ERIC ED502426: How Progress Monitoring Assists Decision Making in a Response-to-Instruction Framework

4 Pages·2003·0.12 MB·English

by  ERIC

National Center on
Student Progress

Monitoring

How Progress Monitoring Assists Decision Making in

a Resp onse-to-Instruction Framework

Deborah Speece
Department of Spec ial Education

University of M aryland

My colleagues and I studied a response-
to-instruction model as a method of
Kyle: Don’ t Forget About Academics
identifying children for special education
Kyle was in second grade when he
services. To judge responsiveness, we
entered our study. When we met with his
used curriculum-based measures (CBM)
classroom teacher to discuss his lack of
of oral reading fluency to monitor
reading progress, the discussion was
progress. In one of the schools we
dominated by a focus on his problem
worked in, children were administered
maintaining attention and the excellent
these one-minute measures every week.
involvement of his parents with the
About every 8 weeks we met with the
school and classroom. Kyle’ s father
children’ s teachers to share graphs of
volunteered in the classroom one day
children’ s progress, identify children
per week and both parents were aware
who were falling behind their peers, and
of Kyle’ s impulsivity, difficulties
design reading interventions that the
completing assignments and working
general educator thought were feasible
independently. They declined any
to implement in the classroom. Children
involvement with special education
who caught up with their peers were
assessment or suggestions to evaluate
considered responsive and continued
for attention deficit disorder but did
with weekly measurement; those who
work closely with his pediatrician.
did not make adequate progress
continued to receive specially-designed Although attention was clearly an issue,
intervention from the general education it was equally apparent that Kyle was
teacher as well as weekly measurement. not making progress in reading. Our
This process generated a number of weekly CBM measures in the fall
examples of how weekly progress showed that he was reading about 20
monitoring, which includes systematic words correctly in one minute. The
data interpretation and teacher action, is average number of words read by
central to good decision-making in an second graders at that time of year is
RTI framework. Two children are about 65. The graph below depicts
discussed whose profiles illustrate Kyle’ s performance on the CBM
different aspects of the progress measure across the year. As indicated,
monitoring-RTI interface. he was reading only 20 words per
minute in November and December.
Providing information and technical assistance to implement progress monitoring for students in the elememtary grades.
How Progress Monitor1i0n0g0 ATshsoimstass DJeefcfeisrisoonn M~ aWkainshgi ngton, DC 20007 1
202-342-5000
E-Mail: [email protected] Web: www.studentprogress.org
Equally problematic was that he was
showing no growth. His performance
was somewhat better in January but he
was still behind his peers.
The teacher may have realized the
extent of his reading problems but our
sense was that her emphasis was how to

keep Kyle focused (a reasonable goal).
Reading instruction seemed a secondary
concern. In the second half of the year,
Janis: When More is Needed
Kyle’ s reading performance showed
Janis’ profile was quite a bit different
good improvement following the
from Kyle’ s. She was identified by our
teacher’ s implementation of a reading
project in first grade because she was
intervention developed collaboratively.
making very little growth in oral reading
The dotted line on the graph indicates
fluency. Janis was viewed by her
when the teacher began the intervention,
teachers as cooperative, hard working,
the “ G” represents the goal we set for
and very quiet. She was consistently
him, and the “ T” represents the trend
described as slow, being the last child to
line that summarizes his rate of growth.
join her group or finish work. Spanish
The interpretation is that Kyle exceeded
was her first language and teachers
his goal. Because we did not establish
believed she had made a lot of progress
experimental control, we cannot say his
with her English skills since
improvement was due to the teacher’ s
kindergarten. Janis was in our study for
additional instruction.
two years and was identified three times
There are two important points relevant by us as being below her classmates on
to progress monitoring and RTI. First, it her growth and the number of words she
is conceivable that Kyle’ s alarmingly could read.
poor reading may not have received Janis received several rounds of
proper due given the preoccupation with intervention that we developed with her
his attention problems. Thus, frequent teachers including individual instruction
monitoring and interpretation of from a general education teacher in
performance seems essential to keep second grade. As far as we could tell,
track of children’ s academic progress. her teachers were devoted to improving
Second, performance comparisons to her reading skill but despite their
both individual progress and group efforts, Janis remained behind her
progress is necessary in an RTI classmates. The graphs below show
framework. Kyle exceeded his goal at Janis’ first and second grade oral
the end of second grade but when reading fluency scores. Although she
compared to his second grade peers, he made growth, it was minimal and
still lagged behind on the number of certainly not enough to catch up with
words he could read and his rate of her peers. She was growing at a rate of
growth. In planning for the next year, approximately .5 words per week while
instructional arrangements and practices her peers were more than doubling her
should be considered that might help growth.
Kyle close the gap with his peers.
Janis’ progress monitoring data show
that she was not responsive to general
education efforts and more intensive
How Progress Monitoring Assists Decision Making 2
intervention was needed. Interestingly, Summary
the teachers never raised the possibility
Progress monitoring is a method of
of special education services. Possibly
keeping track of children’ s academic
the fact that she was an English
development. Progress monitoring
language learner clouded the issue of
requires frequent data collection (i.e.,
her reading progress. That is, disability
weekly) with technically adequate
was implicitly ruled out because of her
measures, interpretation of the data at
language status. In any event, the
regular intervals, and changes to
progress monitoring graphs are telling
instruction based on the interpretation of
and difficult to argue with. Regardless of
child progress. The two cases presented
perceived cause, Janis required
were meant to illustrate how progress
something different to make gains in
monitoring data could be used to make
reading.
reasonable decisions about children’ s
responsiveness. In one example the data
shined a light on reading problems that
may have been overshadowed by
behavioral issues and, in the other, the
data indicated that the child needed
more than what could be delivered in
general education. The approach
requires a different way of thinking
about children’ s learning but is a
powerful method of judging
responsiveness.

How Progress Monitoring Assists Decision Making 3
Resources
Case, L. P., Speece, D. L., & Molloy, D. Fuchs, L. S., Hamlett, C., & Fuchs, D.
E. (2003) The validity of a response-to- Monitoring basic skills progress. Pro-
instruction paradigm to identify reading Ed: Austin, TX.
disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of
*Software for CBM administration,
individual differences and contextual
scoring, graphing on Mac; reading, math
factors. School Psychology Review, 32,
concepts and applications, spelling.
557-582.
Speece, D. L., Case, L. P., & Molloy, D.
*Has further analysis of Kyle, Janis and
E. (2003). Responsiveness to general
other students.
education instruction as the first gate to
Deno, S. L. (1997). Whether thou learning disabilities identification.
goest…Perspectives on progress Learning Disabilities Research &
monitoring. In J. W. Practice, 18, 147-156.
Lloyd, E. J. Kameenui, & D. Chard *Entire issue devoted to Response to
(Eds.), Issues in educating students with Instruction.
disabilities (pp. 77-99). Mahwah, NJ:
www.glue.umd.edu/~dlspeece/cbm
Lawrence Erlbaum.
reading/
*Compares two methods of progress
*Has oral reading fluency passages
monitoring: Mastery measurement and
grades 1-4, administration, scoring
General Outcome Measurement.
directions; local norms for a group of
elementary school children.

This document was developed through Cooperative Agreement
(#H326W0003) between the American Institutes for Research and the
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views or
policies of the Department of Education, nor does mention of trade
names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the
U.S. Government. This publication is copyright free. Readers are
encouraged to copy and share it, but please credit the National Center on
Student Progress Monitoring.
How Progress Monitoring Assists Decision Making 4