Affordances and constraints in the context of teacher collaboration for the purpose of data use
Abstract
Purpose An increasing number of schools and districts across the US are requiring teachers to collaborate for the purpose of data‐driven decision making. Research suggests that both data use and teacher collaboration are important ingredients in the school improvement process. Existing studies also reveal the complexities of teacher collaboration and the importance of context in shaping teachers’ collaborative work, especially with data. Yet, the intersection of teacher collaboration and data use has been understudied. The purpose of this paper is to examine the affordances and constraints that exist in the context of established teacher collaboration time for the purposes of data‐driven decision making. Design/methodology/approach The paper draws upon qualitative case study data gathered in six schools that structured teacher time for collaboration on data use. Findings An analysis of the data revealed that a variety of leadership activities and organizational conditions shaped teachers’ collaborative work with data. These included leadership focused on thoughtful use of data and the framing of data‐driven decision making in terms of collective responsibility; the establishment of norms for teacher collaboration; the implementation of data discussion protocols; and teacher groupings and subject matter subcultures. Originality/value Knowing how and when a leadership activity or organizational condition becomes either an affordance or a constraint to teacher collaboration arou…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Data use for educational decision making has become more prevalent than ever.
“The use of data for educational decision making has never been more prevalent”
From Data teams for school improvement (2016) · cites this paper as Datnow, Park, & Kennedy-Lewis, 2013
Collaboration between teachers involves analyzing and interpreting data.
“Analyzing and interpreting data (Datnow et al., 2013; Farley-Ripple & Buttram, 2014; Feldman & Capobianco, 2008; McNaughton et al., 2012; Schildkamp & Kuiper, 2010; Schildkamp et al., 2012; Schildkamp, Karbautzki et al., 2014)”
From Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice (2020) · cites this paper as Datnow et al., 2013
Low self-efficacy and lack of ownership can hinder DBDM or AfL.
“Low self-efficacy and lack of ownership (e.g., the quality of my teaching is not reflected in the students' assessment results) can hinder DBDM or AfL”
From Formative assessment: A systematic review of critical teacher prerequisites for classroom practice (2020) · cites this paper as Datnow et al., 2013
Teachers' knowledge about data includes understanding broader state-level contexts that impact data utilization within the school.
“Lastly, teachers’ knowledge about data includes understanding of externally administered assessment data and data system, such as state-level assessment policies related to data use (Copp, 2017; Hardy, 2019; Reed, 2015) and understanding the broader state-level contexts that impact data utilization within the school (Datnow et al., 2013; Dunn et al., 2013a; Ford, 2018; Omoso et al., 2019; Powell”
From Dimensions of teachers’ data literacy: A systematic review of literature from 1990 to 2021 (2024) · cites this paper as Datnow et al., 2013
Mutual trust and respect among teachers can allow them to have open and honest conversations about their experiences and share concerns arising from data use in the school context.
“Mutual trust and respect among teachers can allow them to have open and honest conversations about their experiences and share any concerns arising from data use in the school context (Andersen, 2020; Datnow et al., 2013; Ford, 2018; Wachen et al., 2018).”
From Dimensions of teachers’ data literacy: A systematic review of literature from 1990 to 2021 (2024) · cites this paper as Datnow et al., 2013
Within the data-related behavior dimension, there are two distinctive sets of teacher behaviors: data use to enhance communication and discussion with stakeholders, and participation in and engagement with learning about data use and data culture in schools.
“Within this dimension, there appear to be two distinctive sets of teacher behaviors: (a) teachers’ data use to enhance communication and discussion with various stakeholders such as colleagues (Datnow et al., 2013; Van Gasse et al., 2017), school leaders (Jimerson, 2014; Marsh & Farrell, 2015; Nicholson et al., 2017), and parents (Jimerson & Wayman, 2015; Jimerson et al., 2019); and (b) teachers’”
From Dimensions of teachers’ data literacy: A systematic review of literature from 1990 to 2021 (2024) · cites this paper as Datnow et al., 2013
One core aspect of teacher behaviors related to data is communicating with various stakeholders such as colleagues, parents, and school leaders to discuss instructional approaches and assessment results.
“Therefore, one core aspect of teacher behaviors related to data was found to be communicating with various stakeholders such as colleagues, parents, and school leaders to discuss instructional approaches (e.g., Datnow et al., 2013; Militello et al., 2013; van der Scheer & Visscher, 2018) and assessment results (e.g., Curry et al., 2016; Howley et al., 2013).”
From Dimensions of teachers’ data literacy: A systematic review of literature from 1990 to 2021 (2024) · cites this paper as Datnow et al., 2013
Data use is influenced by system, organisation, and team/individual level factors.
“Data use is in fl uenced by system, organisation and team/individual level factors (Datnow, Park, and Kennedy-Lewis 2013; Schildkamp and Kuiper 2010).”
From Data-based decision-making for school improvement: Research insights and gaps (2019) · cites this paper as Datnow, Park, and Kennedy-Lewis 2013
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 47 · Cited by 148
- Authors
- Datnow, A., Park, V., & Kennedy‐Lewis, B.
- Affiliations
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Educational Administration
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2013-05-03
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 341-362
- ISSN
- 0957-8234 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1966439451
- Cited by
- 148
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 26.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Educational Administration (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Educational Assessment and Improvement
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › School Leadership and Teacher Performance
- Keywords
- teacher collaboration, data utilization, data-driven decision making, school improvement, school leadership, affordances and constraints, collective responsibility, organizational conditions, educational change
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
