Many students continue to experience reading difficulties into their secondary-school years. Difficulties include poor word decoding, limited vocabulary knowledge, and deficits in working memory capacity. Such difficulties limit the ability of students to acquire new knowledge and be successful in content-area classes. In this article, we describe a curriculum-based measure, vocabulary matching, that teachers can use to assess and monitor the performance of students with reading difficulties in the content areas. Vocabulary matching, has been found to be a valid and reliable measure of performance and progress in content areas. A case study is provided to illustrate the use of vocabulary matching in content-area instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alley, G.R., & Deshler, D.D. (1979). Teaching the learning disabled adolescent: Strategies and methods. Denver, CO: Love.
2.
Baumann, J. F, & Kameenui, E. J. (Eds.). (1991). Research on vocabulary instruction: Ode to Voltaire. Upper Saddle River: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
3.
Busch, T.W., Lembke, E., Seo, K., & Espin, C.A. (2002, April). Curriculum-based measurement in science: How much are students with LD learning ?Paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children Annual Conference, New York.
4.
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P.A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450-466.
5.
Davies, P. (Ed.) (1970). The American heritage dictionary of the English language. New York: Dell.
6.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219-232.
7.
Deno, S.L., & Fuchs, L.S. (1987). Developing curriculum-based measurement systems for data-based special education problem solving. Focus onExceptional Children, 19(8), 1-16.
8.
Donahoe, K., & Zigmond, N. ( 1990). Academic grades of ninth-grade urban learning students and low-achieving peers. Exceptionality,1(1), 17-27.
9.
Espin, C.A., Busch, T.W., Shin, J., & Kruschwitz, R. (2001). Curriculum-based measures in the content areas: Validity of vocabulary-matching as an indicator of performance in a social studies classroom. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 142-151.
10.
Espin, C.A., De La Paz, S., Scierka, B.J., & Roelofs, L. (in press). Relation between curriculum-based measures in written expression and quality and completeness of expository writing for middle-school students . Journal of Special Education.
11.
Espin, C.A., & Deno, S.L. (1993). Performance in reading from content-area text as an indicator of achievement. Remedial and Special Education , 14(6), 47-59.
12.
Espin, C.A., & Deno, S.L. (1994-1995). Curriculum-based measures for secondary students: Utility and task specificity of text-based reading and vocabulary measures for predicting performance on content-area tasks. Diagnostique, 20, 121-142.
13.
Espin, C.A., & Foegen, A. (1996). Validity of three general outcome measures for predicting secondary students' performance on content area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62, 497-514.
14.
Espin, C.A., Shin, J., & Busch, T.W. (2002). Curriculum-based measurement in the content areas: Vocabulary matching as an indicator of social studies learning. Manuscript submitted for publication.
15.
Espin, C.A., Skare, S., Shin, J., Deno, S.L., Robinson, S., & Brenner, B. (2000). Identifying indicators of growth in written expression for middle-school students. Journal of Special Education, 34, 140-153.
16.
Espin, C.A., & Tindal, G. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement for secondary students . In Shinn, M. R. (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford Publications.
17.
Foegen, A. (1995). Reliability and validity of three general outcome measures for low-achieving students in secondary mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
18.
Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1992). Effects of curriculum within curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children, 58(3), 232-243.
19.
Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1994). Must instructionally useful performance assessment be based in curriculum ?Exceptional Children, 61 (1), 15-24.
20.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 67-76.
21.
Gettinger, M. (1991). Learning time and retention differences between nondisabled students and students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 14(3), 179-189.
22.
Hoover, H.D., Hieronymus, A.N., Frisbie, D.A., & Dunbar, S.B. (1992). Iowa test of basic skills. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.
23.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293-323.
24.
Linderholm, T., Gaddy, M., van den Broek, P., Mischinski, M., Crittenden, A., & Samuels, S.J. (2000). Effects of causal text revisions on more- and less-skilled readers' comprehension of easy and difficult texts. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 525-556.
25.
Parker, R., Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J. (1991a). Countable indices of writing quality: Their suitability for screening-eligibility decisions. Exceptionality,2, 1-17.
26.
Parker, R., Tindal, G., & Hasbrouck, J. (1991b). Progress monitoring with objective measures of writing performance for students with mild disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 61-73.
27.
Simmons, D.C., & Kameenui, E.J. (1990). The effect of task alternatives on vocabulary knowledge: A comparison of students with learning disabilities and students of normal achievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 23(5), 291-297.
28.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Mathhew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-406.
29.
Swanson, H.L., Cochran, F.E., & Ewers, C.A. (1990). Can learning disabilities be determined by working memory performance?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(1), 59-67.
30.
Tindal, G., Nolet, V. (1995). Curriculum-based mea, surement in middle and high schools: Critical thinking skills in content areas. Focus onExceptional Children, 27(7), 1-22.
31.
Tindal, G., & Parker, R. (1989). Assessment of written expression for students in compensatory and special education programs. Journal of Special Education, 23, 169-183.
32.
Torgesen, J.K. (1988). Studies of children with learning disabilities who perform poorly on memory span tasks. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(10), 605-611.
33.
Wagner, M. (1990). The school programs and school performance of secondary students classified as learning disabled: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association , Boston, MA.
34.
Watkins, J.T., & Lee, S.W. (1992). Curriculum-based measures of written expression for learning-disabled and non-disabled students. Psychology in the Schools, 29,184-191.
35.
Young, A., & Bowers, P.G. (1995). Individual differences and text difficulty determinants of reading fluency and expressiveness. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology, 60, 428-454.
