Curriculum-based measurement and two models of follow-up consultation.

Curriculum-based measurement and two models of follow-up consultation. 6 ABSTRACT: This investigation focused on the effects of twoindependent variables: (a) teacher-developed goals and monitoringsystems versus a curriculum-based measurement Curriculum-based measurement, or CBM, is an assessment method used in schools to monitor student progress by directly assessing basic academic skills in reading, spelling, writing, and mathematics. (CBM CBM Commodore Business MachinesCBM Coalbed MethaneCBM Christoffel BlindenmissionCBM Condition Based MaintenanceCBM Confidence-Building MeasuresCBM Curriculum Based Measurement (education)CBM Cubic Meter ) goal and monitoringsystem; and (b) individual expert versus group follow-up consultation.The dependent data were academic achievement measures. Subjects were 55special education, elementary school elementa ry school:see school. students with mild and moderatedisabilities randomly assigned to one of four treatment conditions: A,teacher-developed goal and progress monitoring with individual expertfollow-up consultation; B, CBM goal and progress monitoring withindividual expert follow-up consultation; C, teacher-developed goal andprogress monitoring with group follow-up consultation; and D, CBM goaland progress monitoring with groupfollow-up consultation. Results showedthat groups employing CBM and group consultation generally out-performedthe other groups. Implications included expanded use of CBM goals andprogress monitoring and continued study of collaboration as a method ofCBM program implementation. Two trends in the special education literature are the use ofcurriculum-based assessment and the growing role of consultation. Thisstudy addresses aspects of each of these. A specific type ofcurriculum-based assessment, curriculum-based measurement (CBM), servesas one of t he independent variables. The second independent variable isthe type of follow-up consultation model used by special educators asthey attempt to improve their instructional programming for individualstudents. The rationale for studying these two variables is provided inthe following sections. CURRICULUM-BASED MEASUREMENT AND PROGRESS MONITORING CBM is a specific type of testing that emphasizes the relationshipbetween measurement and instruction. Teachers repeatedly measure theirstudents' performance on curricular materials using standardizedmeasurement procedures. CBM data are reliable and valid when comparedwith widely used indicators of achievement, including achievement testscores, age, program placement, and teachers' judgment ofcompetence (Deno, 1985). CBM is useful for making decisions about theeffectiveness of instruction (Zigmond & Miller, 1986). Zigmond andMiller, who contrasted formal and informal assessment tools, concludedthat CBM is the one tool that leads directly to a judgment about theeffectiveness of various instructional strategies. Curriculum-basedtests "mirror the curricular hierarchy and typically are derivedfrom curriculum materials " (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986). The measurescan be used to identify specific skill deficiencies, guide additionalinstruction, and monitor instructional effectiveness. Use of CBM, which is one type of formative evaluation Formative evaluation is a type of evaluation which has the purpose of improving programmes. It goes under other names such as developmental evaluation and implementation evaluation. , has led tosignificantly improved achievement for special education students(Fuchs, Deno, & Mirkin, 1984; Wesson, Skiba, Sevcik, King, &Deno, 1984). In a meta-analysis of over a dozen studies that examinedthe effects of formative evaluation, Fuchs and Fuchs (1986) found thatthe use of systematic formative evaluation procedures, bothstatistically and practically, significantly increased studentachievement. They also noted that graphing the data produced superiorresults as opposed to recording it in a tabular format. This finding wasattributed to the fact that the teachers may more accurately andfrequently analyze the graphed data and that feedback to the students ismore direct. Another benefit of CBM was that it lends itself to thedevelopment of data-based individual education plan (IEP IEPIn currencies, this is the abbreviation for the Irish Punt.Notes:The currency market, also known as the Foreign Exchange market, is the largest financial market in the world, with a daily average volume of over US $1 trillion. ) goals, whichcan become a useful tool in instructional planning. Thus far, the IEP,which is a legal requirement of Public Law 94-142, The Education for AllHandicapped Children Act The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (sometimes referred to using the acronyms EAHCA or EHA, or Public Law (PL) 94-142) was enacted by the United States Congres s in 1975. , has served primarily as an administrative tool(Greenburg, 1984; Jaffe & Snelbecker (1982); Sixth Annual Report,1984). The IEP, however, has been underused as an instructional tool,potentially another major function. Tymitz (1981) found that teachers' goal statements tended tobe either