Supporting Teachers in Using Evidence on Student Thinking as a Form of Data

• In Event: The Complexity of Data-Based Decision Making: Evidence From the United States, Norway, New Zealand, and Belgium

Abstract

Purpose and theoretical framework
Building upon what students know will be especially important after pandemic school closures. Meanwhile, data that teachers are expected to draw on to ascertain student learning are often narrowly construed, not suitable for formative purposes, and provide limited insights (Heritage et al., 2009; Shepard et al., 2011). In this paper, we examine teacher engagement with a less typical form of data - evidence on student thinking. Student thinking is a form of evidence not typically defined as “data” in the literature. A focus on student thinking may help to provide a more tangible connection between data and instruction and promote student and teacher learning (Franke & Kazemi, 2001; Leatham et al., 2015). However, teachers need strategies to help them elicit student thinking, interpret student understanding, and decide how to respond (Jacobs et al., 2010). Sociocultural learning theory can help us understand how teacher learning occurs through mentoring and engagement with peers and artifacts (Marsh et al., 2015; Vygotsky, 1978). Stoll and Bolam’s (2009) work also underscores the importance of supportive conditions, facilitating learning opportunities, and ensuring interrelationships within a system.

Method and data sources
We draw on data gathered in a qualitative case study of four middle schools under pressure to improve achievement. The schools were engaged in a math instructional improvement project and supported by an instructional coach who worked with teachers in teams and individually. Over a period of four years, we conducted annual interviews with math teachers, school administrators, and the instructional coach, resulting in a total of 165 interviews. We also conducted over 230 hours of observations of teacher team meetings and trainings, taking detailed field notes. Data were coded using a priori codes developed from our reading of the literature and emergent codes arising from the analysis.

Results
Findings show that data use occurred when evidence from student thinking was introduced as part of the instructional planning process. An instructional coach helped to build synergies, create learning opportunities for teachers, and align structures and cultures to support change. This occurred through a focus on backwards-design planning of instructional units with students’ mathematical reasoning in mind, while also meeting district pacing and unit planning demands. As teachers saw the benefits for their students, they built instructional units in ways that made student thinking visible, allowing them to teach responsively. This impacted how math teachers came to approach their practice more generally. This shift was especially important in schools where accountability narratives loomed large, often diverting teachers’ energies and creating challenges with coherence.

Educational importance
The findings of this paper have implications for data use. Data that are considered useful should not be limited to data gathered in a standardized manner but rather should include the more unstructured form described here. An expansive conception of data, which includes formative assessment data that illuminate student thinking, is important in this shift. Data on student thinking needs more attention in conceptions of data use, as it provides an opportunity for a closer connection to instruction.

Authors

• Amanda L. Datnow, University of California - San Diego

• Marie Lockton, University of California - San Diego

• Hayley Ryan Weddle, University of Pittsburgh