Group report for teachers - GL Educationgl-education.com/sites/gl/files/images/PTE and PTM...

GL Assessment is part of the GL Education Group.Copyright © 2014 GL Assessment Limited.

Group report for teachers

In case of enquiries please contact GL Assessment by emailing [email protected].

with Progress Test in English (PTE) and Progress Test in Maths (PTM)

14/10/2015Report generated on

CAT4 Group report for teachers with Progress Test in English (PTE) and Progress Test in Maths (PTM)

Level: C

School: Test School

No. of students: 25

Date(s) of testing for CAT4: 14/10/2015

Group: Unknown

Group report for teachers

Date(s) of testing for PTE: 14/10/2015 Level: 10

Date(s) of testing for PTM: 14/10/2015 Level: 10

Why use CAT4 with attainment tests?

CAT4 provides an objective and reliable profile of students’ ability and potential to learn and achieve.

By including tests of verbal, non-verbal and quantitative reasoning and spatial ability CAT4 assesses the maintypes of mental processing which play a substantial role in human thought. These are the core abilities relatedto learning. CAT4 gives information about the level at which a student is learning or has the potential to learn,and their pattern of abilities - leading to the student profile of learning preference or bias.

By comparing test scores from CAT4 with those from attainment tests it is possible to see where there is under-or over-achievement and to ensure that in core areas of maths and English (or reading) students are working ata level that reflects their ability. All scores can be compared to the national average.

For completeness, this report includes scores for the CAT4 Non-verbal and Spatial batteries.

Progress Test in English (PTE) tests spelling, grammar and punctuation and reading comprehension. PTEscores are compared to those from the CAT4 Verbal battery which tests students’ ability to reason with words.

Progress Test in Maths (PTM) tests a wide range of pupils' mathematical skills and knowledge. PTM8 andabove includes a mental maths test. PTM scores are compared to those from the CAT4 Quantitative batterywhich tests students’ ability to reason with numbers.

Page 2 of 21Copyright © 2014 GL Assessment Limited


Group: Unknown No. of students: 25

Date(s) of testing for CAT4: 14/10/2015 Level: C

School: Test School

Level: 10Date(s) of testing for PTE: 14/10/2015

Level: 10Date(s) of testing for PTM: 14/10/2015

Scores for the group (by discrepancy category)

CAT4VerbalSAS

PTESAS English discrepancy categoryStudent name CAT4 Non-verbal

SAS CAT4 Spatial SASCAT4MeanSAS

Maths discrepancy categoryPTM SASCAT4

QuantitativeSAS

Much higher than expectedNancy Roberts 61134 89 92117 101 117 Much higher than expected

Much higher than expectedRosaline Nash 106141 111 112130 102 103 Expected

Much higher than expectedRob Reagan2 113141 118 118138 102 109 Higher than expected

Higher than expectedPeter Watt 133141 129 129141 111 116 Higher than expected

Higher than expectedTom Albright 122141 136 131141 124 104 Much lower than expected

Higher than expectedAdian Fowler 72121 85 94117 102 104 Expected

Higher than expectedRebecca Mathews 81111 101 98106 102 101 Expected

ExpectedPeter Adetunde 141136 129 137141 137 102 Much lower than expected

ExpectedRob Reagan 72112 87 94113 102 112 Higher than expected

ExpectedTim Vincent2 68102 94 93109 101 118 Much higher than expected

ExpectedTeodora Dunec 61105 85 90113 102 129 Much higher than expected

Lower than expectedNatasha Aransola 141124 141 137141 124 117 Expected

Lower than expectedConnor Gibson 106123 105 113140 102 117 Much higher than expected

Lower than expectedDavid Smith 77105 99 99117 102 110 Higher than expected

Lower than expectedDeclan Kearney 117123 124 121141 102 129 Much higher than expected

Lower than expectedAnthony Jameson 101123 108 113141 102 101 Expected

Lower than expectedMartin Gibson 99110 117 111125 102 127 Much higher than expected

Lower than expectedDeclan Blair 68101 98 96117 101 104 Expected

Much lower than expectedRita Tucker 141119 130 134141 124 129 Higher than expected

Much lower than expectedTim Vincent 109109 118 117138 102 109 Higher than expected

Much lower than expectedNathan Gill 141110 136 133141 112 127 Much higher than expected

The Standard Age Score (SAS) is based on the student’s raw score which has been adjusted for age and placed on a scale thatmakes a comparison with a nationally representative sample of students of the same age across the UK. The average score is 100.