too vague or too specific to be relevant instructionally. Thevague goals, such as "Johnny will improve in reading,"provided no information as to how to measure progress on the goal. Theoverly specific goals, such as "when shown 20 CVC See CSC. short a words,Johnny will read each word within 2 seconds with 85 percent accuracy," forced teachers to generate such a massive number of goals thatit was impossible for the teacher to continuously monitor thestudents' progress on all the goals. If an IEP includes one specific and objective goal that lendsitself to continuous monitoring and truly reflects academic growth, thenthe effectiveness of the IEP as an instructional tool may be enhanced.The goal and lesson plan could have directly relate to each other.Currently, in many school districts, the teacher's detailedinstructional plans bear little or no relationship to the IEP (U.S.Department of Education, 1980). The CBM goal may contribute to improvingthe performance of students with mild and moderate disabilities becauseit lends itself to ongoing evaluation and record keeping. These goalstatements can then become the focus of instruction and will be used toevaluate systematically the effectiveness of instruction. Thus, the IEPmay serve as a powerful instructional tool. Despite the success of CBM, some issues have yet to be resolved.First, in past studies, no research has assured that teachers in bothcontrol and experimental groups had equal access to the CBMinstructional planning format and exposure to numerous instructionalstrategies. When this training is provided to all groups, thepossibility can be ruled out that CBM groups had significantly greate rachievement due to having larger repertoires of teaching ideas and aunique planning format. If one rules out planning as an independentvariable, the effects of the intervention A procedure used in a lawsuit by which the court allows a third person who was not originally a party to the suit to become a party, by joining with either the plaintiff or the defendant. can be solely attributed tothe CBM goal and progress-monitoring system. Second, in past studies on CBM, teachers implementingprogress-monitoring and program-modification procedures have had variousforms of support after they began using the procedures. The fact thatteachers have needed this support has been documented (Wesson et al.,1984), but the details of how to best provide this follow-up to initialtraining needs further investigation. FOLLOW-UP CONSULTATION Follow-up consultation is a necessary component of CBM goal settingand progress monitoring. Past research shows that teachers are accuratein their develo pment of goals and in collecting and graphing data(Wesson et al., 1984). However, it seems to be more difficult to trainteachers to use the data. Using the data requires the teacher to maketwo decisions. First, teachers must be able to examine the data and makea decision about the effectiveness of their current instructional plan.if the data show that the plan is not having the desired effect, theteachers must decide to change their instruction. One function of thedata is to help teachers decide when to change their instruction becausetheir current instructional plan is no longer effective. The seconddecision involves making the actual change in instruction; namely, howshould the instructional plan be modified? Past studies indicate thatteachers tend to "decide not to decide" and hence continuewith the same instructional plan even after the data reveal that theplan is ineffective. Therefore, follow-up consultation may be helpful ifstudents are to receive optimal benefits of having CBM goals and acontinuous measurement system. The follow-up consultation may helpteachers make timely changes as well as provide teachers with a forumfor sharing ideas about alternative instructional strategies. In recent years, consultation has become an integral job functionin the schools, especially within special education (Curtis & Zins,1981; Idol idol,an object, frequently an image, which is worshiped as a deity. Idols are usually found in human or animal form and may be treated as though alive; they are fed, bathed, anointed, crowned, and sometimes even provided with a consort. & West, 1987; West & Idol, 1987). Consultation hasbeen defined as "a cooperative relationship in which oneprofessional helps another professional with work-related concerns"(Curtis & Anderson, 1976). Maximizing the effectiveness ofconsultation has evolved into an important challenge in the field ofeducation. Martin (1981) has offered a frame of reference for developinga powerful consultation relationship. He suggested that there are twosources of consultation effectiveness: expert power and referent power Referent power is individual power based on a high level of identification with, admiration of, or respect for the powerholder.Nationalism, Patrotism, Celebrities and well-respected people are examples of Referent Power in effect. .Expert power is attained when the consultee perceives that theconsultant possesses skill and knowledge pertinent PERTINENT, evidence. Those facts which tend to prove the allegations of the party offering them, are