui

ng p

roof

s, e

ither

4

113.

4420

1095

3.51

191.

8218

info

rmal

or

form

al

Usi

ng t

he s

ymbo

lic m

anip

ulat

ion

capa

bilit

ies

1029

3.47

1917

513.

2820

1.79

19of

a c

alcu

lato

r

Usi

ng t

he s

tatis

tical

cap

abili

ties

of a

cal

cula

tor

1539

3.71

1820

663.

6618

1.70

20

Pro

cess

ski

lls m

edia

n r

atin

g4.

384.

333.

20

47

Tabl

e 3.

10M

ath

emat

ics

Cu

rric

ulu

m S

urv

ey R

esu

lts:

Per

cen

t Tau

gh

t,M

ean

Rat

ing

,an

d R

ank

for

Eac

h C

on

ten

t S

kill,

by R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p

Mid

dle

sch

oo

l/ju

nio

r h

igh

% T

augh

t%

Tau

ght

% N

otM

ean

befo

rebe

fore

taug

htim

port

ance

Co

nte

nt

skill

Gra

de 8

Gra

de 9

at a

llra

ting

SD

Ran

k

Per

form

ing

addi

tion,

sub

trac

tion,

mul

tiplic

atio

n, a

nd d

ivis

ion

on s

igne

d ra

tiona

l num

bers

8192

04.

740.

691

Wor

king

with

sci

entif

ic n

otat

ion

7591

03.

581.

1563

Con

vert

ing

frac

tions

to

deci

mal

s an

d de

cim

als

to f

ract

ions

9295

04.

540.

767

Com

putin

g co

mm

on f

acto

rs a

nd c

omm

on m

ultip

les

of n

umbe

rs91

950

4.28

0.91

24

Com

putin

g th

e ab

solu

te v

alue

of

a nu

mbe

r67

930

3.66

1.13

59

Ord

erin

g re

al n

umbe

rs,

incl

udin

g or

derin

g on

the

num

ber

line

8494

04.

300.

9718

Wor

king

with

rat

ios

and

prop

ortio

ns82

940

4.59

0.66

3

Wor

king

with

per

cent

(e.

g.,

sim

ple

inte

rest

, ta

x, a

nd m

arkd

owns

)78

940

4.56

0.78

4

Wor

king

with

num

ber

prop

ertie

s (e

.g.,

divi

sibi

lity,

eve

n/od

d, a

nd p

ositi

ve/n

egat

ive)

8893

04.

300.

9120

Eva

luat

ing

alge

brai

c ex

pres

sion

s by

sub

stitu

tion

6890

04.

500.

799

Sim

plify

ing

alge

brai

c ex

pres

sion

s61

890

4.55

0.75

5

Sol

ving

line

ar e

quat

ions

in o

ne v

aria

ble

6290

04.

600.

702

Sol

ving

line

ar in

equa

litie

s in

one

var

iabl

e43

870

4.33

0.85

16

Sol

ving

abs

olut

e va

lue

equa

tions

and

ineq

ualit

ies

2069

33.

881.

0354

Rai

sing

num

bers

to

who

le n

umbe

r po

wer

s73

931

4.38

0.81

13

Per

form

ing

oper

atio

ns w

ith in

tege

r ex

pone

nts

3380

04.

210.

9430

Wor

king

with

rat

iona

l exp

onen

ts21

5810

3.86

1.08

55

Sim

plify

ing

radi

cals

1553

43.

951.

0550

Per

form

ing

addi

tion,

sub

trac

tion,

and

mul

tiplic

atio

n of

pol

ynom

ials

1255

24.

270.

8726

Sol

ving

qua

drat

ic e

quat

ions

by

fact

orin

g4

405

4.18

0.99

31

Usi

ng t

he q

uadr

atic

for

mul

a2

358

4.11

1.02

39

Usi

ng t

he d

iscr

imin

ant

119

303.

511.

2264

Wor

king

with

gra

phs

of q

uadr

atic

equ

atio

ns a

nd f

unct

ions

534

104.

001.

0447

App

roxi

mat

ing

root

s of

pol

ynom

ial a

nd r

atio

nal e

quat

ions

fro

m g

raph

s2

2426

3.68

1.13

58

Det

erm

inin

g ro

ots

of p

olyn

omia

l and

rat

iona

l equ

atio

ns a

lgeb

raic

ally

127

163.

901.

0852

Com

putin

g a

part

icul

ar v

alue

of

a fu

nctio

n20

608

4.14

0.96

37

Rec

ogni

zing

rel

atio

nshi

ps b

etw

een

a fu

nctio

n or

an

equa

tion

and

its g

raph

12

586

4.14

0.98

35

Per

form

ing

mat

rix a

dditi

on a

nd m

ultip

licat

ion

831

283.

341.

2365

Sol

ving

sys

tem

s of

tw

o lin

ear

equa

tions

in t

wo

varia

bles

alg

ebra

ical

ly4

464

4.23

0.96

28

48

Tabl

e 3.

10M

ath

emat

ics

Cu

rric

ulu

m S

urv

ey R

esu

lts:

Per

cen

t Tau

gh

t,M

ean

Rat

ing

,an

d R

ank

for

Eac

h C

on

ten

t S

kill,

by R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p (

con

tin

ued

)

Mid

dle

sch

oo

l/ju

nio

r h

igh

% T

augh

t%

Tau

ght

% N

otM

ean

befo

rebe

fore

taug

htim

port

ance

Co

nte

nt

skill

Gra

de 8

Gra

de 9

at a

llra

ting

SD

Ran

k

Sol

ving

sys

tem

s of

equ

atio

ns a

nd in

equa

litie

s gr

aphi

cally

549

44.

131.

0038

Wor

king

with

ser

ies

and

sequ

ence

s (e

.g.,

arith

met

ic a

nd g

eom

etric

)59

7710

4.04

1.00

45

Gra

phin

g on

the

num

ber

line

8192

04.

280.

9325

Gra

phin

g so

lutio

ns t

o in

equa

litie

s on

the

num

ber

line

5392

04.

080.

9642

Loca

ting

poin

ts in

the

coo

rdin

ate

plan

e85

930

4.55

0.74

6

Wor

king

with

tra

nsfo

rmat

ions

gra

phic

ally

5174

123.

701.

1557

Wor

king

with

tra

nsfo

rmat

ions

alg

ebra

ical

ly12

4422

3.59

1.22

62

Gra

phin

g lin

ear

equa

tions

in t

wo

varia

bles

1564

34.

310.

8817

Fin

ding

the

slo

pe o

f a

line

1875

04.

410.

8011

Wor

king

with

equ

atio

ns o

f pa

ralle

l and

per

pend

icul

ar li

nes

855

34.

170.

9334

Wor

king

with

line

ar r

elat

ions

hips

1566

34.

300.

8519

Usi

ng t

he m

idpo

int

form

ula

541

93.

891.

0553

Usi

ng t

he d

ista

nce

form

ula

2055

74.

101.

0240

Usi

ng t

he P

ytha

gore

an t

heor

em39

831

4.40

0.87

12

Wor

king

with

rig

ht,

acut

e, a

nd o

btus

e an

gles

and

the

ir pr

oper

ties

7388

24.

290.

8821

Com

putin

g an

unk

now

n an

gle

mea

sure

in p

olyg

ons

4882

54.

050.

9544

Wor

king

with

line

s, s

egm

ents

, an

d ra

ys a

nd t

heir

prop

ertie

s72

873

4.14

0.91

36

Wor

king

with

par

alle

l lin

es,

tran

sver

sals

, an

d an

gle

mea

sure

s54

834

4.18

0.90

32

Cla

ssify

ing

plan

e ge

omet

ric f

igur

es74

872

4.17

0.94

33

Wor

king

with

pro

pert

ies

of s

peci

al q

uadr

ilate

rals

5373

93.

981.

0048

Wor

king

with

sid

e le

ngth

rel

atio

nshi

ps in

45°

-45°

-90°

tria

ngle

s an

d 30

°-60

°-90

°tr

iang

les

1954

144.

021.

0146

Wor

king

with

sim

ilar

tria

ngle

s61

863

4.09

0.94

41

Wor

king

with

con

grue

nt t

riang

les

5983

54.

080.

9343

Wor

king

with

circ

les

(e.g

., ra

dius

, di

amet

er,

arc,

and

cho

rd)

6986

44.

290.

8022

Wor

king

with

insc

ribed

and

circ

umsc

ribed

pol

ygon

s an

d ci

rcle

s20

3925

3.62

1.13

61

Com

putin

g th

e ar

ea a

nd c

ircum

fere

nce

of c

ircle

s75

912

4.37

0.86

14

Com

putin

g th

e ar

ea a

nd p

erim

eter

of

poly

gons

8293

24.

450.

8210

Com

putin

g vo

lum

e of

pris

ms

and

cylin

ders

5989

54.

220.

9129

Wor

king

with

rig

ht t

riang

le t

rigon

omet

ry11

4123

3.96

1.06

49

49

Tabl

e 3.

10M

ath

emat

ics

Cu

rric

ulu

m S

urv

ey R

esu

lts:

Per

cen

t Tau

gh

t,M

ean

Rat

ing

,an

d R

ank

for

Eac

h C

on

ten

t S

kill,

by R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p (

con

tin

ued

)

Mid

dle

sch

oo

l/ju

nio

r h

igh

% T

augh

t%

Tau

ght

% N

otM

ean

befo

rebe

fore

taug

htim

port

ance

Co

nte

nt

skill

Gra

de 8

Gra

de 9

at a

llra

ting

SD

Ran

k

Rep

rese

ntin

g da

ta (

e.g.

, ci

rcle

gra

phs,

sca

tterp

lots

, an

d fr

eque

ncy

dist

ribut

ions

)71

921

4.29

0.92

23

Fin

ding

the

mea

n87

930

4.50

0.79

8

Fin

ding

the

med

ian

and

mod

e86

940

4.37

0.85

15

Com

putin

g th

e pr

obab

ility

of

a si

mpl

e ev

ent

7590

24.

230.

9127

Usi

ng c

ount

ing

tech

niqu

es71

848

3.95

1.04

51

Wor

king

with

Ven

n di

agra

ms

6684

103.

741.

0956

Wor

king

with

mut

ually

exc

lusi

ve,

depe

nden

t, an

d in

depe

nden

t ev

ents

3571

113.

641.

0960

Co

nte

nt

skill

s m

edia

n r

atin

g4.

17

50

Tabl

e 3.

10M

ath

emat

ics

Cu

rric

ulu

m S

urv

ey R

esu

lts:

Per

cen

t Tau

gh

t,M

ean

Rat

ing

,an

d R

ank

for

Eac

h C

on

ten

t S

kill,

by R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p (

con

tin

ued

)

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e

% T

augh

t%

Tau

ght

% N

otM

ean

Mea

n

befo

rebe

fore

taug

htim

port

ance

impo

rtan

ce

Co

nte

nt

skill

Gra

de 1

0G

rade

12

at a

llra

ting

SD

Ran

kra

ting

SD

Ran

k

Per

form

ing

addi

tion,

sub

trac

tion,

mul

tiplic

atio

n, a

nd d

ivis

ion

on

9799

14.

770.

591

4.71

0.72

1si

gned

rat

iona

l num

bers

Wor

king

with

rat

ios

and

prop

ortio

ns95

990

4.59

0.71

74.

091.

107

Wor

king

with

per

cent

(e.

g.,

sim

ple

inte

rest

, ta

x, a

nd m

arkd

owns

)95

982

4.39

0.90

203.

661.

2715

Wor

king

with

num

ber

prop

ertie

s (e

.g.,

divi

sibi

lity,

eve

n/od

d,

9697

24.

330.

9323

4.05

1.18

8an

d po

sitiv

e/ne

gativ

e)

Eva

luat

ing

alge

brai

c ex

pres

sion

s by

sub

stitu

tion

9399

04.

610.

686

4.42

0.93

2

Sim

plify

ing

alge

brai

c ex

pres

sion

s95

990

4.68

0.63

54.

331.

043

Sol

ving

line

ar e

quat

ions

and

ineq

ualit

ies

in o

ne v

aria

ble

9499

04.

730.

584

4.19

1.15

4

Sol

ving

abs

olut

e va

lue

equa

tions

and

ineq

ualit

ies

6898

03.

990.

9342

3.32

1.36

23

Per

form

ing

oper

atio

ns w

ith in

tege

r ex

pone

nts

8298

04.

450.

7815

4.14

1.19

5

Wor

king

with

rat

iona

l exp

onen

ts33

970

4.15

0.92

353.

651.

4316

Per

form

ing

oper

atio

ns o

n ra

dica

l exp

ress

ions

/equ

atio

ns45

970

4.20

0.89

303.

481.

3920

Per

form

ing

addi

tion,

sub

trac

tion,

and

mul

tiplic

atio

n of

pol

ynom

ials

7998

04.

460.

7914

3.89

1.38

9

Per

form

ing

poly

nom

ial l

ong

divi

sion

3692

33.

371.

1771

2.66

1.36

31

Sol

ving

qua

drat

ic e

quat

ions

by

fact

orin

g69

970

4.40

0.87

183.

641.

4617

Usi

ng t

he q

uadr

atic

for

mul

a53

980

4.53

0.72

103.

591.

4518

Usi

ng t

he d

iscr

imin

ant

2192

23.

511.

0960

2.49

1.29

39

Sol

ving

qua

drat

ic in

equa

litie

s12

912

3.50

1.03

642.

591.

4035

Wor

king

with

gra

phs

of q

uadr

atic

equ

atio

ns a

nd f

unct

ions

3096

04.

260.

8427

3.34

1.53

22

App

roxi

mat

ing

root

s of

pol

ynom

ial a

nd r

atio

nal e

quat

ions

fro

m g

raph

s15

912

3.84

1.02

472.

611.

4634

Det

erm

inin

g ro

ots

of p

olyn

omia

l and

rat

iona

l equ

atio

ns a

lgeb

raic

ally

1792

14.

070.

9339

2.79

1.45

29

Per

form

ing

oper

atio

ns w

ith r

atio

nal e

xpre

ssio

ns49

960

4.09

0.93

383.

451.

4321

Impl

emen

ting

rem

aind

er a

nd f

acto

r th

eore

ms

782

43.

371.

0472

2.17

1.22

51

Com

putin

g a

part

icul

ar v

alue

of

a fu

nctio

n57

970

4.44

0.80

173.

811.

4110

Rec

ogni

zing

rel

atio

nshi

ps b

etw

een

a fu

nctio

n or

an

equa

tion

and

its g

raph

44

960

4.39

0.81

193.

701.

4614

Wor

king

with

fun

ctio

ns (

e.g.

, in

vers

es,

com

posi

tion,

and

ran

ge a

nd d

omai

n)27

940

4.12

0.87

363.

271.

5624

Wor

king

with

gra

phs

of r

atio

nal f

unct

ions

1786

23.

870.

9546

2.79

1.50

29

Wor

king

with

loga

rithm

ic a

nd e

xpon

entia

l fun

ctio

ns2

852

3.92

0.96

452.

951.

5927

51

Tabl

e 3.

10M

ath

emat

ics

Cu

rric

ulu

m S

urv

ey R

esu

lts:

Per

cen

t Tau

gh

t,M

ean

Rat

ing

,an

d R

ank

for

Eac

h C

on

ten

t S

kill,

by R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p (

con

tin

ued

)

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e

% T

augh

t%

Tau

ght

% N

otM

ean

Mea

n

befo

rebe

fore

taug

htim

port

ance

impo

rtan

ce

Co

nte

nt

skill

Gra

de 1

0G

rade

12

at a

llra

ting

SD

Ran

kra

ting

SD

Ran

k

Wor

king

with

logi

c st

atem

ents

(e.

g.,

conv

erse

, co

ntra

posi

tive,

and

if-t

hen)

1190

53.

361.

0473

2.03

1.19

57

Per

form

ing

mat

rix a

dditi

on a

nd m

ultip

licat

ion

1885

53.

361.

0574

1.55

1.04

79

Fin

ding

det

erm

inan

ts7

845

3.29

1.02

791.

540.

9980

Sol

ving

sys

tem

s of

tw

o lin

ear

equa

tions

in t

wo

varia

bles

alg

ebra

ical

ly69

980

4.48

0.74

112.

991.

4526

Sol

ving

sys

tem

s of

equ

atio

ns a

nd in

equa

litie

s gr

aphi

cally

5798

14.

100.

8937

2.58

1.38

36

Wor

king

with

ser

ies

and

sequ

ence

s (e

.g.,

arith

met

ic a

nd g

eom

etric

)15

806

3.46

1.01

651.

861.

