Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 14

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Report Information from ProQuest


15 March 2017 17:22
_______________________________________________________________

15 March 2017 ProQuest


Table of contents

1. TEACHERS' USE AND PERCEPTIONS OF PROGRESS MONITORING.................................................. 1

15 March 2017 ii ProQuest


Document 1 of 1

TEACHERS' USE AND PERCEPTIONS OF PROGRESS MONITORING


Author: Luckner, John L; Bowen, Sandy K

ProQuest document link

Abstract:
PROGRESS MONITORING is a set of techniques used to assess students' academic performance on a regular
and frequent basis. Different forms of progress monitoring have been used effectively in the field of general
special education for more than 20 years. However, to date, limited information about how progress monitoring
is being used in the field of deaf education is available. The present study was undertaken to examine how
progress monitoring is being used with students who are deaf or hard of hearing and to find out teachers'
perceptions about the utilization and value of using progress monitoring. Overall, participants were very positive.
They reported that the use of progress monitoring improved students' motivation and helped them better
evaluate the effectiveness of their instruction. Participants' primary concern was with the amount of time
progress monitoring takes away from teaching. Additional results and recommendations are provided.
[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Links: Check for full text via 360 Link

Full text:
PROGRESS MONITORING is a set of techniques used to assess students' academic performance on a regular
and frequent basis. Different forms of progress monitoring have been used effectively in the field of general
special education for more than 20 years. However, to date, limited information about how progress monitoring
is being used in the field of deaf education is available. The present study was undertaken to examine how
progress monitoring is being used with students who are deaf or hard of hearing and to find out teachers'
perceptions about the utilization and value of using progress monitoring. Overall, participants were very positive.
They reported that the use of progress monitoring improved students' motivation and helped them better
evaluate the effectiveness of their instruction. Participants' primary concern was with the amount of time
progress monitoring takes away from teaching. Additional results and recommendations are provided.
Progress monitoring has been defined as the "frequent and ongoing measurement of student knowledge and
skills and the examination of student data to evaluate instruction" (Vaughn, Bos, &Schumm, 2007, p. 74).
Progress monitoring differs from traditional assessment in that it tends to focus on students' performance on a
few critical skills (i.e., word identification fluency, mathematics computation, passagereading fluency, spelling)
using repeatable (i.e., weekly, monthly, quarterly) and brief (i.e., 1-3 minutes) probes. Among the advantages of
progress monitoring over traditional assessments are that (a) it can be hand scored, (b) it allows educators to
conduct error analyses to identify specific targets for intervention, and (c) through graphing of students'
progress, it enables teachers, students, and parents to see how students are performing (Quenemoen, Thurlow,
Moen, Thompson, &Morse, 2003). Summaries of research supporting the efficacy of progress monitoring (e.g.,
Foegen, Jiban, &Deno, 2007; L. Fuchs &D. Fuchs, 2006; Wayman, Wallace, Wiley, Ticha', &Espin, 2007)
suggest that progress monitoring results in more efficient and appropriately targeted instructional techniques
and goals, which, together, move students to faster attainment of important state standards of achievement.
Similarly, the National Center on Student Progress Monitoring (n.d.) reports that the benefits of progress
monitoring include
1. accelerated learning because students receive more appropriate instruction
2. more informed instructional decisions
3. more efficient communication with families and other professionals about students' progress

