**Article**

# STUDENT PROGRESS MONITORING FOR CONTINUOUS VALUE-ADDED MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENTS

Nur Faridah Mohamed Yaziz, Noraini Noordin

Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Arau, Perlis, MALAYSIA

## Abstract 

*Student progress monitoring helps a teacher to define a student's current performance level on skills to be learned in a particular year, identifies his year-end achievement goals, and establishes the progress rate at which he has to work to achieve the goal. A teacher is also able to create and strategize effective teaching approaches to cater for a student’s level of readiness and learning needs and fulfill appropriate stretch goals for further learning. While there are many existing assessment tools for teachers and the school system to use at monitoring a student’s proficiency in Mathematics, this article has chosen to share findings related to the application of the easy and simple to use Expected Target Result approach in one of the districts in Malaysia. Using average school grades in the Year Five examination as Take-Off Value, the approach was able to provide information on the progress of all students and all schools according to subject and type of school. Based on the benchmarks generated for each subject by this approach, teachers are able to define effective teaching methods to cater for continuous progress in students’ work.*

***Keywords:** assessment, expected target result, progress monitoring, take-off value*

## Introduction

Masters (2016) states that a teacher needs to monitor the progress or growth of a student’s learning process for successful learning to occur. In student progress monitoring, an educator defines a student's current performance level on skills to be learned in that year, identifies achievement goals to be reached by year end, and establishes the rate of progress by the student in meeting those goals. Using the gathered information, a teacher will be able to define effective teaching approaches to target a student’s level of readiness and learning needs and at the same time set appropriate stretch goals for further learning. More importantly, monitoring goal progress is an effective self-regulation strategy. Interventions that take place will increase the frequency of progress monitoring and this will most likely promote behavior change in students (January et al., 2018; Van Norman, Christ, & Newell, 2017).

A school expects that all students will make excellent progress in their learning regardless of their take off point. Schools use data to monitor every student’s progress over time. More importantly, when teachers use student progress monitoring, students learn more, teacher decision making improves, and students become more aware of their own performance (Cauley & McMillan, 2010; Suskie, 2018). From time to time, progress reports are relayed to the education leaders. This information helps to define if the standards have declined or improved in schools and school system. The information will address the performance of students according to groups, places of study, and teaching strategies. In addition, data can also be used to evaluate the impact of school-wide and system-wide programs (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1992; Masters, 2016; Safer & Fleischman, 2005).

Mathematical proficiency is a requirement of many well-paying jobs. In particular, high school students’ mathematics achievement defines future success at tertiary education as well as future growth in career earnings. In general, a student who starts ahead in mathematics will stay ahead while a student who starts behind will stay behind. It would of good benefit if researchers can identify specific areas of mathematics that will consistently predict later mathematics proficiency. In that way, education leaders or policy-makers can alleviate efforts toward improving teaching and learning in these specific areas (Siegler et al., 2012). This article shares how Expected Target Result (*ETR*) approach helps education leaders in system monitoring of future mathematics proficiency in Malaysian schools.

## Purpose of Assessing Learning Outcomes

Accreditors, employers and policy-makers are interested in the assessment of learning outcomes. Suitable assessment instruments or tools can help teachers to determine the level at which students understand concepts or skills taught in class. They can also be used to define how well students are able to apply concepts, knowledge and skills. Results obtained from these assessments can be helpful to teachers at enhancing or varying teaching and learning approaches. Sometimes, outcomes assessments are only carried out at the end of a course or a program. Therefore, the current students may not receive feedbacks on their performance other than their grades and the teachers may not be able to carry out interventions to improve the students’ learning. However, the results can be used to make changes which affect subsequent students (Lee Abdullah et al.; Suskie, 2018).

A school aims to ensure achievement for every student. A teacher needs tools to assist him at identifying students who are at risk academically. Based on the knowledge of a student’s level of achievement, a teacher will be able to identify appropriate intervention strategies to help improve the student’s needs. Therefore, performance data can be used to measure the effectiveness of the teaching approaches (Safer & Fleischman, 2005).

