Data-driven instruction: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:43, 30 November 2016

Revision as of 18:45, 30 November 2016

Line 56:

== Criticisms ==

A major criticism of data driven instruction is that it focuses too much on test scores, and that not enough attention is given to the results of classroom assessments. Data driven instruction should serve as a “road map through assessment” that helps “teachers plan instruction to meet students’ needs, leading to better achievement”<ref>Neuman, S. (2016). Code Red: The Danger of Data-Driven Instruction. Educational Leadership, 74(3), pps. 24-29</ref> (Neuman, 2016). Summative assessments should not be used to inform the day-to-day teaching and learning that is supported by data-driven instruction. Additional problems associated with perceptions of data driven instruction include the limitations of quantitative data to represent student learning, not considering the social and emotional needs or the context of the data when making instructional decisions, and a hyperfocus on the core areas of literacy and mathematics while ignoring the encore, traditionally high-interest areas such as the arts and humanities.

== References ==

Line 120:

Zavadsky, H., & Dolejs, A. (2006). DATA: Not Just Another Four-Letter Word. Principal Leadership, Middle Level Ed., 7(2), 32–36.

[[Category:Education terminology]]