15 March 2017 Page 1 of 12 ProQuest


4. documentation of student progress for accountability purposes
5. higher expectations of students on the part of teachers.
Progress monitoring has frequently been used to assess performance in reading, mathematics, writing, and
spelling. For progress monitoring to be implemented, the students' current levels of performance on specific
skills are determined and goals are identified for learning that will take place over time. Steps that are often
undertaken to conduct progress monitoring (L. Fuchs, D. Fuchs, &Powell, 2004) are presented in Table 1.
Progress monitoring has been successfully used in the field of K-12 special education for more than two
decades (Reschly &Ysseldyke, 2002). It has also been used with English Language Learners (Baker &Good,
1995; Graves, Plasencia-Peinado, Deno, &Johnson, 2005) and students who are blind or visually impaired
(Morgan &Bradley-Johnson, 1995), as well as infants and toddlers (Walker, Carta, Greenwood, &Buzhardt,
2008). Progress monitoring has also been reported to be used with students who are deaf or hard of hearing
(Rose, 2006). However, in a recent study examining the assessment practices of professionals working with
students who are deaf or hard of hearing (Luckner &Bowen, 2006) no respondents (N = 87) reported using any
form of progress monitoring.
Recently, in an effort to improve the quality of services provided to students who are deaf or hard of hearing,
Moores (2008) proposed that the field of deaf education consider implementing a variation of the Response to
Intervention (RTI) model that was presented in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004. An essential component of an RTI approach is ongoing progress monitoring. Continual progress
monitoring permits professionals to identify students who are not making adequate improvement and to
determine changes that need to be put in place so that students can be provided with instruction based on their
individual needs.
Given the positive results of using progress monitoring with other populations, the need to identify practices that
improve the educational outcomes for students who are deaf or hard of hearing, and an understanding that
some professionals in the field of deaf education were using progress monitoring, we undertook in the present
study to interview teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing who were using progress monitoring
with their students. Specifically, we wanted to ascertain teachers' perceptions of the benefits, challenges,
materials used, and procedures for using progress monitoring with students who are deaf or hard of hearing.
Method
Sampling and Participants
We used a purposeful sampling procedure referred to as snowball sampling to identify participants for the
present study. Snowball sampling is an approach for locating informationrich key informants (Patton, 2002). The
process is designed to identify individuals with particular knowledge, skills, or characteristics who meet specific
criteria for inclusion in a study. In this instance, the criterion was that they were currently using progress
monitoring with students who were deaf or hard of hearing. When using snowball sampling, the researchers
proceed by having the initially selected participants recommend other participants they may know who also
meet the criterion: in the present case, "uses progress monitoring with students who are deaf or hard of
hearing" (Mertens &McLaughlin, 2004).
We began by contacting Dr. Susan Rose, of the University of Minnesota, who regularly conducts progress
monitoring training with teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. She agreed to contact a few
teachers by e-mail whom she had worked with and to ask if they would be willing to participate in an interview.
She also asked if it would be acceptable to send their contact information to us so that we could arrange an
interview. After contacting a few teachers and determining that they would be willing to participate in an
interview, she sent us their e-mail contact information. To increase the size of the sample, we repeated this
process with several colleagues from the Association of College Educators of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
who had informed us that they also were aware of teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing who
were using progress monitoring.

15 March 2017 Page 2 of 12 ProQuest


Once the teachers were identified, we then sent an e-mail to the teachers confirming their interest in
participating in the interview, attaching a copy of the informed consent document and asking them to sign the
document and fax it back to us. We also offered them two options for responding to the interview Under option
1, we sent them the questions and received the teachers' responses by e-mail. Under option 2, teachers
participated in a telephone interview, with the questions sent to them ahead of time. We called them at an
agreed-upon convenient time, and the conversation was recorded and, at a later time, transcribed. At the end of
each interview, we asked participants if they knew other teachers of students who are deaf or hard of hearing
who were using progress monitoring with their students. If they responded positively, we asked them if they
would contact their colleagues and ask them if they would be willing to participate in the study. If a colleague
responded favorably, the initial participant would send us the contact information and we would begin the
process with the new participant. Twenty-two professionals from five different states participated in the study.
As detailed in Table 2, the majority of respondents were female, veteran teachers, who held a state license to
teach students who are deaf or hard of hearing, had obtained a master's degree, and had learned about
progress monitoring through staff development.
Data Collection
All interviews followed a semistructured format. Participants were asked 14 interview questions developed
specifically for the present study (see Appendix). All of the telephone interview responses were transcribed into
a Microsoft Word document. In combination with the word-processed documents sent by e-mail, each question
for each respondent was reviewed, and themes were highlighted and coded.
Results
In response to Question 1, participants responded that they used progress monitoring for an assortment of skills
and knowledge sets. The most common form of monitoring was literacy assessments, particularly for
comprehension and fluency. The second most common was math facts. Two teachers indicated they used
progress monitoring to track students' behavior and amplification use. Participants were asked to identify the
primary purpose(s) for which they used progress monitoring. Overwhelmingly, the teachers acknowledged
tracking student progress and current level as the number one response. Using the data to monitor
individualized education program (IEP) goals and objectives and for writing progress reports or report cards
were also mentioned as primary purposes. Teachers indicated that although the progress monitoring probes
were often required by the district or program, the documentation of the collected data was invaluable for
showing the current levels, tracking changes, and informing or guiding instruction to support and meet students'
needs. Two teachers indicated that they used the data to compare the progress of their students who were deaf
or hard of hearing with that of their general education peers and the state standards.
In Question 2, we asked the teachers to describe the benefits of using progress monitoring. Two main themes
emerged from these data. First, nearly every teacher remarked that one of the greatest benefits was to the
student. Because progress monitoring is student centered, the students become involved in documenting and
charting their own progress and become more motivated to achieve their goals and to see their own progress.
Teachers also reported that the primary benefits for them were that progress monitoring helped them to define
instruction, to monitor the effectiveness of interventions, and to "fill in the gaps." Teachers noted the ease of
using progress monitoring, and terms such as "quick," "frequent," "immediate feedback," "flexible," "accurate,"
and "routine" were often used when they talked about the benefits of using progress monitoring as an
assessment tool.
Conversely, teachers were also asked to discuss the limitations of using progress monitoring with students who
are deaf or hard of hearing. The main concern was about the amount of time that preparing and assessing
students took away from teaching. Many of the probes are designed to be delivered individually and often are
difficult to schedule. Teachers were concerned that they were being asked to spend so much time assessing
students that the instructional time was being diminished. The second most common limitation cited was the

