Rip.book

The Research Literature: Academic Monitoring Brophy and Good (1986) made the following observation on the importance and complexity Elitist critics often undervalue teaching, or even suggest that anyone can teach. ("Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.") The data reviewed here refute this myth well. Although it may be true that most adults could survive in the classroom, it is not true that most could teach effectively. Even trained and experienced teachers vary widely in how they organize the classroom and present instruction. Specifically, they differ in several respects: (a) the expectations and achievement objectives they hold for themselves, their classes, and individ-ual students; (b) how they select and design academic tasks, and (c) how actively they instruct and communicate with students about academic tasks. Those who do these things success-fully produce significantly more achievement than those who do not, but doing them success-fully demands a blend of knowledge, energy, motivation, communication and decision-making skills that many teachers, let alone ordinary adults, do not possess [p. 370].
The decision-making skill that Brophy and Good (1986) referred to clearly distinguishes between effective and ineffective teachers. Effective teachers make instructional decisions that adjust instruction based on the needs and performance of their students, whereas ineffective teach-ers present instructional material on a random or a rigid, prescheduled basis and fail to adjust for student performance. Such instructional practices are devoid of the decision-making skills that ensure that instructional practices will be progressively improved.
Rosenshine and Stevens (1986) noted that most teachers (including unsuccessful ones) employ teaching practices that could help them make appropriate decisions–for instance, daily reviews and guided student practice. The successful teachers use the information they gather while implementing these practices to make decisions. In addition, they do so more frequently and at more appropriate times than less successful teachers. Making appropriate instructional decisions requires knowing what to do and when to do it. Such decision making requires constant monitoring of student performance. The research literature on the qualities of effective teaching leaves no doubt on this issue: The effective teacher is a manager and decision maker who continually monitors the class and adjusts instruction based on student performance. In discussing "expert classroom management," Brophy and Good (1986) made the following 1. They [teachers] demonstrated "withitness" by monitoring the entire class when they were instructing, and by moving around during seatwork time.
2. What these teachers demanded, however, was not so much compliance with authority as pro- ductive engagement in academic activities, and 3. Students were accountable for careful, complete work, because they knew that the work would be checked and followed up with additional instruction or assignments if necessary [p. 341].
Thus, for teachers to be effective decision makers, they must meet the following important 1. They must know what instructional practices are appropriate for different situations2. They must always be aware of the situation at hand, so that they can implement appropriate To meet these requirements, teachers must employ a range of different academic monitoring skills. Specifically, teachers need monitoring skills to keep them aware of such factors as 1. The students’ immediate reaction to instructional practices during a lesson.
2. The extent to which each student is progressing toward the long-term instructional goals of the 3. The extent to which different instructional practices help students achieve their long-term edu- The effective teaching literature has documented the relationship between the teacher’s aca- demic monitoring skills and the relationship with student achievement. In one study, the research-ers (Fisher et al., 1980) reported their findings as follows: Teachers were asked to predict how their students would do on certain test items used in the achievement battery. This accuracy in predicting student performance was used as a measure of the teacher’s diagnostic ability. A positive relationship was found between a teacher’s diagnostic ability and the reading and math achievement of students [p. 19].
The two major purposes of academic monitoring are closely related: the attainment of student goals and the progressive improvement of instructional practices.
Rosenshine (1979), in identifying the critical aspects of successful instruction, recommended that teachers set clear instructional goals and monitor student progress toward those goals. In addition, teachers must set and maintain clear, firm, and reasonable work standards. Students must know exactly what is expected in completing an assignment, how the format of the assign-ment should look, how neat the work should be, and the accuracy level they are expected to attain. If teachers establish objective standards, they will be more able to evaluate student performance.
