# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why

Why is this important for higher education? UDL provides useful guidelines for developing curricula, selecting materials and creating learning environments that takes into account the wide variability of learners in higher ed environments.

(music)

[ Title: UDL On Campus, Gabrielle Rappolt-Schlichtmann, Co-President of CAST, appears on the screen.]

GABRIELLE RAPPOLT-SCLICTHMANN: Learning is really a lifelong journey and when students come to postsecondary they're incredibly diverse. They have a wide range of strengths and weaknesses and UDL is really about how to make that learning journey tractable for as many of those learners as possible.

[ Students sit in a circle on a lawn on a college campus. The scene changes to a large display of artwork. The screen changes to a photo of three students working together. Gabrielle Rappolt-Schlicthmann returns to the screen, followed by Skip Stahl, Senior Policy Analyst at CAST.]

SKIP STAHL: UDL is important because of the variability that we have across learners. We often think about individuals with disabilities as individuals at the margins and then if we can develop or create learning environments for those individuals at either end of the bell curve we go a long way towards addressing the needs of everyone else in between.

[ The screen shows students gathered around tables in a student center, then a student taking a picture, followed by many students standing and smiling during graduation in green caps and gowns. Sam Johnston, Research Scientist at CAST appears on the screen.]

SAM JOHNSTON: We've seen a an enormous growth in interest in using UDL ranging from individual faculty members wanting to use it to full departments to sometimes whole institutions wanting to adopt it as an approach to really better serving the broader range of students that are on campus.

[ Students are gathered around a table with papers and laptops. The scene changes to an instructor lecturing in a large classroom full of students. Another scene shows students passing by a library. Sam Johnston returns to the screen briefly, followed by Manju Banerjee, Director of Landmark College Institute for Research and Training.]

MANJU BANERJEE: It is not about faculty being the experts or administrators being the experts but the ethos of we're all in this together.

["Finda" Ihudiya Ogburu, a student, appears on the screen.]

FINDA IHUDIYA OGBURU: In a UDL classroom I felt like I wasn't feeling bad because you know I didn't participate like another student. I was more so looking at myself and trying to be my best learner.

[ Elysa Greenberger, a student, appears on the screen.]

ELYSA GREENBERGER: I think this has really made my learning deeper. It's different to me than lecture based courses where I sort of hear information and think it's really interesting but then end up forgetting it down the line.

[ Sam Johnston returns to the screen, followed by a photo of two students meeting with an instructor in an office. The scene changes to an instructor projecting images to a classroom of students, followed by students gathered around artwork displayed on the floor. Gabrielle Rappolt-Schlichtmann returns to the screen.]

GABRIELLE RAPPOLT-SCLICTHMANN: UDL is really about bringing flexibility and options into the environment by design so that students will have the resources that they need to make learning tractable in postsecondary environments.

[ End credits: UDL On Campus, CAST: Until learning has no limits]

UDL is a Framework

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a set of principles for curriculum development that give all individuals equal opportunities to learn. UDL provides a blueprint for creating instructional goals, methods, materials, and assessments that work for everyone--not a single, one-size-fits-all solution but rather flexible approaches that can be customized and adjusted for individual needs.

The UDL principles are based on the three-network model of learning that take into account the variability of all learners-including learners who were formerly relegated to "the margins" of our educational systems but now are recognized as part of the predictable spectrum of variation. These principles guide design of learning environments with a deep understanding and appreciation for individual variability.

The UDL Guidelines (2012), whose foundation includes over 800 peer reviewed research articles, provide benchmarks that guide educators in the development and implementation of UDL curriculum. These Guidelines serve as a tool with which to critique and minimize barriers inherent in curriculum as educators aim to increase opportunities to learn.

Download the UDL Guidelines graphic organizer

Download any of the three variations of the UDL Guidelines on the UDL Guidelines site.

Consider UDL as a way to shift your understanding of how all people learn, then UDL becomes a systematic means by which to move to the practical. UDL is not a prescriptive checklist or formula with set methods and tools to be applied in every situation.

The UDL framework is translational -a means for translating research and innovation into practice-providing guiding principles. From the principles, guidelines are derived for creating and choosing tools, methods, and practices, whose specifics depend upon context: learners' developmental levels, varied schools and communities, and the proclivities of teachers who are doing the teaching, among many other variables. UDL can help reshape teaching and learning by guiding the design of an entirely new system with flexibility at its core.

Another important consideration in implementing UDL in any learning environment is including the learner in the learning process. Support students to become an "expert" about their own learning. The goal is to find a way into the learning experience, remain persistent in the face of challenge or failure, and continue to build self-knowledge. Encourage students to communicate their learning preferences and needs. Include students in designing better learning environments.

