Progress monitoring - it not only tracks student progress toward goals but also provides vital data on the efficacy of the overall curriculum and instructional practice.
Some key thoughts on this:
- Progress monitoring can indicate when students across the board are failing to make adequate gains. This signals the learning activities and materials themselves may not be working and need adjustment.
- Analyzing progress monitoring trends can help identify where in the curriculum students start falling behind. This shows teachers where scaffolding may be missing or where review/re-teaching is needed.
- If progress monitoring data shows students consistently struggling with the same standards or skillsets, it likely indicates the core instruction does not address these areas with sufficient depth, modeling, differentiated supports, etc.
- Data revealing certain student subgroups (e.g. English language learners, students with disabilities) lagging substantially behind grade-level benchmarks calls attention to how instruction fails to meet unique learning needs.
- Progress monitoring followed by instructional changes and continued monitoring allows teachers to see which adjustments are most and least effective for boosting student achievement.
Progress monitoring does not just assess students in a vacuum - it provides an invaluable lens for evaluating and enhancing the curriculum itself as well as core instructional practices when students demonstrate inadequate rates of growth overall. It facilitates crucial self-reflection and data-driven instructional decisions by educators.
Abstract
With a growing number of students failing to meet basic academic requirements and demonstrate proficiency in core subjects like reading, writing, and mathematics, schools must employ evidence-based targeted intervention strategies. Three such methods that research has shown effective are progress monitoring, small group instruction, and mastery learning. This paper examines the scholarly literature on these approaches to determine how implementing them can help improve student outcomes.
Introduction
Proficiency rates in fundamental skills like literacy and numeracy have dropped substantially in recent years, with the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress results showing just 34% of fourth graders proficient in reading and 33% proficient in math (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). With over 60% of students nationwide failing to meet grade-level expectations, schools are in critical need of reliable, research-backed interventions. Progress monitoring, small group instruction, and mastery learning are three targeted methods schools can utilize to help struggling students catch up to standards. When consistently implemented, these practices lead to academic growth by allowing for tailored, skills-based instruction.
This paper will review scholarly research on these targeted interventions to examine their efficacy. It will summarize how each one functions within a multi-tiered system of support and analyze evidence demonstrating their value at improving student achievement. The research questions guiding this literature review are:
1. What are the key features and purposes of progress monitoring, small group instruction, and mastery learning?
2. What evidence exists in peer-reviewed studies supporting the effectiveness of these practices?
By evaluating empirical studies on these topics, this paper aims to demonstrate how targeted, data-driven instructional approaches can help schools address skill deficiencies and improve educational outcomes.
Progress Monitoring
Progress monitoring is a scientifically evidenced process that periodically measures student knowledge and skills to quantify progress toward goals and inform instructional planning (Hosp et al., 2016). Within multi-tiered systems of support, progress monitoring allows teachers to gauge responsiveness to intervention and determine if students require more or less intensive instruction to achieve mastery (Alonzo et al., 2016). Frequent and strategic progress monitoring facilitates data-based decision making, providing a continual stream of actionable data to match services appropriately to student need.
Substantial research demonstrates the benefits of progress monitoring. In a meta-analysis of progress monitoring studies, Stecker et al. (2005) found an effect size ranging from .7 to .9 standard deviations higher on student achievement metrics for those monitored biweekly compared to students receiving only pre and post testing. Dagli and Jones (2013) specifically examined progress monitoring with students with disabilities and determined an average gain of 30 words per minute on oral reading fluency scores. They also found special education students generated over three times more progress on target skills with systematic progress monitoring interventions. Ysseldyke et al. (2010) reviewed five studies on a math progress monitoring system and calculated median effect sizes ranging from .60 to .63 in standardized and formative measures. These and similar studies provide empirical support for enhanced learning outcomes with ongoing progress monitoring.
Small Group Instruction
Small group instruction allows teachers to provide more individualized attention focused on each student's unique needs. According to Cohen and Goldhaber (2016), the benefits of small classes are greatest for students from more disadvantaged backgrounds and those struggling to meet achievement benchmarks. Reducing teacher-to-student ratios through small group learning creates more opportunities for targeted feedback, responsive scaffolding, and relationship building between educators and students (Schanzenbach, 2014).
Extensive research demonstrates marked improvements in student outcomes from participation in small, skills-based instructional groups. In an experimental study of small reading groups by Jang (2006), students made over 50% more progress than the control groups on measures of fluency and comprehension. Elbaum et al. (1999) also found students with disabilities made gains on reading objectives more quickly during one-to-one and small group settings compared to whole class conditions. Valdez (2010) examined math achievement in heterogeneous versus homogeneous small groups differentiated by skill levels. Both groups improved substantially over seven weeks, affirming flexible small group learning's advantages for diverse needs. Synthesizing findings across studies, Lou et al. (2001) determined small group learning generated an effect size of .49 standard deviations higher than gains made in non-small group conditions. As reflected in these studies, small group learning significantly enhances student achievement.
Mastery Learning
Mastery learning methodology structures lessons and assessment around well-defined learning targets measured against strict passing criteria. Students repeat focused practice until independently demonstrating skill competency before advancing. According to Gusky (2007), essential mastery learning elements include specific curricular objectives, meaningful corrective instruction to address deficiencies, and allowance of sufficient time for remedial learning activities. These directly reflect standards-aligned teaching practices (Gusky, 2010). In mastery models, grades represent true levels of academic achievement rather than averages that blend progress and ongoing gaps (Gusky, 2020). This motivates students receiving lower scores due to lack of proficiency to persist in growth efforts.
Research on mastery learning reveals stronger performance over alternative approaches. In a study of student teachers using either mastery learning or traditional instruction models, Adodo and Agbayewa (2011) found trainee teachers in the mastery condition exhibited greater competency applying targeted skills in real class scenarios. Ritter et al. (2009) performed a meta-analysis of mastery programs and determined an average effect size of .88 standard deviations higher than control student achievement results. Impacts were consistent across elementary, middle, and high school grade levels and subjects but even larger for students with lower prior functioning. Joyce (2016) also found schoolwide adoption of mastery mathematics curricula rapidly improved pass rates on state assessments. Mastery principles provide a structured system for helping all students achieve essential knowledge and skills.
Conclusion
Through frequent measurement of understanding, needs-specific student groupings, and lessons focused on well-defined targets, progress monitoring, small group instruction, and mastery learning enable impactful, personalized interventions. Substantial empirical research affirms these methods’ efficacy for improving student outcomes. By implementing data-driven targeted instructional supports, schools can effectively address deficiencies and help substantially more students achieve proficiency standards.
The most salient facets of progress monitoring are its standardized, frequent processes using skill-based metrics to track responsiveness to interventions, guide instructional adjustments, and quantify progress toward goals. Its primary function is informing meaningful, responsive teaching through continual data collection on student understanding. A key difference from broader school improvement efforts is its intense focus both on tailoring and measuring learning experiences to optimize individual student success.
With poor proficiency signaling systemic instructional failures, schools must move beyond general progress monitoring to implement intensive, skills-focused interventions. Using robust evidence-based methods like small group and mastery learning built on ongoing achievement data offers a promising solution for tackling engrained deficiencies. Through these targeted practices, schools can propel students toward mastery and reverse troubling proficiency trends.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you!