Mindsweeper sessions
Every Mindsweeper assessment for this student, in order — with the M³ trajectory (Motivation · Metacognition · Resilient disposition) and how their knowledge gaps change over time.
Yu Xiao Ting
8-week intervention plan in progress · currently in Phase 1 (repair bottleneck + consolidate unstable content) · 12 days to next diagnostic checkpoint
- D-12 Week 2 diagnostic checkpoint: 8 mixed items — 4 percent / 2 compound interest / 2 quadratic inequalities; target ≥ 75% with full working shown SCHED
- This week Error-example deck (6 cards) must be ready — Card #2 (a − 0.15a = 0.85a) is the core item TODO
- This week Bearings + probability bilingual vocabulary cards (Phase 2 prep) — 5 min/day PREP
- 7 MAY Diagnostic report v3 generated · bottleneck revised from 8.EE.A.1 to 7.EE.A.2 (API-verified) REPORT
- 1 APR Test 2 entered: 14/25 (56%) · scope expanded to full GCSE Foundation TEST
- 25 MAR Test 1 entered: 32/45 (71%) TEST
- 19 MAR Peer teaching observation: notably engaged when teaching a classmate OBS
- 12 MAR Initial diagnostic: 32% · working memory overload and test anxiety as primary signals INIT
Progress trajectory
From the 11 March baseline (32%) to the present, with intervention milestones and diagnostic checkpoints overlaid. This is the central view of Mindsweeper's longitudinal tracking model.
Intervention execution tracker
Execution view derived from the §⑧ plan. Tick off completed strategies; progress is automatically aggregated to the dashboard.
Phase 1 · Repair bottleneck + consolidate unstable content
Focus: 7.EE.A.2 (multiplier-rate equivalence) plus reverse percentage, compound interest, and quadratic inequalities. Repairing this conceptual gate simultaneously reduces cognitive load across the three downstream item families.
Diagnostic report cover
Student profile, testing history, and report generation metadata
Topic-level scores
Aggregated across both tests. Topic names follow Edexcel GCSE 9-1 Foundation conventions; standard codes are CCSS-M (verified via Learning Commons). Bearings and similar solids are Edexcel-only with no clean CCSS anchor, and are flagged accordingly.
Not every lost mark is a knowledge gap
Conventional diagnostics treat every wrong answer as a knowledge gap. Cross-test analysis shows that a substantial portion of Xiao Ting's lost marks stem from execution failure rather than conceptual gaps. Separating the two prevents the intervention plan from re-teaching material she has already mastered.
| Item | Category | What went wrong | Evidence of intact concept |
|---|---|---|---|
| PT1-Q11 | Arithmetic | Reverse-percentage method correct; chained multiplication (×1.025 × 1.032) miscalculated | Method steps visible. Multi-step computation without a calculator induced working memory overload |
| PT1-Q18b | Graph-reading precision | Read x-intercepts as −0.7 and 4.8 (true values ≈ −0.65, 4.65); wrote several values and crossed them out | (0, −3) and vertex (2, −7) both correct — the graph-reading concept is present; precision is insufficient |
| PT1-Q21a | Working not shown | Factoring steps illegible (2 marks lost), but (b) gave x = 5 or −2 | (b) fully correct — she knew it but did not record the working |
| PT1-Q22b | Arithmetic | Wrote the correct compound-interest formula 18000 × 0.85³, but computed it as 9900 (should be ≈ 11054) | Method chain correct — compound-interest formula applied correctly |
| PT2-Q1 | Second-guessing | Circled A (x > 5, correct) and C (x < 5); final answer C | First circle was correct — she overturned her own answer under uncertainty |
| PT2-Q10 | Second-guessing | Circled B (9, correct) and D (5); final answer D | She knew the answer — second-guessing led to the wrong final choice |
| PT2-Q15 | Notation misread | Read "y:x" as "x:y" and selected 3:8 instead of 8:3 | Algebraic manipulation 3y = 8x correct — only the ratio order was reversed |
| PT2-Q22c | Cascading error | Method correct (volume × unit price); the volume input came from the incorrect result of (b) | The "volume × unit price = total cost" model itself is correct |
Consolidation gradient
Not all "knowing" is equivalent. Before designing interventions, we need to distinguish the maturity of the underlying conceptual representations.
Knowledge tree — backward traversal
Trace prerequisites downward from the current grade band (9-10). Click any node to view the evidence, learning components, and the official standard statement. Clicking the bottleneck node 7.EE.A.2 automatically reveals its forward fan-out.
Bottleneck node analysis
In a standards progression graph, certain prerequisites act as gateways to multiple downstream standards. Repairing these nodes propagates positive effects downstream along the dependency chain.
On PT1-Q22a, Xiao Ting wrote 0.15 instead of 0.85 (the decay multiplier). This is a textbook 7.EE.A.2 failure — she has not yet internalised the equivalence between the additive language ("decrease by 15%") and the multiplicative language ("× 0.85"). This single conceptual gateway underlies the vast majority of her downstream high-school SSE work.
find_standards_progression_from_standard(direction='forward'), UUID = 6b9d6fe1-d7cc-11e8-824f-0242ac160002. 7.EE.A.2 has no upstream prerequisite in the SAP map; it is a clean root node."Rate as multiplier" in unit conversion
Speed conversion m/s → km/h requires ×3.6 (marks lost on PT2-Q19c). This is the same conceptual move as the bottleneck — translating a rate into a multiplier. It can be trained alongside 7.EE.A.2 during Phase 1.