Powerful digital technologies applied using UDL principles enable easier and more effective customization of curricula for learners. Advances in technology and the learning sciences have made "on-the-fly" individualization of curricula possible in practical, cost-effective ways, and many of these technologies have built in supports, scaffolds and challenges to help learners understand, navigate, and engage with the learning environment. However, it is important to note that these technologies should not be considered to be the only way to implement UDL. Effective instructors can be creative and resourceful in designing flexible learning environments that address the variability of learners using a range of high-tech and low-tech solutions.

(music)

[ Title: UDL On Campus: Student Retention. Sam Johnston, Research Scientist at CAST appears on the screen.]

SAM JOHNSTON: So we know from retention research that, we actually, when we think about retention and study retention, we often forget to study the classroom. But the classroom is really, really critical. I mean it's the key element in why students persist or why they don't.

[ Groups of student listen to an instructor in a classroom. The scene changes to another instructor explaining a projected image to students. Sam Johnston then returns to the screen.]

SAM JOHNSTON: And UDL really offers a systematic way of looking at the persistence of all students in the classroom. That's why UDL is so critical for this issue of student persistence and institutions trying to retain their students.

[ A student works diligently in the library. The scene changes to students passing through a campus center. The screen displays numerous books on Universal Design for Learning. Sam Johnston returns to the screen.]

SAM JOHNSTON: It offers a systematic framework to look at better supporting all students in the classroom so they can persist in a course, get a degree, and get to the next place they want to go.

[ End credits: UDL On Campus, CAST: Until learning has no limits]

The Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA) of 2008

The inclusion of UDL in HEOA indicates a federal recognition of the potential for UDL to improve practice in classrooms and provide opportunities for students to succeed.

The definition incorporates the three principles of UDL-representation, expression, and engagement-and emphasizes reducing barriers with appropriate supports and challenges built into instruction.

In addition to defining UDL, HEOA emphasized that pre-service training through teacher education programs incorporate instruction on strategies consistent with UDL. If future teachers are taught the principles of UDL, they will be able to better meet the diverse needs of their future students.

UDL and Accessibility

"The purpose of education is not to make information accessible, but rather to teach learners how to transform accessible information into usable knowledge." --Introduction to the UDL Guidelines (CAST, 2012)

Postsecondary institutions are obligated to provide accessible learning materials and technologies for students with disabilities, but UDL is more than simply providing information in accessible ways. Skip Stahl discusses the relationship between UDL and accessibility in the video below.

(music)

[ Title: UDL On Campus: Accessibility. Skip Stahl, Senior Policy Analyst, appears on the screen.]

SKIP STAHL: Accessibility is one of the key foundational principles of Universal Design for Learning and it's a component of Universal Design for Learning but is not by itself Universal Design or Learning. I always think, the way we sometimes phrase it is that accessibility is essential but insufficient on its own to be Universal Design for Learning. Accessibility is really captured in the first principle of UDL which is multiple representations of information and from an instructional perspective there's a whole mantra that if you can't reach them you can't teach them. That information has to be accessible and presented in a variety of ways; audio, print, tactile, graphically, by video, as many possible ways as there are to make sure that people can get the information they need. Where as UDL really expands beyond that and talks about action and expression, how people exhibit mastery how they can express their achievement, how they can really articulate well what it is they know. And then the third principle really thinking about engagement--how we engage learners to enforce and enhance their persistence in ways that really support them in the face of challenges.

[ End credits: UDL On Campus, CAST: Until learning has no limits]

Go to UDL and Accessibility for more information about legal obligations and recent developments pertaining to accessibility in higher education.

Resources

CAST - information about Universal Design for Learning

CAST's Learning Resources

CAST's UDL Guidelines site provides detailed description of each guideline and checkpoint and the research that supports them. Download any of the three variations of theUDL Guideline graphic organizers.

Learning Designed Critical Elements of UDL Instruction

The free online version of Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice by Meyer, Rose, & Gordon has specific sections relevant to UDL implementation in higher ed. Once you've created a free account and logged in, Alfreda Blue, Hofstra University, discussesplanning in advance for diverse learners. Candyce Engquist Rennegarbe, Tacoma (WA) Community College, describescritical planning elements for a new UDL project. Emiliano Ayala and Brett Christie, California State University, discussthe importance of ongoing, sustained professional development in UDL implementation.

Rose, D., Harbour, W., Johnston, C. S., Daley, S., & Abarbanell, L. (2006). Universal design for learning in postsecondary education: Reflections on principles and their application. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 19(2), 17. http://www.udlcenter.org/sites/udlcenter.org/files/UDLinPostsecondary.pdf

Smith, F.G. (2012) Analyzing a college course that adheres to the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12(3), 31-61. http://josotl.indiana.edu/article/view/2151

