See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230689280

Curriculum-Based Assessment: Testing What Is Taught and Teaching What Is

Tested

Article in Intervention in School and Clinic · March 1998

DOI: 10.1177/105345129803300407

CITATIONS
READS
19
2,865

3 authors, including:

Frederick Brigham
George Mason University
97 PUBLICATIONS 965 CITATIONS

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Supporting Quality Individualized Education Program Development and Implementation View project

Evaluation of Special Education Preparation Programs in the Field of Autism Spectrum in Saudi Arabia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Frederick Brigham on 25 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 fuiiiculun -Based Assessnext:
Testing What Is Taught and Teaching What Is Tested
ERI C D . JONES, . THOMAS S OUTHE RN, AND FR EDERIC K J. & RIGHAM
Over the last t5 years empirieal studies
have documented positive effects resulting
from the use of eurriculum-baaed assessment
(CBA) pro- cedures on the achievement of
students with special education needs. Several
approaches to CBA are described in the
literature. Although there have been
discussions of distinctions that should be
made between different approaches to CBA,
some common features contribute substan-
tially to the instructional value of CBA
proce- dures. In this article we discuss the
features of CBA that are common to all
approaehes and that appear to contribute
most to instructional effae- tiveness.
yer the last lf years, empirical studies have docu-
mmed positive effects of the use curriculum-
assessment CBA) procedures on the
achievement of students with special education
needs (Forness, Kavale, Blum, & Lloyd, 1997;
Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986; Lloyd, Forness, & Kavale, this
ismie). Several approaches to CBA are desnibed in the
literature (see, e.g., Deno & Mirkin, 1977; Haring &
Schiefelbusch, 197d; Lindsley, 1971, 1990; Lovitt,
1967; Lovitt, Fister, Freston, Kemp, Shroeder, &
Baifern- schmidt, 1990). Some of them have quite long
hisuiries of practice. And, although there have been
discussions of distinctions that should be made among
different approaches to CBA (e.g., Fuchs tic Deno,
1991), some features appear to contribute substantially
to the instruc- tional value of CBA procedures. In this
article we describe CBA generally and do not emphasize
or dis- cuss in detail the distinctions among the
different
vidual students’ responses to instruction, and (c) using
those performance data to make decisions about individ-
ually appropriate decisions for students with learning
approaches. Instead we discuss the features of CBA that
are common to all the CBA variations and that appear to
contribute most to instructional effectiveness.
CBA is a process of evaluating the relationships
between instructional interventions and student perkir-
mance. It is frequently, but inaccurately, presumed to be
a variety of so-called informal testin B prOcedures. CBA
as discussed in this article is not an informal procedure.
Instead, it is a process of systematically developing and
implementing smndards for (a) identifying academic
behaviors from the curriculum that provide meaningful
indicators of achievement, (b) frequently measuring
changes in those behaviors, (c) displaying the results of
testings, and (d) using the mst data to make defensible
instructional decisions. CBA is not an informal proce-
dure; rather, it is a process that involves the rational con-
siderations of defensible standardizations of assessment
procedures. It integrates planning, directed analysis, and
sound decision making for treating individual perfor-
mance increases. Iri fact, it is probably the efforts that
practitioners make to standardize the processes of CBA
that have contributed to its value in providing effective
and appropriate instructional interventions for stu.dents
with learning problems.
CBS AND INSTRUCTIONAL
FFECTIVENEB6
CBA contributes to the effectiveness of instruction in
at lesst three important ways. It is a vehicle for (a)
focus- ing instruction on the tasks of evaluating what
needs to be taught and how best to teach it, (b)
monitoring indi-
problerris.
 Teacher Attitudes and Behaviors through CBA to have difficulty in determining the order
The attitudes and behaviors of teachers who use CBA of important concepts in a passage of a text, or if the stu-
dent is unable to scan Story problems for indications of
procedures are defined by the process. As a matter of
important versus trivial information, the teacher is apt to
routine, CBA requires that teachers (a) identify which
see the sources of failure more precisely and is also apt
skills and knowledge are critical for smdents to learn,
to consider more specific and more appropriate strategies
(b) assess the demands of the curriculum, (c) identify
for remediation.
dif- ficulties that students are apt to encounter, (d) select
valid indicators of progress, and (e) consider the
achieve- ments and characteristics of individual students Sustained Attention on Student Performance
before they make an instructional presentation. The role
CBA involves frequent assessment of student skills
of DBA in the evaluation of smdent performance
and knowledge. Frequent assessments focus teachers’
enforces o ch zrncterlsticoll/ different perspective on
efforts on improving skills that are of immediate and
instruction, CBA contributes to instruction that involves
critical importance tq individual students. When CBA is
more criti- cal analyses of the curriculum, of defensible
closely tied to the conditions and criteria of specific
target behaviors, and of chamcteristics of individual
targeted perkirmances, valid insouctional decisions can
learners than instruction that does not include CBA.
