Interventions Promoting Educators’ Use of Data: Research Insights and Gaps

By Julie A. Marsh. Teachers College Record, 2012

321 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Background/Context In recent years, states, districts, schools, and external partners have recognized the need to proactively foster the use of data to guide educational decision-making and practice. Understanding that data alone will not guarantee use, individuals at all levels have invested in interventions to support better access to, interpretation of, and responses to data of all kinds. Despite the emergence of these efforts, there has been little systematic examination of research on such efforts. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study This article synthesizes what we currently know about interventions to support educators’ use of data—ranging from comprehensive, system-level initiatives, such as reforms sponsored by districts or intermediary organizations, to more narrowly focused interventions, such as a workshop. The article summarizes what is what is known across studies about the design and implementation of these interventions, their effects at the individual and organizational levels, and the conditions shown to affect implementation and outcomes. Research Design Literature review. Data Collection and Analysis This review entailed systematic searches of electronic databases and careful sorting to yield a total of 41 books, peer-reviewed journal articles, and reports. Summaries of each publication were coded to identify the study methods (design, framework, sample, time frame, data collection), intervention design (level of schooling, focal data and data user, leverage points, components), and findings on implementation, effects, and conditions. Findings/Results The review uncovers a host of common themes regarding implementation, including promising practices (e.g., making data “usable” and “safe,” targeting multiple leverage points) and persistent challenges (e.g., developing support that is generic but also customized, sustaining sufficient support). The review also finds mixed findings and levels of research evidence on effects of interventions, with relatively more evidence on effects on educators’ knowledge, skills, and practice than on effects on organizations and student achievement. The article also identifies a set of common conditions found to influence intervention implementation and effects, including intervention characteristics (capacity, data properties), broader context (leadership, organizational structure), and individual relationships and characteristics (trust, beliefs and knowledge). Conclusions/Recommendations The review finds that the current research base is limited in quantity and quality. It suggests the need for more methodologically rigorous research and greater attention to the organizational and student-level outcomes of interventions, comparative analyses, interventions that help educators move from knowledge to action, and specific ways in which the quality of data and leadership practices shape the effectiveness of interventions.

Subfields: Information Systems and Management, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1de26b6a95d5c42e297a55049244decdc7ed0705

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems and Management

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

Assessing the Effects of a School-Wide Data-Based Decision-Making Intervention on Student Achievement Growth in Primary Schools (2016, background): “In her literature review of data use in education, Marsh (2012) recognized a similar trend: The majority of studies regarding data use are descriptive (e.g., case study design, interviews, focus groups, observations, document analysis).”
Professional Learning for Using Data: Examining Teacher Needs & Supports (2015, background): “…because collaboration is nearly unanimously touted as an effective learning structure, particularly for data use (Datnow et al., 2007; Earl & Katz, 2006; hamilton et al., 2009; Marsh, 2012; Means et al., 2011; Wayman et al., 2006). however, the singular focus on collaboration raised two problems.”
Teachers’ Sensemaking of Data and Implications for Equity (2015, background): “Although some studies point to the potential for data to substantively inform and shape teachers’ practice (Hamilton et al., 2009; Konstantopoulos, Miller, & van der Ploeg, 2013; Marsh, 2012; Nelson, Slavit, & Deuel, 2012), others indicate that teachers may not significantly alter their instruction ”
Using Data to Alter Instructional Practice: The Mediating Role of Coaches and Professional Learning Communities (2015, background): “Many educators have recognized the need to better assist teachers in bridging the data–practice divide and have invested in “interventions” to assist in this process (for a full review, see Marsh, 2012).”
Differentiated instruction in a data-based decision-making context (2018, background): “Research results pertaining to the actual effect of DBDM on student achievement vary (Marsh, 2012).”
Teachers’ Use of Assessment Data to Inform Instruction: Lessons from the past and Prospects for the Future (2015, background): “They also need support in accessing data, translating them, and disaggregating them in ways that will support goals of equity and excellence for all students (hoover & Abrams, 2013; Marsh, 2012; Young & Kim, 2010).”
Combining the best of two worlds: a conceptual proposal for evidence-informed school improvement (2017, methodology): “…of feedback for both teacher and student learning Moreover, DBDM is an iterative and cyclic process (Coburn and Turner 2011; Mandinach et al. 2008; Marsh 2012), and, as noted above, can also be seen as a formative assessment approach where data are continuously used to improve teaching and…”
Data-based decision-making for school improvement: Research insights and gaps (2019, methodology): “In most existing models of data use, the focus is on data collected in a formal and systematic manner (e.g. Mandinach et al. 2008; Marsh 2012; Marsh, Pane, and Hamilton 2006; Schildkamp and Poortman 2015).”
A classroom data literacy intervention for pre-service teachers (2015, background): “efforts to promote data use practices (Carlson et al., 2011; Hamilton et al., 2009; Mandinach, 2012; Marsh, 2012; Turner & Coburn, 2012).”
What does it mean for teachers to be data literate: Laying out the skills, knowledge, and dispositions (2016, background): “It is important for us to recognize other relevant conceptual work that has been conducted and informed our thinking (Coburn & Turner, 2011; Lai & Schildkamp, 2013; Mandinach, Honey, Light, & Brunner, 2008; Marsh, 2012; Means et al., 2010, 2011; Schildkamp & Poortman, 2015; SLDS State Support Team, ”
Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice (2020, background): “New data need to be collected to evaluate the effectiveness of these instructional changes (Mandinach & Gummer, 2016; Mandinach, Honey, Light, & Brunner, 2008; Marsh, Pane, & Hamilton, 2006; Marsh, 2012).”