called pertinent; those which have no such tendency are called impertinent, 8 Toull. n. 22. By pertinent is also meant that which belongs. Willes, 319. to the topic ofconsultation. Referent power evolves when the consultee perceives thatthe consultant has feelings, attitudes, and behaviors similar to his orher own. Martin proposed that the most successful consultants have abalance between expert and re ferent power. These two types of consultation models are prevalent in the specialeducation literature (Idol & West, 1987; Pugach & Johnson, 1988)and are investigated in this study. Some models of consultation placespecial educators in an expert role as they provide consultativeservices to their general education colleagues. Other models seeconsultation as less hierarchical A structure made up of different levels like a company organization chart. The higher levels have control or precedence over the lower levels. Hierarchical structures are a one-to-many relationship; each item having one or more items below it. and as a more lateral, collaborativeactivity. For example, Pugach and Johnson preferred that generaleducators collaborate with general educators and that similarly, specialeducators assist each other. The question of which model is mosteffective remains unresolved Not completed; not finished; not linked together. See resolve. . The lateral consultation provi ded by thepeer special educators may be more effective than the consultationprovided by the university staff because of the referent power of thepeer teachers. On the other hand, university personnel may have moreexpert power, but little referent power; thus the effectiveness of thishierarchical consultation model should also be investigated. Given these two independent variables, the main research questionsare as follows: 1. Are CBM goal and progress monitoring systems more effective thanteacher-developed goal and monitoring systems in improving studentacademic achievement? 2. Is a group follow-up consultation model more effective thanindividual expert consultation in improving student academicachievement? METHODS Subjects The subjects were 55 students with mild and moderate disabilitiesin grades 2-7 with the majority in grades 3 and 4 (grade 2, n = 1; grade3, n = 14; grade 4, n = 28; grade 5, n = 8; grade 6, n = 3; grade 7, n =1). The students were randomly selected from the caseloads of theparticipating teachers. Teachers placed the names of eligible students(those in grades 2-7 and being taught to read in a special educationsetting) in containers and then drew out one name. Thirty-four of thestudents were classified as learning disabled (LD), 3 as mentallyretarded Noun 1. mentally retarded - people collectively who are mentally retarded; "he started a school for the retarded"developmentally challenged, retarded (MR), and 18 as emotionally disturbed (ED). Students meteligibility criteria in the state of Wisconsin. For the LDclassification, the criteria were functioning below 50% of expectedachievement in two or more academic areas and normal intellectualability, with an IQ of about 90. For ED, the criteria were chronic,severe, and frequent behavior problems in two or more environments. The3 MR students were identified by IQ 2 to 3 standard deviations below themean. All students were randomly assigned to one of the four treatmentconditi ons described in the "Procedures" section. Originally, 15 students were in each group; but some attrition AttritionThe reduction in staff and employees in a company through normal means, such as retirement and resignation. This is natural in any business and industry.Notes: occurred due to illness and transiency. The student sample consisted of35 males and 20 females distributed evenly by race: 27 minority and 28White students. The average student had been receiving special educationservices for 2.38 years (SD = 1.58). Two students were new to specialeducation. The students' skill levels before treatment are summarized inTable 1. The different categorical That which is unqualified or unconditional.A categorical imperative is a rule, command, or moral obligation that is absolutely and universally binding.Categorical is also used to describe programs limited to or designed for certain classes of people. labels are represented evenly acrossthe four treatment groups. Teachers from five districts were contacted by letter regardingtheir voluntary participation. Of the 55 teachers, 3 were male and 52were female, 10 were Black and 45 were White. They averaged 1.24 years(SD = 3.03) of teaching regular education and 7.5 years (SD = 5.16) ofteaching special education. Seventeen taught in an LD resource room, 18in an LD self-contained room, 4 in an ED resource room, 13 inself-contained ED rooms, and 3 in self-contained EMR (ElectroMagnetic Radiation) The emanation of energy from everything in the universe. Although the EMR from electrical and electronic devices is typically measured for practical, every-day situations, every object, including humans, emanates energy. classrooms. Oneteacher was on an emergency ED license. The rest held appropriateteaching certificates: 22 LD; 12 ED; 3 EMR; 5 LD and ED; 7 LD and EMR; 2ED