15 March 2017 Page 3 of 12 ProQuest


availability and reliability of progress monitoring probes and materials for students who used sign language as
their primary mode of communication, particularly if the district mandated the use of particular assessment tools.
One teacher stated,
[The progress monitoring tool is] not normed for the deaf students. I have to do it because it is required by the
district. But I usually do it two different ways. I do it the way the district wants me to so that's what I'm turning in
to them. And then I'll also, after we are done with that part, I might do a little bit more in a different way. ... It
gives me the information I need.
The final area of limitation reported was finding the correct monitoring level or tool especially for students who
were well below their general education peers academically. One teacher reported,
When the progress monitoring is . . . on the grade [level] that they're placed in and not on the grade [level] that
they're functioning on, I think that is a very unfair assessment because they are not really showing the growth of
the student. They are showing the continuing deficit . . . that's very frustrating to me.
While there are clearly some assessment concerns that merit thoughtful discussion, it is important to note that
three of the participants indicated there were no limitations to using progress monitoring, and most agreed that
the benefits outweighed the limitations.
Based on the responses we received regarding limitations of using progress monitoring with students who are
deaf or hard of hearing, we questioned the participants on the adaptations that were needed to make the
materials or probes accessible to students. The most commonly cited adaptation was the use of sign language
or visual phonics. This included reading and signing the directions to the student, using an interpreter, or
requiring the teacher of the deaf to administer the assessment, rather than the general education teacher. The
second most frequently cited adaptation was using lower-level materials and probes for practice and for
monitoring progress. Other cited adaptations included having two teachers administer each probe to ensure
fewer biased responses due to misunderstanding of students' speech or signs, additional time to complete each
measure, and teacher prompts or the repeating of a prompt when needed. A few teachers also mentioned that
when assessing students who are deaf or hard of hearing with additional disabilities, adaptations of font size,
visual timers, and the use of objects or tactile devices and PECS (Picture Exchange Communication Systems)
might be advantageous.
Teachers were asked to detail the materials they used to conduct progress monitoring. This list was as varied
and diverse as the group of teachers we interviewed. The most frequently given response was teacher-created
materials, including checklists. Commercially prepared probes and other materials, as well as Internet websites,
were also frequently cited. Examples included the isolated words and maze reading features of products from
Edcheckup, oral reading/retell fluency elements from the University of Oregon's Dynamic Indicators of Basic
Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), Mastering Math Facts, by the Otter Creek Institute, the Scholastic Reading
Inventory, from Scholastic, Inc., and The Qualitative Reading Inventory (4th ed.), by Lauren Leslie and JoAnne
Schudt Caldwell, published by Allyn &Bacon.These materials were selected by a variety of participants.
Teachers indicated that the primary ways in which materials were selected was by the school administration, a
lead teacher, or a team of teachers from the program. When teachers were allowed to select their own
materials, they most often made their decision based on professional development seminars, conferences, or
workshops, or requested information from their general education colleagues. Although we did not ask teachers
what criteria they used to make choices about progress monitoring materials, many of their responses on the
selection of materials were based on specific criteria. The respondents wanted measures that showed growth in
small increments, were portable, were related to what students in general education classes were expected to
do, were readily available (e.g., on the Internet), and were easy to use.
In Question 7, we asked teachers to explain how the use of progress monitoring had changed their beliefs about
teaching. Each teacher had several individual views of what had changed for her personally, but among all the
teachers a few common themes emerged. The most frequently mentioned was a stronger understanding of

