Academic progress monitoring is essential when implementing Individualized Education Programs for students with learning disabilities and more generally in a multi-tiered system of supports framework. Although students' progress is monitored frequently in schools today, these students often are not actively involved in this practice. Research has shown that actively involving students in progress monitoring through performance feedback and goal setting can lead to improved academic and motivational outcomes. This column describes a progress-monitoring performance feedback and goal-setting routine that supplements typical academic progress-monitoring practices. The ways in which the routine aligns with evidence-based practices to improve student outcomes in reading, writing, mathematics, and academic motivation are discussed. Step-by-step guidance, examples, and resources are provided to support practitioner implementation. Resources for evaluating outcomes are described.
BairdG. L.ScottW. D.DearingE.HamillS. K. (2009). Cognitive self-regulation in youth with and without learning disabilities: Academic self-efficacy, theories of intelligence, learning vs. performance goal preferences, and effort attributions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28(7), 881–908. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2009.28.7.881
2.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
3.
BanduraA. (2006). Guide for creating self-efficacy scales. In PajaresF.UrdanT. (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Information Age Publishing.
4.
BarrettC. A.TruckenmillerA. J.EckertT. L. (2020). Performance feedback during writing instruction: A cost-effectiveness analysis. School Psychology, 35(3), 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000356
5.
BurnsM. K.Riley-TillmanC. R.RathvonN. (2017). Effective school interventions (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.
6.
ChanP. E.Graham-DayK. J.RessaV. A.PetersM. T.KonradM. (2014). Beyond involvement: Promoting student ownership of learning in classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50(2), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451214536039
7.
ChoH.WehmeyerM.KingstonN. (2011). Elementary teachers’ knowledge and use of interventions and barriers to promoting student self-determination. The Journal of Special Education, 45(3), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466910362588
8.
ClearyT. J. (2009). Monitoring trends and accuracy of self-efficacy during interventions: Advantages and potential application settings. Psychology in the Schools, 46(2), 154–171. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20360
9.
CoddingR. S.LewandowskiL. J.EckertT. L. (2005). Examining the efficacy of performance feedback and goal setting interventions: A comparison of two methods of goal setting. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 6, 42–58.
10.
ConteK. L.HintzeJ. M. (2000). The effects of performance feedback and goal setting on oral reading fluency within curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 25, 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/073724770002500201
11.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In RyanR. M. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85–110). Oxford University Press.
12.
De NaeghelJ.Van KeerH.VansteenkisteM.RosseelY. (2012). The relation between elementary students’ recreational and academic reading motivation, reading frequency, engagement, and comprehension: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(4), 1006–1021. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027800
13.
DiGangiS. A.MaagJ. W.RutherfordR. B. (1991). Self-graphing of on-task behavior: Enhancing the reactive effects of self-monitoring on on-task behavior and academic performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14(3), 221–230.
14.
DweckC. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
15.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.PrenticeK.BurchM.HamlettC. L.OwenR.SchroeterK. (2003). Enhancing third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving with self-regulated learning strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.306
GottfriedA. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 525–538.
18.
GrahamS.HarrisK. R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In SwansonH. L.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 323–344). The Guilford Press.
19.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2016). The ABC’s of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
JimersonS. R.BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M. (2016). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed.). Springer.
22.
JosephL. M.EveleighE. L. (2009). A review of the effects of self-monitoring on reading performance of students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 45(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466909349145
23.
KoenigA.EckertT.HierB. O. (2016). Using performance feedback and goal setting to improve elementary students’ writing fluency: A randomized controlled trial. School Psychology Review, 45(3), 275–295. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR45-3.275-295
24.
KonradM.FowlerC. H.WalkerA. R.TestD. W.WoodW. M. (2007). Effects of self-determination interventions on the academic skills of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30(2), 89–113. https://doi.org/10.2307/30035545
25.
LockeE. A.LathamG. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
26.
MontagueM. (2008). Self-regulation strategies to improve mathematical problem solving for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(1), 37–44.
27.
MorganP. L.SideridisG. D. (2006). Contrasting the effectiveness of fluency interventions for students with or at risk for learning disabilities: A multilevel random coefficient modeling meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(5), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00218.x
PajaresF. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence: Implications for teachers and parents. In PajaresF.UrdanT. (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 339–367). Information Age Publishing.
30.
PetscherY.Al OtaibaS.WanzekJ.RivasB.JonesF. (2017). The relation between global and specific mindset with reading outcomes for elementary school students. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(5), 376–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1313846
31.
ReeveJ. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183–203). University of Rochester Press.
SchunkD. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560308219
34.
StroudK. C.ReynoldsC. R. (2014). School Motivation and Learning Strategies (SMALSI). Western Psychological Services.
35.
TruckenmillerA. J.EckertT. L.CoddingR. S.PetscherY. (2014). Evaluating the impact of feedback on elementary aged students’ fluency growth in written expression: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of School Psychology, 52(6), 531–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.09.001
36.
WehmeyerM. L.SandsD. J.DollB.PalmerS. (1997). The development of self-determination and implications for educational interventions with students with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 44(4), 305–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/0156655970440403
37.
WehmeyerM. L.ShogrenK. A.TosteJ.MahalS. (2016). Self-determined learning to motivation struggling learnings in reading and writing. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52(5), 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451216676800
