A portion of teachers in the United States educational system don'€™t use data to inform and improve their instruction resulting in actionable change. A gap exists between teachers having and interpreting data and making meaning in such a way that leads to actionable change in instruction. The purpose of this case study was to investigate how teachers used data to alter instruction and identify factors that inhibited or supported teachers in using data to drive instructional practice. This study was guided by Ackoff'€™s theory of action cycle, which included interaction, dialogue, data discoveries, and team response to data. The research questions asked how teams used data and what factors inhibited and supported the use of data. Three teams were observed. Eleven classroom teachers, the building principal and the district professional development director were interviewed. The teacher team criteria included that teachers met weekly and used, at a minimum, common formative assessments. The school and district mission, vision and value statements were collected as artifacts to see how these documents supported the use of data. Open and axial coding exposed themes and patterns. Results indicated that teachers commonly omitted one or more phases in a data cycle; however, when teachers worked through all phases of a data cycle, actionable change in instruction resulted, and factors that both inhibited and supported teacher use of data to guide instruction were evident throughout all aspects of the study. The project, a white paper, summarized the study and provided research-based recommendations based on the study. These recommendations focus on building teacher capacity and relationships. This study may generate social change through educational equity. Equity is achieved when teachers use data to inform instruction so that learners of all abilities may have access to learning.

Why has teachers’ classroom work remained relatively stable despite an enormous amount of change in educational policy? In 1998 the national Department of Education of South Africa introduced a new policy on assessment to complement its new curriculum policy introduced in 1997. With its emphasis on performance–based outcomes, the assessment policy constituted a decisive and significant break from the past assessment policy. This research focuses on the implementation of the new assessment policy by classroom teachers. The study is guided by the following three research questions: 1: What are teacher understandings and beliefs with regard to assessment policy? 2: In the context of official policy, how do teachers practice assessment in their classrooms? 3: How can the continuities and the discontinuities between official policy on assessment and teachers’ assessment practice be explained? After reviewing the literature on policy implementation, the study articulated a broader conceptual framework drawing on the construct of ‘deep change’. This perspective supplements rather than supplants dominant approaches to policy implementation. The ‘deep change’ framework suggests a more incisive approach to understanding the relationship between policy and practice. This study presents and tests three propositions about change, namely: Proposition One: That teachers may not have a deep, sophisticated understanding of a new assessment policy even if there is evidence of strong rhetorical commitment to the policy. Proposition Two: That teachers may not be able to reconcile their own assessment beliefs and capacities with the stated goals of a new assessment policy. Proposition Three: That teachers may find traditional assessment practices (that is, examinations and testing) to hold greater efficacy in the classroom than the alternatives required by a new assessment policy. A case study approach was undertaken with two Grade 8 science teachers from two different contexts, one from an under-resourced township school, and the other from a well-resourced urban school. Using evidence from questionnaires, free-writing schedules, extensive pre-lesson and post-lesson interviews, prolonged non-participant classroom observations, teacher records and documents, and student records and examinations, the study found that the two teachers had a surface understanding of the new assessment policy; the teacher from the well-resourced, urban school was able to implement some of the new assessment methods, while the teacher from the under-resourced, township school did not implement any of the new methods of assessment required by the new assessment policy; both teachers were unable to reconcile their own assessment beliefs and capacities with the stated goals of a new assessment policy; and both teachers found the traditional assessment practices (that is, examinations and testing) to hold greater efficacy in the classroom than the alternatives required by a new assessment policy. In other words, the study found that teachers did not have a deep understanding of the assessment policy and did not change their assessment practices deeply as required by the assessment policy. The study argues that educational policies will do little to achieve deep changes in teachers’ pedagogical practices without concurrent attention to a strong theory of change. The study concludes with implications for teacher learning, professional development of teachers, theory and research. / Thesis (PhD (Education Management and Policy Studies))--University of Pretoria, 2004. / Education Management and Policy Studies / unrestricted

What happens when teachers are required to implement a mandatory mathematics literacy curriculum whose purposes and pedagogy is distinctly different from that of mathematics curricula of the past? More specifically: How do teachers beliefs and understandings of the curriculum affect the implementation pathway of a mathematics reform intended for ALL? In 2006 the national Department of Education of South Africa introduced a new curriculum into the mathematics landscape, namely Mathematical Literacy. This curriculum, which is markedly dissimilar in pedagogy, politics and purposes from past mathematics curricula, was introduced as a mandatory alternative to mathematics in the senior secondary phase of schooling; not as an integral component of mathematics curricula but as a unique subject of its own. It recognizes that every adult and therefore every child can and should do some form of mathematics. This research focuses on the implementation of this new curriculum in a context were mathematical literacy levels are not only unacceptably low among pupils leaving secondary schooling but also among many teachers charged with delivering mathematics education to the learners in South Africa. The three research questions guiding this study are: 1) What do teachers understand to be the purposes, problems and possibilities contained in the mathematical literacy curriculum? 2) How do teachers proceed to implement the mathematical literacy curriculum in their classrooms? 3) Why do teachers implement this curriculum in the ways they do? In other words, what explains the implementation pathways followed by the mathematical literacy curriculum in real classroom contexts? A review of the literature on curriculum and policy implementation revealed broad encapsulating themes that provide lenses for reform failure. It also provided a perspective that calls for domain specific research. Following on this, the study articulated a broader conceptual framework premised on the perception that a deep understanding of a curriculum is required, for contemporary reforms in mathematical literacy, especially if the goal is to pursue deep change in instructional practices and beliefs. Within this framework, three propositions were generated and then later tested against the emerging data: Proposition one: Teachers may not have a deep understanding of the purposes, problems and possibilities contained in the Mathematical Literacy curriculum. Proposition two: Teachers implement the Mathematical Literacy curriculum in their classroom using beliefs and pedagogies that are already entrenched in their practice. Proposition three: Teachers implement mathematical literacy only because it is a mandatory subject and not because of any strong conviction of the inherent value of this curriculum. A qualitative research design was used which included two in-depth case studies against the backdrop of a snapshot survey of fifty-four mathematical literacy teachers as an embedded unit of analysis. Using evidence from an array of data collection instruments, the study found that the two educators had a superficial understanding of the intentions of the curriculum both in terms of required pedagogy and purpose of the reform. For both educators the teaching of mathematics in context was outside their paradigm of understanding as was their limited grasp of the 'spirit' of this new reform. What was further revealed was that educators teaching mathematical literacy felt and expressed an overwhelming threat to the status of their professional teaching identity. The explorative study concludes with implications for future studies and professional teacher development. It also further expands on why a strong theory of action is mandatory if the challenges of complex curriculum change are to be met. / Thesis (PhD (Education Policy Studies))--University of Pretoria, 2008. / Education Management and Policy Studies / unrestricted

No description available.