and EMR; 1 LD, ED, and EMR; and 2 LD and speech therapy. Measures Data on the dependent variables were gathered on a pretest-posttestb asis. The Structural Analysis and Reading Comprehension comprehensionAct of or capacity for grasping with the intellect. The term is most often used in connection with tests of reading skills and language abilities, though other abilities (e.g., mathematical reasoning) may also be examined. subtests of thegreen level of the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (Karlsen, Madden mad¡¤den?v. mad¡¤dened, mad¡¤den¡¤ing, mad¡¤densv.tr.1. To make angry; irritate.2. To drive insane.v.intr.To become infuriated. ,& Gardner, 1976) were administered before and after the 5-monthintervention. The green level is intended for use in grades 3 and 4. TheStructural Analysis subtest assesses the ability to decode (1) To convert coded data back into its original form. Contrast with encode.(2) Same as decrypt. See cryptography. (cryptography) decode - To apply decryption. and analyzeword parts. The two components of this test are word division (24 items)and blending (24 items). The two componen ts of the Reading Comprehensionsubtest are literal In programming, any data typed in by the programmer that remains unchanged when translated into machine language. Examples are a constant value used for calculation purposes as well as text messages displayed on screen. In the following lines of code, the literals are 1 and VALUE IS ONE. and inferential in¡¤fer¡¤en¡¤tial?adj.1. Of, relating to, or involving inference.2. Derived or capable of being derived by inference.in comprehension. For both subtests,standardized scaled scores were used for statistical analyses. The Passage Reading Test consisted of three 1-minute (min) oralreading measures. The randomly selected passages from the third-gradelevel in Ginn 720 were administered to the students at the beginning andat the end of the study (Fuchs et al., 1984). These measures wereselected because of their technical adequacy (Deno, Mirkin, &Chiang, 1982) and sensitivity to change (Deno, 1985). These simplemeasures are a s reliable and valid as traditional standardized tests andyet are more likely to reflect small increments in improvement. Themeasurements were conducted by directing students to begin reading aloudat the top of the page and continue reading until the end of thepassage. If they came to a word they did not know, the examiner suppliedthe word and prompted them to continue. While the student read, theexaminer followed along recording miscues, words misread mis¡¤read?tr.v. mis¡¤read , mis¡¤read¡¤ing, mis¡¤reads1. To read inaccurately.2. To misinterpret or misunderstand: misread our friendly concern as prying. or skippedover, and the number of words read correctly and incorrectly during thefirst minute. Separate passage scores and a total test score werecalculated. Procedures The four treatment conditions were as follows: Treatment A-Teacher-developed goal and monitoring system andindividual follow-up consultation (n = 13). For students assigned tothis treatment condition, t eachers developed and implemented their owngoal and monitoring system. Each teacher attended one 4-hour (hr) training session during whichthe teachers were taught to specify instructional plans using a formatthat specified procedures, materials, arrangement, time, andmotivational strategies. The manual Specifying Instructional Plans(Wesson, Carter, Fisher, & Trednic, 1986) was distributed anddiscussed. Teachers shared with each other the methods they used formonitoring student progress and for teaching reading. After the trainingsession, teachers wrote the student's goals for reading anddeveloped the first instructional plan. Follow-up consultation, provided by university staff, consisted ofmonthly visits, during which time the consultants reviewed the IEP goalswith the teacher and ascertained as¡¤cer¡¤tain?tr.v. as¡¤cer¡¤tained, as¡¤cer¡¤tain¡¤ing, as¡¤cer¡¤tains1. To discover with certainty, as through examination or experimentation. See Synonyms at discover.2. to w hat extent these goals andobjectives were being attained. If the teacher indicated unsatisfactorystudent progress, the consultant and the teacher discussed alternativetechniques and materials for teaching reading. The university staffmember followed a specified form to record the teacher's use offormal and informal measurement techniques to evaluate progress andnotes about the teacher's process of decision making regardingchanges in instruction. The expert consultation consisted of providingsuggestions for improving instruction, such as discussing with theteacher the effects of practice time and giving specific ideas forincreasing practice time such as paired reading, choral cho¡¤ral?adj.1. Of or relating to a chorus or choir.2. Performed or written for performance by a chorus.