Teachers serving learning disabled (LD) students provided information about the use of direct and frequent measurement in special education. Although most were familiar with these measurement strategies, relatively few teachers used them because they thought they were too time consuming or because of their own lack of skills. However, teachers who did use the techniques most often reported that measurement of this type requires less than 10% of a student's instructional time. The implications of these and other findings related to special education measurement and teacher training are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaerD.M.WolfM.The entry into natural communities of reinforcement. In UlrichR.StachnikT.MabryJ. (Eds.), Control of human behavior. Vol. 2. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman, 1970.
2.
BohannonR.Direct and daily measurement procedures in the identification and treatment of reading behaviors of children in special educationUnpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 1975.
3.
FuchsL.S.The concurrent validity of curriculum-based measures of basal materialUnpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1981.
4.
FuchsL.S.WessonC.TindalG.MirkinP.DenoS.Teacher efficiency in continuous evaluation of IEP goals (Research Report No. 53). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, 1981.
5.
HaringN.KrugD.A.Placement in regular programs: Procedures and results. Exceptional Children, 1975, 41 (6), 413–417.
6.
JenkinsJ.DenoS.L.MirkinP.K.Measuring pupil progress toward the least restrictive environment (Monograph No. 10). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, 1979.
7.
JenkinsJ.MayhallW.PeschkaC.TownsendV.Using direct and daily measures to increase learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974, 10, 604–608.
8.
KingR.WessonC.DenoS.Direct and frequent measurement of student performance: Does it take too much time? (Research Report No. 67). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, 1982.
9.
LovittT.In spite of my resistance, I've learned from children. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1977.
10.
MartinR.KellerA.Teacher awareness of classroom dyadic interactions. Journal of School Psychology, 1976, 14, 47–55.
11.
MirkinP.DenoS.TindalG.KuehnleK.Formative evaluation: Continued development of data utilization systems (Research Report No. 23). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, 1979.
12.
MirkinP.PotterM.A survey of the planning and implementation practices of LD teachers (Research Report No. 80). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, 1982.
13.
ThurlowM.YsseldykeJ.E.Current assessment and decision-making practices in model LD programs. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1979, 2, 15–24.
14.
WessonC.MirkinP.DenoS.Teachers' use of self-instructional materials for learning procedures for developing and monitoring progress on IEP goals (Research Report No. 63). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, 1982.
15.
WhiteO.HaringN.Exceptional teaching (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles Merrill, 1980.
