Progress monitoring is a set of techniques used to assess students’ academic performance on a regular and frequent basis (Luckner & Bowen, 2010c). Luckner & Bowen’s research which focused on deaf students while applying progress monitoring, participants have the positive reception to the system because it improved the students’ motivation and helped the teachers as well evaluate the effectiveness of the instruction they are pursuing to better teach (2008).
According to research by Ysseldyke, J &Tardrew, S. (2008), the addition of a progress monitoring and instructional management system to ongoing mathematics instruction improves mathematics outcomes for students. The effects of the program clearly are a function of intervention integrity; when progress monitoring and instructional management practices are implemented with high fidelity or integrity, the mathematics performance of all students is significantly enhanced. As for further discussion of the research (Ysseldyke, J., 2008), intervention integrity had a significant effect on student achievement, individual instruction has more time being spent on by teachers rather than group instruction as they were able to meet the needs of their students while using the progress monitoring and instructional management system. As later found out, students who were in the classroom where the teachers use progress monitoring and instructional management system, like math, held each other with math and they like even more than the last year (Ysseldyke, J. 2008).
According to Leno (2009), progress monitoring is an approach to measuring the growth of student proficiency in the core educational skillsthat contribute to success of the curriculum. In this study, they have based on different skills and accuracy of student like for example in reading whether they can read it aloud fluently and accurately. The main purpose of progress monitoring is to provide the educators with an efficient ways to evaluate the effectiveness of a student’s instructional program. As progress monitoring goes on, educators are checking and doing it on a frequently manner where they are graphing on a timeline basis. The graphed progress involved the system of properly collecting, direct and frequent measures of student performance such as monthly achievement and improvement over time. The data collected are further used to establish individualized or class wide instructional goals and benchmarks that would lead to make instructional decisions (Leno, 2009).
After twenty years of research, progress monitoring establishes itself based on the measures indicated and used to reliably and validly describe the student growth, then the collective data gathered when applied and set into action guidelines to make instructional decisions, the performance of the students greatly improves. (Leno, 2009)
When it comes to intervention-problem solving models, progress monitoring tools has seen to be an essential element. As for the study by Walker and associates, progress monitoring tools have been valuable not only in marking an individual children’s performance among its peers but also in measuring change in skill level in a way that can be attributed to intervention and development (Walker, et. Al., 2008.)
Based on study by Matthew Marino (2010), “secondary schools across the United States are adopting response to intervention (RTI) as a means to identify students with learning disabilities.” Response to Intervention duly defined is an alternative method that is also a means of providing early intervention to all children at risk for school failure (Fuchs, D & Fuchs, L., 2011.) “The majority of current RTI research focuses on students with reading difficulties in elementary school classrooms. Recommendations for practice that stem from this empirical work are not generalizable to high school classrooms, where adolescents with learning disabilities experience unique learning challenges. This is especially true in secondary science classes, where an emphasis on complex vocabulary and sophisticated phenomenological investigations places added cognitive requirements on these students.” (Marino, 2010).
According to Beal (2013), “response to intervention is a process that incorporates both assessment and intervention for the immediate benefit of the student. Furthermore, the potential benefit of an RTI framework is its usefulness for determining responsiveness to instruction and guiding service delivery for students with unmet needs.” The focus of the study is for those with reading difficulties thus RTI is an alternative approach that focused on relying on early stage of intervention thus increasing greater results. (Beal, 2013).
Progress monitoring is one of the most significant tools used by psychologists to evaluate student response to both academic and behavioral interventions (Hixson, M. 2013.) According also to their research (Hixson, M., 2013), “it is essential in ensuring that student outcomes are tightly linked with services and programs provided within schools. By providing a real-time account of how interventions are effectively (not effectively) moving students toward predetermined goals, it helps to ensure accountability for school personnel and adds a self-correcting feature to intervention efforts. Within a multitiered system, evaluation of student progress within tiers and movement between tiers highly depends on careful and accurate evaluation of student performance over time.”
According to Ross (2006), transformational leadership researchers have given little attention to teacher expectations that mediate the goals and actions. That is why the most important thing on this study which is teacher efficacy refers to teacher beliefs that they will be able to bring about student learning. Due to this, transformational leadership had an impact on teacher efficacy which predicted the teacher commitment to community partnerships, commitment to school mission and commitment to professional learning community (Ross, 2010).
References
Beal, S. (2013). Response to intervention in the identification of
reading/learning disabilities. [Retrieved on].
https://www.nmu.edu/education/sites/DrupalEducation/files/UserFiles/Beal_Shanna_MP.pdf
Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (2011). Introduction to response to intervention: what, why and how
Valid is it. Reading research quarterly. 41(1), p. 93-99.
Hixson, M., et al. (2013). Best practices in the analysis of progress-monitoring data and
Decision making progress. Best practices in school psychology. 4(22), p. 29.
Leno, S. (2009). Developing a school-wide progress-monitoring system.
Psychology in schools. 46(1). p. 44-55.
Luckner, J. & Bowen, S. (2010). Teachers’ use and perceptions of progress monitoring.
American annals of the deaf. 155 (4).
Marino, M. (2010). Conceptualizing RTI in 21st-Century Secondary Science
Classrooms: Video Games' Potential to Provide Tiered Support and Progress
Monitoring for Students with Learning Disabilities.Learning disability
quarterly. 33(4), p. 299-311.
Ross, J. & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to
organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy.
Research, Policy and Practice. 17(2), p. 179-199.
Walker, D. et al. (2008). The use of individual growth and developmental indicators for progress
Monitoring and intervention decision making in early education. Exceptionality:
A special education journal. 16 (1), p. 33-47.
Ysseldyke, J., & Tardrew, S. (2008). Use of a progress monitoring system to enable
Psychology. 24(1), 1-28.
Zimmerman, J. (2006). Why some teacher resist change and what principals
can do about it.NASSP bulletin. 90(3). p. 238-239.
