Monday, April 1, 2013

Curriculum Based Assessment / Measurement

Campbell, Heather; Espine, Christine; Lembke, Erica; Long, Jeffrey D.; Ticha, Renata, and Wallace, Teri. (2008). Curriculum-Based Measurement in Writing: Predicting the Success of High-School Students on State Standards Tests. Exceptional Children, 74.2, 174-193.

The authors state the purpose of their study as to “examine the validity and reliability of curriculum-based measures as indicators of performance on state standard tests in writing” (174). The authors note that students with disabilities often struggle with writing, and 70% of all high school students are at levels below proficiency. Therefore, the authors suggest secondary teachers must have appropriate intervention strategies available. However, the authors also note that many of the studies done on curriculum-based measurement are done at the elementary level, few are done at the middle school level, and very little are done at the high school level. Because of this, it is difficult to address writing issues facing secondary students with learning disabilities, such as writing deficiency. The authors further assert that very little research is to be found on the effects of curriculum-based measurement on English Language Learners. This study consisted of 183 high school students from two large urban high schools. The results of the study reveal that writing samples that are 5 to 7 minutes in length that use the correct minus incorrect word sequence scoring procedure would be effective in determining student performance on state standard tests in writing.

Christ, Theodore J. (2006). Short-Term Estimates of Growth Using Curriculum-Based Measurement of Oral Reading Fluency: Estimating Standard Error of the Slope to Construct Confidence Intervals. School Psychology Review, 35.1, 128-133.

Christ asserts that curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency is used to show student growth and student level. Christ states the purpose of his study is to incorporate research-based estimates of the standard error of the estimate in order to produce “magnitudes for the standard error of the slope across a variety of progress monitoring durations and measurement conditions” (129). Christ gathered research to find relevant material on curriculum-based measurement and curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency. Of the two hundred thirty four studies, only three reported standard error of the estimate involving oral reading fluency. Christ’s findings show that the standard error of the slope is reduced when progress monitoring durations are lengthened, and the “standard error of estimate was used to estimate the likely influence of CBM-R measurement conditions” (130). Christ argues that four times more error is resulted from poorly controlled measurement conditions. The limitations to Christ’s study are the small sample size, none of the studies reported “the standard error of the estimate at the optimal levels,” and “some assumptions of ordinary least squares are violated when time-series data for individual students are evaluated” (131-132).

Cusumano, Dale L. (2007). Is It Working?: An Overview of Curriculum Based Measurement and Its Uses for Assessing Instructional, Intervention, or Program Effectiveness. Behavior Analyst Today, 8.1, 24-34.

Cusumano begins his article by giving an overview of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Individuals with Disability Education Improvement Act of 2004. Cusumano states they have “further shaped educational goals with requirements that students’ academic experiences be enriched with high quality and research-based instructional strategies” (24). Therefore, Cusumano asserts Curriculum-Based Measurement is an effective method in addressing the needs of all students as set up in NCLB and IDEIA. Cusumano gives an overview of CBM and states that CBM is effective in monitoring student progress and highlighting students who are high-risk. Cusumano shows that CBM can be sued in assessing students reading, mathematics, spelling, and written expression skills. Cusumano outlines benefits of CBM to educators as setting up realistic goals, modifying curriculum, modifying instructional approach, and monitoring student performance. Cusumano’s study reveals that the students of educators who have been instructed on the use of CBM showed considerable gains in academic achievement.

McLane, Kathleen. (2008). Fact Sheet: Benefits of Curriculum Based Measurement. National Center on Student Progress.

McLane designed this fact sheet in order to explain curriculum-based measurement to parents. McLane asserts that curriculum-based measurement is the most effective way to measure student progress and allows teachers to develop methods to teach each student. McLane claims the benefits of CBM are as follows: they effectively measure the student’s true performance, the graphs are clear and easy to understand, the graphs can benefit parent/faculty communication as well as faculty/professional communication, the graphs can benefit Individual Education Program development as well as measuring the progress toward goals and objectives set-up in the IEP, the graphs can be important when addressing educational issues of each student as they are introduced to new faculty, the scores of CBM are easier to understand than traditional standardized assessments, the graphs can be used by students to allow them to self-monitor their progress and motivates students to reach their academic goals, CBM allows stakeholders to see if the instruction the student is receiving is effective, and CBM can be used to screen students in order to intervene if students are at risk.

Stecker, Pamela M. (2006). Using Curriculum-Based Measurement to Monitor Reading Progress in Inclusive Elementary Settings. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22.1, 91-97.

Stecker introduces the reader to a fourth grade student, Max, who is falling behind his peers in reading development. Stecker provides an overview of curriculum-based measurement and states that oral reading fluency may not provide educators with skill deficiencies of individual students, but they can be used to gauge the student’s progress. Stecker asserts that oral reading fluency and reading comprehension are correlated with one another. Stecker states the use of CBM is more effective than other data-collection methods because of the reliability and validity of the CBM, and CBM is effective in showing progress toward long-term goals rather than short-term goals. Stecker use Max’s situation to show how CBM may be implemented in order to needs of at-risk students. In Stecker’s article, she demonstrates collaboration between the general education and special education teachers of Max. Stecker the training of the general education teacher on how to administer oral reading probes. Once the teacher has become comfortable using the method to chart Max’s progress, the special education teacher suggests she administer the assessment to all of her students. In doing so, two more at-risk students were identified.

No comments:

Post a Comment