Learning about assessment: An evaluation of a ten-state effort to build assessment capacity in high schools

Abstract

In 2006, the State of Delaware and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) partnered with the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) to conduct an evaluation of a ten-state initiative that sought to enhance assessment practices at the high school level. This effort aimed to help states, districts, and schools build familiarity with instruction that uses assessment as part of the learning process, a practice known as assessment for learning. This report focuses primarily on the third goal of this project, the creation and function of teacher learning teams focused on assessment for learning. February 2009 Consortium for Policy Research in Education About the Consortium for Policy Research in EducationThe Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) unites seven of the nation's top research institutions in an exciting venture to improve student learning through research on policy, finance, school reform, and school governance. The members of CPRE are the University of Pennsylvania, Teachers College Columbia University, Harvard University, Stanford University, the University of Michigan, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Northwestern University. CPRE is currently examining how alternative approaches to reform -such as new accountability policies, teacher compensation, whole-school reform approaches, and efforts to contract out instructional services-address issues of coherence, incentives, and capacity.To learn more about CPRE, visit our website at www.cpre.org or call 215-573-0700. CPRE Research Reports are issued by CPRE to facilitate the exchange of ideas among policymakers, practitioners, and researchers who share an interest in education policy. The views expressed in the reports are those of individual authors and are not necessarily shared by CPRE or its institutional partners.

Teacher Learning, Instructional Considerations and Principal Communication: Lessons from a Longitudinal Study of Collaborative Data Use by Teachers

“…Investigating how student learning knowledge developed over time across this collection of grade-level teams both confirms and extends previous research that reveals the complexity and challenge involved with teacher analysis of assessments (Mason, 2002;Heritage and Chen, 2005;Datnow et al, 2007;Ikemoto and Marsh, 2007;Parr and Timperley, 2008;Weinbaum, 2009;Nabors Olah et al, 2010). Moreover, with the growing recognition that 'state tests results alone are not ideal for driving instruction' (Marsh et al, 2006: 10) and the subsequent promotion of varied types of assessments as the basis of data for teachers, findings from this study suggest that assessments that have not been specifically mapped to content-knowledge, skills or standards may prove more challenging for the generation of student learning knowledge by teachers.…”

“…Despite an emerging body of literature on both the organizational conditions and leadership practices that support or impede the development of various data practices by teachers (Supovitz and Klein, 2003;Wayman, 2005;Young, 2006;Firestone and Gonzalez, 2007;Ikemoto and Marsh, 2007;Hamilton et al, 2009;Weinbaum, 2009;Anderson et al, 2010;Blanc et al, 2010;Cosner, 2011), limited attention has been given to the examination of ways in which leaders, in their role as sensegivers, communicate data-based reform expectations and work, and how such communication impacts data-based outcomes. However, literature on organizational change as well as research on leadership communication and sensegiving suggests that leader reform communication and sensegiving have important consequences for reform enactment (Ford and Ford, 1995;Kotter, 1995;Coburn, 2005;Gilley et al, 2009).…”

“…Not surprisingly, collegial trust has been found to be of particular importance in collaborative data-use settings. Studies of collaborative data use by Datnow (2011), Gallimore et al, ( 2009) Nelson ( 2008) and Weinbaum (2009), for example, found collegial trust within data-use groups as an essential support for collaborative data practices. With this in mind, issues of trust-both in leader and between colleagues-may have been important considerations as data-based tools and processes were designed and introduced.…”

“…Certainly, research suggests that practitioner proclamations of being data-driven hold different meanings for different individuals and organizations (Coburn, 2005;Coburn and Talbert, 2006;Ikemoto and Marsh, 2007). Moreover, although we know that the use of data by teachers is a complex process that can be undermined in settings without sufficient organizational and leadership supports (Young, 2006;Firestone and Gonzalez, 2007;Nelson, 2008;Weinbaum, 2009;Anderson et al, 2010;Blanc et al, 2010), less well understood is the longitudinal development of two important mediating variables in the logic model of teacher data use as a strategy for improving student learning-teacher knowledge of student learning from data use and the activation and uses of knowledge by teachers for instructional considerations. In particular, few longitudinal studies have been undertaken to examine the generation of student learning knowledge and instructional considerations from data-based collaboration as such work is introduced and continued over a multi-year time frame.…”

“…In particular, few longitudinal studies have been undertaken to examine the generation of student learning knowledge and instructional considerations from data-based collaboration as such work is introduced and continued over a multi-year time frame. Likewise, although research has begun to investigate organizational and leadership supports for collaborative data use (Kerr et al, 2006;Young, 2006;Weinbaum, 2009;Anderson et al, 2010;Blanc et al, 2010;Cosner, 2011, forthcoming;Datnow, 2011) little attention has been given to principal communication associated with data-based reform work and the ways in which such messaging, as a facet of principals' work as reform sensegivers, influences data-based collaboration and outcomes. This appears to be a particularly important consideration given research that links leader reform communication and sensegiving with the sensemaking and understanding of reform work, reform enactment, and organizational change (Ford and Ford, 1995;Kotter, 1995;Coburn, 2005;Ford et al, 2008).…”