Research on Data Use: A Framework and Analysis

Measurement

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 173-206

  Coburn, Cynthia E ^a   Turner, Erica O ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

conceptual framework; data use; interpretation; power; social context; social interaction

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859295572     PISSN: 15366367     EISSN: 15366359     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15366367.2011.626729     Document Type: Article

References (137)

1. Argote, L. 1999. Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge, Boston: Kluwer.
2. Armstrong, J. and Anthes, K. 2001. How data can help: Putting information to work to raise student achievement. American School Board Journal, 188(11): 38-41.
3. Baron, J. B. and Wolf, D. P., eds. 1996. Performance-based student assessment: Challenges and possibilities. Ninety-fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4. Bickel, W. E. and Cooley, W. W. 1985. Decision-oriented educational research in school districts: The role of dissemination processes. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 11(2): 183-203.
5. Black, P. and Wiliam, D. 1998. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1): 7-74.
6. Blanc, S., Christman, J. B., Liu, R., Mitchell, C., Travers, E. and Bulkley, K. E. 2010. Learning to learn from data: Benchmarks and instructional communities. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2): 205-225.
7. Booher-Jennings, J. 2005. Below the bubble: "Educational triage" and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42: 231-268.
8. Bransford, J. D., Stipek, D. J., Vye, N. J., Gomez, J. M. and Lam, D., eds. 2009. The role of research in educational improvement, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.
9. Brunner, C., Fasca, C., Heinze, J., Honey, M., Light, D., Mandinach, E. and Wexler, D. 2005. Linking data and learning: The Grow Network study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3): 241-267.
10. Bryk, A. S. and Schneider, B. L. 2002. Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
11. Bulkley, K., Fairman, J., Martinez, C. and Hicks, J. 2004. "The district and test preparation". In The ambiguity of test preparation, Edited by: Firestone, W. A. and Schorr, R. Y. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Burch, P. and Hayes, T. 2009. "The role of private firms in data-based decision making". In Handbook of data-based decision making in education, Edited by: Kowalski, T. J. and Lasley, T. J. II. New York, NY: Routledge.
13. Chen, E., Heritage, M. and Lee, J. 2005. Identifying and monitoring students' learning needs with technology. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3): 309-332.
14. Christman, J., Neild, R., Bulkley, K., Blanc, S., Liu, R., Mitchell, C. and Travers, E. 2009. Making the most of interim assessment data: Lessons from Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA: Research for Action.
15. Clune, W. H. and White, P. A. 2008. Policy effectiveness of interim assessments in Providence public schools (WCER Working Paper No. 2008-10), Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
16. Coburn, C. E. 2001. Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2): 145-170.
17. Coburn, C. E. 2005. Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3): 476-509.
18. Coburn, C. E. 2010. "Partnership for District Reform: The challenges of evidence use in a major urban district". In Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide, Edited by: Coburn, C. E. and Stein, M. K. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
19. Coburn, C. E., Bae, S. and Turner, E. O. 2008. Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider-outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3): 364-399.
20. Coburn, C. E., Honig, M. I. and Stein, M. K. 2009a. "What's the evidence on district's use of evidence?". In Educational improvement: What makes it happen and why?, Edited by: Bransford, J., Stipek, D. J., Vye, N. J., Gomez, L. and Lam, D. 67-86. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.
21. Coburn, C. E. and Russell, J. L. 2008. District policy and teachers' social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3): 203-235.
22. Coburn, C. E. and Talbert, J. E. 2006. Conceptions of evidence use in school districts: Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112(4): 469-495.
23. Coburn, C. E., Toure, J. and Yamashita, M. 2009b. Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision making in the district central office. Teachers College Record, 111(4): 1115-1161.
24. Coburn, C. E. and Turner, E. O. in press. The practice of data use: An introduction. American Journal of Education.
25. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. 1988. "The garbage can model of organizational choice". In Decisions and organizations, Edited by: March, J. G. 294-334. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
26. Cook, S. D. N. and Brown, J. S. 1999. Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4): 381-400.
27. Copland, M. 2003. Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4): 375-395.
28. Copland, M. A., Knapp, M. S. and Swinnerton, J. A. 2009. "Principal leadership, data, and school improvement". In Handbook of data-based decision making in education, Edited by: Kowalski, T. J. and Lasley, T. J. II. New York, NY: Routledge.
