Final Research Paper - Duncan

GOAL SETTING AND MONITORING 1
The Effects of Goal Setting and Self-Monitoring on
Students’ Academic Achievements in Reading
Andrea Duncan
ED626 Classroom Research
Spring 2023
University of Alaska Southeast

Abstract
This action research was a mixed methods study which examined how personal goal
setting and daily self-monitoring had an impact on engaging two kindergarten students in their
own learning to help increase their academic performance in literacy skills through recognition
of known sight words. The two kindergarten students were attending a public Montessori school
in Southeast Alaska and were both performing below average in their literacy skills. Based upon
the Montessori Method (2007), Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (2001), and Fuchs & Fuchs
(2006) Response to Intervention (RTI) framework, the central aim of this study was to
incorporate these experts’ findings on goal setting, self-monitoring, and reading interventions in
my design for the three-week intervention to help my two kindergarten students increase their
reading skills. Each student set a personal daily goal for working with their sight words and
tracked their learning through daily self-monitoring journals. Each day the students were
assessed on their sight words, using a checklist to indicate new independently recognized known
sight words, and then used daily self-monitoring journals to note if they accomplished their goal
for the day and documented what new words they learned. Their known sight word gains were
charted and graphed, noting if they met their individualized, targeted goals. The study found
personal goal setting and self-monitoring to be a strong motivator for increasing students’
performance on known sight words while also improving their self-efficacy awareness. This
study demonstrated that targeted, individualized reading instruction, using goal setting and self-
monitoring, can enhance students’ reading skills through sight word recognition. Thus,
understanding that effective teaching strategies for students’ self-agency can be valuable for
those in the educational field and more importantly, to students’ academic success.
Keywords: Goal Setting, Self-Monitoring, Progress-Monitoring, Sight Work Recognition
Introduction
In my Montessori primary classroom, we had been working on reading instruction, from
learning letter sounds, writing letters. decoding, and working with sight word recognition. We
started with the sound work, learning each sound of the alphabet, then students moved on to their
writing work, which in my class is called the rainbow boxes. This work included picture cards
and a moveable alphabet where students sounded out the picture and used the moveable alphabet
to spell out the word. The moveable alphabet is a Montessori material that is made up of small
wooden pieces of each individual letter, the consonants are in pink, and the vowels are in blue.
See Appendix A for a picture of the moveable alphabet. The rainbow boxes started out with
constant vowel consonant (CVC) words, and steadily progressed through more challenging
words from blends to words with silent letters (e.g., like, little, made, ghost), to words with /tion/
or /ing/ at the ending. As the students moved through these boxes they began to work on
decoding skills using reading cards. The students had skills to sound out the letters and began to
read. This was where the sight words were incorporated into the curriculum and I introduced
common sight words, using printed cards, for kindergarteners (e.g., a, the, be, and, but). Many of
the kindergarten students in my class were right on track with their reading skills, but two
students had been struggling with their literacy skills. The kindergarten class was administered
progress monitoring tests in the fall and winter, and the results showed that these two students
fell below the class average. Due to this reason, I set out to find how I could better engage my
two students in their own learning through goal setting and self-monitoring to increase their
reading skills using sight word recognition.

Thematic Review of Research
Currently, I am a paraeducator in a Montessori classroom, working with children
preschool through kindergarten. Even though there are preschool and pre-k students in the room,
my research course focuses on the kindergarten students within this Montessori classroom. A
benefit to the Montessori classroom is that they teach to the individual child and support where
they go in their academics. With this benefit, it has become apparent that two of my students are
performing below grade level in reading. So, what can be done to help these students increase
their reading skills in the kindergarten class? Many theorists and researchers have investigated
goal setting and self-monitoring to help students gain a sense of agency and broaden their
metacognitive skills. In conjunction to goal setting and self-monitoring, researcher and educators
have found that doing progress monitoring can help determine what students are missing in their
learning or what they need to help improve their literacy skills. Other theorists have conducted
research and have come up with different strategies and interventions to help students falling
behind in their reading.
To understand the effects student goal setting, self-monitoring, and progress monitoring
has on students’ academic achievements, researchers have taken various approaches to testing
these impacts. Many researchers have spent countless hours inside classrooms, observing
students, creating questionnaires, collaborating with teachers, and collecting student data to
figure out how students setting their own goals and monitoring their work has on increasing their
academic achievements.
Goal Setting
Smithson (2012) found in her study on personal goal setting with her third-grade class
that as her students set weekly assessment goals, there was an increase in their weekly
assessment scores in math, reading, and language arts. Smithson also found that there was an
increase in students’ intrinsic reward and motivation from the students setting and working
towards their own goals. Intrinsic reward is an internal psychological reward that a person
achieves based on their effort and abilities. When Bruvig et al. (2022) conducted their research,
they found that kindergarteners had an increase in sight word recognition, self-regulating
abilities, motivation levels, and improved confidence levels when they set their own goals for
learning sight words.
Sides and Cuevas (2020) stated that the goal-setting theory indicates a positive
relationship between a person setting high, attainable goals and achieving high academic
performance. In Sides and Cuevas study on the effect goal setting had on third and fourth grade
students’ motivation, self-efficacy, and performance in multiplication, they found that goal
setting had a positive effect in their math performance. Their study was unable to show an effect
of goal setting on student motivation, or goal setting on student self-efficacy, which they found
interesting since they saw positive effects in other research that was conducted. As seen by the
findings of these studies, goal setting helps students achieve goals, solve problems, increase
assessment scores, increase academic achievements, and create more enthusiasm in their own
work.
Monitoring
Self-Monitoring
Self-monitoring has been shown to be a strategy that teaches students to self-assess their
behavior and record their results to help maintain attention, complete tasks, problem solve,
remain on task, and/or track their progress towards a goal. Bialis and Boon (2010) found in their
study on the effects of self-monitoring skills in classroom preparedness for kindergarten students
who are at-risk of developmental disabilities that self-monitoring can be an effective intervention
to help young students learn how to regulate their own behaviors. They observed three
kindergarten students who had problems with academic preparedness behaviors, which were
listening to directions and repeating directions, so they implemented a self-monitoring checklist
where the students would check off if they followed both expected behaviors throughout the day.
In all three cases, the students all showed an increase in their classroom-preparedness skills once
the self-monitoring procedure was implemented in the classroom.
Baas et al. (2014) conducted a study to examine the relationship between Assessment for
Learning (AfL) and elementary students’ cognitive and metacognitive strategies through self-
monitoring. Assessment for Learning is a process of collecting information about student
learning from a wide variety of assessment practices and using this information to modify
teaching and learning to better meet students’ needs. The participants in this study selected their
work to include in their portfolio and would then reflect on their work using questionnaires to
assess their perception of their own monitoring skills and the scaffolding from the teacher. When
analyzing the data from their work, they found that when students monitored their own work,
they had the potential to have a clear understanding of where they were in their learning process,
along with knowing their own strengths and weaknesses. They also believe, for self-monitoring
to be effective, teachers should scaffold activities and teach students the skills and tools to know
how to self-monitor.
With these studies centered on self-monitoring being a useful strategy for students being
prepared for classroom instruction and having a clearer understanding of what they are learning,
I would like to use a similar model where student will self-monitor and reflect on their learning
each day during the intervention to investigate and see if it improves their literacy skills.
Progress Monitoring
One progress monitoring tool is the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
(DIBELS®), which is a universal tool that assesses benchmarks in the literacy skills of students
K-8. The literacy skills that DIBELS® measures are letter recognition, phonological awareness,
decoding, oral reading fluency, and comprehension. According to the DIBELS® benchmark,
students who perform below grade average (40% and below) in their literacy skills are
considered at-risk for having reading problems in the future.
Ball and Gettinger (2009) conducted a study on the effects of students’ growth in early
literacy skills depending whether teachers received feedback on the results of the student’s tests.
The results showed that the students who had teachers who received feedback from the
DIBELS® performance tests demonstrated greater improvements on literacy skills compared to
students whose teachers did not receive feedback. This indicates that teachers can use these
performance tests as feedback to determine where students score in the benchmark and
determine if there are any students who need further support in any of the literacy skills
previously listed. Students who score below 40% in their DIBELS® test are likely to have a
greater need for receiving reading interventions.
Due to the results of these studies, I would like to use the results from the students’
DIBELS® benchmark to determine which students score below 40% and are at-risk for reading
problems. I will use the performance feedback to determine what areas I need to target my
instruction.
Effectiveness of DIBELS®
DIBELS® is a program endorsed by the Federal Reading First Grant Office to assess
fluency in a range of reading-related tasks. Many teachers and researchers have questioned and
raised concerns regarding the effectiveness of the DIBELS® assessment predicting children’s
reading ability. Shelton et al. (2009) did a study to see how effective DIBELS® Oral Reading
Fluency (DORF) subtest was at assessing accuracy and comprehension. The researchers used the
same rules and regulations that DORF followed and had students read actual literature and
checked their Words Correct Per Minute (WCPM) to see if both assessments gave similar
results. They found that there was no connection between the DORF scores and the students oral
reading fluency and comprehension of authentic literature. The DORF scores indicated that the
14 participants were “low risk” for reading problems, but with the literature reading 10 of the 14
students were at “some risk” or “high risk” for reading problems. This study suggests that
teachers should use both DIBELS® and additional reading assessments (reading actual literature
and checking WCPM) to measure rate and accuracy to assess students reading proficiency and
comprehension. The DIBELS® scores should not be the only assessment tool we use to predict
students’ literacy skills; we need to use multiple assessment tools to see where students are at in
their reading to determine if they need reading interventions.
Reading Interventions
Response to Intervention (RTI)
There are many different reading interventions that are used to help students who are
falling behind or are at risk for reading problems. According to Fuchs and Fuchs (2006), two
researchers and experts in the field of education for students with learning disabilities and the use
of interventions, state that Response to Intervention (RTI) is an alternate academic intervention
that provides early intervention to children who are at risk for academic failure, especially for at-
risk readers. Ball and Gettinger (2009) noted in their study on monitoring children’s growth in
early literacy skills using progress monitoring tools that:

