Hoagies logo
Shop Amazon and support Hoagies' Page. Thanks!

ParentsEducatorsKids Fun!What's New?Gifted 101CommunityConferencesShop Hoagies!PC SecurityAbout
                 ↑Teachers find help here                           ↑ Everyone needs community

Using Amazon Smile? Click this link instead! Amazon Smile
Barnes & Noble

Click on Shop Hoagies' Page before you visit your favorite on-line stores including Amazon and many more of your favorite stores.  Thanks for making Hoagies' Gifted community possible!

Your donations help keep Hoagies' Gifted Education Page on-line.

Support Hoagies' Page!

ERIC logo

Instructionally Relevant Assessment

The ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education (ERIC EC)
E-mail: webmaster@hoagiesgifted.org
Internet: http://eric.hoagiesgifted.org
ERIC EC Minibib EB22
Updated April 2003

Citations with an ED (ERIC Document; for example, ED123456) number are available in microfiche collections at more than 1,000 locations worldwide; to find the ERIC Resource Collection nearest you, point your web browser to: http://ericae.net/derc.htm. Documents can also be ordered for a fee through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS): http://edrs.com/, service@edrs.com, or 1-800-443-ERIC. (no longer available)

Journal articles (for example, EJ999999) are available for a fee from the originating journal (check your local college or public library), through interlibrary loan services, or from article reproduction services such as: Infotrieve: 800.422.4633, www4.infotrieve.com, service@infotrieve.com; or ingenta: 800.296.2221, www.ingenta.com, ushelp@ingenta.com.

Allinder, R. M. & Oats, R. G. (1997). Effects of Acceptability on Teachers' Implementation of Curriculum-Based Measurement and Student Achievement in Mathematics Computation. Remedial and Special Education, 18(2), 113-20.
A study of 12 special education teachers who had a high acceptance of curriculum-based assessment and 9 teachers who had a low acceptance found they differed on two of five implementation measures. Also, there was a significant difference in the rate of growth affected by their students in math.

Berninger, V. W. & Stage, S. A. (1996). Assessment and Intervention for Writing Problems of Students with Learning Disabilities or Behavioral Disabilities. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 20(2), 5-23.
This article describes measures for process assessment of handwriting fluency, spelling, and composition of students with learning or behavioral disabilities. It then discusses common writing problems for these students, and specific process and strategy interventions.

Bryant, B. R. & Maddox, T. (1996). Using Alternative Assessment Techniques to Plan and Evaluate Mathematics Instruction. LD Forum, 21(2), 24-33.
This article first discusses purposes for assessing mathematics performance, including comparison with peer performance, identifying mastered skills, and targeting mathematics strategies. It then explains a variety of assessment strategies, including teacher-made tests, checklists/rating scales, graphs of student performance, interviews, miscue analysis in word problems, observation, and portfolio organization.

Correctional Education Association. (1994). Starting from Scratch: Assessment and Instruction for Literacy Programs in Correctional Settings. Maryland National Institute for Literacy, Washington, DC. ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS), ED373188.
This handbook on literacy assessment and instructional methods presents the basic instructional techniques that work best in a correctional setting and the ways to implement these methods successfully in adult and juvenile offender classes. A chapter on "Motivation" (Marie Leekely) is followed by a chapter on "Student Assessment" (Stephen Steurer) that includes sample assessment instruments. "Reading Instruction" (Geoff Lucas) discusses the following methods: sight word instruction, word attack skills instruction, language experience approaches (including the directed listening language experience approach), the Fernald method, and duet and silent reading techniques. Numerous useful examples of each technique are presented. An appendix provides the following additional information: goals checklist; adaptive instructional strategies; tips to improve comprehension; Barsch Learning Style Inventory; approximate reader levels based on the Dolsch Sight Word Recall Test; strategies for helping students who cannot hear sound differences, remember sight words, organize their writing, or remember math facts; tips for recognizing and dealing with learning disabilities and reading disabilities; Johns Hopkins University Academy Basic Tutoring Techniques.

