Support for data-driven instruction did not increase key data-related activities despite additional resources and emphasis¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Despite additional resources and emphasis placed on data-related activities, the intervention did not increase key data-related activities. → Philip Gleason 2019

Evidence¶

Philip Gleason 2019¶

Philip Gleason, Sarah Crissey, Greg Chojnacki, Marykate Zukiewicz, Tim Silva, Sarah Costelloe, Fran O'Reilly. (2019). Evaluation of Support for Using Student Data to Inform Teachers' Instruction. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/

q3 · i? · causal · r?

Key finding from the random assignment evaluation of the support for data-driven instruction intervention: "the support for data-driven instruction intervention did not increase key data-related activities" even with additional resources and emphasis. No effect size is printed for this null finding.

"Despite additional resources and emphasis placed on data-related activities, the support for data-driven instruction intervention did not increase key data-related activities."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Support for data-driven instruction did not increase teachers' data use or change their instructional practices — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Districts with data systems in place still face challenges in the strategic use of data — related
• In the data-driven instruction evaluation, most aspects of the intervention were implemented as planned — related
• SDP and EP programs aim to enhance education agencies' data capacity through support, training, and staff placement — related