Abstract
Despite the promotion of data-driven or data-informed instructional practices in teacher education and professional development, past research indicates that teachers use a limited number of sources for student data to make short-term adjustments to their teaching in order to address deficiencies in student learning. Science teachers, with a more robust background in data collection and analysis as well as expectations to teach data practices to students, conceivably, might be more comfortable in implementing data-driven instructional practices. This mixed-methods study explores firstly, how secondary science teachers in the USA define “data-driven instruction” and secondly, how they report using student data in their instructional practice. Responses from a nationally disseminated mixed-methods questionnaire (N = 451) were analyzed. Overall, secondary science teachers limit their definition of data to student assessments and use that information to inform their daily instructional practice rather than improve their teaching overall. Consistent with previous findings, this study’s findings also provide evidence for hope of improvement in teachers’ data practice. In addition, there was a small, but noticeable, group of secondary science teachers who appeared to be jaded with or to misunderstand the effective teaching skill conveyed by the term data-driven instruction. Implications for teacher education and professional development are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Banerjee, M., Capozzoli, M., McSweeney, L., & Sinha, D. (1999). Beyond kappa: a review of interrater agreement measures. The Canadian Journal of Statistics, 27(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/3315487.
Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn?: a taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637.
Boesdorfer, S. B., Del Carlo, D. I., & Wayson, J. (2019). Secondary science teachers’ reported practices and beliefs on teaching and learning from a large national sample in the United States. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(8), 815–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1604055.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Scotter, P. V., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). BSCS 5E instructional model: origins and effectiveness. A report prepared for the office. In Of science education, National Institutes of Health. Colorado Springs: BSCS.
Chval, K., Abell, S., Pareja, E., Musikul, K., & Ritzka, G. (2008). Science and mathematics teachers’ experiences, needs, and expectations regarding professional development. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 4(1), 31–43.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage publications.
Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teaching evaluation instrument, 2013 Instructionally Focused Edition (p. 45).
Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: what teachers should learn and be able to do (Vol. 390, pp. 390–441). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons Inc..
Gess-Newsome, J. (2015). A model of teacher professional knowledge and skill including PCK: results of the thinking from the PCK Summit. In A. Berry, P. Friedrichsen, & J. Loughran (Eds.), Re-examining pedagogical content knowledge in science education (pp. 28–42). New York: Routledge.
Hamilton, L., Halverson, R., Jackson, S. S., Mandinach, E., Supovitz, J. A., & Wayman, J. C. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making. IES practice guide. NCEE 2009-4067. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Harshman, J., & Yezierski, E. (2015). Guiding teaching with assessments: high school chemistry teachers’ use of data-driven inquiry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00188E.
Harshman, J., & Yezierski, E. (2017). Assessment data-driven inquiry: a review of how to use assessment results to inform chemistry teaching. Science Educator, 25(2), 97–107.
Hubbard, L., Datnow, A., & Pruyn, L. (2014). Multiple initiatives, multiple challenges: the promise and pitfalls of implementing data. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 42, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.003.
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium [InTASC]. (2013). InTASC: model core teaching standards and learning progressions for teachers 1.0. Washington, D.C: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (Vol. 6, pp. 95–132). https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47217-1_4.
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.
Mandinach, E. B., & Gummer, E. S. (2016). What does it mean for teachers to be data literate: laying out the skills, knowledge, and dispositions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 366–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.011.
Means, B., Padilla, C., & Gallagher, L. (2010). Use of education data at the local level from accountability to instructional improvement. Report prepared for US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2013). Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) [data table]. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_209.50.asp.
NGSS. (n.d.). assessment resources | next generation science standards. Retrieved February 27, 2019, from https://www.nextgenscience.org/assessment-resources/assessment-resources
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Oregon Technology in Education Council (OTEC). (2007). Learning theories and transfer of learning. Retrieved February 27, 2019, from https://otec.uoregon.edu/learning_theory.htm
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.
Reeves, T. D., Summers, K. H., & Grove, E. (2016). Examining the landscape of teacher learning for data use: the case of Illinois. Cogent Education, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1211476.
Schildkamp, K., Karbautzki, L., & Vanhoof, J. (2014). Exploring data use practices around Europe: identifying enablers and barriers. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 42, 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.007.
Schildkamp, K., Poortman, C., Luyten, H., & Ebbeler, J. (2017). Factors promoting and hindering data-based decision making in schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(2), 242–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2016.1256901.
Snodgrass Rangel, V., Monroy, C., & Bell, E. (2016). Science teachers’ data use practices: a descriptive analysis. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24, 86. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.24.2348.
Sun, J., Przybylski, R., & Johnson, B. J. (2016). A review of research on teachers’ use of student data: from the perspective of school leadership. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-016-9238-9.
Wayman, J. C., & Jimerson, J. B. (2014). Teacher needs for data-related professional learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 42, 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.11.001.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the Center for Educational Transformation at the University of Northern Iowa for their support of the survey and research study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 30 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Boesdorfer, S.B., Del Carlo, D.I. & Wayson, J. Secondary Science Teachers’ Definition and Use of Data in Their Teaching Practice. Res Sci Educ 52, 159–171 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09936-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09936-8