Issuu on Google+

Christine.Merrell@cem.dur.ac.uk

Using Data to Inform Teaching and Learning, and Monitor Progress www.cemcentre.org


ASPECTS Feedback School: 42373 Class: Nursery Language and maths development

80 70

Raw score

60

50 Iu an

40

B et hany

Fred

30

e ri etta Ala naChri stHinen re Guineve nn y Le M icha el E ddy

D av id

20

K yl e Jessic a

10

0 36

39

42

45

48

51

54

57

Age at assessment (months) 0% 11-Oct-02

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

60


ASPECTS Feedback School: 42373 Class: Nursery Language and maths development

80 70

Raw score

Iu a ynle a K ett i nr He

d Fre

60 v id Da

50

na Al a

40

e ver in e a c i ss Je

Gu

ny Len

B ethan

y

y E dd Chris tin e

30

20

10

0 36

39

42

45

48

51

54

57

Age at assessment (months) 0% 11-Oct-02

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

60


IDEAS+


Primary 1: IDEAS+ Highlighting and filtering Creating Custom Groups Creating feedback for an individual child Looking at one class against full cohort


Primary 3, 5 and 7: PIPS+ Website


Cohort Summary Value-added

What do you make of each cohort’s results?


PIPS P3, 5 and 7 ~ Grade Frequencies Context VA E D C B A Group Average National Average

-0.0% (0) 4.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 4.3% (2) 10.0%

8.5% (4) 8.5% (4) 6.4% (3) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 23.4% (11) 15.0%

0 2.1% (1) 14.9% (7) 40.4% (19) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 57.4% (27) 50.0%

+ 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 6.4% (3) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 6.4% (3) 15.0%

++ 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 2.1% (1) 6.4% (3) 8.5% (4) 10.0%

Group Average 10.6% (5) 27.7% (13) 53.2% (25) 2.1% (1) 6.4% (3) 100.0% (47)

Prior VA E D C B A Group Average National Average

-0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 10.0%

0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 15.0%

0 6.7% (3) 17.8% (8) 17.8% (8) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 42.2% (19) 50.0%

+ 2.2% (1) 6.7% (3) 20.0% (9) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 28.9% (13) 15.0%

++ 0.0% (0) 4.4% (2) 15.6% (7) 2.2% (1) 6.7% (3) 28.9% (13) 10.0%

Group Average 8.9% (4) 28.9% (13) 53.3% (24) 2.2% (1) 6.7% (3) 100.0% (45)

Can you interpret this information? How would you use it?


Mean Score

P3, 5 and 7 Attainment 60

60

58

58

56

56

54

54

52

52

50

50 Maths

Reading

Science

48

48

46

46

44

44

42

42

40

40 Subject

Are these results bad?


Mean Score

P3, 5, 7 Context value-added 10

10

8

8

6

6

4

4

2

2

0

0 Maths

Reading

Science

-2

-2

-4

-4

-6

-6

-8

-8

-10

-10 Subject

How do you interpret these results and what should you do?


Maths Attainment Mean Score

Progress over time 60

60

58

58

56

56

54

54

52

52

50

50 Primary Three

Primary Five

Primary Seven

48

48

46

46

44

44

42

42

40

40 Year Group


Maths Context VA Mean Score

Progress over time 10

10

8

8

6

6

4

4

2

2

0

0 Primary Three

Primary Five

Primary Seven

-2

-2

-4

-4

-6

-6

-8

-8

-10

-10 Year Group


Examples – Ian’s Reading Results Reading

Context

Prior

Context v-a

Start P1

55

End P1

58

Primary 3

56

68

0

-

Primary 5

67

66

+

0

0


Examples – Katy’s Maths Results

Maths

Context

Prior

Context v-a

Start P1

35

End P1

45

Primary 3

58

48

+

+

Primary 5

57

47

0

+

+


Group Grids 15

>>>Mark>>>

Doing better than expected, however they are no longer as far ahead as they used to be

Probably on track before, they have made Ellen Gemma excellent progress and have now moved Ben further aheadHarry

Doing better than expected and this may have been a consistent characteristic over time

Concurrent Value-added

Qasim

5

Helen Abbey

>>>Jack>>>

Lucy

Michael

Gemma

Jonathan Sharna

Doing as well as expected. However, they have moved from a position where they were ahead of similar children

Victoria

Patrick

Fay

Karl Davina Probably underachieving before, however they On track and is probably a consistent Catherine Penny have made excellent progress and are now on Yasmin Edward characteristic over time track. Nicole Kerry Adam Owen

Jodie HannahDaniel

>>>Nathan>>>

Michael

-5

Lee

Olivia Tara Ralf Zoe Fergus

Probably on track before but has fallen behind and is now underachieving

Becky

Isobel Ian

George

Probably underachieving before. They have made good progress but they still have some catching up to do

Underachieving and this may have been a Michael consistent characteristic over time Neil

-15 -15

-5

5 Prior Value-added

15


Standard Feedback Achievement


Standard Feedback Developed Ability


Standard Feedback Reading Modules


Standard Feedback General Maths Modules


Standard Feedback Developed Ability Modules


Standard Feedback Attitudes


Scores Charts


Longitude Charts

Age Equivalent Score

11 10 9 8 7 6 5 7

7.5

8

8.5

9 Age

9.5

10

10.5


Longitude Charts Reading Cameron (25/10/1999)

Age Equivalent Score

11 10 9 8 7 6 5 8

8.5

9

9.5

10 Age

10.5

11

11.5

12


Age Comparison Charts 15

Reading

e Elois e Ja k

14 hel Ra c Amie

13 nn Sha

on

Age Equivalent Score (years)

h Rac

12

be Ara

el

e arin Kath

lla

rge Geo Ellie

re And

w

k Ja c

11

h Isaia

Ro y H

el amu S y en oOllw

e Jam

Reference Upper Limit Lower Limit Reading

nna Joa

s

e Luk Gus

10 am Willi

es Jam

9

Kiera

u Sam

el

ael Mich a Tian

ley Brad

8

7

ria Victo

essa Van

6 9

10 Age (Years)

11


Aberdeen Primary Feedback