be made about the performance at different phases of
Teachers must analyze their preparations for and
learning. For eaample, learning basic math facts is a
presentations of instruction in direct response to targeted
matter of acquirit g factual knowledge. Once the student
student behav- iors and then adjust the content and
has begun to acquire knowledge of basic math facts,
presentation of instruction to observed student
instruction should shift to promoting more fluent
performance. Instead of anticipating whac student
computation and to applying knowledge of math facts.
performance shouid be in some ideal terms, teachers
CBA also facilitates more precise knowledge of the need
who use CBA must be inclined to observe the nature of
for practice and review. Student effort is constantly
current performance and to compare it with eapected
being applied to material currently being learned or
criteria. Arguably, teachers using CBA must be more
material essential for review.
inclined to critically evaluate the curriculum and their
own efforts, as well as their explanations for student CBA can a)so be useful for focusing the students
response to insmiction and their notions about attention on instructional objectives and performance,
appropriate response to instruction. thus providing potentially important and motivating
feedback. Me reover, because CBA is tied so closely to
the instruction that students will receive on the out-
Focus on Student Performance comes they will be expected to produce, it clarifies for
Unlike traditional approaches to assessment, CBA students the criteria needed to meet expectations.
focuses almost entirely on the performance of the indi- Practice and extension are the subtext of all CBA
vidual student in response to actual instructional experi- assessments. These two elements reinforce learning in a
ences. If a student fails to make adequate progress, the powerful manner.
most rational explanation is that the instructional expe-
rience was inappropriate for some reason. Diagnostic Facilitation of Time on Task
labels such as learning disability, attention deficit,
A hallmark of CBA is the use of frequent and direct
mental retardation, and so on, are not relevant bases for
assessment. For frequent valid assessments to be possi-
expla- nations of student success or failure. Such labels
ble, the curriculum must provide sufficient opportunities
tend to direct the attention away from the quality of
for students to be actively engaged in learning the tar-
instruction to characteristics of the student and
geted skills. Thus, the process of conducting valid CBA
contribute to the notion that the problem resides with the
facilitates instructional preparations and presentations
student.
Because CBA focuses on the response of the that contribute to instruction in which students spend
substantial amounts of time engaged in learning the
individual student to specific instructional experiences,
targeted knowledge and skills. On the other hand,
it can pro- vide information that is of a finer grain than
instruction that uses less frequent, non-CBA evaluations
more gen- eral and more occnslorial methods of assessin
of student achievement tends to include instructional
g student pedormance. If a student scores low on some
activities that are not directly related to specific instruc-
global measure of performance such as literal
tional objectives; thus the information such evaluation
comprehension, very little information about specific
produces is )JkewJse not directly related to instructional
interventions is provided. On the other hand, if a student
objectives. Because CBA requires that students be
is determined
assessed frequently in reference to specific target behav-
iors, appropriate instructional activities should provide
routine opportunities to practice those target behaviors.

Useful Information for Diverse Audiences useful for making instructional decisions than other kinds
of assessment and reporting techniques, but it also provides
Not only does CBA provide information that is more
 information that is readily understood by and useful to
various groups of people who have interests in the
students’ academic progress, such as parents, gen- eral
and special education teachers, school psychologists,
and administrators. Thus, CBA can provide a valid basis
for consultation and collaborative efforts to address
learning difficulties of individual students. Teachers will
be informed about specific goals, specific criteria, and
specific interventions currently in place. Parents will
also be provided clear assistance in determining the
potential areas for their assistance, precise ways of
assessing stu- dent achievement, and the kind of
iriformation they can provide to instructors about their
children’s perfor- mance. Clearly, CBA offers
information that can provide precise and current
accountings of the effects of instruc- tional
interventions. It is also a tool that renders infor-
matioithat can be used to increase the involvement of
parents, general educators, and administrators in the
process of making rational and defensible decisions for
the instruction of students with learning problems.
g MPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES
Authors have offered a variety of specific procedures
for implementing CBA, but there are several smges that
appear to be common to all the models: (a) analyzing the
curriculum, (b) determining individual students’ current
levels cif functioning, (c) setting specific target
behaviors and criteria for success, (d) designing
assessment instru- ments, (e) collecting and displaying
data, and (I) making educational decisions.
Analyzing the Curriculum
Arguably, the failure of a student to meet expectations
for academic achievement is more directly related to the
student's inability to cope with the demands of the cur-
riculum. Engelmann and Carnine (1991) have asserted,
however, that inadequate curricula account for more
cases of academic failure than a variety of presumed
internal psychological conditions such as minimal brain
damage, learning style, or variations in perceptual—
motor ox psycholinguistic processes. The analysis of a
student’s acaderriic difficulties should begin with a
critical evalu- ation of the student’s curriculum. For the
purposes of conducting CBA, a curriculum evaluation
involves
1. Surveying the arrangements of knowledge and skills
addressed in the curriculum;
2. Evaluating the logic of presumed relationships
between knowledge and skills as they are
presented in the curriculum;
levels, including (a) the teacher's own experience and
observations of studena in general, (b) knowledge of
characteristic difficulties of students with learning dif-
3. Critically examining instructional activities as they
are presented in the curriculum for evidence that they
will contribute to students’ learning efficiently and
without encountering such predictable difficulties as
insufficient opportunities to learn and practice, illog-
ical arrangements of instructional experiences, inclu-
sion of relatively trivial instructional tasks and
activities along with exercises to teach critically
important knowledge and skills; and
4. Evaluating the logic of performances required of sm-
dents in order to demonstrate competence in the cur-
riculum,
It is much easier to describe these tasks of curriculum
analysis than it is to carry them out. The adequacy of an
analysis depends on the e.xpertise and experience of
teachers. The analysis will be easier for teachers who
have a good grasp of a content area. As teachers amass
experience with students in particular curricula, they
acquire examples of the difficulties that students have
with the curriculum. Identifying and explaining those
points in a curriculum with which some students have
serious difficulties are important experiences for devel-
op B skills in curriculum evaluation.
