Progress Monitoring within an RTI Model - Essay Example

Progress Monitoring Progress Monitoring Thomas describes progress monitoring as a set of assessment procedures that are used to; determine how well students benefit from classroom instruction and for monitoring effectiveness of curriculum. Usually, progress monitoring gauges student performances in those areas perceived as being at-risk of failure, for example, reading, mathematics, and social behavior. This paper discusses how progress monitoring can assist educators with a valuable tool to improve their teaching. Progress Monitoring within an RTI Model Progress monitoring serves a critical role in determining specific learning disabilities. According to Thomas (2010), the several types of assessments used in progress monitoring can provide a substantial amount of information regarding the status of the students’ knowledge, skills and abilities. In the TRI model, progress monitoring serves different functions at each tier as described in the following section. Tier 1 of progress Monitoring: In this tier, progress monitoring procedures serve critical functions. According to Thompson and Morse (2004), proactive assessment is, usually, done at least three times annually and is used as a general screening procedure for all students. In this tier, screening helps to identify vulnerable students by making a comparison of their performance relative to a measure criterion. According to Shane and Mathew (2007), progress monitoring helps to show a student’s performance trend over time and to determine whether the student’s performance is appropriate in the effective curriculum. Tier 2 of Progress Monitoring: Thompson and Morse (2004) posited that the objective of progress monitoring is to gauge the extent to which intervention is effective in assisting learners at an optimum rate. In this tier, timely decisions about student progress are essential for long-term achievement (BEESS, 2008). Progress Monitoring in Special Education: According to Fuchs and Hintze (2006), progress monitoring is also crucial in special education. In the first place, it provides systematic and reliable information which can be used to meet the student’s individual needs (Fuchs and Hintze, 2006). In addition, progress monitoring is a requirement of the individualized education program and provides information about student progress toward short-term objectives and annual goals. Progress Monitoring Methods There are diverse procedures to progress monitoring employed by teachers for student evaluation. According to BEESS (2008), the two main methods of progress monitoring used are mastery monitoring and general outcome measurement. Mastery Measurement According to BEESS (2008), the mastery method of progress monitoring is mostly used for class assessment. In this method, Thompson and Morse (2004) posit that the teachers, usually, test for the understanding of a particular concept and, upon understanding of that concept, another one is introduced sequentially. In a year, therefore, teachers can assess different skills and act accordingly. Since the nature of the tests is always dynamic, it is quite challenging to carry out a comparison of test scores obtained at different times of the year. According to Johnson, Fuchs and McKnight (2006), the primary benefit of mastery measurement is instructional validity i.e. teachers can evaluate the kind of skills students are comfortable with, and the skills require continued instruction. The limitation of this method, however, is that it has a number of unsupported assumptions. In addition, Johnson, Fuchs and McKnight (2006) say that mastery measurement fails to give precise information with regards to whether students are maintaining mastered skills learnt earlier. According to Derline (2011), problems arising from logistics and feasibility pose challenges in addressing disadvantages associated with mastery monitoring. In the first place, the regular change of subjects by teachers means that every progress monitoring test is different. In the event that formative assessment is used for every student, Carroll (1998) say that each student will be at different points in the curriculum sequence. Consequently, teachers may be at a high risk of losing track of the particular students whose progress needs monitoring on a specific test. General Outcome Measurement General outcome measurement, also referred to as curriculum-based measurement (CBM), main objective is to evaluate learnt skills as laid down in the annual curriculum. It is a more robust method compared to mastery measurement method. According to Kathleen (2014), this is done in the form of weekly tests, which, although they carry different items, the tests are of relatively similar difficulty. In this method, usually, the scores a student gets at various times in the course of the year compared. Consequently, the teacher can determine the trend of competence of their students i.e. whether it is increasing or decreasing. Kenneth and Victor (2000) posited that CBM, unlike mastery measurement, is standardized in the sense that procedures for creating tests, administering tests and other procedures in progress monitoring follow the same criteria. As a result of this, Kenneth and Victor (2000) say that CBM often produces a wide range of scores across students belonging to a similar age. The rank ordering criteria used in CBM plays a very significant role in assessing student competence. For instance, progress monitoring using this method often shows that students perform well are often the ones who emerge top during the annual state tests. Kathleen (2014) observes that CBM has many benefits and these include; the method exhibits a high level of reliability and validity. Secondly, following the fact that CBM tests assess a wide range of skills incorporated in the annual curriculum, the method exposes the vulnerabilities of students in the various skills thought in the curriculum. Since this method continuously assesses students’ abilities for retention and generalization, its results are often consistent. Curriculum-Based Method