2006
DOI: 10.1080/02796015.2006.12087975
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing the Instructional Level for Mathematics: A Comparison of Methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
70
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 77 publications
(72 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
2
70
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A functional relation was established for only one participant based on visual analysis, and the Tau-U effect size was large only for this student. None of the students moved beyond the frustrational level of DCPM established for their grade level (> 14 DCPM for third grade and > 24 for fourth grade; Burns et al, 2006), even on their highest performing days. Although Burns and colleagues (2010) established that acquisition interventions like CCC have large effects on mathematics performance for students with frustrationallevel skills, it is unclear whether the same interventions will be effective for students with EBD.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…A functional relation was established for only one participant based on visual analysis, and the Tau-U effect size was large only for this student. None of the students moved beyond the frustrational level of DCPM established for their grade level (> 14 DCPM for third grade and > 24 for fourth grade; Burns et al, 2006), even on their highest performing days. Although Burns and colleagues (2010) established that acquisition interventions like CCC have large effects on mathematics performance for students with frustrationallevel skills, it is unclear whether the same interventions will be effective for students with EBD.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Accuracy data (i.e., percentage correct) were not collected and analyzed as part of the present study. In general, participants had high levels of accuracy on the assessment probes, and normative performance levels (mastery, instructional, and frustrational; Burns et al, 2006) are reliably based on DCPM scores rather than accuracy.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Differentiating the activity to meet children’s needs may better keep children engaged. Mathematical activities that are appropriately difficult are more effective in increasing skill than those that are either too easy or too difficult (Burns, VanDerHeyden, & Jiban, 2006).…”
Section: Instructional Practices During Board Game Playmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is evidence supporting the use of MC-CBM for monitoring students' progress (Stecker, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005), modifying instruction for students with varying abilities (Slavin, & Lake, 2008), informing instructional groupings (McLeskey & Waldron, 2011), adapting instruction for students with disabilities (McMaster, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2005), identifying students' academic strengths and weaknesses (Stecker, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005), supporting peer-assisted learning (Calhoon & Fuchs, 2003), and predicting students' performance on statewide assessments (Helwig, Anderson, & Tindal, 2002). The current study was informed by studies that examined performance indicators on MC-CBM to classify students (Burns, VanDerHeyden, & Jiban, 2006; VanDerHeyden & Burns, 2005), investigated the administration of MC-CBM on higher (Fuchs, Fuchs, Compton, Bryant, Hamlett, & Seethaler, 2007) compared to earlier grades (Clarke & Shinn, 2004; Hintze Christ, & Keller, 2002; Jitendra, Dupuis, & Zaslofsky, 2014; Shapiro, Dennis, & Fu, 2015; Thurber et al., 2002), and used MC-CBM to screen for students with LD in mathematics (Christ, Johnson-Gros, & Hintze, 2005; Fuchs et al, 2007; Hintze et al., 2002).…”
Section: Cbm In Mathematicsmentioning
confidence: 99%