Claims

On assessment item Q10, describing a TinkerPlots plot, 32% of students achieved the maximum score of 4 and 70% achieved half marks or better

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2018: local conditions change quickly

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? For Q10, asking what the plot tells you about the people in the data set, 20% of students did not score, 32% achieved a score of 4, and the mean score was 2.3 with 70% achieving half marks or better. → Lyn D English and Jane M Watson 2015

Evidence

Lyn D English and Jane M Watson 2015

Lyn D English and Jane M Watson. (2015). Exploring variation in measurement as a foundation for statistical thinking in the elementary school. International Journal of STEM Education (2015) 2:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0016-x

q2 · i? · design · r3

Scoring of assessment item Q10, which began the assessment with a screen dump from the software to confirm students could interpret TinkerPlots displays. "32% achieved a score of 4"; scores of 2 gave some interpretation of the shape of the plot with a sequence of observations.

"Although 20% of students did not score on Q10, 32% achieved a score of 4. The mean score across the students was 2.3 with 70% of the students achieving half marks or better."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id q10-plot-description-scores
title On assessment item Q10, describing a TinkerPlots plot, 32% of students achieved the maximum score of 4 and 70% achieved half marks or better
description On assessment item Q10, describing a TinkerPlots plot, 32% of students achieved the maximum score of 4 and 70% achieved half marks or better
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 2015
recheck_by 2018
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-17
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — lyn-d-english-and-jane-m-watson-2015

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.