View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Investigating the Use of Assessment Data by Primary School Teachers: Insights from a Large-Scale Survey in Ireland

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Investigating the Use of Assessment Data by Primary School Teachers: Insights from a Large-Scale Survey in Ireland
Language: English
Authors: Pitsia, Vasiliki (ORCID 0000-0002-8172-0397), Karakolidis, Anastasios (ORCID 0000-0002-7460-7759), Lehane, Paula (ORCID 0000-0003-0856-3505)
Source: Educational Assessment. 2021 26(3):145-162.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Data Use, Student Evaluation, Elementary School Teachers, Foreign Countries, Teaching Methods, Instructional Effectiveness, Standardized Tests, Teaching Experience, Teacher Attitudes, Regression (Statistics)
Geographic Terms: Ireland
DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2021.1917358
ISSN: 1062-7197
Abstract: Evidence suggests that the quality of teachers' instructional practices can be improved when these are informed by relevant assessment data. Drawing on a sample of 1,300 primary school teachers in Ireland, this study examined the extent to which teachers use standardized test results for instructional purposes as well as the role of several factors in predicting this use. Specifically, the study analyzed data from a cross-sectional survey that gathered information about teachers' use of, experiences with, and attitudes toward assessment data from standardized tests. After taking other teacher and school characteristics into consideration, the analysis revealed that teachers with more positive attitudes toward standardized tests and those who were often engaged in some form of professional development on standardized testing tended to use assessment data to inform their teaching more frequently. Based on the findings, policy and practice implications are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1309526
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFWVn6ghwU6F1UbPvxJ77QcAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDG3vUsAjYjbFH7_XKwIBEICBmx40QfAfR0XCL8jBB0TgSiYtBFmIdyo13adi1-2bSN-sLFRAJ1TcLSkBB6DHopxlf_RkNrspqGqFFffVunDJRslNXHZOjMh-5P9WDSSB30Gl9lqveEdbwFuLVfQ83BIOU3e9X95C0C5SvRgHXczEQfJbH2DmjlhFham4ujkKQVf6DHXeZLaKyoh14jyltrLDoYKSJhWWX_5I5B77
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0152008617;7ls01jul.21;2021Aug23.04:04;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0152008617-1">Investigating the Use of Assessment Data by Primary School Teachers: Insights from a Large-scale Survey in Ireland </title> <sbt id="AN0152008617-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>Evidence suggests that the quality of teachers' instructional practices can be improved when these are informed by relevant assessment data. Drawing on a sample of 1,300 primary school teachers in Ireland, this study examined the extent to which teachers use standardized test results for instructional purposes as well as the role of several factors in predicting this use. Specifically, the study analyzed data from a cross-sectional survey that gathered information about teachers' use of, experiences with, and attitudes toward assessment data from standardized tests. After taking other teacher and school characteristics into consideration, the analysis revealed that teachers with more positive attitudes toward standardized tests and those who were often engaged in some form of professional development on standardized testing tended to use assessment data to inform their teaching more frequently. Based on the findings, policy and practice implications are discussed.</p> <p>Educational data can be defined as "information that is systematically collected and organized to represent some aspect of schooling" (Schildkamp, Poortman, Luyten, & Ebbeler, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref1">38</reflink>], p. 242). This definition, when applied to classroom contexts, includes, amongst others, demographic data (e.g., socioeconomic status), instructional data (e.g., lesson observations), and outcome or assessment data (e.g., exam scores, portfolios) (Marsh, Pane, & Hamilton, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref2">23</reflink>]; Schildkamp, Karbautzki, & Vanhoof, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref3">36</reflink>]). While data can be used to inform decisions at every level in an education system, research has consistently demonstrated the value of using assessment data in classrooms to enhance teacher instruction and, ultimately, improve student achievement (e.g., Hattie, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref4">17</reflink>]; McNaughton, Lai, & Hsiao, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref5">25</reflink>]). Assessment data constitute any information related to student achievement in a wide range of assessments, such as written and oral exams, standardized tests, portfolios, and report cards (Schildkamp & Lai, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref6">35</reflink>]). Such data can provide essential information on students' progress toward different curricular aims or standards which can then be used by teachers to inform their instructional practices (also known as <emph>formative assessment</emph>).