When teachers hold students accountable for completing work on time and for meeting stan- dards, students will realize that the work they are doing has an important academic purpose. Like-wise, parents can help in holding their children responsible for appropriately completing work. Teachers must solicit the assistance of parents in providing an appropriate environment at home so that students can successfully complete homework assignments. Teachers can provide parents with tips on how to support and reinforce classroom learning. Before teachers can effectively monitor student progress, they must have in place a sequence of valid instructional objectives. To be instructionally valid, the sequence of objectives must be integrated with a validated instructional program. That is, the instructional objectives students are expected to meet should be a part of an instructional program that has been sufficiently tested. The program should be supported by data showing that similar students achieved high levels of mastery under similar conditions.
Instructional Programs and Embedded Progress Tests. To monitor student progress through a sequence of specific instructional objectives, instruc- tional programs generally provide embedded progress tests. It is critical that instructional pro-grams include tests that are instructionally diagnostic, are sensitive to changes in student performance, and provide for timely monitoring activities.
The cross-referencing between specific items on the progress tests and the corresponding les- sons of the instructional programs should be readily apparent. Consequently, there should be a high degree of correspondence between what is being tested and what is being taught. Progress tests must be sensitive to changes in student performance. Tests must have the power to detect changes, if they exist, and clearly point out areas where students are having diffi- culties. Sensitive tests will quickly alert teachers to specific decisions they must make in planning future instruction.
Providing for timely monitoring. Progress tests should be scheduled in such a way that they provide for the timely monitoring of student progress. Testing should be conducted frequently enough to ensure that a student with a substantial skill deficit is quickly noticed. For example, when there is daily instruction in basic skills, comprehensive weekly testing will usually be required along with daily checks on the con-tent covered in each lesson.
Instructional programs that are instructionally diagnostic, are sensitive to changes in student performance, and provide for timely monitoring will produce many benefits for both students and teachers.
Instructional programs with high-quality monitoring programs are very helpful in developing positive student attitudes. Consistent demonstrations of success are among the most important ingredients in any approach to attitude development. For example, weekly tests should give stu-dents a sense of accomplishment and a sense of movement through the curriculum.
Timely, sensitive monitoring and the associated reteaching will increase student success. The importance of such success was stressed in one comprehensive study of elementary classroom practices. The researchers (Fisher et al., 1980) reported as follows: It is interesting to note that the high success component of learning is associated with more positive student attitudes. Successful students probably enjoy learning more because of their success. Failure, even when it is only occasional, appears to result in a more negative attitude among elementary school students [p. 24].
High-quality monitoring programs can also help teachers maintain enthusiasm. Obviously, effective teaching is not always easy, and teachers need to be reminded that their hard work is making a difference. Reviewing monitoring data should remind teachers of their effectiveness and value.
Monitoring practices should be designed so that they naturally facilitate corrective actions. For example, a monitoring program should quickly give a teacher information about those stu-dents who are prepared to move ahead, those students who are not prepared, those students who have made careless errors, and those students who require reteaching of a particular concept. Next, based on this type of monitoring information, a process for providing corrective actions must be built into the system. If reteaching is not systematically planned, it may not occur. One simple way to plan for reteaching is to schedule one daily lesson per week in which no new mate- rial is taught. The lesson can be used for diagnostic mastery testing and reteaching, dictated by the results of the mastery testing. If mastery testing indicates that some students have a major problem, the teacher should not hesitate to delay the instruction of new material until mastery of the earlier material has been achieved. Teachers should avoid using testing and reteaching as punishment. It is important that teach- ers react positively to the necessity for testing and any associated reteaching. Such statements as "The tests show you have not been working, so we will keep repeating this material until you learn to pay attention" imply that reteaching is being used as a punishment for student misbehav-ior.
For the most part, student skill deficits can be explained as either a student learning problem or a teaching problem. Good, Grouws, and Ebmeier (1983), in a description of teachers of stu-dents who made higher gains than those of other teachers, stated that these teachers "assumed par-tial responsibility for student learning and appeared to be ready to reteach where necessary" (p. 61).
