running head: data teams data teams by - … jill.pdf · data teams 1 running head: data teams data...

Data Teams 1

RUNNING HEAD: Data Teams

DATA TEAMS

BY

JILL D. ELTISTE

Submitted to

The Department of Professional Education Faculty

Northwest Missouri State University Missouri

Department of Professional Education

College of Education and Human Services

Maryville, MO 64468

Submitted in Fulfillment for the Requirements for

61-683 Research Paper

Fall 2014

July 27, 2015

Data Teams 2

ABSTRACT

The following study was prepared to find the overall opinion about the use of Data

Teams, and if there is a difference in opinion between administrators and teachers regarding Data

Teams. The Public School District has chosen to incorporate the use of Data Teams to better

address student learning. It has become a focus throughout the district this year, as well as a

building focus. The Data Team process is a time consuming process and requires a great deal of

time and effort on the part of teachers and administrators. It is important to note that this was the

first year that this school district chose to implement Data Teams. The overall opinion regarding

Data Teams will be shown. Additionally, survey results will be analyzed to see if there is a

difference in opinion between administrators and teachers with regards to the Data Teams. It

was found that the overall opinion about Data Teams is positive. Additionally, it was found that

there were significant differences between administrators and teachers opinion with regards to

Data Teams. 100% of administrators surveyed agreed that teachers apply the Data Team process

smoothly, but only 60% of teachers reported that teachers apply the Data Team process

smoothly. 100% of administrators surveyed agreed that teachers analyze student work to set

appropriate goals, while 87% of teachers agreed that teachers analyze student work to set

appropriate goals. 100% of administrators reported that teachers establish goals directly related

to school goals, while 80% of teachers reported that teachers establish goals directly related to

school goals. 100% of administrators reported they have evidence of the impact and efficacy of

Instructional Data Teams, and only 67% of teachers reported evidence of the impact and efficacy

of Instructional Data Teams. Because of the differences it is recommended that the policy of

using Data Teams should be monitored and reviewed.

Data Teams 3

INTRODUCTION

Background, Issues and Concerns

Many school districts across the nation are working to address student learning by using

formative assessment data to help teachers better plan for instruction.

The Public School District is one of the districts that have chosen to incorporate the use

of Data Teams to better address students and learning objectives. It has become a focus

throughout the district this year, as well as a building focus.

Teachers and administrators are spending a great deal of time being trained in the Data

Team process and working in Data Teams. Because the process is both time consuming and the

experience is new the outcomes are yet to be seen. Many teachers are skeptical and frustrated

with Data Teams. Teachers don’t like being told what to do with their time, and nothing has

been taken off of their plate in order to accommodate for this new push. Many are asking if the

effort that they are putting forth is worth it. The following study will show the overall opinion

about the use of data teams, and if there is a difference in opinion between administrators and

teachers regarding Data Teams?

Practice under Investigation

The practice under investigation will be looking at the Data Team process.

There will be an investigation to see what the overall opinion is about the use of Data Teams,

and if there is a difference in opinion between administrators and teachers regarding Data

Teams?

School Policy to be Informed by Study

There is a big push to collect and analyze data in the school setting in order to improve

student learning. Many districts are training their administrators and teachers to use Data Teams.

Data Teams 4

Through the Data Team process administrators and teachers are trained to use formative

assessment data to make and plan for instruction. The goal is that teachers collaborate with a

team to refine and improve instructional practices and strengthen data use for improving student

achievement. Teachers use data to determine appropriate research-based instructional strategies

to best address students and learning objectives in the classroom. Due to the amount of time it

takes to follow the Data Team process, teachers are questioning whether Data Teams are worth

the time and effort. If we can prove that Data Teams are worth the time and effort, perhaps

teachers will be more willing to commit to the Data Team process. Because this is a new process

for many districts the data from this study could inform administration and teachers as to the

overall opinion about the use of Data Teams, and if there is a difference in opinion between

administrators and teachers regarding Data Teams.

