This research review provides an analysis of current research related to school and district data use, with a particular focus on identifying key characteristics of schools and districts with effective “data using cultures.” The research review identifies and analyzes findings in five key areas of practice: communicating professional expectations for data use; providing resources and assistance to make meaning from data; participating in the flow of information for data use; providing professional development on data use knowledge and skills; and providing leadership to nurture a culture of data use.
Purpose
The goal of this literature review was to identify key elements that the research identifies as essential to developing a school or district culture of data use. Through the literature review and analysis, this article proposes a conceptual framework for school and district data use practices that can be used to guide professional learning in the area of data use.
Research Design
The research design is an analytic essay. The article includes an analysis of current literature on school and district data use, compares key concepts presented in current studies and literature reviews, and offers conclusions based on these findings.
Conclusions
This research review provides a conceptual framework of five elements that school and district leaders can use to guide professional learning in data use. The framework provides a “mental map” for addressing the range of knowledge and skills teachers must learn to use data as a routine part of their daily practice. In particular, the Culture of Data Use Framework is designed to help school and district leaders and professional development providers tease apart the specific areas of focus for training and support. The author outlines considerations for professional learning for each of the five framework elements and closes with a set of questions that may help to highlight future research needs in the area of school-level data use.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonS. E., LeithwoodK., & StraussT. (2010). Leading data use in schools: Organizational conditions and practices at the school and district levels. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(3), 29.
2.
AndradeH. L. (2010). Students as the definitive source of formative assessment. In AndradeH. L. & CizekG. J. (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 90–105). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
3.
BlackP. J., & WiliamD. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139–148.
4.
BreiterA., & LightD. (2006). Data for school improvement: Factors for designing effective information systems to support decision-making in schools. Educational Technology & Society, 9(3), 206–217.
5.
BrunnerC., FascaC., HeinzeJ., HoneyM., LightD., MandinachE., & WexlerD. (2005). Linking data and learning: The Grow Net work study. Journal of Education for Stu dents Placed At Risk, 10(3), 241–267.
6.
CelioM. B., & HarveyJ. (2005). Buried treasure: Developing a management guide from mountains of school data. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
7.
CoburnC. E. (2010). Partnership for district reform: The challenges of evidence use in a major urban district. In CoburnC. E. & SteinM. K. (Eds.), Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide (pp. 167–182). New York, NY: Rowman and Littlefield.
8.
CoburnC. E., HonigM. I., & SteinM. K. (2009). What's the evidence on district's use of evidence? In BransfordJ., StipekD. J., VyeN. J., GomezL. & LamD. (Eds.), Educational improvement: What makes it happen and why?(pp. 67–86). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.
9.
CoplandM. A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 375–395.
10.
DalyA. (2012). Data, dyads and dynamics: Exploring data use and social networks in educational improvement. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–38.
11.
DalyA., & FinniganK. (2010). A bridge between worlds: Understanding network structure to understand change strategy. Journal of Educational Change, 11(2), 111–138.
12.
DatnowA., ParkV., & WohlstetterP. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Center on Educational Governance, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Retrieved from http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/AchievingWithData.pdf
GallimoreR., ErmelingB. A., SaundersB., & GoldenbergC. (2009). Moving the learning of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry teams. Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 537–553.
15.
GleasonS., & GerzonN. (2013). Growing into equity: Professional learning and personalization in high-achieving schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
16.
GorenP. (2012). Data, data, and more data—what's an educator to do?American Journal of Education, 118(2), 233–237.
17.
HalversonR., GriggJ., PritchettR., & ThomasC. (2007). The new instructional leadership: Creating data driven instructional systems in schools. Journal of School Leadership17(2), 159–194.
18.
HamiltonL., HalversonR., JacksonS., MandinachE., SupovitzJ., & WaymanJ. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making(NCEE 2009-4067). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguide.aspx?sid=12
19.
HargreavesA., & FinkD. (2006). Redistributed leadership for sustainable professional learning communities. Journal of School Leadership, 16(5), 550–565.
20.
HeritageM. (2013). Formative assessment in practice: Making it happen in the classroom.Cambridge: MA: Harvard Education Press.
21.
HeritageM., KimJ., VendlinskiT., & HermanJ. (2009). From evidence to action: A seamless process in formative assessment?Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 24–31.
22.
HeritageM., & YeagleyR. (2005). Data use and school improvement: Challenges and prospects. In HermanJ. L. & HaertelE. H. (Eds.), Uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and improvement (pp. 320–339). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
23.
HermanJ., & GribbonsB. (2001). Lessons learned in using data to support school inquiry and continuous improvement: Final report to the Stuart Foundation(CSE Technical Report 535). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies.
24.
HonigM. I. (2004). Where's the “up” in bottom-up reform?Educational Policy18(4), 527–561.
25.
HonigM., CoplandM. A., RaineyL., LortonJ. A., & NewtonM. (2010). Central office transformation for district-wide teaching and learning improvement.Seattle: Center for Teaching and Learning, University of Washington.
26.
HonigM. I., & VenkateswaranN. (2012). School–central office relationships in evidence use: understanding evidence use as a systems problem. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 199–222.
27.
HornI. S., & LittleJ. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers' workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217.
28.
IkemotoG. S., & MarshJ. A. (2007). Cutting through the data driven mantra: Different conceptions of data-driven decision making. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 105–131.
29.
JamentzK. (2001). Beyond data mania. Leadership Magazine, 31(2), 8–13.
30.
