INTRODUCTION
The body of educational research literature which has come to be
known as the effective schooling research identifies the practice of
monitoring student learning as an essential component of high-quality
education. The careful monitoring of student progress is shown in the
literature to be one of the major factors differentiating effective
schools and teachers from ineffective ones. Indeed, those analyses which
have sought to determine the relative effect sizes of different
instructional practices have identified monitoring student progress as a
strong predictor of student achievement.
What does "monitoring student learning" involve? The
American Heritage dictionary defines monitoring as KEEPING WATCH OVER;
SUPERVISING and also gives another more specific meaning: TO SCRUTINIZE
OR CHECK SYSTEMATICALLY WITH A VIEW TO COLLECTING CERTAIN
SPECIFIED CATEGORIES OF DATA. As the term is used in educational
settings, monitoring takes in both these meanings and is closely
connected with the related functions of record keeping, reporting, and
decision making.
DEFINITION
For our purposes here we shall define monitoring as ACTIVITIES
PURSUED BY TEACHERS TO KEEP TRACK OF STUDENT LEARNING
FOR PURPOSES OF MAKING INSTRUCTIONAL DECISIONS AND
PROVIDING FEEDBACK TO STUDENTS ON THEIR PROGRESS. When
educators speak of classroom monitoring, they generally refer to the
following teacher behaviors:
- Questioning students during classroom discussions to check their
understanding of the material being taught
- Circulating around the classroom during seatwork and engaging in
one-to-one contacts with students about their work
- Assigning, collecting, and correcting homework; recording
completion and grades
- Conducting periodic reviews with students to confirm their grasp
of learning material and identify gaps in their knowledge and
understanding
- Administering and correcting tests; recording scores
- Reviewing student performance data collected and recorded and
using these data to make needed adjustments in instruction
Defined this way, monitoring obviously includes many kinds of
activities, but it is important to note that the present analysis does
not address issues relating to schoolwide or district-level monitoring
of student learning. It is not concerned, except incidentally, with
monitoring students' behavior. And it provides only cursory information
on such matters as teacher training in monitoring and assessment
practices or the processes teachers follow in putting monitoring
information to use.
Instead, the focus here is classroom-level monitoring of student
learning progress and what research says about the relationships between
such monitoring and the student outcomes of achievement, attitudes and
social behavior.
THE RESEARCH ON MONITORING STUDENT LEARNING
Several dozen documents were reviewed in preparation for this report.
Of these, 23 are studies or reviews which clearly indicate a
relationship between one or more forms of monitoring student learning
and student outcomes--usually achievement. Fifteen documents are reviews
and eight are studies. Five involve elementary students, three involve
secondary students, and fifteen are concerned with the entire K-12
range. Fourteen have general achievement as the dependent variable.
Language arts is the outcome focus of three documents. Others include:
mathematics--3, science--2, social studies--1, and student attitudes--5.
Some investigations were concerned with more than one outcome area.
Nineteen of the studies concern regular education students of various
races, socioeconomic groups, and ability levels. Three have special
education subjects, and one focuses on Chapter 1 participants.
Of the kinds of monitoring functions investigated, teacher
questioning to check student understanding is the focus of three
reports. Others include: monitoring seat work4,
assigning/collecting/grading homework--2, conducting periodic reviews in
class--2, formative testing--2, and reviewing records--3. Nine of the
reports focused on two or more of these functions.
Findings pertaining to each of these kinds of classroom
monitoring--and to monitoring in general--are cited in the sections
which follow.
QUESTIONING AND OTHER LEARNING PROBES
The term "learning probe" refers to a variety of ways that
teachers can ask for brief student responses to lesson content so as to
determine their understanding of what is being taught. Questions to the
class, quizzes, and other means of calling upon students to demonstrate
their understanding are methods used by teachers to find out if their
instruction is "working" or if it needs to be adjusted in some
way.
