This paper examines instructional practices designed to promote high-level learning within standards-based curricula. Drawing on peer-reviewed research, it reviews teacher knowledge and perceptions of common instructional strategies, the role of curriculum-based measurement (CBM) and progress monitoring in tracking student achievement, and approaches for meeting individual student needs within a general education setting. The paper also explores service-learning as a method for deepening academic engagement. Together, these findings suggest that a combination of data-driven assessment, inclusive instructional design, and real-world learning experiences can meaningfully improve outcomes for all students.
The paper demonstrates effective use of source synthesis: rather than summarizing each article in isolation, the writer connects them around a central argument—that teachers need both theoretical knowledge and practical, evidence-based strategies to achieve high-level student learning. Each source is introduced, quoted selectively, and linked back to the overarching thesis.
The paper opens with a brief thesis statement before moving into a literature-based review organized around two guiding questions: what instructional practices are effective, and how can a standards-based curriculum still accommodate individual needs. Sections on CBM, inclusive instruction, and service-learning each address a distinct aspect of the central argument. The conclusion synthesizes findings from multiple sources into a cohesive takeaway. The Works Cited section follows APA-adjacent formatting, though the in-text citations use MLA-style author-page conventions.
When it comes to the right instructional practices that teachers and administrators should be developing — practices effective in helping students achieve a high level of learning — this paper points to a standards-based system combined with creative curricula as the most effective approach. There are a number of ways in which teachers can implement those practices that lead to high-level learning in students, and this paper reviews those strategies.
Instructional practices in schools rarely stay static, according to a peer-reviewed article in the journal Computers in the Schools. In fact, many schools over the past several years have been actively engaged in "fundamental restructuring efforts" because teachers appear willing in many instances to try "a range of instructional practices" that will be beneficial to the learning process (Liu, 2010, p. 20). But if teachers do not have an appropriate level of knowledge of the theory behind the instructional practice, they cannot hope to bring out the best in students, Liu explains (20).
The article reviews the many instructional practices — peer teaching, peer mentoring, open education, right brain/left brain approaches, computer-based instruction, student-centered learning, distance learning, and technology-based instruction, among others — that are used by teachers (21). However, Liu asserts that there is "no strong evidence for the significant effectiveness of these instructional practices," and that many practices "seem to appear each year and are quickly discarded" (22). But if these practices are supposedly not effective, what can be effective? The authors point out that the teacher's perception of the practices "strongly predicts the likelihood of practice," and the stronger the teachers' grasp of the theory and research behind a given strategy, "the more accurately they see the value" of that practice in terms of its application to higher levels of learning (23).
The article surveyed 162 experienced teachers regarding their knowledge and perceptions of 24 different instructional practices common in public education. The conclusions reached by the authors are that: a) educators in higher positions in the field of education are more aware of successful practices than those in elementary and secondary positions; b) the higher the degree achieved by the teacher and the more experience a teacher has, the greater the teacher's understanding of educational practices; and c) teacher education programs should focus on preparing teachers "with a solid foundation of knowledge in instructional practice" (Liu, 30).
In the Journal of Special Education, the authors point to curriculum-based measurement (CBM) and progress monitoring as instructional practices proposed as a way to "predict performance" and "monitor progress" toward "rigorous, state-defined academic standards" (Wallace, et al., 2007, 66). The authors also report that progress monitoring is part of an overall "response-to-intervention" (RTI) approach, which assists in assessing student progress (66). When research focuses on curriculum-based measurement and what strategies work well in bringing out the best in students, teachers who use CBM see "significant gains in student achievement" (Stecker, et al., 2005, 795).
Achieving higher levels of learning is facilitated through a careful strategy of CBM, which means teachers monitor and assess student achievement up to two times per week; the data collected reflects how any particular student is progressing "over a period of time" (Stecker, 796). Are students "on target" to meet the long-term goals that the standards-based curriculum has established? Stecker asserts that teachers can discover how well students are progressing by using CBM data, and that data allows teachers to plan and even "individualize" instruction for specific students (797). Instructional decisions designed to achieve high levels of learning can therefore be made based on specific, data-driven evidence within a CBM-focused strategy.
This paper has pointed to a number of instructional practices that may be effective in helping teachers achieve their goal of supporting student learning and achievement. When a curriculum-based measurement approach is taken, teachers can be fairly certain whether their strategies are working; moreover, students with disabilities can acquire meaningful skills in a classroom where standards-based curriculum is presented, while students without disabilities in that same classroom experience improved self-esteem and a reduction in prior biases against disabled peers. Together, CBM, inclusive instructional design, and service-learning represent a complementary set of approaches for achieving high-level learning outcomes for all students.
You’re 52% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.