Using assessments for instructional improvement: A literature review;El uso de evaluaciones para la mejora de la enseñanza: Una revisión bibliográfica

Education Policy Analysis Archives

Volumn 18, Issue , 2010, Pages 1-40

  Young, Viki M ^a   Kim, Debbie H ^b  

^a SRI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Educational reform; Formative assessment; Organizational theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649350814     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10682341     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14507/epaa.v18n19.2010     Document Type: Review

References (138)

1. Aschbacher, P. (1999). Developing indicators of classroom practice to monitor and support school reform. CSE Technical Report 513. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California, Los Angeles.
2. Aschbacher, P., & Alonzo, A. (2004, April). Using science notebooks to assess students' conceptual understanding. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
3. Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge School of Education.
4. Atkin, J., Coffey, H., Moorthy, S., Sato, M., & Thibeault, M. (2005). Designing everyday assessment in the science classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
5. Bandalos, D. L. (2004). Can a teacher-led state assessment system work? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(2), 33-40.
6. Black, P. (2000). Research and the development of educational assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 26(3 & 4), 407-419.
7. Black, P., & Harrison, C. (2001). Feedback in questioning and marking: The science teacher's role in formative assessment. School Science Review, 82(301), 55-61.
8. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. London: GL Assessment.
9. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.
10. Borko, H., Flory, M., & Cumbo, K. (1993). Teachers' ideas and practices about assessment and instruction. A case study of the effects of alternative assessment in instruction, student learning and accountability practices. CSE Technical Report 366. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
11. Borko, H., Mayfield, V., Marion, S., Flexer, R., & Cumbo, K. (1997). Teachers' developing ideas and practices about mathematics performance assessment: Successes, stumbling blocks, and implications for professional development. CSE Technical Report 423. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
12. Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment. College Park, MD: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED470206)
13. Brandom, A., Carmichael, P., & Marshall, B. (2005). Learning about assessment for learning: A framework for discourse about classroom practice. Teacher Development, 9(2), 201-218.
14. Brookhart, S. (2007). Expanding views about formative classroom assessment: A review of the literature. In J. McMillan (Ed.). Formative classroom assessment (pp. 43-62). New York: Teachers College Press.
15. Burney, D., Corcoran, T., & Lesnick, J. (2003). Instructional coaching: A review of research. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
16. Calderhead, J. (1981). A psychological approach to research on teachers' classroom decision- making. British Educational Research Journal, 7(1), 51-57.
17. Cizek, G., Fitzgerald, S., & Rachor, R. (1995/1996). Teachers' assessment practices: Preparation, isolation, and the kitchen sink. Educational Assessment, 3(2), 159-179.
18. Clarke, S., & McCallum, B. (n.d.-a). Gillingham Partnership Formative Assessment Project 2000- 2001: Interim Report on the second term of the project. Oral feedback and marking against learning intentions. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
19. Clarke, S., & McCallum, B. (n.d.-b). Gillingham Partnership Formative Assessment Project 2000-2001: Final report on the third term of the project and final conclusions. Third term focus: Target setting. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
20. Coburn, C. E., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 469-495.
21. Coffey, J., Sato, M., & Thiebault, M. (2005). Classroom assessment-up close and personal. Teacher Development, 9(2), 169-184
22. Copland, M. (2002). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement in the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Teaching, Stanford University.
23. Corcoran, T., Shields, P., & Zucker, A. (1998). SSIs and professional development for teachers. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
24. Cortada, J. W., & Woods, J. A., (Eds.). The knowledge management yearbook, 2000-2001. Boston: Butterworth Heinemann.
25. Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data. Los Angeles, California: Center on Educational Governance, University of Southern California.
26. Daws, N., & Singh, B. (1996). Formative assessment: To what extent is its potential to enhance pupils' science being realized? School Science Review, 77(281), 93-100.
27. Deming, W. E. (1982). Quality, productivity, and competitive position. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
28. th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 241-263). Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
29. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-170.
30. Driscoll, M. (1999). Crafting a sharper lens: Classroom assessment in mathematics. In M. Solomon (Ed.), The diagnostic teacher. Constructing new approaches to professional development (pp. 78-103). New York: Teachers College Press.
31. Duschl, R., & Gitomer, D. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4(1), 37-73.
32. Elawar, M., &Corno, L. (1985). A factorial experiment in teachers' written feedback on student homework: Changing teacher behaviour a little rather than a lot. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 162-173.
