The purpose of this explorative study was to examine the use and understanding of key components of data-based decision making by educators in two countries—Germany and the United States. Educators responded to a survey that asked about data use and characteristics related to data-based decision making (DBDM). Results suggest educators in both countries are focused on using data to monitor progress, although less so in Germany. Educators in both countries noted similar understanding of important features (e.g., psychometric properties) of data. Educators in the United States reported they used data for decision making at the classroom level almost twice as often as their counterparts in Germany, while German educators focused on decision making at the student level. These findings will influence future research, including joint studies that could use the best practices of both countries, and professional learning opportunities for educators in Germany and the United States.
Progress monitoring of academic achievement is an essential element to prevent learning disorders. A prominent approach is curriculum-based measurement (CBM). Various studies have documented positive effects of CBM on students' achievement. Nevertheless, the use of CBM is associated with additional work for teachers. The use of tablets may be of help here. Yet, although many advantages of computer-or tablet-based assessments are being discussed in the literature (e. g. innovative item formats, adaptive testing, automated scoring and feedback), there are still concerns regarding the comparability of different assessment modes (paper-pencil vs. tablet). In the study presented, we analyze the CBM data of 98 fourth graders. They processed the exact same computation items once with paper and pen and once in a tablet application. The analyses point to comparable results in the test modes, although some significant deviations can be found at item level. In addition, the children report perceived benefits when working with the tablet.
Zusammenfassung. Die vorliegende Studie untersucht im Längsschnitt über zwei Testzeitpunkte, inwiefern sich inklusiv beschulte Grundschülerinnen und -schüler mit einem Förderbedarf emotionale und soziale Entwicklung (SPF esE) in Hinblick auf die Einschätzung des Klassenklimas, des Gefühl des Angenommenseins durch die Lehrkraft (aus Selbstsicht) und die soziale Partizipation (aus Selbst- und Peersicht) von den Peers ihrer Klasse ohne SPF esE unterscheiden. Die Erhebung fand an insgesamt 999 Kindern, darunter N = 66 mit SPF esE, zum Ende der dritten und vierten Klassenstufe mit ausgewählten Skalen des Fragebogens zur Erfassung der emotionalen und sozialen Schulerfahrungen (FEESS 3–4, Rauer & Schuck, 2003 ) sowie einer soziometrischen Nominierung statt. Neben den Analysen des Effekts des SPF esE wurden die Einflüsse der Ausprägungen einzelner internalisierender sowie externalisierender Problemskalen des Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 2001 ) differenziert betrachtet. Zusammenfassend zeigt sich, dass der SPF esE einen signifikanten, negativen Einfluss auf alle untersuchten abhängigen Variablen, bei durchgängig hohen Effektstärken, hatte. Zwar konnten positive Entwicklungen für diese Kinder in Hinblick auf die selbst wahrgenommene soziale Integration und des Gefühls des Angenommenseins durch die Lehrkraft über die Zeit abgebildet werden, die Effektstärken fallen jedoch klein aus. Differenzierte Analysen verdeutlichen, dass sich bei höheren Ausprägungen externalisierender Verhaltensprobleme sowie höheren Ausprägungen von Peerproblemen (internalisierende Skala) die Einschätzung des Klassenklimas, der Akzeptanz durch die Peers und die Lehrkraft reduzierte sowie eine höhere Ablehnung durch die Peers bestand. Internalisierende Verhaltensprobleme im Sinne emotionaler Probleme hatten keinen bedeutsamen Einfluss auf die Ausprägung der hier untersuchten abhängigen Variablen. Vereinzelt waren signifikante Interaktionen der Problemskalen mit der Zeit festzuhalten (positiver Effekt von emotionalen Problemen auf den Ablehnungsstatus, positive Effekte von externalisierenden Verhaltensproblemen auf das Gefühl des Angenommenseins und auf den Wahlstatus), die Effektstärken waren jedoch gering.
Given the high proportion of struggling readers in school and the long-term negative consequences of underachievement for those affected, the question of prevention options arises. The early identification of central indicators for reading literacy is a noteworthy starting point. In this context, curriculum-based measurements have established themselves as reliable and valid instruments for monitoring the progress of learning processes. This article is dedicated to the assessment of word recognition in silent reading as an indicator of adequate reading fluency. The process of developing an item pool is described, from which instruments for learning process diagnostics can be derived. A sample of 4268 students from grades 1–4 processed a subset of items. Each student template included anchor items, which all students processed. Using Item Response Theory, item statistics were estimated for the entire sample and all items. After eliminating unsuitable items (N = 206), a one-dimensional, homogeneous pool of items remained. In addition, there are high correlations with another established reading test. This provides the first evidence that the recording of word recognition skills for silent reading can be seen as an economic indicator for reading skills. Although the item pool forms an important basis for the extraction of curriculum-based measurements, further investigations to assess the diagnostic suitability (e.g., the measurement invariance over different test times) are still pending.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.