Which factors are limiting performance
Based on the Digital Promise Learner Variability Navigator (LVN) Math 7-10 model. The lead factor (cognitive load) is anchored on the strongest observation from the 12 March initial diagnostic.
Learner traits and metacognitive calibration
A working profile inferred from approximately four weeks of observation (not a diagnostic conclusion). OCEAN inferences from a single snapshot serve only as working hypotheses and require validation through further observation.
Conscientiousness
Step completeness (except PT1-Q21a), assignment return rate, and spontaneous note-taking habits are all high. Strong willingness to redo missed items.
Neuroticism
Test anxiety is significant but not extreme. The "double-pick" pattern, the 35-minute fatigue threshold, and pre-test emotional expression ("more or less") are the principal signals.
Openness
Absorbs new content quickly; willing to attempt unfamiliar item types. Her course overview also shows interest in politics and history — supporting genuine intellectual curiosity.
Growth vs fixed mindset
Shifting toward a growth orientation; not yet stable. Growth signals: re-engages with errors, accepts peer teaching, absorbs new content quickly. Fixed signals: defensive pre-test prediction ("average level, easy to reach"), unspecific post-test goals.
Motivation type
External motivation is clear (the Perse Year 9 target), but not purely extrinsic. The PT1 cover self-assessment — "didn't take the long-answer items seriously" — reflects an internal standard: she has her own definition of "doing well."
Self-assessment accuracy
Asymmetric calibration: underestimates recently mastered content (trigonometry 1/5 → 100%); overestimates familiar but fragile content (inequalities 3/5 → 50%). This is the most direct lever for metacognitive intervention.
📐 Self-assessment calibration (Test 2)
Eight-week, four-phase intervention plan
This is the plan as written in the report. For execution tracking, go to the "Intervention tracker" section in the left navigation, where strategies can be checked off, reflections recorded, and progress monitored.
Each strategy is tagged with its LVN name, the corresponding intervenable factor, and the research basis. The plan addresses content, study habits, mathematical thinking, and learning method. It is compatible with the eight-week transition programme from the 12 March report, with Mindsweeper-side priority refinements.
Sources, decision criteria, and limitations
The basis and boundaries of every judgement, transparent for peer review.
Knowledge Graph MCP query workflow
(1)
find_standard_statement with the Multi-State jurisdiction. Key finding: high-school standards (Grades 9-12) require the HS prefix.(2)
find_learning_components_from_standard using the CASE network UUID. Key finding: the official ANet decomposition differs substantially from an intuitive partition. HSA-REI.B.4.b has 7 official LCs, and "method selection" is its own component.(3)
find_standards_progression_from_standard with forward/backward direction. Key correction: the v1 hypothesis that 8.EE.A.1 was the bottleneck was empirically rejected — its forward chain points to logarithms and scientific notation. The verified bottleneck is 7.EE.A.2, with a fan-out of 4 into the SSE family.
Consolidation gradient grading criteria
Emerging: correct under standard conditions.
Recognised but unstable: conceptual representation present but execution unstable.
Introduced not internalised: conceptual structure not yet formed.
Performance vs knowledge gap attribution
Limitations of CCSS-Edexcel mapping
7.G.A.2, which the API showed to be inappropriate. Similar solids was initially mapped to HSG-MG.A.1, which the API also rejected. CCSS contains no standard that specifically covers these two Edexcel-only topics. Methodological implication: when Mindsweeper uses CCSS as the backbone, Edexcel-only topics should be marked as placeholders.Scope and limitations
② The standards progression chain reflects logical prerequisite relationships, not necessarily instructional order.
③ Trait and factor analyses are based on roughly four weeks of data and constitute working hypotheses rather than settled conclusions.
④ Performance-versus-knowledge attribution involves judgement; every attribution is accompanied by explicit evidence.
⑤ LVN strategies have population-level research support; individual responses vary.
Enter a new test
Once submitted, the system uses the Learning Commons API to automatically verify each item's CCSS anchor, retrieve learning components, and compute the progression chain, generating a draft report. The teacher reviews and edits before publishing.
Item entry
Learning Commons verification
All CCSS standards, learning components, and progression chains cited in this report originate from Learning Commons MCP. From here you can batch re-verify; the system automatically diffs against the previous run.
7.EE.A.2
Rewrite expressions to reveal relationships
5/20 14:32
verified
HSA-SSE.B.3.c
Properties of exponents for exponential functions
5/20 14:32
verified
HSA-REI.B.4.b
Solving quadratic equations (7 LCs)
5/20 14:32
verified
Edexcel · bearings
No CCSS anchor — flagged
—
no anchor
Edexcel · similar solids
No CCSS anchor — flagged
—
no anchor
Parent-facing preview
The same diagnostic data in a different register. No CCSS codes or jargon stacking — the focus is on "what this means and what we will do in the next two weeks". Requires teacher review before being sent.
At the end of Phase 1 (around 8 June) there will be an 8-item diagnostic checkpoint with a target of ≥ 75%. I will send a brief progress update at that point.
— Paula