Does the use of learning probes have a beneficial effect on student
achievement? The research indicates that this approach can indeed
produce achievement benefits. Particularly effective techniques include:
- Keeping questions at an appropriate level of difficulty; that is,
at a level where most students can experience a high degree of
success in answering
- Paying close attention to who is answering questions during
classroom discussion and calling upon non volunteers
- Asking students to comment or elaborate on one another's answers
- Using information on students levels of understanding to increase
the pace of instruction whenever appropriate. (There is a strong
positive relationship between content covered and student
achievement. Monitoring can alert teachers to situations where they
can profitably pick up the instructional pace and thus cover more
material.)
MONITORING SEATWORK
Research comparing the behavior of effective teachers (i.e., those
whose students achieve highly or higher than would be expected given
background variable) with that of less effective teachers has clearly
revealed the importance of monitoring the class during seatwork periods.
Such monitoring involves teachers moving around the classroom, being
aware of how well or poorly students are progressing with their
assignments, and working with students one-to-one as needed. The most
effective teachers:
- Have systematic procedures for supervising and encouraging
students while they work.
- Initiate more interactions with students during seatwork periods,
rather than waiting for students to ask for help
- Have more substantive interactions with students during seatwork
monitoring, stay task-oriented, and work through problems with
students
- Give extra time and attention to students they believe need extra
help
- Stress careful and consistent checking of assignments and require
that these be turned in
MONITORING HOMEWORK
The assignment of homework, like many educational practices, can be
beneficial, neutral, or detrimental depending upon he nature and context
of the homework tasks. The use of homework assignments bears a
significant and positive relationship to achievement when the homework
is carefully monitored, as well as serving the function of increasing
students' learning time. Homework confers the most beneficial results
when assignments are:
- Closely tied to the subject matter currently being studied in the
classroom
- Given frequently as a means of extending student practice time
with new material
- Appropriate to the ability and maturity levels of students
- Clearly understood by students and parents
- Monitored by parents; i.e., when parents are aware of what needs
to be done and encourage homework completion
- Quickly checked and returned to students
- Graded and commented on
The research also indicates that homework which meets these criteria
is positively related to student attitudes. Students may say they don't
like homework, but research shows that those who are assigned regular
homework have more positive attitudes toward school, toward the
particular subject areas in which homework is assigned, and toward
homework itself, than students who have little or no homework.
the research also indicates that homework which meets these criteria
is positively related to student attitudes. Students may say they don't
like homework, but research shows that those who are assigned regular
homework have more positive attitudes toward school, toward the
particular subject areas in which homework is assigned, and toward
homework itself, than students who have little or no homework.
MONITORING AS A PART OF CLASSROOM REVIEWS
Research has established a link between integrating monitoring
methods into periodic classroom reviews and the later achievement of
students involved in the review sessions. Daily, weekly, and monthly
reviews can all enhance the learning of new material and, if they
incorporate questioning and other learning probes, can call attention to
areas where reteaching is needed.
The effectiveness of using review sessions to monitor student
learning is clearly revealed in the research on the effects of teacher
training: teachers trained in methods for conducting periodic classroom
reviews which include the use of learning probes had students whose
achievement was higher than it was before the teachers had been trained
and higher than the achievement of students of untrained teachers. In
addition, including monitoring activities in periodic reviews is a
built-in feature of such successful programs as Distar and the Exemplary
Center for Reading instruction (ECRI) system, as well as being a
function carried out by the effective teachers in several comparative
observational studies.
CLASSROOM TESTING
Those who study assessment and evaluation techniques are quick to
point out that the role of standardized testing has received
considerably more research attention than have classroom testing and
other classroom-level assessment methods. The existing research does
indicate, however, that well-designed classroom testing programs bear a
positive relationship to later student achievement. Beneficial effects
are noted when tests are:
- Administered regularly and frequently
- An integral part of the instructional approach (i.e., well-aligned
with the material being taught)
- Collected, scored, recorded and returned to students promptly so
that they can correct errors of understanding before these become
ingrained
When attitudes toward testing are studied, students who are tested
frequently and given feedback are found to have positive attitudes
toward tests. They are generally found to regard tests as facilitating
learning and studying, and as providing effective feedback--an outcome
which has surprised some researchers, who had anticipated finding more
negative student attitudes toward testing.