Abegglen, S., Aparicio-Ting, F. E., Arcellana-Panlilio, M., Behjat, L., Brown, B., Clancy, T. L., DesJardine, P., Din, C., Dyjur, P., Ferreira, C., Hughson, E. A., Kassan, A., Klinke, C., Kurz, E., Neuhaus, F., Pletnyova, G., Paul, R. M., Peschl, H., Peschl, R., & Squance, R. T. (2021). Incorporating Universal Design for Learning in Disciplinary Contexts in Higher Education (M. Arcellana-Panlilio and P. Dyjur, Eds.). Calgary, AB: Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning Guide Series. https://taylorinstitute.ucalgary.ca/resources/incorporating-universal-design-for-learning-in-disciplinary-contexts-in-higher-education-guide

A video about Universal Design at McGill University https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjUKGBipJZA

Notes

Meyer, A., Rose, D.H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and Practice. Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why is this important for higher education? UDL provides useful guidelines for developing curricula, selecting materials and creating learning environments that takes into account the wide variability of learners in higher ed environments. (music) [ Title: UDL On Campus, Gabrielle Rappolt-Schlichtmann, Co-President of CAST, appears on the screen.]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
National Center on Universal Design for Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The UDL Guidelines are a tool used in the implementation of Universal Design for Learning, a framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights into how humans learn. Learn more about the Universal Design for Learning framework from CAST. The UDL Guidelines can be used by educators, curriculum developers, researchers, parents, and anyone else who wants to implement the UDL framework in a learning environment. These guidelines offer a set of concrete suggestions that can be applied to any discipline or domain to ensure that all learners can access and participate in meaningful, challenging learning opportunities.

Coming soon! UDL Guidelines 3.0

The UDL Guidelines are a living, dynamic tool that is continuously developed based on new research and feedback from practitioners. In 2020, CAST launched our most recent effort to update the UDL Guidelines, with a specific focus on equity. There has been a strong call from the field-both practitioners and researchers alike-to more fully develop the Guidelines to address critical barriers rooted in biases and systems of oppression. The current update aims to respond to this call and to work toward fulfilling the promise of the Guidelines as a tool to guide the design of learning environments that more fully honor and value every learner.

Since our launch in 2020, we have been committed to a community-driven, inclusive, and transparent updating process. As part of this effort, we are:

Collaborating with an Advisory Board, a UDL Guidelines Collaborative, and a Young Adult Advisory Board to guide our work

Conducting focus groups with a diversity of participants to learn from their perspectives, lived experiences, and feedback

Reviewing the research on the UDL Guidelines research pages to understand the balance of different research fields, methodological approaches, epistemological approaches, and author positionalities

Conducting literature reviews of equity-oriented research that connect to and extend the Guidelines, such as disability studies and critical pedagogy studies

We are excited to share this next iteration of the UDL Guidelines in 2024. If you are interested in receiving our UDL Guidelines 3.0 newsletter to stay updated on our progress and to share your ideas and perspectives, please complete this brief form.

Review the Summary

Explore the Full Draft

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UDL Guidelines are a tool used in the implementation of Universal Design for Learning, a framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights into how humans learn. Learn more about the Universal Design for Learning framework from CAST.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Overview

UMTSS provides leadership and support for Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in sustained implementation of evidence-based Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) practices. UMTSS addresses both academic and behavioral needs of all students through the integration of data, practices, and systems. The coaching and tools provided by UMTSS are intended to guide LEA teams in evaluating and analyzing current practices, establishing supportive infrastructure, and utilizing data to improve student outcomes.

UMTSS Eight Critical Components:

1. High Quality Instruction

2. Data-Based Decision Making

3. Team-Based Problem Solving

4. Equitable Education for Each Student

5. College and Career Readiness

6. Proactive School Climate and Structure

7. Parent and Community Involvement

8. Supportive Leadership

Objectives
Infrastructure and Collaboration
UMTSS is designed to support Utah LEAs and schools in developing sustainable, evidence-based practices and provide supports for students within a multi-tiered system. The purpose of UMTSS is to provide guidance and resources for LEAs as they build infrastructure. Website and online resources help LEAs integrate academic and behavior systems, implement systems and interventions with fidelity, utilize data, and sustain efforts over time to positively impact student outcomes.

Note: The contents of this website were developed under a grant from the United States Department of Education, #H323A120022. However, those content do not necessarily represent the policy of the United States Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Project Officer Paula Maccini.

Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS)

MTSS is a framework for integrating assessment and intervention to maximize student achievement, reduce behavior problems, and increase long-term success (National Center on Response to Intervention [NCRI], 2014). The combination of systematic implementation of increasingly intensive intervention, sometimes referred to as tiers, and carefully monitoring students' progress distinguishes MTSS from typical prevention measures. In an MTSS framework, emphasis is placed on ensuring that interventions are implemented effectively. This is often referred to as implementation integrity or fidelity (Batsche et al., 2005).