2461

Wor

king

with

seq

uenc

es t

hat

are

defin

ed r

ecur

sive

ly4

6516

3.11

1.11

801.

681.

1472

Com

putin

g th

e su

m o

f an

infin

ite g

eom

etric

ser

ies

259

103.

091.

0681

1.64

1.16

73

Wor

king

with

sig

ma

nota

tion

155

103.

311.

0677

2.11

1.41

54

Wor

king

with

set

s an

d se

t no

tatio

n44

7613

3.42

1.15

682.

481.

3140

Wor

king

with

equ

atio

ns o

f pa

rabo

las,

circ

les,

elli

pses

, an

d hy

perb

olas

285

23.

720.

9451

2.47

1.40

41

Gra

phin

g pa

rabo

las,

circ

les,

elli

pses

, an

d hy

perb

olas

284

23.

680.

9853

2.45

1.39

42

Det

erm

inin

g a

locu

s of

poi

nts

268

183.

061.

1782

1.77

1.16

66

Wor

king

with

vec

tors

in a

pla

ne3

5314

3.32

1.11

761.

460.

9183

Wor

king

with

par

amet

ric e

quat

ions

235

233.

011.

1683

1.53

1.03

81

Wor

king

with

tra

nsfo

rmat

ions

gra

phic

ally

1681

53.

541.

0558

2.04

1.31

56

Wor

king

with

tra

nsfo

rmat

ions

alg

ebra

ical

ly12

758

3.50

1.10

632.

061.

3155

Wor

king

with

dis

cret

e an

d co

ntin

uous

gra

phs

955

123.

411.

0669

2.32

1.37

47

Gra

phin

g lin

ear

equa

tions

in t

wo

varia

bles

8098

04.

550.

739

3.71

1.43

12

Fin

ding

the

slo

pe o

f a

line

9199

04.

740.

582

4.13

1.25

6

Wor

king

with

equ

atio

ns o

f pa

ralle

l and

per

pend

icul

ar li

nes

7998

04.

450.

7816

3.51

1.43

19

Wor

king

with

line

ar r

elat

ions

hips

8299

04.

570.

688

3.80

1.32

11

Usi

ng t

he m

idpo

int

form

ula

5598

04.

170.

9334

2.83

1.39

28

Usi

ng t

he d

ista

nce

form

ula

5097

04.

350.

8522

3.22

1.47

25

Usi

ng t

he P

ytha

gore

an t

heor

em70

980

4.74

0.55

33.

711.

4212

App

lyin

g pr

oper

ties

of r

ight

, ac

ute,

and

obt

use

angl

es32

990

4.32

0.81

252.

631.

4433

App

lyin

g pr

oper

ties

of li

nes,

seg

men

ts,

and

rays

3099

04.

200.

8731

2.34

1.37

44

Wor

king

with

par

alle

l lin

es,

tran

sver

sals

, an

d an

gle

mea

sure

s24

990

4.23

0.85

292.

261.

3548

Wor

king

with

pro

pert

ies

of s

peci

al q

uadr

ilate

rals

1999

04.

020.

8940

1.83

1.12

62

52

Tabl

e 3.

10M

ath

emat

ics

Cu

rric

ulu

m S

urv

ey R

esu

lts:

Per

cen

t Tau

gh

t,M

ean

Rat

ing

,an

d R

ank

for

Eac

h C

on

ten

t S

kill,

by R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p (

con

tin

ued

)

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e

% T

augh

t%

Tau

ght

% N

otM

ean

Mea

n

befo

rebe

fore

taug

htim

port

ance

impo

rtan

ce

Co

nte

nt

skill

Gra

de 1

0G

rade

12

at a

llra

ting

SD

Ran

kra

ting

SD

Ran

k

Wor

king

with

sid

e le

ngth

rel

atio

nshi

ps in

45°

-45°

-90°

tria

ngle

s an

d 14

970

4.31

0.83

262.

411.

4743

30°-

60°-

90°

tria

ngle

s

Wor

king

with

con

grue

nt a

nd s

imila

r tr

iang

les

2499

04.

260.

8328

2.33

1.33

45

Wor

king

with

circ

les

(e.g

., ra

dius

, di

amet

er,

arc,

and

cho

rd)

2798

14.

200.

8832

2.58

1.41

36

Wor

king

with

insc

ribed

and

circ

umsc

ribed

pol

ygon

s an

d ci

rcle

s13

972

3.60

1.02

561.

640.

9873

Com

putin

g th

e ar

ea a

nd p

erim

eter

of

poly

gons

and

circ

les

4898

04.

470.

7413

2.65

1.38

32

Com

putin

g vo

lum

e (e

.g.,

pris

ms,

pyr

amid

s, a

nd c

ylin

ders

)41

981

4.33

0.83

242.

331.

3645

Wor

king

with

rig

ht t

riang

le t

rigon

omet

ry16

940

4.47

0.75

122.

571.

6438

Usi

ng t

rigon

omet

ric id

entit

ies

370

13.

841.

0248

2.26

1.55

48

Sol

ving

trig

onom

etric

equ

atio

ns3

672

3.96

0.97

432.

141.

4552

Usi

ng t

he la

w o

f si

nes

and

law

of

cosi

nes

273

23.

960.

9744

1.94

1.34

59

Wor

king

with

gra

phs

of t

rigon

omet

ric f

unct

ions

, in

clud

ing

ampl

itude

, 0

612

3.81

0.99

492.

201.

5650

perio

d, a

nd p

hase

shi

ft

Rep

rese

ntin

g da

ta (

e.g.

, ci

rcle

gra

phs,

sca

tterp

lots

, an

d 59

884

4.18

0.99

332.

121.

3753

freq

uenc

y di

strib

utio

ns)

Det

erm

inin

g a

line

of b

est-

fit b

y ey

e fo

r a

set

of d

ata

5186

73.

751.

1550

1.81

1.20

64

Wor

king

with

cor

rela

tion

2872

153.

521.

1959

1.59

1.07

76

Fin

ding

the

mea

n, m

edia

n, a

nd m

ode

8696

14.

380.

8821

1.83

1.29

62

Fin

ding

the

var

ianc

e an

d st

anda

rd d

evia

tion

of d

ata

1057

213.

421.

1867

1.56

1.11

78

Wor

king

with

the

nor

mal

dis

trib

utio

n8

5225

3.36

1.18

751.

491.

0582

Com

putin

g th

e pr

obab

ility

of

a si

mpl

e ev

ent

6590

44.

011.

0341

1.70

1.26

69

Usi

ng c

ount

ing

tech

niqu

es51

8110

3.69

1.15

521.

701.

2169

Wor

king

with

Ven

n di

agra

ms

5382

143.

311.

1678

1.73

1.16

68

Wor

king

with

mut

ually

exc

lusi

ve,

depe

nden

t, an

d in

depe

nden

t ev

ents

2673

93.

381.

0770

1.57

1.13

77

Wor

king

with

com

bina

tions

, pe

rmut

atio

ns,

and

the

bino

mia

l the

orem

8

688

3.44

1.04

661.

601.

1175

Fin

ding

der

ivat

ives

115

153.

641.

2354

1.75

1.41

67

Fin

ding

def

inite

inte

gral

s0

1220

3.55

1.27

571.

701.

3769

Det

erm

inin

g m

axim

a, m

inim

a, a

nd p

oint

s of

infle

ctio

n fo

r fu

nctio

ns1

339

3.60

1.13

551.

901.

4260

Und

erst

andi

ng c

ontin

uity

029

113.

511.

1361

2.00

1.43

58

Fin

ding

the

lim

it of

an

expr

essi

on0

2010

3.51

1.15

621.

811.

3864

Co

nte

nt

skill

s m

edia

n r

atin

g3.

992.

45

State Standards

The majority of state reading standards across the nationemphasize specific reading skills. The skills associated withword meanings (vocabulary) and skills connected to readingliterary text are addressed explicitly. However, very few statestandards directly address the skills connected to readinginformational text. The specifications for the EPAS ReadingTests stipulate that questions about context-dependentvocabulary as well as both literary and informational pas-sages are to be used in the assessments.

While state standards differ in specificity and organiza-tion, most integrate the language arts—reading, writing,listening, speaking, and viewing. State standards tend toagree on the same general literacy goals that ACT identifiedduring the redevelopment of the ACT Assessment throughProject Silver in the 1980s and that continue to be verified by subsequent ACT National Curriculum Surveys. The fol-lowing reading abilities maintain a place in reading standardsacross the United States.

• Use referring and reasoning skills to determine mainideas

• Locate and interpret significant details• Understand sequences of events• Make comparisons• Comprehend cause-effect relationships• Determine the meaning of context-dependent words,

phrases, and statements• Draw generalizations• Analyze the author’s or narrator’s voice and methodAll of these skills are measured by the EPAS Reading

Tests across reading passages selected from prose fiction,

the social sciences, the humanities, and (in the ACTAssessment) the natural sciences.

The EPAS Reading Tests ask test takers to read a varietyof texts that span a range of content areas and that are rep-resentative of the cultural diversity of the United States, andto apply many different strategies in the act of comprehend-ing, interpreting, and evaluating those texts. In so doing, theEPAS Reading Tests stand in substantial conformity withstate reading standards and also with salient provisions ofthe NCTE/IRA Standards for the English Language Arts andthe National Assessment of Educational Progress ReadingFramework.

Educator Surveys

ACT developed four Reading surveys (three for the mid-dle school/junior high and high school levels and one for thepostsecondary level) and sent them to 3,599 middleschool/junior high and high school teachers, 500 secondaryEnglish department chairs, and 1,600 postsecondary facultyteaching entry-level courses. The primary source used inselecting these samples was Market Data Retrieval (MDR),a company specializing in the education market. Surveyrecipients were sampled from the MDR database usingselection criteria provided by ACT to ensure that a variety ofgeographic regions and schools were represented.

Table 2.1 lists the Reading courses that ACT asked MDRto use as selection criteria. Reading surveys were mailed tothe number of faculty members and department chairs indi-cated in the table. In all, 5,699 Reading surveys were mailed.

21

Chapter 2Reading

Table 2.1Reading Courses Used as MDR Sample Selection Criteria


Middle School/Junior High English Language Arts, Literature, Reading 1,200

High School English Language Arts, Literature, Reading 2,399

Postsecondary Survey of American Literature 300Introduction to Literature 300U.S. History Survey 300American Government and Politics 300Composition and Rhetoric 400

Department Chairs Middle School/Junior High English Language Arts, 500High School English Language Arts

If a postsecondary Reading survey was mailed to a recip-ient who was not currently teaching a freshman-level course,the instructions asked that the recipient forward the survey toa faculty member who was currently teaching such a course.Individual survey responses were kept confidential.

A total of 1,192 Reading surveys were returned com-pleted, yielding an overall response rate of 21% for the foursurveys. The response rates varied slightly across the foursample groups, as shown in Table 2.2.

The survey respondents included individuals from all 50states and the District of Columbia. The representation of thetotal respondent pool by region was 29.7% from the East,31.5% from the Midwest, 16.6% from the Southwest, and22.2% from the West. Analyses of the middle school/juniorhigh, high school, and postsecondary respondent poolsdetermined that they represented a wide variety of geo-graphic locations and institutions. The department chairrespondent pool, however, was found to be biased towardsmaller schools. For this reason, survey results for the depart-ment chairs are not included in the discussion that follows.

Respondents to the Reading surveys were asked toconsider lists of contents and process skills that are, in part,reflective of the content specifications for ACT’s EPASReading Tests. All respondents were asked to indicate thelevel of importance of each content or skill on a scale of1 to 5, where 1 represented not important, 3 representedmoderately important, and 5 represented very important.Middle school/junior high and high school respondents wereasked to indicate whether they taught each content or skill ina particular course they named and to rate the importanceplaced on each skill or content in that course. Postsecondaryfaculty were asked to rate each content or skill in terms of itsimportance as a prerequisite to success in a particularcourse they named.

Survey items relating to contents addressed students’developed ability to read and understand 14 different typesof texts. These included the 4 broad categories of texts

appearing on the EPAS Reading Tests—prose fiction,humanities-based texts, social sciences-based texts, and(on the ACT Assessment only) natural sciences-basedtexts—as well as 10 specific types of texts, most of which,such as poetry/drama, technical documents, and editorialcartoons, do not appear on the EPAS Reading Tests. In thelatter case, the goal was to help determine whether addi-tional text types should be considered for inclusion on thetests. Respondents were also asked to consider 64 readingskills. These skills ran the gamut from simply referring to textand recalling information to synthesizing and evaluatinginformation presented in text. Many of the skills corresponddirectly with the content specifications of the Reading Testswhile others represent skills either only indirectly assessedby the tests or not presently addressed by them at all. Aswith the 10 text types, this latter set of skills was included tohelp determine whether additional reading skills should beincorporated into the tests.

The Reading surveys asked respondents a variety ofbackground questions. The middle school/junior high andhigh school teachers were asked to name a particular coursethey were teaching and to describe the students in thatcourse as primarily college bound, primarily non-collegebound, or a combination of both. They were also asked toname the primary textbook series (if any) they were using inthe course and to state how many years they had beenteaching. Postsecondary respondents were asked to name aparticular course they were teaching, to describe the courseas either entry-level, honors/advanced placement, or other(specifying the level), and to name the primary textbookseries (if any) they were using in the course.

The middle school/junior high teachers rated three ofthe four broad content areas included on all or some of theEPAS Reading Tests as at least moderately important—prose fiction (4.74), humanities-based texts (3.43), andsocial sciences-based texts (3.16)—while giving naturalsciences-based texts a rating of slightly below moderately

22

Table 2.2Reading Survey Types and Response Rates






Total 5,699 1,192 21%

23

important (2.74). Yet in terms of the percent of teachers whosay they taught a given content in the course they named,only prose fiction (96%) and humanities-based texts (58%)are consistent with the importance ratings, while the percenttaught for social sciences-based texts (34%) and naturalsciences-based texts (15%) is at odds with the relatively high importance ratings teachers gave these content areas.The low percent of teachers indicating that they taught thelatter two content areas is unsurprising, however, given thatlanguage arts teachers were the ones targeted for thesecondary-level surveys.

In terms of specific text types, middle school/junior highteachers gave their highest ratings to poetry/drama (4.21,88%), news and feature articles (3.93, 76%), and “functional”texts (3.89, 72%). ACT currently uses news and feature arti-cles in its EPAS Reading Tests, while “functional” texts areprobably inappropriate for a test of academic reading skill.Poetry and drama, however, are viable parts of academicinstruction that, based on the survey, merit consideration forthe EPAS Reading Tests. Middle school/junior high teachers’lowest ratings went to advertisements (3.35, 55%), editorialcartoons (2.98, 39%), and television shows and movies (2.93,42%), none of which are used in the Reading Tests.Noteworthy is the fact that even these teachers’ lowest-ratedtext types are still rated moderately important.

Middle school/junior high teachers gave their highestratings to the following reading process skills: Making infer-ences from the text concerning main idea(s) (4.81, 98%),Recognizing and recalling main ideas by summarizing (4.81,99%), and Drawing conclusions from information given (4.81,99%). All 3 of these skills are currently measured by theEPAS Reading Tests. In fact, as Table 2.5 and the list of con-tent specifications show, all 10 of this respondent group’shighest-rated skills are directly mentioned in or inferablefrom the Reading Tests’ specifications. Middle school/juniorhigh teachers gave their lowest ratings to Judging a text byassessing the risks and benefits of policies or actions itproposes (3.09, 27%), Evaluating information in a text for fal-lacies (3.06, 24%), and Judging a text by using different crit-ical lenses or stances (2.94, 21%). Of these, only Evaluatinginformation in a text for fallacies is currently measured by theReading Tests. While even the 3 lowest-rated skills receivedratings of moderately important, they were infrequentlytaught by this group of respondents. Generally speaking,evaluating and judging skills received relatively low ratingsfrom all respondent groups.

High school teachers gave ratings similar to those frommiddle school/junior high teachers to the four broad contentareas: prose fiction (4.75, 97%) was rated most highly,followed by humanities-based texts (3.84, 75%), socialsciences-based texts (3.33, 40%), and natural sciences-based texts (2.57, 10%). As with the former group of teachers,the high school instructors’ ratings of social sciences-basedtexts and natural sciences-based texts were moderately tomarkedly out of line with the percent taught.

High school teachers responding to the list of 10 specifictext types gave their highest ratings to poetry/drama (4.42,93%), texts from earlier time periods (4.09, 79%), andresearch studies (3.69, 61%). Research summaries andtexts from earlier time periods are within current EPASReading Test specifications, while poetry and drama, asmentioned earlier, are not. This same group of respondentsgave their lowest ratings to technical documents (2.95,23%), advertisements (2.87, 34%), and editorial cartoons(2.80, 31%). None of these text types are used on theReading Test. Note that advertisements and editorial car-toons were among the three lowest-rated text types for bothgroups of secondary-level teachers.