33. Elmore, R., & Burney, D. (1999). Investing in teacher learning. staff development and instructional improvement. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 263-291). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34. Fennema, E., Franke, M., Carpenter, T., & Carey, D. (1993). Using children's mathematical knowledge in instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 555-583.
35. Firestone, W., Mayrowetz, D., & Fairman, J. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(2), 95-113.
36. Fleming, M., & Chambers, B. (1983). Teacher-made tests: Windows on the classroom. In W. E. Hathaway (Ed.), Testing in the schools: New directions for testing and measurement (pp. 29-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
37. Fuchs, E. (1999). Quality in customer service [electronic resource]. New York: McGraw-Hill. Retrieved July 7, 2003, from Stanford University library Web site: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/stanford/Doc?id=5002847.
38. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199-208.
39. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C., & Stecker, P. (1991). Effects of curriculum-based measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in mathematics operations. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 617-641.
40. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C., & Katzaroff, M. (1999). Mathematics performance assessment in the classroom: Effects on teacher planning and student problem solving. American Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 609-646.
41. Garet, M. S., Birman, B. F., Porter, A. C., Desimore, L., Herman, R., & Yoon, K. S. (1999). Designing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
42. Goertz, M., Oláh, L., & Riggan, M. (2009, December). Can interim assessments by used for instructional change? CPRE Policy Briefs RB-51. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
43. Gore, A. (1999). Quality in government services [electronic resource]: Reinvention of the federal government. New York: McGraw-Hill. Retrieved July 7, 2003, from Stanford University library Web site: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/stanford/Doc?id=5003216
44. Gullickson, A. (1984). Teacher perspectives of their instructional use of tests. Journal of Educational Research, 77(4), 244-248.
45. Gullickson, A. (1986). Teacher education and teacher-perceived needs in educational measurement and evaluation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 23(4), 347-354.
46. Hall, B., & Hewitt-Gervais, C. M. (2000). The application of student portfolios in primary/intermediate and self-contained/multi-age team classroom environments: Implications for instruction, learning, and assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 13(2), 209-228.
47. Hall, K., Webber, B., Varley, S., Young, V., & Dorman, D. (1997). A study of teacher assessment at Key Stage 1. Cambridge Journal of Education, 27(1), 107-122.
48. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-247.
49. Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Pritchett, R., & Thomas, C. (2005). The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in schools. WCER Working Paper No. 2005-10. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research (WCER).
50. Hamilton, L. (2003). Assessment as a policy tool. Review of Research in Education, 27, 25-68
51. Harrison, C. (2005). Teachers developing assessment for learning: mapping teacher change. Teacher Development, 9(2), 255-264.
52. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
53. Heritage, M. (2008). Learning progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from http://www.ccsso.org/content/PDFs/FAST%20Learning%20Progressions.pdf.
54. Herman, J., & Dorr-Bremme, D. (1983). Uses of testing in the schools: A national profile. In W. E. Hathaway (Ed.), Testing in the schools: New directions for testing and measurement (pp. 7-17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
55. Herman, J., & Gribbons, B. (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: Center for the Study of Evaluation (CSE), University of California Los Angeles.
56. Herman, J., Osmundson, E., Ayala, C., Schneider, S., & Timms, M. (2006). The nature and impact of teachers' formative assessment practices. CSE Technical report 703. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
57. Hightower, A. M. (2002). San Diego's big boom: District bureaucracy supports culture of learning. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
58. Impara, J. C., Plake, B. S., & Fager, J. J. (1993). Teachers' assessment background and attitudes towards testing. Theory into Practice, 32(2), 113-117.
59. Ingram, D., Louis, K. S., & Schroeder, R. G. (2004). Accountability policies and teacher decision-making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers' College Record, 106(6), 1258-1287.
60. Johnston, P. H., Afferblach, P, & Weiss, P. B. (1993). Teachers' assessment of the teaching and learning of literacy. Educational Assessment, 1(2), 91-117.
61. Juran, J. M. (1992). Juran on quality by design: The new steps for planning quality into goods and services. New York: Free Press.
62. Kerr, K. A., Marsh, J. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., & Barney, H. (2006). Strategies to promote date use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 496-520.
63. King, S.P., & Amon, C. (2008). Assessment data: A tool for student and teacher growth. In E. D. Mandinach & M. Honey (Eds.), Data-driven school improvement: Linking data and learning (pp. 71-86). New York: Teachers College Press.