Conceptual Underpinning

Theories exist within many educational sectors that Data Teams support school

improvement. It is said that data teams have the power to reveal what is working well within a

school and what needs improvement. Data Teams are becoming more popular, but current

published research supporting the relationship between the use of Data Teams and student

achievement is hard to come by because this concept is new. School leaders are pushing for the

implementation of the Data Team process in order to see success at the building and district

level, but many teachers are questioning whether data teams are worth the time and effort..

Data Teams were designed to get educators to engage in powerful conversations about

teaching and learning based on data. These discussions need to be productive and often,

focusing on using formative assessment data to make a plan for instruction. Teachers look

closely at data and determine students strengths, then identify weaknesses. Teachers plan for and

Data Teams 5

strengthen their instruction by selecting research based instructional strategies to best address

students and learning objectives. Teachers then create dipsticks or checkpoints throughout

instruction to see if students are making gains, and then adjust instruction as needed. The Data

Team process is informative and strategic. It is time consuming and requires all members of the

team to meet regularly and engage in conversations regarding the current data and instructional

practices. The data gleaned from the results of this survey will help the school district,

administration, and teachers get an accurate picture of what the overall opinion is about Data

Teams. This data will also help stakeholders decide if the use of Data Teams in schools is

actually helpful and worth the time and effort put forth.

Statement of the Problem

If the overall opinion is positive about the use of Data Teams, school districts need to

commit time and effort towards using and developing the Data Team process.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to determine what the overall opinion is about the use of

Data Teams. The information garnered by this study will better inform teachers and

administrators and perhaps justify or nullify the time and effort that is currently being put forth

during the Data Team process.

Research Question(s)

RQ#1: What is the overall opinion about the use of Data Teams?

RQ#2: Is there a difference in opinion between administrators and teachers regarding

Data Teams?

Null Hypothesis(es)

HO#2: There is no difference between administrator and teacher opinion.

Data Teams 6

Anticipated Benefits of the Study

A benefit to this study would be to determine the overall opinion about the use of Data

Teams.

Definition of Terms

Team- a number of persons associated in some joint action: a team of advisers.

Data-individual facts, statistics, or items of information

Summary

A study was conducted to find the overall opinion about the use of Data Teams and if

there is a difference in opinion between administrators and teachers regarding Data Teams? If

the chi-square shows no significant difference between administrator and teacher opinion with

regards to the use of Data Teams, administrators and teachers need to continue to use the Data

Team process. If the chi-square shows a significant number of administrators and teachers

believe that the Data Team process is not worth the time and effort, more time needs to be

dedicated to determining if the Data Team process is considered best practice in regards to

planning for student learning.

Data Teams 7

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The Common Core Standards have impacted the way that teachers are teaching and

students are learning. “These rigorous learning expectations have the potential to transform

education-teaching, learning, and leadership.” (Bessler, 2012) School districts across the country

are working to understand the Common Core State Standards and apply and implement the

standards. Many school districts, like mine are choosing to implement Data Teams in order to

achieve amazing gains in teaching, learning and leadership. “The Common Core State Standards

make the Data Teams process come alive because of the intentional alignment of standards

between grade levels.” (Bessler, 2012) Many school districts are turning to Data teams because

they are a means to improve learning by keeping the focus on the academic growth of students

and the achievement of learning goals. The research article, The Data Made Me Do It written by

Patte Barth (2012) looks at how school districts can use data to “highlight the right questions to

ask and lead schools to the right answers.” The article discusses the fact that money is tight and

districts are making tough decisions. Districts are being asked to identify the greatest need and

target resources to where they will provide the greatest return, or investment.