Reading process skills receiving the highest ratings fromhigh school teachers were Drawing conclusions from infor-mation given (4.83, 100%), Making inferences from the textconcerning main idea(s) (4.81, 99%), and Making inferencesfrom the text concerning details that support the main idea(s)(4.74, 99%). All three are part of the EPAS Reading Tests’specifications. As was the case with the middle school/juniorhigh teachers, all of the high school teachers’ 10 highest-rated skills (see Table 2.5 or 2.6) are directly or indirectly rep-resented in the Reading Tests’ specifications. Skills receivingthe lowest ratings from high school teachers were Judging atext by using different critical lenses or stances (3.47, 41%),Interpreting information from graphs, charts, and diagrams(3.40, 41%), and Comparing reviews of literature, film, andperformances with one’s own response (3.39, 54%). Highschool teachers considered even their lowest-rated skillsmore than moderately important; the high school teachersalso taught these skills with moderate frequency. None ofthese skills are currently a part of the Reading Tests’ specifi-cations, although graphs, charts, and diagrams do appear inACT’s EPAS Science Tests.

College faculty considered social sciences-based texts(3.65) to be the broad content area most important for stu-dents to be able to demonstrate an understanding of prior toattending the class named by the respondents. Regardingthe other content areas, college faculty rated humanities-based texts (3.55) next most highly, followed by prose fiction(2.82) and natural sciences-based texts (2.27). The lowrating of prose fiction compared to the ratings given by thetwo groups of secondary-level teachers is likely attributablein large part to sampling differences: the college faculty whocompleted the survey included a high proportion of composi-tion/rhetoric and social science teachers, while very fewliterature teachers responded (probably because they werenot teaching an entry-level course and either routed to thesurvey to someone else or failed to complete it).

In terms of specific text types, college faculty gave theirhighest ratings to editorials/opinion pieces (3.71), news andfeature articles (3.66), and texts from earlier time periods(3.13). All three of these are encompassed within the EPASReading Tests’ specifications. Faculty gave their lowestratings to advertisements (2.52), poetry/drama (2.40), and

24

technical documents (2.18). None of these are presently onthe Reading Tests. The discrepancy between secondaryteachers’ and college instructors’ ratings for poetry/drama is,again, likely attributable in large measure to the presence ofa large number of composition/rhetoric and social scienceteachers and the near-absence of literature teachers in thecollege sample. Noteworthy also are the overall lower ratingscollege faculty gave to the broad content areas and specifictext types. The median rating for the college faculty in thesecombined areas was 2.75, while it was 3.52 for middleschool/junior high teachers and 3.50 for high school teach-ers. This is likely due in part to the fact that college facultywere asked to identify prerequisites while secondary-levelteachers were asked to rate contents and text types in termsof their importance in their teaching of a particular class.

College faculty gave their highest ratings to the readingprocess skills of Drawing conclusions from information given(4.66), Making inferences from the text concerning mainidea(s) (4.65), and Making inferences from the text concern-ing details the support the main idea(s) (4.56). All 3 skills areincluded in the specifications for the EPAS Reading Tests,and, indeed, as with the other two groups, all 10 of the col-

lege faculty’s highest-rated skills are part of the current spec-ifications of the Reading Tests. Faculty rated lowest the skillsof Evaluating information in a text for significance or impor-tance (1.91), Evaluating information in a text for sufficiencyof evidence in support of an argument or claim (1.90), andEvaluating information in a text for general soundness of rea-soning (1.88). These ratings are appreciably lower thanthose given to the lowest-rated skills of either group of sec-ondary-level teachers, and, in fact, the median rating for all64 skills was lowest for the college faculty (2.80); in contrast,the median rating was 3.96 for middle school/junior highteachers and 4.19 for high school teachers. One possibleexplanation is that college faculty may not expect incomingstudents to have many of these skills as prerequisites;instead, these instructors may plan to teach these skills dur-ing entry-level courses.

Table 2.3 illustrates the ranking, rating, and (for secondary-level teachers) percent taught for the four broad readingcontent areas, broken down by respondent group.

Table 2.4 gives the ranking, rating, and (where applicable)percent taught for the 10 specific text types, again brokendown by respondent group.

Table 2.3Ranking (Rating, % Taught) of Broad Reading Content Areas, by Respondent Group

Rank Middle school &(1 = most junior high High school Collegeimportant) school teachers teachers faculty

1 Prose Fiction (4.74, 96%) Prose Fiction (4.75, 97%) Social Sciences-Based Texts (3.65)

2 Humanities-Based Texts (3.43, 58%) Humanities-Based Texts (3.84, 75%) Humanities-Based Texts (3.55)

3 Social Sciences-Based Texts (3.16, 34%) Social Sciences-Based Texts (3.33, 40%) Prose Fiction (2.82)

4 Natural Sciences-Based Texts (2.74, 15%) Natural Sciences-Based Texts (2.57, 10%) Natural Sciences-Based Texts (2.27)

25

Table 2.4Ranking (Rating, % Taught) of Specific Text Types, by Respondent Group

Rank Middle school &(1 = most junior high High school Collegeimportant) school teachers teachers faculty

1 Poetry/Drama (4.21, 88%) Poetry/Drama (4.42, 93%) Editorials/Opinion Pieces (3.71)

2 News and Feature Articles (3.93, 76%) Texts from Earlier Time Periods (4.09, 79%) News and Feature Articles (3.66)

3 “Functional” Texts (3.89, 72%) Research Studies (3.69, 61%) Texts from Earlier Time Periods (3.13)

4 Editorials/Opinion Pieces (3.74, 73%) Editorials/Opinion Pieces (3.64, 68%) Research Studies (3.12)

5 Texts from Earlier Time Periods (3.63, 59%) News and Feature Articles (3.58, 60%) Editorial Cartoons (2.67)

6 Research Studies (3.60, 53%) “Functional” Texts (3.42, 58%) “Functional” Texts (2.66)

7 Technical Documents (3.36, 36%) Television Shows and Movies (2.69, 50%) Television Shows and Movies (2.56)

8 Advertisements (3.35, 55%) Technical Documents (2.95, 23%) Advertisements (2.52)

9 Editorial Cartoons (2.98, 39%) Advertisements (2.87, 34%) Poetry/Drama (2.40)

10 Television Shows and Movies (2.93, 42%) Editorial Cartoons (2.80, 31%) Technical Documents (2.18)

26

Tables 2.5 and 2.6 compare the 10 highest-rated readingprocess skills for the various respondent groups. Note thatall three groups shared 4 skills in common (these have beenitalicized in both tables) and that the middle school/junior

high and high school teachers had a total of 7 skills in com-mon. As mentioned above, all of these skills are a direct partof or are embedded within the EPAS Reading Tests’ specifi-cations. See Table 2.9 for the full response data.

Table 2.5Reading Skills Receiving the Highest Mean Importance Ratings by Middle School/Junior High Teachers and by High School Teachers

Rank Middle school &(1 = most junior high High schoolimportant) school teachers teachers

1 Making inferences from the text concerning (4.81, 98%) Drawing conclusions from information given (4.83, 100%)main idea(s)

2 Recognizing and recalling main ideas (4.81, 99%) Making inferences from the text concerning (4.81, 99%)by summarizing main idea(s)

3 Drawing conclusions from information given (4.81, 99%) Making inferences from the text concerning (4.74, 99%)details that support the main idea(s)

4 Making inferences from the text concerning (4.79, 98%) Recognizing and recalling main ideas by (4.68, 96%)details that support the main idea(s) summarizing

5 Determining specific meanings of words and (4.74, 98%) Determining specific meanings of words and (4.67, 98%)phrases from the context in which they appear phrases from the context in which they appear

6 Recognizing and recalling specific details (4.73, 99%) Making inferences from the text concerning (4.67, 97%)cause-effect relationships

7 Predicting outcomes (4.71, 97%) Identifying the author’s purpose (4.67, 97%)

8 Recognizing and recalling main ideas by selecting (4.70, 96%) Recognizing and recalling comparisons (4.64, 99%)key words in sentences and paragraphs

9 Making inferences from the text concerning (4.70, 98%) Recognizing and recalling specific details (4.64, 99%)cause-effect relationships

10 Recognizing and recalling main ideas by (4.69, 95%) Identifying literal and figurative meanings (4.63, 97%)selecting topic sentences where appropriate

27

Table 2.6Reading Skills Receiving the Highest Mean Importance Ratings by

High School Teachers and by College Faculty

Rank(1 = mostimportant) High school teachers College faculty

1 Drawing conclusions from information given (4.83, 100%) Drawing conclusions from information given (4.66)

2 Making inferences from the text concerning (4.81, 99%) Making inferences from the text concerning main idea(s) (4.65)main idea(s)

3 Making inferences from the text concerning (4.74, 99%) Making inferences from the text concerning details that (4.56)

details that support the main idea(s) support the main idea(s)

4 Recognizing and recalling main ideas (4.68, 96%) Distinguishing between fact, opinion, and reasoned (4.53)

by summarizing judgment

5 Determining specific meanings of words and (4.67, 98%) Recognizing and recalling cause-effect relationships (4.49)

phrases from the context in which they appear

6 Making inferences from the text concerning (4.67, 97%) Recognizing and recalling main ideas by summarizing (4.45)

cause-effect relationships

7 Identifying the author’s purpose (4.67, 97%) Making inferences from the text concerning (4.44)

cause-effect relationships

8 Recognizing and recalling comparisons (4.64, 99%) Recognizing and recalling comparisons (4.41)

9 Recognizing and recalling specific details (4.64, 99%) Identifying the author’s purpose (4.38)

10 Identifying literal and figurative meanings (4.63, 97%) Recognizing and recalling main ideas by (4.25)where appropriate selecting topic sentences

Overall, the survey results indicate that the aspects ofreading that the respondents think are central to classroomwork are the same aspects emphasized in the EPASReading Tests. Although the design of the 2003 surveys dif-fers from that of their 1998 predecessors, the 2003 resultsgive no evidence of radical changes in the curriculum. In fact,despite the increased length of the 2003 surveys and some

wording changes to items remaining from 1998, middleschool/junior high respondents rated 6 of the same skills inboth 1998 and 2003 among their 10 most highly rated, whilethe high school teachers had 7 of 10 and the college faculty9 of 10 skills in common across studies.

Panel Discussions

In July 2003, ACT held a Reading Curriculum Panel inIowa City. The panel members were selected to ensure abroad representation of secondary and postsecondary insti-tutions. The panel included some of the foremost experts inthe teaching of reading in both English language artscourses and other content areas. Table 2.7 identifies thepanelists.

Prior to attending the panel, each participant wrote a briefpaper that described his or her perceptions of current andemerging trends in reading curriculum and instruction; inter-preted the curriculum survey data; and recommendedchanges to the current EPAS Reading Tests. ACT staff cir-

culated the set of panelist papers to the entire group prior tothe July 11 meeting. At the meeting, ACT staff discussed thethree main topics identified above with the panelists,attempting to reach consensus on the key issues relating tothe reading curriculum and the tests.

Panelists gave a strong endorsement of the presentEPAS Reading Tests and recommended that no skills cur-rently assessed be dropped from the test specifications. Thepanelists’ suggestions for potential enhancements to theReading Tests were discussed in detail. ACT is devoting fur-ther consideration and research effort to the most promisingof the ideas offered by the panelists and generated by thepanel discussion.

28

Table 2.7ACT’s 2003 Reading Curriculum Panelists


Mr. Bruce Damasio Social Studies Teacher and Department Chair, Liberty High School, Eldersburg,Maryland

Ms. Barbara Fowler Reading Specialist and Adjunct Instructor, Longview Community College, Lee’s Summit, Missouri

Dr. Donald L. Hatcher Professor of Philosophy; Co-Director, Freshman Critical Thinking/CompositionProgram; and Director, Center for Critical Thinking, Baker University, Baldwin,Kansas

Ms. Alicia Hernandez Professor of English, Rio Hondo College, Whittier, California

Ms. Carol Jago English Teacher, Santa Monica (California) High School

Ms. Ronda Marshall Language Arts Teacher, Northwest Junior High School, Iowa City, Iowa

Dr. David O’Brien Professor of Education, University of Minnesota–Twin Cities

Ms. Marilyne Ross Reading Specialist, Orange County Public Schools, Orlando, Florida

Ms. Annette Sample English Teacher, George Washington Carver High School for Engineering andScience, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Dr. Cynthia (Hynd) Shanahan Professor of Education, University of Illinois at Chicago

Dr. Peter Thacker Literacy Instruction Specialist, Jefferson High School, Portland, Oregon

Reading Test Specifications

The text content areas, number of passages, passagelengths, and number (and proportion) of items for theEXPLORE, PLAN, and ACT Assessment Reading Tests aresummarized in Table 2.8.

The detailed description of the test content given onpage 30 is presented to give an overview of the domains oftest content that are assessed. It is not presented as a guideto instruction or as a specific list of topics that will be coveredin any particular test form. When a test form is produced, testitems are sampled from these domains.

29

Table 2.8Reading Test Specifications

Testing program


Prose Fiction 10 (.33) 8 (.32) 10 (.25)

Humanities 10 (.33) 9 (.36) 10 (.25)

Social Sciences 10 (.33) 8 (.32) 10 (.25)

Natural Sciences 10 (.25)

Total 30 25 40

Passages 3 3 4

Passage Length 500 words 500 words 750 words

Reading Continuum Content andCognitive Level Descriptions

Cognitive Levels

Questions in the Reading Tests are classified in the gen-eral categories of Referring and Reasoning.

Referring. The questions in this category ask about mate-rial explicitly stated in a passage. These questions aredesigned to measure literal reading comprehension. A ques-tion is classified in the Referring category if the informationrequired to answer it is directly given in the passage text. Insuch questions, there are usually relationships between thelanguage of the passage and that of the question, and theanswer to the question is typically evident in a single sen-tence, or two adjacent sentences, in the passage. SomeReferring questions paraphrase the language of the passage.

Main ideasRecognizing the main idea of a passageRecognizing the main idea of a paragraph or para-

graphs

Significant detailsRecognizing the information in a written passage that

answers the questions who, what, where, when,why, and how

RelationshipsRecognizing sequencesRecognizing cause-effect relationshipsRecognizing comparative relationships (comparisons

and contrasts)

Reasoning. The questions in this category ask aboutmeaning implicit in a passage and require cogent reasoningabout a passage. These questions are designed to measure“meaning making” by logical inference, analysis, and synthe-sis. A question is classified in the Reasoning category if itrequires inferring or applying a logical process to elicit ananswer from the passage, or if it demands that the examineecombine many statements in the passage or interpret entiresections of the text.

Inferences from the textInferring the main idea or purpose of a passageInferring the main idea or purpose of a paragraph or

paragraphsShowing how details are related to the main idea (e.g.,

how they support the main idea)Inferring sequencesInferring cause-effect relationships

Critical understanding of the textDrawing conclusions from information givenMaking comparisons and contrasts using stated infor-

mation

Making appropriate generalizationsRecognizing logical fallacies, rhetorical flaws, or limita-

tions in textsRecognizing stereotypesUnderstanding point of viewDistinguishing between fact and opinion

VocabularyDetermining specific meanings of words or short

phrases within the context of a passage

Content Areas

The content of the Reading Tests ranges widely amongtopics under the content areas named in Table 2.8. As is trueof the other content domains, the stimulus material for theReading Tests becomes more challenging with the increasein the grade level being assessed; as Table 2.8 shows, at the8th-/9th- and 10th-grade levels, three content areas are usedto assess reading skill (prose fiction, humanities, and socialsciences). At the 11th-/12th-grade level, natural sciences textmaterial is added.

Prose fiction. The questions in this area are based onintact short stories or passages from short stories or novels.

Humanities. The questions in this area are based onpassages from memoirs, personal essays, and essays onarchitecture, art, dance, ethics, film, language, literary criti-cism, music, philosophy, radio, television, or theater.Passages describe or analyze works of art, ideas, or values.

Social sciences. The questions in this area are based onpassages in anthropology, archaeology, biography, busi-ness, economics, education, geography, history, political sci-ence, psychology, or sociology. Passages typically presentinformation gathered by research into written records or sur-vey sampling rather than data gained by scientific experi-mentation.

Natural sciences. The questions in this area are basedon passages in anatomy, astronomy, biology, botany, chem-istry, ecology, geology, medicine, meteorology, microbiology,natural history, physiology, physics, technology, or zoology.Passages present a science topic with a lucid explanation ofits significance.

