Recent research and development has integrated computer-managed classwide curriculum-based measurement (CBM) and peer tutoring (PT) to help general educators adapt instruction to address the diverse needs of their students. The purpose of this study was to gain insight into the teachers' perspective on the advantages and disadvantages of these methods. Twenty general education teachers participating in a project that combined CBM and PT were interviewed regarding (a) ways in which the project had affected their students and their instruction, (b) their level of satisfaction with the project, and (c) shortcomings of the project. An unusual feature of this study was that in attempting to take advantage of the insider information possessed by the educators, we involved the teachers in developing the actual interview questions. Teachers specified a large number of academic, social, and instructional benefits of the methods, and they identified several weaknesses that should be addressed. Implications are discussed in terms of the development of other educational innovations and the use of CBM and PT in general education classrooms that include students with learning disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237–248.
2.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
3.
Devin-Sheehan, L., Feldman, R. S., & Allen, V. L. (1976). Research on children tutoring children: A critical review. Review of Educational Research, 46, 355–385.
4.
Eiserman, W. D., Shisler, L., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (1987). Handicapped students as tutors: A description and integration of three years of research findings. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 11, 215–231.
5.
Elliott, S. N. (1988). Acceptability of behavioral treatments in educational settings. In J. C. Witt, S. N. Elliott, & F. M. Gresham (Eds.), Handbook of behavior therapy in education (pp. 121–150). New York: Plenum Press.
6.
Fantuzzo, J. W., King, J. A., & Heller, L. R. (1992). Effects of reciprocal peer tutoring on mathematics and school adjustment: A component analyses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 331–339.
7.
Feldman, R. S., Devin-Sheehan, L., & Allen, V. L. (1976). Children tutoring children: A critical review of research. In V. L. Allen (Ed.), Children and teachers: Theory and research on tutoring (pp. 235–252). New York: Academic Press.
8.
Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1984). The effects of curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449–460.
9.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Allinder, R. M. (1991). The contribution of skills analysis to curriculum-based measurement in spelling. Exceptional Children, 57, 443–452.
10.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Bishop, N., & Bentz, J. (in press). Classwide curriculum-based measurement: Helping general educators meet the challenge of student diversity. Exceptional Children.
11.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Stecker, P. M. (1990). The role of skills analysis in curriculum-based measurement in math. School Psychology Review, 19, 6–22.
12.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Stecker, P. 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.
13.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Phillips, N. B., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. (1993). Effects of curriculum-based measurement and peermediated instruction on students at three points on the achievement continuum. Manuscript submitted for publication.
14.
Graden, J. L., Zins, J. E., & Curtis, M. J. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 371–383.
15.
Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., & Hall, R. V. (1988). The use of peer tutoring strategies in classroom management and educational instruction. School Psychology Review, 17, 258–275.
16.
Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. C., & Hall, R. V. (1989). Longitudinal effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 371–383.
17.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1986). Learning together and alone (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
18.
Jones, E. D., & Krouse, J. 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.
19.
Leinhardt, G., Bickel, W., & Pallay, A. (1982). Unlabeled but still entitled: Toward more effective remediation. Teachers College Record, 84, 391–422.
20.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21.
Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What it is and why do it. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). New York: Guilford.
22.
Osguthorpe, R. T., & Scruggs, T. E. (1986). Special education students as tutors: A review and analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 7(4), 15–26.
23.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). The reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
24.
Phillips, N. B., Hamlett, C. L., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1993). Combining classwide curriculum-based measurement and peer tutoring to help general educators provide adaptive education. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 148–156.
25.
Pressley, M., Schuder, T., SAIL Teachers, Bergman, J. L., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1992). A researcher–educator collaborative interview study of transactional comprehension strategies instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 231–246.
26.
Pressley, M., Woloshyn, V., Lysynchuk, L. M., Martin, V., Wood, E., & Willoughby, T. (1990). A primer of research on cognitive strategy instruction: The important issues and how to address them. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 1–58.
27.
Rich, S., & Pressley, M. (1990). Teacher acceptance of reading comprehension strategy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 91, 43–64.
28.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Richter, L. (1985). Peer tutoring with behaviorally disordered students: Social and academic benefits. Behavior Disorders, 10, 283–294.
29.
Scruggs, T. E., & Richter, L. (1985). Tutoring learning disabled students: A critical review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 286–298.
30.
Shavelson, R. J., & Baxter, G. P. (1992). What we've learned about assessing hands-on science. Educational Leadership, 49(8), 20–25.
31.
Slavin, R. E. (1985). Team Assisted Individualization: Combining cooperative learning and individualized instruction in mathematics. In R. E. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 177–209). New York: Plenum Press.
32.
Tennessee Department of Education. (1988). Tennessee comprehensive assessment profile. Nashville, TN: Author.
33.
Wesson, C. L. (1991). Curriculum-based measurement and two models of follow-up consultation. Exceptional Children, 57, 246–257.
34.
Wolf, D. P., LeMahieu, P. G., & Eresh, J. (1992). Good measure: Assessment as a tool for educational reform. Educational Leadership, 49(8), 8–13.