REVIEWING STUDENT PERFORMANCE DATA
While it is beyond the scope of this paper to describe the various
systems teachers can use for recording and interpreting student
performance data, it is worthwhile to note the importance of having and
using such a system. Research comparing effective and ineffective
teachers cites the existence and use of a systematic procedure for
keeping and interpreting data on student performance as a notable
difference between these groups.
MONITORING METHODS USED IN COMBINATION
Research findings on the discrete effects of various classroom
monitoring methods comprise only part of the story of applying classroom
monitoring techniques. Research also indicates that using these methods
in combination is superior to using only one or two of them. One
researcher identifies five of the six monitoring methods above in his
list of effective teaching behaviors. Another cites all of them as
important components of a student accountability system. And in the
comparative research on effective and ineffective teachers, the
effective teachers were found to have implemented all or most of these
monitoring functions in their classrooms.
COMMON ELEMENTS ACROSS MONITORING METHODS
Looking at the range of research on monitoring student learning,
several attributes of effective monitoring are cited repeatedly across
the different investigations:
- SETTING HIGH STANDARDS. When students' work is monitored in
relation to high standards, student effort and achievement increase.
Researchers caution, however, that standards must not be set so high
that students perceive them as unattainable; if they do, effort and
achievement decrease. The definition of "high standards"
differs across studies, but generally, researchers indicate that
students should be able to experience a high degree of success (on
assignments, during classroom questioning, etc.) while continually
being challenged with new and more complex material.
- HOLDING STUDENTS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR WORK. Establishing
expectations and guidelines for students' seatwork, homework, and
other functions and following through with rewards/sanctions
facilitates learning and enhances achievement.
- FREQUENCY AND REGULARITY. Whether the topic is teacher monitoring
of seatwork, administration of tests, checking homework, or
conducting reviews, researchers cite frequency and regularity in
carrying out monitoring activities as a major reason they are
effective.
- CLARITY. Clarity about expectations, formats, and other aspects of
direction-giving bears a positive relationship to the achievement of
the students doing the homework, participating in the classroom
questioning session, etc.
- COLLECTING, SCORING, AND RECORDING RESULTS OF CLASSWORK, HOMEWORK,
TESTS, AND SO ON. These activities are positively related to
achievement, because they produce useful information to teachers and
students and because they communicate to students that teachers are
serious about effort and completion of assignments.
- FEEDBACK. Providing feedback to students lets them know how they
are doing and helps them to correct errors of understanding and fill
in gaps in knowledge. Some researchers focus on the ways in which
feedback is provided, pointing out that students who are having
learning difficulties require support, encouragement, and attention
to their success if the feedback is to foster achievement of
learning goals.
TEACHERS' SKILLS IN MONITORING STUDENT LEARNING
Given the strong connection between teachers' monitoring of students'
learning progress and those students' academic performance, it would be
ideal if teachers received thorough training in monitoring and were
highly skilled in classroom monitoring practices. Unfortunately, this is
not the case. The research on classroom-level monitoring and assessment
reveals that:
- While standardized achievement test results are the main focus of
assessment/evaluation efforts, nearly all important decisions about
student placement, instructional pacing and so on are made on the
basis of teachers' ongoing classroom monitoring.
- Many teachers do not: assign homework frequently or regularly,
record completion assignments, monitor seatwork and check on
students' progress, or conduct the kind of questioning that helps to
monitor learning.
- Teachers do not receive adequate pre-service training in
conducting formal or informal assessments.
- Administrative support for and inservice training in the skills
associated with assessment and monitoring are extremely inadequate.
- Many teachers are aware that their monitoring skills are
inadequate and desire training to expand their capabilities; many
others are unaware of the importance of close monitoring of student
progress and of their own need for skill development in this area.
The research on teachers' decision-making processes confirms this
lack of monitoring on the part of many teachers. According to this
research, a great many teachers are reluctant to make changes in the
instructional strategy or pacing of lessons once these are planned, even
when instruction and learning are progressing poorly. To a considerable
degree, this improves with experience. Experienced teachers are found to
vary teaching strategies in response to student performance cues much
more than do novices. Still, monitoring/assessment skills remain an area
of inadequate preparation for many teachers.
EFFECTIVE MONITORING PRACTICES
Since there are so many methods of monitoring student learning,
descriptions of only a few will be given here. These are offered as
examples of approaches used by successful teachers.
