In listening to the IKAN's this second time around I picked up again on more learning goals for myself as a teacher. The terms and phrases I have used have not been as effective as I'd hoped.
Place value was the initial focus for the target group. However when you observe the data below you will see that it still is the weakest of all areas in number. There was shift for students - mostly in other areas.
This lack in shift I believe is from not extending the phrases used to support my learners. For example in the number 789, how many tens are there? I was accepting '8'. Whereas the question is actually asking 'How many tens are there in the WHOLE number' which is 78.
My next goal is to be more accurate with my questioning in maths to ensure the correct terminology is used. This will lead me into teaching how to transfer this knowledge of mathematical terminology in problem solving further than place value.
Our team discussions on maths inquiries at Pt England revealed more to me. I noticed that around the room - especially with place value, there was some inconsistencies too. A school focus we could well do with is aligning the terminology we use - especially around place value as it is a weakness across the levels.
I am carrying out gloss tests now with this group. I will share this data here soon.
KEY: blue February IKAN, red April IKAN
Student C made the most progress in all areas - except place value.
You are very welcome to add link in a comment that could support my inquiry of using data to support learners. I'd love to try out more ideas around 'Place Value Nested', which has been highlighted as something I have overlooked in teaching PV.