RTI hinges on the use of systematic progress-monitoring to (a) collect information about
how children are performing, and (b) enable teachers to respond with well-targeted
instruction and individualized support as soon as delays are evident. The premise of RTI
is that intervening early can prevent the development of serious academic problems (Ball
and Gettinger, 2009, p. 190).
There are three tiers to the RTI model: Tier 1 is universal instruction for all students, Tier 2
targets instruction for students who show some risk factors, and Tier 3 is intensive evidence-
based, instruction for students who are high risk. According to Fuchs and Fuchs (2006), progress
monitoring is used in the RTI model to see where students score on the benchmark tests to
determine if they are at risk for academic problems and need targeted interventions.
Targeted Reading Intervention
Bratsch-Hines et al. (2020) defined Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) as a literacy
professional development program designed for kindergarten and 1st grade teachers to gain
knowledge in facilitating 15-minute diagnostic strategies, which are: rapid reading progress for
students who are struggling in phonological awareness, decoding, oral reading language, fluency,
and comprehension. In their study, they used TRI to promote rapid reading gains for students
who were at risk of reading-related disabilities based on their fall assessment scores in
phonological awareness, decoding, spelling, and comprehension. They found that students who
received TRI measured higher in letter word identification, sound spelling, and reading
comprehension skills. TRI had a positive effect on student decoding, phonological awareness,
and vocabulary skills. Programs like TRI encourage teachers to differentiate their instruction for
individual learners to help each student increase their literacy skills. When interventions are used
correctly and teachers have the appropriate training, the outcomes can benefit the students’
learning needs.
Considering the importance of early interventions for students who are at-risk of
academic failure and future reading problems, I will be conducting a targeted reading
intervention for students who are performing well below benchmark standards in reading.
Summary
According to this reviewed research, researchers have found that students setting their
own goals and monitoring their progress has had a positive effect on their literacy achievements.
There are many different interventions put into place to help these students increase their literacy
skills, including RTI and TRI. Teachers have taught students and incorporated goal setting and
self-monitoring skills in their curriculum to help students not only increase their literacy skills,
but also increase their self-confidence and enthusiasm in school. When we incorporate student
goal setting and self- monitoring into the instructional plan, students may increase their literacy
skills, improve their assessment scores, and have a more positive school experience.
Theoretical Framework
I have two students in my classroom who are performing below grade level in their
reading skills, especially with sight word fluency. Not only are they behind in reading, but they
are resistant to doing schoolwork, have low motivation, and have low confidence in their
learning skills. The objective for my research project is to help increase students known sight
word frequency to improve their reading skills and increase confidence in their own learning
process. My goal is to help students learn how to set attainable goals for themselves in their own
work towards their reading.

