Early Literacy Development: Issues Concerning Differentiation of Instruction, Diversity, and the Del

1
Early Literacy Development Issues Concerning
Differentiation of Instruction, Diversity, and
the Delights of Learning to Read

• Topic Curriculum Based Measurement of Early
  Literacy Skills in Young Children
• International Reading Association
• Institute
• 30 April 2006
• Karen Burstein, PhD
• Southwest Institute for Families and Children
• Scottsdale, Arizona

2
Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM)

• A promising approach, widely used with older
  children, for assessing growth of students in
  basic skills
• Within class of General Outcome Measurement
• Provides teachers with reliable, valid and
  efficient procedures for obtaining ongoing
  performance data with which to evaluate
  instructional programs (Fuchs Deno, 1991)

3
History

• Originated in special education to test the
  effectiveness of interventions called data-based
  program modifications (DBPM Deno Mirkin, 1977)
• Used repeated-measurement to evaluate instruction
  and improve effectiveness
• Involves direct observation of behavior and uses
  single-case analytic procedures, ABA

4
Characteristics of CBM

• Easy to administer
• Time efficient
• Inexpensive
• Easily understood
• Directly from the curriculum
• Directly linked to instructional decision making
• Sensitive to the effects of change in instruction
  or intervention
• Reliable and valid
• Scalable, replicable, portable

5
Common Uses of CBM

• Improve individual instruction- students of
  teachers who use systematic formative CBM
  evaluation have greater achievement (Fuchs, Deno,
  Mirkin, 1984)
• Evaluate interventions, e.g., Response to
  Intervention (RTI)
• Prediction performance on important criteria
  (Good, Simmons, Kaneenui, 2001)
• Enhance instructional planning
• Develop local/class norms and trends (Shinn,
  2002)
• Increase ease of communication teacher-teacher,
  teacher-parent
• Screen for students at-risk
• Assess progress of ELL students (Baker,
  Plasencia-Peinado, Lezcano-Lytly, 1998)

6
Why CBM in Early Childhood Education?

• Frequent and continuous assessment has been
  identified as a vital and necessary component of
  science-based early literacy programs
• It is essential to monitor and evaluate whether
  programs are effective in helping young children
  acquire critical skills and whether children show
  adequate progress toward goals.
• Most assessment approaches, including
  norm-referenced testing, do not meet individual
  needs particularly in early childhood or ELL
• There is crucial need for alternative assessment
  methods and procedures

7
(No Transcript)
8
Arizona Centers of Excellence in Early Education
(ACE3)

• 2003-2006 Early Reading First Program
• 400 children in 20 classroom from a rapidly
  growing border community in southwestern Arizona
• 98 ELL
• 92lt FPL
• 180 children in Head Start
• 220 Children in LEA preschools
• 18 identified as having special needs

9
The ACE3 CBM Model

• Identify a group of students that were
  representative of the class
• Based on pretest data and teacher nominations, 4
  children, highest achieving, average, at-risk and
  identified as special needs

Theoretically, we cover the entire class.
10
(No Transcript)
11

• Weekly, using materials directly form the
  curriculum, the teacher administers short (2 min)
  CBM to the 4 children
• Letter naming,
• Receptive Vocabulary
• Expressive Vocabulary
• Alliteration
• Scores on each CBM are placed on graphs that
  depict each weeks performance
• Evaluate progress and make instructional
  decisions
• Quarterly teacher administers short CBM to all
  children in the same areas.
• Evaluate progress/trends, modify Aims or goals.

12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
Sample Weekly Data
15
(No Transcript)
16
ACE CBM Group Comparisons

• High-achieving group significantly outperformed
  the other 3 groups on each CBM measure in both
  semesters except for typically-achieving children
  in second semesters Receptive Vocabulary and
  Alliteration.
• Typically-achieving children significantly
  outperformed only the special needs group in each
  CBM measure.
• Significant differences were not observed between
  the special needs and at-risk groups on any
  measure in either semester except that at-risk
  children significantly outperformed special needs
  children in the second semesters Receptive
  Vocabulary.

17
Further Information

• Karen Burstein, PhD
• K.burstein_at_swifamilies.org
• Tanis Bryan, PhD
• T.bryan_at_swifamilies.org
• Cevriye Ergul
• Cevriye.ergul_at_asu.edu
• www.swifamilies.org

18
References

• Baker, S.K., Plasencia-Peinado, J.,
  Lezcano-Lytle, V. (1998). The use of
  curriculum-based measurement with
  language-minority students. In M.R. Shinn (Ed.),
  Advanced applications of curriculum-based
  measurement (pp.175-213). New York Guilford
  Press.
• Deno S. L. (2003). Developments in
  currcculum-based measurement. The Journal of
  Special Education, 37, 184-192.
• Deno, S., Mirkin, P.K. (1977) Data-based
  program modification A manual. Reston, Va
  Council for Exceptional Children.
• Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic
  distinctions between instructionally relevant
  measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57,
  488501.
• Fuchs, L.S., Deno, S., Mirkin, P.K. (1984).
  Effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement
  and evlauation on pedagogy, student achievement,
  and student awareness of learning. American
  Education Research Journal, 21, 449-460.
• Good, R.H. III, Simmons, D.C., Kameenui, E.J.
  (2001). The importance and decision making
  utility of a continuum of fluency-based
  indicators of foundational reading skills for a
  third grade high stakes oputcomes. Scientific
  Studies of Reading, 5, 257-288.
• Shinn, M. (2000). Best practices in using
  curriculum-based measurement in a problem solving
  model. In A. Thomas J. Grimes (Eds.), Best
  practices in school psychology. Vol. 4, pp.
  671-697). Silver Springs, MD National
  Association of School Psychologists.