The raw materials for analysis involve scope and
sequences provided by textbook publishers, state and
dis- trict courses of study, pupil performance objectives
and/or minimum competencies expected, and school-
level requirements for pupil performance. But teachers
mli and eat, for many students, especially for those who
are exceptional learners, even more fine grained analysis
may be required. For example, the normal sequence
mighe indicate that students learning addition algo-
rithms should move from adding two-digit numbers to
two-digit numbers with no regrouping to the next skill,
adding one-digit numbers to two-digit numbers with
regrouping in the 10s place. With particular students,
this step might need to be buttressed by a review of
adding one-digit numbers to two-digit numbers without
regrouping before the new concept is attempted. With
still other students, teachers may find that adding two-
digit numbers to three-digit numbers with no regroup-
ing reinforces place value concepts, which may facilitate
learning of regrouping. Developing an adequately
detailed analysis of a curriculum is a daunting task;
therefore we recommend that evaluators consider
sources on curriculum design, such as Direri Irina
Reading (Carnxne, Silbert, & Kameenui, 1997),
Designing Effective Mathematio mutton: A Direrr
Inti-w:ion Approach (Stein, Gilbert, & famine, 1997),
or Dec mg Inm-uctionol Strategies: The Prmenâoe
ofAcad‹:mic Leav- ing &a6femr (Kameenui & Simmons,
1990).
Determining Current Levels of Functioning
Determining students' current level of functioning is a
process of amalgamating information from a variety of
ficulties (e.g., passivity, inattention, distractibi)ity, diffi- culty
mal0ng generalizations), and (c) knowledge of performance that
is individually characteristic of the individual students in
question. To gather information that wjJJ be adequate
for inalcing instructional decisions for the individual
student, we reoommend that four sources be
investigated. First, consider records and doc- uments
such as permanent records, Individualized Education
Programs (IEPs), and documentation from intervention
assistance teams. The value of records and documents,
however, is sometimes limited. Information may be
incomplete or nonexistent. Curriculum objec- tives and
student performance data may not be clearly presented.
On the other fiand, these sources should be considered
because the information that is provided will frequently
indicate estimates of prior academic perfor- mance,
knowledge, and skills that have been targeted for
academic interventions, the nature of those interven-
tions, and general estimates of their success. Second, if
another teacher is reporting the failure, that person
should be consulted. When consulted, teachers generally
indicate that the student is unable to meet the expec-
tations for the rest of the class. On the other hand, it is
helpful when they can provide specific information
about the level of performance at which the child
actually is competent. Third, it is necessary to conduct
direct assessments of the individual student because
referring teachers frequently do not provide adequate
information about the student’s current level of compel
tence in the curriculum. Fourth, in order to verify the
validity of performance conditions and criteria, the per-
formances of more competent students should be con-
sidered and learning comparisons determined.
The attempt to assess the curriculum-based perfor-
mance of ari individual student will unavoidably con-
tribute to recursive and finer analyses of the curriculum
itself. Explanations for student failure will begin to
emerge. Such explanations are not likely to emerge,
however, unless the student’s performance is assessed in
relaâon to actusl rask demands.
Selecting Specific Target Behaviors
This step is critically important. The teacher must
identify target behaviors that can be observed and that
can be defensible indications of meaningful academic
achievement. Changes in the performance of target
behaviors can indicate changes in academic achievement
if the following conditions are met: (a) The behavior
is defined in terms of observable and measurable
responses, (b) the observable conditions under which the
behavior will be performed are specified, (c) precise
criteria for acceptable performance are determined, and
cited organizations of levels of mastery is Bloom’s tax-
onomy (Bloom, Englehart, Frust, Hill, & KrathwoM,
19â6). It considers the cognitive demand of the task.
Accordingly, performance is specified as being on one of
(d) the target behavior should be sensitive to changes
in achieverrienn The validity of the target behaviors
should not be threatened by frequent measurement. The
teacher must select target behaviors (a) that are objec-
tively observable and measurable and (b) that mn be
used to indicate changes in the instructional problem.
For example, one of the most frequently used CBA
measures of reading achievement is the number of words
correctly read per minute. Clearly, changes in a student’s
profi- ciency in oral reading can be measured objectively
and frequently. More importantly, however, the measure
cor- relates well with changes in reading comprehension
(Deno, Mirkin, & Chiang, 1982; Fuehs, Fuchs, & Max-
well, 1988).
