CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3Educational Assessment and ImprovementStudent Assessment and FeedbackEducational Assessment and Pedagogy

Unpacking instructional alignment: The influence of teachers’ use of assessment data on instruction

Open access
Abrams, Lisa, Varier, Divya, Jackson, Lisa·2016·Perspectives in Education
DOI 10.38140/pie.v34i4.1976
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The use of assessment data to inform instruction is an important component of a comprehensive standards-based assessment programme. Examining teachers’ data use for instruction can reveal the extent to which instruction is aligned with established content standards and assessment. This paper describes results of a qualitative study of teachers’ data use in a mid-Atlantic metropolitan area in the United States. Focus group interviews with 60 upper elementary and middle school teachers from 45 schools were conducted. Findings indicate teachers aligned instruction and assessments with the state curriculum with the goal of improving student performance. While teachers found day-to-day informal assessments essential to shaping instruction, periodic formal assessments helped them monitor student progress and remediation efforts. Teachers described challenges associated with the misalignment of periodic assessments with instructional content, the breadth of content and higher cognitive demand expected in the newer state curriculum and the lack of infrastructure to support data use.

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 · 10.38140/pie.v34i4.1976

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

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

Cited by 3

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Abrams, L.M., McMillan, J.H. & Wetzel, A.P. 2015. Implementing benchmark testing for formative purposes: Teacher voices about what works. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 27(4), 347-375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9214-9 · DOI
  2. Bennett, R.E. & Gitomer, D.H. 2009. Transforming K-12 assessment: Integrating accountability, testing, formative assessment, and professional support. In: C. Wyatt-Smith & J. Cummings (Eds.). Educational assessment in the 21st century. New York: Springer. pp. 43-61. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9964-9_3 · DOI
  3. Bennett, R.E. 2011. Formative assessments: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2010.513678 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bennett, R.E. 2015. The changing nature of educational assessment. Review of Educational Research, 39, 370-407. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X14554179 · DOI
  5. Black, P. & Wiliam, D. 1998. Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Blanc, S., Christman, J., Liu, R., Mitchell, C., Travers, E. & Bulkley, K. 2010. Learning to learn from data: Benchmarks and instructional communities. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 205-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619561003685379 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Brookhart, S.M. 2003. Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purposes and uses. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(4), 5-12. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2003.tb00139.x · DOI
  8. Brookhart, S.M. 2010. Mixing it up: Combing sources of classroom achievement information for formative and summative purposes. In H. Andrade & G. Cizek (Eds.). Handbook of formative assessment. New York: Routledge. pp. 279-296.
  9. Burch, P. 2010. The bigger picture: Institutional perspectives on interim assessment technologies. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 147-162. https://doi. org/10.1080/01619561003685288 · DOI
  10. Chen, T.W. 2014. Predictive utility and achievement outcomes of two simultaneous district- developed interim assessment programs. Unpublished PhD thesis. Florida: University of North Florida.
  11. Cho, V., Jimerson, J.B. & Wayman, J.C. 2015. Data system implementation: A leader navigates people problems around technology and data use. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 18(2), 134-143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458915584677 · DOI
  12. Copland, M. 2002. The Bay Area school reform collaborative: Building the capacity to lead. In: J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.). Leadership lessons from comprehensive school reforms. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. pp. 159-183.
  13. Creswell, J.W. & Plano Clark, V. 2011. Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  14. Datnow, A. & Hubbard, L. 2015. Teachers' use of assessment data to inform instruction. Lessons from the past and prospects for the future. Teachers College Record, 117(4), 1-40.
  15. Guba, E.G. 1981. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology, 29(2), 75-91.
  16. Hoover, N. & Abrams, L. 2013. Teachers' instructional use of summative student assessment data. Applied Measurement in Education, 26(3), 219-231. https://doi.org/10.1080/08957347. 2013.793187 · DOI
  17. Hsieh, H. & Shannon, S.E. 2005. Three approaches to content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Jennings, J.L. 2012. The effects of accountability system design on teachers' use of test score data. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1-23.
  19. Kingston, N. & Nash, B. 2011. Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 30(4), 28-37. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x · DOI
  20. Little, J.W. 2012. Understanding data use practice among teachers: The contribution of micro-process studies. American Journal of Education, 188(2), 143-166. https://doi. org/10.1086/663271 · DOI · Paper page
  21. MacQueen, K.M., McLellan, E., Kay, K., & Milstein, B. 1998. Codebook development for team- based qualitative analysis. Cultural Anthropology Methods, 10(2), 31-36. https://doi.org/10.11
  22. /1525822x980100020301 Mandinach, E.B. & Gummer, E.S. 2015. Data-driven decision making: Components of the enculturation of data use in education. Teachers College Record, 117(4), 1-12.
  23. Marsh, J.A. 2012. Interventions promoting educators' use of data: Research insights and gaps. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1-48
  24. Marsh, J.A. & Farrell, C.C. 2014. How leaders can support teachers with data-driven decision making: A framework for understanding capacity building. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 43(2), 269-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214537229 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Martin, P.L. 2012. A preliminary examination of the intended purpose, actual use, and perceived benefit of district-led interim assessments on student achievement in North Carolina schools. Unpublished PhD thesis. North Carolina: East Carolina University.
  26. Moss, P.A. 2013. Validity in action: Lessons from studies of data use. Journal of Educational Measurement 50(1), 91-98. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12003 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Oláh, L., Lawrence, N. & Riggan, M. 2010. Learning to learn from benchmark assessment data: How teachers analyze results. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 226-245. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01619561003688688 · DOI
  28. Roderick, M. 2012. Drowning in data but thirsty for analysis. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1-9.
  29. Shenton, A.K. 2004. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63-75.
  30. Turner, E.O. & Coburn, C.E. 2012. Interventions to promote data use: An introduction. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1-13.
  31. Wohlstetter, P., Datnow, A. & Park, V. 2008. Creating a system for data-driven decision making: Applying the principal-agent framework. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(3), 239-259. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450802246376 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Yin, R.K. 2013. Case study research, design and methods, 5th ed. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Authors
Abrams, L., Varier, D., & Jackson, L.
Affiliations
Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Perspectives in Education
Publisher
University of the Free State
Published
2016-12-16
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
15-28
ISSN
  • 0258-2236 (ISSN-L)
  • 2519-593X
DOI
10.38140/pie.v34i4.1976
OpenAlex
W3083819904
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Perspectives in Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Grantee Submission
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Education
  • Institute of Education Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Educational Assessment and Improvement
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
Keywords
instructional alignment, assessment data use, standards-based assessment, state curriculum, informal assessment, formal assessment, instructional content, student performance, remediation, elementary and middle school teachers

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