Utah's MTSS Model

MTSS is a framework for implementing systemic, evidence-based practices to maximize student achievement in academics and behavior in preparation for and leading to College and Career Readiness. The MTSS model includes Universal, Targeted, and Intensive levels of support, which are defined in the Utah MTSS 3-Tier Definitions for several identified critical components, such as academics, behavior, and educational equity.
Utah MTSS 3-Tier Critical Components Definitions
Universal (Tier 1) represents those supports provided to all students. Tier 1 practices should be implemented with fidelity prior to addressing practices for Tier 2 or 3. Targeted (Tier 2) represents additional supports provided to remediate or accelerate student success. Intensive (Tier 3) represents individually-responsive supports intended to further remediate or accelerate student success and do not necessarily equate to special education services. Individually-responsive supports are developed based on individual need but may be provided in a small group or individual format. Tier 2 and 3 supports are provided in addition to, not in place of, Tier 1 instruction.

Utah Multi-Tier System of Supports (UMTSS) staff and grant funds focus on building critical infrastructure and sustainable systems at the Local Education Agency (LEA) and school levels. UMTSS supports LEAs in building effective leadership and implementation teams capable of implementing and sustaining MTSS practices with fidelity.

Conferences

2021

July 28-29
2021 Virtual System Conference

2020

Utah Systems Conference: Cancelled

2018

June 18-19
Utah Systems Conference: Alignment, Collaboration and Equity Within a Tiered System of Supports
Utah Valley Convention Center, Provo, Utah

June 20
State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) Post-Conference Meeting
Utah Valley Convention Center, Provo, Utah

2017

June 21-22
Achieving Equity and Opportunity: Access to Quality Learning Through Tiered Supports

Online Training Courses

UMTSS Canvas Course Series

The UMTSS Canvas Course Series introduces the foundational concepts and tools to help guide Local Education Agencies (LEAs) level teams during the early stages of implementation. Course content includes best practices in supporting students within a multi-tiered framework, providing evidence-based professional learning, effective coaching, collecting and using data meaningfully, and implementing evidence-based practices within specific academic and behavioral content areas.

Getting Started

Enroll in courses by selecting the link below:

Once enrolled, courses are accessible with USBE Canvas.

Hints for Navigation

1. Click Previous or Next buttons at the bottom of each page to navigate through the course.

2. Avoid using the browser back button when submitting assignments and quizzes.

3. Enable pop-ups in the web browser to visit helpful hyperlinks within the course.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
utah multi-tiered system of supports (umtss)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Utah Multi-Tiered System of Supports (UMTSS)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Utah Multi-Tiered System of Supports (UMTSS)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Utah's Multi-Tiered System of Supports for Mathematics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Get Email Updates

Sign up to receive the RTI Action Network e-newsletter.

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007).

Additional Articles

Additional Resources

The purpose of this article is to discuss progress monitoring within a Response-to-Intervention (RTI) model and to assist the reader in making informed decisions when selecting and interpreting progress-monitoring measures. To that end, this article answers the following questions:

1. What is progress monitoring?

2. How does progress monitoring work in RTI?

3. What are the elements of effective progress-monitoring measures?

4. What are some common progress-monitoring measures?

5. What progress-monitoring measures were used in the RTI models in the research review of RTI field studies?

6. What can we conclude from the research and what directions look promising for future research?

What Is Progress Monitoring?

In the context of an RTI prevention model, progress monitoring is used to assess student progress or performance in those areas in which they were identified by universal screening as being at-risk for failure (e.g., reading, mathematics, social behavior). It is the method by which teachers or other school personnel determine if students are benefitting appropriately from the typical (e.g., grade level, locally determined, etc.) instructional program, identify students who are not making adequate progress, and help guide the construction of effective intervention programs for students who are not profiting from typical instruction (Fuchs & Stecker, 2003). Although progress monitoring is typically implemented to follow the performance of individual students who are at risk for learning difficulties, it can also follow an entire classroom of students (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).

How Does Progress Monitoring Work in RTI?

As soon as a student is identified as at risk for achievement deficits by the universal screening measure, his or her progress should be monitored in relation to Tier 1 instruction (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007). Progress should be monitored frequently, at least monthly, but ideally weekly or biweekly (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). A student's progress is measured by comparing his or her expected rate of learning (e.g., local or national norms) and actual rate of learning (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Zumeta, 2008). A teacher can use these measurements to gauge the effectiveness of teaching and to adjust instructional techniques to meet the needs of the individual student. A student who is not responding adequately to Tier 1 instruction moves on to Tier 2 and increasingly intensive levels of intervention and instruction. The current recommended time period for measuring response to Tier 1 instruction is 8-10 weeks (McMaster & Wagner, 2007; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003) and nonresponsiveness is typically determined by a percentile cut on norm-referenced tests (e.g., < 20 th percentile) or cut score on a curriculum based measurement (CBM).