64. Knapp, M., Copland, M., & Swinnerton, J. (2007). Understanding the promise and dynamics of data-informed leadership. In P. Moss (Ed.), Evidence and decision making. 106th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 74-104). Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
65. Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 211-232.
66. Lachat, M., & Smith, S. (2005). Practices that support data use in urban schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 333-349.
67. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
68. Lee, C., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Studying changes in the practice of two teachers developing assessment for learning. Teacher Development, 9(2), 265-283.
69. Leonard, J. F. (1996). The new philosophy for K-12 education: A Deming framework for transforming America's schools. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.
70. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (Eds.). (2001). Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that matters. New York: Teachers College Press.
71. Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers' professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536.
72. Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers' communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 917-946.
73. Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913-945.
74. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago.
75. Lyon, C., & Leahy, S. (2009). Developing assessment for learning through teacher learning communities. ETS RM-09-01. Princeton, NJ: Education Testing Service.
76. Lysakowski, R. S., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Instructional effects of cues, participation, and corrective feedback: A quantitative synthesis. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 559-578.
77. Mann, D., & Shakeshaft, C. (2003, January). In God we trust; all others bring data. School Business Affairs, pp. 19-22.
78. March, J., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
79. Marsh, J., Pane, J., & Hamilton, L. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education. Occasional paper. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
80. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
81. McLaughlin, M. W., & Mitra, D. (2003). The cycle of inquiry as the engine of school reform: Lessons from the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Teaching.
82. McMillan, J. (2001). Secondary teachers' classroom assessment and grading practices. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 19(1), 20-32.
83. McMillan, J. (2002). Understanding and improving teachers' classroom assessment decision making: Implications for theory and practice. Educational Measurement, 21(1), 34-43.
84. McMillan, J. (2003). The relationship between instructional and classroom assessment practices of elementary teachers and student scores on high-stakes tests. Virginia Commonwealth University: Author. Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 472 164)
85. McMillan, J. H., & Nash, S. (2000). Teachers' classroom assessment and grading decision making. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Measurement in Education, New Orleans, LA.
86. McMunn, N., McColskey, W., & Butler, S. (2003-04). Building teacher capacity in classroom assessment to improve student learning. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice, 4(4), 25-48.
87. Means, B., Padilla, C., DeBarger, A., & Bakia, M. (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.
88. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
89. Moody, L., & Dede, C. (2008). Models of data-based decision making: A case study of the Milwaukee Public Schools. In E.D. Mandinach & M. Honey (Eds.), Data-driven school improvement: Linking data and learning (pp. 233-254). New York: Teachers College Press.
90. Morrison, J., & McDuffie, A. (2003, April). Preservice teachers' development and implementation of science performance assessment tasks. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
91. Murphy, S., Bergamini, J., & Rooney, P. (1997). The impact of large-scale portfolio assessment programs on classroom practice: Case studies of the new standards field-trial portfolio. Educational Assessment, 4(4), 297-333.
92. National Staff Development Council. (1995). National Staff Development Council's standards for staff development. Oxford, OH: Author.
93. Neesom, A. (2000). Report on teachers' perception of formative assessment. Coventry, UK: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
94. Nickols, F. (2000). The knowledge in knowledge management. In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook, 2000-2001 (pp. 12-21). Boston,: Butterworth Heinemann.
95. Noll, V. H. (1955). Requirements in educational measurement for prospective teachers. School and Society, 82, 88-90.
96. O'Dell, C., & Grayson, C. J. (1998). Part I: A framework for internal knowledge transfer. In If only we knew what we know: The transfer of internal knowledge and best practice (pp. 3-30). New York: Free Press.
97. Perrenoud, P. (1998). From formative evaluation to a controlled regulation of learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5, 85-102.
98. Plake, B., Impara, J., & Fager, J. (1993). Assessment competencies of teachers: A national survey. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(4), 10-12.
99. Redman, T. C. (1999). Measurement, information, and decision making [electronic resource]. New York: McGraw-Hill. Retrieved July 7, 2003, from Stanford University library Web site: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/stanford/Doc?id=5002834.
100. Ruiz-Primo, M., & Furtak, E. (2004). Informal formative assessment of students' understanding of scientific inquiry. CSE Report 639. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
101. Sadler, D. (1982). Evaluation criteria as control variables in the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 11, 265-271.
