ABSTRACT
Data-based instruction (DBI) is a process in which teachers use progress data to make ongoing instructional decisions for students with learning disabilities. Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is a common form of progress monitoring, and CBM data are placed on a graph to guide decision-making. Despite the central role that graph interpretation plays in the successful implementation of DBI, relatively little attention has been devoted to investigating this skill among special education teachers. In the present study, we examined the data decisions of 32 pre-service special education teachers (29 females and 3 males). Participants viewed data presented sequentially on CBM progress graphs and used a think-aloud procedure to explain their reasoning each time they indicated they would make instructional changes. We also asked participants to make the same type of decisions in response to static CBM progress graphs depicting 10 weeks of data. Overall, there was inconsistency in pre-service teachers' responses related to when or why they would make an instructional change. Decisions were often influenced by graph-related features, such as variability in the data. Furthermore, responses suggested misunderstandings that led to premature instructional change decisions and reliance on individual data points.
ABSTRACT
Data-based decision-making (DBDM) using curriculum-based measurement (CBM) data has demonstrated effectiveness in improving academic achievement for students with or at risk for learning disability. Despite substantial evidence supporting DBDM, its use is not common practice for many educators, even those who regularly collect CBM data. One explanation for its lack of widespread use is that educators may not receive adequate training in the DBDM aspects of CBM. Espin et al. examined the extent to which DBDM is represented in CBM professional development (PD) materials and found that the topic was significantly underrepresented (12% to 14% of CBM PD material content) compared with other CBM topics. The purpose of this study was to conduct a conceptual replication of the Espin et al. systematic review through an analysis of CBM content in practitioner journal articles. The present review includes 29 practitioner articles coded to the four CBM categories used in the Espin et al. study: (a) general CBM information, (b) conducting CBM, (c) data-based decision-making, and (d) other. Results revealed a pattern similar to the one found by Espin et al. with approximately 18% of the content of practitioner articles on CBM devoted to the topic of decision-making. These findings strengthen the recommendation from Espin et al. for increased attention to DBDM in CBM training materials.