29. Cromey, A. November 2000. "Using student assessment data: What can we learn from schools?". In Policy Issues (Brief No. 6), November, Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
30. Daly, A. J. and Finnigan, K. S. in press. The ebb and flow of social network ties between district leaders under high stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal.
31. Datnow, A. and Honig, M. I. 2008. Introduction to the special issue on scaling up teaching and learning improvement in urban districts: The promises and pitfalls of external assistance providers. Peabody Journal of Education, 83: 328-327.
32. 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: University of Southern California, Center on Educational Governance.
33. David, J. L. 1981. Local uses of Title I evaluations. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 3(1): 27-39.
34. Diamond, J. B. and Cooper, K. 2007. "The uses of testing data in urban elementary schools: Some lessons from Chicago". In Evidence and decision making, Edited by: Moss, P. A. 241-263. Malden, MA: National Society for the Study of Education.
35. Earl, L. M. 2009. "Leadership for evidence-informed conversations". In Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement, Edited by: Earl, L. M. and Timperley, H. 43-52. Dordrecht: Springer.
36. Earl, L. M. and Timperley, H., eds. 2009. Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement, Dordrecht: Springer.
37. Englert, R. M., Kean, M. H. and Scribner, J. D. 1977. Politics of program evaluation in large city school districts. Education and Urban Society, 9(4): 429-450.
38. Fairman, J. C. and Firestone, W. A. 2001. "The district role in state assessment policy: An exploratory study". In From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states, Edited by: Fuhrman, S. H. 124-147. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39. Feldman, J. and Tung, R. Whole school reform: How schools use the data-based inquiry and decision making process. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Seattle, WA. April.
40. Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, G. T. 2003. Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 94-118.
41. Friedland, R. and Alford, R. R. 1991. "Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions". In The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, Edited by: Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. J. 232-263. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
42. Fuchs, L.S. and Fuchs, D. 1986. Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53: 199-208.
43. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C. L. and Katz, M. 1999. Mathematics performance assessment in the classroom: Effects of teacher planning and student problem solving. American Educational Research Journal, 36: 609-646.
44. Gallimore, R., Ermeling, B. A., Saunders, B. and Goldenberg, C. 2009. Moving the learning of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry teams. Elementary School Journal, 109(5): 537-553.
45. Gearhart, M., Nagashima, S., Clark, S., Schwab, C., Vendlinski, T., Osmundson, E. and Herman, J. 2006. Developing expertise with classroom assessment in K-12 science: Learning to interpret student work. Interim findings from a 2-year study. Educational Assessment, 11(3): 237-263.
46. Gearhart, M. and Osmundson, E. 2009. Assessment portfolios as opportunities for teacher learning. Educational Assessment, 14(1): 1-24.
47. Glynn, M. A., Lant, T. K. and Milliken, F. J. 1994. Mapping learning processes in organizations: A multi-level framework linking learning and organizing. Advances in Managerial Cognition and Organizational Information Processing, 5: 43-83. J. Meindl, J. Porac, & C. Stubbart (Eds.)
48. Goertz, M. E., Nabors Oláh, L. and Riggan, M. 2010. 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.
49. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M. and Resnick, L. B. 1996. "Cognition and learning". In Handbook of Educational Psychology, Edited by: Berliner, D. C. and Calfee, R. C. 15-46. New York, NY: Macmillan.
50. Hallett, T. 2003. Symbolic power and organizational culture. Sociological Theory, 21(2): 128-149.
51. Hallett, T. 2010. The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review, 75(1): 52-74.
52. Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Prichett, R. and Thomas, C. 2007. The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in schools. Journal of School Leadership, 17(2): 158-193.