Question Ordering

Reading Test questions are arranged according to a pro-tocol that places more general questions ahead of more spe-cific questions and that places questions about portions ofthe passage in the order in which those portions appear inthe passage. ACT adopted this protocol, with the approval ofreading consultants from outside ACT and after careful con-sideration of the measurement issues involved, to provideexaminees with as natural and logical a sequence of itemsas possible.

30

31

Tabl

e 2.

9R

ead

ing

Cu

rric

ulu

m S

urv

ey R

esu

lts:

Per

cen

t Tau

gh

t,M

ean

Rat

ing

,an

d R

ank

for

Eac

h C

on

ten

t/S

kill,

by R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p

Mid

dle

sch

oo

l/ju

nio

r h

igh

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e

%M

ean

%M

ean

Mea

n

Rea

din

g c

on

ten

tTa

ught

ratin

gS

DR

ank

Taug

htra

ting

SD

Ran

kra

ting

SD

Ran

k

Rea

ding

and

dem

onst

ratin

g un

ders

tand

ing

of.

. .

pros

e fic

tion

(e.g

., no

vels

, sh

ort

stor

ies)

964.

740.

631

974.

750.

631

2.82

1.41

3

hum

aniti

es-b

ased

tex

ts (

e.g.

, th

e ar

ts,

583.

431.

262

753.

841.

182

3.55

1.19

2

philo

soph

y, a

rchi

tect

ure,

rel

igio

n/et

hics

,

liter

ary

criti

cism

, pe

rson

al e

ssay

s, m

emoi

rs)

soci

al s

cien

ces-

base

d te

xts

(e.g

., hi

stor

y,34

3.16

1.33

340

3.33

1.41

33.

651.

241

polit

ical

sci

ence

, ec

onom

ics,

psy

chol

ogy,

busi

ness

, ge

ogra

phy,

arc

haeo

logy

)

natu

ral s

cien

ces-

base

d te

xts

(e.g

., bi

olog

y,15

2.74

1.41

410

2.57

1.46

42.

271.

204

chem

istr

y, p

hysi

cs,

phys

ical

sci

ence

s)

Rea

ding

and

dem

onst

ratin

g un

ders

tand

ing

of.

. .

poet

ry/d

ram

a88

4.21

0.98

193

4.42

0.91

12.

401.

299

“fun

ctio

nal”

text

(e.

g.,

broc

hure

s, b

usin

ess

723.

891.

143

483.

421.

406

2.66

1.28

6

lette

rs,

map

s)

tech

nica

l doc

umen

ts (

e.g.

, in

stru

ctio

nal

363.

361.

417

232.

951.

468

2.18

1.21

10

man

uals

, co

ntra

cts)

new

s an

d fe

atur

e ar

ticle

s76

3.93

1.08

260

3.58

1.27

53.

661.

262

edito

rials

/opi

nion

pie

ces

733.

741.

154

683.

641.

164

3.71

1.26

1

edito

rial c

arto

ons

392.

981.

349

312.

801.

3110

2.67

1.33

5

adve

rtis

emen

ts55

3.35

1.24

834

2.87

1.38

92.

521.

318

tele

visi

on s

how

s an

d m

ovie

s42

2.93

1.22

1050

2.96

1.30

72.

561.

237

rese

arch

stu

dies

533.

601.

326

613.

691.

353

3.12

1.33

4

text

s fr

om e

arlie

r tim

e pe

riods

(e.

g.,

an 1

8th

593.

631.

205

794.

091.

082

3.13

1.36

3

cent

ury

shor

t st

ory,

a p

oliti

cal s

peec

h gi

ven

durin

g th

e C

ivil

War

)

Rea

din

g c

on

ten

t m

edia

n r

atin

g3.

523.

502.

75

32

Tabl

e 2.

9R

ead

ing

Cu

rric

ulu

m S

urv

ey R

esu

lts:

Per

cen

t Tau

gh

t,M

ean

Rat

ing

,an

d R

ank

for

Eac

h C

on

ten

t/S

kill,

by R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p (

con

tin

ued

)

Mid

dle

sch

oo

l/ju

nio

r h

igh

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e

%M

ean

%M

ean

Mea

n

Rea

din

g s

kill

Taug

htra

ting

SD

Ran

kTa

ught

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

Rec

ogni

zing

and

rec

allin

g m

ain

idea

s by

. .

.

sele

ctin

g to

pic

sent

ence

s95

4.69

0.65

1087

4.51

0.86

204.

251.

0510

sele

ctin

g ke

y w

ords

in s

ente

nces

and

par

agra

phs

964.

700.

628

884.

530.

8415

4.13

1.06

17

sum

mar

izin

g99

4.81

0.54

296

4.68

0.66

44.

450.

856

Rec

ogni

zing

and

rec

allin

g .

. .

spec

ific

deta

ils99

4.73

0.54

699

4.64

0.66

94.

141.

0216

narr

atio

nal a

nd c

hron

olog

ical

seq

uenc

es99

4.68

0.63

1298

4.59

0.66

134.

161.

0515

caus

e-ef

fect

rel

atio

nshi

ps98

4.69

0.64

1197

4.63

0.66

114.

490.

795

com

paris

ons

994.

660.

6914

994.

640.

628

4.41

0.83

8

Mak

ing

infe

renc

es f

rom

the

tex

t co

ncer

ning

. .

.

mai

n id

ea(s

)98

4.81

0.49

199

4.81

0.50

24.

650.

712

deta

ils t

hat

supp

ort

the

mai

n id

ea(s

)98

4.79

0.52

499

4.74

0.54

34.

560.

763

narr

atio

nal a

nd c

hron

olog

ical

seq

uenc

es95

4.65

0.62

1596

4.61

0.70

124.

201.

0014

caus

e-ef

fect

rel

atio

nshi

ps98

4.70

0.64

997

4.67

0.63

64.

440.

837

Dra

win

g co

nclu

sion

s fr

om in

form

atio

n gi

ven

994.

810.

473

100

4.83

0.44

14.

660.

651

Pre

dict

ing

outc

omes

974.

710.

597

964.

530.

7816

3.62

1.13

22

Iden

tifyi

ng li

tera

l and

fig

urat

ive

mea

ning

s w

here

app

ropr

iate

964.

470.

8320

974.

630.

6110

3.84

1.06

21

Det

erm

inin

g sp

ecifi

c m

eani

ngs

of w

ords

or

phra

ses

from

98

4.74

0.55

598

4.67

0.63

54.

230.

9113

the

cont

ext

in w

hich

the

y ap

pear

Dis

tingu

ishi

ng b

etw

een

fact

, op

inio

n, a

nd r

easo

ned

judg

men

t98

4.68

0.63

1390

4.56

0.79

144.

530.

794

Rel

atin

g ow

n ex

perie

nces

to

char

acte

rs a

nd e

vent

s in

a t

ext

974.

570.

7516

974.

430.

8525

3.46

1.20

24

Usi

ng in

form

atio

n im

plie

d in

a t

ext

to m

ake

. .

.

com

paris

ons

954.

470.

7418

984.

530.

7017

4.24

0.89

11

gene

raliz

atio

ns93

4.35

0.84

2395

4.47

0.77

234.

240.

8811

33

Tabl

e 2.

9R

ead

ing

Cu

rric

ulu

m S

urv

ey R

esu

lts:

Per

cen

t Tau

gh

t,M

ean

Rat

ing

,an

d R

ank

for

Eac

h C

on

ten

t/S

kill,

by R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p (

con

tin

ued

)

Mid

dle

sch

oo

l/ju

nio

r h

igh

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e

%M

ean

%M

ean

Mea

n

Rea

din

g s

kill

Taug

htra

ting

SD

Ran

kTa

ught

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

Rec

ogni

zing

and

det

erm

inin

g th

e pr

esen

ce o

f an

d

effe

ct o

n a

text

of

. .

.

ster

eoty

pes

854.

260.

9426

904.

350.

8826

3.90

1.10

19

poin

t of

vie

w96

4.47

0.78

1995

4.52

0.74

184.

091.

0218

Iden

tifyi

ng t

he a

utho

r’s p

urpo

se96

4.50

0.79

1797

4.67

0.68

74.

380.

909

Rec

ogni

zing

and

und

erst

andi

ng t

he u

se o

f lit

erar

y

devi

ces

. .

.

satir

e58

3.69

1.24

4180

4.24

1.03

322.

941.

2630

irony

794.

051.

1332

914.

470.

8422

2.99

1.28

28

met

apho

r/si

mile

954.

420.

8221

934.

460.

8424

3.07

1.29

26

fore

shad

owin

g92

4.40

0.89

2293

4.50

0.79

212.

711.

2935

sym

bolis

m86

4.19

1.05

2893

4.52

0.77

192.

931.

3131

Rec

ogni

zing

how

his

tory

/cul

ture

influ

ence

s a

text

713.

881.

0833

854.

260.

9231

3.87

1.13

20

Usi

ng v

ario

us s

trat

egie

s to

mon

itor

one’

s ow

n re

adin

g82

4.34

1.01

2471

4.01

1.04

373.

571.

1723

Com

parin

g re

view

s of

lite

ratu

re,

film

, an

d pe

rfor

man

ces

483.

351.

2257

543.

391.

1864

2.71

1.22

35

with

one

’s o

wn

resp

onse

Ana

lyzi

ng in

tera

ctio

ns b

etw

een

mai

n an

d su

bord

inat

e ch

arac

ters

86

4.23

0.97

2789

4.31

0.91

292.

701.

2737

and

idea

s in

lite

rary

and

info

rmat

iona

l tex

ts (

e.g.

, in

tern

al a

nd

exte

rnal

con

flict

s, m

otiv

atio

ns,

rela

tions

hips

, an

d in

fluen

ces)

Inte

rpre

ting

info

rmat

ion

from

gra

phs,

cha

rts,

and

dia

gram

s,

563.

751.

2538

413.

401.

3563

2.96

1.43

29

such

as

map

s, b

luep

rints

, or

sch

emat

ics

34

Tabl

e 2.

9R

ead

ing

Cu

rric

ulu

m S

urv

ey R

esu

lts:

Per

cen

t Tau

gh

t,M

ean

Rat

ing

,an

d R

ank

for

Eac

h C

on

ten

t/S

kill,

by R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p (

con

tin

ued

)

Mid

dle

sch

oo

l/ju

nio

r h

igh

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e

%M

ean

%M

ean

Mea

n

Rea

din

g s

kill

Taug

htra

ting

SD

Ran

kTa

ught

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

Rec

ogni

zing

in a

tex

t th

e...

prim

ary

mod

e or

org

aniz

atio

nal s

truc

ture

(na

rrat

ive,

824.

260.

9825

834.

151.

0033

2.32

1.29

47

desc

riptiv

e, e

xpos

itory

, ar

gum

enta

tive/

pers

uasi

ve)

type

s of

cla

ims

mad

e (e

.g.,

fact

ual c

laim

s, v

alue

judg

men

ts)

623.

791.

1535

663.

891.

1143

1.99

1.16

60

type

s of

evi

denc

e us

ed (

e.g.

, ex

perim

enta

tion,

39

3.40

1.19

5353

3.61

1.23

572.

091.

1557

expe

rt t

estim

ony,

sta

tistic

s, c

ase

stud

ies,

“com

mon

sen

se”)

sour

ces

of in

form

atio

n us

ed (

e.g.

, w

here

54

3.64

1.16

4367

3.88

1.20

441.

981.

0561

info

rmat

ion

com

es f

rom

; w

heth

er a

sou

rce

is

prim

ary

or s

econ

dary

)

Ana

lyzi

ng a

tex

t to

...

dete

rmin

e th

e am

ount

of

prio

r an

d/or

spe

cial

ized

453.

551.

3046

543.

601.

2458

2.82

1.17

32

know

ledg

e a

read

er is

exp

ecte

d to

hav

e on

the

top

ic

cate

goriz

e or

cla

ssify

info

rmat

ion

(e.g

., 68

3.78

1.19

3774

3.86

1.03

462.

521.

1342

iden

tifyi

ng c

omm

on c

hara

cter

istic

s)

iden

tify

an a

utho

r’s u

nsta

ted

assu

mpt

ions

563.

511.

2951

753.

951.

0542

2.24

1.15

50

unde

rsta

nd h

ow w

ritin

g st

yle

conv

eys

or s

hape

s 43

3.42

1.30

5266

3.87

1.14

452.

551.

3040

mea

ning

(e.g

., th

e us

e of

the

pas

sive

voi

ce in

writ

ing

to d

isgu

ise

who

is a

ctin

g or

to

dist

ance

a

pers

on f

rom

res

pons

ibili

ty f

or a

n ac

tion)

iden

tify

conf

usin

g, a

mbi

guou

s, o

r va

gue

lang

uage

623.

691.

1842

773.

971.

1040

2.33

1.16

46

35

Tabl

e 2.

9R

ead

ing

Cu

rric

ulu

m S

urv

ey R

esu

lts:

Per

cen

t Tau

gh

t,M

ean

Rat

ing

,an

d R

ank

for

Eac

h C

on

ten

t/S

kill,

by R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p (

con

tin

ued

)

Mid

dle

sch

oo

l/ju

nio

r h

igh

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e

%M

ean

%M

ean

Mea

n

Rea

din

g s

kill

Taug

htra

ting

SD

Ran

kTa

ught

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

Eva

luat

ing

info

rmat

ion

in a

tex

t fo

r...

spec

ifici

ty (

appr

opria

te le

vel o

f pr

ecis

ion

is u

sed)

373.

271.

2659

523.

631.

2656

2.36

1.07

44

rele

vanc

e60

3.73

1.21

3976

4.02

1.08

362.

040.

9958

sign

ifica

nce

or im

port

ance

673.

781.

2036

814.

111.

0635

1.91

0.96

62

fairn

ess

(opp

osin

g ar

gum

ents

are

rep

rese

nted

fai

rly)

543.

531.

1849

603.

721.

2253

2.11

1.03

56

appe

als

(e.g

., to

logi

c, e

mot

ions

, m

oral

s,

533.

541.

2247

683.

831.

1447

2.24

1.10

50

auth

ority

, th

e se

nses

)

load

ed la

ngua

ge (

e.g.

, eu

phem

ism

s, g

ende

r-ba

sed

wor

ds)

473.

371.

2355

673.

801.

2050

2.32

1.11

47

pers

uasi

ve t

echn

ique

s/pr

opag

anda

(e.

g.,

lead

ing

ques

tions

, 58

3.69

1.22

4066

3.77

1.20

522.

301.

1549

test

imon

ials

, so

und

bite

s)

falla

cies

(e.

g.,

fals

e an

alog

y, b

eggi

ng t

he

243.

061.

2863

473.

571.

3259

2.36

1.19

44

ques

tion,

non

seq

uitu

r, ad

hom

inem

)

erro

neou

s, b

iase

d, o

r du

biou

s as

sum

ptio

ns35

3.29

1.26

5853

3.68

1.24

552.

151.

0854

cred

ibili

ty a

nd a

ppro

pria

tene

ss o

f so

urce

s of

info

rmat

ion

483.

611.

2944

693.

961.

1841

2.02

1.05

59

suffi

cien

cy o

f ev

iden

ce in

sup

port

of

an a

rgum

ent

or c

laim

493.

531.

2848

694.

001.

1938

1.90

0.98

63

com

plet

enes

s (s

uffic

ient

bre

adth

and

dep

th is

33

3.35

1.25

5658

3.80

1.26

512.

141.

0755

incl

uded

; no

impo

rtan

t om

issi

ons

exis

t)

inte

rnal

con

sist

ency

323.

271.

3260

543.

701.

2654

2.17

1.13

53

gene

ral s

ound

ness

of

reas

onin

g47

3.52

1.29

5067

3.98

1.20

391.

880.

9464

36

Tabl

e 2.

9R

ead

ing

Cu

rric

ulu

m S

urv

ey R

esu

lts:

Per

cen

t Tau

gh

t,M

ean

Rat

ing

,an

d R

ank

for

Eac

h C

on

ten

t/S

kill,

by R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p (

con

tin

ued

)

Mid

dle

sch

oo

l/ju

nio

r h

igh

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e

%M

ean

%M

ean

Mea

n

Rea

din

g s

kill

Taug

htra

ting

SD

Ran

kTa

ught

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

Syn

thes

izin

g by

...

mak

ing

conn

ectio

ns a

cros

s an

d be

twee

n te

xts

714.

111.

1529

794.

310.

9628

2.38

1.27

43

(e.g

., by

not

ing

sim

ilarit

ies

and

diffe

renc

es in

two

text

s; b

y co

mpa

ring

info

rmat

ion

in a

giv

en

text

to

othe

r so

urce

s in

a g

iven

fie

ld)

mak

ing

conn

ectio

ns b

etw

een

subj

ects

or

764.