15 March 2017 Page 4 of 12 ProQuest


where each student currently stood, and what he or she needed in order to move forward. This understanding
guided the daily lessons and overall instructional decisions made by the teachers. For some of the teachers,
this new understanding of student progress completely changed the way they viewed teaching and changed the
way they now involved students in the decisionmaking process of instruction. One teacher noted, "Prior to using
progress monitoring, I only assessed progress at the end of each marking period. I had no way of knowing
(other than by predicting) if a student was making enough progress to meet their goal. I did not assess/modify
my instruction on a regular basis." Progress monitoring also helped the teachers be more reflective in their
teaching practices, write better IEP goals and objectives, and explain student progress to fellow teachers,
administrators, or other stakeholders.
A second, very essential theme was that teachers felt more accountable for their teaching and had a sense of
urgency about their students' progress. One teacher noted that progress monitoring "makes teachers much
more accountable for their teaching and student success." Another added that, before she began using
progress monitoring, "I did not have the sense of urgency, which I currently do, that I must do everything I can
to ensure that students meet their goals." Another teacher reported, "Progress monitoring has made me more
responsible for my students' progress, more determined to help students 'hit' levels of accuracy, and more
satisfied when they do. My instruction is driven with an urgency." Still another affirmed, "I feel a sense of
urgency that students must do well and that staff must do all we can in order for students to meet their IEP
goals. Since using progress monitoring I feel much more accountable for student progress/lack of progress and
my teaching/interventions."
Because the amount of time teachers have with students is limited, we wanted to determine if progress
monitoring was time effective. We asked the teachers to document what percentage of their overall assessment
involved progress monitoring and how much time was actually used to assess students. There was a range for
the percentage of assessments that involved progress monitoring. This discrepancy occurred because of the
level of experience and the expectations of the district or program for each respondent. Teachers in the present
study had varying degrees of experience and familiarity with progress monitoring tools, and districts and
programs had different expectations and requirements for progress monitoring. Six teachers used progress
monitoring for 80%-100% of their assessments. Four teachers used progress monitoring 60%-80% of the time,
two teachers 40%-60%, two teachers 20%-40%, and four teachers less than 20% of the time. Four teachers
were unable to indicate the percentage of time they used progress monitoring.
Teachers were asked to determine how long it took them to develop progress monitoring tools for students.
Seventeen teachers indicated that they did not develop or create materials themselves, but rather used
commercially prepared materials or borrowed materials from colleagues. Those who did create their own
concluded that although the initial development could be time consuming, it did save time in the end. In fact, the
teachers indicated that the initial development generally could be completed in less than an hour.
Participants were asked how long it took to administer a typical progress monitoring assessment. As expected,
their responses varied greatly depending on the tool used, the age of the student, and the topic or content being
assessed. Respondents indicated that, in most cases, once the teacher developed a familiarity with the tool, the
assessment took just a few minutes. Seven respondents claimed that they spent less than 5 minutes per
assessment; 10 respondents indicated they spent 5-10 minutes per assessment; 10 respondents indicated they
spent 10-20 minutes on most assessments. One teacher commented,
Progress monitoring is not a timeconsuming chore that shows no benefit, in fact, it is quite the opposite. A quick
1-minute probe often yields more information than that found in a standard assessment. Information gathered
from the short probe often gives great insight into the real issues a student is having.
Another teacher remarked, "The amount of time needed to complete the monitoring probes is far outweighed by
the benefits to the student."
We also asked the teachers how long they generally spent scoring and graphing each assessment. Again, the