53. Hamilton, L., Halverson, R., Jackson, S., Mandinach, E., Supovitz, J. A. and Wayman, J. C. 2009. Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making (No. NCEE 2009-4067), Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
54. Hannaway, J. 1989. Managers managing: The workings of an administrative system, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
55. Heilig, J. V. and Darling-Hammond, L. 2008. Accountability Texas-style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2): 75-110.
56. Henig, J. in press. The politics of data use. Teachers College Record.
57. Herman, J. and Gribbons, B. 2001. Lessons learned in using data to support school inquiry and continuous improvement: Final report to the Stuart Foundation, Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
58. Herman, J. L. and Haertel, E. H. 2005. The uses and misuses of data for educational accountability and improvement. Yearbook of the National Society for Studies in Education, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
59. Hoffman, J. V., Assaf, L. C. and Paris, S. G. 2001. High-stakes testing in reading: Today in Texas, tomorrow?. Reading Teacher, 54(5): 482-492.
60. Honig, M. I. 2003. Building policy from practice: District central office administrators' roles and capacity for implementing collaborative education policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3): 292-338.
61. Honig, M. I. 2006. Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(4): 357-383.
62. Honig, M. I. 2008. District central offices as learning organizations: How sociocultural and organizational learning theories elaborate district central office administrators' participation in teaching and learning improvement efforts. American Journal of Education, 114: 627-664.
63. Honig, M. I., Copland, M. A., Rainey, L., Lorton, J. A. and Newton, M. 2010. Central office transformation for district-wide teaching and learning improvement, Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
64. Honig, M. I. and Venkateswaran, N. in press. School-central office relationships in evidence use: Understanding evidence use as a systems problem. American Journal of Education.
65. Horn, I. S. and Little, J. 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.
66. Hubbard, L. 2010. "Research-to-practice: A case study of Boston Public Schools, Boston Plan for Excellence and Education Matters". In Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide, Edited by: Coburn, C. E. and Stein, M. K. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
67. Ikemoto, G. S. and Marsh, J. A. 2007. "Cutting through the "data driven" mantra: Different conceptions of data-driven decision making". In Evidence and decision making, Edited by: Moss, P. A. 105-131. Malden, MA: National Society for the Study of Education.
68. Ikemoto, G. S. and Honig, M. I. 2010. "Tools to deepen practitioners' engagement with research: The case of the Institute for Learning". In Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide, Edited by: Coburn, C. E. and Stein, M. K. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
69. Ingram, D., Louis, K. S. and Schroeder, R. G. 2004. Accountability policies and teacher decision making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record, 106: 1258-1287.
70. Jennings, J. L. in press. The effects of accountability system features on data use. Teachers College Record.,
71. Kennedy, M. M. 1982. Working knowledge and other essays, Cambridge, MA: Huron Institute.
72. Kennedy, M. M. 1984. How evidence alters understanding and decisions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6(3): 207-226.
73. Kerr, K. A., Marsh, J. A., Ikemoto, G. S. and Barney, H. 2006. Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112(4): 496-520.
74. Knapp, M. S., Swinnerton, J. A., Copland, M. A. and Monpas-Huber, J. 2006. Data informed leadership in education, Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Learning.
75. Koretz, D. and Jennings, J. 2010. The misunderstanding and use of data from educational tests, Unpublished manuscript.
76. Kowalski, T. J. and Lasley, T. J., eds. 2009. Handbook of data-based decision making in education, New York, NY: Routledge.
77. Lachat, M. A. and Smith, S. 2005. Practices that support data use in urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3): 333-349.
78. Lasky, S., Schaffer, G. and Hopkins, T. 2009. "Learning to think and talk from evidence: Developing system-wide capacity for learning conversations". In Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement, Edited by: Earl, L. M. and Timperley, H. 95-108. Dordrecht: Springer.
79. Levitt, B. and March, J. G. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14: 319-340.
80. Light, D., Honey, M., Heinze, J., Brunner, C., Wexler, D., Mandinach, E. and Fasca, C. 2005. Linking data and learning: The Grow Network study. Summary Report, New York, NY: Center for Children and Technology.
81. Little, J. W. 1990. The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers' professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4): 509-536.