Copyright © 2014 GL Assessment Limited Page 3 of 21


CAT4VerbalSAS

PTESAS English discrepancy categoryStudent name CAT4 Non-verbal

SAS CAT4 Spatial SASCAT4MeanSAS

Maths discrepancy categoryPTM SASCAT4

QuantitativeSAS

Much lower than expectedNita Moss 101110 106 113141 102 103 Expected

Much lower than expectedRyan Galvin 101107 122 116138 102 105 Expected

Much lower than expectedRobert Robinson 107109 125 119141 102 128 Much higher than expected

Much lower than expectedAlice Jessica May 135103 132 134141 126 117 Expected


Analysis of group scores


Level: C

School: Test School

No. of students: 25

Date(s) of testing for CAT4: 14/10/2015

Group: Unknown

Date(s) of testing for PTE: 14/10/2015 Level: 10

Date(s) of testing for PTM: 14/10/2015 Level: 10

The table below shows mean (average) scores for your group compared with those for the national sample.

National average

CAT4Overall

mean SAS

Group

100.0100.0

CAT4Non-verbalmean SAS

113.8

CAT4Quantitativemean SAS

PTEmean SAS

100.0

107.6 103.0130.8

100.0

118.4

CAT4Verbal

mean SAS100.0 100.0

113.0

CAT4Spatial

mean SAS

113.5

100.0

PTMmean SAS

The table below shows the distribution of scores for your group compared with those for the national sample. Inaddition, the bar charts present this information.

Description

SAS bands

National average

Very low

<74

Below average Average Above average Very high

>12674–81 82–88 89–96 97–103 104–111 119–126112–118

12% 20% 17%17%4% 7% 4%7% 12%

0% 4% 64%0% 0% 8% 24%0%CAT4 Verbal 0%

0% 24% 24%0% 0% 36% 4%0%PTE 12%

0% 16% 4%0% 0% 4% 4%0%CAT4 Quantitative 72%

0% 0% 24%0% 0% 28% 28%0%PTM 20%

8% 12% 28%0% 12% 16% 12%0%CAT4 Non-verbal 12%

0% 4% 24%24% 0% 16% 8%8%CAT4 Spatial 16%






CAT4 profiles




School: Test School



Males

The analysis of CAT4 scores allows all students to beassigned a profile; that is they are assigned to one ofseven broad descriptions of their preferences forlearning. The Verbal Reasoning and Spatial AbilityBatteries form the basis of this analysis and the profilesare expressed as a mild, moderate or extreme bias forverbal or spatial learning or, where no bias isdiscernable (that is, when scores on both batteries aresimilar), as an even profile.

The diagram shows the distribution of students acrossthe seven profiles which are indicated by the colouredbands.

Extreme verbal bias

Moderate verbal bias

Mild verbal bias

No bias

Mild spatial bias

Moderate spatial bias

Extreme spatial bias

Females

•



It may be helpful to consider which students fall into which broad profile, but this information must be treatedwith caution as the descriptors are general and not individualised: students’ preferences for learning will beinfluenced by other factors. The CAT4 Individual student report for teachers offers more fine detail.

No bias or even profile

No. of students

Extreme verbal bias

Mild verbal bias

Mild spatial bias

National

%

Group

%

0%11% 0

2% 44% 11

520%

7

2

66%

8%11%

28%

00%

0Extreme spatial bias 0%

Moderate verbal bias 4%

2%

Moderate spatial bias 4%

•

•

They may prefer to learn step-by-step, building on prior knowledge, as their spatial skills are relatively weaker,being in the low average or below average range.

These students should excel in written work and should enjoy discussion and debate.They should prefer to learn through reading, writing and may be very competent independent learners.

