Drawing from a three-year qualitative multi-case study that examined three urban elementary schools as these schools instituted grade-level data-based collaboration as a school-wide literacy reform strategy, this article investigates how knowledge of student learning and instructional considerations evolved over time across this collection of grade-level teams from data-based collaboration. For grade-level teams in this study, the generation of student learning knowledge from data-based collaboration was not an automatic outcome, but one that developed over time. The activation and use of student learning knowledge for instructional considerations also developed over time but varied by type of instructional consideration. Principal communication associated with data-based collaboration, a facet of their role as reform sensegivers, is also explored as a factor of influence related to the generation of student learning knowledge and activation and use of knowledge for instructional considerations from data-based collaboration. Of importance, the content of principal communication evolved over time for all three principals and appeared to shape the design and introduction of proximal tools and processes that supported grade-level data-based collaboration that in turn influenced the ways in which student learning knowledge and instructional considerations developed from data-based practices over time. Implications for policy and practice are considered.
Anderson S., Leithwood K. and Strauss T. ( 2010) Leading data use in schools: organizational conditions and practices at the school and district levels. Leadership and Policy in Schools9(3): 292-327.
2.
Ball D. and Cohen D. ( 1999) Developing practice, developing practitioners: owards practice-based theory of professional education. In: Darling-Hammond L and Sykes G (eds) Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 3-32.
3.
Black P. and Williams D. ( 1998) Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan80(2): 139-148.
4.
Blanc S., Christman J., Liu R., Mitchell C., Travers E. and Bulkley K. ( 2010) Learning to learn from data: bench-marks and instructional communities. Peabody Journal of Education85(2): 205-225.
5.
Bryk A. and Schneider B. ( 2002) Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. New York: Russell Sage.
6.
Chen E., Heritage M. and Lee J. ( 2005) Identifying and monitoring students’ learning needs with technology. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk10(3): 309-332.
7.
Coburn C. ( 2005) Shaping teacher sensemaking: school leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy19(3): 476-509.
8.
Coburn C. ( 2006) Framing the problem of reading instruction: using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal43(3): 343-379.
9.
Coburn C. and Talbert J. ( 2006) Conceptions of Evidence use in school districts: mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education112(4): 469-495.
10.
Cochran-Smith M. and Lytle S. ( 2001) Beyond certainty: taking an inquiry stance on practice . In: Lieberman A and Miller L (eds) Teacher Caught in the Action: Professional Development that Matters. New York: Teachers College Press, 45-58.
11.
Cosner S. ( 2009) Building organizational capacity through trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 248-291.
12.
Cosner S. ( 2010) Drawing on a knowledge-based trust perspective to examine and conceptualize within-school trust development by principals. Journal of School Leadership20(2): 117-144.
13.
Cosner S. ( 2011) Supporting the initiation and early development of evidence-based grade-level collaboration in urban elementary schools: Key roles and strategies of principals and literacy coordinators. Urban Education46(4): 786-827.
14.
Cosner S. (forthcoming) Leading the on-going development of collaborative data practices: advancing a schema for diagnosis and intervention. Leadership and Policy in Schools.
15.
Datnow A., Park V. and Wohlstetter P. ( 2007) Achieving with Data: How High-performing School Systems Use Data to Improve Instruction for Elementary Students. Los Angeles: Center on Educational Governance Rossier School of Education University of Southern California.
16.
Datnow A. ( 2011). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Revisiting Hargreaves in the age of accountability. Journal of Educational Change. Retrieved online.
17.
Eylon B., Berger H. and Bagno E. ( 2008) An evidence-based continuous professional development programme on knowledge integration in physics: a study of teachers’ collective discourse. International Journal of Science Education30(5): 619-641.
18.
Falk B. ( 2001) Professional learning through assessment. In: Lieberman A and Miller L (eds) Teachers Caught in the Action: Professional Development that Matters. New York: Teachers College Press, 118-141.
19.
Falk B. and Ort S. ( 1998) Sitting down to score: teacher learning through assessment . Phi Delta Kappa80(1): 59-64.
20.