82. Little, J. W. 2007. "Teachers' accounts of classroom experience as a resource for professional learning and instructional decision making". In Evidence and decision making, Edited by: Moss, P. A. 217-240. Malden, MA: National Society for the Study of Education.
83. Little, J. W. in press. Understanding data use practices among teachers: The contribution of micro-process studies. American Journal of Education.
84. Little, J. W. and Curry, M. W. 2009. "Structuring talk about teaching and learning: The use of evidence in protocol-based conversation". In Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement, Edited by: Earl, L. M. and Timperley, H. 29-42. Dordrecht: Springer.
85. Little, J. W., Gearhart, M., Curry, M. and Kafka, J. 2003. "Looking at student work" for teacher learning, teacher community, and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5): 184-192.
86. Lortie, D. C. 1975. Schoolteacher: a sociological study, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
87. Mandinach, E. B. and Honey, M., eds. 2008. Data-driven school improvement: Linking data and learning, New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
88. Marsh, J., Hamilton, L. and Gill, B. 2008. Assistance and accountability in externally managed schools: The case of Edison Schools, Inc. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3): 423-458.
89. Marsh, J. A. in press. Interventions promoting educators' use of data: Research insights and gaps. Teachers College Record.
90. Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S. and Martorell, F. 2009. How instructional coaches support data-driven decision making. Educational Policy, 24(6): 872-907.
91. Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F. and Hamilton, L. S. 2006. Making sense of data-driven decision making in education: Evidence from recent RAND research (OP-170), Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
92. Mason, S. 2002. Turning data into knowledge: Lessons from six Milwaukee Public Schools, Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
93. Massell, D. and Goertz, M. E. 2002. "District strategies for building instructional capacity". In School districts and instructional renewal, Edited by: Hightower, A. M., Knapp, M. S., Marsh, J. A. and McLaughlin, M. W. 43-60. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
94. McDonnell, L. M. 2004. Politics, persuasion, and educational testing, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
95. McDougall, D., Saunders, W. and Goldenberg, C. 2007. Inside the black box of school reform: Explaining the how and why of change at Getting Results schools. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 54(1): 51-89.
96. Means, B., Gallagher, L. and Padilla, C. 2007. Teachers' use of student data management systems to improve instruction, Menlo Park, CA: Report prepared for U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Prepared by SRI International.
97. Means, B., Padilla, C., DeBarger, A. and Bakia, M. 2009. Implementing data-informed decision making in schools: Teacher access, supports and use, Menlo Park, CA: Report prepared for U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Prepared by SRI International.
98. Means, B., Padilla, C. and Gallagher, L. 2010. Use of education data at the local level from accountability to instructional improvement, Menlo Park, CA: Report prepared for U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Prepared by SRI International.
99. Mintrop, H. 2004. Schools on probation: How accountability works (and doesn't work), New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
100. th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I, Malden, MA: Blackwell.
101. Murnane, R., Sharkey, N. and Boudett, K. 2005. Using student-assessment results to improve instruction: Lessons from a workshop. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3): 269-280.
102. National Research Council. 2011. "Incentives and test-based accountability in public education". In Committee on Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Public Education, Edited by: Hout, M. and Elliott, S. W. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
103. Nelson, T. H. and Slavit, D. 2007. Collaborative inquiry among science and mathematics teachers in the USA: Professional learning experiences through cross-grade, cross-discipline dialogue. Professional Development in Education, 33(1): 23-39.
104. Ogawa, R. T., Sandholtz, J. H. and Scribner, S. P. 2004. Standards gap: Unintended consequences of local standards-based reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6): 1177-1202.
105. th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Edited by: Moss, P. A. 376-402. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
106. Porter, K. E. and Snipes, J. C. 2006. The challenge of supporting change: Elementary student achievement and the Bay Area School Reform Collaborative's focal strategy, New York, NY: MDRC.
