Data-driven instruction: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:55, 19 May 2017

Revision as of 16:51, 28 August 2017

Line 23:

=== Background and origins ===

Data-Driven Instructional Systems refers to a comprehensive system of structures that school leaders and teachers design in order to incorporate the data into their instructions.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Prichett, R., & Thomas, C.|first=|date=2007|title=The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in school|url=|journal=Journal of School Leadership|volume=17(2), 159|pages=}}</ref>  Building on organizational and school change literature, Richard Halverson, Jeffrey Grigg, Reid Prichett, and Chris Thomas developed a DDIS framework in an attempt to describe how relevant actors manage school-level internal accountability to external accountability.<ref name=":2" />  Specifically, high-stakes external accountability policies such as  [[No Child Left Behind Act]]  (NCLB) was implemented to hold schools accountable for the reported standardized, summative assessment metrics. However, schools already had active internal accountability systems that place high emphasis on an ongoing cycle of instructional improvement based on the use of data including formative assessment results and behavioral information. Therefore, when the high-stakes accountability was implemented, schools naturally go through process of alignment between different types of data different purposes and the corresponding tension. Richard Halverson and his colleagues, employing case study approaches, explore leaders’ effort of coordination and alignment process which occurs between extant “central practices and cultures of schools” and “new accountability pressure” in a pursuit of improving student achievement score.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Prichett, R., & Thomas, C.|first=|date=2007|title=The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in school|url=|journal=Journal of School Leadership|volume=17(2), 159|pages=161}}</ref>

=== Key concepts ===

In their article, Richard Halverson, Jeffrey Grigg, Reid Prichett, and Chris Thomas suggest that the DDIS framework is composed of six organizational functions: data acquisition; data reflection; program alignment; program design; formative feedback; test preparation.<ref name=":2" /> 

==== Data Acquisition ====

Line 32:

==== Data Reflection ====

In the DDIS model, data reflection refers to collectively making sense of the reported data.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Prichett, R., & Thomas, C.|first=|date=2007|title=The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in school|url=|journal=Journal of School Leadership|volume=17(2), 159|pages=170}}</ref>  District-level data retreats provide key opportunities for the schools within districts to identify the school-level strengths and weaknesses in terms of achievement data. Retreats help districts to develop district-level visions for instruction. In contrast, through local data reflection meetings, teachers have conversations focused on the individual students’ progress by examining each student’s performance on the assessed standards.

==== Program Alignment ====

Richard Halverson and his colleagues states that program alignment function refers to “link[ing] the relevant content and performance standards with the actual content taught in classroom.”<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Prichett, R., & Thomas, C.|first=|date=2007|title=The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in school|url=|journal=Journal of School Leadership|volume=17(2), 159|pages=173}}</ref>  For example, the benchmark assessment results, as “problem-finding tools,” help educators to identify the curricular standards that are not aligned well with the current instructional programs.  

==== Program Design ====

Line 41:

==== Formative Feedback ====

Educators interact with each other around the formative feedback on the local interventions implemented across classrooms and programs. Formative feedback systems are made of three main components: intervention, assessment, and actuation. Intervention artifacts here include curriculum materials like textbooks and experiments, or programs such as individualized education programs (Intervention). The effect of these intervention artifacts can be evaluated through formative assessments, either commercial or self-created, from the perspective that they had brought intended changes to teaching and learning (Assessment). In the actuation space, educators interpret the assessment results in relation to the initial goals of the intervention, and discuss how to modify the instruction delivery or assessment as measurement tools, which lays groundwork for the new interventions (Actuation).      

==== Test Preparation ====