091.

1730

844.

320.

9127

2.54

1.16

41

disc

iplin

es (

e.g.

, lit

erat

ure

and

hist

ory)

draw

ing

appr

opria

te a

nalo

gies

703.

881.

1934

804.

120.

9834

2.60

1.09

39

appl

ying

info

rmat

ion

gain

ed f

rom

tex

ts t

o ne

w

764.

061.

1231

824.

290.

9230

2.24

1.15

50

situ

atio

ns o

r pr

oble

ms

deve

lopi

ng a

ltern

ativ

e hy

poth

eses

or

solu

tions

503.

571.

2545

613.

821.

1749

2.64

1.27

38

to t

hose

pro

pose

d in

tex

ts

Judg

ing

a te

xt b

y...

ratin

g it

agai

nst

gene

rally

rec

ogni

zed

stan

dard

s 31

3.20

1.27

6149

3.54

1.26

603.

001.

2427

of q

ualit

y or

exc

elle

nce

usin

g di

ffere

nt c

ritic

al le

nses

or

stan

ces

(e.g

., 21

2.94

1.25

6441

3.47

1.25

623.

081.

2825

aest

hetic

, m

oral

, po

litic

al,

philo

soph

ical

)

dete

rmin

ing

its im

port

ance

or

valu

e to

one

self

493.

391.

2854

633.

831.

1748

2.78

1.22

33

asse

ssin

g th

e ris

ks a

nd b

enef

its o

f po

licie

s or

27

3.09

1.35

6243

3.50

1.29

612.

751.

2434

actio

ns it

pro

pose

s or

des

crib

es

Rea

din

g s

kills

med

ian

rat

ing

3.96

4.19

2.80

53

State Standards

The state standards documents for science share signifi-cant areas of agreement encompassing both scientificknowledge (content knowledge drawn from life science,physical science, Earth/space science, biology, chemistry,and physics) and scientific processes. The EPAS ScienceTests directly assess students’ ability to comprehend, inter-pret, and use scientific information presented in a variety ofways. These skills include interpreting data; understandingscientific processes; and evaluating experiments, models,and assertions. Grade-level appropriate background knowl-edge covered in general, introductory science courses isneeded to answer some of the questions. So the EPASScience Tests continue to reflect state science standards—as well as the science standards in major documents fromthe American Association for the Advancement of Science(1989, 1993), the National Science Teachers Association(1992, 1995), and the National Research Council of theNational Academy of Sciences (1995). In addition, the EPASScience Tests closely align with the National Assessment ofEducational Progress Science Framework in emphasizingsimilar content and cognitive dimensions of science, and inincluding the major topic areas and concepts identified in theframework.

There are a few scientific process skills within the statestandards that are not directly measured on the EPASScience Tests. These include designing and conductingexperiments, communicating scientifically (oral and written),

making judgments about the value of science, and under-standing the impact of science on technology and society.However, the evidence is clear that the EPAS Tests havemaintained the alignment with state curricula that was estab-lished during the redevelopment of the ACT Assessmentthrough Project Silver (1980s) and that has continued to beverified by subsequent ACT National Curriculum Surveys.

Educator Surveys

ACT developed 10 Science curriculum surveys: 1 for mid-dle school/junior high teachers, 4 (biology, chemistry,Earth/space science, and physics) for high school teachers,1 for secondary science department chairs, and 4 (biology,chemistry, Earth science, and physics) for college facultywho teach entry-level courses. The primary source used inselecting these samples was Market Data Retrieval (MDR),a company specializing in the education market. Recipientswere sampled from the MDR database using selection crite-ria provided by ACT to ensure that a variety of geographicregions and schools were represented.

Table 4.1 lists the Science courses that ACT requestedMDR use as selection criteria. ACT mailed curriculum sur-veys to the number of teachers, faculty members, anddepartment chairs indicated in the table. Altogether, 6,496Science surveys were mailed across the 10 sample groups.

Chapter 4Science

54

Table 4.1Science Courses Used as MDR Sample Selection Criteria


Middle School/Junior High Science, Physical Science 1,197

High School Biology Biology 600

High School Chemistry Chemistry 600

High School Earth Science Earth Science 600

High School Physics Physics 600

Postsecondary Biology Introduction to Biology, Introduction to Life Sciences, 600Introduction to Biology for Majors, Introduction to Biology for Nonmajors

Postsecondary Chemistry General Chemistry for Majors, General Chemistry 600for Nonmajors, Introduction to Chemistry

Postsecondary Earth/Space Science Geology and Human Ecology, Introduction to 600Earth Sciences, Introduction to Geology,Principles of Geology, Introduction to Astronomy

Postsecondary Physics Fundamentals of Physics, General Physics, 600General Physics with Calculus Prerequisite,Introduction to Physical Science, Introduction to Physics,Physics for Nonmajors

Department Chairs Middle School/Junior High Science, High School Science 499

The survey respondents included individuals from all50 states and the District of Columbia. The representation ofthe total respondent pool by region was 36.5% from the East,32.4% from the Midwest, 12.4% from the Southwest, and18.7% from the West. Analyses of the middle school/juniorhigh, high school, and postsecondary respondent poolsdetermined that they represented a wide variety of

geographic locations and institutions. The department chairrespondent pool, however, was found to be biased towardsmaller schools. For this reason, survey results for thedepartment chairs are not included in the discussion thatfollows. The numbers of surveys sent and the response ratesare given in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2Science Survey Types and Response Rates






Total 6,496 1,906 29%

55

ACT obtained the survey results, which are discussedbelow and are given in detail in Tables 4.6 and 4.7, by the fol-lowing means. Respondents to all 10 surveys were providedwith a list of 15 science skills related to scientific inquiry (e.g., Translating data/information into a graph or diagram).The first 11 skills on the survey are those directly assessed onthe EPAS tests. The last 4 science skills were new to the2003 curriculum survey. They are: Designing a scientificinvestigation, Formulating models and predictions using scientific data, Communicating the results of a scientificinvestigation through writing properly organized reports, andUnderstanding and applying concepts of statistics and dataanalysis to the results of a scientific investigation. These skillshave been seen in many recent versions of state sciencestandards documents and were added to the science skillssection of the survey to get feedback from educators abouttheir importance in secondary and postsecondary classes.

All of the surveys except the department chairs’ surveyalso included a section that listed content topics. The middleschool/junior high teachers responded to 202 content topicsfor three content areas: 68 for life science, 46 forEarth/space science, and 88 for physical science. The highschool teachers and the college faculty responded to contenttopics for one of four content areas: biology (30 topics),chemistry (56 topics), Earth/space science (41 topics), orphysics (57 topics).

For each science skill and content topic, the Grade 7–12teachers were asked to indicate whether the skill or topic istaught and, if taught, to rate its importance on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represented not important, 3 representedmoderately important, and 5 represented very important.

The task for the college faculty respondents was a bit dif-ferent. Because the ACT Assessment is used for placementdecisions and as a predictor of success during the first yearof college, the expectations of the faculty of freshman-levelcourses regarding prerequisite science skills are important.To evaluate how well the ACT Assessment Science Testassesses the skills considered prerequisites to success infreshman-level courses, the college faculty were asked toreference one freshman-level science course they teach andto rate the importance of each listed skill as a prerequisite forthat course, using the 5-point scale described above.

The Science surveys also asked respondents a variety ofbackground questions. The middle school/junior high andhigh school respondents were asked to indicate the gradelevel of the students they taught and which course theytaught (e.g., Life Science, Earth or Earth/Space Science, orPhysical Science in middle school, or Biology I, Chemistry I,etc. in high school). Both groups were also asked how manyyears they had been teaching, the title of the primary text-book series they used, and how much time each week their

students spent doing laboratory activities in their classes.Postsecondary science faculty were asked to indicate thecourse they taught (biology for non-science majors, biologyfor science majors, etc.), the general format of the course(e.g., lecture only, laboratory only, lecture and laboratory),and the primary textbook used in the course.

Science Skills and Content Topics. The middleschool/junior high teachers indicated that all of the 15 science skills are more than moderately important (meanrating at or above 3), and that 10 of the 15 skills are morethan quite important (mean rating at or above 4) in theirclasses. The science skills median rating is 4.17. Obviously,these respondents believe that the science skills listed onthe survey are significant components of their classes.

In all three middle school/junior high subject areas (i.e.,life science, Earth/space science, and physical science), thenumber of content topics listed on the survey that are taughtby more than 80% of respondents is quite small. Only sixtopics, all in physical science, are taught by more than 80%of respondents. The six topics are scientific measurementsand the metric system; physical and chemical changes;elements, compounds, and molecules; chemical symbolsand formulas; mass, volume, and density; and mass andweight. However, all of the topics listed in all three subjectareas were rated as more than moderately important (meanrating at or above 3), and large fractions of the total numberof topics in each discipline were rated as more than quiteimportant (mean rating at or above 4).

The high school teachers reported that all of the 15 science skills are more than moderately important in theirclasses (mean rating at or above 3) and that 14 of the15 skills are more than quite important in their classes (meanrating at or above 4). Thus, the science skills’ median ratingis very high, at 4.32.

The high school teachers in each of the four disciplines(i.e., biology, chemistry, Earth/space science, and physics)reported that all of the topics listed are more than moderatelyimportant (mean rating at or above 3) in their classes. Andlarge fractions of the total number of topics in each disciplinewere rated as more than quite important (mean rating at orabove 4). Thus, all four of the content topics’ median ratingsare high, two of them (chemistry and physics) are above 4,and the other two are just below 4, at 3.90 and 3.77. Thenumber of content topics reported to be taught by 70% ormore respondents was quite small in biology (9 of the 30 top-ics) but much greater in chemistry (23 of the 56 topics),Earth/space science (24 of the 41 topics), and physics (31 ofthe 57 topics).

College faculty overall rated 11 of the 15 science skillsas more than moderately important (mean rating at or above3) as prerequisite knowledge for their freshman-levelcourses. Although college faculty generally rated the impor-tance of the skills lower than did the other respondentgroups, the overall median rating of the science skills by thecollege faculty was still fairly high, at 3.34.

College faculty in each of the four disciplines (i.e., biol-ogy, chemistry, Earth/space science, and physics) generally

rated the majority of the topics listed as less than moderatelyimportant (mean rating below 3) as prerequisite knowledgefor their freshman-level courses. Thus, all four of the contenttopics’ overall median ratings are low: biology topics 2.46,chemistry topics 2.64, Earth science topics 2.59, andphysics topics 2.80.

Table 4.3 presents the rank order of all 15 of the scienceskills for all three respondent groups. As can be seen, thereis only a slight variation in the rankings of the top 5 skills.

56

57

Table 4.3Ranking of Science Skills, by Respondent Group


1 Understanding basic scientific concepts or Translating data/information into a Understanding the basic features of,assumptions underlying given information graph or diagram or data points in, tables or graphs

2 Understanding the components of an Understanding the basic features of, or Understanding basic scientific experimental design or procedure data points in, tables or graphs concepts or assumptions underlying(e.g., identify the control) given information

(tied with)

Translating data/information into agraph or diagram

3 Understanding the basic features of, Determining whether data/information or data points in, tables or graphs supports or is consistent with a stated

hypothesis or conclusion

4 Translating data/information into a Understanding basic scientific concepts or Determining whether data/informationgraph or diagram assumptions underlying given information supports or is consistent with a

stated hypothesis or conclusion

5 Determining whether data/information Understanding the components of an Selecting a hypothesis or conclusionsupports or is consistent with a stated experimental design or procedure that supports or is consistent with hypothesis or conclusion (e.g., identify the control) given data/information

6 Designing a scientific investigation Selecting a hypothesis or conclusion that Understanding the components of ansupports or is consistent with given experimental design or procedure data/information (e.g., identify the control)

(tied with)

Predicting outcomes on the basis of data/information

7 Predicting outcomes on the basis of Communicating the results of a scientific data/information investigation through writing properly

organized reports

8 Selecting a hypothesis or conclusion that Predicting outcomes on the basis of Communicating the results of a supports or is consistent with given data/information scientific investigation through writingdata/information properly organized reports

9 Communicating the results of a scientific Extending scientific concepts, hypotheses, Extending scientific concepts,investigation through writing properly or experimental procedures to new hypotheses, or experimental organized reports situations to gain new information procedures to new situations to gain

new information

10 Extending scientific concepts, hypotheses, Designing a scientific investigation Evaluating the similarities and or experimental procedures to new differences, or the strengths andsituations to gain new information weaknesses, of experimental

procedures or scientificviewpoints

11 Formulating models and predictions using Formulating models and predictions Selecting a generalization or modelscientific data using scientific data that is consistent with given

data/information

12 Understanding and applying concepts of Evaluating the similarities and differences, Identifying an alternative way ofstatistics and data analysis to the results of or the strengths and weaknesses, of testing a hypothesis or scientific a scientific investigation experimental procedures or scientific viewpoint, or proposing an alternative

viewpoints way of producing the sameexperimental results

13 Selecting a generalization or model that is Selecting a generalization or model that is Designing a scientific investigationconsistent with given data/information consistent with given data/information

14 Evaluating the similarities and differences, Understanding and applying concepts of Formulating models and predictions or the strengths and weaknesses, of statistics and data analysis to the results using scientific dataexperimental procedures or scientific of a scientific investigationviewpoints

15 Identifying an alternative way of testing a Identifying an alternative way of testing a Understanding and applying conceptshypothesis or scientific viewpoint, or hypothesis or scientific viewpoint, or of statistics and data analysis to theproposing an alternative way of producing proposing an alternative way of producing results of a scientific investigationthe same experimental results the same experimental results

The survey results indicate that the science skills that themajority of respondents think are central to work in the class-room and lab are generally those that receive emphasis inthe EPAS Science Tests. Although the design of the 2003surveys differs from that of their 1998 predecessors, the2003 results appear to be in fundamental agreement withthe 1998 results on what knowledge and skills are important.A comparison of the 1998 and 2003 median ratings for sci-ence content topics for each science discipline revealed thatthere has been almost no change in those ratings between1998 and 2003.

These data suggest that the high school and college sci-ence educators who responded to this survey believe thatscience skills, as a whole, are more important for success intheir high school classes, or as prerequisites for entry-levelcollege science classes, than are the content topics. Giventhat the EPAS tests give more emphasis to testing scienceskills, the data suggest that the EPAS tests assess what thesurvey respondents say is important for success in college.

Curriculum Consultants

ACT selected seven science educators from around thecountry to review the survey data. The reviewers were askedto study the tables of raw data, then answer five guidingquestions about the survey results. Names of potentialreviewers were solicited from ACT staff. Reviewer candi-dates were college science faculty and secondary scienceeducators from across the country, some of whom had donework for ACT reviewing EPAS Science Test materials forcontent, fairness, or grade-level appropriateness. Other can-didates were unfamiliar, or less familiar, with the EPAS tests.Table 4.4 lists the seven science reviewers.

The reviewers agreed that the content and science skillsassessed on the EPAS Science Tests reflect the currentGrades 7–12 science curricula. They also agreed that theEPAS Science Tests assess science skills and cover contenttopics important for success in college. However, there wassome disagreement about whether the EPAS Science Tests,as they exist today, can adequately test both science skillsand content knowledge. Some reviewers suggested usingthe current passage-based, multiple-choice exam, but limit-ing the amount of science content tested. Others thoughtcontent should be tested with a separate, discrete multiple-choice exam, while keeping the present EPAS tests in theircurrent format to test science skills. Some other reviewerssuggested adding a writing component to assess a student’sability to “Communicate the results of a scientific investiga-tion through writing properly organized reports.”

The reviewers also emphasized that, given the continuingevolution of science education and the technologicalchanges affecting it, ACT must continue to closely monitorscience curricula and standards if it is to maintain its com-mitment to the content validity of the EPAS Science Tests.Some curriculum trends mentioned by the reviewersincluded a change in the middle school curricula from single-discipline, full-year science courses to three-year sequencesof integrated science classes. Another significant trend atthe middle school level is the incorporation of more inquiry-based, “hands-on” science activities and a reduction in lec-ture-based classes.

Several reviewers expressed general concerns about theuses of large-scale assessments. They felt that theseassessments should be used for more than just showingaccountability. Such exams should be designed primarily toassess student achievement, as do the EPAS Science Tests.

