Identifying Indicators of Written Expression Proficiency for Middle School Students

Espin, Christine A.; Shin, Jongho; Deno, Stanley L.; Skare, Stacy; Robinson, Steven; B, Benner

doi:10.1177/002246690003400303

Cited by 99 publications

(125 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They are also argued to be a sensitive index of pupil's written text production (Espin et al, 2000) and have been successfully used to examine the skills of English language learners (Campbell, Espin, & McMaster, 2013).…”

Section: Curriculum Based Measures Of Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing children's writing products: the role of curriculum based measures

Dockrell¹,

Connelly

Walter³

et al. 2014

British Educational Res J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Curriculum Based Measures Of Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing children's writing products: the role of curriculum based measures

Dockrell¹,

Connelly

Walter³

et al. 2014

British Educational Res J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Criterionrelated validity estimates were less strong in Gansle et al (2002) with small to moderate correlations between the Iowa Test of Basic Skills Total Score and CWS (r = .43), and Louisiana Educational A ssessm ent Program (Write Competently subscale) with TWW (r = .28) and CWS (r = .28). Although less re searched than TWW and CWS, CIWS also has evidence of technical adequacy including valid ity estimates exceeding production-dependent measures (Espin et al, 2000), and similar re sults have been found for the productionindependent indicator of %CWS (Amato & Watkins, 2011;McMaster & Espin, 2007).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 55%

Measuring annual growth using written expression curriculum-based measurement: An examination of seasonal and gender differences.

Keller‐Margulis

Mercer

Payan

et al. 2015

School Psychology Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to examine annual growth patterns and gender differences in written expression curriculum-based measurement (WE-CBM) when used in the context of universal screening. Students in second through fifth grade (n = 672) from 2 elementary schools that used WE-CBM as a universal screener participated in the study. Student writing samples were scored for production-dependent, production-independent, and accurate-production indicators. Results of latent growth models indicate that for most WE-CBM outcome indicators across most grade levels, average growth was curvilinear, with increasing curvilinearity on all indicators as grade level increased. Evidence of gender differences was mixed with girls having higher initial scores on all WE-CBM indicators except for total words written (second and third grades), correct minus incorrect writing sequences (fourth grade only), and percent correct writing sequences (second-fourth grades) where differences were not statistically significant. Despite differences in initial level, there were few gender differences in growth and limited overall between-student variability in linear slope. The results of this study extend research on annual patterns of growth and gender differences in WE-CBM by analyzing all 3 types of WE-CBM indicators, including upper elementary grades, and assessing skills more frequently (i.e., 4 to 5 times in 1 year) than in prior research on annual growth. The findings have implications for universal screening in WE-CBM and for understanding gender differences in writing performance.

show abstract

“…The following measures have been found to be reliable: total words written, words spelled correctly, and correct writing sequences (e.g., Espin, Scierka, Skare, & Halverson, 1999;Espin et al, 2000).…”

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Curriculum-Based Measurement to Drive IEPs and Instruction in Written Expression

Hessler¹,

Konrad²

2008

TEACHING Exceptional Children

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Setting meaningful individualized education program (IEP) goals and objectives is one of the challenges that special education teachers face. In written expression, this task is even more difficult. Not only is assessing writing a subjective and difficult endeavor, but writing itself is a complicated task. Proficient writing is a demonstration of many skills including, but not limited to, spelling, usage, punctuation, capitalization, sentence structure, ideation, summarization, and critical thinking. Because many students with disabilities struggle with written expression, these skills should be targeted for instruction, but it is unrealistic for teachers to create IEP objectives for each skill area. Teachers need to know how to prioritize each student's written expression deficits, and they need access to measures that are efficient indicators of overall writing performance. What's the Solution?Curriculum-based measurement (CBM), an alternative to informal observation and standardized testing (Deno, 1985), is one tool teachers can use to assess academic skills, develop meaningful IEP objectives, and target instruction. This article provides teachers with information about CBM, various measures for written expression, and how to use those measures in assessment and throughout the IEP cycle (i.e., setting goals, informing instruction, monitoring progress, and sharing performance data). What Is CBM?CBM is a fluency-based evaluation approach intended to give teachers a means to monitor a student's progress 28 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN Effective Inclusion StrategiesMrs. Bertram sat at her desk and sighed as she read the multifactored evaluation in front of her. Mario, one of her fifth-grade inclusion students, had just been evaluated and found eligible for special education services in reading, math, and written expression. She felt confident about developing meaningful individualized education program (IEP) goals and objectives for reading and math, but writing was in many ways more difficult to target. First, there are so many subskills involved in writing that she felt overwhelmed with trying to prioritize his deficits in order to write goals and objectives for his IEP. Second, the assessment of written expression was so much more subjective. Mario could write a thoughtful and creative narrative that she rated as rather good, but that his language arts teacher, Mr. Martin, found too riddled with errors to merit a passing grade. The 4-point rubric that Mr. Martin used to assess student writing was not a sensitive enough measure to capture the small improvements that students make in written expression. She knew Mario should be writing every day, but assessing that much writing took much of her time. His general education teachers often did not require much writing, so she had to somehow include it in his resource room time, but she admitted she found it difficult to find the time to have her students write in class, so they often wrote for homework. They typically wrote so very little that she couldn't tell ...

show abstract

Identifying Indicators of Written Expression Proficiency for Middle School Students

Cited by 99 publications

References 18 publications

Assessing children's writing products: the role of curriculum based measures

Assessing children's writing products: the role of curriculum based measures

Measuring annual growth using written expression curriculum-based measurement: An examination of seasonal and gender differences.

Using Curriculum-Based Measurement to Drive IEPs and Instruction in Written Expression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About