15 March 2017 Page 5 of 12 ProQuest


answers varied depending on the type of assessment or the format used for scoring and graphing. However, the
overwhelming majority of the teachers indicated that they spent less than 5 minutes scoring each assessment.
Several teachers indicated that by using computer programs, they could score and graph the assessment
instantaneously, and often with student participation. The teachers who graphed the progress themselves
indicated that they spent less than 5 minutes per assessment.
An area where teachers were in full agreement related to having students be involved in charting and
monitoring their own progress. In their comments, the teachers noted that the immediate feedback to students
showed their progress or lack of progress and helped make them more accountable for their own learning and
more motivated to keep trying. One teacher stated, "Most of my students have been very motivated to
participate in measurements that allow them to see their progress. They become anxious to reach their goal."
Question 13 asked the respondents about the use of the results from the assessments. The majority indicated
that they use the results to monitor and plan for effective instruction and to select curriculum. One respondent
remarked, "I immediately know which students are making progress and which students are not based on my
classroom instruction. As a result of my data I may change my instruction or intervention." Another teacher
observed, "I am more aware of my students' specific needs. I can gear my lessons to their specific needs and
address them."
An equally frequent response was that the data results were used to write IEP goals and objectives and to
complete progress reports and report cards. One teacher commented,
By progress monitoring every other week, I am very aware of student progress on an ongoing basis. I am able
to assess, in regular, frequent intervals, if students are or are not demonstrating enough progress to meet IEP
goals and can make changes in instruction in a timely manner. Knowing that I am progress monitoring, I am
much more careful about the IEP goals I write, making sure they are measurable and that the condition and
behavior in the goal are very clearly defined. I am also much more careful about selecting what I teach and that
it supports the LEP goals.
In addition, the data are shared with interested parties, including, students, parents, administrators, and
teachers. This is then used in making curricular decisions for the team, and for placing students in groups.
General education teachers have access to these data to compare the progress of students who are deaf or
hard of hearing with that of their general education peers.
In the final question, the respondents were asked to describe the differences between teachers who used
progress monitoring regularly in the classroom and teachers who did not use progress monitoring. The
responses were diverse, but several themes emerged from the answers. First, the most frequently cited
difference was that the teacher who used progress monitoring had precise, accurate, immediate knowledge
about their students' progress. One teacher stated, "Any given day, I am able to say with some confidence the
level my students are on, how quickly they are making progress, how far off they are from the grade-level
benchmarks."
Based on this knowledge, a second theme was identified - that the teacher who used progress monitoring was
careful with instructional time, making changes to instruction and interventions as the students needed them,
rather than waiting until the end of the year. One teacher explained
I feel that using progress monitoring allows me to see what my students specifically need and then I can work
towards addressing those issues, often I am able to get to the small problems that are embedded in [a] larger
one. Teachers that do not use progress monitoring may not be able to as quickly see and isolate those issues.
A final theme was that a partnership develops among the teacher, the student, and the parents, making them all
aware of the student's strengths, weaknesses, and gaps, and enabling them to write more data-focused IEP
goals to ensure that the student is progressing in an acceptable way. One teacher commented,
If I use progress monitoring, students can see that they are improving (or not) and become partners in trying to
reach goals. Parents can see progress in an understandable way . . . and there are no surprises. I tend to write