According to the National Center on Student Progress Monitoring, progress monitoring has the following benefits when it is implemented correctly: 1) students learn more quickly because they are receiving more appropriate instruction; 2) teachers make more informed instructional decisions; 3) documentation of student progress is available for accountability purposes; 4) communication improves between families and professionals about student progress; 5) teachers have higher expectations for their students; and, in many cases, 6) there is a decrease in special education referrals. Overall, progress monitoring is relevant for classroom teachers, special educators, and school psychologists alike because the interpretation of this assessment data is vital when making decisions about the adequacy of student progress and formulating effective instructional programs (Fuchs, Compton, Fuchs et al., 2008).

Elements of Effective Progress-Monitoring Measures

To be effective, progress-monitoring measures must be available in alternate forms, comparable in difficulty and conceptualization, and representative of the performance desired at the end of the year (Fuchs, Compton, Fuchs et al., 2008). Measures that vary in difficulty and conceptualization over time could possibly produce inconsistent results that may be difficult to quantify and interpret. Likewise, using the same measure for each administration may produce a testing effect, wherein performance on a subsequent administration is influenced by student familiarity with the content.
By using measures that have alternate forms and are comparable in difficulty and conceptualization, a teacher can use slope (e.g., academic performance across time) to quantify rate of learning (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2008). Slope can also be used to measure a student's response to a specific instructional program, signaling a need for program adjustment when responsiveness is inadequate (Fuchs et al., 2008).

Effective progress-monitoring measures should also be short and easily administered by a classroom teacher, special education teacher, or school psychologist (Fuchs & Stecker, 2003). According to Fletcher et al. (2007), there is much research to support the use of short, fluency-based probes in deficit areas such as word reading fluency and accuracy, mathematics, and spelling. However, for areas such as reading comprehension and composition, there is less research support for specific kinds of probes because these domains demonstrate less rapid change and require methods for assessing progress over longer periods of time (Fletcher et al., 2007; McMaster & Wagner, 2007).

Common Progress-Monitoring Measures

Progress can be monitored by a variety of methods. From a norm-referenced standpoint, it is possible to use widely available assessments such as the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE; Torgesen et al., 1999) or the Woodcock-Johnson Achievement Battery (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001). With such tests, alternate forms are available to demonstrate student improvement over time, but usually there is at least three months between administrations (Fletcher et al., 2007). Other measures, such as the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Good, Simmons, & Kame'enui, 2001), have been reviewed by the National Center for Student Progress Monitoring and vary considerably in reliability, validity, and other key progress-monitoring standards.

CBM, one approach to progress monitoring, has the most well supported measures in the research base. According to Fuchs and Fuchs (2006),

More than 200 empirical studies published in peer-review journals (a) provide evidence of CBM's reliability and validity for assessing the development of competence in reading, spelling, and mathematics and (b) document CBM's capacity to help teachers improve student outcomes at the elementary grades (p. 1).

CBM is a form of classroom assessment that 1) describes academic competence in reading, spelling, and mathematics; 2) tracks academic development; and 3) improves student achievement (Fuchs & Stecker, 2003). It can be used to determine the effectiveness of the instruction for all students and to enhance educational programs for students who are struggling (McMaster & Wagner, 2007). Finally, findings of over 200 empirical studies indicate that CBM produces accurate, meaningful information about students' academic levels and growth, is sensitive to student improvement, and when teachers use CBM to inform their instructional decisions, students achieve better (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).

Fuchs and Stecker (2003) warn that most classroom assessment is based on mastery of a series of short-term instructional objectives or "mastery measurement." To implement this type of assessment the teacher determines the educational sequence for the school year and designs criterion-referenced tests to match each step in that educational sequence. According to Fuchs and Stecker, problems with mastery measurement include: 1) the hierarchy of skills is logical, not empirical; 2) assessment does not reflect maintenance or generalization; 3) measurement methods are designed by teachers, with unknown reliability and validity; and 4) the measurement framework is highly associated with a set of instructional methods. CBM combats these problems by making no assumptions about instructional hierarchy for measurement, so it fits with any instructional approach and by incorporating automatic tests of retention and generalization. According to Fuchs and Fuchs (2006), CBM and mastery measurement have another significant difference:

CBM also differs from mastery measurement because it is standardized; that is, the progress monitoring procedures for creating tests, for administering and scoring those tests, and for summarizing and interpreting the resulting database are prescribed. By relying on standardized methods and by sampling the annual curriculum on every test, CBM produces a broad range of scores across individuals of the same age. The rank ordering of students on CBM corresponds with rank orderings on other important criteria of student competence. For example, students who score high (or low) on CBM are the same students who score high (or low) on the annual state tests. For these reasons, CBM demonstrates strong reliability and validity. At the same time, because each CBM test assesses the many skills embedded in the annual curriculum, CBM yields descriptions of students' strengths and weaknesses on each of the many skills contained in the curriculum. These skills profiles also demonstrate reliability and validity (p. 2).

The tasks measured by CBM include 1) pre-reading (phoneme segmentation fluency; letter sound fluency); 2) reading (word identification fluency; passage reading fluency; maze fluency); 3) mathematics (computation; concepts and applications); 4) spelling; and 5) written expression (correct word sequences).

