The Linking Study: An Experiment to Strengthen Teachers’ Engagement with Data on Teaching and Learning

Abstract

In this AERA 2013 paper, Dr. Jonathan Supovitz investigates what it means for teachers to fruitfully use data to enhance the teaching and learning process. Informed by research on the challenges teachers face to use data meaningfully, and clues from the rich literature on formative assessment, this paper reports on the design and effects of an intervention designed to help teachers connect data on their teaching with data on the learning of their students for the purpose of informing subsequent instruction which leads to better student outcomes.

Tracking the process of data use professional development interventions for instructional improvement: A systematic literature review

“…The majority of the studies indicated positive effects on teacher attitudes and beliefs. Concerning attitudes and beliefs, Supovitz and Sirinides (2017) showed that the study intervention did not significantly change teachers' perceptions about the importance of instructional data or the importance of student test data or teachers' perceived proficiency using data on either teaching or assessment. However, Ebbeler et al (2017) concluded that mean scores for attitude increased more for teachers in data team schools than for teachers in the comparison group schools.…”

“…Teacher development was also established through collaborative learning, for instance through collaborative discussion (Reeves & Chiang, 2018) and collaboration in data teams between colleagues, such as school leaders and a data expert from the same school (Kippers et al, 2018), teacher collaboration in professional learning communities (PLCs) (Ebbeler et al, 2017;Supovitz & Sirinides, 2017) or networked communities (Lai et al, 2009;McNaughton et al, 2012). Collaboration also took place in the format of data teams through PLCs, consisting of four to six teachers, one to two school leaders (e.g., team leaders), and a quality care manager.…”

“…During the PDIs, data teams were also provided with structured and guided activities to practise all systematic steps of DBDM and to make all the data use steps as concrete and explicit as possible (Ebbeler et al, 2017). In addition, providing structured routines also gave data teams meaningful learning opportunities (Supovitz & Sirinides, 2017).…”

“…The majority of the studies reported that the data use PDIs were intensively conducted in longer periods. Seven studies incorporated one school year data use PDI (Carlson et al, 2011;Kippers et al, 2018;Konstantopoulos et al, 2013;Supovitz & Sirinides, 2017;van der Scheer et al, 2017;van der Scheer & Visscher, 2018;van Kuijk, Deunk, Bosker, & Ritzema, 2016). Only one study reported that the PDI was done during one and a half years (Ebbeler et al, 2017).…”

“…In the studies by McNaughton, Lai, and Hsiao (2012) and van der Scheer and Visscher (2018), for instance, the data were analysed to examine the gaps between the student achievement and national patterns or achievement standards. However, the data are not sufficient to define student learning problems, therefore, additional data, such as classroom observation data are needed so that they could give better insights to the problems (Lai et al, 2014;McNaughton, Lai, & Hsiao, 2012;Supovitz & Sirinides, 2017). These data thus complemented assessment data.…”