Using data walls to display assessment results: a review of their affective impacts on teachers and students

Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2020, Pages 50-66

  Harris, Lois ^a   Wyatt Smith, Claire ^a   Adie, Lenore ^a  

^a AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Data wall s; emotional response; motivation; privacy; public display of data; student and teacher well being

Indexed keywords

EID: 85082406306     PISSN: 13540602     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2020.1739018     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Abrams, L., Varier, D., & Jackson, L., (2016). Unpacking instructional alignment: The influence of teachers’ use of assessment data on instruction. Perspectives in Education, 34(4), 15–28. doi: 10.18820/2519593X/pie.v34i4.2
2. Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Testing, motivation, and learning. Cambridge: The Nuffield Foundation. University of Cambridge Faculty of Education. http://www.assessment-reform-group.org.uk
3. Azevedo, R., Taub, M., Mudrick, N. V., Millar, G. C., Bradbury, A. E., & Price, M. J., (2017). Using data visualizations to foster emotion regulation during self-regulated learning with advanced learning technologies. In J., Buder & F. W., Hesse (Eds.), Informational environments: Effects of use, effective designs (pp. 225–247). Springer International Publishing.
4. Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L., (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied Psychology, 54(2), 199–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.2005.54.issue-2
5. Brown, G., & Harris, L. R., (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment. Routledge.
6. Campbell, T., (2016). Implementing professional learning communities at the high school level: Obstacles and solutions experienced by one Tennessee high school [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Tennessee State University.
7. Carless, D., & Lam, R., (2014). The examined life: Perspectives of lower primary school students in Hong Kong. Education 3-13, 42(3), 313–329. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2012.689988.
8. Carter, M., (2014). A multiple case study of NAPLAN numeracy testing of Year 9 students in three Queensland secondary schools [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Queensland University of Technology.
9. Christoph, R., (2014). Organizing data for instructional use in one elementary school: An action research study [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Washington State University.
10. Cizek, G., (2001). More unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(4), 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2001.tb00072.x
11. Cochrane, S., (2016). The little school that could: A case study contextualizing “data to inform instruction” through one school’s data transformation story [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Tennessee Technological University.
12. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P., (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Sage.
13. Cumming, J., Wyatt-Smith, C., & Colbert, P., (2016). Students at risk and NAPLAN: The collateral damage. In B., Lingard, G., Thompson, & S., Sellar (Eds.), National testing in schools: An Australian assessment (pp. 126–138). Routledge.
14. Earl, L., (2009). Leadership for evidence-informed conversations. In L., Earl & H., Timperley (Eds.), Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement (pp. 43–52). Springer.
15. Elwood, J., & Murphy, P., (2015). Assessment systems as cultural scripts: A sociocultural theoretical lens on assessment practice and products. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 22(2), 182–192. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2015.1021568.
16. Glasswell, K., Singh, P., & McNaughton, S., (2016). Partners in design: Co-inquiry for quality teaching in disadvantaged schools. Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 39(1), 20–29. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A445983110/AONE?u=acuni&sid=AONE&xid=2afeda29.
17. Goss, P., Hunter, J., Romanes, D., & Parsonage, H., (2015). Targeted teaching: How better use of data can improve student learning. Grattan Institute.
18. Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Tomas, J., (2012). An introduction to systematic reviews. Sage.
19. Green, L., & Holloway, D., (2019). Introduction: Problematising the treatment of children’s data. Media International Australia, 170(1), 22–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X19829241
20. Hardy, I., (2014). A logic of appropriation: Enacting national testing (NAPLAN) in Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 29(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.782425
21. Harris, L. M., (2018). Perceptions of teachers about using and analyzing data to inform instruction [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Walden University.
22. Harris, L. R., & Brown, G., (2016). The human and social experience of assessment: Valuing the person and context. In G., Brown & L. R., Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 1–17). Routledge.
23. Hartong, S., (2016). Between assessments, digital technologies and big data: The growing influence of ‘hidden’ data mediators in education. European Educational Research Journal, 15(5), 523–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116648966
24. Hazelkorn, E., (2007). The impact of league tables and ranking systems on higher education decision making. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2), 87–110. https://doi.org/10.1787/hemp-v19-2-en
25. Hazelkorn, E., (2010). Attitudes to rankings: Comparing German, Australian and Japanese experiences. In S., Kaur, M., Sirat., & W. G., Tierney (Eds.), Quality assurance and university rankings in higher education in the Asia Pacific: Challenges for universities and nations (pp. 123–146). Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia and National Higher Education Research Institute.
26. Jimerson, J., Cho, V., Scroggins, K., Balial, R., & Robinson, R., (2019). How and why teachers engage students with data. Educational Studies, 45(6), 667–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2018.1509781
27. Jimerson, J., Cho, V., & Wayman, J., (2016). Student-involved data use: Teacher practices and considerations for professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60(Suppl.C), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.008
28. Jimerson, J., & Reames, E., (2015). Student-involved data use: Establishing the evidence base. Journal of Educational Change, 16(3), 281–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9246-4
29. Kensler, L., Reames, E., Murray, J., & Patrick, L., (2012). Systems thinking tools for improving evidence-based practice: A cross-case analysis of two high school leadership teams. The High School Journal, 95(2), 32–53. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2012.0002
30. Kiro, C., Hynds, A., Eaton, J., Irving, E., Wilson, A., Bendikson, L., Cockle, V., Broadwith, M., Linley-Richardson, T., & Rangi, M., (2016). The Starpath Project: Starpath phase 2 final summative evaluation report. University of Auckland.
31. Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C., (2012). The impact of high stakes testing: The Australian story. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 19(1), 65–79. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2011.592972.
32. Koyama, J., (2013). Global scare tactics and the call for US schools to be held accountable. American Journal of Education, 120(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1086/673122
33. Lonn, S., Aguilar, S. J., & Teasley, S. D., (2015). Investigating student motivation in the context of a learning analytics intervention during a summer bridge program. Computers in Human Behavior, 47, 90–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.013
34. Lupton, D., & Williamson, B., (2017). The datafied child: The dataveillance of children and implications for their rights. New Media & Society, 19(5), 780–794. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816686328
35. Mandinach, E., Parton, B., Gummer, E., & Anderson, R., (2015). Ethical and appropriate data use requires data literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(5), 25–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721715569465
36. Manolev, J., Sullivan, A., & Slee, R., (2019). The datafication of discipline: ClassDojo, surveillance and a performative classroom culture. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1558237
37. Marsh, J., Farrell, C., & Bertrand, M., (2016). Trickle- down accountability: How middle school teachers engage students in data use. Educational Policy, 30(2), 243–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814531653
38. McMillan, J., (2018). Using students’ assessment mistakes and learning deficits to enhance motivation and learning. Routledge.
39. Messick, S., (1989). Validity. In R., Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). MacMillan.
40. Nichols, S., & Berliner, D., (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Harvard Education Press.
41. Nichols, S., & Harris, L. R., (2016). Accountability assessment’s effects on teachers and schools. In G., Brown & L. R., Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 40–56). Routledge.
42. Parham, A., (2015). Data driven decision making for school improvement planning: Toward a model and process for distributive leadership and shared decision making [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Auburn University.
43. Polonetsky, J., & Jerome, J., (2014). Student data: Trust, transparency and the role of consent. Future of Privacy Forum. https://fpf.org/wp-content/uploads/FPF_Education_Consent_StudentData_Oct2014.pdf
44. Potenziano, P., (2014). Opportunity to learn: The role of structures and routines in understanding and addressing educational inequities [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Boston College.
45. Rennie, E., Schmieder, K., Thomas, J., Howard, S. K., Ma, J., & Yang, J., (2019). Privacy and app use in Australian primary schools: Insights into school-based internet governance. Media International Australia, 170(1), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X19828368
46. Renshaw, P., Baroutsis, A., van Kraayenoord, C., Goos, M., & Dole, S., (2013). Teachers using classroom data well: Identifying key features of effective practices. University of Queensland.
47. Reyes, A., & Garcia, A., (2014). Turnaround policy and practice: A case study of turning around a failing school with English-Language-Learners. The Urban Review, 46(3), 349–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-013-0261-6
48. Roegman, R., Perkins-Williams, R., Maeda, Y., & Greenan, K. A., (2018). Developing data leadership: Contextual influences on administrators’ data use. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 13(4), 348–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775117719452
49. Salmi, J., & Saroyan, A., (2007). League tables as policy instruments: Uses and misuses. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2), 31–68. https://doi.org/10.1787/hemp-v19-2-en
50. Sharratt, L., & Fullan, M., (2012). Putting FACES on the data: What great leaders do! Corwin and the Ontario Principals’ Council.
51. Sims, W., (2011). Similarities and differences in decision-making processes and practices among elementary school principals in program improvement Year I, Year 3, and Year 5 schools [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. San Francisco State University.
52. Singh, P., (2018). Performativity, affectivity and pedagogic identities. European Educational Research Journal, 17(4), 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117726181
53. Singh, P., & Glasswell, K., (2013). Chasing social change: Matters of concern and the mattering practice of educational research. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 1(2), 1–15. https://www.ijicc.net/images/Vol1iss2/singh_and_glasswell.pdf.
54. Singh, P., & Glasswell, K., (2016). Distributed leadership policies and practices: Striving for educational equity in high poverty contexts. In G., Johnson & N., Dempster (Eds.), Leadership in diverse learning contexts (pp. 255–274). Springer.
55. Singh, P., Märtsin, M., & Glasswell, K., (2015). Dilemmatic spaces: High-stakes testing and the possibilities of collaborative knowledge work to generate learning innovations. Teachers and Teaching, 21(4), 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.976853
56. Spina, N., (2017). The quantification of education and the reorganisation of teachers’ work: An institutional ethnography [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. Queensland University of Technology
57. Supovitz, J., & Klein, V., (2003). Mapping a course for improved student learning: How innovative schools systematically use student performance data to guide improvement. University of Pennsylvania.
58. Thrupp, M., (2018). The search for better educational standards: A cautionary tale. Springer.
59. Thrupp, M., & White, M., (2013). Research, analysis and insight into national standards (RAINS) project final report: National standards and the damage done. The New Zealand Educational Institute Te Riu Roa (NZEI).
60. Tierney, R., & Koch, M., (2016). Privacy in classroom assessment. In G., Brown & L. R., Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 267–283). Routledge.
61. Vogl, E., & Pekrun, R., (2016). Emotions that matter to achievement: Student feelings about assessment. In G., Brown & L. R., Harris (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 111–128). Routledge.
62. Williamson, B., (2016). Digital education governance: Data visualization, predictive analytics, and ‘real-time’ policy instruments. Journal of Education Policy, 31(2), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1035758
63. Wyatt-Smith, C., Adie, L., & Harris, L., (2018). Data walls and classroom learning: What are the questions that matter? Independent Education Union (NSW/ACU)Newsmonth, 38(4), 4. http://publications.ieu.asn.au/2018-june-newsmonth/feature/data-walls-and-classroom-learning/
64. Wyatt-Smith, C., Lingard, B., & Heck, E., (2019). Digital learning assessments and big data: Implications for teacher professionalism (UNESCO Education Research and Foresight Working Papers). Institute for Learning Sciences Teacher Education, Australian Catholic University. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000370940