Directions: Answer Each Question Completely Using Appropriat

Directions Answer Each Question Completely Using Appropriate Grammar

DIRECTIONS: Answer each question completely using appropriate grammar, spelling and punctuation. 1. A teacher has begun progress monitoring her students’ math skills. She has decided to give them weekly probes that assess the skills they are working on. In order to score the probes and track progress she has decided to calculate the percentage of problems correct. What might be a more effective way to track progress and why? 2. There are two different types of math CBM progress monitoring probes. One is a skill specific probe and the other is a general probe with various problem types. Provide a definition of each probe and an example of when each type would be most appropriate to use. 3. Before beginning to work with a student who had scored low on a reading screening measure, the intervention specialist administered 2 more reading CBM measurements. She then implemented an intervention and utilized CBM’s to track the student’s progress weekly toward their goal. What was the purpose of administering 2 more CBMs before beginning the intervention and what should the specialist be doing with this data as she is collecting it? Please use only the attachment for your response 2 pages

Paper For Above instruction

The process of progress monitoring is fundamental in assessing student growth and adjusting instruction accordingly. While calculating the percentage of correct responses on weekly probes offers a straightforward measure, a more effective approach involves using trend analysis or graphical representation of student progress over time. This method provides a visual depiction of performance trends, making it easier for teachers to identify improvements, stagnation, or declines in skills and to make informed decisions about instructional adjustments. For example, plotting scores on a graph enables educators to observe whether a student is consistently improving and whether interventions are effective, rather than relying solely on raw percentages which may fluctuate due to day-to-day variability.

Regarding the two types of math curriculum-based measurement (CBM) probes, understanding their definitions and appropriate applications enhances their utility. A skill-specific probe is designed to assess mastery of particular skills or concepts. It contains problems that target specific mathematical competencies, such as addition or multiplication facts or solving equations of a certain type. For instance, using a skill-specific probe to assess a student’s understanding of multi-digit multiplication techniques helps determine whether they have mastered that particular skill before moving on to more complex tasks.

Conversely, a general probe involves a variety of problem types that assess overall mathematical proficiency across different domains. It typically includes a mixture of problems that evaluate broad skills like problem-solving, computational fluency, and number sense. An example of when a general probe would be appropriate is at the start of a school year or unit, to gauge overall math ability and inform instruction across multiple areas. While skill-specific probes are useful for precise skill targeting, general probes provide a comprehensive snapshot of overall math competence.

In the case of administering two additional CBMs before beginning intervention, the purpose was to establish a reliable baseline of the student’s current performance levels. These multiple measures help to mitigate variability and ensure that the data accurately reflect the student’s abilities rather than anomalies or test-retest effects. The intervention specialist can then use this baseline data to identify specific areas of weakness, set realistic goals, and tailor interventions accordingly.

As the specialist collects ongoing CBM data during the intervention, her role involves analyzing the trend to determine whether the student is making progress toward their goal. Consistent improvement in scores indicates effective intervention, while stagnation or decline suggests the need for adjustment. The data should be graphed regularly, and progress should be compared with established benchmarks. This ongoing analysis allows educators to make data-driven decisions, modifying instructional strategies as needed to maximize student learning outcomes. Continual monitoring and data analysis are critical for responsive instruction and ensuring students achieve their targeted improvements.

References

• Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The a principal's guide. Elementary School Journal, 85(2), 311-328.
• Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational perspective. In M. Gunnar & L. R. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (pp. 43–77).
• Shinn, M. R. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Theyle's assessment and intervention. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5(1), 55-70.
• Batz, C., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2010). Research and clinical applications of curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 39(2), 233–240.
• Jimerson, S. R., Cardenas, H. R., & Anderson, G. A. (2009). Toward an understanding of the effects of early intervention on school adjustment. Journal of School Psychology, 47(6), 385-405.
• Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, R. (2010). Implementing graphing and data collection procedures. In C. M. Wehmeyer & M. L. Metzler (Eds.), Student-Involved Assessment for Learner Variability (pp. 147–176).
• McIntosh, K., & Goodman, S. (2016). Integrated multi-level systems framework. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 26(2), 188-210.
• Jimerson, S. R., & Garibaldi, P. (2006). Progress monitoring and data-based decision making. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Curenton, & M. J. Epstein (Eds.), Handbook of Response to Intervention (pp. 75–94). Sage Publications.
• National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2017). Guiding principles for curriculum-based measurement. U.S. Department of Education.