Recursos

Davis, L. B., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Whinnery, K. (1995). Will CBM help me learn? Students’ perception of the benefits of curriculum-based measurement. Education and Treatment of Children, 18, 19–32.

Fewster, S., & MacMillan, P. D. (2002). School-based evidence for the validity of curriculum-based measurement of reading and writing. Remedial Special Education, 23(3), 149–156.

Foegen, A., Espin, C. A., Allinder, R. M., & Markell, M. A. (2001) Translating research into practice: Preservice teachers’ beliefs about curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 34(4), 226–236.

Fuchs, L. S., Butterworth, J. R., & Fuchs, D. (1989). Effects of ongoing curriculum-based measurement on student awareness of goals and progress. Education and Treatment of Children, 12, 63–72.

Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, L. S. (1991). Paradigmatic distinction between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57, 488–500.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2003). Curriculum-based measurement: A best practice guide. National Association of School Psychologists Communique, 32, 1–4.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta- analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1991). Curriculum-based measurements: Current applications and future directions. Preventing School Failure, 35(3), 6–11.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1993). Effect of systematic observation and feedback on teachers’ implementation of curriculum-based measurement. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 178–187.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. L. (1993). Technological advances linking the assessment of students’ academic proficiency to instructional planning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12, 49–62.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Hasselbring, T. S. (1987). Using computers with curriculum-based monitoring: Effects on teacher efficiency and satisfaction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 8, 14–27.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Stecker, P. M. (1991). Effects of curriculum -based measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in mathematics operations. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 617–641.

Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., & Powell, S. (2004). Using CBM for progress monitoring. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

Fuchs, L. S., Hamlett, C. L., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Monitoring basic skills progress (2^a ed). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Fuchs, L. S., Hamlett, C. L., & Fuchs, D. (1988). Conducting curriculum-based measurement with computerized data collection: Effects on efficiency and teacher satisfaction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 9, 73–85.

Good, R. H., 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 third-grade high stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288.

Hosp, M. K., & Hosp, J. L. (2003). Curriculum-based measurement for reading, spelling, and math: How to do it and why. Preventing School Failure, 48(1), 10–17.

Marston, D., Diment, K., Allen, D., & Allen, L. (1992). Monitoring pupil progress in reading. Preventing School Failure, 36(2), 21–25.

Sibley, D., Biwer, D., & Hesch, A. (2001) Establishing curriculum-based measurement oral reading fluency performance standards to predict success on local and state tests of reading achievement. Trabajo presentado en la reunión anual de la National Association of School Psychologists (Washington, D.C., abril 17–21, 2001). ERIC Document No. ED 453 527. Accedido el 7 de julio, 2004, de http://SearchERIC.org

Wesson, C. L. (1991). Curriculum-based measurement and two models of follow-up consultation. Exceptional Children, 57, 246–257.

Wesson, C. L., King, R., & Deno, S. L. (1984). Direct and frequent measurement: If it’s so good for us, why don’t we use it? Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 45–48.

Yell, M. L., Deno, S. L., & Marston, D. B. (1992). Barriers to implementing curriculum- based measurement. Diagnostique, 18, 99–114.

AIMSweb http://www.aimsweb.com or http://www.edformation.com

Este software grafica y analiza los puntajes estudiantiles.

Aprendizaje Asistido entre Pares (Peer-Assisted Learning, PALS por sus siglas en inglés) http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/

Visite la página web oficial de Aprendizaje Asistido entre Pares (PALS) para recursos y productos comerciales relacionados a estrategias de aprendizaje asistido entre pares. Los visitantes encontrarán módulos acerca de lectura y matemáticas PALS, y también encontrarán recursos de adiestramiento, estudios sobre la eficacia de las estrategias, productos para los maestros y más.

DIBELS http://dibels.uoregon.edu

El sistema de datos DIBELS permite a los maestros introducir los puntajes de las pruebas de los estudiantes y genera reportes automatizados. El costo de este servicio es $1 por estudiante por año.

Edcheckup http://www.edcheckup.com

Esta sistema de evaluación en línea administra y califica las pruebas. Los reportes y gráficos que siguen el progreso estudiantil y de la clase se generan automáticamente. Se proporcionan las pautas para fijar metas anuales y evaluar el progreso estudiantil.

McGraw-Hill http://www.mhdigitallearning.com

Yearly ProgressPro (TM) evalúa a los estudiantes semanalmente vía la computadora y grafica sus puntajes y entonces da recomendaciones instructivas basadas en sus puntajes.

CBM Warehouse http://www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/interventions/cbmwarehouse.shtml

Este sitio ofrece varias descargas gratis para ayudarles a los maestros a administrar sondeos y graficar los datos de los estudiantes usando computadoras.

National Center on Student Progress Monitoring http://www.studentprogress.org/

El Centro Nacional de la Monitorización del Progreso Estudiantil (“The National Center on Student Progress Monitoring”) es un centro nacional de ayuda y diseminación técnica fundado por la Oficina de Programas de la Educación Especial (“Office of Special Education programs” u “OSEP”). Este centro ayuda a los estados y distritos que están interesados en implementar la monitorización del progreso en los grados K-5.