Ever-growing expectations exist for educators to use assessments to collect, analyze, and interpret data, but how, if at all, are these processes affecting instruction? This descriptive case study of one team of second grade teachers offers an analysis of the links between teachers’ use of data within their collaborative team meetings and instructional decisions in the classroom Findings illustrate three activities that linked teacher discussions and instruction in classrooms: troubleshooting and normalizing expectations, targeting instruction, and identifying what worked While these links tightly coupled teachers collaborative use of data and assessments with their classroom instruction, they did so by prioritizing isolated instructional responses focused on discrete skills and specific instructional strategies. Implications include building structures that reframe what teachers mean by “worked” when inquiring into student learning.
Bambrick-SantoyoP. (2010). Driven by data: A practical guide to improve instruction.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
2.
BauerS., BrazerS., Van LareM., & SmithR. (2013). Organizational design in support of professional learning communities in one district. In ConleyS., and CooperB. (Eds.), Teacher collaboration: Advancing professionalism & school quality.New York, NY: Rowman and Littlefield.
3.
BorkoH., ElliottR., UchiyamaK. (2002). Professional development: A key to Kentucky's educational reform effort.Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 969–987.
4.
BoudettK. P., CityE. A., & MurnaneR. J. (2013). Data wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
5.
CoburnC. E., & TurnerE. O. (2011). Research on data use: A framework and analysis.Measurement,9, 173–206.
6.
DatnowA., ParkV., & Kennedy-LewisB. (2013). Affordances and constraints in the context of teacher collaboration for the purpose of data use.Journal of Educational Administration,51(3), 341–362.
7.
DatnowA., & HubbardL. (2015). Teachers’ use of assessment data to inform instruction: Lessons from the past and prospects for the future.Teachers College Record,117(4). 1–26.
8.
DuFourR., DuFourR., & EakerR. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools.Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
9.
DunnK. E., AirolaD. T., LoW., & GarrisonM. (2012). What teachers think about what they can do with data: Development and validation of the data-driven decision making efficacy and anxiety inventory.Contemporary Educational Psychology,38(1), 87–98.
10.
EricksonF. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In LeCompteM.D., MillroyW.L., & PriessleJ. (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 119–161). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
11.
Faxon-MillsS., HamiltonL. S., RudnickM., & StecherB. M. (2013). New assessments, better instruct ion? Designing assessment systems to promote instructional improvement. A RAND Report. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Accessed on January 1, 2014 from http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR354.
12.
GallimoreR., ErmelingB., SaundersW., & GoldenbergC. (2009). Moving the learning of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry teams.The Elementary School Journal,109(5), 537–553.
13.
GoertzM. E., OlahL. N., & RigganM. (2009). From testing to teaching: The use of interim assessments in classroom instruction (CPRE Research Report No. RR-65). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
14.
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.
15.
HooverN. R., & AbramsL. M. (2013). Teachers’ instructional use of summative student assessment data.Applied Measurement in Education,26(3), 219–231.
16.
HornI. (2010). Teaching replays, teaching rehearsals, and re-visions of practice: Learning from colleagues in a mathematics teacher community.Teachers College Record,112(1), 225–259.
17.
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. doi: 10.3102/0002831209345158.
18.
IkemotoG., & MarshJ. A. (2007). Cutting through the “Data-Driven” mantra: Different conceptions of data-driven decision making.Yearbook (National Society For The Study Of Education), (1), 105–131.
19.
IngramD., LouisK. S., & SchroederR. G. (2004). Accountability policies and teacher decision making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice.Teachers College Record,106, 1258–1287.
20.
LittleJ. W. (2003). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work.Teaching and Teacher Education,18(8), 917–946.
21.
LittleJ. W. (2012). Understanding data use practice among teachers: The contribution of micro-process studies.American Journal of Education,118(2), 143–166.
22.
MarshJ. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data Research insights and gaps.Teachers College Record,114(11), 1–48.
23.
MarshJ., & FarrellC. (2015). How leaders can support teachers with data-driven decision making: A framework for understanding capacity building.Educational Management Administration & Leadership,43(2), 269–289. doi: 10.1177/1741143214537229.
MaxwellJ. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
26.
MeansB., ChenE., DeBargerA., & PadillaC. (2011). Teachers’ ability to use data to inform instruction: Challenges and supports. Report prepared for the Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Prepared by SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.
27.
MeansB., GallagherL, & PadillaC. (2007). Teachers’ use of student data management systems to improve instruction. Report prepared for U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Prepared by SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education.Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
30.
OlahL. N., LawrenceN. R., & RigganM. (2010). Learning to learn from benchmark assessment data: How teachers analyze results.Peabody Journal of Education,85, 226–245.
31.
PutnamR. T., & BorkoH. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of cognition. In BiddleB.J., GoodT.L., & GoodsonI. (Eds.), International Handbook of Teachers and Teaching (pp. 1123–1296). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
32.
RigganM., & OlahL. N. (2011). Locating interim assessments within teachers’ assessment practice.Educational Assessment,16(1), 1–14.
33.
RoderickM. (2012). Drowning in data but thirsty for analysis.Teachers College Record.114(11). p. 110309-http://www.tcrecord.org/library ID Number: 16815.
34.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
35.
SupovitzJ. (2012). Getting at student understanding: The key to teachers’ use of test data.Teachers College Record,114(11), 1–29.
36.
ThornbergR., & CharmazK. (2014). Grounded theory and theoretical coding. In FlickU. (Ed.) The Sage handbook of qualitative analysis, (pp. 153–168). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
37.
Van LareM. D., & BrazerS. (2013). Analyzing Learning in Professional Learning Communities: A Conceptual Framework.Leadership and Policy Studies,12(4), 374–396.
38.
Van LareM., BrazerS., BauerS., & SmithR. (2013). Professional learning communities using evidence: Examining teacher learning and organizational learning. In ConleyS., and CooperB. (Eds.), Teacher collaboration: Advancing professionalism & school quality.New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
39.
YinR. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
40.
YoungV. M. (2006). Teachers’ use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting, and team norms.American Journal of Education,112(4), 521–548.
41.
YoungV. M., & KimD. H. (2010). Using assessments for instructional improvement: A literature review.Education Policy Analysis Archives,18(19).
