Districts' efforts for data use and computer data systems: The role of sensemaking in system use and implementation

Teachers College Record

Volumn 116, Issue 2, 2014, Pages

  Cho, Vincent ^a   Wayman, Jeffrey C ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84893925663     PISSN: 01614681     EISSN: 14679620     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Bailey, D. E., & Barley, S. R. (2011). Teaching-learning ecologies: Mapping the environment to structure through action. Organization Science, 22(1), 262-285.
2. Barley, S. R. (1990). The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 61-103.
3. Begley, P. T. (2006). Self-knowledge, capacity and sensitivity: Prerequisites to authentic leadership by school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(6), 570-589. doi:10.1108/09578230610704792
4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
5. Bosk, C. L. (2003). Forgive and remember: Managing medical failure (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6. Brooks, C. (2011). Locating leadership: The blind spot in Alberta's technology policy discourse. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(26).
7. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.
8. Brunner, C., Fasca, C., Heinze, J., Honey, M., Light, D., Mandinach, E. B., & Wexler, D. (2005). Linking data and learning: The Grow Network study. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 10(3), 241-267.
9. Burch, P. (2010). The bigger picture: Institutional perspectives on interim assessment technologies. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 147-162.
10. Burch, P., & Hayes, T. (2009). The role of private firms in data-based decision making. In T. J. Kowalski & T. J. Lasley II (Eds.), Handbook of Data-Based Decision Making in Education (pp. 54-71). New York, NY: Routledge.
11. Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442-455.
12. Chen, E., Heritage, M., & Lee, J. (2005). Identifying and monitoring students' learning needs with technology. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 10(3), 309-332.
13. 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. doi:10.3102/01623737023002145
14. Coburn, C. E., & Turner, E. O. (2011). Research on data use: A framework and analysis. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 9(4), 173-206. doi:10.1080/15366367.2011.626729
15. Copland, M. A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 375-395.
16. Daly, A. J. (2012). Data, dyads, and dynamics: Exploring data use and social networks in educational improvement. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1-38.
17. Datnow, A. (2006). Connections in the policy chain: The "co-construction" of implementation in comprehensive school reform. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 105-123). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
18. Datnow, A., Park, V., & Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Los Angeles, CA: Center on Educational Governance, University of Southern California.
19. Davidson, E. J., & Chismar, W. G. (2007). The interaction of institutionally triggered and technology-triggered social structure change: An investigation of computerized physician order entry. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 739-758.
20. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
21. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago.
22. Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: a guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
23. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E. (2009). Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38(4), 246-259. doi:10.3102/0013189X09336671
24. Hamilton, L., Halverson, R., Jackson, S. S., Mandinach, E., Supovitz, J. A., & Wayman, J. C. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making (Practice guide No. NCEE 2009-4067). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED506645
25. Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
26. Honig, M. I., & Venkateswaran, N. (2012). School-central office relationships in evidence use: Understanding evidence use as a systems problem. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 199-222.
27. 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.
28. Johnson, L. (2007). Rethinking successful school leadership in challenging U.S. schools: Culturally responsive practices in school-community relationships. International Studies in International Education, 35(3), 49-57.
29. Jones, M. R., & Karston, H. (2008). Giddens's structuration theory and information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 32(1), 127-157.
30. Kling, R. (1992). Audiences, narratives, and human values in social studies of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 17(3), 349-365.
31. Knapp, M. S., Swinnerton, J. A., Copland, M. A., & Monpas-Hubar, J. (2006). Data-informed leadership in education. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
32. Lachat, M. A., & Smith, S. (2005). Practices that support data use in urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 10(3), 333-349.
33. Leonardi, P. M. (2009a). Why do people reject new technologies and stymie organizational changes of which they are in favor? Exploring misalignments between social interactions and materiality. Human Communication Research, 35, 407-441.
34. Leonardi, P. M. (2009b). Crossing the implementation line: The mutual constitution of technology and organizing across development and use activities. Communication Theory, 19, 278-310.
35. Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1998). Information technology and organizational change: Causal structure in theory and research. Management Science, 34(5), 583-598.
36. McDaniel, R. R., & Driebe, D. J. (2001). Complexity science and health care management. Advances in Health Care Management, 2, 11-36.
