This study explored the adaptation and impact of curriculum-based measures (CBM) of oral reading in a general education classroom. Using interviews and classroom observations, this study examined one teacher's modification of CBM for use in her fourth-grade general education classroom. The teacher used information from monthly administration of CBM oral reading measures to modify classwide and individual instruction and to inform students and their parents of progress. The interplay of qualitative and quantitative elements of the information was important for the teacher's own use of the assessment, but she appeared to emphasize quantitative elements such as relative standing or progress using numerical scores when interacting with parents and students. Three key elements in this teacher's CBM practice— standardization, reduced time requirements, and qualitative inferences—may provide insight into some of the important assessment needs of general education teachers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anthony, R., Johnson, T., Mickelson, N., & Preese, A. (1991). Evaluating literacy: A perspective for change . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
2.
Au, K., Mason, J., & Scheu, J. (1995). Literacy instruction for today. New York: HarperCollins.
3.
Baker, S., & Hall, T. (1995). Using classroom assessment data to monitor school reform: Evaluating student performance in nongraded classrooms. Diagnostique, 20, 175-203.
4.
Bauer, E. (1999). The promise of alternative literacy assessments in the classroom: A review of empirical studies. Reading Research and Instruction, 38(2), 153-168.
5.
Clay, M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann-Boynton/Cook.
6.
Cohen, D., & Ball, D. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary . Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 331-337.
7.
Deno, S. (1992). The nature and development of curriculum-based measurement. Preventing School Failure, 36(2), 5-10.
8.
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9(2), 20-28.
9.
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., Phillips, N., & Bentz, J. (1994). Classwide curriculum-based measurement: Helping general educators meet the challenge of student diversity. Exceptional Children, 60(6), 518-537.
10.
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., Walz, L. & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect?School Psychology Review, 22(1), 27-48.
11.
Heshusius, L. (1991). Curriculum-based assessment and direct instruction: Critical reflections on fundamental assumptions. Exceptional Children, 58, 315-328.
12.
Hodges, C. (1997). How valid and useful are alternative assessments for decision-making in primary grade classrooms?Reading Research and Instruction, 36(2), 157-173.
13.
Jenkins, J., & Jewell, M. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 44, 448-453.
14.
Johnston, P. (1987). Teachers as evaluation experts. The Reading Teacher, 40(8), 744-749.
15.
Keefe, C. (1999). Responsive reading assessment: An alternative . Diagnostique, 25, 5-13.
16.
Lopez-Reyna, N., Bay, M., & Patrikakou, E. (1996). Use of assessment procedures: Learning disabilities teachers' perspectives. Diagnostique , 21, 35-49.
17.
Nolet, V. (1992). Classroom-based measurement and portfolio assessment . Diagnostique, 18(1), 5-26.
18.
Phillips, N., Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1994). Effects of classwide curriculum-based measurement and peer tutoring: A collaborative researcher-practitioner interview study . Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 420-434.
19.
Prado-Olmos, P. (1995). Supporting bilingual students' learning: Teacher and students in cooperation. In R.F. Macias & R. Garcia-Ramos (Eds.), Changing schools for changing students: An anthology of research on language minorities, schools and society (pp. 35-62). Los Angeles: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
20.
Shinn, M. (1988). Development of curriculum-based local norms for use in special education decision-making. School Psychology Review, 17, 61-80.
21.
Shinn, M.R. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press .
22.
Shinn, M.R. (1998). Advances in curriculum-based measurement and its use in a problem-solving model. New York: Guilford Press.
23.
Shinn, M., Good, R., Knutson, N., Tilly, D., & Collins, V. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21(3), 459-479.
24.
Snow, C., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
25.
Spradley, J.P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
26.
Tindal, J. (1993). Curriculum-based measurement as an application of learning portfolios. Diagnostique, 18(1), 69-84.
27.
Wesson, C., & King, R. (1992). The role of curriculum-based measurement in portfolio assessment. Diagnostique, 18, 27-37.
28.
Winograd, P., Paris, S., & Bridge, C. (1991). Improving the assessment of literacy. The Reading Teacher, 45(2), 108-116.
29.
Yell, M., Deno, S., & Marston, D. (1992). Barriers to implementing curriculum-based measurement . Diagnostique, 18, 99-114.
