Pre-Service Teachers' Accuracy in Evaluation Progress Monitoring Graphs

Kuntz, E; Peltier, Corey; Barczak, Mary A.; Massey, Cynthia; Crowson, H. Michael

doi:10.17605/osf.io/hqtnz

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Survey Instrument1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2022

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Data from this question were not used in our data analytic plan as they did not address our research questions. The full survey is available on Open Science Framework (see Kuntz et al, 2021).…”

Section: Survey Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Graph Manipulation and the Impact on Pre-Service Teachers’ Accuracy in Evaluating Progress Monitoring Data

Kuntz

Massey

Peltier

et al. 2022

Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Tea

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Through time-series graphs, teachers often evaluate progress monitoring data to make both low- and high-stakes decisions for students. The construction of these graphs—specifically, the presence of an aimline and the data points per x- to y-axis ratio (DPPXYR)—may impact decisions teachers make. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of graph construction manipulations on pre-service teachers’ accuracy with instructional decision-making. Participants included 94 pre-service teachers enrolled in an introductory course focused on students with disabilities at two universities. Following instruction on progress monitoring, students evaluated 48 graphs representing eight data sets with six manipulations (i.e., with and without aimline; DPPXYR set at 0.05, 0.10, 0.15). Results suggest that the presence of an aimline increased accuracy, whereas the manipulation of the DPPXYR led to mixed findings. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Survey Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 99%