No description available.

Diss. Stockholm : Handelshögskolan, 2009.

No description available.

To improve outome school needs to find methods for analyzing, monitor-ing and using lessons learned in decisionmaking. This study aims to inve-stigate differences when it comes to support school leaders and their per-ceptions of what analyzis can do to decisionmaking. If there are any diffe-rences in school leaders perceptions of areas of development and im-provement of the ability to conduct analysis is also investigated. My theoretical foundation is presented in Westerman´s methodology (2006). The method is hermeneutically quantitative and seeks to detect underlying structures. Based on the framework of decision theory and ”Framework theory”, founded by the Swedish professors of pedagogy Ur-ban Dahlöf and Ulf P. Lundgren the concepts was operationalizied. To answer the questions I seek a questionnarie study was conducted where 126 school leaders from preschool to secondary schools participaded. The conclutions of the study shows there are differences. School leaders, who believes that analysis of data contributes to good insight in their op-eration also believes that they have a high degree of support from muni-cipality principle. School leaders´ perceptions of areas of developement show that primary school leaders to a greater extent concider that increa-sed quality in terms of structure (developing knowledge of data and deve-lopment methods for measuring results) would help develop analysis of data in their own administration context. The established differences may be of interest to school leader in terms of municipalities and in sup-porting school leaders. The study also shows defferences between deve-lopmental areas and background variables, wich may be of interest in evaluating how the process of analysis of data linked to decisions in gene-ral works within organsations. In the light of these differences – Does our analysis of data contribute to decision making? / Att hitta metoder för att analysera, följa upp och använda lärdomar i väl grundade beslut är förskolan och skolans ansvar lokalt. Syftet med före-liggande studie är att undersöka skillnader i rektorer och förskolechefer uppfattningar om vad analys av resultat kan bidra till i de väl grundade besluten, med avseende på upplevt stöd och om det finns skillnader i rek-torer och förskolechefers uppfattningar om utvecklingsområden av ana-lys av resultat undersöks också. Min teoretiska utgångspunkt finns i Westermans metodologi (2006). Me-toden är hermeneutisk kvantitativ och söker upptäcka underliggande strukturer. Utifrån beslutsteori och ramfaktorteori, grundad av pedago-gikprofessorerna Urban Dahlöf and Ulf P. Lundgren operationaliseras be-greppen. I en enkätstudie, som besvarades av 126 skolledare från förskola till gymnasium, söks sedan svar på frågeställningarna. Slutsatserna är att det finns skillnader. Skolledare som i hög utsträckning anser att analys av resultat bidrar till verksamhetsinsikt anser också att de i hög utsträckning har stöd från huvudmannen. Skolledares uppfatt-ningar om utvecklingsområden visar att grundskolans rektorer i högre ut-sträckning anser att ökad kvalitet vad gäller struktur (att utveckla sam-manställningar av underlag och utveckla sätten att mäta resultaten) bi-drar till att utveckla analys av resultat i den egna förvaltningen. Skillna-derna kan vara av intresse för huvudmannen när det gäller uppföljning och stöd till rektorer och förskolechefer. Studien visar även på skillnader mellan utvecklingsområden och bakgrundsvariabler, vilka kan vara av in-tresse vid utvärderingar av hur processen med analys av resultat kopplad till beslut i stort fungerar. Hur ser det ut hos oss med bakgrund av dessa skillnader – bidrar våra analyser av resultat till väl grundade beslut?

In the modern era of high-stakes accountability, test data have become much more than a simple comparison (Schmoker, 2006; Payne & Miller, 2009). The information provided in modern data reports has become an invaluable tool to drive instruction in classrooms. However, there is a lack of good training for educators to evaluate data and translate findings into solid practices that can improve student learning (Blair, 2006; Dynarski, 2008; Light, Wexler, & Heinze, 2005; Payne & Miller, 2009). Some schools are good at collecting data, but often fall short at what to do next. It is the role of the principal to serve as an instructional leader and guide teachers to the answer the reoccurring question of "now what?" The purpose of this study was to investigate ways in which principals build successful data-driven instructional systems within their schools using a qualitative multi-site case study method. This research utilized a triangulation approach with structured interviews, on-site visits, and document reviews from various middle school supervisors, principals, and teachers. The findings are presented in four common themes and patterns identified as essential components administrators used to implement data-driven instructional systems to improve student achievement. The themes are 1) administrators must clearly define the vision and set the expectation of using data to improve student achievement, 2) administrators must take an active role in the data-driven process, 3) data must be easily accessible to stakeholders, and 4) stakeholders must devote time on a regular basis to the data-driven process. The four themes led to the conclusion of ten common steps administrators can use to acculturate their school or school division with the data-driven instruction process. / Ed. D.