Cross, L. & Haynes, M.C. (1994). Assessing Mathematics Learning for Students with Learning Differences. Arithmetic Teacher, 41(7), 371-77.
This article discusses the use and adaptation of alternative assessment procedures such as observation, interviewing, holistic scoring, checklists, and reading of student journals, to accurately determine the progress of students with learning difficulties. Includes scoring rubrics and many samples of student evaluation.

Fewster, S., MacMillan, P.D. (2002). School-Based Evidence for the Validity of Curriculum-Based Measurement of Reading and Writing. Remedial and Special Education; 23(3), 149-156.
Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) oral reading fluency and written expression scores for 465 students (grades 6-7) were compared with their year-end English and social studies marks received in grades 8,9, and 10. Correlation and regression analyses provided evidence of the predictive validity of CBM scores as indicators of academic performance.

Fuchs, L. S. And Others. (1993). Technological Advances Linking the Assessment of Students' Academic Proficiency to Instructional Planning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12(1), 49-62.
An ongoing research program is examining use of technology to surmount difficulties in incorporating curriculum-based measurement in instructional programs for students with disabilities. The use of computers to assume the mechanical aspects of measurement and to help teachers translate assessment information into feasible instructional adaptations is discussed.

Hargrove, L.J. And Others. (2002). Curriculum-based Assessment: Reading and State Academic Standards. Preventing School Failure. 46(4), 148-151.
This article explains how teachers can construct curriculum-based assessments (CBA), using state academic standards, to measure the reading skills and progress of elementary students with mild disabilities. Two mini-cases illustrate the creation of CBA test items based on individual educational goals and the Indiana Academic Standards.

Idol, L. And Others. (1996). Models of Curriculum-Based Assessment: A Blueprint for Learning. Second Edition. Available From PRO-ED, 8700 Shoal Creek Blvd., Austin, TX 78757-6897 ($29). ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS), ED399749.
This book provides a rationale for, discussion, and extensive examples of curriculum-based assessments (CBA) for students with disabilities in the regular classroom, in the context of the collaborative consultation model. The model stresses the need for input from people with diverse expertise to generate creative solutions to mutually defined problems. An introductory chapter considers the factors that make CBA an important alternative to traditional testing practices and identifies the desired outcomes of skill acquisition by the learner and cooperation between special educators and classroom teachers. The following seven chapters then explain the use of CBA in specific subject areas and present examples of CBAs that have actually been constructed and used in teaching the following subjects: (1) reading skills, (2) written expression, (3) history and social studies, (4) mathematics, (5) science, (6) dictionary skills, and (7) following directions and using study skills. An appendix lists basic rules of composition concerning capitalization, punctuation, abbreviations and contractions, italics, and numerals.

Madelaine, A., Wheldall, K. (1999). Curriculum-Based Measurement of Reading: A Critical Review. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education. 46(1), 71-85.
Discusses curriculum-based measurement as an alternative to both standardized and teacher-developed reading tests. Oral Reading Fluency, a curriculum-based measure of reading is presented as an accurate indicator of both general reading ability and reading comprehension, and as a means of monitoring reading progress towards functional literacy.

McCain, G. (1995). Technology-Based Assessment in Special Education. T.H.E. Journal, 23(1), 57-60.
Examines advances in the use of technology-based assessment in special education. Topics include the need for better assessment tools, culturally relevant assessment so minorities are assured of equal representation, expanding definitions of learning and knowing how as well as what to measure, time factors, and a holistic approach.

Paulsen, K.J. (1997). Curriculum-Based Measurement: Translating Research into School-Based Practice. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32(3), 62-67.
This article describes an elementary school's use of a curriculum-based measurement (CBM) system that allowed teachers to develop reading and mathematics interventions to assist students with and without disabilities. Presents a step-by-step approach to developing CBM and guidelines for implementing CBM in entire classrooms or for individual students.