Monitoring and the Improvement of Instruction. The second purpose for instructional monitoring involves the improvement of instruction. Many school districts place an emphasis on the collection of data on student progress. The huge banks of standardized test data that exist in many school districts may or may not achieve their potential as agents for change. In some cases, the process of the data collection becomes an end in itself. The data has no instructional value if it is not used to guide the progressive improvement of instruction. In some cases, data is collected for the primary purpose of classifying students or teachers as high or low achievers. The teacher who views the data collected on student progress as primarily for the purpose of classifying the student as an A, B, C, D, or F student is also sug-gesting that it is the student and not the instruction that must change. Such an attitude is not con-ducive to the progressive improvement of instruction. Such a teacher might have difficulty with a school administrator who uses the information on teaching performance for the classification of the teacher as effective or ineffective only. It is to be hoped that the supervisor would place the primary emphasis on supporting teachers in their efforts to improve their instruction (see Figure 5.1).
Good, Grouws, and Ebmeier (1983) observed that effective teachers considered it particularly important "to look for ways to confirm or disconfirm that their presentations had been compre-hended by students" (p. 61).
In verifying comprehension, teachers must study the elements of an instructional lesson. Ele- ments such as daily reviews, the presentation of new content, guided practice, and independent practice bear a dynamic and dependent relationship to each other. To implement such elements effectively, the teacher monitors student performance to determine the appropriate timing and rel-ative emphasis to place on each element.
Teachers must make two timing decisions that are critical to successful instruction. They must decide 1. When to move from the daily review and prerequisite check to the introduction of new con- 2. When to move from guided practice to independent practice.
Frequent and well-timed academic monitoring is needed to make these decisions.
Premature presentations of new content. One of the most common reasons for student failure is the premature presentation of new content. If a student needs a prerequisite skill to be successful in a new skill, all the student moti-vation and instructor sincerity in the world will not help the student. For instance, the teaching of long division without first ensuring that the students "overlearn" subtraction skills would be an exercise in student frustration and instructional incompetency. Unless a teacher closely monitors student performance on prerequisite skills, he or she will not know if the presentation of a new skill is premature.
Premature movement to independent practice. When students are assigned independent practice on objectives for which their error rate is high, the damage to student attitude and student achievement is also high. To assign material for which the student’s success rate is less than 80 percent is to risk consolidation of bad habits, reduction in student confidence, and failure in future content. In addition, when teachers have to spend an inordinate amount of time remediating, the time available to present new material is sig-nificantly reduced. Also, if teachers assign homework that is too difficult for the students, the teacher’s credibility is threatened as parents struggle to do what they feel the teacher should have done. Careful monitoring of student performance in guided practice will help ensure that inde-pendent practice consolidates skills and helps students consistently demonstrate success.
A caution for improving instruction: Circulate. All too frequently, teachers just provide assistance to students who ask for help or who volun- teer to show them their work. Teachers should spend a high percentage of the time circulating around the room to check all students’ performance, being especially sensitive to those students who don’t ask questions but who still need help. Along with monitoring student progress, circu-lating will help increase on-task behavior and decrease disruptive behavior.
The term instructional alignment refers to the alignment among the curriculum, the instruc- tional activities, and the curriculum-embedded tests of student progress. Cohen (1987) observed that large instructional gains are possible when the curriculum, the instruction, and the measures of student progress are aligned. Such alignment facilitates1. Increased instructional efficiency, because instructional activities are clearly focused.
2. Student gains, because of the clear relationship between teacher effort and student outcomes 3. Positive student attitudes, because students are more likely to react positively to instruction that demonstrates a clear and consistent relationship between student investment in instruction and student test results.
"The more complex and difficult the instructional tasks, the more important the role of align- ment. Also, for low achievers, a little alignment goes a long way" (Cohen, 1987, p. 18).
As schools try to meet the needs of a more diverse group of learners, the monitoring and decision-making skills of the teacher become more important. One of the greatest challenges fac-ing educators is the creation of classroom environments with the ability to adapt instruction to meet the needs of all learners.