Using learning probes is the subject of the following
question-and-answer exchange with practitioners (Excerpted from
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY: THEORY INTO PRACTICE by Robert E. Slavin.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986)
How do you monitor students' comprehension and work during a lesson?
Teachers say they monitor students by:
- Asking them to interpret or summarize material presented to them
in the lesson
- Thinking about the questions that students are asking and noting
what parts of the lesson don't seem to be understood
- Asking questions from various levels of Bloom's taxonomy of
learning objectives
- Asking students to act things out or draw them
- Walking around the class and checking worksheets, calling
attention to errors and noting good work being done
- having students do quick problems on individual chalkboards
- encouraging children to listen to each other by summarizing
comments of others and calling on children who don't seem to be
listening
In the following paragraphs, a researcher reports on the differences
between the monitoring behaviors of effective and less effective junior
high school English and mathematics teachers. (Excerpted from STUDENT ACCOUNTABILITY
FOR WRITTEN WORK IN JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL CLASSES by Murray E.
Worshan. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education, 1981. (ED 203 387))
Both effective English and math teachers were extremely consistent in
efficient monitoring techniques. They did more than just circulate among
students during seatwork periods. these teachers were systematic in
noting individual students while moving or looking around the classroom,
and they addressed individuals frequently, usually privately, to keep
students accountable and on-task. These teachers were concerned that
students work steadily on classwork as well as on tests, and their
careful monitoring enabled them to address students immediately who were
not working as expected. The nature and process of effective
monitoring--of both behavior and academic work-- appeared to be highly
salient in both math and English classes to keeping students on-task and
responsible for their work.
More effective math and English teachers were extremely consistent in
checking assignments regularly. Homework was assigned virtually every
day, and a daily routine in most teachers' classes involved students'
exchanging papers and checking them in class as directed by the teacher.
Usually the more effective teachers had students sign papers they
graded, and at least one effective math teacher cautioned her students
to grade papers with care.
Two key actions on the part of the more effective teachers in both
math and English classes followed the checking period. First, these
teachers asked students for their grades and recorded them immediately
as the class watched and listened. Next, these teachers always took up
papers to check themselves. They were thus holding students accountable
for doing their work, for doing it well, and for checking it accurately.
A further step noted in classes of several more effective math teachers
was their individually questioning students who made low grades or
zeros. These teachers determined whether students were having difficulty
and needed extra help or were not doing their assignments at all. These
teachers told students that they noted such grades resulting from lack
of effort in their garde book.
When checking daily assignments in class, more effective math and
English teachers provided feedback to students as to content as well as
a review or further explanation of concepts and processes. By explaining
how to figure grades and having grades announced for recording purposes,
teachers enabled students to hear how they stood in relation to the rest
of the class and gave evidence of the fact that the teachers took
seriously the work they assigned. By taking up, checking, and returning
papers, teachers provided additional feedback by means of written
comments and possible modification on student grading.
The advisability of using these effective monitoring practices is
further underscored in the following guidelines concerning seat work and
homework. (Excerpted from "Teacher behavior and Student
Achievement," by Jere E. Brophy and Thomas L. Good. In Handbook of
Research on Teaching (Third Ed.), edited by Merlin C. Wittrock. New
York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1985)
. . .seat work (and homework) assignments provide needed practice and
application opportunities. Ideally, such assignments will be varied and
interesting enough to motivate student engagement, new or challenging
enough to constitute meaningful learning experiences rather than
pointless busywork, and yet easy enough to allow success with reasonable
effort.
. . . Student success rates, and the effectiveness of seat work
assignments generally, are enhanced when teachers explain the work and
go over practice examples with the students before releasing them to
work independently. Furthermore, once the students are released to work
independently, the work goes more smoothly if the teacher (or an aide)
circulate to monitor progress and provide help when needed. If the work
has been well chosen and well explained, most of these
"Helping" interactions will be brief, and at any given time,
most students will be progressing smoothly through the assignment rather
than waiting for help.