Kovaleski and Glew (2006), in their article, Bringing Instructional Support Teams to

Scale: Implications of the Pennsylvania Experience examine the statewide implementation of

instructional support teams in Pennsylvania. It discusses the challenges of bringing team-based

problem solving models to scale. History is presented and research conducted on IST is

highlighted and reviewed. The results indicate that the use of instructional support teams is

effective in reducing special education referrals and improving learning. IST analyzes group

data for the purpose of restructuring whole group instruction. IST was designed to help schools

meet No Child Left Behind.

Data Teams 8

Through the Data Team process administrators and teachers are trained to use formative

assessment data to make and plan for instruction. The goal is that teachers collaborate with a

team to refine and improve instructional practices and strengthen data use for improving student

achievement. Data Teams improve the quality of instruction by providing research-based

interventions to help accelerate the progress of all students. “The Data Teams process helps

teams to determine if students are making adequate progress towards the rigorous demands of the

Common Core State Standards.” (Bessler, 2012) “The data-driven process is used in every Data

Team meeting (60-90 minutes).” (Bessler, 2012) The process includes five steps and is

structured so that discussions are about students and the skills they have mastered, and the skills

they are missing. Teachers discuss what instruction needs to take place, and how to go about

providing this instruction to the students. Teachers also discuss the different teaching strategies

that might be effective. Teachers collect formative data prior to the 60 minutes meeting and

come prepared to discuss “individual student and classroom results.” (Bessler, 2012) A

challenge facing most teachers is finding the time for collaboration.

The data team process is new to administrators and teachers. “The need for and

expectation to make decisions based on data is a relatively new phenomenon in education.”

(White, 2005) “Data continues to be associated more with Statistics 101 than practical

management of teaching practices to improve student achievement.” (White, 2005) How do

teachers feel about this focus on data? White reminds us that” educators in the field are the best

equipped to make decisions about curriculum content, assessment design, and instructional

delivery, especially when collaborative processes provide the benefit of multiple viewpoints and

interpretations. It is time to celebrate the teacher as expert in data analysis.”(White, 2005) “We

need to see the opportunity to benefit from great teaching and as gain for all of our students,

Data Teams 9

delivered by all of our teachers, as a result of their collaborative efforts to improve.” (White,

2005)

The article, Working Smarter By Working Together by Honawar (2008) gives an

overview of the teacher-collaboration model. It takes a deeper look into the use of collaborative

teaching methods as a way to improve education in the United States. The challenges of the

method are discussed and the importance of applying collaborative teaching as a model for

specific needs, rather than a formula is a point that’s driven home.

In the article, Understanding Data Use Practice among Teachers: The Contribution of

Micro-Process Studies, Little (2012) says there is very little good research on what teachers

actually do when they engage in data-based decision making. She suggests that researchers

focus on the details of teachers’ work, using a “micro-process” lense to get a better sense of what

works and what doesn’t work when teachers look at assessment data. Little discusses the use of

micro-process studies to look at teachers as they worked with data. She summarizes six studies

that observed teachers as they worked with data. She pinpoints a study that compared schools

doing data analysis, both effective and ineffective schools and their characteristics in regard to

data conversations. She analyzes transcripts, describes the data-wise process, and describes

“small learning communities” working with the Teacher Leadership Model. The final study

followed eleven elementary teachers over a one-year timeframe as they looked at their students’

responses to mathematical tasks and activities. This final study captured the details of teacher

meetings through the use of audiotape. Through her work Little determines that open-ended

analysis of a small piece of student work on common instructional tasks proved more helpful

than looking at whole-class data.

Data Teams 10

“The success of instructional Data Teams in a building depends on the full support and

active involvement of administrators. Through their words and actions, administrators set the

tone for Data Teams in the building.” (Peery, 2011) It is important that administrators believe

that all students can learn. If administrators take the proper steps to support their teachers

through the process Data Teams will be more successful. It is also necessary for administers to

support the Data Team Process by being hands-on throughout the process. There are several

ways that administrators can support Data Teams in their building. One way is to sit in on

meetings. Another way to provide support is to give feedback to teachers during the meetings.