The relationships between other target behaviors and
goals for complex learning or behavior are frequently
indirect. Rosen and Proctor (1981) suggested that for
complex skills, it is helpful to look for target behaviors
that have instrumental or incremental relationships to
the more general goal. For other students, it may be nec-
essary to also include meamires such as the number of
punctuation errors per sentence or the numbers of
redundant sentences in a pamgraph. Such tnrget behav-
iors are instrumentally related to achievement problems.
As such, their values depend on the validity of assump-
tions that improvements in performances, such as writ-
ing longer sentences, will contribute to more detailed or
more expressive writing. Other target behaviors are
incrementally related to more higher or more complex
levels of skill. A clear example is the domain of mathe-
matical computations. When the goal for a child is to
demonstrate grade-level computational skills, progress
toward aoquiring skill in performing complex computa-
tions would be evaluated by measuring progress through
hierarchies of increasingly more complex computational
tasks.
Target behaviors must be objectively observable, but it
is also critically important to consider the educational
and social validity of the target. Conditions for perfor-
mance should facilitate generalizanon of skills. Criterion
should represent both rigorous and realistic perfor-
mance. The relationship of the target behavior to the
general problem of achievement should be critJcatly
evaluated and reevaluated. The validity of target behav-
iors, conditions for performance, and criteria can vary
across individual students.
Determining Appropriate Criteria
for Mastery
The process of education is one of changing and
increasingly more demariding criteria. Thus, educators
must continually rriake and evaluate decisions about the
appropriate levels of performance. Several conceptual-
izadons of mastery can be applied to help in determining
the level of achievement. One of the most frequently
six levels ranging from Simple recall (knowledge of
facts) through manipulation of information in different
con- texts (application, analysis, and synthesis of
information) to determination and application of criteria
 in evaluating products or decisions. This system is useful
in determin- ing how students acquire, assimilate, and
apply informa- tion and concepts to content information.
A second notion of mastery considers the level of con-
tent manipulation required. For example, the level of
task in math can incorporate the kind of information the
student must use to solve problems. At the lowest level,
problem solving may be accomplished by physical
manipulations of concrete objects through mathematical
operations. Ai higher levels, problems would be pre-
sented and solved with symbolic and increasingly
abstract representations of mathematical relationships.
Students may be asked at the most basic level to manip-
ulate concrete objects or to count, add, subtract, multi-
ply, or divide real objects. At a higher level of mastery,
students may be asked to use strokes, picmres, or some
representational aspect of the problem to determine
answers to problems. At still higher levels, students
would be asked to use numerals to represent actual or
pictorial representations of the problems to solve
mathematical operations.
A third way of looking at level of mastery or compe-
tence involves an increase or the elimination of certain
behaviors. For example, competent readers generally are
not observed to be noticeably moving their lips when
they read passages. Also, educators generally expect that
as students reach higher levels of fluency, their errors
will decrease. Thus, improvements in tasks such as the
number of words oorrectly read per minute are not
desirable if they are accomplished concomitantly with
unacceptably high rates of errors. In order to make valid
decisions about the levels to which particular behaviors
should increase or decrease, the performance levels of
competent (but not necessarily extremely proficient) stu-
dents should be examined. Even students with the high-
est achievement might make careless errors on some
tasks, such as oral reading. On the other hand, capable
students are expected to solve problems without demon-
strable self-vocalization, counting on fingers, or repeated
requests for the teacher’s help.
A hfth concepmalization of mastery refers to the levels
of learning that will be expected of the student. It is not
sufficient to consider curriculum hierarchies. Various
hierarchies of learning have been described in the edu-
cational and psychological literatures. Salvta and
Hughes (1990) described a hierarchy of learning that is
parsimo- nious and practical. It describes learning
according to following five levels of learning:
Teachers of smdents with learning difficulties absolutely
i address each level of the learning hiemrchy directly.
1. Acquisition. At the acquisition level, the student is
learning new knowledge or skills. At thi$ smge it is not
important how rapidly the student can respond or if the
student can apply what is learned outside the context of
instruction. For example, it is important for the student to
spell new vocabulary words correctly, but it is not
important for the spellings to be fast or for knowledge of
the spellings to be applied to the spelling of other words.
2. Ffuev‹y. This level of learning is characterized by
rapid performances with few hesitations or stutters.
When students are developing fluency, higher rates of
errors are expected and tolerated, but later error rates
must be low. Fluent performance is an impormnt objec-
tive across all curriculum domains. It is not sufficient
that students can translate sentences. They must be able
to read rapidly enough that they can comprehend the
information that is being presented and developed in an
extended passaBe.
3. Meint‹monce. It is impormnt for smdents to be able
to remin skills and knowledge over time. Their perfor-
mances must be accurate and fluent and take place with-
out instruction or supplemental prompts. For example,
students who continue to accurately compute basic math
facts fluently in the absence of direct instruction,
prompts, or contingencies are maintaining the skill over
time.
4. Gmer«fiznñn. Although it is critical for teach-
ers to address curriculum hierarchies deliberately, it
is impossible for all knowledge or skills to be taught
directly. Instruction must be designed so that students
will make appropriate, accurate, and fluent
applications of their knowledge and skills outside
instruction (Engel- mann & Carnirie, 1991).