Students should know what work they are accountable for, how to get
help when they need it, and what to do when they finish. Performance
should be monitored for completion and accuracy, and students should
receive timely and specific feedback. When the whole class or group has
the same assignment, review of the assignment can be part of the next
day's lesson. Other assignments will require more individualized
feedback. Where performance is poor, teachers should provide not only
feedback but reteaching and follow-up assignments designed to insure
that the material is mastered.
Teacher competence in assessing students' skill levels and monitoring
their learning progress is essential for effective instruction to take
place. "Imagine," writes researcher Robert Slavin," an
archer who shoots an arrow at a target but never finds out how close to
the bull's-eye the arrows fall. The archer wouldn't be very accurate to
begin with, and would certainly never improve in accuracy. Similarly,
effective teaching requires that teachers be constantly aware of the
effects of their instruction."
Improvements in preservice and inservice training in assessment and
monitoring skills can both increase teachers' awareness of these effects
and help them to make instructional changes as called for by the
information they collect. This is vital for, as noted by writers Howell
and McCollum-Gahley, "the most important part of continuous
monitoring is not taking data, but making decisions."
KEY REFERENCES
Brophy, J.E. "Teacher Behavior and Its Effects." JOURNAL OF
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP 71 (1979): 733-750.
Reviews the research on the relationship between teacher behaviors and
student achievement. Teaching methods shown to promote achievement
include: (1) direct instruction, (2) brisk instructional pacing, (3)
frequent feedback and reinforcement, and (4) high expectations.
Includes references to monitoring as an essential feature of effective
teacher.
__________, and T. L. Good. "Teacher Behavior and Student
Achievement." In HANDBOOK OF RESEARCH ON TEACHING (Third Ed.),
edited by M.C. Wittrock. New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1985.
Summarizes research on classroom behaviors which are positively
related to student achievement.
Butler, J.A. CLOSE-UP: HOMEWORK. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory, 1986.
Reviews research on the effects of assigning and grading homework on
student achievement. Also provides examples of district homework
policies.
Edmonds, R. R. "Effective Schools for the Urban Poor."
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP 37 (1979): 15-27.
Reviews studies conduced with inner-city children from low
socioeconomic backgrounds. Characteristics of schools which are
effective in educating these children include: (1) strong leadership;
(2) high expectations; (3) orderly environment; (4) emphasis on basic
skills; (5) using school resources to support priority goals; and (6)
frequent in-class and schoolwide monitoring of student progress.
Fisher, C.W.; C.D. Berliner; N. N. Filby; R. Marliave; L.S. Cahen;
and M. M. Dishaw. "Teaching Behaviors, Academic Learning Time, and
Student Achievement: An Overview." JOURNAL OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
17(1981): 2-15.
Investigates the relationship of teaching behaviors to academic
learning time (the amount of time a student spends in an academic task
that he/she can perform with high success) and to student achievement.
Monitoring is identified as a function positively related to both ALT
and achievement.
Fuchs, L, and D. Fuchs. "Effects of Systematic Formative
Evaluation: A Meta-analysis." EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN 53(1986):
199-208.
Reports findings from a meta-analysis on the effects of close
monitoring of the learning of mildly handicapped students. Those whose
programs were systematically monitored and developed formatively
achieved an average of .7 standard deviation units higher than those
taught without close monitoring or programs which are developed
formatively.
Good, T. L., and D.A. Grouws. "The Missouri Mathematics
Effectiveness Project: An Experimental Study in Fourth-Grade
Classrooms." JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 71(1979): 355-362.
Reports the results of a study in which 40 teachers received
instruction in effective teaching practices, then implemented these
with their students. Trained teachers' students out performed control
teachers' students. Monitoring (daily review, checking daily seatwork,
checking homework, weekly and monthly reviews) was a major feature of
the program in which teachers received training.
Griswold, P.A.; K.J. Cotton, and J.B. Hansen. EFFECTIVE COMPENSATORY
EDUCATION SOURCEBOOK, VOLUME I: A REVIEW OF EFFECTIVE EDUCATIONAL
PRACTICES. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1986. (ED 276
787).
Reviews research on effective educational practices and gives examples
of the implementation of these in Chapter 1 programs. "Closely
monitored student progress" is one of 13 attributes identified as
enhancing student achievement.
