Education reform efforts have mandated the use of student achievement data in schools. This Q-methodology study investigates the perceptions of principals and teachers about how data are used or misused. Principals in the sample were found to use data mostly to evaluate the school, make improvements, and model best practices of data use. Teachers used data to improve instruction and outcomes for students. Results indicate a need to create an assessment savvy environment where data are used to improve practices.
References
[1]
Friedman, T. The world is flat 3.0: A brief history of the twenty-first century; Farrar, Straus and Giroux: New York, USA, 2007.
[2]
The White House. No child left behind act of 2001; United States Department of Education: Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
[3]
U.S. Department of Education. Strategic plan for 2002-2007. U.S. DOE: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
Coburn, C.; Talbert, J. Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education 2006, 112, 469–495, doi:10.1086/505056.
[6]
Ogawa, R.T.; Collom, E. Using performance indicators to hold schools accountable: Implicit assumptions and inherent tensions. Peabody Journal of Education 2000, 75, 200–215, doi:10.1207/S15327930PJE7504_9.
[7]
Petrides, L.A.; Guiney, S.Z. Knowledge management for school leaders: An ecological framework for thinking schools. Teachers College Record 2002, 104, 1702–1717.
[8]
Petrides, L.A.; Nodine, T.R. Knowledge management in education: Defining the landscape; The Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education: Half Moon Bay, CA, USA, 2003.
[9]
Earl, L.; Katz, S. Leading schools in a data-rich world. In Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration, part two; Liethwood, K., Hallinger, P., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2002; pp. 1003–1023.
[10]
Haager, D.; Vaughn, S. Common Core State Standards and Students with Learning Disabilities: Introduction to the Special Issue. In Learning Disabilities Research & Practice; 2013; Volume 28, pp. 1–4.
[11]
Ingram, D.; Seashore Louis, K.; Schroeder, R. Accountability policies and teacher decision making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record 2004, 106, 1258–1287.
[12]
Cizek, G. Pockets of resistance in the assessment revolution. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 2000, 19, 16–23, doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2000.tb00026.x.
[13]
Wayman, J.; Cho, V. Preparing educators to effectively use student data systems. In Handbook of data-based decision making in education; Kowalski, T., Lasley, T.J., Eds.; Routledge: New York, USA, 2009; pp. 89–104.
[14]
Militello, M.; Schweid, J.; Sireci, S. Formative assessment systems: Evaluating fit between intended use and product characteristics. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability 2010, 22, 29–52, doi:10.1007/s11092-010-9090-2.
[15]
Wayman, J.; Stringfield, S. Data use for school improvement: School practices and research perspectives. American Journal of Education 2006, 112, 463–468, doi:10.1086/505055.
[16]
Yeh, S. Class size reduction or rapid formative assessment? A comparison of cost-effectiveness. Educational Research Review 2009, 4, 7–15, doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2008.09.001.
[17]
McMillan, J.H. Formative assessment: The key to improving student achievement. In Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice; McMillan, J.H., Ed.; Teachers College Press: New York, USA, 2007; pp. 1–7.
[18]
Cizek, G. Formative classroom and large-scale assessment: Implications for future research and development. In Formative classroom assessment: Theory into practice; McMillan, J.H., Ed.; Teachers College Press: New York, USA, 2007; pp. 99–115.
[19]
Wiliam, D.; Thompson, M. Integrating assessment with instruction: What will it take to make it work? In The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning; Dwyer, C.A., Ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2007; pp. 53–82.
[20]
Wiliam, D. Formative assessment: Getting the focus right. Educational Assessment 2006, 11, 283–289.
[21]
Popham, W.J. Transformative assessment; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2008.
[22]
Confrey, J.; Kazak, S. A thirty-year reflection on constructivism in mathematics education in pme. In Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future; Gutierez, A., Boero, P., Eds.; Sense Publishers: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 305–345.
[23]
Young, V.; Kim, D. Using assessents for instructional improvement: A literature review. Educational Policy Analysis Archieves 2010, 18, 1–37.
[24]
Militello, M.; Heffernan, N. Which one is "just right"? What educators should know about formative assessment systems. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation 2009, 4, 1–8.
[25]
Militello, M. At the cliff's edge: Utilizing evidence of student achievement for instructional improvements. Dissertation Abstracts International (AAT 3158978) 2004, 65, 4419.
[26]
Leighton, J.P.; Gierl, M.J. Why cognitive diagnostic assessment? In Cognitive assessment for education: Theory and applications; Leighton, J.P., Gierl, M.J., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York, USA, 2007; pp. 3–18.
[27]
Stiggins, R. From formative assessment to assessment for learning: A path to success in standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan 2005, 87, 324–328.
[28]
Black, P.; Harrison, C.; Lee, C.; Marshall, B.; Wiliam, D. Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice; Open University Press: Buckingham, UK, 2003.
[29]
Black, P.; Wiliam, D. Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 1998, 80, 139–148.
[30]
Wiliam, D.; Lee, C.; Harrison, C.; Black, P. Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education 2004, 11, 49–64.
[31]
Leahy, S.; Lyon, C.; Thompson, M.; Wiliam, D. Classroom assessment: Minute-by-minute and day-by-day. Educational Leadership 2005, 63, 18–24.