Demonstrations of generaliza- tion may entail
applying skills to solve problems that the student has
not yet confrpnted. For example, a student might use
an outlining technique that was learned in English
class to orgariize a science report. Similarly, sm- dents
who are trained to employ cognitive controls by a
special education teacher and then use those
techniques to manage their behavior in the regular
classroom are also showing evidence of
generalization. Generalization can also be
demonstmted through the use of appropriate
alternative responses. For example, students who are
not proficient in arithmetic computations may find it
diffi- cult to calculate 15% of $7.30 by multiplying
those two values. Some students solve the problem by
first multi- plying .IS by 7, then multiplying .1S by .3,
and finally adding the two products together.
5. Adeptotion. This refers to the sponmneous modifi-
cation of a learned response to new situations that are not
obviously similar. For example, students may have
learned a strategy to delay response to allow for reflec-
tion in answering questions in academic areas. If the stu-
dent employs that strategy in a social setting to consider
a variety of responses to social questions, then
adaptation has occurred.
Vsf. 33, Ill. 4. Hxxcx 1BgI ZJJ
Students who are largely left to their own devices to acquire new
knowledge and skills rarely make adequate progress. If
 instruction does not directly provide for developing
fluent responding, the performances of low- achieving
students are apt to be slow and marked by hes- itations.
Unless practice is distributed and monitored over time,
students are not likely to maintain what they learn.
Generalizations and adaptations of learning will be
insufficient if students are provided with haphazard
instruction and opportunities to learn. Monitoring
progress at each level of the learning hierarchy increases
the odds that each lerel of learning mil be adequately
addressed during instruction.
Clearly, the criteria that students must meet in order
to demonsnate mastery will change. Careful analysis of
the appropriate bases for determining the dimensions of
performance that should be considered is apt to con-
tribute to the improvement of instructional planning and
decision making.
Designing Assessment Procedures
The process of selecting target behaviors will be influ-
enced to substantial degrees by the assessment proce-
dures that are used. Teachers need to conduct frequent
assessments, but they cannot afford assessments that are
time-consuming or awkward to conduct. A first concern
for teachers is to devise a system of conducting an
assess- ment that will become a brief part of the
instructional routine. A second decision relates to what
the content of the assessments should be. Frequent
measures should be made of progress that a student
makes on skills that are being addressed by instruction.
Assessments should also include probes to determine
whether or not previously learned skills are retained and
whether the effects of instruction are generalizing to
facilitate the learning of related or higher order skills. In
order to efficiently con- duct assessments, probes must
be (a) prepared in advance, (b) focused on very specific
skills or subskills,
(c) quick to administer, and (d) long enough to give an
reliable appraisal of the student’s achievement. To the
extent that the process of administering test probes can
be integrated into the instructional routine, the chances
increase that instruction will focus directly on target
behaviors and that the effects of instruction will be rou-
tinely evaluated.
In many instances, the kind of insmiment used will be
explicit in the description of the target behavior. For
example, words read correctly in a passage of a gits dif-
ficulty level with 80% comprehension might be a part of
the description of a target behavior in reading compre-
hension for a given student. The probe for this behavior
will, therefore, consist of a passage presented to the stu-
dent for oral reading with a meamre of literal compre-
tion (and scheduled fading of prompts and cues) should
be continued.
CHANGE INSTRUCTiON. If the student’s progress
hension. In other expressions, the exact nature of the
probe might not be specifically addressed. For example,
mastery of important concepts accurately recalled (rom a
passage in a history text does not specify the assessment
instrument that will be used. Given this type of oblec-
tive, the teacher has a choice of potential assessment
strategies—comprehension questioning, filling out
structured outlines, concept mapping, student-supplied
responses, teacher-supplied options with student
selec- tion, and so forth. The teacher then has to
determine which assessment form will yield the most
valuable information for this student on this objective.
For exam- ple, students who have difficulty with
writing may show a river pictxire of their achievement
with graphic orga- nizers than with student essays.
Coltectiixg and Displaying Data
Analyzing and displaying data helps the teacher
pre-
pare to make educational decisions. Often the trends in
student performance are apparent from the data them-
selves, but sometimes they are more valuable when
charted or graphed over time. We believe that visual dis-
plays of CBA data facilitate higher levels of
achievement by
1. Describing general trends in learning,
2. Documenting the specific educational interventions,
3. Providing information that educators can use to judge
the need for and the effectiveness of instructional
interventions, and
4. Communicating to the student, parents, and other
regular classroom teachers precisely how well the
stu- dent is performing.
For some students, Braphed CBA data can function as
an intervention by contributing to the individual
student’s motivation.
Making Educational Decisions
Once assessment information has been received and
the data analyzed and displayed, the teacher must use the
data to make decisions about the effectiveness of instruc-
tion for each student. Depending on the patterns of stu-
dent performance data and the nature of the students
perk›rmance during instruction, teachers can make
rational choices among different options for interven-
tion. Wolery, Bailey, and Sugai (1988) listed decision
rules that have been empirically validated for use with
charted data. They ma)- be grouped according to the
actions that follow them.