One teaching model that educators conducted to support students learning is the
Montessori pedagogy, which is also backed by the reviewed research. According to Maria
Montessori (2007), children learn in an environment that is well prepared for the child, to work
on their own, to gain independence, and build their own unique, individual self. She also states
that learning focuses on fostering a sense of independence and personal development in the
classroom. Montessori built the design around using observations to see where the student is at in
their learning, what are their interests and motivations, and what next steps need to be taken to
help the child build upon what they already know. The students have the ability to make their
own choices and be agents in their own learning. My study is based around the Montessori
pedagogy and working in the Montessori design to support students building their own agency
through goal setting and self-monitoring.
Another theory that also supports student agency is the Social Cognitive Theory by
theorist Albert Bandura (2001), which states that learning happens in a social context through
social interactions, observations, experiences, and that a person can be an agent in their own
learning. Bandura notes that students’ own sense of self-efficacy has a strong, positive
relationship to their academic achievements. He continues that as students have success with
achieving the goals they set out, they tend to set higher goals and work harder to attain them.
Bandura (2001) states, “agency thus involves not only the deliberate ability to make choices and
action plans, but the ability to give shape to appropriate courses of action and to motivate and
regulate their execution” (Bandura, 2001, p. 8). Not only does his theory cover student agency,
but he also believes students learn through goal setting. Based on this theory, it is believed that
students need to be able to make choices, set their own goals, and figure out how to execute
those goals. My proposed study is going to look at the effects goal setting and self-monitoring
has on improving students reading skills for those students who performed below grade level.
The use of goal setting and self-monitoring may show progression that students have not yet
exhibited.
Doug Fuchs and Lynn Fuchs are two researchers and experts in the field of education for
students with learning disabilities, they have focused their work on progress monitoring and
interventions in reading (American Institutes for Research, 2021). One intervention they
designed is the Response to Intervention (RTI), which is a framework that provides early
intervention to all children at risk for academic failure. According to Fuchs & Fuchs (2006),
teachers use the evidence they collect to determine if they need to change their curriculum, the
materials used, or how they implement their instruction. Each student learns differently, so the
intention behind RTI is to use progress monitoring to problem solve and figure out if a student is
at risk and find different ways to target instruction that best suit the student’s learning needs.
Edward Shapiro (2008), a psychologist and researcher who specialized in school psychology and
special education, noted that progress monitoring has become an important tool for improving
academic scores for all students across many academic areas including reading, mathematics,
composition, and spelling. Knowing that progress monitoring and targeted intervention have the
potential to help students improve their reading skills, I am interested in conducting a targeted
intervention with two case study students who are at risk for reading difficulties. I hope through
progress monitoring and intervention, the students will increase their reading skills.
Research Question
The purpose of this research is to see the effects of goal setting and self-monitoring on
students’ academic achievements in reading. Since some of my reviewed research and theorists
discussed the positive effects of using progress monitoring and targeted instruction in reading,
my research will be looking at the assessment scores of progress monitoring tests and see if
targeting my instruction for goal setting and self-monitoring will benefit my students’ literacy
skills. In light of the prior research and theories presented, my research question is: how can I
better engage my kindergarten students in their own learning by having them set their own goals
and use self-monitoring checklists to improve their sight word recognition in a 3-week period?
Research Design
In this study, I investigated how to better engage my kindergarten students in their own
learning by setting their own goals and used self-monitoring checklists to improve their sight
word recognition. I took a qualitative inquiry approach examining a real-world situation, without
manipulating it. I took a naturalistic approach in this research through a case study design that is
both historical and observational, interacting with students to obtain knowledge about the
phenomena of this research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Participants
The population of students were coming from a public Montessori school in Southeast
Alaska. Montessori classrooms are designed with mix age groups, ranging over three years.
There is the infant and toddler classroom (0-3 years old), primary classroom (3-6 years old, or
preschool-kindergarten), lower elementary (6-9 years old, or 1st-3rd grade), upper elementary (9-
12 years old, or 4th-6th grade), and middle school (7th-8th grade). The research project I conducted
took place inside a Montessori primary classroom working with two kindergarten students.
In Montessori, there is a 3-hour work period where students can choose their own work,
conduct the work for as long as they need, and place it back on the shelf when complete. The
teacher will show the student where the material is located, how to carry it, where they can work
with it (on a table or on the rug on the floor), and then deliver the lesson on that material. The
teacher will provide one-on-one lessons with a child to introduce a material from different
subject areas: math, reading, writing, geography, etc. The teacher uses observations and
assessments through working with the student to see where the student is at in their learning and
where they need to go next. Once a student has had a lesson on the material, they are free to
choose that work whenever they like during the 3-hour work period. Students are encouraged to
practice and work with the material to learn the new concepts presented, so they are not given
new lessons every day. The shelves are designed so they are at the level of the student, open,
organized, and clean. The materials are prepared and ready for students to use.
For instruction, the teacher approaches a student and invites them to a lesson, providing
choice to the student. The classroom is a child-centered design. As the teacher works with the
student, they will check for prior knowledge of the topic they are covering, which helps the
teacher know what needs to be covered in the lesson. The three essential components that make
up the Montessori classroom are the child, the teacher, and the environment. All three
components need to be present for the classroom to be an effective place for the student to learn.
From this population, my case study focused on two kindergarten students in the
Montessori classroom who performed below grade level in their literacy skills. The intervention
took place within the regular classroom during the morning work cycle. Both students were
administered the DIBELS® and Measures of Academic Progress (MAP®) assessments in the
fall and winter and scored below grade standards. These two students were the lowest
performing students in the classroom and were behind in their reading skills compared to their
kindergarten peers. My research project focused on the Alaska English/Language Arts Standards
for Kindergarten in reading under phonics and word recognition. The standard stated that
students should know and apply grade-level phonics and word analysis skills in decoding words
by reading common high-frequency words by sight (e.g., a, the, at, is, she, but, and, or, etc.).
In addition to the information provided by the DIBELS® and MAP® scores, I conducted
a teacher interview with my coworker regarding my problem of practice, what she thought of my
research project, and got insight into her knowledge and view of the two case study students. In
the interview, she thought I was right on point with my design and believed both students would
benefit from my intervention. My coworker’s feedback helped confirm the purpose of my
research, consistency in our observations, and why I designed the intervention the way I had.
The first participant, Jill (pseudonym), was a 5.8-year-old Native Alaskan student who
was being reviewed for speech therapy and had been in the Montessori classroom for three years,
with the first year over Zoom. Jill was a reluctant learner and would avoid work if not
encouraged by a teacher. When engaged with work, Jill was easily distracted by others or would
sit with her work doing nothing. Jill requested a teacher to stay by her side to do her work and
had a hard time continuing to work if the teacher walked away. Regarding the teacher interview,
my coworker believed Jill had confidence in herself regarding school, but the issue lied in the
lack of desire to do the work. She suggested that Jill be paired with a peer who was doing the
same work as her, work in a private space, and keep the lessons interesting so she doesn’t lose
interest. I agreed with my coworker because I had made similar observations and had noticed the
same tendencies. I believed my coworkers’ suggestions for how to conduct my intervention
would benefit Jill in her learning.
The second participant, Jack (pseudonym), was a 5.7-year-old Asian American student
who entered the classroom at the end of his pre-k school year. Jack displayed low confidence in
his own learning. His best friend was one of our higher academic performers in class and Jack
wanted to be doing the same things as him. Jack would shut down and completely stop working
if he saw his friend doing other work or was advancing faster than himself. Jack had outbursts of
screaming, stomping, crying, or tensed his body when he got frustrated in his work. It was hard
to get him back to work after he got to that level of frustration. He wanted to be doing more
advanced work but did not want to take the steps to get there. Regarding the teacher interview,
she believed Jack had confidence issues and would benefit from working privately with me,
making sure there was no competition in the games, and be given shorter lessons. She believed
his work needed to be done with an adult. Once again, I agreed with my coworker. I had made
the same observations about Jack and believed he needed to work with a teacher one-on-one, or
with a peer, but with the teacher conducting the lesson. Jack did not do well with competition,
especially if he did not win. There needed to be no competition built into the games we played.
Procedures
The research project I conducted took place inside a Montessori primary classroom,
during the 3-hour work period at a time when the students were available for a lesson and were
not engaged in other work. I engaged my case study students by inviting them to a lesson when
they were free. Based on the DIBELS® and MAP® scores, both students needed to improve
their reading skills through intervention and focused instruction. My intervention included Jill
and Jack setting their own goals to learn common sight words. I provided targeted instruction on
sight word fluency each day with each student to help increase their reading skills. My objective
was for Jill and Jack to use a daily journal to monitor their work each day and reflect on what
they were learning.
Student Interview
I conducted a student interview on how Jill and Jack felt about reading and how they
viewed themselves as readers. I ran the interview to see their perspective of themselves as
readers and if their perceptions changed after my three-week intervention took place on learning
sight words. My interview consisted of six questions on the topic of reading and was
administered in the regular classroom, on the Friday morning before the intervention took place.
The interviews happened within the regular classroom because this is where I worked and
interacted with Jill and Jack. Both of my case study students were used to working one-on-one
with me, so it did not disrupt their day and it felt like a normal, daily interaction.
For the interview protocol, I interviewed one student at a time in a one-on-one setting
asking the interview questions through a conversation about reading. I took the opportunity to
conduct the interview when I observed if Jill or Jack were available during the morning work
period. I invited them to find a two-person table for us to work at and then brought up the topic
of reading as a conversation. Through the conversation I asked my questions: Do you enjoy being
read to? How do you see yourself as a reader? How do you feel about reading? Is learning to
read easy or hard? Why? How can you learn to read? What do you need from your teachers to
help you with reading? I rephrased or adjusted my questions according to the response from my
students. I documented the responses of Jill and Jack on the student questionnaire.
Pre-Assessment
I conducted a pre- and post-assessment of data for sight word reading. The preassessment
data was collected the Friday before the three-week intervention and was used to show how my
case study students increased their reading skills by recognizing known common sight words for
kindergarten students. My two case study students performed below grade average on their
DIBELS® and MAP® benchmark assessments and were not able to recognize the sight words. I
had designed a sight word chart/checklist with 20 common sight words for kindergarten students.
In our classroom we called sight words puzzle words, so I will be referring to them as puzzle
words from here on out. For the puzzle word assessment checklist, see Appendix B. I had
compiled different sets of puzzle words, 10 pairs of words per set. I worked with two of the
puzzle word sets with Jill and Jack. If they progressed through the two sets, I was prepared to
administer a third set, conducting the same pre-assessment protocol.
For the pre-assessment protocol, I gathered each case study student, one at a time, in the
morning work period when they were available. I showed them where the puzzle word set was
located, we gathered the material and found a table where we could work one-on-one. I picked
the first set of puzzle word cards, and one-by-one showed a card to Jill or Jack to see if they
knew the word. I made two piles, one for the words the case study student knew and one for the
words the student didn’t know. There were two cards for each word so Jill and Jack saw the
word twice. If Jill or Jack did not know the word the first time they saw it but could recall it the
second time after the word was told to them, it still counted as a word they did not know. I
provided the name for the words they didn’t know. This data was recorded on the puzzle word
assessment checklist using the boxes under each sight word. There were two boxes under each
puzzle word, the first box was checked when the word was introduced, the second box was
marked when Jill or Jack knew the name of the puzzle word. They colored in the box with the
known puzzle word in it once the second box was marked and they knew the puzzle word. Once
the preassessment was complete, I lead a game of memory with Jill or Jack. They named each
card that was flipped over so they had multiple chances to repeat the name. This went on until all
matches were found. I conducted this same pre-assessment for both case study students one at a
time.
Goal Setting
The protocol for goal setting started with teaching my students how to set their own
goals. In the week before I implemented my intervention, in the morning work cycle period, I sat
down with each student one-on-one, and talked about goal setting. I asked them if they knew
what goals were, which they didn’t know, so I provided a couple example of goals. I informed
Jill and Jack that we were setting goals for learning puzzle words for reading. I helped guide
each student to determine how often they wanted to practice, for how long, who they wanted to
