Using Direct and Daily Measures To Increase Learning

Jenkins, James J.; Mayhall, William F.; Peschkxa, Corinne; Townsend, Verlinda

doi:10.1177/002221947400701002

Cited by 17 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings suggest that, although measurement with evaluation is superior to measurement only CBM activities, measurement procedures alone, which are highly related to curricular content, may exert some impact on achievement. This echoes previous work supporting the potential effects of curriculum-based testing on achievement (e.g., Jenkins et al, 1974;Wesson et al, 1988).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Although the need for evaluation of CBM data bases seems intuitively obvious, some research (e.g., Jenkins, Mayhall, Peshka, & Townsend, 1974;Wesson et al, 1988) indicates that the measurement component of CBM alone may increase student achievement. Insufficient information exists to determine whether, and if so, to what extent, instrumental use of CBM data bases actually enhances student achievement outcomes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Fuchs¹,

Hamlett²

1989

Remedial and Special Education

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. C URRICULUM-BASED ASSESSMENT refers to the evaluation of instructional needs through ongoing measurement of student performance within the local school curriculum (Gickling, 1981;Tucker, 1987). This generic term subsumes a variety of alternative practices. Some are relatively informal and highly idiosyncratic, such as the tests teachers devise and administer within their classrooms for assessing student mastery of material and assigning grades. Other versions of curriculum-based assessment are more standardized and technically refined. One example of a well-developed curriculum-based assessment system is Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM).CBM has been implemented and researched systematically over the past 15 years, with assessment procedures derived from an ongoing, applied research program (e.g., Deno, 1985; Deno & Fuchs, 1987). CBM delineates standarized measurement procedures for drawing testing material from reading, spelling, written expression, and math curricula, and for administering and scoring those tests (Deno, 1986; Deno & Fuchs, 1987; Shinn, in press). These standardized measurement procedures can be applied reliably to local school curricula, and the same set of CBM procedures can be used validly for a variety of assessmentrelated purposes (Germann & Tindal, 1985).For example, CBM appears to be psychometrically tenable for traditional, norm-referenced assessment functions, including the screening, referral, and identification of students with learning problems (Marston, Mirkin, & Deno, 1984; Shinn, Tindal, & Stein, 1988). Studies also have investigated the use of CBM for additional assessment purposes, such as the evaluation of school programs and the formulation of instructional plans. Researchers have demonstrated that CBM can be used to improve the scope and usefulness of program evaluation decision (Germann & Tindal, 1985) and to develop instructional plans that enhance student achievement (Fuchs, Deno,...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Fuchs¹,

Hamlett²

1989

Remedial and Special Education

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(2) measurement alone may affect student achievement (L. S. Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986;L. S. Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamlet, 1989b;Jenkins, Mayhall, Peshka, & Townsend, 1974;Wesson et al, 1988).…”

Section: Does An Improved Prereferral System Results In Better Outcomementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The research team did not meet with the teachers during the study to provide information on DD status. The AF and AO conditions were included to control, respectively, for the possibilities that (1) feedback to teachers on CBM performance may affect student achievement independent of a specific intervention plan (L. S. Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986; L. S. Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamlet, 1989a) and (2) measurement alone may affect student achievement (L. S. Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986; L. S. Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamlet, 1989b;Jenkins, Mayhall, Peshka, & Townsend, 1974;Wesson et al, 1988).…”

Section: Does An Improved Prereferral System Results In Better Outcom...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsiveness to General Education Instruction as the First Gate to Learning Disabilities Identification

Speece¹,

Case²,

Molloy³

2003

Learn Disabil Res Pract

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most definitions of learning disabilities (LD) include a qualification that adequate general education instruction was received and the child with LD did not benefit. Rarely is this tenet assessed in either practice or research before a diagnosis is made. We review three studies that investigated children's responsiveness to general education reading instruction as an indicator of need for more intensive interventions. Adequacy of instruction was quantified by children's level and rate of progress, compared to classmates, as measured by curriculum-based measures of oral reading fluency. We found that the response-to-instruction model tested was valid in that (1) children who differ from their peers on level and slope of performance (dual discrepancy) have more severe academic and behavioral problems than children who have IQ-achievement discrepancies or low achievement; (2) children who demonstrate persistent nonresponsiveness over three years differ from other at-risk children on reading, reading-related, and behavioral measures; and (3) at-risk children who participated in specially designed general education interventions had better outcomes than at-risk children who did not participate. We conducted additional analyses to assess low achievement definitional variations and found that they lack sensitivity and coverage compared to a dual discrepancy definition.

show abstract

“…Teachers who have access to the daily measures are better able to adjust tutoring programs to achieve greater learning (Jenkins, Mayhall, Peschka, & Townsend, 1974). Decision making improves when people have access to better information, a proposition that is as true in classrooms as it is in government and industry.…”

Section: Measurement Of Progressmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Tutoring in Elementary and Secondary Programs

Jenkins¹,

Jenkins²

2018

Exceptional

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The task facing professionals who teach ' students with handicaps is clear enoughhow to raise achievement rates and thereby reduce the discrepancy between handicapped children and their peers. Teachers with whom we have talked are confident they could teach almost anything to almost anyone, if they had the time. A student who requires 80 repetitions of a rule before applying it consistently has a problem only if the teacher does not have enough time to provide the repetitions. Of course, time spent with this student is probably time taken away from other students who already have learned the rule, or who are at an earlier spot in the curriculum. Whether, or when, a particular student learns a rule will probably not be determined by the teacher's ability to teach but, rather, by the teacher's available time. The pr:oblem of having sufficient time for teaching is a function of class size and of the varieties of human differences found in schools.Data gathered in elementary classrooms have identified "academic engaged time" as a highly significant correlate of achievement-one that distinguishes classrooms that produce above and below average achievement levels. Berliner, Fisher, Filby, and Marlieve (1976) have described academic learning time as the time a studentspends engaged in academically relevant tasks that are moderately difficult. Academic engaged time is not the same as allotted instructional time. A typical elementafy classroom allots from 90 minutes to 2 hours daily to language ~rts instruction. Qbservations of what the students do during this period, however, reveal that far fewer•rilinutes are actually spent engaged in a learning task. ,

show abstract

Using Direct and Daily Measures To Increase Learning

Cited by 17 publications

References 1 publication

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

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

Responsiveness to General Education Instruction as the First Gate to Learning Disabilities Identification

Peer Tutoring in Elementary and Secondary Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About