1) Wil was a fifth grade student performing significantly below grade level in long division. Baseline data showed he answered only 1.6% of problems correctly. 2) The student received one-on-one tutoring twice weekly using the Self-Regulated Strategy Development model. While his in-session performance improved, his assessment scores did not increase until explicitly told to use the strategy on assessments. 3) By the end of the intervention, Wil's accuracy improved from a baseline of 9.67% to 65.67%, though he did not fully meet the goal of 80% proficiency. The tutor believes focusing on multiplication fact fluency could further support Wil's division skills.

1. Briggs 1
Jackie Briggs
Progress Monitoring Report
Spring 2015
Progress Monitoring Report
Westby SRSD Study
Background Information
Wil XXXXX is the student that I worked with for my progress monitoring project. Wil is a
fifth grade male student who attends Westby Middle School in Westby, Wisconsin. I tutored
Wil for a total of 15 sessions. The sessions were 20-25 minutes and occurred every Tuesday and
Wednesday afternoon during the school’s Response to Intervention (RTI) Time. The tutoring
that took place was part of the Divide and Conquer Math Club, which is a UW-La Crosse study
that is testing the effectiveness of the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model of
instruction when applied to three-digit by one-digit long division. Wil was identified to take part
in this research study because his long division skills were below grade level. In his earliest
baseline probes, he did not answer one problem correctly, often answering the problem with a
four-digit answer. Wil does not receive special education services or additional math
interventions.
On a personal level, Wil is a very happy and motivated student. He was always willing
and excited to work on long division with me in the time that I was there with him. Wil enjoys

2. Briggs 2
spending time outdoors hunting, snowmobiling, and four-wheeling. In my time in Westby, Wil
celebrated his birthday and shot his first turkey while hunting with family.
Description of the Behavior:
The behavior that I measured was the accuracy in which the student answered long
division problems; specifically, I measured the percentage of digits in Wil’s answers that
corresponded to the same digits in the same place value of the correct answers of each
problem on the assessment probes that Wil completed. When Wil faced a long division problem
prior to the intervention he struggled to complete the first phase of division in the hundreds
place. When looking at first baseline probe, it appears as though Wil multiplied the divisor by
the first number of the dividend in order to reach his hundreds place answer. It is evident that
Wil knows what long division looks like, but he is not able to complete the steps of division
consistently in a logical order. He knows that multiplication and subtraction are a part of long
division but he uses these operation at inappropriate times. I chose to measure Wil’s accuracy
because it would be a way for me to know if my intervention was successful or not. The specific
way that I chose to measure Wil’s accuracy (using the percentage of correct digits in Wil’s
answers that correspond to the same digits in the same place value of the correct answer)
relies on the assumption that an increase in the percentage of correct digits would be due to
the intervention. It was important to intervene to help Wil because the fifth grade standard
requires students to divide four-digit numbers by two-digit divisors; he needs help to build a
strong foundation in long division to support the more intense grade level work in which he will
be expected to complete.
Progress Monitoring Procedures:
I tutored Wil weekly on Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons and progress monitoring
probes were administered on Thursday afternoons. The tutoring sessions and probe
administrations took place during the school’s ‘RTI Time’ from 2:47 p.m. until 3:13 p.m. For the
most part, the tutoring and probe administrations took place in a small conference room at the
end of the fifth grade hallway; if the room was occupied the session (tutoring or probe
administration) took place in a conference room in the library.
The progress monitoring probes that were administered to Wil consisted of ten 3-digit
by 1-digit long division problems. Three probe versions were alternated and used throughout
the project (baseline through post-intervention administrations). Each of the three probes has
ten long division problems equal in difficulty for the student to solve.
There were 30 total digits in all of the correct answers on each of the probes; each
probe version had an equal number of digits in the answers. To measure Wil’s progress, after
each probe was administered, I calculated how many digits in his answers were in the correct
place value when compared to the correct answer (i.e., (Probe 1; problem 9) Wil’s answer: 577