**Different Assessment Methods**

Assessments (formative and/or summative) are tools used in progress monitoring (Looney, 2011). Some examples of these tools are curriculum-based measurement (CBM), Computer-adaptive Assessment (CAT), and Mastery measurement (MM). CBM scoring process is based on classical test theory. CAT uses algorithms and item response theory to estimate student’s ability in a previous item before exposing him to higher or lower level items based on this information. Both methods disburse final scores after the administration of the assessment items (Van Norman, Nelson, & Parker, 2017). MM evaluates student performance by running tests with increasing item difficulties to students over a determined period of time. However, it lacks reference to larger generalized skills, thus MM assessments may not suit to be used on high‐stakes tests. Unlike these three methods, classroom assessment allows teachers to develop more customized, complex assessments of student proficiency. The drawback of this method is that is too much time is need to administer and develop such tests (Hanover Research, 2013).

A teacher can monitor student progress in many ways. He can also measure a student's academic progress regularly on a weekly, biweekly, or monthly basis using *probes.* Probes have been shown to be reliable and valid predictors of subsequent performance on various outcome measures. They do not sample one particular skill to be learnt in a week or a month. They are able to sample the entire range of skills for a student to learn by year end (Safer & Fleischman, 2005).

In Malaysia, the “Headcount” program is applied to each student throughout his secondary academic year. It is a process that identifies a student’s academic performance in all subjects. The program enables teachers to follow up, monitor and measure the available capability of each student. By using a specific examination result as Take-off Value (*TOV*), the teacher evaluates a student’s capability by identifying his Expected Target Result (***ETR*)** and Operational Target Increment. In this program, the school management works together with the teachers and the academic units involved in the program to enhance teaching-learning approaches in order to achieve a pre-defined objective (Abdullah et al.; Ali Abdelwahab, 2010; Mohamed, Rosly, & Tarmizi, 2018; Suhaimi et al., 2013). The *ETR* approach is also applicable to be used as a progress monitoring system by education leaders, as will be discussed in the following section.

## The *ETR* Approach

This section presents the *ETR* method as used by the Kluang District Education Office (KDEO). Data involving three types of schools: Sekolah Kebangsaan (SK), Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Tamil (SJK(T)) and Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan Cina (SJK(C)) were used to estimate the *ETR* of students in the Unit Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR), which is the national examination of primary schools in Malaysia. Variables included average school grades (*GPS*) of all Year Five students from these schools in the year 2017. In particular, *GPS* was taken to be the *TOV* which will be used to set the *ETR*. The next section of this article will only share findings related to Mathematics. All experimental calculations were done in Excel.

There are several types of *ETR* and each type has its own formula. Examples of *ETR* are *ETR* for average grades of subject, *ETR* for grade A (), *ETR* for average school grades () and others. KDEO calculated for every subject in all the schools based on. This calculated value will be the predicted target results based on the average grades of a school. The formula for calculating in this study is given as:

|  |     |
|  | --- |
|  | (1) |

where was *GPS* based on 2017 Year Five examination and the degree of increment was a value set by the Education office.

If a school achieved an with a bigger value than the one set by the Education office in their first assessment, then the calculation for has to be abide by the following formula:

|  |     |
|  | --- |
|  | (2) |

and the was set by KDEO.

## Results and Discussion

Figure 1 displays the *TOV* for all SK schools.

![](80-1-131-1-2-20180807_media/media/image9.png)

Figure 1: *TOV* for SK in 2018

The best school performance is indicated by the smallest *TOV* value. As shown in Figure 1, SK Ladang Ulu Remis has shown best performance among 51 SKs in the past Year Five examination. Similar figures were drawn up for SJK(C)s and SJK(T)s. The best school performance among 21 SJK(C)s was achieved by SJK(C) South Malaya while the lowest performing school in this category went to SJK(C) Yu Ming. In particular, more effort and attention should be given to SJK(C) Yu Ming to enable the school to produce better achievements in Mathematics. From among 17 SJK(T)s, the best school performance was achieved by SJK(T) Ladang Nyior while the school that needed most attention was SJK(T) Ladang Southern Malay.

*ETR* tables were drawn to show *TOV* and *ETR* for 2018. The *TOV* indicates the level of proficiency in Mathematics shown by the students. From these tables, *TOV* for SK was 4.16 (see Table 1), *TOV* for SJK(C) was 3.09 and *TOV* for SJK(T) was 3.71. The smallest value obtained indicates highest level of competence in the said subject. Therefore, most of the students from SJK(T)s have gained high proficiency levels in Year Five Mathematics.

