Teaching Educators Habits of Mind for Using Data Wisely

Abstract

Background

Institutions of higher education, specifically schools of education, should play a pivotal role in supporting educators’ development of data literacy for teaching. While novice teachers are often prepared to use test-based assessment data, they learn these experiences in isolated courses that do not connect to instruction or school improvement. Moreover, once these novice teachers begin working in schools, they are increasingly expected to work with colleagues to apply data literacy skills, yet few preparation programs provide sustained support with using data collaboratively for whole-school improvement.

Purpose

This essay describes the habits of mind, or ways of thinking and being, that underlie data literacy courses offered by the Data Wise Project at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. The habits include: shared commitment to action, assessment, and adjustment; intentional collaboration; and relentless focus on evidence. Adding an emphasis on habits of mind expands building data literacy beyond accumulating discrete knowledge and skills or learning a process that becomes routine.

Research Design

The authors provide suggestions for instructional design than can be incorporated both in degree-program courses and in ongoing professional development. These suggestions provide opportunities for participants to actively cultivate the three habits of mind.

Conclusions

In order to support all educators while learning data literacy for teaching, there is a need to bridge the resources of an institution of higher education with the instructional capacity of professional development providers and the authentic experiences of school-based practitioners.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Argyris

, & Schön

D. A.

(1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, methods and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Boudett

K. P.

, & City

E. A.

(2013). Lessons from the Data Wise Project: Three habits of mind for building a collaborative culture. Harvard Education Letter, 29(3), 1–2. Retrieved from http://hepg.org/hel/article/567

Boudett

K. P.

, & City

E. A.

(2014). Meeting wise: Making the most of collaborative time for educators. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Boudett

K. P.

, City

E. A.

, & Murnane

R. J.

(Eds.). (2013). Data Wise, revised and expanded edition: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

City

E. A.

, Elmore

R. F.

, Fiarman

S. E.

, & Teitel

(2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Coburn

C. E.

, & Turner

E. O.

(2011). Research on data use: A framework and analysis. Measurement, 9, 173–206.

Coburn

C. E.

, & Turner

E. O.

(2012). The practice of data use: An introduction. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 99–111.

Costa

A. L.

, & Kallick

(Eds.). (2008). Learning and leading with habits of mind: 16 essential characteristics for success. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Edmondson

(1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1999), 350–383.

10.

Edmondson

(2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization Science, 13(2), 128–146.

11.

Gallimore

, Ermeling

, Saunders

, & Goldenberg

(2009). Moving the learning of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry teams. Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 537–553.

12.

Goertz

, Oláh

, & Riggan

(2009, December). Can interim assessments by used for instructional change? (CPRE Policy Briefs RB-51). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

13.

Greenberg

, & Walsh

(2012). What teacher preparation programs teach about K-12 assessment: A review. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/p/publications/docs/assessment_report.pdf

14.

Hackman

(2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

15.

Hamilton

, Halverson

, Jackson

, Mandinach

, Supovitz

, & Wayman

(2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making(NCEE 2009-4067). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/

16.

Hiebert

, Gallimore

, & Stigler

(2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how would we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3–15.

17.

Jennings

J. L.

(2012). The effects of accountability system design on teachers' use of test score data. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–23.

18.

Katzenbach

J. R.

, & Smith

D. K.

(2003). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance organization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

19.

Kekahio

, & Baker

(2013). Five steps for structuring data-informed conversations and action in education(REL 2013–001). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Pacific. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

20.

Kolb

A. Y.

, & Kolb

D.A.

(2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(2), 193–212.

21.

Koretz

(2009). Measuring up: What educational testing really tells us. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

22.

Lave

(1996). The practice of learning. In Chaiklin

& Lave

(Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

23.

Levine

T. H.

, & Marcus

A. S.

(2010) How the structure and focus of teachers' collaborative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 389–398.

24.

Little

J. W.

(1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 325–340.

25.

Little

J. W.

(1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers' professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509–536.

26.

Little

J. W.

(2002). Locating learning in teachers' communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 917–946.

27.

Lortie

D. C.

(1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

28.

Love

, Stiles

K. E.

, Mundry

, & DiRanna

(2008). The data coach's guide to improving learning for all students: Unleashing the power of collaborative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

29.

Mandinach

E. B.

, Friedman

J. M.

, & Gummer

E. S.

(2015). How can schools of education help to build educators' capacity to use data? A systemic view of the issue. Teachers College Record, 117(4).

30.

Mandinach

E. B.

, & Gummer

E. S.

(2013). Defining data literacy: A report on a convening of experts. Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies, 13(2), 6–28.

31.

Marsh

J. A.

(2012). Interventions promoting educators' use of data: Research insights and gaps. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–48.

32.

McDonald

J. P.

, Mohr

, Dichter

, & McDonald

E. C.

(2007). The power of protocols(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

33.

McLaughlin

, & Talbert

J. E.

(2002). Reforming districts: How districts support school reform. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.

34.

Means

, Chen

, DeBarger

, & Padilla

(2011). Teachers' ability to use data to inform instruction: Challenges and supports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.

35.

Means

, Padilla

, & Gallagher

(2010). Use of education data at the local level: From accountability to instructional improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.

36.

National Forum on Education Statistics. (2012). Forum guide to taking action with education data(NFES 2013-801). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

37.

National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school(expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

38.

Nelson

, & Slavit

(2008). Supported teacher collaborative inquiry. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 99–116.

39.

Park

, & Datnow

(2009): Co-constructing distributed leadership: district and school connections in data-driven decision-making. School Leadership & Management, 29(5), 477–494.

40.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

41.

Putnam

R. T.

, & Borko

(2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.

42.

Saunders

W. M.

, Goldenberg

C. N.

, & Gallimore

(2009). Increasing achievement by focusing grade-level teams on improving classroom learning: A prospective, quasi-experimental study of Title I Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1006–1033.

43.

Senge

, Cambron-McCabe

, Lucas

, Smith

, Dutton

, & Kleiner

(2000). Schools that learn: A Fifth Discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York, NY: Crown Business.

44.

Shulman

L. S.

(2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59.

45.

Supovitz

(2012). Getting at student understanding—The key to teachers' use of test data. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–29.

46.

Supovitz

, Foley

, & Mishook

(2012) In search of leading indicators in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(19) Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/952

47.

Talbert

J. E.

, Mileva

, Chen

, Cor

M. K.

, & McLaughlin

(2010). Developing school capacity for inquiry based improvement: Progress, challenges, and resources. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Teaching.

48.

Troen

, & Boles

K. C.

(2012). The power of teacher teams: With cases, analyses, and strategies for success. Thousand Oakes, CA: Corwin.

49.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes ( Cole

, John-Steiner

, Scribner

, & Souberman

, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

50.

Wayman

J. C.

, Jimerson

J. B.

, & Cho

(2012). Organizational considerations in establishing the Data-Informed District. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 23(2), 159–178.

51.

Wenger

(1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

52.

Young

V. M.

, & Kim

D. H.

(2010). Using assessments for instructional improvement: A literature review. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(19), 1–40.