58

Table 4.4ACT’s 2002 Science Curriculum Survey Reviewers


Ms. Kathryn Barclay Science Teacher, Dulles Middle School, Sugar Land, Texas

Dr. Barbara Christie-Pope Associate Professor of Biology, Environmental Studies, Cornell College, MountVernon, Iowa

Dr. John Fix Dean of the College of Science, University of Alabama at Huntsville, Huntsville,Alabama

Ms. Francisca Garner Science Teacher, Eisenhower High School, Lawton, Oklahoma

Mr. C. Steven Storm Mathematics & Science Instructor, Arkansas State University-Heber Springs, HeberSprings, Arkansas

Ms. Cynthia Taylor Science Teacher, Monterey High School, Monterey, Tennessee

Dr. Richard Treptow Professor of Chemistry, Chicago State University, Chicago, Illinois

Science Test Specifications

The EPAS Science Tests measure the student’s interpre-tation, analysis, evaluation, reasoning, and problem-solvingskills required in the natural sciences. A test for a given pro-gram is made up of five to seven test units, each of whichconsists of some scientific information (the stimulus) and aset of multiple-choice test items. The use of calculators is notpermitted on the Science Tests. Table 4.5 summarizes thetest specifications for the EXPLORE, PLAN, and ACT

Assessment Science Tests. Under the “Format” heading arethe numbers (and proportions) of test questions associatedwith each of the three types of presentations used in thethree tests. Under the “Cognitive Level” heading are the dis-tributions of questions assessing the three cognitive levels.Finally, under the “Subject Matter” heading are the distribu-tions of test questions by content domain being assessed.The terms used in the tables are defined in the next section.

59

Table 4.5Science Test Specifications

Testing program

Format EXPLORE PLAN ACT Assessment

Data Representation 12 (.43) 10 (.33) 15 (.38)

Research Summaries 10 (.36) 14 (.47) 18 (.45)

Conflicting Viewpoints 6 (.21) 6 (.20) 7 (.17)

Total 28 30 40

Cognitive level

Understanding 12 (.43) 9 (.30) 7 (.18)

Analysis 10 (.36) 13 (.43) 20 (.50)

Generalization 6 (.21) 8 (.27) 13 (.32)

Total 28 30 40

Subject matter

Life Science 3

Physical Science 2

Earth/Space Science 1 1–2* 1–2*

Biology 1–2* 1–2*

Chemistry 1–2* 1–2*

Physics 1–2* 1–2*

Total 6 5 7

*At least one topic is required in this content area, and some test forms may have two topics. No more than two topics in a particular content area are allowed.

The following section provides detailed descriptions ofthe materials used in the EPAS Science Tests. Thesedescriptions are presented in the order in which the informa-tion was summarized in Table 4.5: first the formats for thestimulus material, then the definitions of the cognitive levelsbeing assessed, and finally lists of the content included inthe fields of science covered at each test level.

Science Continuum Stimulus Material, Cognitive Level,and Content Area Descriptions

Stimulus Material

Each stimulus used in the Science Tests as the basis forthe test questions follows one of three formats. These for-mats are very specific in their intent and style, each beingused to tap a specific subset of scientific reasoning skills.

Data representation format. The data representationformat is intended to test the examinee’s ability to under-stand, evaluate, and interpret information presented in agraphic or tabular format. The information may consist of anytype of data that can be presented with minimal explanation.Examples include the results of simple experiments, obser-vations, summarized data, figures, or flowcharts.

Research summaries format. The research summariesformat is intended to evaluate an examinee’s abilities tocomprehend, evaluate, analyze, and interpret the design ofexperiments. In particular, the skills to be assessed usingthis format include the following:

The understanding of the premise of the experiment(observation, confirmation, or hypothesis testing)

The relationship of the design to the premiseThe understanding of control groupsVariations in experimental designsWeaknesses of the experiment due to assumptions or

limitations embedded in the design

Almost anything that relates to how scientists view exper-iments is a valid topic in this type of format. However, sincethe data representation format covers the aspects of inter-pretation of data, the tabular or graphic presentation of theexperiments alone is not a major point of consideration. Thesimulated research studies are of sufficient complexity toallow significant comparisons of results. Often, a number oflinked, related experiments are presented that build on eachother and provide an extended simulation of severalresearch studies.

Conflicting viewpoints format. The conflicting view-points format is intended to test the examinee’s ability toevaluate two or more alternative theories, hypotheses, orviewpoints on a specific, observable phenomenon. This phe-nomenon may be a simple observation or a more complexprocess. The alternative viewpoints disagree in some clear

fashion that is plausible, but they need not necessarily bebased on a contemporary scientific controversy. The mainrestriction is that they be logical and complete. The alterna-tive viewpoints are based on realistic assumptions and havelogical conclusions.

Cognitive Levels

The questions in the Science Tests are classified accord-ing to three primary cognitive levels: understanding, analy-sis, and generalization. Within each of the three majorcognitive classifications there are a number of subclassifica-tions. These are presented to clarify the types of test ques-tions that are within the major categories, but they are notmeant to provide an exhaustive list. Some of the subclassi-fications do not apply to some of the stimulus formats. Forexample, a classification referring to experimental design isnot appropriate for a data representation format. The stimu-lus formats that support questions with each subclassifica-tion are coded at the end of each description using DR fordata representation, RS for research summaries, and CV forconflicting viewpoints.

Understanding. Understanding questions test students’ability to comprehend the information presented and, to alimited extent, their understanding of how it fits into thegeneral scheme of the particular stimulus format. Examplesof this ability include comprehending how the information in a bar graph is organized, understanding the controlgroup’s function in an experiment, and identifying unstatedassumptions and the concept that serves as the basis for aparticular theory. A question in the understanding classifica-tion does not merely ask the student to understand what iswritten, but to understand how that information is related toother parts of the material provided in the stimulus. Anunderstanding question specifically deals with only a smallpart of the material in the stimulus, such as a single datapoint, graph axis, hypothesis, or experimental step.

Understanding—The ability to:Explain, describe, identify, or compare the basicfeatures of, and concepts related to, the providedinformation. (DR, RS, CV)Explain, describe, identify, or compare the componentsof the experimental design or process. (RS)Explain, describe, identify or compare the basicfeatures or data points in graphs, charts, or tables.(DR)Explain, describe, or identify basic scientific conceptsor assumptions underlying the provided information.(DR, RS, CV)Select the appropriate translation of the providedinformation into a graph, figure, or diagram. (DR, RS,CV)

60

Analysis. Analysis questions should go beyond the levelof understanding questions in testing the student’s ability torelate a number of components of the presented material toeach other on a higher, more abstract level. Examples of thisquestion type include relating hypotheses to experimentaldesign or data, and evaluating how a viewpoint is related toanother viewpoint or to an observable phenomenon.Essentially, the student is required to exhibit the ability to seehow each piece of information in the presentation fits in withthe rest of the stimulus and what importance each piece hasin reference to the topic. Often, an analysis question willprompt a student to carefully pick apart the details presentedand piece them back together to get an overall view of thepresented topic. An analysis question typically deals with amajor portion of the presented information, such as agraphed relationship, one or more experiments, or one ormore viewpoints. An analysis question does not extendbeyond the scope of the presented material.

Analysis—The ability to:Critically examine the relationships between theinformation provided and the conclusions drawn orthe hypotheses developed. (DR, RS, CV)Determine whether information or results support orare consistent with a point of view, hypothesis, orconclusion. (DR, RS, CV)Determine whether a hypothesis or conclusionsupports or is consistent with a point of view, theresults of a single experiment, or the informationpresented in a single graph or table. (DR, RS, CV)Evaluate experimental procedures, viewpoints, ortheories for their strengths, weaknesses, similarities,or differences. (RS, CV)Specify alternative ways of testing the point of view orhypothesis, or specify alternative ways of producingthe same results. (RS, CV)

Generalization. Generalization questions test the stu-dent’s ability to see how the stimulus material relates to therest of the world. A generalization question may ask for ageneral model of a scientific concept that is embedded in thepresented data (for example, deduce a gas law from a set ofdata), how the results of an experiment could be used toassist someone in resolving a problem in the real world, orhow a theory could be modified to account for some new,unforeseen data or phenomena. While generalization ques-tions may not always be the most difficult for a student, theyare intended to demand that the student assimilate all of thematerial presented and extend discovered concepts to newsituations.

Generalization—The ability to:Generalize from given information to gain newinformation, generate a model, or make predictions.(DR, RS, CV)Extend concepts, procedures, or hypotheses to newsituations to gain new information. (RS, CV)Generalize beyond the given information to a broadercontext, or generate a model consistent with theprovided information. (DR, RS, CV)Predict outcomes on the basis of the providedinformation. (DR, RS, CV)

Content Areas

The content areas used to assess Science skills parallelthe content courses commonly taught at Grades 7–12, andat the entry level at colleges and universities. Each testactivity uses stimulus materials from one of these areas.Materials are produced specifically for the Science Tests.They are required to match the level of complexity of thoseused in the classroom. Often, students are confronted with anew situation to engage their reasoning skills.

The topics included in each content area are summarizedbelow.

Life Science. The stimulus materials and questions inthis content area cover such topics as biology, botany, ecol-ogy, health, human behavior, and zoology.

Physical Science. The stimulus materials and questionsin this content area cover such topics as simple chemical for-mulas and equations and other basic chemistry, weights andmeasures, and basic principles of physics.

Earth/Space Science. The stimulus materials and ques-tions in this content area cover such topics as geology,meteorology, astronomy, environmental science, andoceanography.

Biology. The stimulus materials and questions in thiscontent area cover such topics as cell biology, botany, zool-ogy, microbiology, ecology, genetics, and evolution.

Chemistry. The stimulus materials and questions in thiscontent area cover such topics as atomic theory, inorganicchemical reactions, chemical bonding, reaction rates, solu-tions, equilibriums, gas laws, electrochemistry, and proper-ties and states of matter.

Physics. The stimulus materials and questions in thiscontent area cover such topics as mechanics, energy, ther-modynamics, electromagnetism, fluids, solids, and lightwaves.

61

62

Tabl

e 4.

6S

cien

ce C

urr

icu

lum

Su

rvey

Res

ult

s:P

erce

nt T

aug

ht,

Mea

n R

atin

g,a

nd

Ran

k fo

r E

ach

Sci

ence

Ski

ll,by

Res

po

nd

ent

Gro

up

Mid

dle

sch

oo

l/ju

nio

r h

igh

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e

%

%M

ean

%Ta

ught

Mea

nM

ean

Sci

ence

ski

llTa

ught

ratin

gS

DR

ank

Taug

htpr

ior

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

Und

erst

andi

ng t

he c

ompo

nent

s of

an

expe

rimen

tal d

esig

n or

pro

cedu

re

944.

320.

972

7124

4.43

0.84

53.

351.

256

(e.g

., id

entif

y th

e co

ntro

l)

Und

erst

andi

ng t

he b

asic

fea

ture

s of

, or

dat

a po

ints

in,

tabl

es o

r gr

aphs

934.

310.

933

7818

4.53

0.74

23.

911.

081

Und

erst

andi

ng b

asic

sci

entif

ic c

once

pts

or a

ssum

ptio

ns

954.

340.

861

7816

4.44

0.82

43.

781.

122

unde

rlyin

g gi

ven

info

rmat

ion

Tran

slat

ing

data

/info

rmat

ion

into

a g

raph

or

diag

ram

934.

260.

894

7918

4.54

0.75

13.

781.

172

Det

erm

inin

g w

heth

er d

ata/

info

rmat

ion

supp

orts

or

is c

onsi

sten

t 91

4.21

0.97

578

164.

450.

833

3.70

1.15

4w

ith a

sta

ted

hypo

thes

is o

r co

nclu

sion

Sel

ectin

g a

hypo

thes

is o

r co

nclu

sion

tha

t su

ppor

ts o

r is

con

sist

ent

884.

171.

018

7121

4.40

0.86

63.

541.

175

with

giv

en d

ata/

info

rmat

ion

Eva

luat

ing

the

sim

ilarit

ies

and

diffe

renc

es,

or t

he s

tren

gths

and

70

3.69

1.07

1459

184.

151.

0112

3.12

1.18

10w

eakn

esse

s, o

f ex

perim

enta

l pro

cedu

res

or s

cien

tific

vie

wpo

ints

Iden

tifyi

ng a

n al

tern

ativ

e w

ay o

f te

stin

g a

hypo

thes

is o

r sc

ient

ific

623.

481.

1115

4618

3.88

1.08

152.

901.

1412

view

poin

t, or

iden

tifyi

ng a

n al

tern

ativ

e w

ay o

f pr

oduc

ing

the

sam

e ex

perim

enta

l res

ults

Sel

ectin

g a

gene

raliz

atio

n or

mod

el t

hat

is c

onsi

sten

t w

ith75

3.76

0.96

1357

174.

101.

0113

3.10

1.14

11gi

ven

data

/info

rmat

ion

Pre

dict

ing

outc

omes

on

the

basi

s of

dat

a/in

form

atio

n95

4.18

0.89

777

144.

320.

888

3.35

1.17

6

Ext

endi

ng s

cien

tific

con

cept

s, h

ypot

hese

s, o

r ex

perim

enta

l pro

cedu

res

784.

021.

0110

6412

4.24

0.97

93.

261.

199

to n

ew s

ituat

ions

to

gain

new

info

rmat

ion

Des

igni

ng a

sci

entif

ic in

vest

igat

ion

864.

190.

926

5618

4.19

1.02

102.

821.

2513

For

mul

atin

g m

odel

s an

d pr

edic

tions

usi

ng s

cien

tific

dat

a81

3.98

0.96

1160

144.

170.

9911

2.80

1.14

14

Com

mun

icat

ing

the

resu

lts o

f a

scie

ntifi

c in

vest

igat

ion

thro

ugh

814.

120.

999

7213

4.37

0.92

73.

341.

318

writ

ing

prop

erly

org

aniz

ed r

epor

ts

Und

erst

andi

ng a

nd a

pply

ing

conc

epts

of

stat

istic

s an

d da

ta a

naly

sis

663.

791.

0912

5511

4.10

1.03

142.

711.

2415

to t

he r

esul

ts o

f a

scie

ntifi

c in

vest

igat

ion

Sci

ence

ski

lls m

edia

n r

atin

g4.

174.

323.

34

63

Table 4.7Science Curriculum Survey Results: Percent Taught, Mean Rating, and

Rank for Each Content Topic, by Respondent Group

Middle school/junior high

% % Mean

Content topic Taught Not taught rating SD Rank

Life science

Flowering plants 49 51 3.81 0.96 45Non-flowering plants 46 54 3.67 1.06 50Structure and function of roots 47 53 3.76 1.00 47Structure and function of stems 47 53 3.74 0.99 49Structure and function of leaves 48 52 3.86 0.96 41Structure and function of flowers 48 52 3.87 0.88 39Structure and function of seeds 48 52 3.81 0.93 44Life cycles 60 40 4.05 0.92 31Photosynthesis 67 33 4.37 0.80 4Circulatory 50 50 4.45 0.84 2Digestive 46 54 4.37 0.92 5Excretory 40 60 4.27 0.93 12Hormonal 36 64 4.09 1.06 26Lymphatic 34 66 4.12 1.07 21Muscular 44 56 4.33 0.94 7Nervous 46 54 4.22 1.01 15Respiratory 46 54 4.31 0.97 8Reproductive 42 58 4.29 0.97 11Skeletal 44 56 4.31 0.97 9Bacteria 57 43 4.18 0.91 17Protists 55 45 4.10 0.95 25Fungi 54 45 4.06 0.97 28Arthropods 46 53 3.85 1.07 42Other invertebrates 47 53 3.88 1.06 38Genes and chromosomes 67 33 4.35 0.97 6DNA 64 36 4.41 0.94 3Mendelian genetics 58 42 4.25 1.02 13Genetic engineering 49 51 3.96 1.16 33Ecosystems 63 37 4.11 0.98 24Food chains, webs, and pyramids 61 39 4.13 1.00 20Niches and habitats 56 44 3.99 1.04 32Limiting factors 50 50 3.91 1.06 34Succession 45 55 3.87 1.04 40Biomes 49 51 3.89 1.08 37Competition and predation 55 45 3.90 1.09 36Population growth 51 49 3.85 1.14 43Fossils 52 48 3.52 1.18 53Geologic time 52 48 3.56 1.13 52Adaptation 61 39 4.05 0.96 29Natural selection 57 43 4.05 0.99 30Nutrition 38 62 4.06 1.12 27Immunity 42 58 4.15 1.03 19Disease control 42 58 4.23 0.94 14Viruses 51 49 4.19 0.99 16Mitosis and meiosis 63 37 4.31 0.90 10Development 53 47 4.17 0.88 18Cell structure and function 69 31 4.49 0.76 1Carbohydrates 46 54 3.80 1.08 46Lipids 43 57 3.63 1.09 51Proteins and amino acids 51 49 3.76 1.13 48Osmosis 62 38 4.11 0.97 23Diffusion 63 37 4.12 1.00 22Metabolism 53 47 3.91 1.05 35