Further observations on Mathematics competency can be made by comparing the *TOV*s obtained by all the schools. Based on the *TOV*s for each school, teachers can strategize teaching approaches to suit their objective at improving the achievement of the students. More importantly, every school has been assigned a calculated *ETR* value based on their students’ *TOV*. This value should be the benchmark to be achieved in the UPSR for 2018.

Table 1: *TOV* and *ETR* for SKs

| NO.   | SCHOOL'S NAME                         | *TOV* 2018 | *ETR* 2018 |
| ----- | ------------------------------------- | ---------- | ---------- |
| 1     | SK (FELDA) ULU PENGGELI               | 4          | 3.84       |
| 2     | SK SIMPANG RENGAM                     | 4.2        | 4.03       |
| 3     | SK SERI MACAP                         | 4.36       | 4.19       |
| 4     | SK BUKIT PALOH                        | 3.35       | 3.22       |
| 5     | SK BUKIT KENANGAN                     | 4.47       | 4.29       |
| 6     | SK SERI KENCANA                       | 4.33       | 4.16       |
| 7     | SK (L) BANDAR KLUANG                  | 4.15       | 3.98       |
| 8     | SK KAMPONG MELAYU                     | 4.28       | 4.11       |
| 9     | SK KAHANG                             | 4.35       | 4.18       |
| 10    | SK BANDAR RENGAM                      | 3.22       | 3.09       |
| 11    | SK (P) BANDAR KLUANG (INTEG)          | 4.52       | 4.34       |
| 12    | SK SERI LALANG                        | 4.35       | 4.18       |
| 13    | SK SERI KG TENGAH                     | 4.57       | 4.39       |
| 14    | SK SERI KG RENGAM                     | 2.88       | 2.76       |
| 15    | SK PEKAN LAYANG-LAYANG                | 4.52       | 4.34       |
| 16    | SK KAMPONG CHAMEK                     | 4.31       | 4.14       |
| 17    | SK LADANG PAMOL                       | 4.13       | 3.96       |
| 18    | SK LADANG BUKIT BENUT                 | 4.62       | 4.44       |
| 19    | SK LADANG TUN DR ISMAIL               | 3          | 2.88       |
| 20    | SK LADANG ULU REMIS                   | 2.81       | 2.70       |
| 21    | SK SULTAN SIR IBRAHIM                 | 4.65       | 4.46       |
| 22    | SK BANDAR PALOH                       | 3.63       | 3.48       |
| 23    | SK LKTP AYER HITAM                    | 4.17       | 4.00       |
| 24    | SK KG MELAYU NIYOR                    | 4.44       | 4.26       |
| 25    | SK (FELDA) KAHANG TIMUR               | 4.32       | 4.15       |
| 26    | SK SUNGAI LINAU                       | 3.5        | 3.36       |
| 27    | SK KG DATO IBRAHIM MAJID              | 4.22       | 4.05       |
| 28    | SK (FELDA) KAHANG BARAT               | 3.25       | 3.12       |
| 29    | SK LADANG TEREH                       | 4.27       | 4.10       |
| 30    | SK LKTP BELITONG                      | 3.97       | 3.81       |
| 31    | SK (FELDA) LAYANG-LAYANG              | 3.64       | 3.49       |
| 32    | SK LKTP ULU DENGAR                    | 3.89       | 3.73       |
| 33    | SK SERI INTAN                         | 3.59       | 3.45       |
| 34    | SK DATO' ONN JAAFAR                   | 4.19       | 4.02       |
| 35    | SK SERI SEDOHOK                       | 4.4        | 4.22       |
| 36    | SK PENGKALAN TEREH                    | 4          | 3.84       |
| 37    | SK DATO' SYED ZAIN ALSHAHAB           | 4.47       | 4.29       |
| 38    | SK ABDUL RAHMAN YASSIN                | 4.3        | 4.13       |
| 39    | SK SERI MAJU JAYA                     | 4.07       | 3.91       |
| 40    | SK LADANG MUTIARA                     | 4.24       | 4.07       |
| 41    | SK BANDAR T6                          | 4.54       | 4.36       |
| 42    | SK BUKIT TONGKAT                      | 4.57       | 4.39       |
| 43    | SK SERI TAMAN KLUANG BARAT            | 4.18       | 4.01       |
| 44    | SK PUNAN                              | 4.6        | 4.42       |
| 45    | SK PALOH (2)                          | 3.8        | 3.65       |
| 46    | SK TUNKU MAHMOOD 1                    | 4.21       | 4.04       |
| 47    | SK TUNKU MAHMOOD 2                    | 4.15       | 3.98       |
| 48    | SK CANOSSIAN CONVENT (M)              | 3.61       | 3.47       |
| 49    | SK BATU 3                             | 4.29       | 4.12       |
| 50    | SK JUBLI INTAN                        | 3          | 2.88       |
| 51    | SEKOLAH RENDAH AGAMA BERSEPADU KLUANG | 3.1        | 2.98       |
| TOTAL | **4.16**                              | **3.99**   |            |