Howell, K.W. and J. McCollum-Gahley. "Monitoring
Instruction." Teaching Exceptional Children 18(1986): 47-49.
Describes a research-based process for collecting data on student
achievement and using it to monitor students' progress and make
decisions about their instruction. Also cites research indicating that
special education students whose progress is monitored in this way
have higher achievement than those who are not monitored using such a
process.
Hummel-Rossi, B. "Aptitudes as Predictors of Achievement
Moderated by Teacher Effect." In NEW DIRECTIONS FOR TESTING AND
MEASUREMENT: MEASURING HUMAN ABILITIES. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
1981.
Investigates the relationship between aptitude and achievement and
between teacher behaviors and achievement for 219 eight graders and
167 of these same students as tenth graders. One major finding is that
student performance improves with close monitoring of learning
progress.
Medley, D. M. TEACHER COMPETENCE AND TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS: A REVIEW
OF PROCESS-PRODUCT RESEARCH. Washington, D.C.: American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education, 1977. (ED 143 629).
This report analyzes and synthesizes the results of nearly 300
studies. Over 600 process-product relationships are displayed in a
series of tables and then synthesized into a series of statements
about effective teaching. Monitoring of student understanding/learning
during classroom activities was found to be an important component of
effective teaching.
Natriello, G. "The Impact of Evaluation Processes on
Students." Educational Psychologist 22(1987): 155- 175.
Reviews research on the effects of different aspects of the
evaluations process on student outcomes. The aspects are: (1)
establishing the purposes for evaluating students; (2) assigning
tasks; (3) setting performance criteria; (4) setting student
performance standards; (5) sampling information on student
performance; (6) appraising student performance; (7) providing
feedback on student performance; and (8) monitoring the outcome of the
evaluation of students.
Peckham, P.D., and M.D. Roe. "The Effects of Frequent
Testing." Journal of Research and Developmental Education 10(1977):
40-50.
Examines the research on the effects of frequent formative testing on
student achievement and attitudes. Frequent testing has a positive
effect on student attitudes. Findings are inconclusive regarding
effects on achievement; however, positive achievement effects are
noted when frequent testing is an integral part of the instructional
approach used (e.g., Bloom's mastery learning).
Peters, E., and J. Lloyd. "Effective Instruction: Critical
Components of Teaching." TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN 18(1986).
Reviews research-based instructional techniques that promote learning
among regular and handicapped students. Identifies a "general
pattern of effective instruction which include (a) teachers monitoring
instruction, (b) teachers delivering instruction, and (c) teachers
managing students.
Rosenshine, B. "Teaching Functions in Instructional
Programs." The Elementary School Journal 83(1983): 335-351.
Cites research on effective teaching practices with a special focus on
the common ingredients found in successful inservice training
programs. Six vital instructional functions are described in detail:
(1) review/checking previous days work; (2) presenting new
content/skills; (3) initial student practice; (4) feedback and
correctives; (5) student independent practice; and (6) weekly and
monthly reviews.
Slavin, R.E. "The Lesson" Chapter 8 in EDUCATIONAL
PSYCHOLOGY: Theory into Practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
1986.
Provides a discussion of the component parts of classroom lessons,
including citing research in support of various monitoring activities.
Tobin, K. "Validating Teacher Performance Measures against
Student Engagement and Achievement in Middle School Science."
SCIENCE EDUCATION 70(1986: 539- 547.
Tests the validity of the Teacher Performance Assessment Instruments (TPAI).
Statistically significant correlations were found between various
teacher behaviors and both student engagement rate and students'
achievement. Several of the most strongly predictive TPAI indicators
relate to monitoring and assessment.
Walberg, H.J., R.A. Paschal, and T. Weinstein. "Homework's
Powerful Effect on Learning." Educational Leadership 42(1985: 76-79
Reviews 15 studies on the effects of homework on achievement and
concludes that: (1) regular homework confers greater achievement
benefits than little or no homework, (2) the benefits are even greater
if the homework is commented on and\or graded, and (3) programs in
which parents are taught how to encourage their children and monitor
their progress show achievement benefits.
Ward, W.D., and J.E. Jungbluth. "Sex Differences in Classroom
Achievement as a Function of Participation in Monitoring and
Reinforcement." THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY 106(1980): 255-258.
