Curriculum-based measurement is a system for monitoring students' progress and formatively evaluating instruction backed by 25 years of validation research. Most of this research has been conducted in elementary schools. In middle and high school classrooms, where there is an emphasis on mastering content knowledge, elementary-level measurements are not viable. This article describes the development and validation of a curriculum-based measurement using a maze format, in which specific words are eliminated from sentences and students select from several options to fill in each omitted word. Unlike traditional maze tasks in which words are deleted with attention to grammar and syntax, a concept maze is used in which the target words represent key attributes of core concepts from the content domain. Data from a pilot study are presented along with several options for teachers to obtain data that will (a) inform them which students should receive supplemental instruction and (b) identify particular attributes that require further development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams. M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and Learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
2.
Alexander, P., Schallert, D., & Hare, V. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research , 61(3), 315-343.
3.
Alley, G.R., & Deshler, D.D. (1979). Teaching the learning disabled adolescent: Strategies and methods. Denver, CO: Love Publishing .
4.
Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., & Gromoll, E.W. (1989). Learning from social studies texts. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 99-158.
Busch, R., & Espin, C.A. (2003). Using curriculum-based measurement to prevent failure and assess learning in the content areas. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3&4), 49-58.
7.
Cameron, M.G. (2000). Students must learn and understand certain concepts in world history and geography in order to succeed in a new era of global trade. World History Organization & National Council for Geographic Education's World 2000 Conference. Retrieved November 15, 2002, from http://www.dla.utexas.edu/wor1d2000/cameron.html
8.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
9.
Espin, C.A., & Deno, S.L. (1993a). Content-specific and general reading disabilities of secondary-level students: Identification and educational relevance. Journal of Special Education, 27, 321-338. Retrieved December 5, 2003, from http://bll.epnet.com
10.
Espin, C.A., & Deno, S.L. (1993b). Performance in reading from content area text as an indicator of achievement feature article. Remedial & Special Education, 14(6), 47-59. Retrieved December 5, 2003, from http://bll.epnet.com
11.
Espin, C.A., & Deno, S.L. (1994-1995). Curriculum-based measures for secondary students: Utility and task specificity of text-based reading and vocabulary measures for predicting performance on content-area tasks. Diagnostique, 20(1-4), 121-142.
12.
Espin, C.A., & Foegen, A. (1996). Validity of general outcome measures for predicting secondary students' performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62, 497-514.
13.
Espin, C.A., & Tindal, G. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement for secondary students . In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 214-253). New York: The Guilford Press.
14.
Fuchs, L.S., & Deno, S.L. (1994). Must instructionally useful performance assessment be based in the curriculum ?Exceptional Children, 61, 15-24.
15.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. School Psychology Review, 21 (1), 45-58.
16.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Curriculum-based measurement: Describing competence, enhancing outcomes, evaluating treatment effects, and identifying treatment nonresponders. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(2), 64-84.
17.
Howell, K.W., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
18.
Ketterlin-Geller, L.R. (2003). Establishing a validity argument for universally designed assessments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.
19.
Ketterlin-Geller, L.R., McCoy, J.D., Twyman, T., & Tindal, G. (2003). How do critical thinking measures fit within standards-based reform?Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28(3 & 4), 37-48.
20.
Klausmeier, H.J. (1990). Conceptualizing. In B. F. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 93-138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
Messick, S. (1995). Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 14(4), 5-8.
22.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An cadence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: Author.
23.
Parker, R., Hasbrouck, J.E., & Tindal, G. (1992). The maze as a classroom-based reading measure: Construction methods, reliability, and validity. Journal of Special Education, 26, 195-218.
24.
Shin, J., Deno, S.L., & Espin, C. (2000). Technical adequacy of the maze task for curriculum-based measurement of reading growth. Journal of Special Education , 34, 164-172.
Tindal, G., & Nolet, V. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement in middle and high schools: Critical thinking skills in content areas. Focus onExceptional Children, 27(7), 1-22.
