Evidence Use in Data Teams in the Netherlands and Sweden

• In Event: Evidence Use in Professional Learning Communities

Abstract

Objectives
Data are an important form of evidence in schools. These include both quantitative data (e.g., assessment results) and qualitative data (e.g., classroom observations). Data use is an important factor for school improvement (e.g., Carlson, Borman, & Robinson, 2011). However, schools need support in data use. Therefore, the data team procedure was developed. Data teams can be described as PLCs focused on using data to improve education, following an eight step procedure:
1) problem definition
2) formulating hypotheses about the causes of the problem
3) data collection
4) determining the quality of these data
5) data analysis
6) drawing conclusions
7) implementing measures
8) evaluating these measures.

The teams are supported by an external coach (Schildkamp & Poortman, 2015). Schools in the Netherlands and schools in Sweden have implemented this procedure. As stated by Horn and Little (2010), these different contexts are likely to influence the data team process. This study therefore focusses on the similarities and differences in the data-use process of data teams in these two countries.

Perspective(s)/Theoretical framework
The interaction between data and people, in a certain context, results in decisions regarding what action to take. Data use involves a purpose, data collection, filtering, analysis and interpretation of data, and the creation of information and actionable knowledge. This entails a whole sense-making process, which Weick (1995) describes as the way people use preexisting cognitive frameworks to make meaning of cues. Finally, data use can result in certain improvement measures (Marsh, Pane, & Hamilton, 2006; Marsh, 2012; Schildkamp & Poortman, 2015). In this paper, we unravel this complex process of data use, and also compare and contrast these processes for the Dutch and Swedish teams.

Methods and data sources
In both countries, four teams were followed over a period of two years. All members were interviewed and asked to describe the data use process in their data team. Results were analyzed using the program Atlas-ti. Codes that were used included, for example: purpose of data use, sense-making, and actions.

Results and significance
The results show that the Dutch and Swedish teams differ in their data use processes. For example, all Dutch teams defined a purpose related to student achievement. Although data teams are free to work on their own topic, the Education Inspectorate’s quality criteria and school leaders’ preferences have an influence. Teams in Sweden also focused on other topics than student achievement, such as well-being. Scheduling sufficient time is difficult in both contexts, however, Swedish schools also participated in national education reform projects, making this even more challenging. Swedish schools also appeared more keen on collecting new data, which also costs more time, rather than focusing on using existing data to solve their problem. In the paper, we will describe all similarities and differences in processes and related results in both contexts in-depth.
By comparing and contrasting in-depth the results of data teams in the different countries much can be learned about (further supporting) data use processes, and how this is influenced by the (national) context.

Authors

• Kim Schildkamp, Universiteit Twente

• Cindy Louise Poortman, University of Twente

• Ulf Blossing, University of Gothenburg