JandrisT. P. (2002). Data-based decision-making: Essentials for principals. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals.
31.
KnappM. S., CoplandM. A., HonigM. I., PleckiM. L., & PortinB. S. (2010). Learning-focused leadership and leadership support: Meaning and practice in urban systems. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
32.
KnappM. S., SwinnertonJ. A., CoplandM. A., & Monpas-huberJ. (2006). Data-informed leadership in education.Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Learning.
33.
LachatM. A., & SmithS. (2005). Practices that support data use in urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 333–349.
34.
LittleJ. W. (2012). Understanding data use practice among teachers: The contribution of micro-process studies. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 143–166.
35.
LouisK. S. (2006). Changing the culture of schools: Professional community, organizational learning, and trust. Journal of School Leadership, 16(5), 477–489.
36.
LoveN. (2004). Taking data to new depths. Journal of Staff Development, 25(4), 22–26.
37.
LuoM. (2008). Structural equation modeling for high school principals' data-driven decision making: An analysis of information use environments. Educational Administration Quarterly44(5), 603–634.
38.
MandinachE. B., & GummerE. S. (2013). Defining data literacy: A report on a convening of experts. Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies, 13(2), 28–50.
39.
MandinachE. B., & HoneyM. (Eds.). (2008). Data-driven school improvement: Linking data and learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
40.
MandinachE. B., HoneyM., LightD., & BrunnerC. (2008). A conceptual framework for data-driven decision-making. In MandinachE. B. & HoneyM. (Eds.), Data-driven school improvement: Linking data and learning (pp. 13–31). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
41.
MandinachE. B., RivasL., LightD., HeinzeC., & HoneyM. (2006, April). The impact of data-driven decision making tools on educational practice: A systems analysis of six school districts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
42.
MarshJ. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators' use of data: Research insights and gaps. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–48.
43.
MarshJ. A., PaneJ. F., & HamiltonL. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education: Evidence from recent RAND research (No. OP-170-EDU). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
44.
MasonS. (2002, April). Turning data into knowledge: Lessons from six Milwaukee public schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
45.
McLaughlinM. W., & TalbertJ. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
46.
MeansB., PadillaC., DeBargerA., & BakiaM. (2009). Implementing data-informed decision making in schools: Teacher access, supports, and use.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
47.
MeansB., PadillaC., & GallagherL. (2010). Use of education data at the local level: From accountability to instructional improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
48.
MurnaneR. J., CityE. A., & SingletonK. (2008). Using data to inform decision making in urban school districts: Progress and new challenges. Voices in Urban Education, 18, 5–13.
49.
National Forum on Education Statistics. (2012). Forum guide to taking action with education data(NFES 2013-801). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
50.
NelsonT. H., SlavitD., & DeuelA. (2012). Two dimensions of an inquiry stance toward student-learning data. Teachers College Record, 114(8), 1–42.
51.
OrlandM. (2013). Why definitions matter: Data literacy and education policy change. Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies, 13(2), 50–55.
52.
ParkV., & DatnowA. (2009). Co-constructing distributed leadership: District and school connections in data-driven decision-making. School Leadership and Management, 29(5), 477–494.
53.
RoderickM. (2012). Drowning in data but thirsty for analysis. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–9.
54.
SimmonsW. (2012). Data as a lever for improving instruction and student achievement. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 110–121.
55.
SlavitD., NelsonT. H., & DeuelA. (2013). Teacher groups' conceptions and uses of student-learning data. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(1), 8–21.
56.
SpillaneJ. P. (2012). Data in practice: Conceptualizing the data-based decision-making phenomena. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 113–141.
57.
SupovitzJ. (2012). Getting at student understanding—the key to teachers' use of test data. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–29.
58.
SupovitzJ., & KleinV. (2003). Mapping a course for improved student learning: How innovative schools use student performance data to guide improvement. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
59.
TalbertJ. E. (2009). Professional learning communities at the crossroads: How systems hinder or engender change. In LiebermanA. (Ed.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 555–571). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
60.
TimperleyH. (2009). Evidence informed conversations making a difference to student achievement. In EarlL. M. & TimperleyH. (Eds.), Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement (pp. 69–79). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
61.
TurnerE. O., & CoburnC. E. (2012). Interventions to promote data use: An introduction. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–13.
62.
WaymanJ. C., BrewerC., & StringfieldS. (2009, April). Leadership for effective data use. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
63.
WaymanJ. C., ChoV., JimersonJ. B., & SpikesD. D. (2012). District-wide effects on data use in the classroom. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(25). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/979
64.
WaymanJ. C., ChoV., & JohnstonM. (2007). The data-informed district: A district-wide evaluation of data use in Natrona County School District.University of Texas, Austin.
65.
WaymanJ. C., JimersonJ. B., & ChoV. (2012). Organizational considerations in establishing the data-informed district. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(2), 159–178.
66.
WaymanJ. C., Snodgrass RangelV. W., JimersonJ. B., & ChoV. (2010). Improving data use in NISD: Becoming a data-informed district. University of Texas, Austin.
67.
WaymanJ. C., & StringfieldS. (2006). Technology supported involvement of entire faculties in examination of student data for instructional improvement. American Journal of Education112(4), 549–571.
68.
WohlstetterP., DatnowA., & ParkV. (2008). Creating a system for data-driven decision making: Applying the principal-agent framework. School Effectiveness and School Improvement Journal, 19(3), 239–259.
69.
YoungV. M. (2006). Teachers' use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting and team norms. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 521–548.
