Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Presentation eapril 2 Wednesday 25/11 16.15-17.45

302 views

Published on

A datateam in higher education: how teams’ conversations contribute to improvement. Erik Bolhuis, Kim Schildkamp & Joke Voogt

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Presentation eapril 2 Wednesday 25/11 16.15-17.45

  1. 1. From decisions based on intuition to data-informed decision making Factors hindering the functioning of a data team® in higher eduction Erik Bolhuis, Windesheim University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands Email: e.d.bolhuis@utwente.nl. Joke Voogt, University of Amsterdam & Windesheim University of Applied Sciecnes, The Netherlands. Email: j.m.voogt@uva.nl Kim Schildkamp, University of Twente, The Netherlands. Email: k.schildkamp@utwente.nl Contact details: drs. E.D. Bolhuis, postbus 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands. email: e.d.bolhuis@utwente.nl. http://goo.gl/iXWbzS
  2. 2. Program • Context of the research • Research questions • Theoretical framework • Interactive section • Results • Conclusions
  3. 3. Context • Increase data (-use) in education (OECD, 2013) • Teacher Education Colleges —> data use: accountability, part of the curriculum • Knowledge gab: TE —> data use for school- & instructional improvement
  4. 4. Data Information that is collected and organized to represent some aspects of the school (Lai & Schildkamp, 2013, p.10). ▪ Input data: e.g. gender, previous school; ▪ Outcome data: e.g. assessments results, written and oral exams, portfolio’s, classroom observations, student surveys, parent interviews, assessment results ▪ Process: e.g. the curriculum, 
 instruction observations ▪ Context data: eg. data 
 on school culture
  5. 5. Ways of data use in education / examples of data: 1 Accountability Rankings, 
 drop- out rates 2 School improvement Drop-out rates, test results, questionnaires, results form intake 3 Instructional improvement Test results (formative and summative), observations
  6. 6. The data team® method
  7. 7. A data team is: • Teams 6-8 teacher educators and a school leader • Educational problem: grade repetition, low student achievement • Goals: professional development and school improvement • Coach guides them through the eight steps (two years) • Data analysis courses
  8. 8. Case • Dropout in the first study year (HE). In the first year drop-out rates from 55% to 62%. • Question: what causes drop-out? Is this related to previous education? To gender? To the atmosphere in the class (ambitious study climate)? • Data: test results, questionnaire (students and supervisors), and the curriculum • Based on the data, they conclude and develop measurements
  9. 9. Depth of inquiry: More successful teams (i.e. higher student learning gains) —> more higher level thinking skills (Achinstein 2002; Stokes 2001) —> conversation with a high depth of inquiry. The depth of inquiry = inquisitive attitude developing new knowledge and taking action based on data, while reviewing each step of the procedure critically (Henry 2012). The conversations —> reasoning, listening, and underpinning assumptions. Fundamental for making measurements for improvement, and to the construction of team- and individual knowledge (Ikemoto & Marsh 2007).
  10. 10. Depth (Henry, 2012) Depth Participating How Results No depth Individuals talking Sending information No shared knowledge Some depth Several members involved Sharing information, experiences, and sources No shared knowledge base and/or assumptions. Mean depth All members are involved Actively create a new knowledge base No actively test and sharpen this new knowledge. Depth All members involved The discussion focuses on exchanging experiences, information, and opinions. The discussions are not shallow and lead to a shared explicit knowledge base. Characteristically the dialogue is based on concrete research and/or data.
  11. 11. From literature we know factors influencing data-use (Schildkamp & Kuipers, 2010) http://goo.gl/iXWbzS
  12. 12. Research questions Which factors enable and constrain depth of inquiry within the data team? 1. Which factors with regard to data and data information systems enable and prevent depth of inquiry of data team conversations? 2. Which factors on the level of the user enable and prevent depth of inquiry of data team conversations? 3. Which factors with regard to the assistance of the data team enable or prevent the depth of inquiry of data team conversations?