Firestone W. and Gonzalez R. ( 2007) Culture and processes affecting data use in school districts . In: Moss P (ed.) Evidence and Decision Making: 106th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education Part 1. Malden, ME: Blackwell, 132-154.
21.
Foldy E., Goldman L. and Ospina S. ( 2008) Sensegiving and the role of cognitive shifts in the work of leadership. Leadership Quarterly19: 514-529.
22.
Ford J. and Ford L. ( 1995) The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review20(3): 541-570.
23.
Ford J., Ford L. and D’Amelio A. ( 2008) Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review33(2): 362-377.
24.
Foster D. and Noyce P. ( 2004). The mathematics assessment collaborative: Performance testing to improve instruction. Phi Delta Kappan85(5): 367-374.
25.
Gallimore R., Ermeling B., Saunders, W. and Goldenberg C. ( 2009). Moving the learning of teaching closer to practice: teacher education implications of school-based inquiry teams. The Elementary School Journal109(5): 537-553.
26.
Gilley A., Gilley J. and McMillan H. ( 2009). Organizational change: motivation, communication, and leadership effectiveness. Performance Improvement Quarterly21(4): 75-94.
27.
Goertz M., Olah L. and Riggan M. ( 2009) From Testing to Teaching: The Use of Interim Assessments in Classroom Instruction. The Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Available at: http://www.cpre.org .
28.
Goldberg G. and Roswell B. ( 2000). From perceptions to practice: the impact of teachers’ scoring experience on performance-based instruction and classroom assessment . Educational Assessment6(4): 257-290.
29.
Hackman R. and Oldham G. ( 1980) Work Redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
30.
Hamilton L. et al. (2009) Using Student Achievement Data o Support Instructional Decision Making: IES Practice Guide What Works Clearinghouse. Washington, DC: NCEE.
31.
Hawley W. and Valli L. ( 1999) The essentials of effective professional development: a new consensus. In: Darling-Hammond L and Sykes G (eds) Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 127-150.
32.
Heritage M. and Chen E. ( 2005) Why data skills matter in school improvement. Phi Delta Kappan86(9): 707-710.
33.
Hill H. ( 2001) Policy is not enough: language and the interpretation of state standards. American Educational Research Journal38(2): 289-318.
34.
Honig M. and Coburn C. ( 2008) Evidence-based decision-making in school district central offices: toward a policy and research agenda. Educational Policy22(4): 578-608.
35.
Hoy W. and Tschannen-Moran M. ( 1999). Five faces of trust: an empirical confirmation in urban elementary schools. Journal of School Leadership9: 185-208.
36.
Ikemoto G. and Marsh J. ( 2007) Cutting through the ‘data-driven’ mantra: different conceptions of data-drive decision making. In: Moss P (ed.) Evidence and Decision Making: 106th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education Part 1. Malden, ME: Blackwell, 105-131.
37.
Kazemi E. and Franke ML ( 2003) Using Student Work to Support Professional Development in Elementary Mathematics (Document W-03-1). Washington, DC: University of Washington, Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
38.
Kerr K., Marsh J., Ikemoto G., Darilek H. and Barney H. ( 2006) Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education112(4): 496-520.
39.
Kochanek J. ( 2005) Building Trust for Better Schools: Research-based Practices . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press .
40.
Kotter D. ( 1995) Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
41.
Langer G. and Colton A. ( 2005) Looking at student work. Educational Leadership62(5): 22-26.
42.
Lai M. and McNaughton S. ( 2009) Raising student achievement in poor communities through evidence-based conversations. In: Earl L and Timperley H (eds) Professional Learning Conversations: Challenges in Using Evidence for Improvement . New York: Springer, 13-27.
43.
Laskey S., Schaffer G. and Hopkins T. ( 2009) Learning to think and talk from evidence: developing system-wide capacity for learning conversations. In: Earl L and Timperley H (eds) Professional Learning Conversations: Challenges in Using Evidence for Improvement . New York: Springer, 95-107.
44.
Little J. ( 1990) The persistence of privacy: autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teacher College Record , 91(4): 509-536.
45.
Little J. ( 2009) Looking at student work in the United States: a case of competing impulses in professional development. In: Day C and Sachs J (eds) International Handbook on the Continuing Professional Development of Teachers . Maidenhead: Open University Press , 94-118.