15 March 2017 Page 6 of 12 ProQuest


more data-based and focused IEP goals and I monitor progress more carefully and frequently and am honest
with myself. . . . Also I am more accountable and try to never let a student go a whole year on a learning
plateau. If this occasionally happens, I can list the many interventions I have tried.
Through the interviews, we discovered that the teachers cared deeply about the students they served and
wanted to see them make progress. They were concerned when their students did not show progress and were
vigilant in finding ways to support their students' growth. One teacher summarized her interview by saying that
progress monitoring was "not a perfect system, but easy to use and gives beneficial information." Another
teacher stated, "It is vital for any student, especially when he/she is deaf/ hard of hearing! It is a good way to
show the gains/plateaus of any student. I would strongly encourage any teacher who has not used this before to
try it out. It will be successful!"
The striking conclusion obtained from examination of the data was that while the answers were varied, there
were very similar themes reported by each teacher. It appears that progress monitoring is understood in a
variety of contexts and at a variety of levels, and has multiple purposes, benefits, and limitations. However,
across all participants, progress monitoring was seen as a beneficial tool for students and teachers.
Dicussion
The purpose of the present study was to gather initial data to examine how progress monitoring is being used in
the field of deaf education. Twentytwo teachers using progress monitoring were identified and contacted, and
their responses to interview questions were collected, analyzed, summarized, and reported. The limitations of
this study include the use of a purposeful sampling process, volunteers respondents, and a small sample.
Consequently, the study should be viewed as an initial investigation, and additional research on this topic
should be undertaken.
The teachers who participated in the present study expressed highly positive perceptions of the value of using
progress monitoring with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. They indicated that the frequent and regular
use of assessments that were easy to administer and score provided data that were used to evaluate the
effectiveness of instruction. They also reported that the data were used as the basis for making changes in
instruction and for discussing students' performance with the students themselves, their parents, and the
teachers' colleagues.
Assessment plays an integral role in the teaching-learning process. Appropriate assessment helps educators
identify students' needs, track and enhance their achievement, motivate them to strive for academic excellence,
and verify their mastery of content standards (Stiggins, 2005). The President's Commission on Excellence in
Special Education (U.S. Department of Education, 2002) has emphasized the need for the ongoing collection
and use of data to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction - that is, continuous progress monitoring in order to
improve the educational outcomes of students with special needs.
Progress monitoring has been used effectively with hearing students to measure their knowledge and skills in
math (e.g., number facts, shape identification, basic facts, problem solving, and computation; Foegen et al.,
2007) and in reading (e.g., word identification, vocabulary matching, reading aloud, and maze passages;
Wayman et al., 2007). The responses of the teachers in the present study, as well as recent preliminary data
reported by Rose and McAnally (2008), indicate that maze passages for reading comprehension can be
successfully used with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. In general, the reading maze passages
process involves using leveled narrative fiction passages from publishers of reading series that are being used
or from other enterprises that have set up progress monitoring assessment systems (e.g., Edcheckup,
http://www.edcheckup.com, and AIMSweb, http://www.aimsweb.com), or that have been developed by
teachers. The passages are often 150-400 words long. The maze is a multiplechoice cloze task that students
complete while reading silently. The first sentence of the passage is left intact. Subsequently, every seventh
word is replaced with three words inside a set of parentheses. One of the words is the exact word from the
passage. Two words, distracters, are also included. Students have 3 minutes to complete as much of the maze

15 March 2017 Page 7 of 12 ProQuest


as they can, circling what they believe to be the correct word choice. The total number of words correct and the
number of errors are recorded. Research with hearing students (e.g., L. Fuchs &D. Fuchs, 1992) suggests that
the maze task is sensitive to change in performance over time, that teachers rate their satisfaction with the
maze highly because they believe that it reflects multiple dimensions of reading, and that students report that
they enjoy doing the maze activity.
Rose and McAnally (2008), as well as some of the participants in the present study, also indicated that the
DIBELS for oral reading fluency of letter naming and word identification (see http://dibels.uoregon.edu/), the
Silent Reading Fluency Test (Hammill, Wiederholt, &Allen, 2006) for silent reading, and the number of words
written in 3 minutes and the Correct Word Sequence for written language (L. Fuchs &D. Fuchs, 2006) are valid
and reliable procedures to use with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Given the encouraging
perceptions of the teachers who participated in the present study, the positive results reported by Rose and
McAnally (2008), and the extensive body of research demonstrating the efficacy of using progress monitoring
with students in general education, special education, and early childhood education settings, more research
should be conducted examining the efficacy of these tools and procedures with students who are deaf or hard
of hearing.
Different people (e.g., teachers, students, parents, supervisors) use assessment results for a variety of
purposes. Examples include evaluating educational programs, comparing a group of students with others of
similar age, and examining teacher effectiveness. While these forms of assessment are important, it could
easily be argued that assessments that focus on classroom-level instruction contribute most to student success
(Stiggins, 2005). Progress monitoring is a classroom-level form of assessment that involves ongoing data
collection and use of data to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction. A statement made by one of the
participants in the present study provides a summary of the potential benefits of progress monitoring, as well as
a prediction of the central role that progress monitoring may have in the future in the education of students who
are deaf or hard of hearing:
Progress monitoring is an important tool to guide instruction and IEP goal development. Frequent monitoring at
regular intervals is critical to determine if students are making enough progress to meet goals and if not, for you
to make instructional changes in a timely manner. Progress monitoring makes teachers more accountable for
student progress and hopefully, will lead to improved instruction.
Sidebar
Table 1
General Steps for Conducting Progress Monitoring
1. Decide on level of implementation (i.e., individual student, small group, classroom, grade level, school level,
district level).
2. Decide on what measures to use. Create or select appropriate tests/probes. The test should sample skills to
be mastered across the school year. The tests/probes are generally 1-3 minutes in duration.
3. Collect screening or baseline data. Administer and score the test/probes. Probes are presented frequently to
ensure that students' data are valid and reliable.
4. Decide on short-term objectives or end criteria.
5. Set long-range goals. Targets, which sometimes are called benchmarks, help students and teachers
understand how much growth is expected and required.
6. Decide how often to monitor.
7. Graph the scores. Visual representations of students' performance enable students to see their progress and
teachers to make instructional decisions.
8. Make instructional decisions. The students' performance is used to evaluate the instructional program in
order to retain effective strategies and to discontinue ineffective ones.
9. Continue monitoring.