Administrators also need to be visible throughout the school and spend time in the classrooms. It

is also important for administrators to meet with Data Team leaders on a consistent basis. (Peery,

2011)

The article, Improving Instruction Through Focused Team Supervision by William E.

Bickel and Nancy J. Artz (1984) describe approaches to focused team instructional supervision.

This team approach lets supervisors “zero in on priority areas and strengthens their relationships

with teachers.” There are five basic structures of focused team supervision: data based

instructional planning, focused attention and time, allotted team planning and working time,

regular/special education program collaboration, and collaborative supervisor/principal

relationship. This type of focus uses data to provide support and help schools identify priority

instructional areas. This helps the educators better meet the needs of the students.

In this article, My Nine ‘Truths’ of Data Analysis Thomas (2011) lists and discusses

what he has learned about using data to improve teaching and learning: 1. Focus on instruction

wisdom that come from the data. 2. Teachers should be the ones looking at the data. 3. Teachers

should work together to look at data and analyze it together. 4. Data meetings should be frequent.

Data Teams 11

5. Teacher teams need norms. 6. Teacher teams should focus on next steps. 7. Schools should

focus on aligning the curriculum. 8. Professional learning communities need to improve. 9.

Teachers need to stay focused on the higher purpose of this work.

The book, The data teams experience: A guide for effective meetings Peery (2011) details

the data teams process and walks teachers and administrators through the steps, giving insight in

regards to the specific proven process to look at student work, apply instructional strategies, and

monitor student learning. It also looks at common problems facing Data Teams. The author

highlights several examples of successful Data Teams implementation.

The book, Beyond the numbers: Making data work for teachers & school leaders by

White (2005) begins by explaining the rearview-mirror effect: planning for future student

success based on past events. White discusses how this is harmful for educators and schools. He

then discusses the dilemma of data collection.

Data Teams 12

RESEARCH METHODS

Research Design

A questionnaire was given to administrators and teachers at the end of the school year to

compile data concerning the overall opinion about the use of Data Teams, and the questionnaire

also aimed to determine is there a difference in opinion between administrators and teachers

regarding Data Teams? If it is determined that both administrators and teachers agree that the

Data Team process is worthwhile they will be informed of the outcome and it will be suggested

that the Data Team process be continued. The dependent variable would be administrator and

teacher opinion. The Independent variable is the use of data teams.

Study Group Description

A group of administrators and teachers working in a suburban elementary school district

were surveyed to determine overall opinion about the use of Data Teams, and is there a

difference in opinion between administrators and teachers regarding Data Teams? Of the 21

surveyed, 6 are administrators and the rest were classroom teachers or special services teachers

who are currently being trained in and are working through the Data Team process. The

administrators and teachers surveyed were all at the same level in regards to Data Team training

and had the same experience with using the Data Team process.

Data Collection and Instrumentation

Administrators and teachers will be expected to accurately report their overall opinion

about the use of Data Teams at the end of the school year through the completion of an electronic

survey. The survey instrument can be found in Appendix A.

Data Teams 13

Statistical Analysis Methods

A chi-square was used to analyze the data given by administrators and teachers via

survey given electronically at the end of the school year to obtain the overall opinion about the

use of Data Teams, and determine is there a difference in opinion between administrators and

teachers regarding Data Teams?

Data Teams 14

FINDINGS

A Chi-square was used to analyze the data given by administrators and teachers via

survey given electronically at the end of the school year to obtain the overall opinion about the

use of Data Teams, and determine is there a difference in opinion between administrators and

teachers regarding Data Teams. The following information, graphs and charts will show

collected data and finding based on the information taken from administrators and teachers.

