MindLog Insights

Marcus has shown consistent growth during the year—14 points on the Lectical Scale—with estimated true-score ranges from 2 to 6, which means we can have a very high level of confidence in his scores. Marcus's growth rate is consistent with the 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 can readily accommodate a range of growth rates.

Marcus's Structural Foundation 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 has learned in one context into other related contexts. In addition, Marcus's high level of participation in peer commenting is contributing to his general development as well as the growth of important collaborative learning skills.

Higher scores vs. robust growth: Since educational testing was invented, getting higher scores has been an educational goal. Higher scores are often equated with higher earnings, greater prestige, and greater success in life. Over time, the belief that scores predict positive life outcomes has resulted in an accelerated prioritization of scores as evidence of capability—even when evidence of this relationship is thin on the ground. For example, most tests predict higher scores on future tests and this is often the primary evidence used when researchers or test developers claim that tests predict future success. Higher scores on tests also predict college admissions, but this is because admissions committees use tests to reduce the number of submissions they need to read.

The scoring system embedded in MindLog was intentionally designed to distinguish between scores and capability by ensuring that all scores are tested against evidence of robust growth in the form of fit to the idealized density distribution for each score. It took 30 years to develop these density distributions and the curated developmental dictionary that made it possible to identify them. The effort was well worth it, because these density distributions provide educators with unprecedented insight into the health of students' mental development. They answer the question, Is this child learning in ways that are likely to support continued growth?" 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.

Footnote: Marcus, whose teachers were encouraged to adapt the curriculum to meet the needs of individual students, continued to benefit from personalized support from his teachers and peers. His enthusiasm for peer commenting provided him with ongoing opportunities to interpret texts, explain his thinking, and collaborate with others. In grade 10, he was receiving scores in the low 1060s (above average for his age), his Structural Foundation remained strong, and his collaborative learning, creative thinking, critical thinking, explanation, reasoning, and decision-making skills were strong.

Sarah's growth chart shows amazing growth during the school year—a total of 33 points on the Lectical Scale. This apparent growth, however, is associated with an estimated true-score range of 22 to 56. Even though Sarah's apparent rate of growth is more than double the statistical average for grade 5, her wide true-score range means we can have little confidence in her scores. Consequently, despite the fact that Sarah's growth rate looks strong relative to her peers, her Structural Foundation score is low, indicating, among other things, that she is at risk of an early plateau in her mental development.

Further evidence supporting Sarah's low Structural Foundation score can be seen in her density profiles, which show that she is using level 9 vocabulary but is unlikely to be using it effectively. Her density distributions are ragged, showing marked divergence from the idealized profiles associated with her scores. These ragged patterns suggest that she is memorizing new vocabulary rather than effectively integrating new meanings into her current mental structures. The Structural Foundation suggestions in Sarah's chart will help Sarah get get back to learning at a pace consistent with her personal learning needs and improve her prospects for continued mental development.

Catching up vs. developing robustly: Conventional interventions for students who fall behind are designed to help them catch up. This approach presupposes that slower learners can and should become faster learners. Although some slower learners may be able to get better test scores with interventions like tutoring, these interventions are likely to involve learning to memorize better, which will increase test scores while exacerbating the negative effects of excessive memorization on long-term mental development. MindLog makes it possible to pick up on harmful memorization patterns early, so educators can lower the pressure on students who learn more slowly, giving them the opportunity to develop the mental architecture required to support healthy mental development. Right now, Sarah's scores look strong relative to her peers, but the way she's learning puts her at risk of an early plateau and the mental difficulties, such as poor decision-making skills, that are likely to come with it. Sarah needs to slow down in order to build a solid foundation for the ongoing development of her mind. Slowing down may mean she grows more slowly than some of her peers, but she is far more likely to have a successful life if she's given the opportunity to develop a good mind than she is if she continues to try to keep up with the curriculum by memorizing disconnected bits of information.

Footnote: The schools Sarah attended were under a great deal of pressure to demonstrate high scores on state tests. It was virtually impossible to reduce the pressure on Sarah to keep memorizing. In grade 10, she was still receiving scores in the low 1000s (below average for her age), her Structural Foundation scores had not improved, and her collaborative learning, creative thinking, critical thinking, explanation, reasoning, and decision-making skills were weak.

Liam's growth chart shows remarkable growth during the school year—a total of 56 points on the Lectical Scale! Unfortunately, this apparently rapid growth is associated with an estimated true-score range of 15 to 58. Even though Liam's apparent rate of growth is 4 times the statistical average for grade 5, his wide true-score range means we can have little confidence in his scores. Consequently, despite the fact that Liam's growth rate looks strong relative to his peers, his Structural Foundation score is low, indicating that something isn't quite right.

In most of Liam's density profiles, we see a prominent bump in the higher density ranges. We refer to these bumps as second voices." They are the reason for Liam's high scores and the cause of his low fit and wide true-score ranges. Needless to say, the addition of this second voice results in scores that obscure Liam's true developmental progress.

Second voices can be contributed by friends, family, books, online sources, or any form of AI: Although outside sources are valuable in other contexts, MindLog is designed exclusively to receive students' personal writing, with no input from others. Ultimately, we'd like students to take so much pride in their own voices that they won't even think about augmenting them in MindLog, but educators may need to emphasize the "no outside help" rule for some time before students embrace it fully. Valorizing the human voice is the best way to ensure that students' scores represent their own thoughts and ideas, but it takes time for students to build an appreciation of their own voices that's strong enough to prevent them from choosing to augment their responses. It's often an interest in observing their own growth curve (in their personal growth chart) that initially dissuades students from augmenting their reflections.

Footnote: Once Liam understood that getting help from his older brother would keep him from seeing how he was really growing, he started doing his own writing in MindLog. It turned out that his true learning trajectory was more like Marcus's. By grade 10, he was performing in the 1050s (well above average for his age), his Structural Foundation scores ranged from 8–10, and his collaborative learning, creative thinking, critical thinking, explanation, reasoning, and decision-making skills were strong.