At one time, educators attempted to handle diversity in learners through the use of additional segregated treatment settings. Special-education, remedial, "disadvantaged," and other student populations were placed in separate programs, with specialists as instructors. Such practices gen-erated the following concerns: 1. Many efficacy studies did not show these segregated, expensive education treatments to be 2. Although many of the segregated treatments were said to be justified on the basis that the stu- dent would receive needed and highly specialized services, there was considerable research to suggest that effective programs for most of the mildly handicapped students and effective pro-grams for regular classrooms were more similar than different (Bickel & Bickel, 1986). Bro-phy (1987) reported that "research has turned up very little evidence suggesting the need for qualitatively different forms of instruction for students who differ in aptitude, achievement level, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or learning style" (p. VI-122).
3. Serious questions were raised about the ethics associated with many of the approaches to pro- gram segregation, and federal laws were enacted to give preference to the regular classroom as the "least restrictive alternative." 4. Questions were raised about the long-term value of removing and segregating students as the preferred method of dealing with instructional problems. Such student removals implied that the student, not the instruction, was always at fault. Some observers even went so far as to suggest that schools were, in essence, "blaming the victim." 5. Because there developed a habit of removing even mildly handicapped special education stu- dents rather than modifying instructional practices, some felt that schools had lost the adaptive ability to handle other students "at risk," with problems such as those associated with cultural and linguistic diversity, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, and teenage suicide. These concerns were heightened when it was revealed that dropout rates of 50 percent were not unusual in many schools and that the dropout phenomenon had broad impact on all ethnic and social class subgroups (Hahn, 1987).
Although there is nothing in the literature suggesting that phenomena such as the dropout epi- demic are tied to a single issue or corrected by a single treatment, there certainly are researchers who stress the importance of effective teaching. In discussing the most effective treatments for dropouts, Hahn (1987) noted that these programs "challenged students academically and provided personal counseling and were staffed by caring adults." Hahn also noted that these programs "share some of the characteristics documented in the effective school literature" (p. 261). While the issues are important, difficult, and complex, there can be little doubt about the fol- 1. More and more teachers will be asked to work with more students classified as "at risk."2. One of the critical elements in the prevention and treatment of "at risk" students is the pres- ence of the characteristics of effective instruction.
3. Adaptive instructional treatments can only be triggered in a timely manner if the teacher is effectively monitoring the progress of all students. Such monitoring should reflect the pres-ence of a skillful instructor and a caring professional educator.
4. To date, the research on effective instructional treatments for diverse student populations sug- gests that the partial implementation of a wide and exotic range of instructional procedures has yielded less than the consistent and appropriate implementation of the academically focused instructional skills identified in the effective teaching literature.
Mastery testing is one component of a model of school learning described by Bloom (1968). In this model, student progress is monitored carefully. A student’s advancement through the sys-tem of instruction requires the mastery of previous units before moving on. In their review of the research on mastery testing, Kulik and Kulik (1987) made the following observations: 1. Mastery testing generally has positive effects on student learning, and its value is well docu- 2. "Mastery testing raised the final examination average in the typical study by .54 standard devi- ations, or from the fiftieth to the seventy-first percentile" (p. 339).
3. "The effects of mastery testing were more apparent, however, on the low-aptitude students in a class than they were on the high-aptitude students. Thus, a mastery testing requirement also had the effect of diminishing individual differences in student achievement" (p. 339).
4. Mastery testing can be effective in group-based instruction and in more individualized instruc- 5. The effectiveness of mastery-based testing is increased when the amount of feedback on mas- 6. The effectiveness of mastery testing is related to the rigor with which it is implemented. Those who use high levels of mastery (e.g., 90 percent or better), and who ensure that a large percentage of the students achieve this before moving to new content, will do better than those who accept lower performance levels.