  13. 13. 13 1. Which factors are hindering and promoting factors affecting the depth of the conversations in a data team? 2. Which factors cause drop-out in first year TE?
  14. 14. 1. Go to www.socrative.com
  15. 15. 2. Choose the option for student
  16. 16. 3. Enter the room number: ERIK-MLI
  17. 17. Method •A single-case study: micro-process study •The data team procedure: 19 meetings in 2 year •Respondents: The data team, the management •Instruments: observations of the meetings (taped on audio, verbatim transcript), documents of the data team and artefacts •Analyse: coding according to a codebook, analyze in TamsAnalyzer, analyzed by a pattern matching-and time series strategy (Yin, 2014) •A within- and a cross-case analyses •Quality of the study: Kappa Cohen's of 0.79.
  18. 18. Ged.diepgang Enig diepgang
  19. 19. Factors influencing data-use Factors related to data and data-information systems: Data-information system which provides timely, accurate, relevant, reliable and valid data, data which coincides with the needs Data related to the perception of the data team members Factors related to the user: Data literacy, buy-in/belief, ownership and locus of control Being able to handle cognitive conflicts Clarify prior knowledge Avoid affective conflicts. Factors related to the organization: Support from the data coach e.g. conversations skills
  20. 20. Conclusions 1.Data —> relate to the level of data literacy 2.Stimulating really use data 3.Clarify prior knowledge; 4.Learn from cognitive conflicts —> clarify which knowledge is conflicting —> manage confusion —> restructure knowledge base; 5.Avoid affective conflicts: but if they do arise, make sure the conflict can be addressed; 6.Data coach —> get insight level of data literacy —> present the data that relate to this level —> and intervene in the conversations to ensure the data team works on a knowledge base together
  21. 21. Discussion • The use of data in the teacher education curriculum, requires teacher educators, who can improve education based on data; • Data-use requires active and explicit knowledge- building. Integrating Theory and theory. Should PD pay attention to this process? • The data coach —> supporting the data team as a team, but also coach to use data to improve their instructional practice?
  22. 22. Which factors cause drop-out? • Gender? (Not found) • Atmosphere of the class (Rejected) • Academic skills (Confirmed) • —> They accompanied the hardest module with a study course • Contrasting test schedule —> management making the schedule • Modules with different test components —> one component • Climate in the first year (best [pedagogical] teachers in the first year • Monitoring student progress based on data
  23. 23. Literature Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community : The micropolitics of teacher collaboration, 104(3), 421–455. Bernhardt, V.L. (2004). Continuous improvement: It takes more than test scores. Leadership Magazine, 34(2), 16-19. Bernhardt, V.L. (2005). Data tools for school improvement. Educational Leadership, 62(5), 66-69. Carlson, D., Borman, G. D., & Robinson, M. (2011). A multistate district-level cluster randomized trial of the impact of data- driven reform on reading and mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(3), 378-398. Earl, L., & Katz, S. (2006). Leading schools in a data-rich world: harnassing data for schoolimprovement. Thousands Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Henry, S. F. (2012). Instructional Conversations : A Qualitative Exploration of Differences in Elementary Teachers’ Team Discussions. Dissertation at Harvard University. Ikemoto, G.S., and J.A. Marsh. 2007. “Cutting Through the ‘Data-Driven’ Mantra: Different Conceptions of Data-Driven Decision Making.” In Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, edited by P.A. Moss. Lai, M.K., & Schildkamp, K. (2012). Data-based decision making: An overview. In: Schildkamp, K., Lai, M.K., & Earl, L. (Eds.), Data-based decision making in education: Challenges and opportunities. London: Springer. Schildkamp, K., & Kuiper, W. (2010). Data-informed curriculum reform: Which data, what purposes, and promoting and hindering factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 482–496. Schildkamp, Poortman, K. C. & Handelzalts, A. (2015). “Data teams for Schoolimprovement.” School effectiveness and School Improvement. Advanced Online Publication. Stokes, L. (2001). Lessons from an inquiring school: Forms of inquiry and conditions for teacher learning. Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that matters, 141-158. Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). London: Sage.

×