Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 286

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Looking at Student Work for Teacher Learning, Teacher Community, and School Reform

Little, Judith Warren, Gearhart, Maryl, Curry, Marnie, Kafka, Judith·2003·Phi Delta Kappan

Abstract

Teachers are usually alone when they examine student and think about student performance. The authors describe several projects that have enabled teachers to leave the isolation of their own classrooms and think together about student in the broader contexts of school improvement and professional development. IN 1995, WHEN the California Center for School Restructuring convened teams from nearly 150 elementary and secondary schools to examine the progress of local school reform and its impact on student achievement, it employed the slogan Examining student for what matters most.1 The precise meaning of the slogan was left open for school teams to define. For some, it meant assembling and examining school-level achievement data. For others, it meant using rubrics to assess student essays, projects, or portfolios. For still others, it meant considering samples of student for their instructional implications or inviting a panel of students to speak about their opportunities to learn. The years that have passed since that conference testify to a growing conviction that there is something important to be learned by giving close attention to students' experience and students' actual Reform advocates, professional developers, school accreditation agencies, teacher networks, and researchers have increasingly engaged teachers in together at samples of student or analyzing classroom performance.2 Indeed, looking at student work has become the organizing theme of one website (www.lasw.org) and a prominent component of several others.3 It forms a major activity of professional conferences, professional development programs, and reform projects. One might reasonably ask, What's new about teachers at student work? Teachers examine artifacts produced by students all the time. They read, review, grade, and celebrate student every day. However, they do so most often on their own, possibly in conference with a student or parent, but almost always in isolation from colleagues. In recent years, organizations engaged in professional development and school reform have begun bringing teachers together to do collectively what they generally do alone: that is, look at student and think about students' performance in the classroom. In addition to evaluating a teacher's instructional relationships with individual students, the purpose of these collaborative efforts is to foster teacher learning, support for professional community, and the pursuit of school reform. These organizations have also focused on introducing these practices into the ongoing of schools. In this regard, they have ventured into difficult terrain. It was one thing for California's restructuring schools to gather once a year at a conference to examine student It is quite another to transform long-standing workplace traditions of privacy and non-interference by asking teachers to put the of their own students on the table for others to consider and discuss. We have recently completed a two-year study that responds directly to this growing interest in at student In reviewing published descriptions and studies, we discovered a wide range of purposes and practices subsumed under the broad descriptive term looking at student work. The good news for advocates of these practices is that there is emerging evidence that some versions of at student yield benefits for teaching and learning.4 However, the available research gives little sense of how any demonstrated benefits might in fact be achieved.5 While there are promising precedents, the literature offers few specifics regarding the actual practices that teachers employ in at student Our project attempted to make some headway on that problem. Through case studies of teacher groups working with three nationally recognized organizations -- Harvard Project Zero, the Coalition of Essential Schools, and the Academy for Educational Development -- we sought to identify specific practices employed by teachers who come together to examine student in the context of broader programs of school improvement and school-based professional development. …

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/003172170308500305

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Little, J. W., Gearhart, M., Curry, M., & Kafka, J.
Venue
Phi Delta Kappan
Published
2003-11
Volume
85
Issue
3
Pages
184-192
ISSN
  • 0031-7217 (ISSN-L)
  • 1940-6487
OpenAlex
W2066076748
Cited by
286
References
0
FWCI
21.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.