15 March 2017 Page 8 of 12 ProQuest


10. Communicate progress. The data and graphs facilitate communication with parents, other teachers, and
students.
Sidebar
Table 2
Demographic Characteristics of Participants
N= 22
Years teaching
Range = 2-34 years
M= 14.6
Gender
Female = 20
Male = 2
State license to teach students who are deaf or hard of hearing
Yes = 20
No = 2
Highest degree
Master's= 17
Bachelor's = 5
Job responsibilities3
Itinerant = 8
Elementary = 7
Resource room = 4
Secondary = 3
Other = 5
Self-contained = 3
Reading specialist= 1
Life skills = 1
Type of program
Cooperative = 9
Local public school = 8
Special school = 5
How learned about progress monitoring13
Staff development = 18
University = 5
Independently = 5
a Several participants had multiple job responsibilities.
b Several participants learned about progress monitoring through multiple avenues.
References
References
Baker, S. K, &Good, R. H. (1995). Curriculumbased measurement of English reading with bilingual Hispanic
students: A validation study with second-grade students. School Psychology Review, 24, 561-578.
Foegen, A., Jiban, C, &Deno, S. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics: Areview of the
literature. Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 121-139.
Fuchs, L., &Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring students' reading progress. School
Psychology Review, 21, 41-58.
Fuchs, L., &Fuchs, D. (2006). What is the scientifically based research on progress monitoring? Retrieved from