Compares the effects of a self-monitoring and selfreinforcement
structure with those produced by an
external monitoring and reinforcement structure and with the effects
of one in which there was no monitoring and rewards were non
contingent. One finding was that students who experienced daily
monitoring (provided by self or others) outperformed those who were
not monitored.
Weber, A. INNER-CITY CHILDREN CAN BE TAUGHT TO READ: FOUR SUCCESSFUL
SCHOOLS. Occasional Paper No. 18. Washington, D.C.: Council for Basic
Education, 1971.
Reports the results of an observational study in which four urban
elementary schools were investigated to determine the reasons for
their success in teaching reading skills. Identifies close classroom
evaluation of student progress among the factors leading to success.
Wilson, R. "Direct Observation of Academic Learning Time."
TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN (1987): 13-17.
Cites research findings on the positive effects of academic learning
time (ALT) and offers a system whereby teachers or other observers can
keep track of on-task behavior and student success rate.
Worsham, M.E. STUDENT ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WRITTEN WORK IN JUNIOR HIGH
SCHOOL CLASSES. Austin TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education, 1981. (ED 203 387).
Investigates the relationships between certain teaching behaviors and
the achievement of junior high math students. Findings are compared
with those emerging from an earlier study in junior high English
classes.
____________, and C.M. Evertson. SYSTEMS OF STUDENT ACCOUNTABILITY
FOR WRITTEN WORK IN JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH CLASSES. R&D Report
No. 6105. Austin, TX: Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education, 1980. (ED 196 008).
Investigates the relationship between accountability systems and
student achievement. Seven teachers of high-achieving students were
compared with seven teachers of lower-achieving students in terms of
their methods of assigning and holding students responsible for
written work.
OTHER REFERENCES
Alexander, D.L.; K.J. Cotton; M.M. Griswold; and G.D. Estes.
EFFECTIVE COMPENSATORY EDUCATION SOURCEBOOK, VOLUME III: PROJECT
PROFILES. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1987.
Provides profile descriptions of the 130 programs selected for
recognition in 1986 through the Secretary's Initiative to Improve
Chapter 1 projects.
Beady, C.H., Jr.; R.E. Slavin; and G.M. Fennessey. "Alternative
Student Evaluation Structures and a Focused Schedule of Instruction in
an Inner-City Junior High School." JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL
PSYCHOLOGY 73(1981): 518-523.
Investigates the effects of a direct instruction model (focused
instruction) and of two evaluation approaches on student achievement.
Regardless of evaluation method, the focused instruction groups
performed well and outperformed controls.
Bush, M.M. "The Complexity of Institutionalizing a Program:
Acquisition of Training, Observing and Computing Capability."
JOURNAL OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION 20(1984): 6-15
Describes the ALT (academic learning time) teacher training model used
by the District of Columbia Public Schools. The model includes
workshops in: (1) classroom organization and management; (2) behavior
management; (3) interactive instruction; (4) monitoring and feedback;
and (5) improving interaction.
Chacko, T. "Student Ratings of Instruction: A Function of
Grading Standards." EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH QUARTERLY 8(1983): 19-25.
Investigates the relationship between teachers issuing grades to
students and those students' attitudes toward teachers. Graded
students' evaluations of their teachers dropped after grading; those
of control students did not.
Evertson, C.M.; C.W. Anderson; L.M. Anderson; and J.E. Brophy.
"Relationships Between Classroom Behaviors and Student Outcomes in
Junior High Mathematics and English Classes." AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL
RESEARCH JOURNAL 17(1980): 43-60.
Reports results of an observational study involving 39 English and 29
mathematics teachers and conducted to determine teacher
behavior-student outcome relationships. Of the many behaviors shown to
promote student achievement, several relating to student monitoring
are cited.
Griswold, P.A.; K.J. Cotton; and J.B. Hansen. Effective compensatory
Education Sourcebook Volume II: Project Profiles. Portland, OR:
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1986.
Provides profile descriptions of the 116 programs selected for
recognition in 1985 through the Secretary's Initiative to Improve
Chapter 1 projects.
