Teacher Learning, Instructional Considerations and Principal Communication: Lessons from a Longitudinal Study of Collaborative Data Use by Teachers
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
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?
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
- ORCID
- Cosner, Shelby
- Venue
- Educational Management Administration & Leadership
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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