Life science topics median rating 4.06

64


Rank for Each Content Topic, by Respondent Group (continued)


% % Mean


Earth/space scienceMap reading and interpretation 55 45 3.96 1.06 33The geologic time scale 57 43 3.77 1.01 44Types of fossils and fossilization 51 49 3.70 1.02 46Properties of matter 75 25 4.28 0.87 6Minerals and their properties 66 33 4.17 0.92 16Rocks and their properties 63 37 4.07 0.96 28The rock cycle 63 37 4.21 0.92 11Weathering processes 64 36 4.24 0.87 8Erosion and agents of erosion 61 39 4.13 0.93 19Deposition 60 40 4.08 0.95 27Groundwater 54 46 4.09 0.96 26Global plate tectonics 72 28 4.33 0.87 4Volcanism 68 32 4.23 0.95 10Earthquakes 68 32 4.27 0.89 7Earth’s interior 68 32 4.15 0.95 18Types of natural resources 64 36 3.90 1.06 37Fossil fuels 63 37 3.87 1.09 38Alternative energy sources 59 41 3.92 1.14 35Air, water, soil pollution 62 38 4.05 1.01 31Recycling 60 40 3.94 1.05 34The composition of air 66 34 4.09 1.08 25Earth’s atmosphere 64 36 4.23 0.98 9Air pressure 61 39 4.19 1.02 13Global and local winds 54 46 4.10 1.09 23Relative humidity and dew point 54 46 4.07 1.02 30Clouds and precipitation 59 41 4.12 1.03 21Weather prediction 53 47 4.13 0.96 20Weather patterns 57 43 4.18 1.01 14Climate 57 43 4.02 1.05 32Ocean currents 41 59 3.77 1.01 43Properties of ocean water 38 62 3.78 1.02 42Topography of the ocean floor 41 59 3.78 1.01 41Tides 50 50 3.78 0.97 40Waves 46 54 3.72 0.97 45The planet Earth 67 33 4.37 0.87 2The Earth in space 65 35 4.36 0.90 3Our solar system’s formation 64 36 4.18 0.96 15Motions of the planets 62 38 4.16 1.05 17Earth’s Moon 64 36 4.31 0.86 5Solar and lunar eclipses 62 38 4.21 0.88 12Comets, asteroids, meteors 60 40 4.07 0.93 29The Sun and its energy 65 35 4.37 0.79 1Telescopes to study the universe 53 47 3.83 1.13 39Galaxies 56 44 3.92 1.11 36Stars 57 43 4.11 0.99 22The universe and its formation 59 41 4.09 0.98 24

Earth/space science topics median rating 4.09

65




% % Mean


Physical science

Scientific measurements; metric system 89 11 4.50 0.77 1Physical and chemical changes 80 20 4.50 0.80 2Elements, compounds, and molecules 83 16 4.44 0.86 5Mass, volume, and density 87 13 4.49 0.84 3Chemical symbols and formulas 80 20 4.30 0.93 12Atoms: protons, electrons, and neutrons 79 21 4.47 0.83 4Forces within the atom 63 37 4.03 1.07 26Energy levels within the atom 65 35 4.13 1.03 21Periodic table; atomic number, mass number 77 23 4.36 0.94 9Types of chemical bonds 61 39 4.06 1.07 24Chemical reactions: reactants and products 61 39 4.29 0.87 13Balancing chemical equations 57 43 3.83 1.22 51Endothermic and exothermic reactions 55 45 3.92 1.08 41Rates of chemical reactions 42 58 3.69 1.19 59Solutions: solubility and concentration 57 43 3.88 1.10 47Polarity 25 75 3.27 1.40 88Freezing point depression; boiling point elevation 39 61 3.68 1.24 62Acids and bases; salts 49 51 3.83 1.11 50pH scale 52 48 3.88 1.10 46Radioactive elements and radioactivity 41 58 3.57 1.16 70Speed, velocity, and acceleration 67 33 4.25 0.99 15Momentum 63 37 4.14 1.07 20Newton’s three laws of motion 69 31 4.42 0.94 6Friction 70 30 4.34 0.98 11Gravity 76 24 4.35 0.90 10Mass and weight 83 17 4.39 0.91 8Projectile and orbital motion 44 56 3.71 1.16 57Fluid pressure 40 60 3.62 1.14 67Buoyancy; Archimedes’ principle 51 49 4.00 1.09 33Bernoulli’s principle 44 56 3.75 1.25 54Work, power, and efficiency 54 46 4.04 1.08 25Simple machines (levers, pulleys, etc.) 50 50 4.23 1.05 16Mechanical, heat, chemical, electromagnetic, and 54 46 4.10 1.02 22

nuclear energyKinetic and potential energy 64 36 4.41 0.92 7Energy conversions and conservation of energy 60 40 4.26 0.99 14Temperature and molecular motion 61 38 4.21 0.99 17Kelvin scale 39 61 3.40 1.20 83Heat transfer: conduction, convection, and radiation 58 41 4.17 0.98 18Specific heat; amount of heat gained or lost 36 64 3.69 1.09 60Melting, freezing, and boiling points 68 32 4.15 0.89 19Heats of fusion and vaporization 33 67 3.64 1.11 66Thermal expansion 36 64 3.65 1.15 64Heating and cooling systems; heat engines 25 75 3.35 1.05 85Electric charge 39 61 4.02 1.12 29Electric fields 32 68 3.95 1.22 38Static electricity; charging an object 40 60 3.99 1.15 34Conductors and insulators 42 58 4.02 1.10 30Voltage, current, and resistance; Ohm’s law 30 70 4.03 1.20 28

66




% % Mean


Electrochemical cells; batteries 29 71 3.70 1.27 58

Electrical circuits 32 68 4.01 1.28 31

Electrical energy and power 34 66 3.96 1.14 37

Magnetism: magnetic poles and fields 37 63 3.81 1.23 52

Earth as a magnet; compasses 39 61 3.73 1.11 55

Magnetic effects of electricity; motors 27 73 3.65 1.31 65

Electromagnetic induction; generators 23 77 3.51 1.25 75

Transformers 20 79 3.28 1.27 87

Types of waves: transverse and longitudinal 39 61 3.99 1.02 35

Amplitude, wavelength, and frequency 44 56 3.91 1.04 44

Speed of waves 42 58 3.86 1.01 49

Reflection and refraction 44 56 4.03 0.99 27

Diffraction 35 65 3.91 1.01 42

Constructive and destructive interference 25 75 3.43 1.27 82

Transmitting sound 31 69 3.53 1.22 73

Intensity and loudness 28 72 3.56 1.27 72

Frequency (pitch); sound quality (timbre) 30 70 3.62 1.22 68

Doppler effect 38 62 3.67 1.18 63

Resonance 23 77 3.45 1.25 80

Light energy: photons 28 72 3.72 1.29 56

Electromagnetic waves 41 59 4.01 1.05 32

Electromagnetic spectrum 44 56 4.08 1.09 23

Separating white light: prisms 42 58 3.86 1.05 48

Transmittance and absorbance 23 77 3.49 1.28 76

Transparent, translucent, and opaque surfaces 28 72 3.61 1.26 69

Primary and complementary colors and pigments 25 75 3.52 1.23 74

Incandescent and fluorescent light 23 77 3.46 1.19 79

Plane, concave, and convex mirrors 30 69 3.56 1.14 71

Concave and convex lenses 34 66 3.79 1.05 53

Cameras, telescopes, and microscopes 34 66 3.68 1.06 61

Lasers; fiber optics 27 73 3.47 1.19 77

Fossil fuels 58 42 3.91 1.03 43

Solar energy; wind and water power 54 46 3.93 1.13 40

Nuclear energy 49 51 3.94 1.19 39

Alternative energy sources 55 45 3.90 1.14 45

Pollution and conservation 61 39 3.98 1.06 36

Petroleum fuels and fractional distillation 21 79 3.46 1.39 78

Polymers 21 79 3.39 1.35 84

Electronic devices (transistors, integrated circuits, etc.) 14 86 3.29 1.43 86

Communication devices (telephones, computers, etc.) 22 78 3.45 1.38 81

Physical science topics median rating 3.90

67

Tabl

e 4.

7S

cien

ce C

urr

icu

lum

Su

rvey

Res

ult

s:P

erce

nt T

aug

ht,

Mea

n R

atin

g,a

nd

Ran

k fo

r E

ach

Co

nte

nt T

op

ic,b

y R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p (

con

tin

ued

)

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e

%%

%Ta

ught

Not

Mea

nM

ean

Co

nte

nt

top

icTa

ught

prio

rta

ught

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

Bio

log

y

Str

uctu

re a

nd f

unct

ion

of b

iolo

gica

lly im

port

ant

mol

ecul

es

895

64.

370.

915

3.64

1.31

4(e

.g.,

prot

eins

, lip

ids,

car

bohy

drat

es,

and

nucl

eic

acid

s)

Str

uctu

re a

nd f

unct

ion

of c

ells

(e.

g.,

orga

nelle

s, m

embr

ane

stru

ctur

e,

909

14.

700.

651

3.89

1.21

1cy

topl

asm

)

Bio

chem

istr

y of

life

pro

cess

es (

e.g.

, K

rebs

cyc

le,

elec

tron

tra

nspo

rt)

7010

203.

991.

148

3.09

1.34

8

Str

uctu

re a

nd f

unct

ion

of t

he c

ircul

ator

y sy

stem

6211

273.

910.

9514

2.41

1.19

17

Str

uctu

re a

nd f

unct

ion

of t

he d

iges

tive

syst

em62

1226

3.93

0.95

122.

381.

2021

Str

uctu

re a

nd f

unct

ion

of t

he s

kele

tal a

nd m

uscu

lar

syst

ems

5913

293.

970.

9710

2.32

1.16

23

Str

uctu

re a

nd f

unct

ion

of t

he r

espi

rato

ry s

yste

m63

1226

3.91

0.98

142.

381.

2120

Str

uctu

re a

nd f

unct

ion

of t

he e

xcre

tory

sys

tem

5512

333.

810.

9722

2.29

1.17

26

Str

uctu

re a

nd f

unct

ion

of t

he n

ervo

us s

yste

m61

1128

3.92

0.98

132.

381.

2019

Str

uctu

re a

nd f

unct

ion

of t

he e

ndoc

rine

syst

em52

1137

3.75

1.02

242.

321.

1623

Str

uctu

re a

nd f

unct

ion

of t

he r

epro

duct

ive

syst

em56

1033

3.80

1.02

232.

431.

2116

Str

uctu

re a

nd f

unct

ion

of t

he im

mun

olog

ical

sys

tem

549

363.

840.

9720

2.28

1.18

27

Sen

sory

org

ans

4414

423.

581.

1129

2.24

1.13

28

Hum

an h

ealth

(e.

g.,

nutr

ition

, ag

ing,

dis

ease

s)41

3029

3.68

1.21

252.

501.

1714

Mic

robi

olog

y (e

.g.,

bact

eria

, vi

ruse

s)74

1114

3.87

1.08

172.

671.

0712

Pla

nt a

nato

my

(e.g

., st

ems,

roo

ts,

flow

ers)

6118

203.

671.

1626

2.34

1.12

22

Pla

nt p

hysi

olog

y (e

.g.,

tran

spor

t)58

1923

3.60

1.26

282.

171.

0929

Pla

nt r

epro

duct

ion

(e.g

., lif

e cy

cles

, po

llina

tion,

see

ds,

grow

th

6119

203.

651.

2227

2.31

1.10

25an

d de

velo

pmen

t)

Pla

nt n

utrit

ion

(e.g

., es

sent

ial n

utrie

nts,

pho

tosy

nthe

sis)

6116

233.

861.

1318

2.40

1.17

18

Cel

l div

isio

n (e

.g.,

mito

sis

and

mei

osis

)85

132

4.54

0.81

43.

771.

172

Em

bryo

logy

(e.

g.,

fert

iliza

tion,

dev

elop

men

t)59

1130

3.85

1.06

192.

501.

1015

Men

delia

n ge

netic

s (e

.g.,

Men

del’s

Law

s, g

enet

ic c

ross

es)

8213

54.

660.

652

3.65

1.31

3

Mol

ecul

ar g

enet

ics

(e.g

., pr

otei

n sy

nthe

sis,

DN

Are

plic

atio

n,

8410

64.

600.

713

3.38

1.36

6ge

netic

eng

inee

ring)

Div

ersi

ty o

f lif

e (e

.g.,

king

dom

s, c

lass

ifica

tion

syst

ems)

8314

34.

120.

976

3.32

1.29

7

Evo

lutio

n (e

.g.,

natu

ral s

elec

tion,

ada

ptat

ions

, sp

ecia

tion)

7415

114.

101.

057

3.54

1.41

5

Ani

mal

beh

avio

r43

1245

3.34

1.21

302.

020.

9930

Pop

ulat

ion

ecol

ogy

(e.g

., ha

bita

ts,

nich

es,

popu

latio

n gr

owth

)60

1426

3.88

1.22

162.

691.

2611

Spe

cies

inte

ract

ions

(e.

g, c

ompe

titio

n, p

reda

tion,

mut

ualis

m)

6214

233.

841.

2221

2.65

1.26

13

Eco

syst

ems

(e.g

., fo

od c

hain

s, e

nerg

y py

ram

ids,

suc

cess

ion)

6218

203.

971.

229

2.96

1.34

10

Hum

an im

pact

on

the

envi

ronm

ent

(e.g

., po

llutio

n, g

reen

hous

e ef

fect

)61

1524

3.95

1.19

113.

001.

329

Bio

log

y co

nte

nt

top

ics

med

ian

rat

ing

3.90

2.46

68

Tabl

e 4.

7S

cien

ce C

urr

icu

lum

Su

rvey

Res

ult

s:P

erce

nt T

aug

ht,

Mea

n R

atin

g,a

nd

Ran

k fo

r E

ach

Co

nte

nt T

op

ic,b

y R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p (

con

tin

ued

)

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e

%%

%Ta

ught

Not

Mea

nM

ean

Co

nte

nt

top

icTa

ught

prio

rta

ught

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

Ch

emis

try

Uni

ts o

f m

easu

rem

ent;

met

ric s

yste

m84

160

4.54

0.78

44.

390.

991

Cla

ssifi

catio

n an

d pr

oper

ties

of m

atte

r87

130

4.24

0.90

103.

691.

106

Den

sity

8416

04.

030.

9721

3.61

1.06

10

Ato

ms,

mol

ecul

es,

ions

; m

ole

conc

ept

927

04.

900.

361

4.24

1.10

2

Che

mic

al f

orm

ulas

and

equ

atio

ns93

70

4.88

0.41

24.

121.

153

Sto

ichi

omet

ry a

nd p

erce

nt y

ield

924

44.

700.

643

3.69

1.36

6

Hea

t, en

thal

py,

stat

e fu

nctio

ns68

230

3.88

1.01

242.

911.

4222

Idea

l gas

law

; ki

netic

mol

ecul

ar t

heor

y85

411

4.42

0.80

83.

231.

3215

Ele

ctro

n co

nfig

urat

ions

, va

lenc

e el

ectr

ons

936

14.

430.

827

3.54

1.33

12

Che

mic

al b

ond

form

atio

n89

65

4.45

0.75

53.

621.

309

Bon

ding

the

orie

s76

420

4.07

0.99

173.

011.

3221

Pol

arity

, el

ectr

oneg

ativ

ity88

57

4.17

0.91

123.

221.

3716

Kel

vin

tem

pera

ture

sca

le87

94

4.13

0.96

153.

561.

2411

Pha

se c

hang

es85

77

4.14

0.90

143.

201.

2217

Pha

se d

iagr

ams

656

293.

491.

0239

2.12

1.14

43

Uni

ts o

f co

ncen

trat

ion

842

144.

200.

8711

3.77

1.22

4

Col

ligat

ive

prop

ertie

s59

337

3.66

1.05

322.

611.

2429

Rea

ctio

n ra

tes

521

473.

821.

0528

2.74

1.40

24

Rea

ctio

n m

echa

nism

s40

159

3.36

1.18

432.

221.

2941

Cat

alys

ts;

enzy

mes

556

403.

491.

0540

2.42

1.23

36

Che

mic

al e

quili

bria

621

374.

101.

0816

3.12

1.49

19

Bro

nste

d ac

id/b

ase

theo

ry73

225

4.06

0.98

183.

391.

3913

Lew

is a

cid/

base

the

ory

623

353.

851.

1026

2.72

1.36

25

pH s

cale

837

94.

440.