Progress Monitoring in Field Studies

In our research review of RTI field studies, all but one mentioned progress monitoring. However, the specific progress-monitoring measures and frequency of use varied significantly between studies. Table 1 provides information (e.g., type of measure and frequency) on progress-monitoring measures used in each of the 11 studies found in our research review.

Table 1: Progress Monitoring in the Field Studies

Authors*Model Name**Progress Monitoring Mentioned? Type How Often?

O'Connor et al. (2005)
TRI

Yes

WRMT-R sub-tests; CBM Reading

Not reported

*Click author name to view field study
**Model name

SPMM - Standard-protocol mathematics model
SCRED - St. Croix River education district model
RBM - Idaho results-based model
BSM - Behavior support model
IST - Pennsylvania instructional support teams
MPSM - Minneapolis problem-solving model TRI - Tiers of reading intervention
FSDS - Illinois flexible service delivery system model
IBA - Ohio intervention-based assessment
STEEP - System to enhance educational performance
EGM - Exit group model

Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

Progress monitoring is paramount in determining if students are benefitting appropriately from the typical instructional program, identifying students who are not making adequate progress and guiding the construction of effective intervention programs for students who are not profiting from typical instruction. However, it is important to note that while CBM and other measures can be helpful tools for monitoring progress; there are some potential challenges to successful implementation. Teachers must be trained to use these assessments effectively, as well as to use the data to quantify rates of progress and, subsequently, adjust the educational program for struggling students (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Zumeta, 2008). Without that training, the usefulness of any progress monitoring-measure is greatly limited. It is crucial that schools and districts support data-driven approaches and make training available to all teachers.

References

Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York: The Guilford Press.

Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. (2008). Making "secondary intervention" work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: Findings from the first-grade longitudinal reading study at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 413-436.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 57-61.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to responsiveness-to-intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 93-99.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2008). The role of assessment within the RTI framework. In D. Fuchs, L. S. Fuchs, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Response to intervention: A framework for reading educators (pp. 27-49). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2003). Scientifically based progress monitoring. National Center on Student Progress Monitoring: Washington, DC. Retrieved May 15, 2009.

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

McMaster, K. L., & Wagner, D. (2007). Monitoring response to general education instruction. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 223-233). New York: Springer.

Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33-58.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., & Conway, T. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579-593.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391-409.

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Back To Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Progress Monitoring Within a Response-to-Intervention Model

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Progress monitoring is implemented in RTI to follow the performance of students who are at risk for learning difficulties.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Get Email Updates

Sign up to receive the RTI Action Network e-newsletter.

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007).

Additional Articles

Additional Resources

The purpose of this article is to discuss progress monitoring within a Response-to-Intervention (RTI) model and to assist the reader in making informed decisions when selecting and interpreting progress-monitoring measures. To that end, this article answers the following questions:

1. What is progress monitoring?

2. How does progress monitoring work in RTI?

3. What are the elements of effective progress-monitoring measures?

4. What are some common progress-monitoring measures?

5. What progress-monitoring measures were used in the RTI models in the research review of RTI field studies?

6. What can we conclude from the research and what directions look promising for future research?

What Is Progress Monitoring?

In the context of an RTI prevention model, progress monitoring is used to assess student progress or performance in those areas in which they were identified by universal screening as being at-risk for failure (e.g., reading, mathematics, social behavior). It is the method by which teachers or other school personnel determine if students are benefitting appropriately from the typical (e.g., grade level, locally determined, etc.) instructional program, identify students who are not making adequate progress, and help guide the construction of effective intervention programs for students who are not profiting from typical instruction (Fuchs & Stecker, 2003). Although progress monitoring is typically implemented to follow the performance of individual students who are at risk for learning difficulties, it can also follow an entire classroom of students (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).

How Does Progress Monitoring Work in RTI?

As soon as a student is identified as at risk for achievement deficits by the universal screening measure, his or her progress should be monitored in relation to Tier 1 instruction (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007). Progress should be monitored frequently, at least monthly, but ideally weekly or biweekly (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). A student's progress is measured by comparing his or her expected rate of learning (e.g., local or national norms) and actual rate of learning (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Zumeta, 2008). A teacher can use these measurements to gauge the effectiveness of teaching and to adjust instructional techniques to meet the needs of the individual student. A student who is not responding adequately to Tier 1 instruction moves on to Tier 2 and increasingly intensive levels of intervention and instruction. The current recommended time period for measuring response to Tier 1 instruction is 8-10 weeks (McMaster & Wagner, 2007; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003) and nonresponsiveness is typically determined by a percentile cut on norm-referenced tests (e.g., < 20 th percentile) or cut score on a curriculum based measurement (CBM).