37. McDaniel, R. R., & Weick, K. E. (1989). How professional organizations work: Implications for school organization & management. In T. J. Sergiovanni & J. H. Moore (Eds.), Schooling for Tomorrow: Directing Reforms to Issues that Count. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
38. 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.
39. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
40. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
41. O'Day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 293-329.
42. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398-427.
43. Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63-92.
44. Orlikowski, W. J., & Barley, S. R. (2001). Technology and institutions: What can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other? MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 145-165.
45. Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, C. S. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the "IT" in IT research - A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 121-135.
46. Palmer, D., & Snodgrass Rangel, V. (2011). High stakes accountability and policy implementation: teacher decision making in bilingual classrooms in Texas. Educational Policy, 25(4), 614-647. doi:10.1177/0895904810374848
47. Pinch, T. J., & Weibe, E. B. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14, 399-441.
48. Polikoff, M. S., Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. (2011). How well aligned are state assessments of student achievement with state content standards? American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 965-995. doi:10.3102/0002831211410684
49. Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
50. Senge, P. M. (1994). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization (1st ed.). New York: Doubleday Business.
51. Spillane, J. P., Parise, L. M., & Sherer, J. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 586-619. doi:10.3102/0002831210385102
52. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387-431. doi:10.3102/00346543072003387
53. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
54. Stecher, B., Hamilton, L., & Gonzalez, G. (2003). Working smarter to leave no child behind: Practical insights for school leaders. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
55. Supovitz, J. A., & Klein, V. (2003). Mapping a course for improved student learning: How innovative schools systematically use student performance data to guide improvement. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
56. Talbert, J. E. (2010). Professional learning communities at the crossroads: How systems hinder or engender change. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Educational Change (pp. 555-571). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Retrieved from http://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6_32
57. Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, Paul M. (2012). Social media use in organizations: Exploring the affordances of visibility, editablity, persistance, and association. Communication Yearbook, 36, 143-189.
58. Tucker, B. (2010). Putting data into practice: Lessons from New York City. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
59. Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519-558.
60. Wayman, J. C., & Stringfield, S. (2006). Technology-supported involvement of entire faculties in examination of student data for instructional improvement. American Journal of Education, 112(August), 549-571.
61. Wayman, J. C., Cho, V., & Johnston, M. T. (2007). The data-informed district: A district-wide evaluation of data use in Natrona County School District. Austin: The University of Texas.
62. Wayman, J. C., Cho, V., & Richards, M. P. (2010). Student data systems and their use for educational improvement. In P. L. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGraw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (Vol. 8, pp. 14-20). Oxford: Elsevier.
63. Wayman, J. C., Cho, V., & Shaw, S. (2009). First-year results from an efficacy study of the Acuity data system. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin.
64. Wayman, J. C., Cho, V., Jimerson, J. B., & Spikes, D. D. (2012). District-wide effects on data use in the classroom. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(25). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/979
65. Wayman, J. C., Jimerson, J. B., & Cho, V. (2012). Organizational considerations in establishing the data-informed district. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 23(2), 159-178.
66. Wayman, J. C., Stringfield, S., & Yakimowski, M. (2004). Software enabling school improvement through analysis of student data (No. 67). Center for Research on the Education for Students Placed At Risk.
67. Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sense making in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(38), 628-652.
68. Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 357-381.
69. Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
70. Wills, J. S., & Sandholtz, J. H. (2009). Constrained professionalism: Dilemmas of teaching in the face of test-based accountability. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1065-1114.
71. Winner, L. (1993). Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philosophy of technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 18(3), 362-378.
72. Wohlstetter, P., Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2008). Creating a system for data-driven decision-making: Applying the principal-agent framework. School effectiveness and school improvement, 19(3), 239-259.
73. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series (4th ed., Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
74. Young V.M. Teachers' use of data: Loose coupling, agenda setting, and team norms. American Journal of Education. 2006; 112: (4) 521-548