[Medieval Latin chor reading, andrepeated reading strategies. Often teachers would pinpoint a specificskill the student needed to improve, and the consultant would findmaterials designed to provide p ractice on that skill. The three consultants used in both individual consultation groupswere experienced teachers who had been in expert roles before, such asin supervising student teachers. The consultants had also been coauthorsof the instructional plan manual (Wesson et al., 1986). Treatment B-CBM goal and monitoring system with individualfollow-up consultantion (n = 15). Teachers whose students were assignedto this treatment received training on writing CBM goals, monitoringprogress on the goals, and specifying instructional plans. Theseteachers received training in two 2-hr blocks spaced about I week apart.The specific procedures teachers were trained to implement includedestablishing an appropriate measurement level, writing longrange goalsand short-term objectives, collecting three oral reading scores per weekfor each student, plotting the scores on a graph, and using the data inmaking decisions about the effectiveness of students' instructionalprograms (White & ; Haring Haring is an English surname of Austrian origin.Notable individuals with this surname: Keith Haring, American street artist and social activist John Haring, American lawyer and delegate to the Continental Congress , 1980). All the directions for these tasks were included in the manualProcedures to Develop and Monitor Progress on IEP Goals (Mirkin et al.,1981). Teachers also received a copy of the manual SpecifyingInstructional Plans. Reading measurement consisted of 1-min timedsamples of reading from the student's curriculum. Words correctwere scored and charted on equal interval graphs. The grade level of thebasal used for testing was the level from which the student could readaloud near or within 50-59 words correct per minute. Teachers wereinstructed to write longrange goals for the student's IEP usingboth the entry-level criterion and desired year-end mastery criterion,usually 90-150 words correct per minute with no more than 7 errors. Theshort-term objective s were stated in terms of the expected weeklyincrease in the number of words per minute Noun 1. words per minute - the rate at which words are produced (as in speaking or typing)wpmrate - a magnitude or frequency relative to a time unit; "they traveled at a rate of 55 miles per hour"; "the rate of change was faster than expected" . These teachers also learnedto specify the instructional plan, as did Group A. Following the training, approximately five individual sessions tookplace, during which university consultants provided feedback on thedata-based IEP developed by the teacher as well as the student'sprogress and the instructional plan. The graphs were examined todetermine if the plans were effective and if data were being collectedin the correct manner. If a new plan was necessary, the teacher devisedone with the consultant's input. A form, parallel to the one usedin Treatment A, was used to help guide the conversation. Treatment C--Teacher-developed goal and monitoring system withgroup follow-up consultation (n = 13). The initial 4 hr of training forthis group was the same as the training for Treatment A and was done inone block of time. The follow-up consultation was on approximately thesame schedule, once per month for the 5-month study, but the format wasdifferent. Teachers whose students were assigned to this group met ingroups of three. The groups were composed based on proximity and workschedules. During the approximately 1-hr-long meetings, teachers sharedtheir ideas about instruction and progress monitoring. They filled out aconsultation meeting form, which helped to structure theirconversations. The form asked them to address issues such as theappropriateness of their instruction, the student's progress, andchanges they planned to make in the instruction. The form was the sameone that was used by the consultants in Treatment A. Teachers asked eachother if they were having difficulty with any aspect of readinginstruction for their targeted student. If a problem was identified, thegroup brainstormed ideas about what changes in instruction might beuseful. They also discussed how the change selected by the initiatingteacher could be made. Treatment D--CBM goal and monitoring system with group follow-upconsultation (n = 14). The initial 4 hr of training for this group wasthe same as for Treatment Group B, and the follow-up consultation wasthe same as for Treatment Group C. The training took place in two 2-hrblocks spaced about I week apart. RESULTS Fidelity of Treatment Two indexes were used to ascertain the extentto which treatment fidelity was maintained. First, the forms teacherscompleted as they met in groups and the forms used by the expertconsultants were counted to determine how many times the follow-upconsultation occurred. The average number of consultation sessions pertreatment group member were 5.0 for Treatment A, 4.7 for Group B, 5.0for Group C, and 4.8 for Group D. Teachers indicated in a survey thatthe consultation format was clear and addressed most of their concerns. The second index of fidelity of treatment applied only to Groups Band D. For these groups, the Accuracy of Implementation Rating Scale(AIRS) (King, Deno, Mirkin, & Wesson, 1983), which was used twice,depicts how precisely teachers were using the CBM goal and monitoringsystem. The AIRS is set up on a 1 to 5 