Effects of Alternative Student Performance Graphing Procedures on Achievement.

ABSTRACT This meta-analysis investigates the effects on achievement of type of graphing paper employed in displaying student performance data collected over tivlb. Ongoing curriculum-based measurement syslams employing Data-Based Program Development (DBPD) provide a data source of 16 controlled studies with 17 effect sizes. A total of 3,494 subjects participated in these studies, with 81 percent of the investigations employing handicapped subjects. The average weighted unbiased effect sizes for six-cycle and equal interval paper, respectively, were .65 and .46. Hedges' analogue to analysis of variance indicated this difference was not statistically reliable. This study provides a basis for two conclusions: (1) the existing data base concerning methods for displaying student performance data indicates that type of graphing method does not affect student achievement reliably; and (2) this meta-analysis highlights the need for components of DBPD, including graphing conventions, to be contrasted within the context of controlled experimental investigations. Comparisons of DBPD components within controlled experimental studies should provide important knowledge alma critical elements of ongoing monitoring systems for effective development of individualized instructional programs. Implications for special education practice are discussed. in appendix lists the reports included in the meta-analysis. (Maher/PM)

[1]  H. Heller.  Code of Ethics and Standards for Professional Practice , 1983 .

[2]  Judith A. Arter,et al.  Examining the Benefits and Prevalence of Modality Considerations in Special Education , 1977 .

[3]  C. Merz,et al.  Charting Scores in Precision Teaching for Skill Acquisition , 1978 .

[4]  D. Krug,et al.  Evaluation of a program of systematic instructional procedures for extremely poor retarded children. , 1975, American journal of mental deficiency.

[5]  S. Breuning.  Precision Teaching in the High School Classroom: A Necessary Step Towards Maximizing Teacher Effectiveness and Student Performance , 1978 .

[6]  Lynn S. Fuchs,et al.  The Effects of Frequent Curriculum-Based Measurement and Evaluation on Pedagogy, Student Achievement, and Student Awareness of Learning , 1984 .

[7]  D. Krug,et al.  Placement in Regular Programs: Procedures and Results , 1975, Exceptional children.

[8]  W. Hays.  Single Subject Research in Special Education. , 1985 .

[9]  Douglas Bruce Marston.  The technical adequacy of direct, repeated measurement of academic skills in low achieving elementary students , 1982 .

[10]  M. Carbo.  Research in Reading and Learning Style: Implications for Exceptional Children , 1983, Exceptional children.

[11]  Phyllis K. Mirkin,et al.  Data-Based Program Modification: A Manual. , 1977 .

[12]  Anthony J. Nitko,et al.  MEASUREMENT IN LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION. , 1970 .

[13]  G. Glass,et al.  Meta-analysis in social research , 1981 .

[14]  R. Lindsley.  Precision Teaching in Perspective: An Interview with Ogden R. Lindsley , 1971 .

[15]  L. Hedges.  Distribution Theory for Glass's Estimator of Effect size and Related Estimators , 1981 .

[16]  Stephen C. Larsen,et al.  The Effectiveness of Psycholinguistic Training , 1974 .

[17]  Larry V. Hedges,et al.  Advances in statistical methods for meta-analysis , 1984 .

[18]  Karl R. White,et al.  Teacher-Student Interaction Patterns in Classrooms with Mainstreamed Mildly Handicapped Students , 1982 .

[19]  Judith A. Arter,et al.  Differential Diagnosis—Prescriptive Teaching: A Critical Appraisal , 1979 .

[20]  Philip H. Mann,et al.  Handbook in diagnostic-prescriptive teaching , 1979 .