This study examined the effectiveness of innovative curriculum-based measurement (CBM) classwide decision-making structures within general education mathematics instruction, with and without recommendations for how to incorporate CBM feedback into instructional planning. Forty general educators, each of whom had at least one student with an identified learning disability for math instruction, were randomly assigned to three groups: CBM with classwide reports that summarized information and provided instructional recommendations, CBM with reports but without recommendations, and contrast (no CBM). Results indicated that only the CBM teachers who received instructional recommendations designed better instructional programs and effected greater achievement for their students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaldwinV. (1976). Curriculum concerns. In ThomasM. A. (Ed.), Hey, don't forget about me. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
2.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
3.
FantuzzoJ. W.KingJ. A., & HellerL. R. (1992). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on mathematics and school adjustment: A component analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 331–339.
4.
FuchsL. S., & DenoS. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488–501.
5.
FuchsL. S.DenoS. L., & MirkinP. 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, 449–460.
6.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD., & HamlettC. L. (1989). Effects of instrumental use of curriculum-based measurement to enhance instructional programs. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 43–52.
7.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L., & AllinderR. M. (1991). The contribution of skills analysis to curriculum-based measurement in spelling. Exceptional Children, 57, 443–452.
8.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L., & FergusonC. (1992). Effects of expert system consultation within curriculum-based measurement using a reading maze task. Exceptional Children, 58, 436–450.
9.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L., & SteckerP. M. (1991). Effects of curriculum-based measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in mathematics operations. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 617–641.
10.
GlassG. V.McGawB., & SmithM. L. (1981). Metaanalyses in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11.
GlassG. V., & SmithM. L. (1979). Meta-analysis of research on the relationship between class size and achievementEvaluation and Policy Analysis, 1, 2–16.
12.
GradenJ. L.ZinsJ. E., & CurtisM. J. (1989). Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all children. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
13.
GreenwoodC. R.DelquadriH., & HallR. V. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peertutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 371–383.
14.
JenkinsJ. R.JewellM.LeceisterN.JenkinsL., & TroutnerN. (1990). Development of a school building model for education of handicapped and at risk students in general education classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
15.
JonesE. D., & KrouseJ. P. (1988). The effectiveness of data-based instruction by student teachers in classrooms for pupils with mild handicaps. Teacher Education and Special Education, 11(1), 9–19.
16.
LeinhardtG.BickelW., & PallayA. (1982). Unlabeled but still entitled: Toward more effective remediation. Teachers College Record, 84, 391–422.
17.
MaheadyL.SaccaM. K., & HarperG. F. (1987). Classwide student tutoring teams: The effects of peer-mediated instruction on the academic performance of secondary mainstreamed students. The Journal of Special Education, 21(3), 107–121.
18.
MarstonD. B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In ShinnM. R. (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). New York: Guilford.
19.
PallasA. M.NatrielloG., & McDillE. L. (1989). The changing nature of disadvantaged population: Current dimensions and future trends. Educational Researcher, 18(5), 16–22.
20.
Research for Better Schools. (1988). Special education in America's cities: A descriptive study. Philadelphia: Author.
21.
ShinnM. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford.
22.
SteckerP.FuchsL. S., & HamlettC. L. (1989). [Subtraction with regrouping: A trouble spot for students with math problems.] Unpublished data.
23.
ThompsonR. H.WhiteK. R., & MorganD. P. (1982). Teacher-student interaction patterns in classrooms with mainstreamed mildly handicapped students. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 220–236.
24.
TindalG.FuchsL.ChristensonS.MirkinP., & DenoS. (1981). The relationship between student achievement and teachers' assessment of short- and long-term goals (Research Report No. 61). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 218 246).
25.
WalbergH. (1984). Improving the productivity of America's schools. Educational Leadership, 41(8), 24.
26.
WebbN. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22, 366–389.
27.
WessonC. L. (1991). Curriculum-based measurement and two models of follow-up consultation. Exceptional Children, 57, 246–257.
28.
WessonC., & DenoS. L. (1989). An analysis of long-term instructional plans in reading for elementary resource room students. Remedial and Special Education, 10(1), 21–28.
29.
WoodwardJ., & GerstenR. (1992). Innovative technology for secondary students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 407–421.