796

3.76

1.28

5

Aci

d/ba

se r

eact

ions

835

124.

340.

829

3.65

1.29

8

Com

mon

ion

effe

ct a

nd b

uffe

r so

lutio

ns36

360

3.56

1.16

362.

681.

3727

Aci

d/ba

se t

itrat

ion

762

224.

160.

8813

3.18

1.32

18

Aci

d/ba

se in

dica

tors

794

173.

950.

9523

2.80

1.21

23

Sol

ubili

ty p

rodu

ct43

156

3.60

1.15

352.

491.

4133

Qua

litat

ive

anal

ysis

443

523.

611.

1833

2.26

1.18

40

Spo

ntan

eity

and

ent

ropy

372

613.

331.

2546

2.50

1.42

32

2nd

law

of

ther

mod

ynam

ics

352

633.

411.

1942

2.48

1.38

34

Gib

bs f

ree

ener

gy25

274

3.26

1.34

492.

451.

4835

Oxi

datio

n/re

duct

ion

reac

tions

660

334.

041.

0419

3.25

1.45

14

69

Tabl

e 4.

7S

cien

ce C

urr

icu

lum

Su

rvey

Res

ult

s:P

erce

nt T

aug

ht,

Mea

n R

atin

g,a

nd

Ran

k fo

r E

ach

Co

nte

nt T

op

ic,b

y R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p (

con

tin

ued

)

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e

%%

%Ta

ught

Not

Mea

nM

ean

Co

nte

nt

top

icTa

ught

prio

rta

ught

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

Ele

ctro

chem

ical

cel

ls32

365

3.47

1.15

412.

591.

3230

Bat

terie

s an

d st

orag

e ce

lls25

570

3.09

1.16

512.

321.

1838

Ele

ctro

lysi

s41

455

3.34

1.23

452.

291.

2339

Cor

rosi

on39

359

3.35

1.17

442.

021.

0448

Che

mis

try

of G

roup

1A

, 2A

775

173.

871.

0825

2.69

1.24

26

Met

als,

met

allo

ids,

non

met

als

818

114.

031.

0120

3.08

1.20

20

Che

mis

try

of G

roup

s 5A

, 6A

, 7A

705

243.

851.

1227

2.58

1.22

31

The

Nob

le g

ases

798

143.

961.

0922

2.66

1.22

28

Bas

ic o

rgan

ic n

omen

clat

ure

553

423.

721.

1429

2.08

1.30

45

Org

anic

mol

ecul

es/s

truc

ture

s48

349

3.68

1.19

312.

151.

3442

Fun

ctio

nal g

roup

s42

256

3.50

1.24

382.

061.

3447

Pet

role

um a

nd it

s pr

oduc

ts23

572

2.97

1.21

531.

630.

9355

Mol

ecul

ar s

tere

oche

mis

try

162

822.

891.

2856

1.88

1.17

51

Am

ino

acid

s, p

rote

ins

1410

752.

951.

3254

1.78

1.22

53

Car

bohy

drat

es,

nucl

eic

acid

s13

1176

2.93

1.32

551.

751.

2154

Syn

thet

ic p

olym

ers

214

752.

991.

2052

1.63

0.93

55

Che

mis

try

of t

rans

ition

met

als

424

553.

301.

1847

1.86

1.04

52

Spe

ctro

scop

y/ab

sorp

tion

333

633.

261.

1550

2.10

1.18

44

Nat

ure

of r

adio

activ

ity55

440

3.69

1.09

302.

381.

2337

Rat

es o

f nu

clea

r de

cay

454

503.

511.

1237

2.08

1.16

45

Nuc

lear

fis

sion

/fusi

on50

545

3.61

1.08

342.

011.

1049

Rad

ioch

emic

al d

atin

g42

355

3.28

1.18

481.

911.

0850

Ch

emis

try

con

ten

t to

pic

s m

edia

n r

atin

g3.

772.

64

70

Tabl

e 4.

7S

cien

ce C

urr

icu

lum

Su

rvey

Res

ult

s:P

erce

nt T

aug

ht,

Mea

n R

atin

g,a

nd

Ran

k fo

r E

ach

Co

nte

nt T

op

ic,b

y R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p (

con

tin

ued

)

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e

%%

%Ta

ught

Not

Mea

nM

ean

Co

nte

nt

top

icTa

ught

prio

rta

ught

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

Ear

th/s

pac

e sc

ien

ce (

or

Ear

th s

cien

ce)

Map

rea

ding

and

inte

rpre

tatio

n80

911

4.23

0.95

182.

721.

2417

The

geo

logi

c tim

e sc

ale

739

183.

861.

1134

2.76

1.41

14

Type

s of

fos

sils

6113

263.

251.

0741

1.78

1.02

41

Fos

siliz

atio

n67

1122

3.53

1.04

401.

901.

1539

Inte

rpre

tatio

n of

fos

sils

609

323.

581.

0739

1.87

1.11

40

Pro

pert

ies

of m

atte

r59

356

4.15

1.12

213.

361.

221

Min

eral

s an

d th

eir

prop

ertie

s87

76

4.46

0.79

53.

011.

517

Roc

ks a

nd t

heir

prop

ertie

s89

74

4.43

0.85

73.

071.

536

The

roc

k cy

cle

888

34.

440.

866

3.15

1.53

4

Bio

geoc

hem

ical

cyc

les

(car

bon,

nitr

ogen

, w

ater

, et

c.)

5819

223.

731.

0937

2.66

1.38

19

Wea

ther

ing

proc

esse

s86

85

4.20

0.96

202.

971.

418

Soi

l for

mat

ion

and

soil

prop

ertie

s71

1018

3.76

1.08

362.

471.

3023

Ero

sion

and

age

nts

of e

rosi

on85

105

4.30

0.89

162.

931.

429

Dep

ositi

on83

107

4.04

1.03

262.

821.

3912

Gro

undw

ater

808

124.

250.

9917

2.74

1.50

16

Land

form

cre

atio

n82

710

4.08

0.94

232.

701.

4018

Glo

bal p

late

tec

toni

cs91

63

4.76

0.54

13.

321.

612

Vol

cani

sm85

86

4.51

0.78

33.

211.

543

Ear

thqu

akes

906

44.

670.

602

3.11

1.56

5

Ear

th’s

inte

rior

906

34.

490.

764

2.91

1.50

11

Type

s of

nat

ural

res

ourc

es63

1324

3.97

1.19

292.

591.

4021

Fos

sil f

uels

6015

243.

931.

1830

2.43

1.39

26

Alte

rnat

ive

ener

gy s

ourc

es55

1332

4.02

1.11

272.

231.

2933

Con

serv

atio

n an

d pr

eser

vatio

n55

1232

4.07

1.12

252.

291.

3832

Air,

wat

er,

soil

pollu

tion

6711

224.

101.

0922

2.41

1.35

27

Rec

yclin

g44

2233

3.87

1.28

332.

001.

2538

Pop

ulat

ion

grow

th28

2448

3.64

1.34

382.

201.

3235

The

com

posi

tion

of a

ir82

118

4.34

0.85

132.

771.

5413

Ear

th’s

atm

osph

ere

886

64.

390.

9010

2.92

1.59

10

Air

pres

sure

8013

84.

400.

908

2.51

1.47

22

Glo

bal a

nd lo

cal w

inds

8011

104.

310.

9314

2.46

1.51

24

Rel

ativ

e hu

mid

ity a

nd d

ew p

oint

7811

114.

370.

8211

2.21

1.49

34

Clo

uds

and

prec

ipita

tion

8210

84.

390.

829

2.44

1.53

25

Wea

ther

pre

dict

ion

7712

114.

310.

9515

2.09

1.40

37

71

Tabl

e 4.

7S

cien

ce C

urr

icu

lum

Su

rvey

Res

ult

s:P

erce

nt T

aug

ht,

Mea

n R

atin

g,a

nd

Ran

k fo

r E

ach

Co

nte

nt T

op

ic,b

y R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p (

con

tin

ued

)

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e

%%

%Ta

ught

Not

Mea

nM

ean

Co

nte

nt

top

icTa

ught

prio

rta

ught

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

Wea

ther

pat

tern

s80

128

4.35

0.89

122.

311.

4631

Clim

ate

7514

114.

211.

0219

2.76

1.56

14

Oce

an c

urre

nts

639

283.

981.

0328

2.32

1.44

30

Pro

pert

ies

of o

cean

wat

er52

1235

3.84

1.18

352.

111.

2836

Topo

grap

hy o

f th

e oc

ean

floor

6311

263.

901.

0531

2.60

1.36

20

Tide

s67

1122

4.07

1.02

242.

411.

3827

Wav

es59

932

3.89

1.12

322.

381.

3529

Ear

th/s

pac

e sc

ien

ce (

or

Ear

th s

cien

ce)

con

ten

t to

pic

s m

edia

n r

atin

g4.

152.

59

72

Tabl

e 4.

7S

cien

ce C

urr

icu

lum

Su

rvey

Res

ult

s:P

erce

nt T

aug

ht,

Mea

n R

atin

g,a

nd

Ran

k fo

r E

ach

Co

nte

nt T

op

ic,b

y R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p (

con

tin

ued

)

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e

%%

%Ta

ught

Not

Mea

nM

ean

Co

nte

nt

top

icTa

ught

prio

rta

ught

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

Phy

sics

Dis

tanc

e, d

ispl

acem

ent,

spee

d, v

eloc

ity,

acce

lera

tion

100

00

4.91

0.33

23.

711.

452

Pos

ition

-tim

e gr

aphs

and

vel

ocity

-tim

e gr

aphs

981

14.

510.

7717

3.15

1.37

12

New

ton’

s la

ws

of m

otio

n99

10

4.95

0.27

13.

521.

625

Sta

tic f

orce

s94

15

4.38

0.81

202.

981.

4720

Law

of

grav

itatio

n94

15

4.37

0.83

212.

921.

5221

Kep

ler’s

law

s56

539

3.40

1.22

522.

061.

1851

Fre

e fa

ll m

otio

n10

00

04.

750.

548

3.37

1.52

6

Pro

ject

ile m

otio

n99

01

4.59

0.70

143.

061.

5217

Uni

form

circ

ular

mot

ion:

cen

trip

etal

acc

eler

atio

n94

06

4.39

0.79

192.

921.

5021

Sim

ple

harm

onic

mot

ion

820

183.

981.

0336

2.67

1.49

31

Mom

entu

m a

nd c

onse

rvat

ion

of m

omen

tum

990

14.

710.

619

3.15

1.62

12

Kin

etic

ene

rgy

and

pote

ntia

l ene

rgy

991

04.

820.

474

3.36

1.62

7

Wor

k an

d th

e w

ork-

ener

gy t

heor

em97

02

4.60

0.66

123.

151.

6312

Torq

ue a

nd r

otat

iona

l mot

ion

680

313.

741.

0344

2.66

1.53

33

Tem

pera

ture

sca

les

4937

133.

791.

0042

2.91

1.47

23

Spe

cific

hea

t an

d ca

lorim

etry

4832

194.

040.

9535

2.56

1.47

37

Hea

t tr

ansf

er:

cond

uctio

n, c

onve

ctio

n, r

adia

tion

4632

213.

970.

8738

2.57

1.39

36

The

rmal

exp

ansi

on48

1932

3.73

1.01

452.

311.

2843

Late

nt h

eat

and

phas

es o

f m

atte

r: s

olid

, liq

uid,

gas

4833

184.

050.

9133

2.55

1.42

38

Idea

l gas

law

3147

213.

920.

9839

2.60

1.47

35

Kin

etic

the

ory

of g

ases

3442

233.

841.

0141

2.30

1.37

44

Law

s of

the

rmod

ynam

ics

4622

303.

970.

9637

2.51

1.50

40

Pro

duct

ion

of w

aves

: ac

cele

ratio

n of

cha

rges

and

vib

ratio

n81

217

4.12

1.04

312.

401.

3441

Pro

pert

ies

of w

aves

: w

avel

engt

h, f

requ

ency

, sp

eed,

am

plitu

de90

46

4.65

0.68

103.

181.

619

Ele

ctro

mag

netic

spe

ctru

m83

98

4.32

0.91

232.

911.

4623

Inte

ract

ion

of li

ght

with

mat

ter:

ref

lect

ion,

ref

ract

ion,

abs

orpt

ion,

em

issi

on87

211

4.43

0.77

182.

801.

4528

Dop

pler

effe

ct87

49

4.13

0.94

292.

391.

2542

Diff

ract

ion

and

inte

rfer

ence

793

184.

120.

9730

2.64

1.53

34

Imag

es f

orm

ed b

y m

irror

s an

d/or

lens

es73

423

4.20

0.96

282.

831.

5527

Opt

ical

inst

rum

ents

: m

icro

scop

es a

nd/o

r te

lesc

opes

408

513.

271.

1354

2.25

1.22

45

Lase

rs a

nd h

olog

raph

y29

567

2.99

1.13

571.

831.

0257

Ele

ctro

stat

ics:

Cou

lom

b’s

law

821

164.

600.

7213

3.18

1.67

9

Ele

ctric

fie

ld79

219

4.31

0.84

263.

001.

6818

Ele

ctric

pot

entia

l and

pot

entia

l diff

eren

ce80

119

4.55

0.70

152.

991.

6619

73

Tabl

e 4.

7S

cien

ce C

urr

icu

lum

Su

rvey

Res

ult

s:P

erce

nt T

aug

ht,

Mea

n R

atin

g,a

nd

Ran

k fo

r E

ach

Co

nte

nt T

op

ic,b

y R

esp

on

den

t G

rou

p (

con

tin

ued

)

Hig

h s

cho

ol

Co

lleg

e

%%

%Ta

ught

Not

Mea

nM

ean

Co

nte

nt

top

icTa

ught

prio

rta

ught

ratin

gS

DR

ank

ratin

gS

DR

ank

Cur

rent

, re

sist

ance

, vo

ltage

; O

hm’s

law

841

154.

780.

577

3.09

1.64

16

Con

duct

ivity

: co

nduc

tors

and

insu

lato

rs78

318

4.31

0.86

242.

801.

4728

Cap

acita

nce

and

capa

cito

rs54

145

3.88

1.07

402.

551.

5038

DC

circ

uits

822

164.

510.

7716

2.87

1.53

25

AC

circ

uits

364

603.

681.

2447

2.19

1.35

46

Ele

ctric

al e

nerg

y an

d po

wer

791

194.

350.

8322

2.84

1.52

26

Mag

netis

m a

nd m

agne

tic e

ffect

s of

cur

rent

703

274.

250.

9627

2.79

1.53

30

Ele

ctro

mag

netic

indu

ctio

n58

239

4.05

0.97

322.

671.

5731

Ato

mic

str

uctu

re:

prot

ons,

neu

tron

s, e

lect

rons

3452

144.

310.

9425

3.18

1.57

9

Den

sity

3452

144.

050.

9934

3.15

1.45

12

Def

orm

atio

n of

sol

ids

1823

603.

021.

2056

1.93

1.08

56

Flu

id b

ehav

ior:

hyd

rost

atic

s an

d/or

hyd

rody

nam

ics

3515

503.

541.

1650

2.12

1.29

50

Nuc

lear

dec

ay:

radi

oact

ivity

3322

453.

721.

0246

2.15

1.34

49

Nuc

lear

rea

ctio

ns:

fissi

on a

nd/o

r fu

sion

3421

453.

661.

0548

2.02

1.30

53

Wav

e-pa

rtic

le d

ualit

y52

543

3.76

1.09

432.

181.

4447

Unc

erta

inty

prin

cipl

e26

1162

3.39

1.09

532.

051.

3752

Qua

ntum

phy

sics

: at

omic

spe

ctra

3214

533.

631.

0549

2.16

1.42

48

Pau

li ex

clus

ion

prin

cipl

e an

d th

e pe

riodi

c ta

ble

1227

603.

091.

0655

1.97

1.32

55

Rel

ativ

ity (

gene

ral a

nd/o

r sp

ecia

l)36

261

3.44

1.03

511.

991.

3354

Uni

ts o

f m

easu

rem

ent;

met

ric s

yste

m82

171

4.83

0.55

34.

121.

191

Vec

tors

951

34.

790.

536

3.68

1.46

3

Con

vers

ion

of e

nerg

y fr

om o

ne f

orm

to

anot

her

form

955

14.

620.

7011

3.32

1.56

8

Con

serv

atio

n of

ene

rgy

982

04.

800.

475

3.54

1.60

4

Phy

sics

co

nte

nt

top

ics

med

ian

rat

ing

4.13

2.80

ACT National Curriculum Survey 2002-2003

Documents

Transcript of ACT National Curriculum Survey 2002-2003