Cited by 114Educational Assessment and ImprovementTeacher Education and Leadership StudiesStudent Assessment and Feedback

Teacher Learning, Instructional Considerations and Principal Communication: Lessons from a Longitudinal Study of Collaborative Data Use by Teachers

Cosner, Shelby·2011·Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Abstract

Drawing from a three-year qualitative multi-case study that examined three urban elementary schools as these schools instituted grade-level data-based collaboration as a school-wide literacy reform strategy, this article investigates how knowledge of student learning and instructional considerations evolved over time across this collection of grade-level teams from data-based collaboration. For grade-level teams in this study, the generation of student learning knowledge from data-based collaboration was not an automatic outcome, but one that developed over time. The activation and use of student learning knowledge for instructional considerations also developed over time but varied by type of instructional consideration. Principal communication associated with data-based collaboration, a facet of their role as reform sensegivers, is also explored as a factor of influence related to the generation of student learning knowledge and activation and use of knowledge for instructional considerations from data-based collaboration. Of importance, the content of principal communication evolved over time for all three principals and appeared to shape the design and introduction of proximal tools and processes that supported grade-level data-based collaboration that in turn influenced the ways in which student learning knowledge and instructional considerations developed from data-based practices over time. Implications for policy and practice are considered.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1741143211408453

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The development and use of new knowledge is not automatic but develops over time.

    “Moreover, the development and use of new knowledge is not an automatic outcome, but one that develops over time (Cosner, 2011).”

    From Data teams for school improvement (2016) · cites this paper as Cosner, 2011

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 70 · Cited by 114

Authors
Cosner, S.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Cosner, Shelby
Venue
Educational Management Administration & Leadership
Published
2011-07-07
Volume
39
Issue
5
Pages
568-589
ISSN
  • 1741-1432 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-1440
OpenAlex
W2088988228
Cited by
114
References
70
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
14.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Educational Management Administration & Leadership (publishedVersion)
Funders
Chicago Community Trust
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Educational Assessment and Improvement
  • Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Leadership Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
Keywords
grade-level teams, principal communication, literacy reform, urban elementary schools, school improvement

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