work with, and how they wanted to engage with me to start the game. I wanted to know if they
wanted me to approach them to work on the puzzle words or if they wanted to find me to do the
work, giving them some autonomy. I documented their goal in my records and used this later in
the self-monitoring portion of my research, listed below. Jill and Jack had the option to change
their goals as needed.
Goal Setting and Daily Self-Monitoring Journal
The following procedure described for the daily self-monitoring journal was conducted
with Jill and Jack in a one-on-one setting. They were given the exact same procedure, so in my
description I will be referring to them as the case study student or by their names but know they
both were given the same procedure. Once they had set their goals, I wrote it down in the goal
section of the goal setting and daily self-monitoring journal (see Appendix C). I designed the
goal setting daily journal with two questions used for self-reflection each day. The first question
asked, how do you feel about accomplishing your goal for today? There were four face emojis
listed under the question for the student to choose: ‘happy’ face, ‘extremely happy’ face, ‘sad’
face, or ‘no emotion’. The case study student circled or colored in the emotion that reflected how
they felt about their work. The second question asked, what is one new thing you learned today?
The case study student provided the answer to the question. The morning work period ended
around 11 am, so at that time I gathered Jill and Jack, one student at a time, to retrieve their
journal and found a table for us to work at. I read the goal they set back to them and asked the
two questions. Their answers were recorded in the daily self-monitoring journal for the
corresponding day.
They kept their goal and daily self-monitoring journals on my teacher shelf where they
had access to the journals each day. I analyzed Jill and Jack’s responses throughout the
intervention and when the intervention was complete.
Intervention
I taught Jill and Jack three different puzzle word games where they interacted with me by
saying the puzzle word names. During the first week, the games were taught one at a time, one
game a day, over the course of three days. Utilizing the Montessori design, Jill and Jack had an
opportunity to play any one of the games during the 3-hour morning work period with myself
and/or other peers, which supported their practice of sight word frequency. For the remaining
intervention, Jill and Jack were free to choose any one of the games to play for their puzzle word
work. Each day before each game, I sat down with each student one-on-one and did a quick
assessment on the puzzle words to see if they recalled any new puzzle words from the previous
day. All new words that became sight words to Jill and Jack were recorded on the puzzle word
checklist, which followed the pre-assessment protocol listed above. Jill and Jack colored in the
box on the checklist for their known sight words (puzzle words). The games and descriptions are
listed below.
Game #1: Memory. Using the set of cards from one bag (10 pairs of puzzle words), I
laid the cards face down in 5 rows on the table. I took turns with Jill or Jack flipping over two
cards to find a match. Each time a card was flipped over, Jill or Jack said the name of the word. I
informed them of the name of the word if they did not know it. The game continued until all
matches were found.
Game #2: Go Fish. I used one set of cards for this game (10 pairs of puzzle words). I
passed out three cards per person and placed the remaining cards face down in a stack in the
middle of the table. I took turns with Jill or Jack asking if the other person had one of their
words. If they did, the other person handed over the card. If not, the person said, “go fish” and
the other player had to pull a card from the stack. If Jill or Jack did not know the word, they
showed the card to me so I could inform them of the name. If I asked for a word Jill or Jack
couldn’t recall, I showed them the card with the word on it, so they knew what it looked like.
Matches were placed to the side in a stack. This game continued until all words were matched.
Game #3: Hide and Go Seek. I used one half of the set of cards for this game (10 puzzle
words), along with a stack of post-it notes. I wrote one of the words on each post-it note and hid
them throughout the designated area of the classroom. I placed the stack of cards face down on
the table and my case study student pulled a card. Jill or Jack said the name of the word and went
around the classroom and found its match. They brought the match back to the table and laid
them out together. They pulled the next card in the stack, stated the word, and went to find its
match in the classroom. If they did not know the name, I told them what it was. They did this
until all 10 words were found, matched, and displayed on the table.
Post-Assessment
The post-assessment for sight word recognition was conducted in the same fashion as the
pre-assessment after the three-week intervention. On the Friday of the final week of the
intervention, I gathered Jill and Jack, one-on-one, and did a final assessment of their known sight
words, documenting it on the puzzle word assessment checklist. I used this data in my analysis to
determine how many known sight words the students had learned over the three-week
intervention.
Post-Student Interview
After my three-week intervention I conducted student interviews again, used the same
questions listed above, and saw how Jill and Jack felt about reading and viewed themselves as a
reader. The post-student interview was administered the Friday afternoon of the last day of the
intervention and was conducted the same way as the pre-student interview. I wanted to see if
there was any change in their perceptions of reading.
Methods
Student Interview
I analyzed the student pre- and post-intervention interviews to see how the students
perceived themselves as readers and how, if at all, their feelings may have changed. This was
important to my research because it could show how creating a targeted intervention to increase
literacy skills may have improved Jill or Jack’s perception of themselves as readers. One
objective I had set for this research was to help Jill and Jack increase their confidence in their
own learning process. Their responses may have provided insight into what they felt about
reading and if their confidence in reading had increased over the course of the three-week
intervention. Hearing firsthand from Jill and Jack was the best way to understand their thoughts
about themselves as readers.
Pre- and Post-Assessment
I analyzed the pre-and post-assessment known puzzle word fluency to see how my case
study students performed over the course of the three-week targeted intervention. This data was
important to my research because it helped me see how much Jill and Jack were able to learn
through my intervention design. Along with setting goals to help Jill and Jack increase their
confidence in reading, my objective for my research project was to help increase Jill and Jack’s
known sight word frequency to improve their reading skills. The qualitative data from the
assessments may have helped show if my objective for the lesson was met.
The goal setting and daily self-monitoring journal was analyzed by looking at Jill and
Jack’s responses to the two questions: how do you feel about accomplishing your goal today?
What is one new thing you learned today? The first question provided insight into how they were
feeling about their own work, which aligned with my objective to help increase their confidence
in reading. The second question helped Jill and Jack with developing their metacognitive
thinking. The intention behind this question was to help Jill and Jack think about their work and
increase their recall for known puzzle words. By analyzing their daily journal, I saw how they
were feeling and what they recalled over the course of three weeks. I used the data to see how
accomplishing their goal, or not accomplishing their goal, may have connected to their recall of
the new words they were learning.
Analysis
Internal validity in this study was be accomplished through triangulation, the analysis of
multiple sources of qualitative data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A narrative analysis of student
interviews and goal setting and daily self-monitoring journals was conducted, along with content
analysis of pre- and post-assessment of known sight words.
Results
The central aim of this study was to examine the impact goal setting and daily self-
monitoring had on increasing two case study students’ literacy skills through learning commonly
known sight words, along with increasing the students’ confidence in their own learning. The
following chart, figures, and narratives represent the data collected from my two case study
students, Jill and Jack, over the three-week intervention.
Student Interview Data
This case study research project focused on two students performing below grade average
in reading by centering the intervention on increasing the students’ known sight word
recognition through goal setting and self-monitoring. To understand the students’ own
perspective on reading, I administered a pre- and post-student interview to see if there were any
changes to their perspective of themselves as readers or in reading. The interviews took place
through a conversation, so some questions had to be elaborated on or adjusted to get answers out
of the students or to understand their responses.
In the pre-student interview, Jill needed more elaboration or adjusted questions to get a
response out of her because her first response to five of the six pre-interview questions was either
‘I don’t know’ or no response at all. For example, I asked how do you feel about reading? She
did not respond so I adjusted the question and asked, do you like to read? This time she
responded “no”. To have her elaborate on this answer, I asked her why not? She responded, “I
dess I do” (Jill has some developmentally expected pronunciation differences, she struggles with
making certain sounds such as /g/, /b/, and /th/). Her response suggested to me that she did not
have a lot of confidence in her response. She was not interested in the interview and kept asking
me when we would be done. She wanted to go back to work with her friend, so her attention was
pulled in that direction. In her post-interview, Jill responded with more answers that described
the work she did in the intervention. She noted that she learned puzzle words, explained how she
sounded out words, and that she liked reading. In the post-interview, to the question I asked
above about how she felt about reading, Jill responded with, “good.” I elaborated on this
question and asked why she felt good, and she responded, “decause I like it. I dust like it”. In the
post-interview she did not once respond with ‘I don’t know’ or gave no response at all. After I
administered the post-interview, Jill asked if she could practice her puzzle words again, she said
she wanted to know all the words that day.
To conduct the pre-interview with Jill, I had to pull her away from working with her
friend. This frustrated her and she told me she just wanted to get back to her friend. This could
have contributed to her lack of responses, or the ‘I don’t knows’ in the pre-interview. She was
not interested in working with me and her focus was on getting back to playing with her friend.
In the post-interview, I was able to sit with her right after we transitioned back into the classroom
for the second work period in the afternoon. She was able to focus more on the conversation and
there were not any distractions pulling her away from the interview.
In the pre-interview with Jack, I had to adjust three of the interview questions to get a
response from him or to try and have him elaborate on his answer. For the post-interview he was
able to answer the questions and describe what he did during the intervention. For example, in
the pre-interview, I asked him how do you feel about reading and at first he gave no response. I
then adjusted the question and asked, do you like reading? He responded with “yeah”. For the
post interview, he responded with “good”. I then asked, what makes you feel good? He replied,
“be able a weed” (Jack also has expected developmental pronunciation differences, he struggles
with making certain sounds such as /r/, /b/, /t/). This indicated to me that he saw himself as a
reader because he said he felt good because he was able to read. He was able to describe the
process he used for reading the puzzle words. In the post-interview he said that reading was easy
because he would look at a word and it would help him sound it out. This was a common process
for him during the puzzle word games when there were any words that had /th/ in it (e.g. the,
they, that, this), he would sit and look at the word, recognize the /t/ and /h/ together and start to
make the /th/ sound. He would tell me not to help him because he wanted to sound it out himself.
If he still couldn’t get it, he would ask for help. In the post-interview Jack was excited answering
the questions; he was bouncing out of his seat. After his interview he asked to practice his puzzle
words again, so he and Jill practiced for the last 30 minutes of class that day. They both told me
they wanted to know all the words in the two sets and were motivated to learn them.
Pre- and Post-Sight Word Assessment
I administered the pre-sight word assessment the Friday before the intervention took
place. The assessment consisted of two sets of ten sight words. These twenty words were chosen
because they are some of the common sight words that the Alaska State Standards states
kindergarten students should know by the end of their kindergarten year. I created an assessment
checklist with each set of words listed in a table, with two boxes below each word. The example
puzzle word assessment checklist for set 1 is shown below in Table 1. For the entire puzzle word
assessment checklist with the two other sets, see Appendix B.
Table 1
Puzzle (Sight) Word Assessment Checklist: Set 1
the of was that no
a I you is to
When Jill and Jack were administered the assessment, I checked off the first box in the
checklist to indicate they were introduced to the word. When Jill and Jack knew a word, I
checked the second box and had the student color in the corresponding word in the table (see
Table 1). I designed this so they could engage in their learning and provided a visual
representation so they could see all the words they were learning.
For the first week of the sight word study, I had the students working with the first set of
puzzle words to help focus their attention on only ten words at a time. By the end of week one of
the intervention, once Jill and Jack had success recognizing and recalling a few puzzle words
from set one, I brought out the second set of puzzle words (10 words per set) that I selected for
the sight word study. My intention for waiting to introduce set two was that I wanted to isolate
the first ten words, so I didn’t give too many words at one time, and they only had ten words to
focus on. Every day before we played any games I would do a quick assessment with one of the
two sets of puzzle words, depending on which set they wanted to work with that day. I marked
the second box for the new puzzle word the student was able to independently recognize and
recall during the daily assessment, before we played any games. Jill and Jack colored in the new
known puzzle word in their puzzle word checklist. This allowed for repetition in remembering
which word they learned that day, if any at all. This process was conducted the same over the
course of the three-week intervention; Jill or Jack would choose either set one or set two of the
puzzle words to work with, I conducted a quick assessment showing the puzzle words one at a
time to Jill and Jack, if there were any new puzzle words they recognized and recalled
independently, I would check the box on the puzzle word checklist and they would color in the
new known puzzle word, and then we would play a game with their chosen set. Figure 1 below
shows the pre-and post-assessment scores for the students at the beginning and end of the three-
week sight word study.
Figure 1
Pre- and Post-Assessment Scores of Known Sight (Puzzle) Words
Pre and Post Assessment Scores

