The Past, Present, and Future of Curriculum-Based Measurement Research
The Past, Present, and Future of Curriculum-Based Measurement Research
复制标题
课程测量研究的过去、现在和未来
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
L. Fuchs
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
L. Fuchs
30年前，进度监测的主要方法是掌握测量。掌握测量，教师指定的教学目标构成年度课程的层次结构，并为每个目标的序列，设计一个标准参考测试，以评估掌握。当学生达到某个目标的掌握标准时，教师同时将教学和评估转移到层次结构中的下一个技能。通过这种方式，学习被概念化为一系列短期的成就，这些成就被认为是积累成广泛的能力。这种进度监控的概念在流行的方法中得到了体现，如威斯康星州教学设计系统（见www.wids.org）和精确教学（例如，www.celeration.org）。大约在同一时间，明尼苏达大学的斯坦·德诺（Stan Deno）和几个博士生（包括道格·马斯顿、史蒂夫·罗宾逊、马克·希恩、杰里·廷德尔、卡伦·韦森和我）发起了一个系统的项目，研究进度监控的技术特点、后勤挑战和教学效果。该研究项目最初的重点是掌握测量，但与掌握测量相关的几个技术难题很快出现。例如，为了评估特定技能的掌握程度，每个掌握程度测量标准参考测试都针对单一技能。然而，这种测试可能会产生误导，因为许多低成就者如果知道页面上的所有单词都符合该模式，就可以阅读辅音-元音-辅音单词;同样，如果他们知道页面上的所有问题都符合该问题类型，他们就可以解决重组问题。相比之下，当一个测试混合了不同语音模式的单词或混合了不同类型的数学问题（就像在高风险的测试和真实的世界中发生的那样）时，这些学生不再能胜任“掌握”的技能。这质疑了掌握测量的假设，即一系列短期成就积累成广泛的能力;它损害了一年中掌握的目标数量与年终全球评估表现之间的关系;它可能会使教育工作者产生错误的感觉，认为他们的学生正在取得进步。为了解决这一问题以及其他与掌握测量相关的重要问题（完整的讨论见Fuchs & Deno，1991），Deno（1985）提出了一种用于进度监测的替代方法：基于掌握的测量（CBM）。每一周的CBM是一种替代形式，代表了年底所期望的业绩。通过这种方式，CBM通过要求学生在每周测试中同时整合胜任年终表现所需的各种技能来规避掌握测量的技术困难。随着学生学习年度课程的必要组成部分，他们的CBM分数逐渐增加。此外，由于每周测试的难度和概念化程度相当，斜率可以用来量化学习速度。斜率也可以用来衡量学生对教学计划的反应，并在反应不足时作为修改学生计划的信号。建立信任措施发展过程中的一个关键挑战是确定同时整合年终业绩所需各种技能的衡量任务。采用了两种方法。一个是确定一个任务，该任务与构成学术领域的各种组成技能密切相关（并且比潜在的竞争任务更好）。例如，Deno，Mirkin和Chiang（1982）首先将段落阅读流畅性（通常称为“口语阅读流畅性”）确定为关键的CBM任务，通过显示其与有价值的标准测量的相关性如何超过其他潜在CBM任务的相关性。从概念上讲，文章阅读流畅度是整体阅读能力的一个强有力的指标。…
Thirty years ago, the dominant approach to progress monitoring was mastery measurement. With mastery measurement, teachers specify a hierarchy of instructional objectives constituting the annual curriculum and, for each objective in the sequence, devise a criterion-referenced test to assess mastery. When a student achieves the mastery criterion for an objective, the teacher simultaneously shifts instruction and assessment to the next skill in the hierarchy. In this way, learning is conceptualized as a series of short-term accomplishments, which are believed to accumulate into broad competence. This notion of progress monitoring was represented in popular methods such as the Wisconsin Instructional Design System (see www.wids.org) and Precision Teaching (e.g., www.celeration.org). At about that same time, Stan Deno at the University of Minnesota, with a handful of doctoral students (including Doug Marston, Steve Robinson, Mark Shinn, Jerry Tindal, Caren Wesson, and me), launched a systematic program of research on the technical features, logistical challenges, and instructional effectiveness of progress monitoring. The initial focus of that research program was mastery measurement, but several technical difficulties associated with mastery measurement quickly emerged. For example, to assess mastery of a specific skill, each mastery measurement criterion-referenced test addresses a single skill. Such testing is potentially misleading, however, because many low achievers can read consonant-vowel-consonant words if they know that all words on the page conform to the pattern; similarly, they can solve addition with regrouping problems if they know that all problems on the page fit that problem type. By contrast, when a test mixes words with different phonetic patterns or mixes math problems of different types (as occurs on high-stakes tests and in the real world), these same students no longer perform the "mastered" skill competently. This questions mastery measurement's assumption that a series of short-term accomplishments accumulates into broad-based competence; it compromises the relation between number of objectives mastered during the year and end-of-year performance on more global assessments; and it can lull educators into a false sense that their students are making progress. The CBM Alternative To address this and other important problems associated with mastery measurement (for a full discussion, see Fuchs & Deno, 1991), Deno (1985) conceptualized an alternative approach for the purpose of progress monitoring: curriculum-based measurement (CBM). Each weekly CBM is an alternate form, representing the performance desired at the end of the year. In this way, CBM circumvents mastery measurement's technical difficulties by requiring students to simultaneously integrate the various skills required for competent yearend performance on every weekly test. As students learn the necessary components of the annual curriculum, their CBM score gradually increases. Also, because each weekly test is comparable in difficulty and conceptualization, slope can be used to quantify rate of learning. Slope can also be used to gauge a student's responsiveness to the instructional program and as a signal to revise the student's program when inadequate responsiveness is revealed. A key challenge in the development of CBM is to identify measurement tasks that simultaneously integrate the various skills required for competent year-end performance. Two approaches have been used. One involves identifying a task that correlates robustly (and better than potentially competing tasks) with the various component skills constituting the academic domain. For example, Deno, Mirkin, and Chiang (1982) first identified passage reading fluency (often termed "oral reading fluency") as a key CBM task by showing how its correlations with valued criterion measures exceeded correlations for other potential CBM tasks. Conceptually, it makes sense that passage reading fluency is a robust indicator of overall reading competence. …