Effects of four forms of progress monitoring were evaluated on the oral reading rate of 48 elementary-age students with learning disabilities: teacher-, peer-, self-, and no-monitoring. Student progress toward long-term goals was measured twice weekly for 9 weeks, and participants were provided verbal and visual performance feedback. Analysis of group comparison data indicated no significant differences among conditions. Idiographic comparisons showed consistent gains across time for the teacher-monitor group and the largest gains from pretest to posttest for the self-monitor group. Furthermore, it was found that students in the self- and peer-monitoring conditions could collect reliable data on the number of correct words per minute. Teacher acceptability of the various procedures identified no significant differences for time or treatment. Student acceptability resulted in a significant effect for conditions. Discussion includes the potential benefit of peer- and self-monitoring in reducing the amount of time special education teachers devote to measurement in the classroom.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bentz, J., Shinn, M.R., & Gleason, M.M. (1990). Training general education pupils to monitor reading using curriculum-based measurement procedures. School Psychology Review, 19, 23‐32.
2.
Carden-Smith, L.K., & Fowler, S.A. (1984). Positive peer pressure: The effects of peer monitoring on children's disruptive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 213‐217.
3.
Deno, S.L. (1986). Formative evaluation of individual student programs: A new role for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 15, 358‐374.
4.
Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Leadership Training Institute/Special Education.
5.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36‐45.
6.
Derr, T., & Shapiro, E.S. (1989). A behavioral evaluation of curriculum-based assessment of reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 7, 148‐160.
7.
Eubanks, E.E., & Levine, D.U. (1983). A first look at effective schools projects in New York City and Milwaukee. Phi Delta Kappan, 64, 697‐702.
8.
Fink, W.T., & Carnine, D.W. (1975). Control of arithmetic errors using informational feedback and graphing. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 461.
9.
Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S., & Mirkin, P. (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.
10.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1984). Criterion-referenced assessment without measurement: How accurate for special education. Remedial and Special Education, 5(4), 29‐32.
11.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of a systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199‐208.
12.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Deno, S.L. (1985). Importance of goal ambitiousness and goal mastery to student achievement. Exceptional Children, 52, 63‐71.
13.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C.L. (1989a). Computers and curriculum-based measurement: Effects of teacher feedback systems. School Psychology Review, 18, 112‐125.
14.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C.L. (1989b). Effects of instrumental use of curriculum-based measurement to enhance instructional effectiveness. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 43‐52.
15.
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.
16.
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.
17.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Warren, L.M. (1982). Special education practice in evaluating student progress toward goals (Research Report No. 81). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 224 197)
18.
Fuchs, L.S., Hamlett, C.L., Fuchs, D., Stecker, P.M., & Ferguson, C. (1988). Conducting curriculum-based measurement with computerized data collection: Effects on efficiency and teacher satisfaction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 9(2), 73‐86.
19.
Gardner, W.I., & Cole, C.L. (1988). Self-monitoring procedures. In E.S. Shapiro & T.R. Kratochwill (Eds.), Behavioral assessment in the schools (pp. 206–244). New York: Guilford Press.
20.
Greenwood, C.R., Dinwiddie, G., Terry, B., Wade, L., Stanley, S.O., Thibadeau, S., & Delquadri, J.C. (1984). Teacher- versus peer-mediated instruction: An ecobehavioral analysis of achievement outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 521‐538.
21.
Harris, K. (1986). Self-monitoring of attentional behavior versus self-monitoring of productivity: Effects on on-task behavior and academic response rate among learning disabled children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 417‐423.
Jenkins, J.R., Mayhall, W.F., Peschka, C., & Townsend, V. (1974). Using direct and daily measures to increase learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 14‐17.
24.
Kazdin, A.E. (1978). Methodological and interpretive problems of single-case experimental designs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 629‐642.
25.
Kazdin, A.E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
Lloyd, J.W., Hallahan, D.P., Kosiewicz, M.M., & Kneedler, R.D. (1982). Reactive effects of self-assessment and self-recording on attention to task and academic productivity. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 216‐226.
27.
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 Press.
28.
Mirkin, P., Deno, S., Fuchs, L., Wesson, C., Tindal, G., Marston, D., & Kuehnle, K. (1981). Procedures to develop and monitor progress on IEP goals. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota/Institute for Learning Disabilities.
29.
Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., & Castro, G. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 24‐33.
30.
Shapiro, E.S. (1984). Self-monitoring procedures. In T.H. Ollendick & M. Hersen (Eds.), Child behavioral assessment: Principles and procedures (pp. 148–165). New York: Pergamon Press.
31.
Shapiro, E.S., & Ackerman, A. (1983). Increasing productivity rates in adult mentally-retarded clients: The failure of self-monitoring. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 4, 163‐181.
32.
Shapiro, E.S., Browder, D.M., & D'Huyvetters, K.K. (1984). Increasing academic productivity of severely handicapped children with self-management: Idiosyncratic effects. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 4, 171‐188.
33.
Shapiro, E.S., & Klein, R.D. (1980). Self-management of classroom behavior with retarded/disturbed children. Behavior Modification, 4, 83‐97.
34.
Shinn, M.R., Good, R.H., & Stein, S. (1989). Summarizing trend in student achievement: A comparison of models. School Psychology Review, 18, 356‐370.
35.
Tawney, J W., & Gast, D.L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
36.
Wesson, C., Fuchs, L., Tindal, G., Mirkin, P.K., & Deno, S.L. (1986). Facilitating the efficiency of ongoing curriculum-based measurement. Teacher Education and Special Education, 9, 166‐172.
37.
Wesson, C.L., King, R.P., & Deno, S.L. (1984). Direct and frequent measurement of student performance: If it's good for us, why don't we do it. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 45‐48.
38.
Witt, J.C., & Elliott, S.N. (1985). Acceptability of classroom intervention strategies. In T.R. Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in school psychology (Vol. IV, pp. 251–288). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