[32]
Datnow, A.; Park, V.; Wohlstetter, P. Achieving with data: How high-performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students; Center for Educational Governance at University of Southern California: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2007.
[33]
U.S. Department of Education. Using data to influence classroom decisions. Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
[34]
Black, P.; Wiliam, D. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education 1998, 5, 7–74, doi:10.1080/0969595980050102.
[35]
Shute, V.J. Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research 2008, 78, 153–189, doi:10.3102/0034654307313795.
[36]
Kerr, K.A.; Marsh, J.A.; Schuyler Ikemoto, G.; Darilek, H.; Barney, H. Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education 2006, 112, 496–520, doi:10.1086/505057.
[37]
Young, V. Teachers' use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting, and team norms. American Journal of Education 2006, 112, 521–548, doi:10.1086/505058.
[38]
Halverson, R.; Grigg, J.; Prichett, R.; Thomas, C. The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in school. Journal of School Leadership 2007, 17, 159–194.
[39]
Militello, M.; Rallis, S.F.; Goldring, E.B. Leading with inquiry and action: How principals improve teaching and learning; Corwin Press: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009.
[40]
Bowers, C.; Dinko, R.; Hart, R. Influence of a shared leadership model in creating a school culture of inquiry and collegiality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 2005, 42, 3, doi:10.1002/tea.20038.
[41]
Symonds, K.W. After the test: How schools are using data to close the achievement gap; Bay Area School Reform Collaborative: San Francisco, USA, 2003.
[42]
Leithwood, K.; Mascall, B. Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly 2008, 44, 529–561, doi:10.1177/0013161X08321221.
[43]
Massell, D. The theory and practice of using data to build capacity: State and local strategies and their effects. In From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states: One hundredth yearbook of the national society for the study of education, part ii; Fuhrman, S.H., Ed.; The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2001; pp. 148–169.
[44]
Murnane, R.; Sharkey, N.S.; Boudett, K.P. Using student-assessment results to improve instruction: Lessons from a workshop. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 2005, 10, 269–280, doi:10.1207/s15327671espr1003_3.
[45]
Militello, M. The construction and implementation of assessment accountability at the district level, University Council for Educational Administration, Nashville, TN, USA, 2005.
[46]
Heritage, M. Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan 2007, 89, 140–145.
[47]
Murnane, R.; Sharkley, N.S.; Boudett, K.P. Using student-assessment results to improve instruction: Lessons from a workshop. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 2005, 10, 269–280, doi:10.1207/s15327671espr1003_3.
[48]
Yeh, S. High stakes testing: Can rapid assessment reduce the pressure? Teachers College Record 2006, 108, 621–661, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00663.x.
[49]
Hamilton, L.; Halverson, R.; Jackson, S.; E., M.; Supovitz, J.; Wayman, J. Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making; National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education: Washinton, DC, USA, 2009.
[50]
Baker, E.; Barton, P.; Darling-Hammond, L.; Haertel, E.; Ladd, H.; Linn, R.; Ravitch, D.; Rothstein, R.; Shavelson, R.; Shepard, L. Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers; Briefing Paper #278; Economic Policy Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
[51]
Koehler, M.J.; Mishra, P. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A new framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record 2008, 108, 1017–1054.
[52]
Cizek, G.; Fitzgerald, S.; Rachor, R. Teachers assessment practices: Preparation, isolation, and the kitchen sink. Educational Assessment 1995/1996, 3, 159–179, doi:10.1207/s15326977ea0302_3.
[53]
Supovitz, J.A.; Klein, V. Mapping a course for improved student learning: How innovative schools systemically use student performance data to guide improvement; Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2003.
[54]
Gitomer, D.; Duschl, R. Establishing multilevel coherence in assessment. In Evidence and decision making. 106th yearbook of the national society for the study of education, part i; Moss, P., Ed.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, USA, 2007; pp. 288–320.
[55]
Watts, S.; Stenner, P. Doing q methodological research: Theory, method and interpretation; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012.
[56]
Brown, S.R.; Durning, D.W.; Selden, S. Q methodology. In Handbook of research methods in public administration; Miller, G.J., Whicker, M.L., Eds.; Marcel Dekker: New York, USA, 1999; pp. 599–637.
[57]
Brown, S.R. Political subjectivity: Applications of q methodology in political science; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1980.
Black, P.; Wiliam, D. Developing a theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability 2009, 21, 5–31, doi:10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.
[60]
Popham, W.J. Curriculum, instruction, and assessment: Amiable allies or phony friends? Teacher College Record 2004, 106, 417–428.
[61]
Popham, W.J. Everything school leaders need to know about assessment; Corwin: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2010.
[62]
Ruiz-Primo, M.A.; Furtak, E.M. Informal formative assessment of students' understanding of scientific inquiry; 639; National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) at UCLA: Los Angeles, USA, 2004.
[63]
O'Day, J. Complexity, accountability and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review 2002, 72, 293–329.
[64]
Militello, M.; Benham, M. “Sorting out” collective leadership: How q-methodology can be used to evaluate leadership development. Leadership Quarterly 2010, 21, 620–632, doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.06.005.