•

•They are likely to be high achievers in subjects that require good verbal skills such as English, modern foreignlanguages and humanities.

Extreme verbal bias

Students:

Declan Blair Teodora Dunec Adian Fowler

Ryan Galvin Anthony Jameson Rebecca Mathews

Nita Moss Rob Reagan Nancy Roberts

David Smith Tim Vincent2

•

•

Students in this group will have average to high scores for Verbal Reasoning and relatively weaker Spatial Abilitywith scores in the average range.These students are likely to prefer to learn through reading, writing and discussion. •

Step-by-step learning, which builds on prior knowledge incrementally, is likely to suit these students.

Moderate verbal bias

Students :

Connor Gibson Martin Gibson Rosaline Nash

Robert Robinson Tim Vincent

Some students with this profile will have low average or below average scores for Verbal Reasoning and relativelyweaker Spatial Ability, but the gap between scores will be narrow.A slight bias for learning through reading, writing and discussion may be discerned in the students in this group.

•

•

Mild verbal bias

Students :

Declan Kearney Rob Reagan2



•

Students with low even scores, conversely, may require significant levels of support to access the curriculum butwill be open to a range of teaching and learning methods.

Scores for students with this profile will be very similar for both Verbal Reasoning and Spatial Ability but will beacross the range from low to high.

•

•

Students with high even scores will excel across the curriculum and will learn through the range of media andmethods.

No bias or even profile

Students :

Peter Adetunde Tom Albright Natasha Aransola

Nathan Gill Alice Jessica May Rita Tucker

Peter Watt

• Some students with this profile will have low average or below average scores for Spatial Ability and relativelyweaker Verbal Reasoning skills, but the gap between scores will be narrow.A slight bias for learning through visual media may be discerned in the students in this group. •

Mild spatial bias

Students : None

• Students in this group will have average to high scores for Spatial Ability and relatively weaker Verbal Reasoningwith scores in the average range.

• These students are likely to prefer to learn through visual and kinaesthetic media and will need to use diagrams,pictures, videos and objects to learn best.Students with above average or high Spatial Ability are often characterised as ‘intuitive’ or ‘big picture’ learners:attention to detail may be a weakness.

•

• Owing to a relative weakness in verbal skills, attainment may be uneven and they are likely to need support insubjects where the emphasis is on the written word.

Moderate spatial bias

Students : None

• These students should excel in problem solving and will grasp concepts quickly and intuitively.

• They will not enjoy rote learning and may arrive at a correct solution to a task without demonstrating the stepsalong the way.They are likely to be high achievers in subjects that require good visual-spatial skills such as maths, physics andtechnology.

•

• Owing to a relative weakness in verbal skills, attainment may be uneven and they may need support in subjectswhere the emphasis is on the written word.

Extreme spatial bias

Students : None



To extract maximum value from each test, a comparison of scores can be made. This offers deeper insightsinto students’ attainment and the relationship with underlying ability and potential. It is possible to identifywhere attainment is broadly in line with ability and where under- or over-achievement may be the case.

Some profiles may seem anomalous. In such cases information beyond the test score must be considered.For example, hard work and good teaching may account for cases of apparent ‘over-achievement’.

In all cases, error around test scores must be taken into consideration: scores reflect performance on a singletest on a given day and can only provide an estimate of a student’s true ability or attainment.

If, for some individual students, scores appear to be too low it will be important to consider external factors thatmay have had an impact of how the students performed in the test. Illness, emotional upset or tiredness canmean that students’ test scores are not a true reflection of their capabilities. Test-related anxiety is notuncommon, even when students have been reassured that tests like CAT4 are intended to find out how eachstudent learns best. Some students respond impulsively under the pressure of a test but work moreconsistently otherwise.

Comparing attainment with ability





School: Test School



In several studies, CAT has been found to be a good indicator of Englishattainment and, in particular, reading. However, there will be otherfactors, outside the scope of this report, that must be considered whenforming a comprehensive profile of that attainment. The purpose of thisreport is to identify students whose English attainment differs markedlyfrom what might be expected from their CAT4 score.