According to the National Center on Student Progress Monitoring, progress monitoring has the following benefits when it is implemented correctly: 1) students learn more quickly because they are receiving more appropriate instruction; 2) teachers make more informed instructional decisions; 3) documentation of student progress is available for accountability purposes; 4) communication improves between families and professionals about student progress; 5) teachers have higher expectations for their students; and, in many cases, 6) there is a decrease in special education referrals. Overall, progress monitoring is relevant for classroom teachers, special educators, and school psychologists alike because the interpretation of this assessment data is vital when making decisions about the adequacy of student progress and formulating effective instructional programs (Fuchs, Compton, Fuchs et al., 2008).

Elements of Effective Progress-Monitoring Measures

To be effective, progress-monitoring measures must be available in alternate forms, comparable in difficulty and conceptualization, and representative of the performance desired at the end of the year (Fuchs, Compton, Fuchs et al., 2008). Measures that vary in difficulty and conceptualization over time could possibly produce inconsistent results that may be difficult to quantify and interpret. Likewise, using the same measure for each administration may produce a testing effect, wherein performance on a subsequent administration is influenced by student familiarity with the content.
By using measures that have alternate forms and are comparable in difficulty and conceptualization, a teacher can use slope (e.g., academic performance across time) to quantify rate of learning (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2008). Slope can also be used to measure a student's response to a specific instructional program, signaling a need for program adjustment when responsiveness is inadequate (Fuchs et al., 2008).

Effective progress-monitoring measures should also be short and easily administered by a classroom teacher, special education teacher, or school psychologist (Fuchs & Stecker, 2003). According to Fletcher et al. (2007), there is much research to support the use of short, fluency-based probes in deficit areas such as word reading fluency and accuracy, mathematics, and spelling. However, for areas such as reading comprehension and composition, there is less research support for specific kinds of probes because these domains demonstrate less rapid change and require methods for assessing progress over longer periods of time (Fletcher et al., 2007; McMaster & Wagner, 2007).

Common Progress-Monitoring Measures

Progress can be monitored by a variety of methods. From a norm-referenced standpoint, it is possible to use widely available assessments such as the Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE; Torgesen et al., 1999) or the Woodcock-Johnson Achievement Battery (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001). With such tests, alternate forms are available to demonstrate student improvement over time, but usually there is at least three months between administrations (Fletcher et al., 2007). Other measures, such as the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Good, Simmons, & Kame'enui, 2001), have been reviewed by the National Center for Student Progress Monitoring and vary considerably in reliability, validity, and other key progress-monitoring standards.

CBM, one approach to progress monitoring, has the most well supported measures in the research base. According to Fuchs and Fuchs (2006),

More than 200 empirical studies published in peer-review journals (a) provide evidence of CBM's reliability and validity for assessing the development of competence in reading, spelling, and mathematics and (b) document CBM's capacity to help teachers improve student outcomes at the elementary grades (p. 1).

CBM is a form of classroom assessment that 1) describes academic competence in reading, spelling, and mathematics; 2) tracks academic development; and 3) improves student achievement (Fuchs & Stecker, 2003). It can be used to determine the effectiveness of the instruction for all students and to enhance educational programs for students who are struggling (McMaster & Wagner, 2007). Finally, findings of over 200 empirical studies indicate that CBM produces accurate, meaningful information about students' academic levels and growth, is sensitive to student improvement, and when teachers use CBM to inform their instructional decisions, students achieve better (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).

Fuchs and Stecker (2003) warn that most classroom assessment is based on mastery of a series of short-term instructional objectives or "mastery measurement." To implement this type of assessment the teacher determines the educational sequence for the school year and designs criterion-referenced tests to match each step in that educational sequence. According to Fuchs and Stecker, problems with mastery measurement include: 1) the hierarchy of skills is logical, not empirical; 2) assessment does not reflect maintenance or generalization; 3) measurement methods are designed by teachers, with unknown reliability and validity; and 4) the measurement framework is highly associated with a set of instructional methods. CBM combats these problems by making no assumptions about instructional hierarchy for measurement, so it fits with any instructional approach and by incorporating automatic tests of retention and generalization. According to Fuchs and Fuchs (2006), CBM and mastery measurement have another significant difference:

CBM also differs from mastery measurement because it is standardized; that is, the progress monitoring procedures for creating tests, for administering and scoring those tests, and for summarizing and interpreting the resulting database are prescribed. By relying on standardized methods and by sampling the annual curriculum on every test, CBM produces a broad range of scores across individuals of the same age. The rank ordering of students on CBM corresponds with rank orderings on other important criteria of student competence. For example, students who score high (or low) on CBM are the same students who score high (or low) on the annual state tests. For these reasons, CBM demonstrates strong reliability and validity. At the same time, because each CBM test assesses the many skills embedded in the annual curriculum, CBM yields descriptions of students' strengths and weaknesses on each of the many skills contained in the curriculum. These skills profiles also demonstrate reliability and validity (p. 2).