on Known Sight (Puzzle) Words
20
18
16
Known Puzzle Words
14
12
(out of 20)
10
Pre-assessment
8
Post-assessment
6
4
2
0
Jill Jack
Case Study Students
Note. Jill missed three of the fifteen days of the puzzle word study, so she had fewer days to practice her
puzzle words. The data shows how many puzzle words Jill and Jack knew when we started the project
and how many words they knew at the end of the three-week intervention.
The pre-and post-assessment scores show what gains Jill and Jack made in the puzzle
word study. My research project was designed to help Jill and Jack increase their known puzzle
words to help improve their reading skills. In the pre-assessment Jill was able to read 5 of the 20
known puzzle words, but by the end of the intervention, during the post-assessment, she was able
to read and recall 16 of the 20 puzzle words from the two sets. For Jack’s pre-assessment, he was
able to read 2 of the 20 puzzle words, but by the end of the three-week intervention, he was able
to recall 16 of the 20 puzzle words. Jill started out knowing more words than Jack, but in the end
they were both able to recall 16 of the 20 known puzzle words. Jill missed three of the fifteen
days of school due to sickness or poor road conditions due to snow, so she had three fewer days
than Jack to practice and work with the puzzle words.
I created the goal and daily self-monitoring journals for Jill and Jack to use each day to
help increase their metacognitive skills and be active in their own learning. I incorporated two
questions for the students to reflect on each day. The first question asked, how do you feel about
accomplishing your goal for today? The second question stated, what is one new thing you
learned today? I sat down with each student individually, stated their set goal back to them, and
then asked Jill and Jack the two reflection questions. For the first question, I incorporated face
emotions (emojis) for the students to use to indicate how they felt about accomplishing their
goal, the four emotions were: ‘happy’ face, ‘extremely happy’ face, ‘sad’ face, and ‘no emotion’.
See Figure 2 for the emotions. I stated each emotion after asking the question, providing the
name of the emotion to go with the face. The second question was open ended and allowed for
the student to state something new they learned that day. For the goal and daily self-monitoring
journal example, see Appendix C.
Figure 2
List of Emotions Incorporated in the Goal and Daily Self-Monitoring Journal
Note. The graphic was incorporated in their goal and daily self-monitoring journals. The list of emotions
from left to right are happy, extremely happy, sad, and no emotion.
Jill started out circling the ‘happy’ face emotion for the three of the five days she
attended school during week one. She missed two days of school that week, one sick day and one
snow day, so we were unable to work on her puzzle words those days. The second week of the
sight word study she attended four of the five days, and she chose the ‘happy’ face for all four
days. By the third week she chose the ‘extremely happy’ face emotion four of the five days, with
only one day being the ‘happy’ face. This was in the third week when she knew 9 of the 10
puzzle words from set one and was starting to recall more of the puzzle words from set two.
During week three Jill was working on her puzzle words before I arrived and then again with me.
For the second question, Jill was able to provide at least one word she learned or was working on
ten of the twelve days she was at school. Two of these days the word she provided was not in
fact the word she was able to recall in the assessment but was a word she remembered in the
game. In the third week I observed Jill having a more positive outlook at school, I was not
having to engage her in work when I arrived, and she was harder to pin down to do our daily
assessment because she was always engaged in other work.
Jack was very consistent in his work with puzzle words. From the beginning he would
choose the ‘extremely happy’ face and would give the same smile while coloring in the face for
the reflection emotion. By week two Jack found his daily self-monitoring journal and circled in
the emotion without me knowing. I still had to do the reflection with him later to get his answer
for the second question. In week one Jack chose the ‘extremely happy’ emotion all five days.
Week two he chose the ‘extremely happy’ emotion four of the five days, and the ‘no emotion’
one of the days. During week three Jack chose ‘extremely happy’ emotion three of the five days,
‘happy’ face one of the days, and ‘no emotion’ one day. The two days he circled ‘no emotion’,
Jack wanted to play hide and go seek with the words, but the designated area of the room where
we played the game was occupied so he couldn’t do the game he chose. Jack was disappointed,
but he was able to choose another game and practiced his puzzle words with me. The day he
chose ‘happy’ face was a day he did not recall any new known puzzle words. During weeks two
and three Jack would meet me at the door with the puzzle word box in hand and say he wanted to
practice with me. By the third week he practiced his words with me and then with a friend. He
worked so much on his words that on the final assessment he was able to recall four new puzzle
words from the day before, going from knowing 12 of 20 puzzle words to knowing 16 of 20
puzzle words.
I created the goal and daily self-monitoring journal because I wanted to help increase my
student’s confidence in reading and provide a way to help them recall and remember common
puzzle words. I wanted to figure out a way for the students to engage more in their learning,
visually see how they felt about their learning, and become aware of how much they learned
each day. Jill and Jack both showed signs of increased confidence through their responses in
their goal and daily self-monitoring journals, increased engagement in their work, and in their
facial expressions as they recalled more puzzle words. Through their pre- and post-student
interview they were able to explain the work they were doing for reading and both indicated they
saw themselves as readers when it was not specified in the first interview.
Data Analysis
My goal for collecting this data was to help my two case study students, who were both
performing below grade level in reading, increase their literacy skills through learning
commonly known sight words through goal setting and daily self-monitoring. I also wanted to
see how my two students perceived themselves as readers and if that perception changed over the
course of the three-week intervention. The data I collected from my two students provided a lot
of information about how incorporating goal setting and daily self-monitoring journals had an
impact not only on their learning of sight words, but on their engagement and excitement to
learning.
What I discovered with the pre-interview was that Jill did not have a strong perception of
herself as a reader and struggled to provide answers to my questions. In the post-interview she
was able to articulate how she was able to read and that she liked to read. After the intervention,
she saw herself as a reader. What I found with the pre-interview with Jack was that he liked to
read and said he could but was unable to elaborate on his reading. His post-interview showed me
that he was able to explain what he did when he was reading and how much he liked to read. It
wasn’t just with his words that provided me information, but with his body language as well. He
was bouncing out of his seat when answering my questions. I was able to see a difference in both
of their confidence as readers through their words and in their body language.
The data from the pre-and post-sight word assessment showed me that both students were
able to increase their known sight (puzzle) words during the intervention. Jack increased his
known puzzle words from 2 out of 20 to 16 out of 20. Jill increased her known puzzle words
from 5 out of 20 to 16 out of 20. Jack had a greater increased gain, but they were both able to
recall the same amount in the end. Jill had missed more days of school, which may have had an
impact on her score.
The goal and daily self-monitoring journal data indicated to me that both Jill and Jack
were able to reflect on their work and were mostly either ‘happy’ or ‘extremely happy’ with the
work they put in each day according to the first reflection question in the journal, how do you
feel about accomplishing your goal today? Jill and Jack both indicated to me they loved to work
on their puzzle words so they could color in the emotion for the day. From the second reflection
question, what is one new thing you learned today, Jill and Jack both spent time thinking about
what new words they were able to recall in their assessment, if any at all. This gave them a
chance to think about what they were learning and the work they put in. These reflection
questions may have contributed to their increase in learning sight words, while also increasing
their confidence and enjoyment in learning.
Discussion
The purpose of this research study was to determine how I could better engage my
kindergarten students who were performing below grade average in their literacy skills by
utilizing goal setting and daily self-monitoring journals to help increase their sight word
recognition. Through classroom observations and results from both progress monitoring
assessments, DIBELS® and MAP® scores, it became apparent that two students in my
kindergarten class were behind in their literacy skills and both needed individualized instruction
to help increase their reading skills through sight word recognition. It has already been
established that implementing a Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) for kindergarten and 1st
grade students who are at risk for reading related problems helped those students increase their
literacy skills through decoding, phonological awareness, and vocabulary skills (Bratsch-Hines et
al., 2020). In addition to TRI, research has also shown that when students monitored their own
work, they had the potential to have a clear understanding of where they were in their learning
process, along with knowing their own strengths and weaknesses in their learning (Baas et al.,
2014). Therefore, the central aim of my work was to determine if similar approaches to targeted,
individualized instruction could have an impact on the engagement, self-efficacy, and academic
achievements of my two case study students.