46.
McLaughlin M. and Talbert J. ( 2006) Building School-based Teacher Learning Communities: Professional Strategies to Improve Student Achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.
47.
Mason S. ( 2002) Turning Data into Knowledge: Lessons from Six Milwaukee Public Schools. Madison, WI: WCER Working Paper No. 2002-3.
48.
Marsh J., Pane JF and Hamilton L. ( 2006) Making Sense of Data-driven Decision Making in Education . Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation .
49.
Miles M. and Huberman AM ( 1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
50.
Nabors Olah L., Lawrence N. and Riggan M. ( 2010) Learning to learn from benchmark assessment data: how teachers analyze results. Peabody Journal of Education85(2): 226-245.
51.
Nelson T. ( 2008) Teachers’ collaborative inquiry and growth: should we be optimistic? Science Teacher Education93: 548-580.
52.
Parr J. and Timperley H. ( 2008) Teachers, school and using evidence: considerations of preparedness. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice15(1): 57-71l.
53.
Sanders M. ( 2008) Using diverse data to develop and sustain school, family and community partnerships: a district case study. Educational Management Administration and Leadership36(4): 530-545.
54.
Saunders W., Goldenberg C. and Gallimore R. ( 2009). Increasing achievement by focusing grade-level teams on improving classroom learning: a prospective, quasi-experimental study of Title I schools. American Educational Research Journal46(4): 1006-1033.
55.
Spillane J. ( 2000) Cognition and policy implementation: district policy-makers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction18(2): 141-179.
56.
Spillane J., Reiser B. and Reimer T. ( 2002) Policy implementation and cognition. Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research72(3): 387-431.
57.
Supovitz J. and Klein V. ( 2003) Mapping a Course for Improved Student Learning: How Innovative Schools Systematically Use Student Performance Data to Guide Improvement. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
58.
Symes I. and Timperley H. ( 2003) Using achievement information to raise student achievement . SET, Research Information for Teachers1: 36-39.
59.
Tschannen-Moran M. ( 2001) Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational Administration39(4): 308-331.
60.
Tschannen-Moran M. ( 2004).Trust Matters: Leadership for Successful Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
61.
Timperley H. ( 2009) Evidence-informed conversations making a difference to student achievement. In: Early LM and Timperley H (eds) Professional Learning Conversations: Challenges in Using Evidence for Improvement. New York : Springer, 69-79.
62.
Timperley H and Earl L (eds) (2009) Using conversations to make sense of evidence: possibilities and pitfalls. In: Early LM and Timperley H (eds) Professional Learning Conversations: Challenges in Using Evidence for Improvement . New York: Springer, 121-126.
63.
Timperley H. and Parr J. ( 2004) Using Evidence in Teaching Practice. Auckland: Hodder Moa Beckett Press.
64.
Timperley H., Annan B. and Robinson V. ( 2009) Successful approaches to innovation that have impacted on student learning in New Zealand. In: Ng C and Renshaw P (eds) Reforming Learning: Concepts, Issues, and Practices in the Asia-pacific Region . New York: Springer, 345-364.
65.
Timperley H., Parr J. and Bertanees C. ( 2009) Promoting professional inquiry for improved outcomes for students in New Zealand. Professional Development in Education35(2): 227-245.
66.
Wayman J. ( 2005) Involving teachers in data-based decision-making: using computer data systems to support teacher inquiry and reflection. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk10(3): 295-308.
67.
Wayman J. and Stringfield S. ( 2006) Technology-supported involvement of entire faculties in examination of student data for instructional improvement. American Journal of Education112(4): 549-571.
68.
Widdowson HG ( 2007) Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
69.
Weber R. ( 1990) Basic Content Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
70.
Weinbaum E. ( 2009) Learning About Assessment: An Evaluation of a Ten-state Effort to Build Assessment Capacity in High Schools. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
71.
Wilson S. and Berne J. ( 1999) Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: an examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education24: 173-209.
72.
Young V. ( 2006) Teachers’ use of data: loose coupling, agenda setting, and team norms. American Journal of Education112(4): 521-548.