Do Now CAGE THE IrfrERvENTlON. If the data
show that the student is making appropriate progress
and will reach criteria in a timely fashion, the interven-
appears stagnant or if the error rate appears to be
increasing, four options for changing instruction should
be considered.
 1. Step bzrk to w easier skill. If the student appears to
be unable to perform the task because critical skills or
subskills have not been learned, the teacher should step
back and teach to an easier level of the task. For exam-
ple, the data on Gwen’s performance for multidigit sub-
traction problems with regrouping are provided in
Figure 1. An analysis of her worksheets indicates that
she does not know how to deal with problems that
require regrouping with zeros in the 10s, 100s, or 1,000s
places of the minuend, such as the following examples:
304 7006 3068 207
—219 — 419 —1'i97 — 79
Because these problems are special cases of regrouping
with multidigit subtraction problems, the teacher should
step back to provide Gwen seatwork on subtraction
problems that do not have zeros. At that time, the teacher
should also provide Gwen with instruction on
the special case snategy for regroup B ’ th zeros in the
10s, 100s, and 1,000s place columns.
2. Remrn to less diffimlt form of the tgsb. If the
student appears to be able to do some, but not all, of the
task, it may be that the whole task is too hard to
complete. An ex ple is provided in Figure 2, which
shows the graphed dam of Frank's efforts to complete
worksheet
Sessions
Fle••• •- U• perrmf;ege ofmuyidigit S trat:tion pmbl Not Gwen soles correctly eecb
assignments for long division that contain 20 problems
with three-digit divisors with five- and six-digit divi-
dends. He never completed more than 12 problems or
had more than eight problems correct for any assign-
ment. An examination of the worksheets indicates that
Frank understands the long division algorithm and does
not have deficient computational skills. He does appear
to make careless mismkes and to become restless within
S to 10 minutes of work. A rational modification of
insttucdon would be to reduce the complexity of some of
the division problems or to reduce the number of prob-
lems that he has to complete at any one sitting.
3. Try a different i ctionol procedure. Sometimes
the data show that the student is not learning from
instruction, but observations of the student’s perfor-
mances do not indicate that particular skills or preskills
need to be specifically addressed. Nor does it appear that
reducing the amount of work will improve achievement.
Sometimes it is difficult for the student to understand
instruction. Instruction may be difficult to understand if
the sNident does not attend to instruction or if the
teacher’s explanations are lengthy or overly abstract.
There are many other possible reasons for the student’s
inability to understand instruction. The teacher should
try to identify the re8son that the student is not compre-
hending instruction and then implement an alternative
procedure that will provide a remedy.
4. Prnide more opportunines to learn. In some cases
progress is inadequate because instruction does not pro-
vide sufficient opportunities for the student to learn.
Because it is sometimes difficult to iricrease the amount
of time for instruction, the teacher should also consider
data-based procedures for increasing the efficiency of
‹in.
Vsf. 33. I\Iz. 4. M‹zc« 1988 245
 t7 16
Daily Assignment
Figure Z. be nizzo6m of long division problems t3ot Frank comes ‹:orrert/y end inm rrr oly for each argument.
instruction and practice (see discussions of direct
insouc- tion, mnemonic strategies, and peer tutoring in
this issue).
RAISING THE INSTRUCTIONAL GoAL. If a student is
performing at a high rate of success, the teacher should
consider changing the instructional goal. Depending on
the task and the real-world demands for competence, the
teacher should consider one of three possible options.
1. hove on to a n‹rw phase of learning. For most com-
plex skills, ft is not sufficient that a smdent be able to
perform accurately. The performance must also be per-
formed with fluency and under a variety of conditions
outside the training situation. For example, if Steven can
respond correcdy to 959• of the math facts on a work-
sheet under unarmed conditions, a new criterion should
be imposed that requires that he respond with greater
speed.
2. Increase the diffitculty ofthc task. If CBA data
indicate that the student is exceeding the criterion for
mastery and requires little or no assistance, the teacher
should consider increasing the difficulty of the task. For
exam- ple, Susan can translate oral reading passages
with aver- age rates of 150 words correctly read per
minute. Daily assessments of her passage reading reveal
that she answers .<0% to 100% of the sequential and
literal com- prehension questions correctly. Compared to
her peers, Susan’s accuracy and literal comprehension
reading skills are very high. Her reading rate is also
relatively rapid. A
that are contained in social studies and science texts and
enter them in a study guide that can be used to prepare
for examinations.
prudent decision for the teacher to make would be to
increase the di(ficulty of Susan’s reading.
3. M‹nie on to a new hit. Some curriculum domains
are organized and presented around interrelated hierar-
chies of skills. If the student is making progress that
exceeds expectadons for mastery, the teacher should
reduce the amount of time allocated for instruction of a
given skill and be prepared to provide instruction on new
skills when the student reaches mastery. For example, if
the teacher has allocated S days to teach a student to
measure lengths to a quarter inch with 90% accuracy,
but the student masters the task in only 3 days, the
teacher should initiate insouction on more difficult mea-
surement skills or different math skills.