Gronlund, N. E. CONSTRUCTING ACHIEVEMENT TESTS. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1982.
Discusses issues in planning and developing tests and provides
guidelines for writing test items and designing/using essay tests.
Guerin, G.R. and A.S. Maier. INFORMAL ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION. Palo
Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co., 1983.
Focuses on assessment strategies that can be used to organize and
interpret information gathered through daily observation and
interaction with students.
Linn, R.L. "Testing and Instruction: Links and
Distinctions." Journal of Educational Measurement 20(1983):
179-189.
Discusses actual and potential relationships between testing and
instruction. The purposes and uses of both classroom tests and
standardized tests are outlined.
Medley, D.M. "The Effectiveness of Teachers." In P.L.
Peterson and H.J. Walberg (eds.). Research on Teaching: Concepts,
Findings and implications. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Company,
1979.
Discusses the history, current activities and future of research on
effective teaching. Describes the processes and outcomes of conducting
a large-scale review of research on effective teaching.
Purkey, S.C. and M.S. Smith. "Effective Schools: A Review."
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL 83(1983: 427-452.
Provides an extensive review and critique of the literature on school
effectiveness. Organizationstructure variables and process
characteristics of school culture are discussed. Identifies student
progress monitoring as an important component of school effectiveness.
Rucher, D. and D. Feldman. THE EFFECTS OF TWO STUDENT MONITORING
PROCEDURES AND CONTINGENCY REINFORCEMENT ON THREE TASK-ATTENDING
BEHAVIORS. Paper presented at the Annual International Convention of the
Council for Exceptional Children, 1983. (ED 232 779).
Investigates different monitoring approaches. More concerned with
monitoring behavior than monitoring learning, but offers some good
insights on the monitoring role and who performs it.
Shavelson, R.J. "Review of Research on Teachers' Pedagogical
Judgments, Plans and Decisions." THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL JOURNAL
83(1983): 392-413.
Reviews research on the processes followed by teachers in determining
grouping plans, instructional strategies, pacing of lessons and other
classroom matters.
Stewart, L.G., and M.A. White. "Teacher comments, Letter Grades
and Student Performance: What Do We Really Know?" JOURNAL OF
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 68(1976: 489-500.
Seeks to replicate a study which found written teacher comments on
student papers effective in raising achievement in math and spelling.
No relationship was found between the provision of comments and
student achievement.
Stiggins, R.J. REVITALIZING CLASSROOM ASSESSMENT: THE HIGHEST
INSTRUCTIONAL PRIORITY. PORTLAND, OR: NORTHWEST REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL
LABORATORY, 1987.
Presents findings documenting teachers' need for improved classroom
assessment competencies and offers suggestions for how this need might
be met.
__________. "Improving Assessment Where It Means the Most: In
the Classroom." EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP 43(1985): 69-73.
Examines the research on classroom assessment and offers
recommendations for teacher training and administrator support
regarding assessment.
__________; N. Conklin; and N.J. Bridgeford. Insights into Classroom
Assessment. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory,
1986.
Reviews research on classroom assessment and draws implications for
future research and for teacher training in assessment techniques.
Walter, L.J. "A Synthesis of Research Findings on Teacher
Planning and Decision Making." IN USING RESEARCH TO IMPROVE TEACHER
EDUCATION. Teacher Education Monograph No. 1, edited by R.L. Egbert and
M.M. Kluender. The Nebraska Consortium, 1984. (ED 246 025)
Reviews research on the approaches teachers use to plan instruction
and make changes and other decisions. Cites several findings,
including that teachers do not generally plan activities based on
learning objectives, and that they are reluctant to make changes in
lessons once these are planned even when instruction and learning are
progressing poorly.
Williams, R.G.; M.J. Pollack; and N.A. Ferguson. "Differential
Effects of Two Grading Systems on Student Performance." JOURNAL OF
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 67(1975): 253-258.
Investigates the relative effects of norm-referenced and
criterion-referenced testing on the achievement and attitudes of
students.
This publication is based on work sponsored wholly, or in part, by
the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S.
Department of Education, under Contract Number 400-86-0006. The content
of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views of OERI, the
Department, or any other agency of the U.S. Government.
May 1988