In many ways the intent of mastery learning is similar to that of ALT (academic learning time). Both stress the importance of large amounts of engaged time with high success levels. Both make the point that moderate levels of success are unacceptable for low or high aptitude stu-dents and that continued exposure to moderate levels of success has no positive correlation with increased academic performance. Both use a similar definition of success. For mastery testing, it is typically 90 percent or better, with the most effective programs using success levels of 95 or 100 percent. For ALT, the preferred level is 100 percent, except for careless errors. Careless errors are defined as errors that typically would not be repeated if the problem were repeated. For most practical purposes, the mastery testing definition and the ALT definition of success fall in the same range of 90 percent or better. The intent of mastery learning is also similar to systematic reviewing and reteaching. If one is providing weekly quizzes, reteaching, and retesting until most students are achieving 90 percent or better, then one is conducting mastery testing.
Mastery testing appears to be consistently associated with the more effective instructional programs. One of the reasons for this may be the additional accountability that is generated by mastery testing. If students are tested and moved on to new content regardless of the test results, the teacher is under no pressure to examine or revise instructional practices. If reteaching is con-ducted until students reach an acceptable level of mastery before moving to new content, there is constant pressure to examine and revise instruction.
Question 1. The term instructionally diagnostic refers to
____ 1. use of diagnostic normative tests.
____ 2. use of standardized tests.
____ 3. the cross-referencing between test items and instructional elements.
____ 4. the cross-referencing between curriculum and instructional elements.
Question 2. Monitoring is conducted to
____ 1. grade students.
____ 2. assess student learning.
____ 3. improve instruction.
____ 4. assess student learning and improve instruction.
Question 3. Testing and reteaching should be viewed as
____ 1. an integral and normal part of instruction.
____ 2. a sign of an incompetent instructor.
____ 3. punishment for poor work habits.
____ 4. a rarely used activity.
Question 4. The term instructional alignment refers to the relationship
____ 1. among the classroom furniture.
____ 2. among curriculum, instruction, and testing.
____ 3. between instruction and testing.
____ 4. between curriculum and testing.
Question 5. The student error rate in guided practice
____ 1. determines student grades.
____ 2. determines when independent practice can be initiated.
____ 3. should be at least 50 percent.
____ 4. should be at least 75 percent.
Question 6. Teacher "withitness" is related to
____ 1. monitoring and moving around the entire class.
____ 2. a relevant curriculum.
____ 3. an appreciation of teenage cultural trends.
____ 4. identifying with faddish instruction.
Question 7. Effective teaching is characterized by
____ 1. student compliance with authority.
____ 2. extensive student choices.
____ 3. student-directed instruction and a range of alternate activities.
____ 4. productive student engagement and careful teacher supervision.
Question 8. The goals and the quality of assignments should be
____ 1. clarified by the teacher.
____ 2. clarified by the student.
____ 3. unimportant for good students____ 4. left unclear to add a challenge.
Question 9. If a course is taught once a day, the daily testing should be supplemented
with at least
____ 1. a monthly comprehensive diagnostic mastery test.
____ 2. an end-of-course test.
____ 3. a weekly comprehensive diagnostic mastery test.
____ 4. an annual standardized test.
Question 10. Student performance on prerequisite skills determines
____ 1. what grade the student receives.
____ 2. how difficult the lesson will be.
____ 3. the students who will succeed.
____ 4. whether the new content will be introduced immediately.
Question 11.
Monitoring should emphasize the _____________________ of instruction rather than the
classification of teaching practices.
Question 12.
Monitoring should emphasize _____________________ , not just the storage of data.
Question 13.
Mastery testing should emphasize success levels of _____________________ or better.
Question 14.
Research has turned up _____________________ _____________________ evidence sug- gesting the need for qualitatively different levels of instruction for students who differ in aptitude, achievement level, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or learning style.
Question 15.
The effectiveness of mastery-based testing is increased when the _____________________
Practical Suggestions: Academic Monitoring The practical suggestions in this section represent a collection of ideas based on classroom observations, experience, and a reviewing of the effective teaching literature and teacher maga-zines. Feel free to incorporate any of the suggestions that work for you.
1. Specify the format requirements of the assignments in terms of length, neatness, accuracy, and 2. Give students a general idea of how much time an assignment should take to complete.
3. If homework is appropriately assigned in terms of difficulty level, you should be able to 4. Provide models of what you would like written products to look like.
5. Inform your students of your expectations for completing homework.
6. When work is incomplete, require that students redo assignments until the work meets expec- 1. Extend deadlines and relax standards only rarely. Do so for the entire class, not just for indi- 2. Ask students often about their work plans and their progress.
3. Frequently communicate an interest in the topic that students are working on.
4. Help students by reminding them of their assignments and the amount of time they have remaining to complete the assignments.
5. Show students how to keep track of their assignments by making lists and crossing off assign- ments as they are completed. You can begin to teach this self-monitoring procedure by giving students a list of the classes for a given day and having them cross off the class when it is over.
6. Establish consequences for failing to complete homework. Set up a separate area in the class- room where students who have not completed their assignments can work while you are cor-recting homework. Keep extra copies of assignments and books for students who leave their work at home.
1. First, make certain that the work has been well chosen and explained so that most students will be progressing smoothly through the assignment rather than waiting for help.
2. Most of your interactions with students should be fairly brief.
3. Make certain the physical layout of your classroom facilitates movement among students’ 4. Have a few extra chairs available so that you can easily sit down while helping a student.
5. Don’t plan to get involved with any other project, such as correcting papers, when you need to 6. Ask students to try working on another portion of the assignment while they are waiting for 1. Monitor the work of all students, not just those who ask for help.
2. Try to get students to recognize when they need help and ask for it.
3. Randomly check parts of a student’s work when you are circulating. For example, if a student is working on a math worksheet, randomly select a problem and correct it.
4. If students are having difficulty staying on-task, or if you want to monitor them closely, draw a line on their worksheets and tell them to raise their hands when they get to that point.
5. Divide your time and attention among all students.
6. Ask students to show you their work.
1. Keep assignments varied and interesting.
2. Go over practice examples with students.
3. Have students demonstrate that they know how to accomplish the requirements in the assign- 4. Keep homework assignments for elementary-aged students fairly brief (10-15 minutes per evening). Many school districts have established homework time recommendations for each grade level. Check your district’s policy.
5. Try to provide students with positive learning experiences that integrate material presented in class and thus help students develop more appropriate attitudes about school and their ability to learn.
6. Don’t give directions for two or more new activities within the same time period.
7. Help students remember assignments by writing them on the chalkboard rather than present- 8. Make certain students know what work they are accountable for, how to get help if they need it, and what to do when they finish.
9. Make certain students keep assignments in a special notebook or on a specially printed form.
1. Monitor students’ scores. Use monitoring information to make decisions regarding future 2. Provide feedback and follow-up. Reteach and correct errors when necessary.
3. Make certain students are experiencing high success levels (90 to 100 percent) on homework 4. Monitor student progress in terms of completion and accuracy.
5. Elicit the cooperation of parents in encouraging students to be responsible for completing Monitoring and the Improvement of Instruction Check Students’ Progress during Instruction. 1. Validate and modify instruction on the basis of cues that surface during the lesson. For exam- ple, if students seem confused, stop and find out why before continuing with your presenta-tion.
2. Have students give choral responses during instruction. If the choral response is weak, it is possible that students are confused.
3. Ask students for a show of hands in response to a question regarding the content of the infor- 4. Ask students to make a brief written response that you can inspect quickly.
5. When you are checking a particular answer on a worksheet, ask students to point to the answer with their pencil so that you can find the problem quickly.
6. When students have finished working a problem, ask them to lay their pencils on top of their Check Students’ Progress after Instruction. 1. Build time into your schedule to correct papers on a daily basis.
2. Use answer keys to facilitate quick checking of worksheets. Even if it only saves you a few seconds per worksheet, you’ll be surprised how much time it saves you on a set of worksheets.
3. Use monitoring forms to facilitate record-keeping procedures. Use separate forms for each content area. The monitoring forms can be set up for individual students or for a group of stu-dents. Keep these forms in an accessible location in file folders or on clipboards, and fill them out daily.