Phillips, N. B. And Others. (1993). Combining Classwide Curriculum-Based Measurement and Peer Tutoring to Help General Educators Provide Adaptive Education. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 8(3), 148-56.
This paper describes and evaluates the efficacy of a combination of curriculum- based measurement and peer tutoring incorporated into 40 elementary education mathematics classes, to differentiate instruction and improve student achievement. The evaluation indicated that students with low achievement, average achievement, and learning disabilities achieved significantly better than students in control classrooms.

Raphael, T. E. And Others. (1996). Assessing the Literacy Growth of Fifth-Grade Students: A Question of Realigning Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment. ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS), ED400300.
Teachers conducting a thematically organized literature-based reading program centered around student-led discussion groups wanted to explore ways in which the values they wanted to promote could be reflected in the ways they assessed their students. This study considers how valuing a broader scope of language and literacy abilities and making these values part of an assessment system played out in the case of one male student, a representative of a population of students for whom assessment has been a high stakes venture and traditional assessments usually led to their removal from regular education classes to special education, isolated from regular education peers. The student was in his first year of mainstreamed education, in a class of 23 students, having previously been in special education. The Michigan English Language Arts Framework provided a model for describing students' progress. All 23 students participated in three assessment activities: (1) a criterion-referenced test consisting of traditional comprehension and vocabulary tests; (2) a performance-based assessment test designed to parallel daily language and literacy events; and (3) a self-assessment activity in which students evaluated their book club participation and their reading log entries. The student's performance on the criterion-referenced test by itself probably would have prevented him from participating in regular fifth-grade reading activities, but the other assessments gave him better opportunities to demonstrate his understanding, as well as more experience in reading activities. Taking a broader perspective means he is more likely to avoid long-term tracking and to preserve his self-esteem.

Research in the Classroom. (1997). Tenth Annual Report of Research Projects Conducted by Educators in Their Classrooms, 1995-1996. Available From: Colorado Department of Education, Special Education Services Unit, 201 East Colfax Avenue, Denver, CO 80203-1799. ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS), ED408285.
This publication contains reports on six research projects proposed, developed, and conducted by teachers in their own classrooms. The projects were conducted during the 1995-96 school year. The projects are: (1) "M..M..M..Math (Making More Meaning out of Math)" (Naomi Rose); (2) "Effect of Student Achievement as a Result of Individualized Use of Computer Technology" (Nelson S. Ford); (3) "Enhancing Short Term Memory Skills through Movement in Daily Obstacle Courses" (Judy Swanson, Terry Korsvold, and Mary Byrd); (4) "Parent Training for the Prevention of Reading Problems" (Jackie Taylor); (6) "Using Portfolio Assessment for Accountability in a Fully Integrated Classroom" (Jan Toyne and Kim Bundgaard); and (7) "The Effects of Team Building and Improved Environment in the Inclusive Classroom" (Cynthia A. Whitlock).

Research in the Classroom. (1996). Ninth Annual Report of Research Projects Conducted by Educators in Their Classrooms, 1994-1995. ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS), ED399241.
The report summarizes five Colorado teacher research projects in teaching students with disabilities. The five projects described demonstrate that teacher-initiated, classroom-based research allows educators to develop innovative approaches to instruction and to analyze their results in an objective way. The following projects are presented: (1) "Using Classic Literature with a Controlled Vocabulary To Improve Students' Ability To Recognize Frequency Words" (Randee Bergen); (2) "B.U.I.L.D.: Better Understanding and Interest in Learning Disabilities: Parent Support Group" (Robin Bruce, Reddy Gentry, Frances Hopp, and Beverly Temple); (3) "Increasing Reading, Language, Math, and Writing Skills through Hands-on Science" (Judy Bulmer); (4) "STAND BY THE BEST: Use of Multimedia Portfolio as Assessment of Content and Transition Skills" (Joyce Fuller, Stan Jozsiak, DeAnna Wesley, Mike Stanley, Patty Smith); and (5) "Expository Writing Curriculum for Students with Learning Disabilities" (Tracy Zimmerman, Rona Finnin, Marcia Reaksecker). Each project summary includes most of the following: title, researcher(s), school, statement of problem, objective, population, assessment, procedure, evaluation, findings, implications, and references. An attachment to the fifth project provides tables comparing regular and special students results in tests of written language. A grant application form is appended.

