You are here:

Monitoring Student Progress in Social Studies

, Pacific University, United States ; , Kaplan University, United States ; , San Diego State University, United States

Global Learn, in Online, Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)


This study investigated a concept maze as an extension of Curriculum-based Measurement (CBM) to monitor the progress of student learning. Fifty 6th grade students (16 identified with a learning disability [LD]) participated in a four-week unit on Early Societies. All students were assessed with traditional vocabulary CBMs and concept mazes. Three findings are reported: First, vocabulary CBMs were neither related to the concept mazes nor predictive of achievement on the criterion measure assessing end of unit outcomes. Second, regression analyses indicated that concept maze measures were predictive of criterion measure performance for students with LD. Finally, concept mazes were sensitive enough to measure differences in learning progress of students, including students with LD. We discuss these findings in terms of the viability of the Concept Maze measure as a formative assessment that can be used within an RTI framework in a Secondary setting to assist in making appropriate instructional decisions; ultimately better meeting the needs of all students.


Twyman, T., Tedesco, M. & Duesbery, L. (2012). Monitoring Student Progress in Social Studies. In Proceedings of Global Learn 2012: Global Conference on Learning and Technology (pp. 66-71). Online,: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 23, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Alexander, P., Schallert, D., & Hare, V. (1991). Coming to terms: How researchers in learning and literacy talk about knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 315-343.
  2. Blachowicz, C.L.Z., & Fisher, P. (2000). Vocabulary instruction. In M L, Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 503-524), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  3. Busch, T.W., & Reschly, A.L. (2007). Progress monitoring in reading: Using curriculum-based measurement in a Response-to-Intervention Model. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32(4), P. 223-230/
  4. Espin, C.A., Busch, T., Shin, J., & Kruschwitz, R. (2001). Curriculum-based measures in the content areas: Validity
  5. Ketterlin-Geller, L.R., McCoy, J.D., Twyman, T., & Tindal, G. (2003). How do critical thinking measures fit within standards-based reform? Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28 (3&4), 37-48.
  6. Klausmeier, H.J. (1990). Conceptualizing. In B.F. Jones& L. Idol (eds.), Dimensions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 93-138). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  7. Lovitt, T.C., Plavins, M., & Cushing, S. (1999). What do pupils with disabilities have to say about their experience in high school? Remedial and Special Education, 20, 67-76, 83.
  8. Mooney, P., Schraven, J., & Cox, B. (2010). Test-retest reliability of vocabulary matching in sixth-grade world history. International Journal of Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Apprach, 6, P. 29-40.
  9. Speece, D.L., & Case, L.P. (2001). Classification in context: an alternative approach to identify early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735-749.
  10. Tindal, G., & Nolet, V. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement in middle and high schools: Critical thinking skills in content areas. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27(7), 1-22.
  11. Twyman, T., & Tindal, G. (2007). Extending curriculum-based measurement into middle/secondary schools: The technical adequacy of the concept maze. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 24(1), 49-67.
  12. Wayman, M.M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H.I., Ticha, R., & Espin, C.A. (2007). Literature synthesis on CurriculumBased Measurement in Reading. Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 85-120.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact