Resources

Bailey, T. R., & Weingarten, Z. (2019). Strategies for setting high-quality academic individualized education program goals. American Institutes for Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED599697.pdf

Bailey, T. R., & Weingarten, Z. (2022). Strategies for setting high-quality academic individualized education program goals: Version 2. American Institutes for Research. https://intensiveintervention.org/sites/default/files/NCII-SetAcademicIEPGoals508.pdf

Dickson, D. D., & Worrell, F. C. (2016). Formative and summative assessment in the classroom. Theory into Practice, 55(2), 153–159.

Edmunds, R. Z., Gandhi, A. G., & Danielson, L. (2019). Essentials of intensive intervention. New York: Guilford.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2010). Using curriculum based measurement in response to intervention framework: Introduction to using CBM for progress monitoring in math. National Center on Response to Intervention resource. Retrieved from http://sss.usf.edu/resources/presentations/2010/fasp_summer_inst2010/Resource_SLD/Professional%20Development/RTIModules/cbmmathmanual_3-4-09.pdf

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2011). Using CBM for progress monitoring in reading. National Center on Student Progress Monitoring. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519252.pdf

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K. Hamlett, C. L., Katzaroff, M., & Dutka, S. (1997). Effects of task-focused goals on low-achieving students with and without learning disabilities. American Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 513–543.

Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1202–1242.

Gerzel-Short, L., Kiru, E.W., Hsiao, Y., Hovey, K.A., Wei, Y., Miller, R.D. (2019). Engaging culturally and linguistically diverse families of children with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 55(2), 120-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451219837637

Good III, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 257–288.

Hanover Research. (2014, August). The impact of formative assessment and learning intentions on student achievement. Retrieved from https://www.hanoverresearch.com/media/The-Impact-of-Formative-Assessment-and-Learning-Intentions-on-Student-Achievement.pdf

Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2016). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Jung, P., McMaster, K. L., Kunkel, A. K., Shin, J., & Stecker, P. M. (2018). Effects of data-based individualization for students with intensive learning needs: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(3), 144–155. DOI: 10.1111/1drp.12172

Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37.

Klute, M., Apthorp, H., Harlacher, J., & Reale, M. (2017). Formative assessment and elementary school student academic achievement: A review of the evidence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Central. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED572929

Lee, H., Chung, H.Q., Zhanf, Y., Abedi, J., & Warschauer, M. (2020). The effectiveness and features of formative assessment in US K-12 education: A systematic review. Applied Measurement in Education, 33(2), 124-140, DOI: 10.1080/08957347.2020.1732383

Lembke, E.S., Rodrigues, J., Hirt, S., Hwang, J., & Thomas, E.R. (2022). Mathematics assessments for students experiencing mathematics difficulty. In C. J. Lemons, S. R. Powell, K. L. Lane, & T. C. Aceves (Eds.), Handbook of special education research, Volume II: Research-based practices and intervention innovations (pp. 138-149). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003156888 /

Madison-Harris, R., & Muoneke, A. (2012). Using formative assessment to improve student achievement in the core content areas. Southeast Comprehensive Center briefing paper. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/secc/resources/briefs/formative_assessment_core_content/

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2011). Module 2: Progress monitoring training manual. Beginning implementer series. https://files.nwesd.org/jlongchamps/RTI/Module%20Two/PM_Manual-ed_clean%209%20211%20(2).pdf

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2012, July). RTI implementer series: Module 2: Progress monitoring training manual. Retrieved from https://rti4success.org/

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2013). Brief #3: Common progress monitoring graph omissions: Making instructional decisions. Progress monitoring brief series. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED578046.pdf

National Center on Response to Intervention. (n.d.). RTI implementer webinar series: What is progress monitoring. PowerPoint slides. Retrieved from https://www.rti4success.org/video/implementer-series-what-progress-monitoring

Northern Illinois University Faculty Development and Instructional Design Center. (2012). Formative and summative assessment. In Instructional guide for university faculty and teaching assistants. Retrieved from http://www.niu.edu/facdev/resources/guide

Pemberton, J. B. (2003). Communicating academic progress as an integral part of assessment. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 35(4), 16–20.

Popham, W. J. (2016). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Powell, S. R., Lembke, E. S., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Petscher, Y., Hwang, J., Bos, S. E., Cox, T., Hirt, S., Mason, E. N., Pruitt-Britton, T., Thomas, E., & Hopkins, S. (2021). Data-based individualization in mathematics to support middleschool teachers and their students with mathematics learning difficulty. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 69, 100897–. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100897

Ryerse, M., & Brookhart, S. (2018, July). The research base for formative assessment. Retrieved from https://www.gettingsmart.com/2018/07/the-research-base-for-formative-assessment/

Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 795–819.

Taylor, C. S., & Nolen, S. B. (2008). Classroom assessment: Supporting teaching and learning in real classrooms (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Trumbull, E., & Lash, A. (2013). Understanding formative assessment: Insights from learning theory and measurement theory. San Francisco: WestEd.

Curry, K. A., Mwavita, M., Holter, A., & Harris, E. (2016). Getting assessment right at the classroom level: Using formative assessment for decision making. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 28(1), 89–104.

This study sets out to discover the results of the use of data in classrooms and schools to guide instruction. The authors’ findings suggest that not only does teacher-centered data use lead to enhanced instruction but that it also fosters greater collaboration among educators and creates a common vocabulary for discussing and evaluating student goals and progress.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Stecker, P. M. (2021). Bringing data-based individualization to scale: A call for the next-generation technology of teacher supports. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 54(5), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420950654

This article reviews existing research on the curriculum-based measure (CBM) to demonstrate its classroom applications, to identify tools that can help educators use this method and improve academic outcomes, and to propose new avenues of inquiry to further enhance instructional decision-making with CBM. 

Center on Response to Intervention. (n.d.). Progress monitoring briefs. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?q=Progress+monitoring+briefs&ff1=souNational+Center+on+Response+to+Intervention

Created and made available by the American Institutes for Research’s Center on Response to Intervention, these four information briefs are designed “to provide practitioners with guidance to support careful planning and thoughtful practices as part of comprehensive progress monitoring within the Response to Intervention (RTI) framework.” Visitors will find four briefs here: Brief #1: Common Progress Monitoring Omissions: Planning and Practice, Brief #2: Common Progress Monitoring Graph Omissions: Missing Goal and Goal Line, Brief #3: Common Progress Monitoring Graph Omissions: Making Instructional Decisions, and Brief #4: Common Progress Monitoring Omissions: Reporting Information to Parents.

McLane, K. (n.d.). Integrating student progress monitoring into your classroom: The teacher’s perspective. Washington, DC: The National Center on Student Progress Monitoring, American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from https://www.readingrockets.org/article/integrating-student-progress-monitoring-spm-your-classroom-teachers-perspective

This brief essay offers an overview of the importance of classroom progress monitoring from the perspective of a teacher in a real-world classroom. Stressed here is the value of incorporating progress monitoring into the routine of the classroom, as well as the importance of communicating progress monitoring data to students, parents, and other education professionals.

National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2018). Academic progress monitoring tools chart. Retrieved from https://charts.intensiveintervention.org/aprogressmonitoring

This handy online tool offers substantial information about available progress monitoring tools in a sortable, at-a-glance format. Compare performance level and growth standards and usability ratings for dozens of tools, sort by grade level or instructional area, and select individual tools for quick comparison. Visitors will also find information regarding ROI and EOY benchmarks, as well as administration and scoring formats.