The tasks measured by CBM include 1) pre-reading (phoneme segmentation fluency; letter sound fluency); 2) reading (word identification fluency; passage reading fluency; maze fluency); 3) mathematics (computation; concepts and applications); 4) spelling; and 5) written expression (correct word sequences).

Progress Monitoring in Field Studies

In our research review of RTI field studies, all but one mentioned progress monitoring. However, the specific progress-monitoring measures and frequency of use varied significantly between studies. Table 1 provides information (e.g., type of measure and frequency) on progress-monitoring measures used in each of the 11 studies found in our research review.

Table 1: Progress Monitoring in the Field Studies

Authors*Model Name**Progress Monitoring Mentioned? Type How Often?

O'Connor et al. (2005)
TRI

Yes

WRMT-R sub-tests; CBM Reading

Not reported

*Click author name to view field study
**Model name

SPMM - Standard-protocol mathematics model
SCRED - St. Croix River education district model
RBM - Idaho results-based model
BSM - Behavior support model
IST - Pennsylvania instructional support teams
MPSM - Minneapolis problem-solving model TRI - Tiers of reading intervention
FSDS - Illinois flexible service delivery system model
IBA - Ohio intervention-based assessment
STEEP - System to enhance educational performance
EGM - Exit group model

Conclusion and Directions for Future Research

Progress monitoring is paramount in determining if students are benefitting appropriately from the typical instructional program, identifying students who are not making adequate progress and guiding the construction of effective intervention programs for students who are not profiting from typical instruction. However, it is important to note that while CBM and other measures can be helpful tools for monitoring progress; there are some potential challenges to successful implementation. Teachers must be trained to use these assessments effectively, as well as to use the data to quantify rates of progress and, subsequently, adjust the educational program for struggling students (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Zumeta, 2008). Without that training, the usefulness of any progress monitoring-measure is greatly limited. It is crucial that schools and districts support data-driven approaches and make training available to all teachers.

References

Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York: The Guilford Press.

Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. (2008). Making "secondary intervention" work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: Findings from the first-grade longitudinal reading study at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 413-436.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 57-61.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to responsiveness-to-intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 93-99.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2008). The role of assessment within the RTI framework. In D. Fuchs, L. S. Fuchs, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Response to intervention: A framework for reading educators (pp. 27-49). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2003). Scientifically based progress monitoring. National Center on Student Progress Monitoring: Washington, DC. Retrieved May 15, 2009.

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

McMaster, K. L., & Wagner, D. (2007). Monitoring response to general education instruction. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 223-233). New York: Springer.

Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33-58.

Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., & Conway, T. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579-593.

Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391-409.

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Back To Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Progress Monitoring Within a Response-to-Intervention Model

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Progress monitoring is implemented in RTI to follow the performance of students who are at risk for learning difficulties.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Make a Line Graph in Excel - From Simple to Scientific

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This resource introduces users to progress monitoring in reading, a type of formative assessment in which student learning is evaluated to provide useful feedback about performance to both learners and teachers (est. completion time: 2 hours).

Note: Because the overall progress monitoring process is almost identical for any subject area, the content in this module is very similar to that covered in the module Progress Monitoring: Mathematics. The main difference is that this module highlights information related to progress monitoring for reading.

Work through the sections of this module in the order presented in the STAR graphic above.

Related to this module

Copyright 2023 Vanderbilt University. All rights reserved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This resource introduces users to progress monitoring in reading, a type of formative assessment in which student learning is evaluated to provide useful feedback about performance to both learners and teachers (est. completion time: 2 hours).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This resource introduces users to progress monitoring in mathematics, a type of formative assessment in which student learning is evaluated to provide useful feedback about performance to both learners and teachers (est. completion time: 2 hours).

Note: Because the overall progress monitoring process is almost identical for any subject area, the content in this module is very similar to that covered in the module Progress Monitoring: Reading. The main difference is that this module highlights information related to progress monitoring for mathematics.

Work through the sections of this module in the order presented in the STAR graphic above.

Related to this module

Copyright 2023 Vanderbilt University. All rights reserved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This resource introduces users to progress monitoring in mathematics, a type of formative assessment in which student learning is evaluated to provide useful feedback about performance to both learners and teachers (est. completion time: 2 hours).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This module overviews instructional and testing accommodations for students with disabilities, explains how accommodations differ from other kinds of instructional adaptations, defines the four categories of accommodations, and describes how to implement accommodations and evaluate their effectiveness for individual students (est. completion time: 2 hours).

Work through the sections of this module in the order presented in the STAR graphic above.

Related to this module

Copyright 2019 Vanderbilt University. All rights reserved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Accommodations: Instructional and Testing Supports for Students with Disabilities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This module overviews instructional and testing accommodations for students with disabilities, explains how accommodations differ from other kinds of instructional adaptations, defines the four categories of accommodations, and describes how to implement accommodations and evaluate their effectiveness for individual students (est. completion time: 2 hours).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PLAAFP and Goals Templates With Examples (1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses (1)