Effects of Curriculum-Based Measurement on Teachers' Instructional Planning

This study assessed the effects of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) on teachers' instructional planning. Subjects were 30 teachers, assigned randomly to a computer-assisted CBM group, a noncomputer CBM group, and a contrast group. In the CBM groups, teachers specified 15-week reading goals, established CBM systems to measure student progress toward goals at least twice weekly, and systematically evaluated those data bases to determine when instructional modifications were necessary. Contrast teachers monitored student progress toward Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals as they wished and were encouraged to develop instructional programs as necessary. At the end of a 12- to 15-week implementation period, teachers completed a questionnaire with reference to one randomly selected pupil. Analyses of variance indicated no difference between the CBM groups. However, compared to the contrast group, CBM teachers (a) used more specific, acceptable goals; (b) were less optimistic about goal attainment; (c) cited more objective and frequent data sources for determining the adequacy of student progress and for deciding whether program modifications were necessary; and (d) modified student programs more frequently. Questionnaire responses were correlated with verifiable data sources, and results generally supported the usefulness of the self-report information. Implications for special education research and practice are discussed.

[1]  Lynn S. Fuchs,et al.  Data-Based Program Modification: A Continuous Evaluation System with Computer Software to Facilitate Implementation , 1983 .

[2]  Lynn S. Fuchs,et al.  Criterion-Referenced Assessment Without Measurement , 1984 .

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

[4]  L. Fuchs,et al.  Importance of Goal Ambitiousness and Goal Mastery to Student Achievement , 1985, Exceptional children.

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

[6]  L. Goodman.  The Effective Schools Movement and Special Education , 1985 .

[7]  Melvyn I. Semmel,et al.  Instructional variables that make a difference: attention to task and beyond , 1981 .

[8]  James E. Ysseldyke,et al.  Assessment in special and remedial education , 1978 .

[9]  A. Bandura.  Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. , 1982 .

[10]  P. Peckham,et al.  The Effects of Frequent Testing. , 1977 .

[11]  S. G. Rosswork,et al.  Goal setting: The effects on an academic task with varying magnitudes of incentive. , 1977 .

[12]  H. Chandler.  Effective Schools , 1984, Journal of learning disabilities.

[13]  J. Mcneil.  Concomitants of Using Behavioral Objectives in the Assessment of Teacher Effectiveness , 1967 .

[14]  L. Fuchs,et al.  Effects of Systematic Formative Evaluation: A Meta-Analysis , 1986, Exceptional children.

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

[16]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity. , 1978 .

[17]  Ted S. Hasselbring,et al.  Planning and Managing Instruction: Computer-Based Decision Making , 1984 .

[18]  Robert P. King,et al.  Direct and Frequent Measurement of Student Performance: If It's Good for Us, Why Don't We Do It? , 1984 .

[19]  H. Adelman,et al.  Minors' attitudes and competence toward participation in psychoeducational decisions. , 1985 .

[20]  E. A. Locke,et al.  Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980. , 1981 .

[21]  S. Deno,et al.  Curriculum-Based Measurement: The Emerging Alternative , 1985, Exceptional children.