The main goal for this study was to help my case study students increase their reading
skills and performance level in reading. I focused on sight word recognition and planned my
instruction around playing card games (memory, go fish, and hide and go seek) with two sets of
puzzle (sight) words so my students would engage with the work. The study showed me that the
three games I planned with the puzzle words were extremely effective in not only engaging my
students in their work but focusing their attention to each individual word. Both students made
substantial gains in learning their sight words. Jack went from knowing 2 of 20 sight words to
knowing 16 of 20. Jill went from knowing 5 of 20 sight words to knowing 16 of 20. To meet the
Alaska State Standard for Language Arts, Jill and Jack both need to learn at least four more
puzzle (sight) words. The standard states that kindergarten students should know at least 20
common sight words by the end of their kindergarten year. In the post-assessment, Jill and Jack
both recognized 16 of the 20 sight words from the two sets. I wonder if Jill had addended the
three days she missed during the intervention, if she would have met the Alaska State Standard
and known all 20 puzzle words from the two sets.
One problem that came up with the instruction for the intervention using the card games
was that I told the students they could choose any of the three games to play (go fish, memory, or
hide and go seek), but two of the days Jack chose hide and go seek, but the designated area to
play the game was occupied. When I told him we couldn’t play, he hung his head and was
visibly upset. He was still able to choose another game to play and completed his work, but it did
affect his self-monitoring work both of those days. Those were the only two days he chose the
‘no emotion’ emoji in his daily self-monitoring journal, where every other day he chose the
‘happy’ or ‘extremely happy’ emotion. This interaction provided me with additional information
and insight into the progress Jack made. From those interactions, I observed how Jack responded
when he was told he couldn’t do the work he chose. Before the intervention, Jack would have
huge outbursts when something didn’t go his way. He would stomp, scream, hit the table, cry,
and shut down. This did not happen during the intervention, even though when he was told no
was usually one of his triggers. He was able to control his reaction, take a moment, and then
continue with his work. This interaction showed me the changes Jack was making through his
engagement in the work.
The data and analysis for my research study revealed several positive effects of targeted
instruction, using goal setting and self-monitoring strategies. Just as in the study by Bratsch-
Hines et al. (2020), my data revealed that using the TRI model, where the teacher spends at least
15 minutes on diagnostic strategies with a student to help increase phonological awareness, oral
reading language, fluency, vocabulary, or comprehension, had a positive effect on both of my
students increasing their high frequency reading (vocabulary) through sight word recognition.
Spending at least 15 minutes a day working with Jill and Jack showed increased gains in their
known sight words. Not only did it increase their sight word recognition, the focused instruction
and daily work with each student had major effects on my relationship with each student. When
planning my intervention, I was not focusing on building and strengthening my relationship with
the students, but it ended up being an additional, positive outcome.
Another goal of this study was to help increase my students’ self-confidence in their
reading skills and how they perceived themselves as readers. The responses from the pre- to the
post-interviews with Jill and Jack suggested that their view of themselves as readers increased,
their joy for reading improved, and their perception of themselves reading became more apparent
to themselves. My students tracked their goals through daily self-monitoring journals which
helped them become more aware of what words they were learning and how they felt about
accomplishing their goal. My findings support the study by Bass et al. (2014), where through
self-monitoring the students had a clearer understanding of where they were in their learning
process. They were able to articulate how they were able to read and the strategies they used to
help them when faced with a challenge. In the post-interview, Jill told me she saw herself as a
reader because she was able to read puzzle words and that she felt good about reading because
she just likes to read. Jack said he felt happy about seeing himself as a reader and that he felt
good because he was able to read.
To better engage my students in their own learning to help increase their academic
achievements in reading, I incorporated goal setting and daily self-monitoring journals. I taught
Jill and Jack how to set goals and then worked one-on-one with each student to set their own
goal for working on their sight (puzzle) words. In regard to goal setting, my data supports
Bandura’s (2001) theory that when students have success with achieving the goals they set out,
they tend to set higher goals and work harder to attain them. Both students fully engaged in
working on their goals to learn sight words, while also using their metacognitive processing
skills to reflect on what new words they learned each day. By the third week of the intervention,
both students chose to work on their sight words at least twice a day, once with me and then
again with a peer. I did not prompt or suggest the students do this; they became aware of how
close they were to learning all 20 words from the two sets that they put in extra time and worked
harder to attain their goal.
The goal setting and daily self-monitoring journals were such a hit that other students in
the class requested to have a journal as well. They said they wanted to make their own goals and
circle the emotions in their daily self-monitoring journals. Due to this interest, I created daily
goal journals for the other kindergarten students but designed them a little different with five
categories for goals: small number work, large number work, reading, writing, and other. The
student or teacher would write what work goal the student chose to do that day for each category,
and at the end of the work period or day the students used the four emotions to reflect on their
work for the day. My two case study students made this transition with the other students in the
class once the intervention was over, continuing to set goals and self-monitor their work each
day.
Limitations
By the end of this study, the students did not have an opportunity to take their spring
DIBELS® or MAP® assessments. There was no long-term assessment scores to reinforce the
progress made by Jill and Jack. To confirm their progress and see where they performed on the
benchmark, the spring tests need to be administered and posted.
Another limitation to this study was the short time period I was able to administer the
intervention. I was only able to carry out a three-week intervention to work with the students to
help increase their sight word recognition, improve motivation, and increase their confidence and
perception of themselves as readers. With more time, I could have introduced another set of sight
words for the students to learn through playing the games. More time could have shown an even
higher increase in their confidence and recognition of themselves as readers because they could
have had more time to find the words in texts, practiced reading books, and had more time
reflecting on the work they were doing.
I found that the pre- and post-interview questions also created some limitations in
understanding the students’ perception of themselves. The question I chose seemed to have
confused them, so I had to adjust or re-word my questions. In the future, I would choose different
questions, re-word what I asked, or add a few more questions to understand more about how my
students felt as readers.
Conclusion
My case study research project focused on two kindergarten students, Jill and Jack, who
attended school in a public Montessori classroom in Southeast Alaska, and both performed well
below grade level in their literacy skills. Both students were administered the Dynamic
Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS®) and Measures of Academic Progress
(MAP®) assessments in the fall and winter and the results showed they both scored below grade
standards in reading. According to the DIBELS® benchmark, students who score below 40% in
their DIBELS® test are likely to have a greater need for receiving reading interventions. Both of
my students scored below the 40% mark. In addition to the results of the benchmark tests,
through my observations and work with Jill and Jack, I noticed they struggled with their
decoding skills and reading known sight words. Jill exhibited signs of low motivation in doing
her work, while Jack exhibited signs of low confidence in his work. With this information I
wanted to help improve my students’ academic achievements in reading while also improving
their motivation and confidence in their own learning. I came up with the research question: how
can I better engage my kindergarten students in their own learning by having them set their own
goals and use self-monitoring checklists to improve their sight word recognition in a 3-week
period?
To understand if goal setting and self-monitoring could help improve my student’s
confidence and motivation, I investigated the research done by Smithson (2012) who found that
there was an increase in students’ intrinsic reward and motivation from the students setting and
working towards their own goals. Bruvig et al. (2022) conducted their research on sight word
recognition and found that kindergarteners had an increase in sight word recognition, self-
regulating abilities, motivation levels, and improved confidence levels when they set their own
goals for learning sight words. I wanted to find out if I could create a similar design to help my
students not only increase their academic achievements in reading through sight word
recognition, but to also help improve their confidence and motivation through goal setting and
self-monitoring.
In regard to using progress monitoring tests as feedback for determining my case study
students’ needs for focused reading instruction, I found the research done by Ball and Gettinger
(2009), which showed that the students who had teachers who received feedback from the
DIBELS® performance tests demonstrated greater improvements on literacy skills compared to
students whose teachers did not receive feedback. Through the research done by Shelton et al.
(2009), their study suggests that teachers should use both DIBELS® and additional reading
assessments (for example reading actual literature and checking Word Count Per Minute
(WCPM)) to measure rate and accuracy to assess students reading proficiency and
comprehension. The DIBELS® and MAP® scores should not be the only assessment tools used
to predict students’ literacy skills, which is why I made my own observations into the progress
and performance my students were making in the classroom.
I investigated different interventions and found that Response to Intervention (RTI) and
Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) both had components in their frameworks that I wanted to
implement in my research design. RTI is a three-tier framework designed by researchers Fuchs
and Fuchs (2006) that provides early intervention to all children at risk for academic failure,
especially at-risk readers. Each student learns differently, so the intention behind RTI is to use
progress monitoring to problem solve and figure out if a student is at risk, and find different
ways to target instruction that best suits the student’s learning needs. Bratsch-Hines et al. (2020)
defined Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) as a literacy professional development program
designed for kindergarten and 1st grade teachers to gain knowledge in facilitating 15-minute
diagnostic strategies, which are: rapid reading progress for students who are struggling in
phonological awareness, decoding, oral reading language, fluency, and comprehension. I created
a targeted, individualized reading instruction for my two case study students by using their
progress monitoring results and discovered their need to learn known sight words to improve
their literacy skills.
For my research design I used triangulation of mixed methods over the course of a three-
week intervention. The first form of qualitative data I conducted was a pre- and post-student
interview to see how my two students perceived themselves as readers, and if their perception
would change after the reading intervention. For my quantitative data, I implemented a pre- and
post-assessment on 20 sight words the kindergarten students should know by the end of
kindergarten. I wanted to track any gains the students made over the course of the 3-week
intervention. In my classroom we call sight words puzzle words, so the names are used
interchangeably in my research project. My second qualitative data, and the third form in
triangulation, was a goal and daily self-monitoring journal. The goal and daily self-monitoring
journals included two questions: how do you feel about accomplishing your goal? What is one
new thing you learned today? For the first question I provided an emoji graphic with four
emotions the students could choose: ‘happy’ face, ‘extremely happy’ face, ‘sad’ face and ‘no
emotion’ (see Appendix C for the goal and daily self-monitoring journal example). My case
study students could look at the emojis and independently record how they felt about their work.
Before the intervention took place, I taught my students how to set a goal, and then they both set
their own goal for working on their puzzle words each day. Over the course of the three weeks,
each day I would do a quick assessment, one-on-one, with Jill and Jack, with one of the two sets
of puzzle word cards. In the intervention, I included a puzzle word checklist the students used to
track their own learning (see Appendix B for puzzle word checklist). If Jill or Jack were able to
recall a new sight word in the assessment, I would use the puzzle word checklist to check off the
new known sight word, the student would color in the corresponding word on the checklist, and
then they could choose to play any of the three games I designed for the intervention. The games
included memory, go fish, and hide and go seek. Each day, after the students worked on their
sight words, I used the daily goal and self-monitoring journal with each student to help them
reflect on their work and see how they felt about accomplishing their goal. This data was
analyzed at the end of the intervention and provided insight into what gains my students made in
the three weeks, and how it affected their motivation and confidence in their learning.
The results of this study provide my classroom and the broader teaching community,
especially for kindergarten, some important insight into engaging students in their own learning.
Specifically, it highlights the ability to use targeted, individualized reading instruction to
improve the literacy skills for students who are performing below grade level. In my study, the
data from the pre- and post-sight word assessment showcase how my students substantially
improved their known sight words in a matter of three weeks. Furthermore, the study shows my
students have improved motivation to engage in their learning when they use goal and daily self-
monitoring journals and puzzle word checklists. By having a visual representation of the work,
they have the autonomy to document their work, have the ability to improve their performance in
reading, and increase their enthusiasm to do the work. Creating fun and engaging games for my
students to practice their words has shown to be an effective way to increase their desire to
engage in the work. All these findings build a strong case in the importance of increasing self-
efficacy in young students through targeted reading instruction, goal setting, and self-monitoring.
The biggest revelation of my intervention shows the impact 15 minutes a day of focused,
targeted instruction has on the increase in the academic performance of my two students. By
incorporating fun games, interactive self-monitoring journals, and puzzle word checklists, my
students are able to increase their sight word recognition and motivation to do their work. By
taking the time to observe my students, use the progress monitoring scores, and implementing a
targeted intervention, it has made a profound impact on increasing my students’ academic
achievements.
My findings of this study are important for my coworkers, teachers of younger students,
support staff, and parents to know that it is possible to engage students of all abilities in their
own learning and potentially help increase their reading skills. This could be tested within other
subject areas as well, depending on where students are struggling. With this age group, being
kindergarteners, it is helpful to use emoji graphics for students to reflect on. They do not have to
read or write proficiently to express how they feel about the work they put in. My students
express a lot of joy and excitement in coloring in the emotion and taking agency in doing their
reflections on their own.
Since we are coming up to the end of this school year, based on my findings from this
research project, I would like to implement the puzzle word checklist and the daily goal and self-
monitoring journals starting in the beginning of the next school year. I have already created the
goal and daily self-monitoring journals, which all our current kindergarteners, plus many of next
year’s kindergarteners, are already using. This will carry on into next year and the students may
continue to improve their reading skills through sight word recognition. This practice of self-
monitoring will hopefully continue to help motivate and build confidence in the students’ own
learning.
Through this research and intervention, I have generated other questions that I would like
to research later. For one, a few of the students who will be moving up into kindergarten next
year have behavioral problems that some of our current kindergarteners do not exhibit. I am
interested in creating behavioral daily self-monitoring checklists to investigate and see if it will
help them improve the expected behaviors of the classroom, similar to the work done by Bialis
and Boon (2010) on the effects of self-monitoring skills in classroom preparedness. I am also
interested in making changes to the emotion graphics that are incorporated in the goal and daily
self-monitoring journal. I would remove one of the ‘happy’ faces, so there is only one to choose,
and would replace it with an ‘angry’ face. The ‘angry’ emotion was not included in the
intervention but is an emotion that is exhibited in the classroom. I would be interested in seeing
the effectiveness of this emotion being included in the choices for both the goal and daily self-
monitoring journals and the behavioral daily self-monitoring checklists.
The two kindergarten students will be moving on to a new classroom next year, starting
1st grade, I am interested in following them through 3rd grade to see how their academic
achievements improve. I want to continue tracking their DIBELS® and MAP® scores to see
how they progress in their reading skills and if they move to or above grade level, starting with
their spring scores this year. The students will need continued support in their literacy skills not
only with sight words, but with decoding as well.
Overall, the study highlights the importance on integrating goal setting and self-
monitoring journals in a classroom, even for young students in kindergarten. The data suggests
that students may benefit in their reading skills and increased motivation when they engage in
their learning. When integrating reading interventions, goal setting, and self-monitoring, the
findings from this study suggests young students are able to build self-efficacy skills while also
improving their academic achievements in reading.