15 March 2017 Page 9 of 12 ProQuest


National Center on Student Progress Monitoring website: http:// www.studentprogress.org
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., &Powell, S. (2004). Using CBM for progress monitoring. Washington, DC: American
Institutes for Research.
Graves, A. W, Plasencia-Peinado, J., Deno, S., &Johnson, J. R. (2005). Formatively evaluating the reading
progress of first-grade English learners in multiple-language classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 26,
215-225.
Hammill, D. D., Wiederholt, J. L., &Allen, E. A. (2006). TOSCRF-Test of silent contextual reading fluency.
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Luckner, J. L., &Bowen, S. (2006). Assessment practices of professionals serving students who are deaf or
hard of hearing: An initial investigation. American Annals of the Deaf 151 (4), 410-417.
Mertens, D. M., &McLaughlin, J. A. (2004). Research and evaluation methods in special education. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Morgan, S. K., &Bradley-Johnson, S. (1995). Technical adequacy of curriculum-based measurement for Braille
readers. School Psychology Review, 24, 94-103.
Moores, D. F (2008). Improving academic achievement: Can a response-to-intervention (RTl) model help?
American Annals of the Deaf 153(4), 347-348.
National Center on Student Progress Monitoring, (n.d.). What are the benefits of progress monitoring?
Retrieved from http://www.studentprogress.org/
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Quenemoen, R., Thurlow, M., Moen, R., Thompson, S., &Morse, A. B. (2003). Progress monitoring in an
inclusive standards-based assessment and accountability system (Synthesis Report 53). Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://
education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Syn thesis53.html
Reschly D. J., &Ysseldyke, J. E. (2002). Paradigm shift: The past is not the future. In A. Thomas &J. Grimes
(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (Vol. 1, pp. 3-20). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.
Rose, S. (2006). Monitoring progress of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Retrieved from National
Center on Student Progress Monitoring website: http://www.stu dent progress. org/library/articles.asp#hearing
Rose, S., &McAnally R (2008, February). Curriculum-based measurement (CBM): A process for monitoring
progress. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association of College Educators of the Deaf and Hard of
Hearing, Monterey, CA.
Stiggins, R. J. (2005). Student-involved assessment for learning (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children a nd families.
Washington, DC: Author.
Vaughn, S., Bos, C. S., &Schumm, J. S. (2007). Teaching students who are exceptional, diverse, and at risk in
the general education classroom (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Walker, D., Carta, J. J., Greenwood, C. R., &Buzhardt, J. F. (2008). The use of individual growth and
developmental indicators for progress monitoring and intervention decision making in early education.
Exceptionality, 16(1), 33-47.
Wayman, M. M., Wallace, T, Wiley, H. L, Ticha', R., &Espin, C. A (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-
based measurement in reading. Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 85-120.
AuthorAffiliation
JOHN L. LUCKNER AND SANDY K. BOWEN
LUCKNER AND BOWEN ARE PROFESSORS IN THE SCHOOL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF
NORTHERN COLORADO, GREELEY.

15 March 2017 Page 10 of 12 ProQuest


Appendix
Appendix
Interview Questions
1. What are the primary purposes you use progress monitoring for?
2. What are the benefits of using progress monitoring with students who are deaf or hard of hearing?
3. What are the limitations/challenges of using progress monitoring with students who are deaf or hard of
hearing?
4. What materials do you use to conduct progress monitoring with students who are deaf or hard of hearing?
5. How do you select the materials to use?
6. What specific adaptations do you use to conduct progress monitoring with students who are deaf or hard of
hearing?
7. How has using progress monitoring changed your understanding (beliefs) about how and what you teach?
8. What percentage of your assessment is currently progress monitoring in relationship to all other assessments
you conduct with students who are deaf or hard of hearing?
9. How long does it take for you to develop each specific progress monitoring assessment?
10. How long does it take to administer a progress monitoring assessment?
11. How long does it take to score a progress monitoring assessment?
12. How long does it take to graph a progress monitoring assessment?
13. How do you use the results of progress monitoring?
14. Describe the difference between a teacher such as yourself who uses progress monitoring and a teacher
who does not use progress monitoring.

Subject: Cheating; Research; Learning; Reading; Data collection;

MeSH: Adolescent, Adolescent Development, Attitude, Child, Child Development, Education, Professional,
Educational Status, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Motivation, Persons With Hearing Impairments --
psychology, United States, Education of Hearing Disabled (major), Education, Special (major), Educational
Measurement (major), Faculty (major), Mainstreaming (Education) (major), Perception (major)

Publication title: American Annals of the Deaf; Washington

Volume: 155

Issue: 4

Pages: 397-406

Number of pages: 10

Publication year: 2010

Publication date: Fall 2010

Year: 2010

Publisher: American Annals of the Deaf

Place of publication: Washington

Country of publication: United States

Publication subject: Education--Special Education And Rehabilitation, Handicapped--Hearing Impaired

ISSN: 0002726X

CODEN: ANDFAL

15 March 2017 Page 11 of 12 ProQuest


Source type: Trade Journals

Language of publication: English

Document type: Feature, Journal Article

Document feature: Tables References

Accession number: 21305976

ProQuest document ID: 847558706

Document URL: https://search.proquest.com/docview/847558706?accountid=1215

Copyright: Copyright American Annals of the Deaf Fall 2010

Last updated: 2014-04-02

Database: Education Database

_______________________________________________________________
Contact ProQuest
Copyright 2017 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms and Conditions

15 March 2017 Page 12 of 12 ProQuest