Using Curriculum-Based Assessment and Curriculum-Based Measurement to Guide Elementary Mathematics Instruction: Effect on Individual and Group Accountability Scores
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2005
Using Curriculum-Based Assessment and Curriculum-Based Measurement to Guide Elementary Mathematics Instruction: Effect on Individual and Group Accountability Scores
No Child Left Behind mandates accountability data for school districts. This mandate has led to increased attention to instruction and academic remediation among educational researchers. The current study used schoolwide curriculum-based assessment (CBA) and curriculum-based measurement (CBM) data to plan and deliver mathematics instruction to examine if this would lead to improved student skill within one school year and improved group test scores between school years. The Screening to Enhance Equitable Educational Placement (STEEP) schoolwide problem-solving model was used in one elementary building, with CBM data used to track progress and CBA data used daily to track mastery at each skill level. Results suggested that children made significant progress within one school year, as measured by CBM, and the school significantly increased Stanford-9 mathematics scores after implementing the program. Potential implications for assessment and instructional practice are included.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Badian, N. (1999). Persistent arithmetic, reading or arithmetic, or reading disability. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 45-70.
2.
Binder, C. (1996). Behavioral fluency: Evolution of a new paradigm . Behavior Analyst, 19, 163-197.
3.
Bums, M.K. (2002). Utilizing a comprehensive system of assessment to intervention using curriculum-based assessments. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38, 8-13.
4.
Bums, M.K. (2004a). Empirical analysis of drill ratio research: Refining the instructional level for drill tasks. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 167-175.
5.
Bums, M.K. (2004b). Using curriculum-based assessment in the consultative process: A useful innovation or an educational fad. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 15, 63-78.
6.
Bums, M.K., Dean, V.J., & Klar, S. (2004). Using curriculum-based assessment in the responsiveness to intervention diagnostic model for learning disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29 (3), 47-56.
7.
Bums, M.K., MacQuarrie, L.L., & Campbell, D.T. (1999). The difference between instructional assessment (curriculum-based assessment) and curriculum-based measurement: A focus on purpose and result. Communiqué, 27, 18-19.
8.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
Daly, E.J., & McCurdy, M. (2002). Getting it right so they can get it right: An overview of the special series. School Psychology Review, 31, 453-458.
10.
Daly, E.J., Witt, J.C., Martens, B.K., & Dool, E.J. (1997). A model for conducting a functional analysis of academic performance problems. School Psychology Review, 26, 554-574.
11.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
12.
Deno, S.L. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and special education services: Afundamental and direct relationship. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 1-17). New York: Guilford Press.
13.
Deno, S., & Mirkin, P.K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children .
14.
Enggren, P., & Kovaleski, J.F. (1996). Instructional assessment . Harrisburg, PA: Instructional Support System of Pennsylvania.
15.
Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S. (1994). Must instructionally useful performance assessment be based in the curriculum?Exceptional Children, 61, 15-24.
16.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204-219.
17.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Principles for the prevention and intervention of mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 85-95.
18.
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.
19.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Kams, K. (2001). Enhancing kindergartners' mathematical development: Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 495-510.
20.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Kams, K., Hamlett, C.L., Katzaroff, M., & Dutka, S. (1997). Effects of task-focused goals on low-achieving students with and without learning disabilities. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 513,543.
21.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Mathes, P.G., & Simmons, D.C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174-206.
22.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Phillips, N.B., Hamlett, C.L., & Kams, K. (1995). Acquisition and transfer effects of classwide peer-assisted learning strategies in mathematics for students with varying learning histories. School Psychology Review, 24, 604-620.
23.
Gickling, E.E., & Havertape, S. (1981). Curriculum-based assessment. Minneapolis, MN: School Psychology Inservice Training Network.
24.
Gickling, E., & Rosenfield, S. (1995). Best practices in curriculum-based assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 587-595). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists .
25.
Gickling, E.E., Shane, R.L., & Croskery, K.M. (1989). Developing math skills in low-achieving high school students through curriculum-based assessment . School Psychology Review, 18, 344-356.
26.
Gickling, E., & Thompson, V. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment . Exceptional Children, 52, 205-218.
27.
Good, R.H., & Kaminski, R.A. (1996). Assessment for instructional decisions: Toward a proactive/prevention model of decision-making for early literacy skills. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 326-336.
28.
Gravois, T.A., & Gickling, E.E. (2002). Best practices in curriculum-based assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 885-898). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists .
29.
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.
30.
Griffin, S., & Case, R. (1997). Re-thinking the primary school math curriculum: An approach based on cognitive science. Issues in Education , 3, 1-49.
31.
Haladyna, T.M. (1998). Review of the Stanford Achievement Test (9th ed.). In J. C. Impara & B. S. Plake (Eds.), The thirteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 928-930). Lincoln: The University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Kovaleski, J.F., Tucker, J.A., & Duffy, D.J. (1995). School reform through instructional support: The Pennsylvania Initiative (Part I). Communiqué, 23(8).
34.
Loveless, T. (2003). Trends in math achievement: The importance of basic skills. Paper presented at the Secretary's Summit on Mathematics. February 6, 2003. Retrieved November 20, 2003 from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/progs/mathscience/loveless.html .
35.
Manzo, K.K., & Galley, M. (2003). Math climbs, reading flat on '03 NAEP. Education Week, 23(12), 1, 18.
36.
Marston, D.B. (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.
37.
Marston, D., Mirkin, P., & Deno, S. (1984). Curriculum-based measurement: An alternative to traditional screening, referral, and identification. The Journal of Special Education, 18, 109-117.
38.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
39.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction . Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
40.
Saffer, N. (1999). Core subjects and your career. Occupational Outlook Quarterly, 43(2), 26-40.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2004). Assessment in special and inclusive education (9th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
43.
Shapiro, E.S. (2000). School psychology from an instructional perspective: Solving big, not little problems. School Psychology Review , 29, 560-572.
44.
Shapiro, E.S., & Ager, C. (1992). Assessment of special education students in regular education programs: Linking assessment to instruction. Elementary School Journal, 92, 283-296.
45.
Shinn, M.R. (1989). Identifying and defining academic problems: CBM screening and eligibility procedures. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 90-129). New York: Guilford Press.
46.
Shinn, M. (1995). Best practices in curriculum-based measurement and its use in a problem-solving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (3 rd ed., pp. 547-567). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
47.
Shinn, M.R., & Bamonto, S. (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement: "Big ideas" and avoiding confusion. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.) Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 1-31). New York: Guilford Press.
48.
Shinn, M.R., Tindal, G.A., & Spira, D.A. (1987). Special education referrals as an index of teacher tolerance: Are teachers imperfect tests?Exceptional Children , 54, 32-40.
49.
Tucker, J.A. (1985). Curriculum-based assessment: An introduction. Exceptional Children, 52, 199-204.
50.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Mathematics and science initiative concept paper. Retrieved November 20, 2003 from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/progs/mathscience/concept_paper.pdf.
51.
VanDerHeyden, A.M. (2001). Comparison of several methods for identifying students in need of special services in the schools: Accuracy of the problem validation screening model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University.
52.
VanDerHeyden, A.M., Witt, J.C., & Naquin, G. (2003). Development and validation of a process for screening referrals to special education. School Psychology Review, 32, 204-227.
53.
Witt, J.C., Daly, E., & Noell, G. (2000). Functional assessments. Longmont, CO: Sopris West..