4. If you use traditional gradebooks, use different-colored ink pens to record grades. By doing so, you can quickly see how well the group or an individual student is doing.
Each of the checklists evaluates five major instructional skills. For example, Skill 2 on the Time Management Checklist addresses engaged time, and the instructional skill is broadly defined by the statement, "A high percentage of the allocated time is spent ‘on-task’ by students." Several evaluation questions are provided in each skill area. These evaluation questions provide a functional definition of the instructional skills and a vehicle for the self-evaluation process. You should feel free to add additional evaluation questions that further describe your instructional practices in this area. For each evaluation question, you should fill in a numerical rating and any helpful comments that will further describe the skill. For the numerical rating, use the following four-point scale and associated criteria.
1. No change is needed in present practices.
2. There are minor problems that can be corrected quickly and easily.
3. There are major problems that will require a considerable investment in time and effort.
4. I need more specific information on my own behavior before I can decide whether I have a In most cases, the numbers 2 through 4 should be followed by a comment that addresses the issue in more detail. It will be helpful in the subsequent planning for instructional improvement if the comment addresses the context. For example, the evaluation question, "a. Does a lesson start quickly and smoothly?" might be followed by a rating of "2," indicating a minor problem. This rating might then be followed by the comment, "Have difficulty with Monday morning language arts lessons." Such a comment would not be unusual for a teacher who makes a considerable investment in class preparation on weekdays but might not be highly prepared on Mondays.
If the teacher had difficulty achieving a smooth, quick start to most of the daily language arts lessons, a rating of "3," indicating a major problem, would be more appropriate. Any ineffective instructional practice that is consistently present, or any practice that adversely and systematically affects the quality of education of even one student, should be classified as a major problem.
Please feel free to make multiple copies of the self-evaluation checklists. The copyright on the self-evaluation checklists in waived in cases where the copies are used in conjunction with this content.
You will notice that no attempt has been made to provide global numerical scores. This infor- mation is intended to facilitate instructional improvement rather than the classification of teachers based on some number. The intent of the evaluation effort will be achieved by a progressive and systematic process that consolidates strengths and replaces less effective instructional practices with more effective ones. Any attempt to summarize or provide global numerical scores might serve only to de-emphasize the specific practical information needed to drive the self-improve-ment process.
A professional evaluation effort is not something that occurs once every year or two and cul- minates in some global classification of a teacher; it should involve the teacher in an active and continuous role. Teachers should accept the primary responsibility for identifying practices that consolidate strengths and replace less effective practices with more effective ones. For each major topic, you will find suggestions for the self-improvement planning process.
Self-evaluation Checklist: Academic Monitoring Skill 1. Assignment ClarificationStudents understand what is expected of them? Evaluation Questions
Rating and Notes
a. Are students required to demonstrate that they know how to accomplish assignments? b. Are students taught how to use self-monitoring procedures to evaluate their assignments? c. Are assignments written out rather than presented orally? d. Is there a clear procedure for communicating with parents regarding homework assignments? Skill 2. Assignment Follow-upStudents are expected to complete their work according to established standards and deadlines.
Evaluation Questions
Rating and Notes
a. Are the format requirements of assignements in terms of length, neatness, and accuracy specified? b. Are the students required to make corrections to inaccurate or incomplete assigned? c. Does the grading of assignments reward accurate and timely completion? d. Do assignment correction procedures diagnose subskill deficits? Skill 3. Seatwork MonitoringDuring seatwork, the teacher circulates around the classroom, checking all students’ work and providing assistance to students.
Evaluation Questions
Rating and Notes
a. Does the physical layout of the room facilitate easy move-ment among students’ desks? b. Are random selections of students’ work checked during independent seatwork? c. Are students encouraged to recognize when they need help and ask for it? Skill 4. Daily MonitoringStudents’ work products are monitored on a daily basis and rates of learning and levels of understanding or performance monitored.
