The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of systematic observation and feedback on teachers' implementation of curriculum-based measurement. Subjects were 20 special educators who taught pupils with mild and moderate disabilities. Teachers were assigned randomly to a computer-assasted or a paper-and-pencil monitoring group. Teachers initially were taught to monitor pupil performance during a series of inservice training sessions. After 1 month of monitoring, accuracy of implementation was assessed, and corrective feedback was provided as needed One month later, accuracy of implementation again was measured 4 lyses of variance indicated that systematic observation and feedback was associated with improvement in accuracy, ez-,pecially on more difficult aspects of curriculum-based measurement. Implications for practice and additional research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change, Psychological Bulletin, 84, 191-215.
2.
Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behavioral Research and Theory, 1, 237-269.
3.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.
4.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P.K. (1982). Effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on student achievement and student awareness of learning: An experimental study (Research Report No. 96). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
10.
Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P.K. (1983). Data-based program modification: A continuous evaluation system with computer software to facilitate implementation. Journal of Special Education Technology, 6(2), 50-57.
11.
Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P.K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and awareness of learning . American Educational Research Journal, 21, 249-260.
12.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation on student achievement: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children , 53, 199-208.
13.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C.L. (1989a). Effects of instructional use of curriculum-based measurement to enhance instructional programs. Remedial and Special Education, 10(2), 43-52.
14.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C.L. (1989b). Computers and curriculum-based measurement : Effects of teacher feedback systems. School Psychology Review , 18, 112-125.
15.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., & Stecker, P.M. (1990). The role of skills analysis in curriculum-based measurement in math. School Psycholo,gy Review, 19, 6-22.
16.
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-C41.
17.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., 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.
Huynh, H., & Feldt, L.S. (1976). Estimation of the Box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in randomized block and split-plot designs. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1, 69-82.
25.
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, 9-19.
26.
Joyce, B.R., Howey, K.R., & Yarger, S.J. (1976). Issues to face (Research Report No. 1). Palo Alto: Stanford Institute of Research and Development, Teaching, Inservice Teacher Education and Concepts Project.
27.
Joyce, B.R., & Showers, B. (1980). Improving inservice training: The messages of research. Educational Leazk>rship, 37, 379-385.
28.
Leiter, M., & Cooper, M. (1978). How teacher unionists view inservice education . Teachers College Record, 80, 107-125.
29.
Marston, D., Lowry, L., Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P.K. (1981). An analysis of learning trends on simple measures of reading, spelling, and written expression: A longitudinal study (Research Report No. 49). MinneapolisUniversity of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
30.
Miller, S.P., Harris, C., & Watanabe, A. (1991). Professional coaching. Teacher Education and Special Education, 14, 183-191.
31.
Morrison, D.F. (1967). Multivariate statistical methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
32.
Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford.
33.
Showers, B. (1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational Leadership, 42, 43-48.
34.
Showers, B., Joyce, B.R., & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of research on staff development: A framework for future study and state-of-the-art analysis. Educational Leadership, 45, 77-87.
35.
Sparks, G.M. (1986). The effectiveness of alternative training activities in changing teacher practices. Amencan Educational Research journal, 23, 217-225.
36.
Tindal, G., Fuchs, L.S., Mirkin, P.K., Christenson, S., & Deno, S.L. (1981). The effect of measurement procedures on student achievement (Research Report No. 61). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 218 846)
37.
Valencia, S.W., & Killion, J.P. (1988). Overcoming obstacles to teacher change: Direction from school-based efforts. Journal of Staff Development, 9, 2-8.
38.
Wade, R.K. (1984-85). What makes a difference in inservice teacher education? A meta-analyses of research. Educational Leadership , 42(4), 48-54.
39.
Weinshank, A.B., Trumbull, E.S., & Daly, P.L. (1983). The role of the teacher in school change. In L. S. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of teaching and policy (pp. 352-378). New York: Longman.
40.
Wesson, C. (1991). Curriculum-based measurement and two models of follow-up consultation. Exceptional Children, 57, 246-257.
