Discussion in 'Elementary Education' started by Mrs. Mom, Sep 4, 2011.
Sep 4, 2011
Does your school use it? What do you think?? Any idea how costly it is?
We use it. I like that it's self adjusting. I'm rarely surprised by the results.
Sep 5, 2011
So do you feel that you are more able to figure out your students' strengths and weaknesses and therefore really individualize instruction? How skill specific is it?
There's almost TOO much data to sort thru! Definitely can be useful in pinpointing areas to concentrate on with students...absolutely highlights the strengths and weak areas of students.
A large problem with using it for instructional decision-making is that the assessment is too infrequent. You could individualize instruction, for example, after the Fall assessment, but you'd have to feedback for several months related to how effective your instruction was. In addition, strengths and weaknesses - especially in discrete skill areas - change much more frequently than once every 3 months, so the assessments - while specific - become much less functional for actual instructional planning.
I think there are things you can derive from MAP, but if I were looking for a new system to implement, I'd look at less costly systems that could be used more frequently.
We used it for a few years, are dropping it this year.
-- Too expensive (not sure of cost)
-- No time to make the data useful
We are designing our own assessment tool in its place.
Sep 6, 2011
Rather than looking too much at individual skill data, I like that I can see if there are any gaps that I need to make sure to cover better in my whole-class instruction.
We use it, but I really can't say how the data is being used since they test beginning in 3rd and higher.
Sep 7, 2011
We use it. I too like that I can see where the entire class needs more instruction or where the entire class is higher. It gives me an idea of my pacing for the year.
I also like that I can look at an individual student and see what types of skills he/she should be working on or needs more intensive instruction in. The test helps me remediate for some students and offer a challenge for others.
They give you this thing called the descartes that spits out student scores and what they should be able to do at that score. The column after this is where they need to go, so it makes for nice strategy group objectives.
My former school used it. I didn't like it, especially for the young ones...they just clicked on whatever and I never knew if they really knew a concept/skill or not!
Waste of time and money...
Sep 9, 2011
I like the data it provides. It helps me make small groups and see where I can use remediation and challenge kids. I like the "typical growth" vs actual growth feedback. It helps me to know if I am hitting the mark or not. I don't like all the numbers that don't seem to correlate to anything tangible. I wish the numbers were more commonsensical like GE or lexile's. Like the other poster it almost gives too much information to decipher. It makes interpretation hard. The Descartes feature is nice because it breaks it down to learning targets that are useful. Our students take the tests seriously and try their best most of the time because they like to compete for better scores.
Sep 17, 2011
We used it in our district. I think I remember my superintendent saying it was $140, 000. This is district wide and not sure if it is annually.
As for the actual test...I like it but then I don't.
Gives the kids Lexile level.
Tests the areas and then gives the Descartes so that you can provide instruction based on how they scored.
The MAP results go into our "Compass Learning" computer program at their RIT levels so they can work on what they need to work on.
It is hard! The questions that pop up are very difficult. The vocabulary that my 2nd graders (taught 2nd last year, 5th this year) had on their questions were not age appropriate. Jeez...I didn't even know what some it meant.
Separate names with a comma.