Using Data to Alter Instructional Practice: The Mediating Role of Coaches and Professional Learning Communities

• In Event: Using Data for School and Student Performance Improvement

Abstract

This paper sheds light on the supports that help literacy teachers use data to change instruction in classrooms serving Latina/o and African American students. It examines how coaches—data coaches and literacy coaches—and professional learning communities (PLCs) intervene in teachers’ data use in ways that sometimes lead to changes in delivery of instruction. During the 2011-2012 school year, data were collected at six middle schools serving majorities of African American and Latina/o students in four districts that implemented coaching and PLC programs designed to support teachers’ data use. Data include 96 interviews with case study teachers, coaches, school administrators and district leaders; six focus groups with non-case study teachers; 20 observations of meetings and interactions involving PLCs and coaches; and monthly surveys from 21 teachers and coaches.

The study draws upon the concepts of vertical and horizontal expertise, which come from the tradition of Cultural Historical Activity Theory (Engeström, 1999; Engeström, Engeström, & Kärkkäinen, 1995). Vertical expertise encompasses what is traditionally considered expertise: an individual’s knowledge and skills. Horizontal expertise entails collective knowledge and skills that are co-created through interactions.

The study found that the support from a coach or PLC often mediated teachers’ use of data generally, but was especially important in helping them change instructional practice. Coaches often provided feedback to teachers, reflecting their institutional position that lent support to (but did not guarantee) teachers’ perceiving them as holding vertical expertise. Teachers, in turn, often discursively constructed coaches as especially knowledgeable. Also, coach-teacher interactions sometimes led to the formation of hybrid ideas about how to change delivery of instruction in response to data, pointing to horizontal expertise. In PLCs, participants were sometimes framed as having vertical expertise, but to a lesser extent than coaches. Even though there was a flatter structure in PLCs (suggesting the potential to enact horizontal expertise), collaboration resulting in hybrid ideas were rare.

In addition to exploring the supports that facilitated teachers using data to drive instructional change, the study also provides insights from the examples of data use that did not lead to change in delivery of instruction (which were the vast majority). For instance, the study found that coaches’ focus on helping teachers access and analyze data, without an additional focus on instructional responses to data, did not support teachers in changing their instruction. Also, there was a range of school- and district-level factors that facilitated or constrained the possibility of change in delivery of instruction in response to data.

The study indicates that coaches and PLCs are especially important in mediating literacy teachers’ data use in ways that lead to instructional change in classrooms serving Latina/o and African American students. The research also points to the importance of both horizontal and vertical expertise in helping teachers bridge the “knowing-doing” (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000) gap. However, the study also shows that several obstacles impede this process. In moving forward, the paper calls for more research about how PLCs and coaches may help teachers use data to change instruction.

Authors

• Julie A. Marsh, University of Southern California

• Melanie Bertrand, Arizona State University

• Alice Huguet, University of Southern California