## Conclusion

Effective teaching by a teacher or effective learning by a student needs to be assessed from time to time. In particular, suitable assessment instruments or tools can help teachers to determine the level at which students understand concepts or skills taught in class. They can also be used to define how well students are able to apply concepts, knowledge and skills. Results obtained from these assessments can be helpful to teachers at enhancing or varying teaching and learning approaches. The *ETR* approach used by KDEO is a simple and easy approach to determine continuous status of schools in the district with regards to teaching and learning of many subjects. The *ETR* approach not only provides benchmarks for the school to achieve, it also helps the teaching units within the school to monitor achievements by the students according to subject. However, a teacher may choose to use other methods to assess their students.

## Acknowledgements

The author wishes to extend its appreciation to KDEO for sharing useful data and information needed in the *ETR* approach.

## References

Abdullah, M. F. N. L., Hamzah, M. S. G., Ahmad, C. N. C., Adnan, M., Noh, N. M., Suhaimi, S., & Janoory, L. An instrument to assess secondary school mathematics teacher’s assessment practices in Malaysia. Ali Abdelwahab, N. (2010). *A heuristic approach to predict Malaysian students academic performance.* University of Malaya. Cauley, K. M., & McMillan, J. H. (2010). Formative assessment techniques to support student motivation and achievement. *The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83*(1), 1-6. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1992). Identifying a measure for monitoring student reading progress. *School Psychology Review, 21*(1), 45-58. Hanover Research. (2013). Review of K-12 Literacy and Math Progress Monitoring Tools. January, S.-A. A., Van Norman, E. R., Christ, T. J., Ardoin, S. P., Eckert, T. L., & White, M. J. (2018). Progress Monitoring in Reading: Comparison of Weekly, Bimonthly, and Monthly Assessments for Students at Risk for Reading Difficulties in Grades 2–4. *School Psychology Review, 47*(1), 83-94. Lee Abdullah, M. F. N., Hamzah, M. S. G., Che Ahmad, C. N., Adnan, M., Mohamed Noh, N., Suhaimi, S., & Janoory, L. An instrument to assess secondary school mathematics teacher’s assessment practices in Malaysia. Looney, J. W. (2011). Integrating formative and summative assessment: progress toward a seamless system? Masters, G. N. (2016). Mapping progress: using data for teaching and learning. *International Developments, 6*(6), 3. Mohamed, T. N. L. B. T., Rosly, R. B., & Tarmizi, M. L. B. M. (2018). Evaluating English Module: Guidance to Help Develop Ideas for Writing. *European Journal of Education, 1*(2), 64-68. Safer, N., & Fleischman, S. (2005). Research matters: How student progress monitoring improves instruction. *Educational Leadership, 62*(5), 81-83. Siegler, R. S., Duncan, G. J., Davis-Kean, P. E., Duckworth, K., Claessens, A., Engel, M., . . . Chen, M. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. *Psychological science, 23*(7), 691-697. Suhaimi, S., Nizam, M., Abdullah, L., Hamzah, M., Ahmad, C., Adnan, M., & Noh, N. (2013). An Instrument to Assess Secondary School Mathematics Teacher Assessment Practice. *International Higher Education Teaching and Learning. Malaysia*. Suskie, L. (2018). *Assessing student learning: A common sense guide*: John Wiley & Sons.Van Norman, E. R., Christ, T. J., & Newell, K. W. (2017). Curriculum-based measurement of reading progress monitoring: The importance of growth magnitude and goal setting in decision making. *School Psychology Review, 46*(3), 320-328.