102. Sadler, D. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.
103. Sato, M. (2003). Working with teachers in assessment-related professional development. In J. M. Atkin & J. E. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 109- 120). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
104. Schafer, W. D., & Lissitz, R. W. (1987). Measurement training for school personnel: Recommendations and reality. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 57-63.
105. Schmoker, M., & Wilson, R. (1993). Total quality education: Profiles of schools that demonstrate the power of Deming's management principles. Bloomington, IA: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
106. Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1991). Learning goals and progress feedback during reading comprehension instruction. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 351-364.
107. Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
108. Shavelson, R. (2003). On the integration of formative assessment in teaching and learning with implications for teacher education. Stanford, CA, and Manoa, HI: Stanford Education Assessment Laboratory and University of Hawaii Curriculum Research and Development Group.
109. Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers' pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455-498.
110. Shepard, L. (2000). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. CSE Technical Report 517. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Education, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
111. Smylie, M. (1990). Teacher leadership: Tensions and ambiguities in organizational perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26(3), 235-259.
112. Stiggins, R. (1991). Relevant classroom assessment training for teachers. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(1), 7-12.
113. Stiggins, R., & Bridgeford, N. (1985). The ecology of classroom assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(4), 271-286.
114. Stiggins, R., & Bridgeford, N. (1986). Classroom assessment: A key to effective education. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 5(2), 5-17.
115. Stiggins, R., & Conklin, N. (1992). In teachers' hands. Investigating the practices of classroom assessment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
116. Stiggins, R., Conklin, N., & Bridgeford, N. (1986). Classroom assessment: A key to effective education. Educational Measurement, 5(1), 5-17.
117. Stiggins, R., Griswold, M., & Wikelund, K. (1989). Measuring thinking skills through classroom assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26(3), 233-246.
118. Stokes, L. (2001). Lessons from an inquiring school: Forms of inquiry and conditions for teacher learning. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller, (Eds.), Teachers caught in the action: professional development that matters (pp. 141-158). New York: Teachers College Press.
119. Streifer, P. (2001, April). The 'drill down' process. The School Administrator, pp. 16-19.
120. Supovitz, J., & Klein, V. (2003). Mapping a course for improved student learning: How innovative schools systematically use student performance data to guide improvement. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
121. Thorn, C. A. (2002, April). Data use in the classroom: The challenges of implementing data-based decision-making at the school level. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved April 22, 2002, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/mps/AERA2002/data_use_in_the_classroom.html.
122. Torrance, H., & Pryor, J. (2001). Developing formative assessment in the classroom: Using action research to explore and modify theory. British Educational Research Journal, 27 (5), 615-631.
123. Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C. (1996). Teacher feedback to young children in formative assessment: A typology. British Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 389-404.
124. Vacc, N., & Bright, G. (1999). Elementary preservice teachers' changing beliefs and instructional use of children's mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 89-110.
125. van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(2), 227-269.
126. Wayman, J.C., Cho, V., & Johnston, M.T. (2007). The data-informed district: A district-wide evaluation of data use in the Natrona County School District. Austin: University of Texas.
127. Wayman, J. C., & Stringfield, S. (2006a). Technology-supported involvement of entire faculties in examination of student data for instructional improvement. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 549-571.
128. Wayman, J. C., & Stringfield, S. (2006b). Data use for school improvement: School practices and research perspectives. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 463-468.
129. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1-19.
130. Weinbaum, E. (2009). Learning about assessment. An evaluation of a ten-state effort to build assessment capacity in high schools. Research report RR-61. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
131. Weiss, C., & Bucuvalas, M. (1980). Social science research and decision making. New York: Columbia University Press.
132. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
133. Wiliam, D., & Black, P. (1996). Meanings and consequences: A basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? British Educational Research Journal, 22(5), 537-548.
134. Wiliam, D., & Leahy, S. (2006, April). A theoretical foundation for formative assessment. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
135. Wininger, S., & Norman, A. (2005). Teacher candidates' exposure to formative assessment in educational psychology textbooks: a content analysis. Educational Assessment, 10(1), 19-37.
136. Wolf, D., Bixby, J., Glenn, III J., & Gardner, H. (1991). To use their minds well: Investigating new forms of student assessment. Review of Research in Education, 17, 31-74.
137. Young, V. M. (2006). Teachers' use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting, and team norms. American Journal of Education, 112(4), 521-548.
138. Young, V. M. (2008). Supporting teachers' use of data: The role of organization and policy. In E. B. Mandinach & M. Honey (Eds.), Linking data and learning (pp. 87-106). New York: Teachers College Press.