It is not unreasonable to find that with good instruc-
tion, students will learn faster than we might previously
have expected. The articles in this issue are about some
of those procedures. Because we are responsible for
helping students to successfully progress through the
curriculum, it is critical not to miss opportunities to
increase the pace of learning.
Ines COnmLIANCE TRnINING. Compliance prob-
lems are suggested when a student's performance data
exhibit highly variable levels of performance, with the
average of performances lower than criterion. Compli-
ance difficulties may arise with changes in the incentives
ovNlable to students, performance criterion, instruc-
tional conditions, and quality of instrucDon. Consider
the following case, which is illustrated in Figure 3.
George’s assignment is to identify important concepts
As the data reveal, his performance is very inconsis-
tent. Because he must identify and list those concepts, it is
virtually impossible for him to have obtained the high- er
 scores by guessing. Performances on better days
demonstrate that he is capable of reaching criterion on
his assignments. Reflection on the conditions of learning
reveal that the assignments are given and may be started
during the last 15 minutes of class. The assignments are
too long to complete in class. Discussions with the study
hall monitors and George’s mother reveal that he does
not work on the assignments outside of class. Review of
previous assignments also reveals that George’s assign-
ments have become more rigorous and that he does not
have the close supervision of a paraprofessional that he
has for other assignments.
An appropriate individual intervention should begin
the goal of holding George to the expectation that he
can obtain his best performance for each assignment. In
order to increase his compliance with the new and more
rigorous demands of the task, the intervention plan
might include roles for the study hall monitor and his
parents collecting compliance data, implementing a
compliance program, and managing incentives. More
informal approaches to compliance problems, such as
Lonkep0 I d entified and Defintd and Fn ie red
Daily Assignments
14 -
D2-
E
s
amounts of successful experience with judging the
demands and predictable difficulties of curriculum task
demands and assessing student performance will find
the job of conducting CBA to be less burdensome.
Fourth, the apparent precision of current state or district
blaming the student for being lazy, arbitrarily changing
consequences, and nagging are not apt to be effective.
OBSTACLES TO CURRICULUM-BASED
AsSESSMENT
Despite its documented efficacy, teachers frequently
do not employ CBA routinely in their classrooms. There
are several reasons for this, but they do not provide an
adequate basis for not using CBS One of the most
important obstacles to the broader adoption of CBA is
the perceived difficulty of implementing it in addition to
the demands of teaching. Teachers may believe that the
combined processes of curriculum review, data col-
lection and display, and decision making are tire-
consuming and difficult. Hence, there may be a natural
reluctance to employ the full range of procedures
demanded by CBA. Second, the effective use of CBA
demands that data be graphed, analyzed, and used shortly
after its collection. Frequently, teachers believe that it
would be difficult to find the time to conduct CBAs.
Because they are caught up in the seemingly more
pressing and more immediate demands of teaching,
implementation of CBA may not seem realistic. Third,
teachers may feel ill-prepared to perform some of the
steps in CBA. Teachers who have relatively greater
9 19 J1 12
VQ. 84, #0. fi, lg8g0J 19gg 247
guidelines may also camouflage the necessity to make fine-
grained assessments. If the district or the state per- formance
objectives specify certain kinds of perfor- mance, those
objectives may be uncritically accepted as being adequate
sequences of appropriate instructional objectives. For example,
specified problems may be pre- sented as narrative
problems that require one operation for solution, and the
next step is presented as graphic representations that
require multiple steps of simple operations. No
scaffolding of underlying skill applica- tions is implied.
Teachers will be less inclined to view CBA as an addi-
tional and time-consuming task if the processes of CBA
are incorporated into the routine of instruction. That is,
specific target behaviors should be ones that are easily
observable during instruction. Data collection should
be simple and unobtrusive. CBA should be used to make
instructional decisions, and those decisions should be
defended on the basis of CBA data. For some teachers,
integmting CBA into instruction may be a matter of
independently reflecting, experimenting, and practicing.
If, however, objections are based on lack of expertise
with curriculum content, instructional design, or evalua-
tion, additional training must address those areas also.
Presetvice and inservice teacher training that integrates
knowledge and practices of CBA, curriculum content,
instructional design, and curriculum evaluation prepares
for consistent and thoughtful use of CBS As they prac-
tice the integration and application of CBA, inservice
teachers will also benefit from mentoring, consultation,
and other, less formal, types of advising.
CoNCLUSION
Educators can facilitate achievement by manipulating
(a) the difficulty of the material, (b) the time expected
to reach criteria, (c) the level of performance required of
the student, (d) the kind and level of support for learning
provided to the student, and (e) the kind of intervention
provided to the student. Research demonstrates that
CBA contributes to the effectiveness of those modifica-
tions of instruction. The process of conducting CBAs
involves a fairly straightforward set of procedures. It
requires the selection of meaningful target behaviors,
frequent collection of performance dam, frequent evalu-
ation of the effectiveness of instruction, and, where
appropriate, the modification of instruction. The reason
that CBA contributes to the effectiveness of instruction
is not simple at all. The explanation for the
effectiveness of CBA is ultimately as complex as a
description of
effective decision making. CBA provides information to
teachers and contributes to the structure of instruction,
but the contribution to the effectiveness of instruction
is dependent on educators’ knowledge and skills
regarding such issues as the selection and justification of
target behaviors, curriculum design, presentation of
instruc- tion, and the evaluation of instruction.