Analysis of Respondents/Status

FREQUENCY PLOT

VARIABLE: Status

FRQ. CUM. % CUM. FREQUENCY PLOT

---- ---- ----- ----- -------------------------

x < 1 0 0 0 0 |

x = 1 15 15 71.4 71.4 |************************

x = 2 6 21 28.6 100 |**********

x > 2 0 21 0 100 |

TOTAL 21 100 Key for plot #1= Teacher #2= Administrator Total Respondents =21

Number of Teachers = 15 Teachers are 71.4 % of respondents

A survey was given to gather information about the use of Data Teams. 15 respondents, 71.4 %

were teachers while 6 respondents, 28.6 % were administrators.

Data Teams 15

RQ #1

Do you believe that teachers apply the Data Team process smoothly with minimal problems?

VARIABLE: Application


---- ---- ----- ----- -------------------------

x < 1 0 0 0 0 |

x = 1 15 15 71.4 71.4 |************************

x = 2 6 21 28.6 100 |**********

x > 2 0 21 0 100 |

TOTAL 21 100

Key for plot #1= Yes #2= No Frequency of #1 =15 Percentage of #1 = 71.4%

Frequency of #2=6 Percentage of #2= 28.6%

In determining the overall opinion about the use of Data Teams, the respondents were asked if

they believe that teachers apply the Data Team process smoothly with minimal problems. 15

respondents, 71.4% reported that they believe that teachers apply the Data Team process

smoothly with minimal problems and 6 respondents, 28.6 % reported that they do not believe

that teachers smoothly apply the Data Team process.

Data Teams 16

RQ #2

Do you believe that teachers apply the Data Team process smoothly with minimal problems?

Table 1

Summary of Chi Square Analysis

Source Teachers Admin. Chi Sq df p-value

Do not

Apply 40%(6) 0% (0)

Apply 60% (9) 100% (6) 3.36 1 0.06

Sign = or < 0.25

The p-value is .06 The alpha level is .25

Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between administrator and teacher opinion.

The conclusion is that we will reject the null- there is a significant difference in administrator

and teacher opinion.

9 teachers, 60%, reported that teachers apply the Data Team process smoothly with minimal

problems while 6 administrators, 100% reported that teachers apply the Data Team process

smoothly with minimal problems. 6 teachers, 40% reported that teachers do not apply the Data

Team process smoothly and 0 administrators, 0% reported that teachers do not apply the Data

Team process smoothly. The Chi-Square value was 3.36. The degrees of freedom was 1. The

Data Teams 17

null hypothesis was: “There is no significant difference of opinion between administrators and

teachers regarding data teams.” The p-value of 0.06 is less than the alpha level of 0.25, therefore

the null hypothesis is rejected. There is a significant difference of opinion between

administrators and teachers. 100% of administrators surveyed agreed that teachers apply the

Data Team process smoothly, while only 60% of teachers reported that teachers apply the Data

Team process smoothly.

RQ#1

Do you believe that teachers use student work to analyze strengths and obstacles and set

appropriate goals?

VARIABLE: Analyze


---- ---- ----- ----- -------------------------

x < 1 0 0 0 0 |

x = 1 19 19 90.5 90.5 |************************

x = 2 2 21 9.5 100 |***

x > 2 0 21 0 100 |

TOTAL 21 100

Key for plot #1= Yes #2= No Frequency of #1=19 Percentage of #1= 90.5 %

Frequency of #2 =2 Percentage of #2=9.5%


they believe that teachers use student work to analyze strengths and obstacles and set appropriate

goals. 19 respondents, 90.5% reported that they believe that teachers use student work to analyze

Data Teams 18

strengths and obstacles and set appropriate goals and 2 respondents, 9.5 % reported that they do

not believe that teachers use student work to analyze strengths and obstacles and set appropriate

goals.

RQ #2

Do you believe that teachers use student work to analyze strengths and obstacles and set

appropriate goals?

Table 1



Do Not

Analyze 31.6% (2) 0% (0)

Analyze 68.4% (13) 100% (6) 0.88 1 0.35

Sign = or < 0.25

The p-value is 0.35. The alpha level is 0.25.


