Resources: Curriculum-Based Measurement at the Secondary ...



Resources: Curriculum-Based Measurement at the Secondary-School Level

Thank you for your interest in the use of progress monitoring or Curriculum-based Measurement at the secondary-school level.

Research Institute on Progress Monitoring (RIPM)

The University of Minnesota houses a federally-funded research institute on progress monitoring. You can link to our website at .

An overview of CBM written by Stanley Deno is provided on the website for those not familiar with curriculum-based measurement or with the differences between curriculum-based measurement and curriculum-based assessment. This website also has a link to the National Center of Progress Monitoring, a dissemination Center focused on the use of CBM in grades K-5.

Publications

Below are articles and book chapters on the development of CBM or progress monitoring procedures for secondary-school students in reading, content-area learning, and writing. (Please note that this list is not exhaustive. It is only the work we have conducted here at the University. We hope to have an exhaustive list of published work on CBM on our Research Institute website in the coming years.) Note that we have conducted no work here in the area of mathematics; however, Dr. Anne Foegen, at the Iowa State University, has done much work on the development of CBM measures at the secondary-school level. You can find her contact information at the RIPM website.

Our most recent work has been in the areas of reading, writing, and science learning. These papers are under preparation, and are not represented below. I would like to mention the names of my colleagues who have been involved in that work: Dr. Teri Wallace (University of Minnesota), Dr. Erica Lembke (University of Missouri), Dr. Todd Busch (Mankato University), Dr. Jeff Long (University of Minnesota), Heather Campbell (University of Minnesota), and Renata Ticha (University of Minnesota.) Generally, the findings of this most recent work, combined with our earlier work, indicate that:

1. In reading, to predict performance, one can use either a 1-minute oral reading passage in which the number of words read correctly are counted, or a 3-minute maze passage in which the number of correct choices are counted. For progress monitoring, however, only a 3-minute maze passage should be used. Reading aloud does not produce valid and reliable growth rates, whereas maze does. We construct our maze procedures from human interest articles that appear in the newspaper. (We cannot, unfortunately, distribute these passages because we have permission only to use them for our research purposes.) For a description of how to construct a maze passage, see Espin and Foegen, 1996.

2. In written expression, the best measure for predicting performance is to have students write for 7 minutes in response to a narrative prompt, and score the number of correct minus incorrect word sequences. For progress monitoring, where data are collected on a weekly basis, a 5-minute sample is probably long enough. For a description of the type of prompts used and the procedures used for scoring correct minus incorrect word sequences, see Espin, Skare, Shin, Deno, Robinson, & Brenner, (2000).

3. In content-area learning, we have had success using a vocabulary-matching technique where students have 5 minutes to match terms with definitions. This measures serves as a good measures for both performance and progress monitoring. For a description of how to construction vocabulary-matching probes, see Espin, Busch, Shin, and Krsuchwitz, 2001.

Reading and Content-area Learning

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.

Espin, C.A., & Deno, S.L. (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.

Espin, C.A., & Deno, S.L. (1993). Content-specific and general reading disabilities of secondary-level students: Identification and educational relevance. Journal of Special Education 27, 321-337.

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.

Content-area Learning

Espin, C.A., Shin, J., & Busch, T.W. (in press). Curriculum-based measurement in the content areas: Vocabulary-matching as an indicator of social studies learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities.

Espin, C.A., Busch, T., Shin, J., & Kruschwitz, R. (2001). Curriculum-based measures in the content areas: Validity of vocabulary-matching measures as indicators of performance in social studies. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 142-151.

Busch, T. & Espin, C.A. (2003). Using curriculum-based measurement to prevent failure and assess learning in content areas. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 49-58.

Writing

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.

Espin, C.A., Weissenburger, J.W., & Benson, B.J. (in press). Assessing the writing performance of students in special education. Exceptionality.

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.

Espin, C.A., Scierka, B.J., Skare, S., & Halverson, N. (1999). Criterion-related validity of curriculum-based measures in writing for secondary students. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 5-27.

General articles on CBM and progress monitoring

Deno, S.L., Espin, C.A., & Fuchs, L.S. (2002). Evaluation strategies for preventing and remediating basic skill deficits. In Stoner, G., Shinn, M.R., & Walker, H.M. (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems, Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Deno, S.L., & Espin, C.A. (1994). Curriculum-based assessment. International Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.

Deno, S. L., & Fuchs, L. S. (1987). Developing curriculum-based measurement systems for data-based special education problem solving. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19 (8), 1- 15.

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.

Espin, C.A., Shin, J., & Busch, T. (2000). Focusing on formative evaluation. Current Practice Alerts, 1 (3), 1-4.

Fuchs, L.S. & Deno, S.L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children 57, 488-499.

Fuchs, L.S. & Deno, S.L. (1994) Must instructionally useful performance assessment be based in the curriculum? Exceptional Children, 61(1), 15-24.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download