Unfortunately I've found the data less helpful as they aren't frequently collected enough to detect small enough changes in performance to really inform instruction. They also may give your password general groups of skills to focus on, but may not be specific enough for targeted instruction. Even when specific, the targeted skills were likely identified based on an item response or two.
Even if it perfectly let you know where to begin instruction, the data would be out of date in 2 weeks and you'd have to use a different assessment at that point until the next map eval point several months away.
In terms of measuring progress, I've found some kids to gain 30 points in a year which may equate to 4 or 5 years of progress, which clearly didn't happen, or a decline in raw score, which also indicated measurement error. It seems that it's particularly sensitive to a small number of errors - can increase a score by 5-6 points with a question or two right or wrong, which could be equivalent to a years progress. Obviously there aren't enough sample items in that situation.
So, even when map is used, I've encouraged alternative forms of assessment, progress-Monitoring, and evaluation such as cbm.
We use it to determine who will likely be proficient on the state test. They put kids who score "partially proficient high" in interventions to see if they can push them to proficient on the state test. I am not convinced they correlate that well. This is my first year with my own classroom, so I guess I'll have to wait and see, but I believe that many of my students who passed MAPs will not likely pass the state test. I had many kids go up 30-40 points despite not performing that well in class, and now they are marked as "proficient" and expected to pass the state test. One of them in particular has never gotten above a 70 on a classroom test. Not helpful I know, but that's what it's used for in my school.
Unfortunately I've found the data less helpful as they aren't frequently collected enough to detect small enough changes in performance to really inform instruction. They also may give your password general groups of skills to focus on, but may not be specific enough for targeted instruction. Even when specific, the targeted skills were likely identified based on an item response or two.
Even if it perfectly let you know where to begin instruction, the data would be out of date in 2 weeks and you'd have to use a different assessment at that point until the next map eval point several months away.
This is such a good point. Ultimately, it is the teacher, using the proper assessments, who can best gauge where students are at, at any given point in the year, than one of these standardized tests.
I use Map quite a bit right after we take the test. The NWEA Reports section has an area where you can break the students down into groups by score or by any area that the test measures. This is helpful to see where each student's strength lies.
I also use the section of NWEA Reports that shows what skills are tested at each RIT range. This helps me to guide my instruction to meet the needs of my students.
I use Map quite a bit right after we take the test. The NWEA Reports section has an area where you can break the students down into groups by score or by any area that the test measures. This is helpful to see where each student's strength lies.
I also use the section of NWEA Reports that shows what skills are tested at each RIT range. This helps me to guide my instruction to meet the needs of my students.
mopar this is definitely what's recommended with the rit bands/groups, but do you use it primarily for initial placement, then use other/teacher assessments for progress-monitoring and to make group adjustments? Also, do you find that MAP provides you with information that you otherwise don't have in your classroom assessments?
I definitely use Map to make groups about three times a year (that's how often we use it). We have many many classroom assessments that I also use to regroup my students. I will use Map scores occasionally when we start a new unit to help place students if I don't have newer assessment data.
I do find that the Map scores do provide some data that I don't have in my classroom assessments more in the beginning of the year. Map gives us a picture of each student in multiple areas. It takes a much longer time for me to assess my students individually in all the same areas. So eventually I will assess my students in most of the areas that Map does, but it takes much longer than the two day test. So I can get a lot of information in one sitting.
While I wish my students did not need to take 2 40 minute tests three times a year for both reading and math. I will use the data that I receive because my district requires that we test this frequently.
I definitely use Map to make groups about three times a year (that's how often we use it). We have many many classroom assessments that I also use to regroup my students. I will use Map scores occasionally when we start a new unit to help place students if I don't have newer assessment data.
I do find that the Map scores do provide some data that I don't have in my classroom assessments more in the beginning of the year. Map gives us a picture of each student in multiple areas. It takes a much longer time for me to assess my students individually in all the same areas. So eventually I will assess my students in most of the areas that Map does, but it takes much longer than the two day test. So I can get a lot of information in one sitting.
While I wish my students did not need to take 2 40 minute tests three times a year for both reading and math. I will use the data that I receive because my district requires that we test this frequently.
That makes sense mopar. Sounds like you've managed to put that time to good use and get as much as you can out of it.
