Unpacking instructional alignment: The influence of teachers' use of assessment data on instruction

Perspectives in Education

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 15-28

  Abrams, Lisa ^a   Varier, Divya ^a   Jackson, Lisa ^a  

^a VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment literacy; Data driven decision making; Instructional alignment; Qualitative methods

Indexed keywords

EID: 85026434906     PISSN: 02582236     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.18820/2519593X/pie.v34i4.2     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Abrams, L.M., McMillan, J.H. & Wetzel, A.P. 2015. Implementing benchmark testing for formative purposes: Teacher voices about what works. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 27(4), 347-375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9214-9
2. Abrams, L.M., Varier, D., & McMillan, J.H. 2013. Teachers' use of benchmark assessment data to inform instruction and promote learning (American Educational Research Association). 2013 Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
3. Bennett, R.E. & Gitomer, D.H. 2009. Transforming K-12 assessment: Integrating accountability, testing, formative assessment, and professional support. In: C. Wyatt-Smith & J. Cummings (Eds.). Educational assessment in the 21st century. New York: Springer. pp. 43-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9964-9-3
4. Bennett, R.E. 2011. Formative assessments: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678
5. Bennett, R.E. 2015. The changing nature of educational assessment. Review of Educational Research, 39, 370-407. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X14554179
6. Black, P. & Wiliam, D. 1998. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
7. Blanc, S., Christman, J., Liu, R., Mitchell, C., Travers, E. & Bulkley, K. 2010. Learning to learn from data: Benchmarks and instructional communities. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 205-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619561003685379
8. Brookhart, S.M. 2003. Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purposes and uses. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(4), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2003.tb00139.x
9. Brookhart, S.M. 2010. Mixing it up: Combing sources of classroom achievement information for formative and summative purposes. In H. Andrade & G. Cizek (Eds.). Handbook of formative assessment. New York: Routledge. pp. 279-296.
10. Burch, P. 2010. The bigger picture: Institutional perspectives on interim assessment technologies. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 147-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619561003685288
11. Chen, T.W. 2014. Predictive utility and achievement outcomes of two simultaneous district-developed interim assessment programs. Unpublished PhD thesis. Florida: University of North Florida.
12. Cho, V., Jimerson, J.B. & Wayman, J.C. 2015. Data system implementation: A leader navigates people problems around technology and data use. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 18(2), 134-143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458915584677
13. Christman, J., Neild, R., Bulkley, K., Blanc, S., Lui, R., Mitchell, C., & Travers, E. 2009. Making the most of interim assessment data: Lessons from Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Research for Action.
14. Copland, M. 2002. The Bay Area school reform collaborative: Building the capacity to lead. In: J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.). Leadership lessons from comprehensive school reforms. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. pp. 159-183.
15. Creswell, J.W. & Plano Clark, V. 2011. Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
16. Datnow, A. & Hubbard, L. 2015. Teachers' use of assessment data to inform instruction. Lessons from the past and prospects for the future. Teachers College Record, 117(4), 1-40.
17. Goertz, M., Oláh, L. & Riggan, M. 2009. Can interim assessments be used for instructional change? CPRE policy briefs. Available at http://www.cpre.org/images/stories/cpre-pdfs/rb-51-role%20policy%20brief-final%20w eb.pdf. [Accessed December 5, 2013].
18. Guba, E.G. 1981. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology, 29(2), 75-91.
19. Hoover, N. & Abrams, L. 2013. Teachers' instructional use of summative student assessment data. Applied Measurement in Education, 26(3), 219-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347. 2013.793187
20. Hsieh, H. & Shannon, S.E. 2005. Three approaches to content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
21. Jennings, J.L. 2012. The effects of accountability system design on teachers' use of test score data. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1-23.
22. Kingston, N. & Nash, B. 2011. Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 30(4), 28-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x
23. Little, J.W. 2012. Understanding data use practice among teachers: The contribution of micro-process studies. American Journal of Education, 188(2), 143-166. https://doi.org/10.1086/663271
24. MacQueen, K.M., McLellan, E., Kay, K., & Milstein, B. 1998. Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. Cultural Anthropology Methods, 10(2), 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x980100020301
25. Mandinach, E.B. & Gummer, E.S. 2015. Data-driven decision making: Components of the enculturation of data use in education. Teachers College Record, 117(4), 1-12.
26. Marsh, J.A. 2012. Interventions promoting educators' use of data: Research insights and gaps. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1-48
27. Marsh, J.A. & Farrell, C.C. 2014. How leaders can support teachers with data-driven decision making: A framework for understanding capacity building. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 43(2), 269-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214537229
28. Martin, P.L. 2012. A preliminary examination of the intended purpose, actual use, and perceived benefit of district-led interim assessments on student achievement in North Carolina schools. Unpublished PhD thesis. North Carolina: East Carolina University.
29. Moss, P.A. 2013. Validity in action: Lessons from studies of data use. Journal of Educational Measurement 50(1), 91-98. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12003
30. Oláh, L., Lawrence, N. & Riggan, M. 2010. Learning to learn from benchmark assessment data: How teachers analyze results. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 226-245. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619561003688688
31. Perie, M., Marion, S., Gong, B. & Wurtzel, J. 2007. The role of interim assessments in a comprehensive assessment system. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
32. Rabinowitz, S., Roeber, E., Schroeder, C. & Sheinker, J. 2006. Creating aligned standards and assessment systems. Council of Chief State School Officers. Available at: http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2006/Creating-Aligned-Standards-2006.pdf [Accessed February 1, 2010].
33. Roderick, M. 2012. Drowning in data but thirsty for analysis. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1-9.
34. Saldaña, J. 2016. The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage
35. Shepard, L., Davidson, K., & Bowman, R. 2011. How middle school mathematics teachers use interim and benchmark assessment data (CRESST Report No. 807). Available at http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R807.pdf [Accessed December 5, 2013].
36. Shenton, A.K. 2004. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75.
37. 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.
38. Turner, E.O. & Coburn, C.E. 2012. Interventions to promote data use: An introduction. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1-13.
39. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450802246376
40. Yin, R.K. 2013. Case study research, design and methods, 5th ed. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.