Application of Algebra Curriculum-Based Measurements for Decision Making in Middle and High School

Abstract

This article reports the results of a study examining the utility of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) in algebra for predicting performance on a state math assessment and informing instructional placement decisions for students in seventh, eighth, and tenth grades. Students completed six Basic Skills algebra probes across different time schedules and took their respective grade-level state math assessment. Using a dichotomous pass/fail variable based on whether students met grade-level proficiency, logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were conducted to assess the CBM’s predictive validity. Rates of improvement (ROIs) were computed using the Tukey method to collect initial information on whether these measures would help monitor student progress. Finally, to determine whether these measures might inform instructional programming, a MANOVA using course assignment as the grouping variable and CBM, ROI, and state assessment performance as the dependent variables was conducted for the tenth-grade students. Results indicate that these measures show promise to predict which students might not meet grade-level proficiency standards as well as to determine whether students are progressing in the curriculum. Implications for practice are discussed.

Keywords

curriculum-based measurement algebra high school

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allensworth

Nomi

Montgomery

Lee

V. E.

(2009). College preparatory curriculum for all: Academic consequences of requiring algebra and English I for ninth graders in Chicago. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 367–391.

American Diploma Project. (2004). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts. Washington, DC: Achieve.

Deno

S. L.

(1987). Curriculum-based measurement: An introduction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 20, 41.

Deno

S. L.

(2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192.

Duffy

(2007). Meeting the needs of significantly struggling learners in high school: A look at approaches to tiered interventions. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, National High School Center.

Dunn

K. E.

Mulvenon

S. W.

(2009). A critical review of research on formative assessment: The limited scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 14. Retrieved from Pareonline.net/pdf/v14n7.pdf

EdOptions. (2011). Orchard Software, Math. Wentzville, MO: Author.

Foegen

(2008). Progress monitoring in middle school mathematics: Options and issues. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 195–207.

Foegen

Olson

J. R.

Impecoven-Lind

(2008). Developing progress-monitoring measures for secondary mathematics: An illustration in algebra. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 240–249.

10.

Foegen

Olson

J. R.

Perkmen

(2005). Reliability and criterion validity of five algebra measures in Districts B and C (Technical Report 7). Ames: Project AAIMS, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Iowa State University.

11.

Foegen

Olson

J. R.

Perkmen

(2006). An exploratory study of the use of two algebra progress monitoring measures to evaluate student growth (Technical Report 11). Ames: Project AAIMS, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Iowa State University.

12.

Fuchs

L. S.

(2004). The past, present and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.

13.

Fuchs

L. S.

Deno

S. L.

(1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488–499.

14.

Hintze

J. M.

Christ

T. J.

Methe

S. A.

(2006). Curriculum-based assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 45–56.

15.

Jenkins

J. R.

Graff

J. J.

Miglioretti

D. L.

(2009). Estimating reading growth using intermittent CBM progress monitoring. Exceptional Children, 75, 151–161.

16.

Johnson

E. S.

Smith

L. A.

Harris

M. A.

(2009). How RTI works in secondary schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

17.

Lemons

Saenz

Stecker

(2007). Introduction to CBM in reading. Retrieved from http://studentprogress.org/weblibrary.asp#cbm_intro

18.

Mellard

D. F.

Johnson

E. S.

(2008). RTI: A practitioner’s guide to implementation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

19.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2009). The nation’s report card. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

20.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC: Author.

21.

National High School Center, National Center on Response to Intervention, and Center on Instruction. (2010). Tiered interventions in high schools: Using preliminary “lessons learned” to guide ongoing discussion. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

22.

Nese

J. F. T.

Lai

C. F.

Anderson

Jamgochian

E. M.

Kamata

Sáez

Tindal

(2010). Technical Adequacy of the easyCBM Mathematics Measures: Grades 3-8, 2009-2010 Version (Technical Report No. 1007). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.

23.

Perkmen

Foegen

Olson

(2006). Reliability, criterion validity, and sensitivity to growth: Extending work on two algebra progress monitoring measures (Technical Report 12). Ames: Project AAIMS, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Iowa State University.

24.

Vaughn

Fuchs

L. S.

(2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146.

25.

Wilson

B. J.

Reichmuth

(1985). Early-screening programs: When is predictive accuracy sufficient? Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 182–188.

26.

Zhou

X. H.

Obuchowski

N. A.

Obuchowski

D. M.

(2002). Statistical methods in diagnostic medicine. New York, NY: John Wiley.

27.

Zirkel

Thomas

(2010). State laws and guidelines for implementing RTI. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43, 60–73.