The conclusion is that we not reject the null- there is not a significant difference in administrator

and teacher opinion. 2 teachers, 31.6%, reported that they do not believe that teachers use

student work to analyze strengths and obstacles and set appropriate goals, while 0 administrators,

Data Teams 19

0% reported that they do not believe that teachers use student work to analyze strengths and

obstacles and set appropriate goals. 13 teachers, 68.4% reported that they believe that teachers

use student work to analyze strengths and obstacles and set appropriate goals and 6

administrators, 100% reported that they believe that teachers use student work to analyze

strengths and obstacles and set appropriate goals.

RQ#1

Do you believe that Instructional Data Teams establish goals directly related to annual school

goals?

VARIABLE: Goals


---- ---- ----- ----- -------------------------

x < 1 0 0 0 0 |

x = 1 18 18 85.7 85.7 |************************

x = 2 3 21 14.3 100 |****

x > 2 0 21 0 100 |

TOTAL 21 100

Key for plot #1= Yes #2= No Frequency of #1=18 Percentage of #1= 85.7%

Frequency of #2 =3 Percentage of #2=14.3 %


they believe that Instructional Data Teams establish goals directly related to annual school goals.

18 respondents, 85.7% reported they believe that Instructional Data Teams establish goals

directly related to annual school goals and 3 respondents, 14.3% reported they did not believe

Instructional Data Teams establish goals directly related to annual school goals. The overall

Data Teams 20

opinion was that most respondents thought that Instructional Data Teams establish goals directly

related to annual school goals.

RQ #2

Do you believe that Instructional Data Teams establish goals directly related to annual school

goals?

Table 1



No Goals 20% (3) 0% (0)

Goals 80% (12) 100% (6) 1.4 1 0.24

Sign = or < 0.25



The conclusion is that we reject the null- there is a significant difference in administrator and

teacher opinion. 3 teachers, 20%, reported they did not believe Instructional Data Teams

establish goals directly related to annual school goals. 12 teachers, 80% reported that

Data Teams 21

Instructional Data Teams establish goals directly related to annual school goals and 6

administrators, 100% reported that Instructional Data Teams establish goals directly related to

annual school goals. The Chi-Square value was 1.4. The degrees of freedom was 1.

The null hypothesis was: “There is no significant difference of opinion between administrators

and teacher regarding data teams.” The p-value of 0.24 is less than the alpha level of 0.25,

therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. There is a significant difference of opinion between

administrators and teachers.

RQ#1

Do you have evidence of the impact and efficacy of your Instructional Data Teams?

VARIABLE: Evidence


---- ---- ----- ----- -------------------------

x < 1 0 0 0 0 |

x = 1 16 16 76.2 76.2 |************************

x = 2 5 21 23.8 100 |********

x > 2 0 21 0 100 |

TOTAL 21 100

Key for plot #1= Yes #2= No Frequency of #1=16 Percentage of #1= 76.2%

Frequency of #2 =5 Percentage of #2=23.8%

Data Teams 22


they have evidence of the impact of their Instructional Data Teams. 16 respondents, 76.2%

reported that they have evidence and 5 respondents, 23.8% reported that they do not have

evidence. The overall opinion was that most respondents have evidence of the impact of their

Instructional Data Teams.

RQ #2

Do you have evidence of the impact and efficacy of your Instructional Data Teams?

Table 1



No Evidence 33.3 %(5) 0% (0)

Evidence 66.7 % (10) 100% (2) 2.63 1 0.11

Sign = or < 0.25


Null Hypothesis: There is no difference between teacher and administrator opinion.

The conclusion is that we will reject the null-there is a significant difference in teacher and

administrator opinion. 5 teachers, 33.3%, reported no evidence of the impact of their

Data Teams 23

Instructional Data Teams while 0 administrators, 0% reported no evidence. 10 teachers, 66.7%

reported evidence and 6 administrators reported evidence of the impact of their Instructional

Data Teams. The Chi-Square value was 2.63. The degrees of freedom was 1.