3. Briggs 3
R 42; correct answer 77; number of digits in correct place value is 2). The number of correct
digits in the correct place value from his ten answers were then totaled, divided by 30 (there
were 30 total digits in the answers on each of the probes), and then multiplied by 100 to
produce a percent. The percentage of correct digits in the correct location was then graphed
each week after Thursday’s probe administration (the graph is located on page 1).
Were these data reliable? Yes, I believe these data are reliable because I followed the
same procedures each time that I looked at the completed probes. I had an answer key for each
probe (1, 2, and 3) and I compared Wil’s answers to the correct answers; I highlighted each of
Wil’s numbers that corresponded in location with the same number in the correct answer.
Due to some of Wil’s answers, I made a ‘rule’ to follow that allowed for a more accurate
picture of his progress for understanding long division. During the baseline probes, Wil
frequently reached 4-digit answers in 3-digit by 1-digit long division problems (i.e., 501÷3=1530
R1); it is impossible for an answer to be larger than the dividend when dividing. In Wil’s 4-digit
answers, he frequently came to correct numbers in correct locations only by guessing. I decided
not to count his correct digits in 4-digit answers because his correct digits did not demonstrate
conceptual understanding. In order to compensate for ‘random’ correct digits, I decided not to
count any digits correct if the answer was larger than the dividend. I used this rule when
analyzing data from each probe. Since I used the same rule during each analysis, my data is
reliable.
Description of the Evidence-Based Practice
An evidence-based practice is an educational strategy or approach that has been proven
effective at increasing a specific academic outcome for students of a certain demographic or
population (IRIS Center, EBP Module, 2015). Teachers are required to use evidence-based
interventions to identify students for specific learning disabilities (SLD) (Wisconsin Department
of Public Instruction). Using evidence-based practices is an essential part of teaching; my
participation in the SRSD study in Westby, Wisconsin is exploring the effectiveness of using the
SRSD model of instruction for solving 3-digit by 1-digit long division problems.
The Self-Regulated Strategy Development model (SRSD) is a type of instruction in which
students are explicitly taught to complete specific academic tasks through the use of a strategy.
SRSD instruction can be delivered to an entire class (Tier 1), but the approach is most often
delivered to small groups (Tier 2; see Harris, Graham, & Atkins, 2012 & Lane et al., 2011), or in
individualized tutoring sessions (Tier 3; see Rogers, 2010). SRSD instruction can be implemented
by trained professionals that include teachers, research assistants, paraprofessionals, or even
community volunteers (see Rogers, 2010). SRSD is taught through a series of meta-scripted
lesson plans. The lesson plans are designed to incorporate the following six stages of the SRSD
strategy: Develop Background Knowledge, Discuss It, Model It, Support It, Memorize It, and
Independent Performance. The ‘Memorize It’ stage focuses on the premise that “...memorizing

4. Briggs 4
a strategy goes well beyond parroting the steps of the strategy. Students need to know and
understand what is involved with each step in the process. This understanding is crucial if
students are to use the strategy successfully.” (Lienemann & Reid, 2006, p. 6). The first five
stages of the strategy (Develop Background Knowledge through Memorize It) are to be taught
recursively. This means that teachers can and will revisit certain stages of the strategy when
results from assessments, observations, and/or interactions with the student demonstrate that
the student may need more support. SRSD instruction lasts until a student can independently
demonstrate the skill with a high level of success (Independent Performance).
SRSD has been found to be very effective at improving the writing performance of
students and the early evidence from the long division study in Westby appears to have a
similar result at improving math performance in long division as well. The study in Westby
focuses on three fifth grade students from Westby, Wisconsin that have been identified as
experiencing difficulty with long division. These students do not receive special education
programming and are not involved in math interventions; any gains that are made will be
attributed to the SRSD long division strategy. The study in Westby is contributing information to
an under-researched area of SRSD implementation.
Treatment Results:
The six baseline data scores that were collected from Wil were low; the highest
percentage of digits in the correct place value as the correct answer was 16 percent and the
lowest was 0 percent. Throughout the baseline data, Wil answered one long division problem
correctly in sixty attempted problems. Since Wil answered 1.6% of the problems correctly
(1/60), it can be said that he is performing significantly below grade level; students are
expected to master 4-digit by 1-digit division in fourth grade and Wil experiences difficulty with
3-digit by 1-digit division.
Using data from the baseline measures, I decided that 80 percent proficiency (80
percent of the digits in the student answer would be in the correct place value when compared
to the correct answer) would be a great goal for Wil. In order to make the aimline, I calculated
Wil’s performance level using the final three baseline probe results. On the last three probes,
Wil scored 10, 3, and 16 percent respectively which put his performance level at 9.67 percent.
The aimline was drawn beginning from 9.67 percent above the fifth baseline probe and ending
at 80 percent above the eighteenth probe.
Throughout my time tutoring Wil, he did not meet the goal of 80 percent proficiency
during a probe administration. Immediately following the start of the intervention, Wil’s
progress dropped down to 13 percent the first week and he dropped to 3 percent after the
second week of the intervention. A two week gap appears in the data (weeks 9 and 10 of
instruction) because the intervention was not administered because of cancelled school (i.e.,
snow days), unsafe conditions for travel, and illness. After the two week break from

