The influence of competences and support on school performance feedback use

Educational Studies

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 141-154

  Vanhoof, Jan ^a   Verhaeghe, Goedele ^b   Verhaeghe, Jean Pierre ^b,c   Valcke, Martin ^b   van Petegem, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Data literacy competences; Data use; Data use support; School improvement; School performance feedback systems

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952732592     PISSN: 03055698     EISSN: 14653400     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03055698.2010.482771     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84, no. 2: 191-215.
2. Bosker, R.J., E.M. Branderhorst, and A.J. Visscher. 2007. Improving the utilisation of management information systems in secondary schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 18, no. 4: 451-67.
3. Coe, R. 2002. Evidence on the role and impact of performance feedback in schools. In School improvement through performance feedback, ed. A.J. Visscher and R. Coe, 3-26. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
4. Creswell, J.W. 2008. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
5. Deming, W.E. 1986. Out of the crisis. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
6. Devos, G., and J. Verhoeven. 2003. School self-evaluation: Conditions and caveats. The case of secondary schools. Educational Management and Administration 31, no. 1: 403-20.
7. Earl, L., and M. Fullan. 2003. Using data in leadership for learning. Cambridge Journal of Education 33, no. 3: 383-94.
8. Field, A.P., and G. Hole. 2003. How to design and report experiments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Fitz-Gibbon, C.T., and P. Tymms. 2002. Technical and ethical issues in indicator systems: Doing things right and doing wrong things. Education Policy Analysis Archives 10, no. 6 http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n6/ (accessed December 15, 2009).
10. Herman, J., and B. Gribbons. 2001. Lessons learned in using data to support school inquiry and continuous improvement: Final report to the Stuart Foundation. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of Carolina.
11. Hofman, R.H., N.J. Dijkstra, and W.H.A. Hofman. 2009. School self-evaluation and student achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 20, no. 1: 47-68.
12. Hoyle, R.H., ed. 1995. Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Huffman, D., and J. Kalnin. 2003. Collaborative inquiry to make data-based decisions in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education 19: 569-80.
14. Kerr, K.A., J.A. Marsh, G.S. Ikemoio, H. Darilek, and H. Barney. 2006. Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education 112: 496-520.
15. Kirkpatrick, D.L. 1998. Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
16. Lachat, M.A., and S. Smith. 2005. Practices that support data use in urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 10, no. 3: 333-49.
17. Learning Point Associates. 2004. Guide to using data in school improvement efforts: A compilation of knowledge from data retreats and data use at Learning Point Associates. http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/datause/guidebook.pdf
18. MacKinnon, D.P. 2008. Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Mathison, S. 1992. An evaluation model for inservice teacher education. Evaluation and Program Planning 15, no. 3: 255-61.
20. Meuret, D., and S. Morlaix. 2003. Conditions of success of a school's self-evaluation: Some lessons of an European experience. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 14, no. 1: 53-71.
21. Nevo, D. 2002. Dialogue evaluation: Combining internal and external evaluation. In School-based evaluation: An international perspective, ed. D. Nevo, 3-16. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
22. Petty, R.E., and D.T. Wegener. 1998. Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In The handbook of social psychology, ed. D. Gilbert, S. Fiske and G. Lindzey, 323-90. New York: McGraw-Hill.
23. Rossi, P.H., M.W. Lipsey, and H.E. Freeman. 2004. Evaluation: A systematic approach. 7th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Saunders, L. 2000. Understanding schools' use of "value added" data: The psychology and sociology of numbers. Research Papers in Education 15: 241-58.
25. Saunders, L., and P. Rudd. 1999. Schools' use of "value added" data: A science in the service of an art? Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference, September 2-5, in Brighton.
26. Schildkamp, K. 2007. The utilisation of a self-evaluation instrument for primary education. PhD diss., University of Twente.
27. Schildkamp, K., and W. Kuiper. 2010. Data-informed curriculum reform: Which data, what purposes, and promoting and hindering factors. Teaching and Teacher Education 26, no. 3: 482-96.
28. Schildkamp, K., and C. Teddlie. 2008. School performance feedback systems in the USA and in The Netherlands: A comparison. Educational Research and Evaluation 14, no. 3: 255-82.
29. Schildkamp, K., A. Visscher, and H. Luyten. 2009. The effects of a school self-evaluation instrument. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 20, no. 1: 69-88.
30. Schunk, D.H. 1991. Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist 26, nos.3 and 4: 207-31.
31. Tymms, P. 1995. Influencing educational practice through performance indicators. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 6, no. 2: 123-45.
32. Van Petegem, P., and J. Vanhoof. 2004. Feedback over schoolprestatie-indicatoren als strategisch instrument voor schoolontwikkeling [Feedback on school performance indicators as strategic instrument for school improvement]. Pedagogische Studiën 81: 338-53.
33. Vanhoof, J., P. Van Petegem, and S. De Maeyer. 2009. Attitudes towards school self-evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation 35: 21-8.
34. Verhaeghe, G., J. Vanhoof, M. Valcke, and P. Van Petegem. Forthcoming. Using school performance feedback: Perceptions of primary school principals. School Effectiveness and School Improvement.
35. Visscher, A.J. 2002. A framework for studying school performance feedback systems. In School improvement through performance feedback, ed. A.J. Visscher and R. Coe, 41-71. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
36. Visscher, A.J. 2002. A framework for studying school performance feedback systems. In School improvement through performance feedback. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.
37. Visscher, A.J., and R. Coe. 2003. School performance feedback systems: Conceptualisation, analysis, and reflection. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 14, no. 3: 321-49.
38. Wayman, J.C., S. Midgley, and S. Stringfield. 2007. Leadership for data-based decision making: Collaborative educator teams. In Learner-centered leadership: Research, policy and practice, ed. A.B. Danzig, K.M. Borman, B.A. Jones, and W.F. Wright, 189-205. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39. Webber, S., and B. Johnston. 2000. Conceptions of information literacy: New perspectives and implications. Journal of Information Science 26, no. 6: 381-97.
40. Weiss, C.H. 1998. Have we learned anything new about the use of evaluation? American Journal of Evaluation 19, no. 1: 21-33.
41. Williams, D., and L. Coles. 2007. Teachers' approaches to finding and using research evidence: An information literacy perspective. Educational Research 49, no. 2: 185-206.
42. Zupanc, D., M. Urank, and M. Bren. 2009. Variability analysis for effectiveness and improvement in classrooms and schools in upper secondary education in Slovenia: Assessment of/for Learning Analytic Tool. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 20, no. 1: 89-122.