The null hypothesis was: “There is no significant difference of opinion between administrators

and teachers regarding the Data Teams.” The p-value of 0.11 is less than the alpha level of 0.25,

therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. 100% of the administrators surveyed said that they have

evidence of the impact and efficacy of Instructional Data Teams, but only 66.7% of teachers

surveyed said they have evidence of the impact and efficacy of Instructional Data Teams. There

is a significant difference of opinion between administrators and teachers.

Data Teams 24

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A study was conducted to determine the overall opinion about the use of Data Teams. 15

respondents, 71.4 % were teachers while 6 respondents, 28.6 % were administrators. Two

research questions were addressed: #1: What is the overall opinion about the use of Data

Teams? #2: Is there a difference in opinion between administrators and teachers regarding Data

Teams? Administrators and teachers were asked to give their overall opinion about Data Teams.

The findings of this study support the theory that Data Teams can be used to improve student

achievement. There was a significant difference of opinion between administrators and teachers

in regards to Data Teams. The study shows that there is a need for Data Teams, and the district

can use this information to make improvements to specific steps of the Data Team process. Both

administrators and teachers agree that teachers are analyzing student work. There was a

difference in opinion between administrators and teachers with regards to applying the Data

Team process smoothly, establishing goals directly related to school goals, and evidence of

impact with students. 15 respondents, 71.4 % reported that teachers are applying the Data Team

process smoothly and 6 respondents, 28.6 % reported that teachers are not applying the Data

Team process smoothly. The overall opinion was that most respondents feel as though teachers

are successful with application of the Data Team process. 19 respondents, 90.5 % reported that

teachers are analyzing student work and 2 respondents, 9.5 % reported that they do not believe

that teachers are analyzing student work. The overall opinion was that most respondents feel as

though teachers are analyzing student work. 18 respondents, 85.7 % reported that teachers

establish goals directly related to school goals and 3 respondents, 14 % reported that teachers do

not establish goals directly related to school goals. 5 respondents, 23.8 % said they had no

evidence of the impact of data teams and 16 respondents, 76.2 % reported that they had evidence

Data Teams 25

of the impact of data teams. The overall opinion was that most respondents had evidence of the

impact of data teams.

Even though there was a significant difference in opinion between administrators and

teachers believe that the district can view this as a credible measure. The data shows that the

majority of those surveyed believe that Data Teams are worthwhile. There are differences in

opinion, and these differences should be addressed. The district should take time to investigate

these differences and see what support can be provided to teachers with Data Teams. It is

important to note that this was the first year that Data Teams were implemented in this school

district. I believe that this survey provides accurate information in regards to the Data Team

process at this stage of implementation. The district can now use this data to take steps to

address the areas that need improvement. The district can be confident that by addressing these

areas the administrator and teacher experience will be improved with regards to the Data Team

process.

The outcomes reported from this study show that the overall opinion regarding Data

Teams is positive. The findings show there is a significant difference in opinion between

administrators and teachers with regard to Data Teams. 100% of administrators surveyed agreed

that teachers apply the Data Team process smoothly, but only 60% of teachers reported that

teachers apply the Data Team process smoothly. The Chi-Square Analysis results indicated that

the p-value 0.06 is less than the alpha level of 0.25; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected.

There is a significant difference of opinion between administrators and teachers with regards to

application of the Data Team process. 100% of administrators reported that teachers establish

goals directly related to school goals, while 80% of teachers reported that teachers establish

goals directly related to school goals. The Chi-Square Analysis results indicated that the p-value

Data Teams 26

0.24 is less than the alpha level of 0.25; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. There is a

significant difference of opinion between administrators and teachers with regards to teachers

establishing goals directly related to school goals as part of the Data Team process. 100% of

administrators reported they have evidence of the impact and efficacy of Instructional Data

Teams, and only 67% of teachers reported evidence of the impact and efficacy of Instructional

Data Teams. The Chi-Square Analysis results indicated that the p-value 0.11 is less than the

alpha level of 0.25; therefore the null hypothesis is rejected. There is a significant difference of

opinion between administrators and teachers with regards to the evidence of the impact and

efficacy of Instructional Data Teams.

