Jump to content

Menu

Chalkdust vs. TT- test result just in


Recommended Posts

Ok very interesting. Last year for 6th we did TT7. Typically in years past he gets in the 7o something percentile on computation and 60 something in procedures. Last year he got 94 in procedures and 66 percentile in problem solving after using TT. We did Chalkdust pre-algebra this year and he scored: 87 percentile in problem solving and 63 percentile in procedures. :tongue_smilie: So maybe if I use both Chalkdust AND TT Algebra I like I plan to we will get a decent score on both areas??? Sigh.

 

Christine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That IS very interesting! Thanks for posting. I think it's a great idea--if you can swing it--to do two math programs that each have different strengths. It takes a lot of time, but can be well worth it. We did this with Videotext and NEM and I think my dc are more flexible and better thinkers in math because of it.

 

Good luck to you! :001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is how I plan to use both, since I already own them:

 

I will go through chapters 1-3 in TT first. I will then cover chapter 1 in Chalkdust which basically covers the same material. Then I will switch back to TT. I know that I won't finish, but he will only be in 8th grade next year. So if we don't finish until the end of 9th, so be it. It will be fine if he REALLY gets it.

 

Christine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My kids are terribly slow at math. I could never do two programs on a regular basis though I have dreams of having kids who are successful in both procedures and concepts. Their test scores show they are good at both, but the daily work is pure drudgery.

 

I wonder if TT produces kids who are good at procedures and if there is no indication that my dc will ever pursue a career in math or science if being good at procedures is good enough.

 

I guess you also have to think about what a percentile score of public school students really means in terms of understanding math conceptually. If hardly any students really understand math conceptually because of how math is generally taught then a percentile score doesn't really mean much. I don't know if I'm expressing myself well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to throw a wrench in the works, here, but...

 

If the percentile rankings come from a typical group-administered standardized test--like the CAT, ITBS, etc., then one cannot reliably compare two years' scores from an individual child. These tests are designed to compare groups of children to other groups of children: School A to School B or School A 2008 to School A 2009. Their statistical reliability is at the group comparison level, not the individual comparison level. For the individual child, their only statistically reliable use is as a screening mechanism--a score of an exceptionally high percentile ranking might indicate that a child should be tested for giftedness; a very low ranking might indicate a need to be further tested for an LD. Each of the 4 scores the OP posted were not in these "screening" ranges, so they honestly don't have a whole lot of statistically reliable meaning.

 

A more reliable test for an individual child to see if there was actual improvement is the Woodcock Johnson. The test was designed for individual evaluation. (IOW, if a child took the CAT and got one of those really high or low scores, the next step would be the WJ or a similar individual test.) When one compares one year to the next on the WJ or like tests, there are reliability ranges that let you know the probability that a difference in the score from one year to the next is due to chance or not. You'd be surprised at how much spread there can be in percentile rankings even on the individual tests and there still be a strong statistical probability that the difference was due to chance.

 

Neither the OP nor other posters should too readily conclude much of anything about either program given the results of 2 years' of testing on one child--and if the testing was done using a group-administered test, you can statistically conclude nothing at all.

 

Sorry to be a wet blanket!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really confused. I thought the Woodcock Johnson was an IQ test. I was talking about a standardized math test. So isn't it comparing him to how others his age did at the math for that age group??? I wouldn't think you would use a math test for giftedness at all.

 

Christine

 

I hate to throw a wrench in the works, here, but...

 

If the percentile rankings come from a typical group-administered standardized test--like the CAT, ITBS, etc., then one cannot reliably compare two years' scores from an individual child. These tests are designed to compare groups of children to other groups of children: School A to School B or School A 2008 to School A 2009. Their statistical reliability is at the group comparison level, not the individual comparison level. For the individual child, their only statistically reliable use is as a screening mechanism--a score of an exceptionally high percentile ranking might indicate that a child should be tested for giftedness; a very low ranking might indicate a need to be further tested for an LD. Each of the 4 scores the OP posted were not in these "screening" ranges, so they honestly don't have a whole lot of statistically reliable meaning.

 

A more reliable test for an individual child to see if there was actual improvement is the Woodcock Johnson. The test was designed for individual evaluation. (IOW, if a child took the CAT and got one of those really high or low scores, the next step would be the WJ or a similar individual test.) When one compares one year to the next on the WJ or like tests, there are reliability ranges that let you know the probability that a difference in the score from one year to the next is due to chance or not. You'd be surprised at how much spread there can be in percentile rankings even on the individual tests and there still be a strong statistical probability that the difference was due to chance.

 

Neither the OP nor other posters should too readily conclude much of anything about either program given the results of 2 years' of testing on one child--and if the testing was done using a group-administered test, you can statistically conclude nothing at all.

 

Sorry to be a wet blanket!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Woodcock Johnson Test of Achievement is what is used to measure achievement in math and other subjects. Woodcock Johnson also has a test of cognitive skills (an IQ test) but that test is not used as often as the WISC for IQ testing. Likewise, Weschler (maker of the WISC) has an individual achievement test, but the WJ is used more. I didn't specify their achievement test in my post above which is what confused you, I think.

 

When I mentioned giftedness, I was talking about *screening* for giftedness not *determining* giftedness. If you are an adminstrator in a school of 1000 kids, and you have a kid scoring in the 98th or 99th percentile, that would be a cue that you might recommend further testing to determine if that child is gifted. Likewise, if you have a child testing in the 10th %, you would likely recommend further testing to determine if the child has a specific learning disability of some kind. However, in either case, those group-administered tests are not designed to be sensitive enough to provide statistically significant information on an individual child. Further testing is needed to draw individual conclusions. Maybe that is clearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok very interesting. Last year for 6th we did TT7. Typically in years past he gets in the 7o something percentile on computation and 60 something in procedures. Last year he got 94 in procedures and 66 percentile in problem solving after using TT. We did Chalkdust pre-algebra this year and he scored: 87 percentile in problem solving and 63 percentile in procedures. :tongue_smilie: So maybe if I use both Chalkdust AND TT Algebra I like I plan to we will get a decent score on both areas??? Sigh.

 

Christine

 

Christine,

 

I don't worry so much about the percentiles, but I do look at and compare the number of problems they got right compared to the total number of problems. I also take into consideration if they've moved up a level in the testing. If they are making progress in answering more questions correctly then I consider that as a good sign they are progressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...