References
American Institutes for Research (2021, April 29). Doug Fuchs and Lynn Fuchs, National
experts in special education, to join the American Institutes for Research.
https://www.air.org/news/press-release/doug-fuchs-and-lynn-fuchs-national-experts-
special-education-join-american
Baas, D., Castelijns, J., Vermeulen, M. Martens, R., & Segers, M. (2015). The relation between
assessment for learning and elementary students’ cognitive and metacognitive strategy
use. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 33-46.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12058
Ball, C., & Gettinger, M. (2009). Monitoring children’s growth in early literacy skills: Effects of
feedback on performance and classroom environments. Education and Treatment of
Children, 32(2), 189-212. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42900018
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1-26
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/355c/13e658e2e0cad3feab681fa50278da552688.pdf
Bialas, J., & Boon, R. (2010). Effects of self-monitoring on the classroom preparedness skills of
kindergarten students at-risk for developmental disabilities. Australasian Journal of Early
Childhood, 35(4), 40-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911003500406
Bratsch-Hines, M., Verson-Feagans, L., Pedonti, S., & Varghese, C. (2020). Differential effects
of the targeted reading intervention for students with low phonological awareness and/or
vocabulary. Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(4), 214-226.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1270183.pdf
Bruvig, A., Anderson, T., & Moore, J. (2022). Goal setting in kindergarten: Motivating young
learners to be successful in learning sight words. Journal of Inquiry and Action in
Education, 11(1). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1355750.pdf
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how
valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4151803
Merriam, S. & Tisdell, E. (2016) Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
4thed. Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, CA.
Montessori, M. (2007). The absorbent mind. Montessori-Pierson Publishing Company.
Shapiro, E. (2008). Best practices in setting progress monitoring goals for academic skill
improvement. Best Practices in School Psychology V, 2, 141-157.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=2e5e8442a299923b43
3b40ef763213adc3d053e0
Shelton, N., Bess, Altwerger, B., Jordan, N. (2009). Does DIBELS put reading first? Literacy
Research and Instruction 48(2), 137-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070802226311
Sides, J., & Cuevas, J. (2020). Effect of goal setting for motivation, self-efficacy, and
performance in elementary mathematics. International Journal of Instruction, 13(4).
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1270832.pdf
Smithson, M. (2012). The positive impact of personal goal setting on assessment. Canadian
Journal of Action Research, 13(3), 57-73. https://doi.org/10.33524/cjar.v13i3.61