Much higher than expected English attainment

Higher than expected English attainment

Expected English attainment

Lower than expected English attainment

Much lower than expected English attainment

English profiles

The CAT4 Verbal Reasoning score and the Progress Test in English(PTE) score form the basis of this analysis and profiles are expressed as:

much higher than expected English attainment •higher than expected English attainment •expected English attainment •lower than expected English attainment •much lower than expected English attainment •

The diagram shows the distribution of students across the five profileswhich are indicated by the coloured bands.

Females

• Males

Progress Test in English (PTE) includes tests of spelling and grammar as well as reading comprehension, all of which contribute to the standard age score for the test as a whole. Reading comprehension is based on a fiction text and information text and accounts for 50% of the final score.



The Verbal reasoning tests in CAT4 measure something discrete and different from the English skills measuredin PTE. In CAT4, the difficulty level of reading, which is at word level, is kept as low as possible and the task isto make connections and understand relationships between words. In PTE students are tested on the technicalaspects of writing (spelling, grammar and punctuation) and reading comprehension (through two linkedpassages).

However, the test scores for CAT4 and PTE are highly correlated at national level and the CAT scores providean indicator of English attainment such that the majority of students will be in the expected attainment categorybelow.The CAT4 Verbal reasoning score is the basis for the indicator for English Language GCSE where thecorrelation is 0.7 and this offers further evidence of the link between verbal reasoning ability and attainment inEnglish.

In the narrative section overleaf, profiles have been paired and are reported upon as:

Much lower or lower than expected attainment

Much higher or higher than expected attainment

•

Expected attainment •

•

The narrative for each category poses some questions which may help with thinking about how to use theinformation in this report. It is likely that students of most concern will be those whose performance in CAT4suggests their attainment should be better. However, when considering all students, the level of performance,not just the relative performance, will be important. The report does not differentiate in this regard.


No. of students


National

%

Group

%

16%50% 4

312%

415% 16%

Much higher than expected English attainment 10%

Total 100% 100% 25

English discrepancy category

28%Lower than expected English attainment 715%

728%Much lower than expected English attainment 10%



Much higher or higher than expected English attainment

Do some students in this group show an uneven profile in their ability in English? •

Could some students have had difficulty attending to the instructions in CAT4? •◦ For example, this might have affected the score of those with poor listening skills. The level of PTE

in this report has relatively short oral instructions.

• Have any students in this group received high levels of academic support at school and/or home which willhave helped them to achieve at a higher level than might have been predicted from their verbal reasoningability?

• Do any of the students in this group show high academic motivation which will have impacted positively ontheir learning during lessons and during the assessment tasks?

◦ This might be in the form of extra lessons, parental input or very good classroom teaching.

Does this group include slow processors of information who would have benefitted from PTE being untimed,but who would struggle to complete the CAT tasks in the time allocated?

•

It may be helpful to look at Non-verbal Reasoning and Spatial Ability scores for some students who mayhave difficulty processing information presented verbally but demonstrate better processing where non-verbal and spatial tasks are involved.

•

Look for any discrepancy in the PTE curriculum content categories; it may be that some studentsare stronger in spelling and grammar than reading comprehension. (The PTE group report has thisinformation.)

◦

This may imply some difficulty with higher order comprehension or a relative weakness inunderstanding texts more in line with the verbal reasoning result.

◦

◦ Extra time is not an option for CAT4 as it is the combination of the difficulty of the tasks and the timeallocated to complete them that contributes to the score and in turn the student profile.

Much higher than expected English attainment

Students:

Rosaline Nash Rob Reagan2 Nancy Roberts


Students:

Tom Albright Adian Fowler Rebecca Mathews

Peter Watt




• The level of attainment shown in this group matches the indications of ability provided by CAT4; so they canbe said to be performing at an average level for their ability.

• It may be beneficial to set expectations for school work at a slightly higher level than is currently beingachieved in order to stretch students but without making targets unrealistic or de-motivating.

• There may be a statistical link between attainment and ability scores but is this an accurate reflection of thestudents’ achievement?