Information According to Thomas (2010), CBM produces overall CBM score information and the CBM skills profile information. The former shows overall competence while the latter describes the strengths and weaknesses on the different skills assessed on each test. The Overall CBM Score: This is used by teachers in various ways and includes the following. The overall CBM score helps in identifying students with particular needs, for example, students who require a special kind of attention. Kathleen (2014) says that teachers also use overall CBM scores in evaluating students’ competence in various areas of academia. Here, students’ scores are, usually, graphed against time; consequently, the teacher can assess a student’s progress towards achieving competence on the annual curriculum. Lastly, teachers deploy overall CBM score to improve instructional programs. According to Kenneth and Victor (2000), teachers often use overall CBM score to experiment with different instructional programs especially for students who have difficulties with standard instructional programs. CBM Skills Profile: According to Kenneth and Victor (2000), CBM skills profiles are used by teachers to evaluate the skills that require close attention in the annual curriculum. In addition, CBM skills profile assists significantly in noting students experiencing challenges in maintaining skills especially after the first the student has undergone the first mastery process. Tools for Progress Monitoring There are quite a number of research-based evaluation guides which can assist teachers in administering progress monitoring more efficiently. However, the most commonly used are the educators’ guide to service-learning program and the youth-led evaluation progress monitoring tool. An Educators’ Guide to Service-Learning Program Evaluation: According to Lynn and Douglas (2007), this guide lays emphasis on choosing the proper evaluation method for a particular service-learning program. Derline (2011) say that the guide also gives worksheets meant for designing an evaluation and ensures data collection and subsequent analysis for a myriad of research techniques. In addition, the guide explains how using data might improve future programs. Youth-Led Evaluation: Lynn and Douglas (2007) describe youth-led evaluation as an easy-to-use evaluation tool that is youth-friendly. The guide introduces young people to research techniques and the use of evaluation in service-learning. In addition, Lynn and Douglas (2007) say that the youth-led evaluation provides instruction on a number of research techniques and provides tools that assist the youth to be actively involved during the evaluation. Roles of Progress Monitoring According to Thompson and Morse (2004), progress monitoring is quite significant in the multi-level prevention system as a result of the critical roles it serves. Firstly, progress monitoring helps to determine the extent to which primary prevention works for the student. It assists in distinguishing evaluating various responses to the secondary prevention; consequently, this helps to identify students with a high risk of developing learning disability. BEESS (2008) says that another function that progress monitoring serves is that it helps in identifying the possibility of a return to primary or secondary prevention following students’ response to tertiary prevention. Lastly, progress monitoring provides customized instructions which help in optimizing learning in students likely to have learning disabilities. Benefits of Progress Monitoring There are many benefits progress proffers to both teachers and students. Since the students are provided with appropriate instruction, Fuchs and Hintze (2006) say progress monitoring enhances students’ learning. In addition, progress monitoring; helps teachers in making better instructional decisions; recording performances of students hence improves accountability, and it facilitates the flow of information between the families and professionals regarding the student’s progress. Progress monitoring is also significant in the sense that it raises the teachers’ hopes of their students that consequently leads to a decrease in referrals from special education. In a nutshell, progress monitoring is highly significant for teachers especially when making decisions concerning the optimum levels of student progress and creating an effective instructional program. References BEESS, (2008) Progress Monitoring. Retrieved on 6th Oct, 2014 from http://www.broward.k12.fl.us/studentsupport/ese/PDF Carroll J.J. (1998) Curriculum-Based Assessment: The Easy Way. New York, NY: C.C Thomas publishing Derline H.B (2011) Student Monitoring: Teachers’ Perspective. New York, NY: Proquest, Umi Dissertation Publishing. Fuchs L.S & Hintze (2006) Progress monitoring in the context of responsiveness-to-intervention. Presentation, Kansas City, MO. Johnson E.M Fuchs, D & McKnight M.A (2006) “Responsiveness to intervention.” Retrieved on 05th Oct, 2014 from http://www.nysrti.org/docs/RTIManualSection2.pdf Kathleen McLane (2014) “Curriculum-based Measurement.” Retrieved on 5th Oct, 2014 from http://ncld.org/students-disabilities/ld-education-teachers/curriculum-based/ Kenneth W.H & Victor N (2000) Curriculum-based Evaluation: Teaching and Decision Making. New York, NY: Wadsworth Lynn S. & Douglas F. (2007) “A Model for Implementing Responsiveness to Intervention,” Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5): 14-20 Pamela M.S & Erica S.L. (2008) “Using Progress-Monitoring Data to Improve Instructional Decision-Making,” Taylor & Francis Online 52 (2): 48-48 Shane R.J & Mathew K, B (2007) Handbook of Response to Intervention. New York, NY: Springer. Thomas J. L (2010) “Progress Monitoring: Supporting Research.” Retrieved on 05th Oct, 2014 from https://gsn- newdemo2.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/1286/original/PM_SupportingRes earch.pdf?1402086486 Thompson, S & Morse B, (2004) Progress monitoring in an inclusive standards- based assessment and accountability system (Report). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, NCEO. Read More