Appendix A
Montessori Moveable Alphabet

Appendix B
Puzzle Word Assessment Checklist
Name: _______________________
Kindergarten Puzzle Words (Sight Words)
Set 1
the of was that no
a I you is to
Set 2
this for they have his
me be are he as
Set 3
(This set will only be introduced if the students have success with the other 20 words)
or do we said here
what from were one there

Appendix C

Final Research Paper - Duncan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Research Paper - Duncan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GOAL SETTING AND MONITORING 1

The Effects of Goal Setting and Self-Monitoring on

Students’ Academic Achievements in Reading

ED626 Classroom Research

University of Alaska Southeast

In my Montessori primary classroom, we had been working on reading instruction, from

reading skills using sight word recognition.

Thematic Review of Research

Currently, I am a paraeducator in a Montessori classroom, working with children

behind in their reading.

learning sight words.

listening to directions and repeating directions, so they implemented a self-monitoring checklist

the self-monitoring procedure was implemented in the classroom.

monitoring. Assessment for Learning is a process of collecting information about student

considered at-risk for having reading problems in the future.

DIBELS® performance tests demonstrated greater improvements on literacy skills compared to

greater need for receiving reading interventions.

their reading to determine if they need reading interventions.

Response to Intervention (RTI)

of interventions, state that Response to Intervention (RTI) is an alternate academic intervention

early literacy skills using progress monitoring tools that:

and Gettinger, 2009, p. 190).

Targeted Reading Intervention

Bratsch-Hines et al. (2020) defined Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI) as a literacy

work towards their reading.

through goal setting and self-monitoring.

phenomena of this research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

benefit from my intervention. My coworker’s feedback helped confirm the purpose of my

same tendencies. I believed my coworkers’ suggestions for how to conduct my intervention

would benefit Jill in her learning.

they were learning.

administer a third set, conducting the same pre-assessment protocol.

their goals as needed.

Goal Setting and Daily Self-Monitoring Journal

intervention and when the intervention was complete.

matches were found.

there was any change in their perceptions of reading.

about themselves as readers.

Pre- and Post-Assessment

Goal Setting and Daily Self-Monitoring Journal

the new words they were learning.

analysis of pre- and post-assessment of known sight words.

students, Jill and Jack, over the three-week intervention.

Student Interview Data

of the students or to understand their responses.

she wanted to know all the words that day.

Pre- and Post-Sight Word Assessment

assessment checklist with the two other sets, see Appendix B.

Puzzle (Sight) Word Assessment Checklist: Set 1

the of was that no

week sight word study.

Pre- and Post-Assessment Scores of Known Sight (Puzzle) Words

Pre and Post Assessment Scores

than Jack to practice and work with the puzzle words.

Goal Setting and Daily Self-Monitoring Journal

journal example, see Appendix C.

List of Emotions Incorporated in the Goal and Daily Self-Monitoring Journal

assessment because she was always engaged in other work.

impact on her score.

their confidence and enjoyment in learning.

achievements of my two case study students.

and known all 20 puzzle words from the two sets.

engagement in the work.