◦ The external factors mentioned above may have had a negative effect on performance in both CAT4and the attainment test(s).The teacher’s assessment of each individual student, particularly where some external difficulty mayhave had an impact, will be very important when interpreting the data in this report.

◦


Students:

Peter Adetunde Teodora Dunec Rob Reagan

Tim Vincent2



Much lower or lower than expected English attainment

Are any of the students in this group still acquiring English? If so, is their understanding of English sufficientfor them to access the language demands of PTE?

•

◦ The tests in the verbal part of CAT4 have a much lower language demand than PTE.

•Again, the demands of CAT4 verbal reasoning tests are much lower than those of PTE in terms ofliteracy skills.

Do all students in this group have sufficient literacy skills to access the assessment tasks in PTE?

◦

This might imply slow reading rate or processing rather than difficulties with comprehension.◦

Look for discrepancy in the percentage correct in the PTE curriculum categories: is reading comprehensionrelatively weak? (The PTE group report has this information.)

•

• Was PTE administered at the recommended point in the school year, that is, in the second half of the year?

◦ The test content reflects the curriculum year by year, so testing from the mid-point in the school yearis strongly recommended.

• Have factor such as students’ school attendance or school history led to gaps in curriculum knowledge thatwill have limited their score on PTE?

If so, now that CAT4 has provided a measure of potential can support be put in place to ensurebetter progress in literacy?

◦

Considerable work was put into making CAT4 Verbal Reasoning as culturally neutral as possible butfor measures of reading comprehension there is likely to be some cultural impact.

◦

Higher verbal reasoning scores will give an indication that these students’ potential in English ishigher than the PTE test results would indicate.

◦

Have all students in the group had life experiences which would allow them to understand the questions andgive the expected answers in PTE?

•

Much lower than expected English attainment

Students:

Ryan Galvin Nathan Gill Alice Jessica May

Nita Moss Robert Robinson Rita Tucker

Tim Vincent

Lower than expected English attainment

Students:

Natasha Aransola Declan Blair Connor Gibson

Martin Gibson Anthony Jameson Declan Kearney

David Smith





School: Test School



In several studies, CAT has been found to be a good indicator of mathsattainment. However, there will be other factors, outside the scope of thisreport, that must be considered when forming a comprehensive profile ofthat attainment. The purpose of this report is to identify students whosemaths attainment differs markedly from what might be expected fromtheir CAT4 score.

Much higher than expected maths attainment

Higher than expected maths attainment

Expected maths attainment

Lower than expected maths attainment

Much lower than expected maths attainment

Maths profiles

The CAT4 Quantitative Reasoning score and the Progress Test in Maths(PTM) score form the basis of this analysis and profiles are expressed

much higher than expected maths attainment •higher than expected maths attainment •expected maths attainment •lower than expected maths attainment •much lower than expected maths attainment •

The diagram shows the distribution of students across the fiveprofiles which are indicated by the coloured bands.

Females

• Males



The Quantitative reasoning tests in CAT4 measure something discrete and different from the maths skillsmeasured in PTM. In CAT4, maths knowledge is a minimum requirement across all levels and the test is tomake connections and understand relationships between numbers. In PTM, the questions cover aspects of thecurriculum the students will be studying, including mental maths. Results allow the teacher to see wherestrengths in maths lie or where there may be gaps in knowledge at a group and individual level.

However, the scores for CAT4 and PTM are highly correlated at national level and the former provide anindicator of maths attainment such that the majority of students will be in the expected attainment categorybelow.

The CAT4 Quantitative score is highly correlated with results for Maths at GCSE at 0.76 and offers furtherevidence of the link between quantitative reasoning ability and maths attainment.

In the narrative section overleaf, profiles have been paired and are reported upon as:

Much lower or lower than expected attainment

Much higher or higher than expected attainment

•

Expected attainment •

•

The narrative for each category poses some questions which may help with thinking about how to use theinformation in this report. It is likely that students of most concern will be those whose performance in CAT4suggests their attainment should be better. However, when considering all students, the level of performance,not just the relative performance, will be important. The report does not differentiate in this regard.


