The Nature of Teachers’ Collaborative Use of Student Learning Data

• In Event: Roundtable Session 116
  In Roundtable Session: Interventions to Support Data-Driven Decision Making and Instructional Improvement: Frameworks and Findings

Abstract

This study examined teachers’ use of student learning data in collaborative teacher inquiry groups (CTIGs). We identify four distinct data phases teachers engaged in, examine the amount of time spent in each phase across a school year, and consider the nature of their engagement with the data.

There is an increasing expectation that teachers use student learning data (SLD) to improve their classroom practices (Moss & Piety, 2007). The use of SLD is inherent in a collaborative inquiry cycle and its role in influencing teacher change is well documented (Ermeling, 2010; Gallimore, et al., 2009; Kazemi & Franke, 2004; Talbert & Scharff, 2008). However, decisions about what data to collect and how to make sense of it have been shown to be difficult for teachers in CTIGs (Slavit & Nelson, 2010). We develop a conceptual framework for analyzing and describing CTIG activity and talk associated with the use of student-learning data. This framework describes four phases of data-related activity: 1) exploration of what data might inform their inquiry; 2) collection of SLD, including development of tools to do this; 3) analysis of the SLD; and 4) derivation of implications for future instruction. Our framework also provides for an analysis of a) the group’s stance toward data, along a continuum from improving to proving, and b) the nature of their talk about the SLD, along a continuum from inquiry-based talk to disconnected talk.

Mixed methods were used in this analysis of a sub-set of data from a larger corpus collected over five years across seven schools and three districts. The primary data for this analysis are transcripts of CTIG meetings from six different groups (case studies) in four schools across one school year. These transcripts were analyzed qualitatively for the group’s stance and nature of their talk. The transcripts were coded for engagement in data phases. Descriptive statistics were calculated, including percentage of time working with data overall, percentage of time in a given phase per meeting, and percentage of time in a given phase in relation to time working with data. The number of lines in the transcripts was the measure of these percentages. Case study data provided additional information about the school and group contexts, which contributed to explanation of the numeric findings.

We found that, on average, groups spent approximately half their CTIG time using SLD. Of this time, groups spent an average of 40% of their time talking about data collection and 40% analyzing the collected data. About 10% of time, on average, was devoted to data exploration and to deriving implications. Across groups, the nature of their engagement and talk in any given phase varied widely. A relationship between teachers’ stance toward SLD and the nature of their talk was identified.

These findings provide insight into CTIGs’ data processes and suggest where support is needed for groups to realize the potential assumed for collaborative inquiry. This study also provides a framework that can be utilized by others to support and analyze CTIGs’ work.

Authors

• Tamara Holmlund Nelson, Washington State University - Vancouver

• David Slavit, Washington State University Vancouver