5. Briggs 5
intervention, Wil’s data increased back to 13 percent, which was a common accuracy measure
for him when looking at all of his data. Wil’s progress improved in week 12 as his accuracy was
27 percent; the following two weeks (weeks 13 and 14) Wil’s accuracy dropped back down to
13 percent.
Early on into the intervention Wil’s performance in the treatment sessions and
performance on the assessment probes were not aligning; Wil made steady gains during the
tutoring sessions (i.e., used the strategy to solve division, used self-talk) but he did not use what
he was learning when he took the assessment probes. During the sixth week of treatment
(probe 14), Wil was explicitly told to use the strategy during all settings in which he encounters
a long division problem (i.e., classroom, homework, probe administration). Since that point in
time Wil started using the strategy frequently on the assessment probes; the increased use of
the strategy may account for the increase in his long division proficiency (weeks 15-17). The
closest that Wil got to his goal of 80 percent during the intervention was 67 percent in week 17.
The probes are still administered to Wil each Thursday during the school’s RTI Time. One
week after the intervention ended (week 19), Wil tied his highest score of 67 percent. Wil’s
current performance level, which has been derived by averaging the three most recent scores
(weeks 17-19), is 65.67 percent Even though Wil did not meet his goal, he improved his
performance level by an astonishing 56 percent.
Insights and Next Steps:
Based on the data and my interactions with Wil, I think that it would be best to support
this student with a multiplication intervention. Prior to the implementation of the SRSD
intervention, Wil was not able to accurately complete long division problems because he did
not understand the process of solving long division (i.e., 4-digit answers). At the conclusion of
the SRSD intervention, Wil was able to accurately use the steps in the long division process but
he made frequent mistakes when multiplying numbers. Wil knows what the product needs to
be following the division step, but he often comes to the wrong number when dividing. For
example, in the first problem of week 18’s probe (872÷6), Wil was faced with 27÷6 for the
second division step. Wil answered that 27 can go into 6 groups evenly 3 times (answered 3 in
the tens place), but when he multiplied he indicated that 6x3=24. Wil knew that 24 was the
closest that he could get to 27 when counting by sixes, but he miscalculated how many
groupings of six make 24. I feel that Wil’s progress monitoring graph and results do not reflect
his true understanding because his lack of prior knowledge (multiplication facts) is holding him
back. A multiplication intervention would be helpful in order for him to demonstrate his true
long division understanding.

6. Briggs 6
Lessons Learned:
The biggest take away from this project is the importance of using graphs when
teaching. It was clear to me how Wil was progressing with just a quick glance at the graph. In
my future teaching I would want to use graphs to help show parents their child’s progress;
graphs are quick to make and easy to understand. Graphs are also a bias-free way to share
information because the data speaks for itself; no opinions are necessary to interpret the data.
The graph also helped motivate me to teach Wil in a way that would work for him. I took
it to heart when Wil and I would have a fantastic tutoring session (used the strategy each time,
multiplied correctly) one day and then the next he would score low on the assessment probes.
It wasn’t until I told Wil that he could use the strategy on the probe that he finally did so. Once
he used the strategy his scores improved drastically. Once Wil’s progress improved, I shared the
graph with him as well, which I think helped to motivate him as well.
Another take away that I experienced from this project is the way in which evidence-
based practices improve a student’s performance in a specific way. Prior to the implementation
of the intervention, Wil answered the problems with 9.67 percent proficiency (the number of
digits in his answer that were in the correct location when compared to the correct answer) and
when we finished the intervention his proficiency level was up to 67.67 percent. The EBP
allowed me to teach in a systematic way that did not allow my emotions to interfere with
instruction. I was able to follow pre-made lesson plans that kept me on track and guided me
throughout the lesson. The combination of using a research-backed approach and
implementing it the way that it is designed (treatment fidelity) can have a powerful impact on
student performance.
The final thing that I am able to take away from this project is that graphs don’t tell you
everything. The information that has been graphed represents Wil’s progress on just 19 random
days. The graph can’t show how hard he worked during the tutoring sessions and it doesn’t
show the changes in the quality of his work. Wil was able to quickly memorize the steps in the
process and he was able to use them early on in our tutoring sessions as well, but it took him
about 7 weeks of treatment before he was able to generalize the strategy to use in in settings
when I was not present (i.e., assessment probes). I learned a lot from completing this project
and from participating in the study, I can’t wait to use what I have learned in my future
teaching.