If you build it will they come? Teachers' online use of student performance data

Education Finance and Policy

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 168-207

  Tyler, John H ^a  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876341086     PISSN: 15573060     EISSN: 15573079     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/EDFP_a_00089     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Brunner, Cornelia, Chad Fasca, Juliette Heinze, Margaret Honey, Daniel Light, Ellen Mardinach, and Dara Wexler. 2005. Linking data and learning: The grow network study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 10(3): 241-67. doi:10.1207/s15327671espr1003_2
2. Carlson, Deven, Geoffrey D. Borman, and Michelle Robinson. 2011. A multistate district-level cluster randomized trial of the impact of data-driven reform on reading and mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 33(3): 378-98. doi:10.3102/0162373711412765
3. Chen, Eva, Margaret Heritage, and John Lee. 2005. Identifying and monitoring students' learning needs with technology. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 10(3): 309-32. doi:10.1207/s15327671espr1003_6
4. Cohen, David. 1990. A revolution in one classroom: The Case of Ms. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 12(3): 311-29.
5. Crawford, Valerie M., Mark Schlager, William R. Penuel, and Yukie Toyama. 2008. Supporting the art of teaching in a data-rich, high-performance learning environment. In Data-driven school improvement: Linking data and learning, edited by E. B. Mandinach, and M. Honey, pp. 109-29. New York: Teachers College Press.
6. Datnow, Amanda, Vicki Parker, and Priscilla Wohlstetter. 2007. Achieving with data: How high-performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. LosAngeles,CA:CenteronEducationalGovernance,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia.
7. Feldman, Jay, and Rosann Tung. 2001. Using data based inquiry and decision-making to improve instruction. ERS Spectrum 19(3): 10-19.
8. Gallagher, Lawrence, Barbara Means, and Christine Padilla. 2008. Teachers' use of student data systems to improve instruction: 2005-2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
9. Goertz, Margaret E., Leslie Neighbors Olah, and Matthew Riggan. 2009. From testing to teaching: The use of interim assessments in classroom instruction. Consortium for Policy Research in Education Report No. RR-65.
10. Herszenhorn, David M. 2007. Council assails mayor's plan to give principals more autonomy.NewYorkTimes,6March.Available http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/nyregion/06schools.html?_r=0. Accessed 22 January 2013.
11. Ingram, Debra, Karen R. Seashore Louis, and Roger Schroeder. 2004. Accountability policies and teacher decision making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record 106(6): 1258-87. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00379.x
12. Kerr, Kerri A., Julie A. Marsh, Gina Schuyler Ikemoto, Hillary Darilek, and Heather Barney. 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. doi:10.1086/505057
13. Lachat, Mary Ann. 2002. Data-driven high school reform: The breaking ranks model. Providence, RI: Northeast and Islands Regional Laboratory, Brown University.
14. Marsh, Julie A., John F. Pane, and Laura S. Hamilton. 2006. Making sense of datadriven decision making in education: Evidence from recent RAND research. Washington, DC: RAND Corporation.
15. McLaughlin, Milbrey W. 1987. Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 9(2): 171-78.
16. Means, Barbara, Christine Padilla, Angela DeBarger, and Marianne Bakia. 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.
17. Means, Barbara, Christine Padilla, and Lawrence Gallagher. 2010. Use of education data at the local level: From accountability to instructional improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
18. Pardini, Priscilla. 2000. Data, well done. Journal of Staff Development 21(1): 12-18.
19. Payne, Charles M. 2008. So much reform, so little change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
20. Protheroe, Nancy. 2001. Improving teaching and learning with data based decisions: Asking the right questions and acting on the answers. ERS Spectrum 19(3): 4-9.
21. Shiffman, Catherine Dunn, Matthew Riggan, Diane Massell, Matthew Goldwasser, and Joy Anderson. 2008. Channeling adaptation: The role of design in enactment patterns. In The implementation gap: Understanding reform in high schools, edited by Jonathan A. Supovitz and Elliot H. Weinbaum, pp. 46-67. New York: Teachers College Press.
22. Spillane, James P., Brian J. Reiser, and T. Reimer. 2002. Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research 72(3): 387-431. doi:10.3102/00346543072003387
23. Stein, Matt. 2003. Making sense of the data: Overview of the K-12 data management and analysis market. Boston, MA: Eduventures, Inc.
24. Wayman, Jeffrey C., Sam Stringfield, and Mary Yakimowski. 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.
25. Wayman, Jeffrey C. 2005. Guest editor's introduction. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 10(3): 235-39. doi:10.1207/s15327671espr1003_1
26. Wayman, Jeffrey C., Vincent Cho, and Shana Shaw. 2009. First-year results from an efficacy study of the acuity data system. Unpublished paper, University of Texas at Austin.
27. Wayman, Jeffrey C., Shana Shaw, and Vincent Cho. 2011. Second-year results from an efficacy study of the acuity data system. Unpublished paper, University of Texas at Austin.
28. Young, Viki M. 2006. Teachers' use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting, and team norms. American Journal of Education 112(4): 521-48. doi:10.1086/505058