MindLog Insights

Marcus has shown consistent growth during the year—14 points on the Lectical Scale, with estimated score ranges between 4 and 12, which means we can have a high level of confidence in his scores. Marcus's growth rate is consistent with the current statistical average for grade 5 and his density distributions consistently show close alignment with the idealized density profiles for each score received, which indicates that he is learning robustly. Robust learning, at any Lectical Level, is predictive of continued growth into the future as long as students are learning in educational environments that are compatible with their optimal growth rates.

Marcus's Robustness index score suggests that he is readily integrating new knowledge and skills into his existing mental structures, and that he is likely to be able to transfer what he is learning from one context into one or more related contexts. Marcus's high level of participation in peer commenting is contributing to his (1) general development and (2) the growth of important collaborative learning skills.

Marcus's scores look good, but more importantly, his developmental pattern shows that he is learning effectively—in a way that provides support for future development.

On the surface, Sarah's growth chart shows ample growth during the school year—a total of 33 points on the Lectical Scale! This apparent growth, however, is associated with relatively large score ranges—between 22 and 56. These ranges are associated with a robustness rating of 6, which is in the caution range. Even though Sarah's scores suggest impressive growth, her current robustness rating indicates that we can have little confidence in her scores. In fact, her low robustness rating indicates that she is at risk of an early plateau in her mental development.

Sarah's density profiles help explain her low robustness rating. The density distributions from her responses are ragged, showing marked divergence from the prescriptive profiles associated with her scores. These ragged patterns suggest that she is memorizing rather than effectively integrating new knowledge into her current mental structures. To improve Sarah's prospects for more optimal mental development, we need to provide learning opportunities that are consistent with her personal learning needs—so she can build the solid foundation required to support future learning.

Sarah's low participation in peer commenting indicates that she is missing out on the opportunity to participate in an activity that's specifically designed to allow students to build skill and knowledge at their own pace. It would be helpful to understand why she is participating so little and find a way to increase her participation.

Liam's growth chart shows astounding growth during the school year—a total of 46 points on the Lectical Scale! Unfortunately, this apparently rapid growth is associated with estimated score ranges between 30 and 160. Even though Liam's apparent rate of growth is about 3 times the statistical average for grade 5, his wide score ranges mean we can have little confidence in his scores. Consequently, despite the fact that Liam's growth rate looks strong relative to his peers, his Robustness Index is low, indicating that something isn't quite right.

When we look at Liam's density profiles, we see what looks like a blend of two distinct performance profiles, one that might have earned scores in the lower-level 900s, and another that adds a bump in the higher densities that contributes to the higher scores he actually received. Needless to say, the addition of this second voice results in scores that are not a good indication of Liam's personal developmental progress. Because most of Liam's density profiles suggest a blend of two voices it is not possible to provide meaningful scores.