Likert scale Likert scaleA subjective scoring system that allows a person being surveyed to quantify likes and preferences on a 5-point scale, with 1 being the least important, relevant, interesting, most ho-hum, or other, and 5 being most excellent, yeehah important, etc , with 5 being a highdegree of implementation. The results of the 12-item scale are shown inTable 2. As the data indicate, the two problematic facets ofimplementation related to the changes the teachers made. The changeswere rated low on substantial change and clear change. These results aresimilar to those of past s tudies (Wesson et al., 1984). Dependent Measures An analysis of variance The discrepancy between what a party to a lawsuit alleges will be proved in pleadings and what the party actually proves at trial.In Zoning law, an official permit to use property in a manner that departs from the way in which other property in the same locality (ANOVA anovasee analysis of variance.ANOVAAnalysis of variance, see there ) on the gain scores of theachievement measures was used to ascertain the relative effectiveness ofthe four treatment groups. Table 3 displays the F and p values for theseanalyses. Passage I on the Passage Reading Test (F = 4.004, p = .12) andthe Total Words Read correctly on the Passage Reading Test (F = 3.447, p=.023) yielded statistically significant results among the fourtreatment groups. Combining the treatment groups to compare universityconsultation versus group follow-up consultation did not result in anysignificant ANOVA findings. However, when combining Groups A and C andGroups B and D, which was a comparison of CBM groups versus traditionalgroups, again the gain scores for Passage I (F = 8.815, p = .004) andthe Total Words Read correctly on the Passage Reading Test (F = 6.167, p= .0 16) were statistically significant. Table 4 details the means andstandard deviations for the four groups. Figure I shows the mean gainscores for each treatment group. Gain scores on Passage I and totalwords for Treatment Group D were superior to those of the other threegroups. The follow-up t-tests are detailed in Table 5. No statistically significant results were found when analyzing theStanford Diagnostic Reading Test scaled scores. The F scores and pvalues appear in Table 3, and the means and standard deviations areshown in Table 4. DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of differentgoal-setting and progress-monitoring strategies (teacher developed andCBM) and different follow-up consultation formats (university consul tantversus group follow-up consultation). Implications of the findings anddirections for future research are discussed here. Summary and Implications Goal and progress monitoring stategies. In general, on the PassageReading Test, the students in the CBM groups made more progress than didstudents in the teacher-developed goals groups. The treatment group thatexceeded the others significantly on one reading passage and on thetotal for the Passage Reading Test was the CBM goal andprogress-monitoring and group follow-up consultation. These findingssupport the hypothesis that CBM goal progress-monitoring proceduresresult in significantly better achievement rates for students. Not allachievement measures yielded significant results, but there was a fairlyconsistent pattern of higher achievement on the Passage Reading Test forthe CBM goal groups. The Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test yielded nosignificant findings or discernible dis¡¤cern¡¤i¡¤ble?adj.Perceptible, as by the faculty of vision or the intellect. See Synonyms at perceptible.dis¡¤cerni¡¤bly adv. pattern in the gain score results. The special education literature reports similar results regardingthe effect of CBM on student achievement (Fuchs et al., 1984; Fuchs& Fuchs, 1986). The rationale for CBM procedures is that teacherswill use the data to evaluate their instruction; and, given the data,teachers will improve in their choices of instructional techniques forindividual students. Whether this actually occurs is uncertain (Wessonet al., 1984). The effects of CBM, in fact, may result from the extrapractice time and increased individual time spent with the teacher as afunction of measurement. Further research on the accuracy of CBMimplementation and research, ferreting out possible practice effects, iswarranted. However, given the consistency of the effects of CBM, theimplications are that students will benefit when teachers employ a CBMgoal and progress-monitoring strategy. Increasing the numbers of specialeducation teachers who are trained to use CBM should become a major inservice and preservice goal. Teachers who were not using CBM relied on basal mastery tests,analysis of daily work, and observation to judge student progress. Thereading goals these teachers wrote were similar to those describedearlier (Tymitz, 1981). Consultation formats. When Groups A-B and C-D are combined, neitherconsultation format seems superior to the other on any dependentmeasure. It is clear that the CBM goal and progress-monitoring strategyand the group consultation treatment group (D) outperformed the groupwho had teacher-developed goal and