The interaction of skill, experience, and analysis of the
teacher who uses CBA will markedly increase student
perk›rmance. Teachers have control of the process of
presentation, the content of lessons, the methodology
of presentation, and the kind of products used to ascer-
tain learning. Student performance should be gauged
using these parameters for evaluation and change. Of
course, the decisions made represent only temporary
benchmarks for the educational process. Thus, the pro-
cesses of insuuctional decision making and the assess-
ment of student progress are ongoing. Finding that
students achieve or do not achieve competence does not
release the teacher from the continuing the cycle of cur-
riculum analysis, data gathering, and data interpretation.
In fact, these findings empower the teacher by provid-
ing vital information about the nature and direction of
further intervention. This is, perhaps, the strongest
rationale for employment of CBA.
ABouT was AuzHoRS
Eric D. Jones, EdD, is a professor in the Deparnnent of Special
Education at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. His research
interests include applications of behavior analysis to the design and
delivery of instniction for students with learning difficulties.
W. Thomas Southern, PhD, is an associate professor in the Depart-
ment of Special Education at Bowling Green State Univeréty. His
research interests include academic assessment, progmm evaluation,
and g’iked education. Frederick J. Brigham, PhD, is en assistant pro-
fessor in the Department of Special Education at the University of
Virginia. His research interests include academic assessment, strategy
training, and the education of children with behavior disorders.
Address: Eric D. Jones, Dept. of Special Education, Bowling Green
State University, Bowling Green, OH 43402.
RsrERENCES
Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Frust, E.J., Hill, H., & KrathwohJ,
D. R. (l9S6). A tasanamy @cMpiiowf o@rrtiou: H oak I, rf c rog-
tribe zfonroin. New York: McKay.
famine, D. C., Silberi, J., & Kameenui, E.J. (1997). Dirert itutnurtias
reading. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Deno, S. L., & MirLin, P. K (1977). D‹zre -bestd pr»grum medifi‹:atim.
Reston, VA: Council for Eaceptional Children.
Deno, S. L., MirLin, P. K., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying
alternative measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36—45.
Engelmarin, S. E., & Ctrnine, D. W (1991). Peaty @ his:
Principles and oppiir‹ztionr (2nd eel.). New York: Irvington.
Torness, S. R., Kavale, K. A, Blum, I. M., & Lloyd,). L. (1997). Mega-
analysis of meta-analyses: What works in special education and
related services. Tcechi›ig Exceptiaml CSJ&es, 29(6), 4-9.
Fuclu, L. S„ & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigina tic distinctions between
snstructienalty relevant measurement ruodek. Esceptiond/ Children,
i7, 488-J00.
Fuchr, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). The effects of systematic formative
evaluation: A meta-analysis. fxccpti I Cbiidn:n, 13, 4i 5—421.
Fuch5, L. S., Fvchs, D., R Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of
informal
reading comprchcnsion nicasures. Remedial yard Spcciel W‹r gpp//
J(2), 2 2q,
uf
Haring, N. G.,8 Schiefelbusch, R. L. (1976). Teaching special claims
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kurneenui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1990). Designmg ixrrmkoiio/
en- t gtei, Tbs. etitim of acadezeic Ie ing p’»blemi. Columbus,
OH: Merrill.
Lindstey, O. R. (t97 I). Prevision teaching in perspective: As inter riew
with Ogden H. Lindsle)'. Te«rbzug Exceptional Children, 7(3), 11a
119.
Lindsley, O. R. (1990). Precision teaching: By teachers for children.
Tcaching Ifx‹xpti‹›anl Cbd‹fnm, ? 2{ I ], Ln— I 1.
Lovitt, T. (1967). Assessment of children with learning disabilities.
E.x‹eptionoJ Cbildre», 34 133—239.
Loñtt, T. C., Fister, S„ Freston, j. L., Kemp, K., Shroeder, B., &
Bauernschmidt, M. (1990). Usjng precision teaching mchniques,:
Translating research. Touching Mcptia›iul Children, 22(3), Id—
19.
Rosen, A., & Proctor, E. K. (I 98 I). Distinctions between treatment
outcomes and their implications for treaanenc evaluation. Jn f
C Ing cmd Clinkal Pgcbolo f', 49, 418— 42 â.
Stein, M„ Silbert, j., & Canine, D. (1997). Defying efcctive m.athc-
optics i tvo i»e .- ñ direct inmwti‹m ipproa h (3 rd. ed.). Upper
Saddlc River, NJ: Prentice HalL
Wolery, M., Bailey, D. B., Jr., & Suzi, G. M, (1988). d@eoñ.'e
rracémg: Prkciplc.‹ md pimcd af «pplied bcbeuior enelysi.i vitl›
cxccpti‹mal iMentr. Needham, Glyn R Bacon.
View publication stats