Schutt, P. W. & McCabe, V. M. (1994). Portfolio Assessment for Students with Learning Disabilities.Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 5(2), 81-85.
This article describes the introduction of writing portfolios to elementary school students with learning disabilities in self-contained special education classrooms. It discusses getting started, contents of the portfolio, instructional goals and objectives, conferences, observations, and portfolio evaluation. Tindal, G. & Nolet, V. (1996). Serving Students in Middle School Content Classes: A Heuristic Study of Critical Variables Linking Instruction and Assessment. Journal of Special Education, 29(4), 414-32. This paper examines instructional processes in two seventh-grade science classes and describes three components of general education middle school content classrooms (curriculum, verbal presentations during instruction, and assessed performance outcomes). It concludes that these three components need to be aligned for the successful inclusion of students with learning disabilities.

Wheeler, J.J. & Wheeler, W. R. (1995). Reducing Challenging Behaviour through the Modification of Instructional Antecedents: A Case Study. B.C. Journal of Special Education, 19(2-3), 4-14.
This paper describes how functional assessment procedures can be used by classroom teachers to determine the relationships between instructional variables and challenging behavior in students with disabilities. A case study describes use of these procedures with an adolescent boy with severe developmental disabilities.

Wolery, M. And Others. (1994). Current Practices with Young Children Who Have Disabilities: Placement, Assessment, and Instruction Issues. Focus on Exceptional Children, 26(6),1-12.
This article explores the effects of the integration movement on the placement of preschoolers with disabilities and describes the effects of integration and developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) methodology on assessment and instructional practices. The paper concludes that programs following the DAP guidelines can be adapted to promote positive benefits for young children with disabilities.

Woodward, J. & Carnine, D. (1993). Uses of Technology for Mathematics Assessment and Instruction: Reflection on a Decade of Innovations. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12(1), 38-48.
Research and development activities of the last decade in the areas of assessment and effective instructional programs in mathematics for students with disabilities are reviewed. Encouraged by federal funding, a pervasive theme has been the use of an information processing framework. Automaticity, conceptual development, and cognitive modeling have been key areas of research.

Woodward, J. & Gersten, R. (1992). The TORUS Project: An Innovative Assessment Technology Program. Final Report. ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS), ED385968.
This report describes TORUS, a computer-based program for elementary school students with learning disabilities that analyzes student work samples in addition and subtraction and provides individual profiles of student misconceptions and weaknesses. Initially, work samples from 236 middle school students with learning disabilities were analyzed by a human expert to assess the relative difficulty of addition and subtraction in terms of number and types of misconceptions and to provide an empirical basis for encoding misconception algorithms into the TORUS program. Pilot test data, construct validity research, and criterion validity studies are described, as are the use of commercial programs as building blocks for sophisticated software and the differences between TORUS and the BUGGY program. The 10 most common subtraction misconceptions are identified and matched to the sequence of the "Corrective Mathematics Program," a remedial curriculum for special education students. Included in the report are a sample of TORUS student profiles and the following two papers: "A Comparison of TORUS and Human Expert Diagnoses: A Construct Validity Study"(Michael Landes) and "Software Development in Special Education" (John Woodward).

Top of Page   Back to ERIC Menu   Back to Hoagies' Gifted Education Page

copyright 1998
ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education

Barnes & Noble

Recommended best links, also visit Hoagies' Don't Miss! Recommended best products, also visit Hoagies' Shopping Guide: Gifts for the Gifted

Print Hoagies' Page
business cards...

Hoaiges' Page business card
prints on Avery 8371
or similar cardstock

Visit this page on the Internet at
Hoagies' Gifted, Inc. is a non-profit organization recognized under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Your contribution is tax-deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law.

Contact us by e-mail at Hoagies' Gifted, Inc.
Subscribe to our Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or Pinterest pages for more interesting links
Copyright 1997-2019 by Hoagies' Gifted, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Click for Privacy Policy