Evaluation Questions
Rating and Notes
a. Are cues from students used to modify instruction during a presentation? b. Are students required to demonstrate understanding during instructional presentations? c. Does teacher recordkeeping monitor individual skill acqui-sition? d. Are worksheets checked in an accurate and timely fashion? Skill 5. Instructional AlignmentAcademic monitoring reflects alignment among curriculum, instruction, and testing.
Evaluation Questions
Rating and Notes
a. Do comprehensive tests of student mastery adequately sample the instructional content? Skill 5. Instructional AlignmentAcademic monitoring reflects alignment among curriculum, instruction, and testing.
Evaluation Questions
Rating and Notes
b. Do comprehensive tests of student mastery adequately sample the required curriculum? c. Are test results used to adjust instructional procedures for the class as a whole? d. Does the instruction focus on the curriculum? Self-improvement Plan: Academic Monitoring After completing the self-evaluation checklist (Section C) and reading through the practical suggestions (Section D), you should be prepared to develop a self-improvement plan (SIP). Please complete portion A, entitled "Academic Monitoring: Goals and Objectives," on the self-improvement plan by checking the goal(s) and objective(s) you wish to include in your plan. Also, write a brief narrative describing how you plan to address the requirements in portions B-E. Complete portion F, "Results," after you have completed your self-improvement implementation project. (See Chapter 2, Section E, for a completed self-improvement plan.) Name_____________________________ Class___________________ Date____________
1. Monitoring and Goals____ 1. Set reasonable standards____ 2. Maintain due dates.
____ 3. Other ________________________________ 2. Providing for Timely Monitoring____ 1. Circulate around the classroom.
____ 2. Help all students.
____ 3. Other ________________________________ 3. Decision Making and Corrective Action____ 1. Give clear directions.
____ 2. Monitor understanding.
____ 3. Other ________________________________ 4. Monitoring and the Improvement of Instruction____ 1. Check students’ progress during instruction.
____ 2. Check students’ progress after instruction.
____ 3. Other ________________________________ Please indicate which of the practical suggestions you plan to use to meet each of the objectives. (You may include practical suggestions from other sources as well.) Name_____________________________ Class___________________ Date____________
Please describe the specific procedures you will use to implement the practical sugges- Please describe your current performance and desired performance in regard to each of the objectives you have selected. You may state the performance in terms of student behavior, such as percentage of engaged time.
Please describe your timelines and how you will measure change in relationship to the Upon completion of your self-improvement project, write a brief description of the results of its implementation. Attach any raw data sheets that were used to gather information and describe any changes that were made during your project.
Bickel, W. E., & Bickel, D. D. (1986). Effective schools, classrooms, and instruction: Implica- tions for special education. Exceptional Children, 52, 489-500.
Bloom, B. S. (1968, May). Mastery learning. Evaluation Comment, 1(2). Los Angeles: Univer- sity of California at Los Angeles, Center for the Study of Evaluation of Instructional Pro-grams.
Brophy, J. (1987). Research linking teacher behavior to student achievement: Potential implica- tions for instruction of Chapter I students. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State Univer-sity, East Lansing, MI.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd ed. (pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan.
Cohen, A. (1987). Instructional alignment: Searching for a magic bullet. Educational Researcher, Fisher, C. W., Berliner, D. C., Filby, N.N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L. S., & Dishaw, M. M. (1980). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time and student achievement: An overview. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to learn (pp. 7-32). Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Education, National Institute of Education.
Good, T. L., Grouws, D. A., & Ebmeier, H. (1983). Active mathematics teaching. New York: Hahn, A. (1987). Reaching to America’s dropouts: What to do? Phi Delta Kappan, 69(4), 256- Kulik, C. C., & Kulik, J.A. (1987). Mastery testing and student learning: A meta-analysis. Jour- nal of Educational Technology Systems, 15(3), 325-345.
Rosenshine, B. (1979). Content, time, and direction instruction. In P. Peterson & H. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Rosenshine, B. & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd ed. (pp. 376-392). New York: Macmillan.

Source: http://bookstore.cfcc.edu/SACS/QEP/documents/AcademicMonitoringfromUtahState.pdf