The research points to a significant difference in opinion between administrators and

teachers with regards to Data Teams. Teachers do not see themselves as statistical number

crunchers and the Data Team process relies a great deal on looking at numbers. This process is

new. It takes time for teachers to “buy in.” Teachers need more time and they need more

training. A drawback to using Data Teams is time. Teachers value their time and are struggling

with Data Teams because of the amount of time that is spent working on one standard. Teachers

pride themselves on doing things well, and most teachers do not feel as though they do

something well until they have perfected it. With that being said, keep in mind that this was the

first year of implementation. It’s no wonder that the teachers’ opinions are not on par with the

administrators. In this district the administrators are data driven. They are comfortable using

numbers, and are simply more comfortable with the Data Team process. The administrators

might also be more optimistic about teacher performance. If the study were to be reviewed or

changed, a larger number of teachers and administrators would be surveyed to collect a larger

sample from the district.

Data Teams 27

It is important that this district conduct some further studies that could help determine if

Data Teams are worth the time and effort. One area they could look at would be the relationship

between using Data Team and students achievement scores. When state testing results are

released the district could compare scores and possibly show a connection between the use of

Data Teams and student achievement. It will also be important for the district to continue to

study administrator and teacher opinion with regards to Data Teams, especially after the district

completes another year of Data Team implementation.

Professional development is an area that could be addressed to help bridge the opinion

differences between administrators and teachers. The district should provide opportunities for

teachers to receive more training with the data team process and possibly take part in book

studies to help teachers learn more about the methods and practices needed when working in

Data Teams. Administrators should survey the teachers to find out how they feel about Data

Teams, then address the areas of concern and celebrate the successes.

Data Teams 28

REFERENCES

Barth, P. (2012). 'The Data Made Me Do It'. American School Board Journal, 199(2), 28.

http://search.ebscohost.com. (AN70550212)

Besser, L. (2012). Leveraging Data Teams and Professional Learning Communities for Success

on the Common Core. In Navigating assessment and collaboration with the common core

state standards (pp. 53-79). Englewood, CO: Lead Learn Press.

Bickel, W.E., & Artz, N.J. (1984) Improving Instruction Through Focused Team Supervision.

Educational Leadership, 41(7), 22. http://search.ebscohost.com. (AN 8524268)

Honawar, V. (2008). “Working Smarter By Working Together”. Education Week, 27(31), 25-

27. http://search.ebscohost.com. (AN31660387)

Kovaleski, J. F., & Glew, M. C. (2006). Bringing Instructional Support Teams to Scale:

Implications of the Pennsylvania Experience. Remedial & Special Education, 27(1), 16.


Little, J. (2012). Understanding Data Use Practice among Teachers: The Contribution of Micro-

Process Studies. American Journal Of Education, 118(2), 143-166.


Peery, Angela (2011). The data teams experience: A guide for effective meetings. Englewood,

CO: Lead Learn Press.

Thomas, R. S. (2011). My Nine ‘Truths’ of Data Analysis. Education Week, 30(35), 36, 29.

White, S. (2005). Beyond the numbers: Making data work for teachers & school leaders.

Englewood, CO: Advanced Learning Press.

http://search.ebscohost.com/












Data Teams 29

APPENDIX A

Please rate the degree to which you agree with the

following statements regarding Data Teams

Agree Disagree

1. Teachers apply the Data Team process smoothly with

minimal management problems

2. Teachers use student work to analyze strengths and

obstacles and set appropriate goals

3. Instructional Data Teams establish goals directly related

to annual school goals

4. Do you have evidence of the impact and efficacy of your

Instructional Data Teams?

running head: data teams data teams by - … jill.pdf · data teams 1 running head: data teams data...

Documents