fuchs_l._s._et_al_1994 [Projects]

CBM has been shown to be reliable and valid.
Mostly used w/ students w/ special needs.
Problems include the significant workload associated with adjusting instruction for a number of students.
”. . . responded to this problem by developing innovative strategies by which teachers can use CBM information more feasibly with large numbers of stduents. Our goal has been to extend CBM decision-making methods to increase teachers' capacity to use objective, ongoing assessment infromation to provide more individually responsive, adaptive instructional programs to all stduents, including those with disabilities.” p. 519.
randomly assigned teachers to three groups. CBM w/ class-wide instructional recommendations. CBM w/ out recommendations and no CBM.
sample 'CBM Teacher's Report' looks very helpful. If includes:
1. Graph of correct items on the y axis and month/days on the x axis.
2. Students to watch (lowest 25%) - lists five students
3. Area's of improvement: Lists 2 objectives (eg subtracting with regrouping)
4. Areas of little change: same as above
5. Whole Group Instruction: recommendations. (eg over half of your class struggled with objective S2.
6. Small Group instruction: (eg two students show continued difficulty w/ obj A2).
7. Table with each student in rows with columns corresponding to different objectives. Level of mastery then provided at the intersection. Also section with level of mastery / totals. (eg obj A1, 5 partially mastered, 5 probably mastered, 10 mastered).
8. Listing of objectives w/ students needing more work and suggested activities (eg book lessons, “subtraction puzzles”, “Number Munchers”
9. Coaching assignments based upon a 'classwide peer tutoring' model.
CBM (w/ and w/out instruction suggestoins) outperformed no CBM on achievement.