Douglas Fuchs

Effects of Instrumental Use of Curriculum-Based Measurement to Enhance Instructional Programs:

This study investigated the importance of instrumental use of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) to planning effective reading programs. Participants were 53 mildly handicapped students and their 29 teachers who had been assigned randomly to CBM and control groups. Teachers implemented their CBM or control treatments for 15 weeks. After the treatment period, student records were inspected to divide the CBM participants into two implementation groups. The CBM-measurement only group comprised 15 students and 9 teachers; these teachers measured students reading performance as required but did not use the assessment information to structure students reading programs. The CBM–measurement with evaluation group comprised 21 students and 12 teachers; these teachers measured student performance and used the assessment information to design instructional programs. Analysis of variance revealed that, compared to the control group, pupils in the measurement with evaluation group achieved better than students in the measurement only group. Implications for instructional assessment activities are discussed.

Effects of Curriculum-Based Measurement on Teachers' Instructional Planning

This study assessed the effects of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) on teachers instructional planning. Subjects were 30 teachers, assigned randomly to a computer-assisted CBM group, a noncomputer CBM group, and a contrast group. In the CBM groups, teachers specified 15-week reading goals, established CBM systems to measure student progress toward goals at least twice weekly, and systematically evaluated those data bases to determine when instructional modifications were necessary. Contrast teachers monitored student progress toward Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals as they wished and were encouraged to develop instructional programs as necessary. At the end of a 12- to 15-week implementation period, teachers completed a questionnaire with reference to one randomly selected pupil. Analyses of variance indicated no difference between the CBM groups. However, compared to the contrast group, CBM teachers (a) used more specific, acceptable goals; (b) were less optimistic about goal attainment; (c) cited more objective and frequent data sources for determining the adequacy of student progress and for deciding whether program modifications were necessary; and (d) modified student programs more frequently. Questionnaire responses were correlated with verifiable data sources, and results generally supported the usefulness of the self-report information. Implications for special education research and practice are discussed.

Teaching Nonreaders to Read An Evaluation of the Basic Skill Centers in Minneapolis

Kermoian 1962, Feshbach, Adelman, & Fuller 1974), the fear of mislabeling may increase the incidence of false-negative errors, particularly for the severe high-risk child. This problem was seen recently in an unpublished study from our longitudinal project which compared teacher predictions (end of kindergarten) to test predictions, based on the abbreviated test battery (beginning of kindergarten), to reading outcomes at the end of second grade. The results showed that while the overall accuracy of kindergarten teacher predictions was as high as the tests (approximately 80

What Is Scientifically-Based Research on Progress Monitoring?.

), the detection of the severe high-risk child was much lower when predicted by the teachers. The teachers identified only 19

Mainstream Assistance Teams to Accommodate Difficult-to-Teach Students in General Education.

of these children, whereas the tests detected 75

Using CBM for Progress Monitoring in Reading.

of them. In other words, the overall teacher predictions were spuriously inflated by good outcome forecasts when the base rates favored such outcomes (by 4:1). However, when they predicted severe outcomes, which was rare, their accuracy was extremely high (approximately 90

Peer-Mediated Programs to Strengthen Classroom Instruction: Cooperative Learning, Reciprocal Teaching, Classwide Peer Tutoring and Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies

).