progress-monitoring strategies andgroup consultation on the Passage Reading Test. Teachers meeting ingroups without CBM goals and measurement systems (Treatment B) indicatedon some of their consultation forms that they did not understand thepurpose of their meetings. Some of them made phone calls to the researchteam to verbalize difficu lty in helping each other. Even though they hada series of questions to respond to on their Group Consultation form,they felt as if they did not know what to talk about. On the other hand,the teachers in Treatment D had graphs to discuss and specific commentsabout the progress of their target student. The research team did nothear teachers in Group D express concerns about meeting with each other.In fact, they stated informally that they enjoyed the opportunity toshare with other teachers. To reiterate, no dependent measures yielded significant resultswhen the consultation format was examined by combining treatment groups.Given this, educational administrators may favor the group consultationformat because it most likely would be the most cost-effective measure.To parallel expert consultation conditions in the schools,administrators would need to hire experts and pay substantial fees. Tohave groups of teachers meet together may be a more cost-effectiveoption. One difficulty in making comparisons between group and expertconsultation is the judgment of who and what is expert. In the presentstudy, the expert consultants all had at least 5 years of specialeducation teaching experience and high evaluations from theirsupervisors. No problems regarding the skills of the consultants werepresented by any of the participating teachers. On the Passage Reading Test, students in the group consultationtreatment group using CBM goals and progress-monitoring strategiesout-scored the CBM group, who met with university consultants. Perhapsteachers in Group D were more amenable AMENABLE. Responsible; subject to answer in a court of justice liable to punishment. to the input they received forchanging instruction as the input came from peers as opposed to expertconsultants (Treatment B). The hierarchical, top-down structure of theexpert model of consultation may prompt teachers to be less receptive receptive/re¡¤cep¡¤tive/ (re-cep¡ätiv) capable of receiving or of responding to a stimulus. than the lateral, peer-to-peer model of referent ref¡¤er¡¤ent?n.A person or thing to which a linguistic expression refers.Noun 1. referent - something referred to; the object of a reference consultation. Limitations This study had several limitations that need to be addressed.First, the results were significant only for two dependent measures.Many measures, notably the standardized reading test, showed nostatistically significant difference. Second, the expert consultants,though experienced and skillful skill¡¤ful?adj.1. Possessing or exercising skill; expert. See Synonyms at proficient.2. Characterized by, exhibiting, or requiring skill. , had no supervisory or administrativestatus. Therefore, their suggestions and problem-solving efforts mayhave had less impact than similar ideas expressed by an expert with someclout. Third, a variation of the consultation model has yet to be tried;specifically an expert consultant meeting with a group of tea chers andguiding them through a problem-solving process. Finally, the expertconsultants had minimal training in problem identification and problemsolving problem solvingProcess involved in finding a solution to a problem. Many animals routinely solve problems of locomotion, food finding, and shelter through trial and error. ; this lack of training may have impacted the results found here. Implications An implication from this study is that as districts train teachersto use the CBM procedures, ongoing discussions between groups ofteachers should be encouraged. The optimal size and composition of thegroup, the frequency of meetings, and the best procedures for runningthese groups have yet to be determined. The results of this study,however, indicate that group follow-up consultation is superior toexpert consultation when CBM procedures are being employed. REFERENCES Curtis, M. J., & Anderson, T. (1976). Consulting in educationalsettings: A collaborative approach (slide /tape). Cincinnati, OH: FacultyResource Center, University of Cincinnati The University of Cincinnati is a coeducational public research university in Cincinnati, Ohio. Ranked as one of America’s top 25 public research universities and in the top 50 of all American research universities,[2] . Curtis, M. J., & Zins, J. E. (1981). The theory and practice ofschool consultation. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. Deno, S. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emergingalternative. Exceptional Children, 52(3), 219-232. Deno, S., Mirkin, P., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying validmeasures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 347. Fuchs, L., Deno, S., & Mirkin, P. K. (1984). The effects offrequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy,student achievement, and student awareness of learning. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 21(2),449-460. Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formativeevaluation: A meta-analysis. Exc eptional Children, 53(3), 199-208. Gerber, M. (1984). The Department of Education sixth annual reportto Congress on P.L. 94-142: Is Congress getting the full story?Exceptional Children, 51(3), 209-223. Greenburg, D. (1984). The 1984 Annual Report to Congress: Are webetter off? Exceptional Children, 51(3), 203-207. Idol, L., & West, J. F. (1987). Consultation in specialeducation (Part 11): Training and practice. Journal of LearningDisabilities, 20(8), 474-497. Jaffe, M.J., & Snelbecker, G.E. (1982). Evaluatingindividualized in¡¤di¡¤vid¡¤u¡¤al¡¤ize?tr.v. in¡¤di¡¤vid¡¤u¡¤al¡¤ized, in¡¤di¡¤vid¡¤u¡¤al¡¤iz¡¤ing, in¡¤di¡¤vid¡¤u¡¤al¡¤iz¡¤es1. To give individuality to.2. To consider or treat individually; particularize.3. educational programs: A recommendation and someprogrammatic pro¡¤gram¡¤mat¡¤ic?adj.1. Of, relating to, or having a program.2. Following an overall plan or schedule: a step-by-step, programmatic approach to problem solving.3. implications. Urban Revie w, 14(2),73-81. Karlsen, B., Madden, R., & Gardner, E. F. (1976). StatifondDiagnostic Reading Test. New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of : Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. King, R. P., Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P., & Wesson, C. (1983). Theeffects of training teachers in the use of formative evaluation inreading: An experimental-control comparison (Research Report No. 111).Minneapolis: University of Minnesota (body, education) University of Minnesota - The home of Gopher.http://umn.edu/.Address: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. , Institute for Research on LearningDisabilities. Martin, R. (198 1). Expert and referent power: A framework forunderstanding and maximizing consultation effectiveness. In M. J. Curtis& J. E. Zins (Eds.), The theory andpractice of sc hool consultation.pp. xx-xx Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Mirkin, P., Deno, S., Fuchs, L. S., Wesson, C., Tindal, G.,Marston, D., & Kuehnle, K. (1981). Propcedures to develop andmonitor progress on IEP goals. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities. Pugach, M., & Johnson, L. J. (1988). Peer collaboration.TEACHING Exceptional Children, 2(3), 75-77. Sixth annual report to Congress on the implementation of Public Law94-142: The Education for All Handicapped Children Act. (1984). UnitedStates Department of Education The United States Department of Education (also referred to as ED, for Education Department) is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government. Created by the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88), it began operating in 1980. . Tymitz, B. (1981). Teacher performance on IEP instructionalplanning tasks. Exceptional Children, 48(3), 258-260. U.S. Department of Education. (1 980, April 30). Policy Paper. Wesson, C., Carter, J., Fisher, A., & Trednic, J. (1986).Specifying the instructional plan. Reston, VA: The ERIC Clearinghouse onHandicapped and Gifted Children. (ERIC Document No. EC 201 992) Wesson, C. L., Skiba, R., Sevcik, B., King, R., & Deno, S.(1984). The effects of technically adequate instructional data onachievement. Remedial REMEDIAL. That which affords a remedy; as, a remedial statute, or one which is made to supply some defects or abridge some superfluities of the common law. 1 131. Com. 86. The term remedial statute is also applied to those acts which give a new remedy. Esp. Pen. Act. 1. and Special Education, 5(s), 17-22. West, J. F., & Idol, L. (1987). School consultation: Aninterdisciplinary in¡¤ter¡¤dis¡¤ci¡¤pli¡¤nar¡¤y?adj.Of, relating to, or involving two or more academic disciplines that are usually considered distinct.interdisciplinaryAdjective perspective on theory, models, and research, Part 1.Journal of Le arning Disabilities, 20(7), 388-408. White, 0. R., & Haring, N. G. (1980). Exceptional teaching.Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Charles Edward Merrill (October 19, 1885 – October 6 1956) was a philanthropist, stockbroker and one of the founders of Merrill Lynch & Company. Early yearsCharles E. Merrill, the son of physician Dr. . Zigmond, N., & Miller, S. (1986). Assessment for instructionalplanning. Exceptional Children, 52(6), 501-509. ABOUT THE AUTHOR CAREN CAREN Compagnie d'Assurances et de R¨¦assurances du Niger (French)L. WESSON (CEC (Central Electronic Complex) The set of hardware that defines a mainframe, which includes the CPU(s), memory, channels, controllers and power supplies included in the box. Some CECs, such as IBM's Multiprise 2000 and 3000, include data storage devices as well. Chapter #56 ) is an Associate Professor in theDepartment of Exceptional Education at the University ofWisconsin-Milwaukee. Manuscript manuscript,a handwritten work as distinguished from printing. The oldest manuscripts, those found in Egyptian tombs, were written on papyrus; the earliest dates from c.3500 B.C. received October 1988; revision accepted May, 1989. Exceptional Children, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 246-256 [c] 1990 TheCouncil for Exceptional Children.