107. Ryan, K. E. and Shepard, L. A., eds. 2008. The future of test-based educational accountability, New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
108. Sauder, M. and Espeland, W. N. 2009. The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74: 63-82.
109. Saunders, W. M., Goldenberg, C. N. 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 Journal, 46(4): 1006-1033.
110. Scott, W. R. and Davis, G. F. 2007. Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
111. Sherer, J. Z. and Spillane, J. P. 2011. Constancy and change in work practice in schools: The role of organizational routines. Teachers College Record, 113(3): 661-657.
112. Sloan, K. 2006. Teacher identity and agency in school worlds: Beyond and all-good/all-bad discourse on accountability-explicit curriculum policies. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2)
113. Snipes, J., Doolittle, F. and Herlihy, C. 2002. Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement, Washington, DC: Council of Great City Schools.
114. Spillane, J. P. in press. Data in practice: Conceptualizing the data based decision-making phenomena. American Journal of Education.
115. Spillane, J. P. and Miele, D. B. 2007. "Evidence in practice: A framing of the terrain". In Evidence and decision making, Edited by: Moss, P. A. 46-73. Malden, MA: National Society for the Study of Education.
116. Spillane, J. P., Parise, L. M. and Sherer, J. Z. 2011. Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48: 586-619.
117. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J. and Reimer, T. 2002. Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3): 387-431.
118. Stecher, B., Hamilton, L. and Gonzalez, G. 2003. Working smarter to leave no child behind: Practical insights for school leaders, Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
119. Stone, D. 2002. Policy paradox: The art of political decision making, Revised, New York, NY: Norton.
120. Supovitz, J. A. 2006. The case for district-based reform: Leading, building, and sustaining school improvement, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
121. Supovitz, J. A. 2011. The assessment marinera, Unpublished manuscript.
122. Supovitz, J. A. and Klein, V. 2003. Mapping a course for improved student learning: How innovative schools use student performance data to guide improvement, Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
123. Supovitz, J. A. and Weathers, J. 2004. Dashboard lights: Monitoring implementation of district instructional reform strategies, Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
124. Symonds, K. W. 2004. After the test: Closing the achievement gaps with data. Learning Points Associates and Bay Area School Reform Collaborative.,
125. Thorn, C., Meyer, R. H. and Gamoran, A. 2007. "Evidence and decision making". In Evidence and decision making, Edited by: Moss, P. A. 340-361. Malden, MA: National Society for the Study of Education.
126. Thorn, C. A. (2001, November 19). Knowledge management for educational information systems: What is the state of the field? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(47). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n47/
127. Timperley, H. 2009. "Evidence-informed conversations making a difference to student achievement". In Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement, Edited by: Earl, L. M. and Timperley, H. 69-80. Dordrecht: Springer.
128. Wayman, J. C. 2007. "Student data systems for school improvement: The state of the field". In TCEA Educational Technology Research Symposium: Vol. 1, 156-162. Lancaster, PA: ProActive. Texas Computer Education Association's
129. Wayman, J. C., Conoly, K., Gasko, J. and Stringfield, S. 2008. "Supporting equity inquiry with student data computer systems". In Linking data and learning, Edited by: Mandinach, E. B. and Honey, M. 171-190. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
130. Wayman, J. C. and Stringfield, S. 2006. Technology-supported involvement of entire faculties in examination of student stat for instructional improvement. American Journal of Education, 112(4): 549-571.
131. Wayman, J. C., Stringfield, S., & Yakimowski, M. (2004). Software enabling school improvement through analysis of student data. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins University. http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report67.pdf
132. Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
133. 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.
134. West, R. F. and Rhoton, C. 1994. School district administrators' perceptions of educational research and barriers to research utilization. ERS Spectrum, 12(1): 23-30.
135. Wright, W. E. and Choi, D. 2006. The impact of language and high-stakes testing policies on elementary school English language learners in Arizona. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(13)
136. Young, V. 2008. "Supporting teachers' use of data: The role of organization and policy". In Data driven school improvement: Linking data and learning, Edited by: Mandinach, E. B. and Honey, M. 87-106. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
137. Young, V. M. and Kim, D. H. 2010. Using assessments for instructional improvement: A literature review. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(19): 1-36.