|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
%
responses 2006 ('02) |
|||||||||||
y4 |
y8
|
|||||||||||
Short Rope: | Overall performance: (variety, skilfulness, fluency) |
very good/excellent |
11 (9) | 24 (23) | ||||||||
good |
26 (22) | 33 (36) | ||||||||||
fair |
43 (40) | 33 (28) | ||||||||||
poor |
20 (29) | 10 (13) | ||||||||||
Long Rope: | Ten jumps – | continuous and fluent |
65 (55) | 78 (77) | ||||||||
continuous but not fluent |
10 (16) | 8 (8) | ||||||||||
completed - one restart needed |
14 (13) | 11 (11) | ||||||||||
any other response |
11 (16) | 3 (4) | ||||||||||
Ten skips – | continuous and fluent |
64 (59) | 76 (77) | |||||||||
continuous but not fluent |
1 (4) | 4 (5) | ||||||||||
completed - one restart needed |
17 (19) | 14 (13) | ||||||||||
any other response |
18 (18) | 6 (5) | ||||||||||
run-in start to long rope task |
22 (22) | 38 (35) | ||||||||||
Total
score: |
10–11 |
14 (11) | 30 (25) | |||||||||
8–9 |
36 (29) | 39 (47) | ||||||||||
6–7 |
20 (24) | 20 (18) | ||||||||||
4–5 |
19 (22) | 8 (7) | ||||||||||
0–3 |
11 (14) | 3 (3) |
Subgroup Analysis: |
Year 4 |
||
Year 8 |
Commentary: |
Many students managed skipping better with the long rope than with the short rope. Girls performed markedly better than boys, on average. There was little change between 2002 and 2006. |
|