Curriculum-Based Measurement and Two Models of Follow-up Consultation

Abstract

This investigation focused on the effects of two independent variables; (a) teacher-developed goals and monitoring systems versus a curriculum-based measurement (CBM) goal and monitoring system; and (b) individual expert versus group follow-up consultation. The dependent data were academic achievement measures. Subjects were 55 special education, elementary school students with mild and moderate disabilities randomly assigned to one of four treatment conditions: A, teacher-developed goal and progress monitoring with individual expert follow-up consultation; B, CBM goal and progress monitoring with individual expert follow-up consultation; C, teacher-developed goal and progress monitoring with group follow-up consultation; and D, CBM goal and progress monitoring with group follow-up consultation. Results showed that groups employing CBM and group consultation generally out-performed the other groups. Implications included expanded use of CBM goals and progress monitoring and continued study of collaboration as a method of CBM program implementation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Curtis

M. J.

, & Anderson

(1976). Consulting in educational settings: A collaborative approach (slide/tape). Cincinnati, OH: Faculty Resource Center, University of Cincinnati.

Curtis

M. J.

, & Zins

J. E.

(1981). The theory and practice of school consultation. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Deno

(1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219–232.

Deno

Mirkin

, & Chiang

(1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 347.

Fuchs

Deno

, & Mirkin

P. K.

(1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 449–460.

Fuchs

, & Fuchs

(1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53(3), 199–208.

Gerber

(1984). The Department of Education sixth annual report to Congress on P.L. 94–142: Is Congress getting the full story? Exceptional Children, 51(3), 209–223.

Greenburg

(1984). The 1984 Annual Report to Congress: Are we better off? Exceptional Children, 51(3), 203–207.

Idol

, & West

J. F.

(1987). Consultation in special education (Part II): Training and practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(8), 474–497.

10.

Jaffe

M.J.

, & Snelbecker

G.E.

(1982). Evaluating individualized educational programs: A recommendation and some programmatic implications. Urban Review, 14(2), 73–81.

11.

Karlsen

Madden

, & Gardner

E. F.

(1976). Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

12.

King

R. P.

Deno

S. L.

Mirkin

, & Wesson

(1983). The effects of training teachers in the use of formative evaluation in reading: An experimental-control comparison (Research Report No. 111). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.

13.

Martin

(1981). Expert and referent power: A framework for understanding and maximizing consultation effectiveness. In Curtis

M. J.

& Zins

J. E.

(Eds.), The theory and practice of school consultation. (pp. xx–xx Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

14.

Mirkin

Deno

Fuchs

L. S.

Wesson

Tindal

Marston

, & Kuehnle

(1981). Procedures to develop and monitor progress on IEP goals. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.

15.

Pugach

, & Johnson

L. J.

(1988). Peer collaboration. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 21(3), 75–77.

16.

Sixth annual report to Congress on the implementation of Public Law 94–142: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act. (1984). United States Department of Education.

17.

Tymitz

(1981). Teacher performance on IEP instructional planning tasks. Exceptional Children, 48(3), 258–260.

18.

U.S. Department of Education. (1980, April 30). Policy Paper.

19.

Wesson

Carter

Fisher

, & Trednic

(1986). Specifying the instructional plan. Reston, VA: The ERIC Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted Children. (ERIC Document No. EC 201 992).

20.

Wesson

C. L.

Skiba

Sevcik

King

, & Deno

(1984). The effects of technically adequate instructional data on achievement. Remedial and Special Education, 5(s), 17–22.

21.

West

J. F.

, & Idol

(1987). School consultation: An interdisciplinary perspective on theory, models, and research, Part I. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(7), 388–408.

22.

White

O. R.

, & Haring

N. G.

(1980). Exceptional teaching. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

23.

Zigmond

, & Miller

(1986). Assessment for instructional planning. Exceptional Children, 52(6), 501–509.