|
|
||||||||||||
Questions/instructions:
|
||||||||||||
|
%
responses 2006 ('02) |
|||||||||||
y4 |
y8
|
|||||||||||
Idea 1: | How helpful was the idea likely to be: | very helpful |
9 (7) |
8 (7) |
||||||||
helpful |
28 (31) |
34 (30) |
||||||||||
moderately helpful |
37 (40) |
43 (43) |
||||||||||
not helpful |
26 (22) |
15 (20) |
||||||||||
Quality of explanation: | strong |
18 (15) |
26 (22) |
|||||||||
moderate |
56 (60) |
53 (59) |
||||||||||
weak |
26 (25) |
21 (19) |
||||||||||
Idea 2: | How helpful was the idea likely to be: | very helpful |
4 (2) |
6 (7) |
||||||||
helpful |
28 (23) |
27 (32) |
||||||||||
moderately helpful |
37 (37) |
45 (34) |
||||||||||
not helpful |
31 (38) |
22 (27) |
||||||||||
Quality of explanation: | strong |
19 (17) |
24 (20) |
|||||||||
moderate |
48 (51) |
48 (57) |
||||||||||
weak |
33 (32) |
28 (23) |
||||||||||
Idea 3: | How helpful was the idea likely to be: | very helpful |
5 (2) |
7 (6) |
||||||||
helpful |
32 (32) |
35 (18) |
||||||||||
moderately helpful |
39 (39) |
41 (48) |
||||||||||
not helpful |
24 (27) |
17 (28) |
||||||||||
Quality of explanation: | strong |
18 (23) |
23 (9) |
|||||||||
moderate |
50 (51) |
52 (63) |
||||||||||
weak |
32 (26) |
25 (28) |
||||||||||
Total
score: |
10–15 |
13 (14) |
19 (15) |
|||||||||
8–9 |
20 (16) |
22 (18) |
||||||||||
6–7 |
24 (24) |
20 (25) |
||||||||||
4–5 |
20 (21) |
27 (32) |
||||||||||
0–3 |
23 (25) |
12 (10) |
Commentary: |
There were only small differences between year 4 and year 8 students on this task. Because it was a team task, there are no graphs of subgroup performance. There was little change at either year level between 2002 and 2006. |
|