No. of students


National

%

Group

%

36%50% 9

832%

615% 24%

Much higher than expected maths attainment 10%

Total 100% 100% 25

Maths discrepancy category

0%Lower than expected maths attainment 015%

28%Much lower than expected maths attainment 10%



Much higher or higher than expected maths attainment

Could some of the children in this group have benefitted from questions being brought to life through theuse of real-world situations in PTM questions?

•

Do some of the children in this group show an uneven profile of maths ability? •◦ For example, they might have particular strengths in areas of maths requiring visual-spatial skills

(such as ‘shape and space’) but have difficulty with purely numerical reasoning? (See the curriculumprocess category information in the PTM report to check for any discrepancy.)

• Does this group include students with strong language skills which help to support their mathematicalproblem solving?

• Have any students in this group received high levels of academic support at school and/or home which willhave helped them to achieve at a higher level than might have been predicted from their ability inquantitative reasoning?

◦ This might be in the form of extra lessons, parental input or very good classroom teaching.Do any of the students in this group show high academic motivation which will have impacted positively ontheir learning during lessons and during the assessment tasks?

•

Does this group include slow processors of information who would have benefitted from PTM being untimedbut who would struggle to complete the CAT4 tasks in the time allocated?

•

◦ Extra time is not an option for CAT4 as it is the combination of the difficulty of the tasks and the timeallocated to complete them that contributes to the score and in turn the student profile.

Much higher than expected maths attainment

Students:

Teodora Dunec Connor Gibson Martin Gibson

Nathan Gill Declan Kearney Nancy Roberts

Robert Robinson Tim Vincent2


Students:

Rob Reagan Rob Reagan2 David Smith

Rita Tucker Tim Vincent Peter Watt




• The level of attainment shown in this group matches the indications of ability provided by CAT4; so they canbe said to be performing at an average level for their ability.

• It may be beneficial to set expectations for school work at a slightly higher level than is currently beingachieved in order to stretch students but without making targets unrealistic or de-motivating.

• There may be a statistical link between attainment and ability scores but is this an accurate reflection of thestudents’ achievement?

◦ The external factors mentioned above may have had a negative effect on performance in both CAT4and the attainment test(s).The teacher’s assessment of each individual student, particularly where some external difficulty mayhave had an impact, will be very important when interpreting the data in this report.

◦


Students:

Natasha Aransola Declan Blair Adian Fowler

Ryan Galvin Anthony Jameson Rebecca Mathews

Alice Jessica May Nita Moss Rosaline Nash



Much lower or lower than expected maths attainment

Are any of the students in this group still acquiring English? •◦ There is a significant language requirement in the maths curriculum and although the language

content in PTM has been minimised, it is possible that students with EAL may have difficultyunderstanding fully every task.

•

If students routinely have access to a reader this service should have been provided for both CAT4(for the instructions and example sections) and PTM.

Do all students in this group have sufficient literacy skills (both reading accuracy and readingcomprehension) to access PTM?

◦

Any impact will be greater in PTM rather than CAT4.◦

Have factors such as school attendance or school history led to gaps in curriculum knowledge that will havelimited the PTM scores for any pupils in this group?

•

• Was PTM administered at the recommended point in the school year, that is during the second half of theyear?

◦ The test content reflects the curriculum year by year, so testing from the mid-point in the school yearis strongly recommended.

• Do some students in this group have a weakness in specific areas of maths which may have limited theirPTM score?

It may be helpful to look at the CAT4 Spatial Ability score to identify students who have difficulty withspatial tasks.

◦

Taking PTM as the starting point, for selected students, it may be helpful to carry out an audit ofcurriculum strengths and weakness in order to underpin support. Their score in PTM may not reflectattainment in maths more broadly.

◦

Much lower than expected maths attainment

Students:

Peter Adetunde Tom Albright

Lower than expected maths attainment

Students: None


Date post:	07-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	doanhanh
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Group report for teachers - GL Educationgl-education.com/sites/gl/files/images/PTE and PTM...

Documents