| In this paper, we learn and transform the US SEC(Surveys of Enacted Curriculum) alignment analysis framework, under the two background about the new curriculum and college entrance examination reform,using seven provincial physics academic proficiency test papers and high school physics curriculum standards as the research object, analyzing and verifying the alignment of both.In the transformation of the localization process, we join a dimension which called "excessive" to improv the SEC alignment analysis’ defect about lacking direct matching between the various elements of learning objectives and unable to provide details of insufficient consistency.Through analysis of the alignment between them, the results showed that: the degree of alignment between the papers and curriculum standards are generally low, Hebei Province paper’s consistency coefficient was the lowest(0.4000), Jiangsu Province paper’s consistency coefficient was the highest(0.5778) near the critical reference value(0.7079).From the view of content themes, in addition to individual provinces, the test papers pay more attention on the "movement description,projectile and circular motion" and pay low attention on "the achievements and limitations of classical mechanics, household appliances and daily life, electromagnetic and information technology, circuit" which is closely linked with STS.This phenomenon does not meet the STS educational philosophy.From the view of cognitive level, although provincial papers have reduced the "remember" ratio, improved the "understanding" radio, but did not further overstating the proportion of "application".All the papers have examined the "experimental / inquiry."Problems of curriculum standards need further improvement.The experiments need further clarification. The implement of curriculum standards is not enough,such as the textbook and the test paper’s wtitten,which results the "excessive".From the view of test papers’ written, few provinces’ paper contents are not clear enough to distinguish.There are some differences about knowledge representation between the test papers and curriculum standards. |