</p> <p>It should be noted that there is considerable discussion within the field as to whether or not <emph>standardized</emph> assessment data (i.e., data that are gathered from tests that are administered and scored in a consistent manner) can provide the information needed to support formative assessment practices. Mosher and Heritage ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref7">27</reflink>]) argue that standardized state tests, particularly in the US, fail to discern "levels of performance or understanding, or identify(ing) specifically what students know or can do" (p. 6), instead they tend to focus on distinguishing between individuals. However, this is not always the case. In their review of international standardized testing practices in lower secondary schools, Shiel, Kellaghan, and Moran ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref8">40</reflink>]) found that, in many countries, standardized tests are constructed in a way that can be used formatively by teachers alongside other relevant assessment data. For example, in Ireland, standardized mathematics tests for primary schools can provide detailed information in relation to curricular skills (e.g., fraction operations) for individual students. Certain standardized tests for English reading can also provide insights on students' vocabulary, spelling, and comprehension relative to their class or age-based peers. Such standardized tests could allow for both criterion- and norm-referenced interpretations of performance (Murchan & Shiel, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref9">28</reflink>]). Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that assessment data from standardized tests can provide useful information to teachers to inform their teaching practices.</p> <p>Despite its potential to support instruction, it appears that primary school teachers' use of assessment data can vary significantly (e.g., Farrell & Marsh, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref10">12</reflink>]; Gelderblom, Schildkamp, Pieters, & Ehren, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref11">15</reflink>]; Oláh, Lawrence, & Riggan, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref12">30</reflink>]). A greater understanding of the different factors that may be associated with this use could provide some much-needed insight into this aspect of teacher practice. More appropriate supports or teacher education programs could then be provided (as recommended by Schildkamp et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref13">38</reflink>])). This study intends to address this research gap. Specifically, it explores the extent to which certain teacher and school characteristics contribute toward the prediction of teacher use of assessment data to inform instructional practices in a classroom within an Irish primary context.</p> <hd id="AN0152008617-3">Use of assessment data for instructional purposes</hd> <p>Instruction has been defined by Prenger and Schildkamp ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref14">32</reflink>]), who drew on Hattie's ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref15">17</reflink>]) work, as the "goal-oriented actions of the teacher in a classroom that focus on explaining a concept or procedure, or on providing students with insights that will initiate or sustain their learning process" (p. 741). The design of purposeful learning activities that are adapted to meet the learning needs of students (e.g., by increasing instruction, modifying materials etc.) are hallmarks of high-quality instructional practices (Seidel & Shavelson, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref16">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Certainly, research suggests that the availability of assessment data can, indeed, help in this process and, thus, improve a teacher's instructional practices. For example, McNaughton et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref17">25</reflink>]) explored the implementation of an intervention based on teacher data use and its effects on student achievement. The intervention focused on "fine-tuning instruction" based on teacher observation data and discussions around assessment data related to student reading achievement. Across seven disadvantaged, urban, multicultural schools, the use of assessment data had a positive effect on instructional practices, which, in turn, benefited student outcomes in literacy (between 3 to 4 months' additional progress per year). Other researchers, though, such as Konstantopoulos, Miller, Van Der Ploeg, and Li ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref18">22</reflink>]) failed to replicate McNaughton et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref19">25</reflink>]) results for older children when using interim assessments to direct teacher instruction in mathematics and reading. However, it should be acknowledged that Konstantopoulos et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref20">22</reflink>]) study did not have an appropriate fidelity of implementation plan that could observe or control for teacher use of this assessment data. Such inconclusive findings indicate that further work is needed in this area to better understand if the use of assessment data can inform instruction to improve student achievement.</p> <p>The use of data by teachers to inform instructional practices and decisions is complex. Teachers can respond to assessment data in different ways, as outlined by Farrell and Marsh ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref21">12</reflink>]). While some teachers may, indeed, change their instructional practices in response to the data, others may not (Oláh et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref22">30</reflink>]). Kippers, Wolterinck, Schildkamp, Poortman, and Visscher ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref23">20</reflink>]) found that although secondary school teachers in the Netherlands use various kinds of classroom assessments for information on student achievement, the systematic analysis of these data to support teaching has not been integrated into their practice. There is also some evidence to suggest that teachers engage in inappropriate test preparation practices in response to outcome data (e.g., teaching to the test) (Jennings & Bearak, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref24">18</reflink>]). Additionally, Mausethagen, Prøitz, and Skedsmo ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref25">24</reflink>]) work demonstrated that data use by Norwegian secondary school teachers usually aims to address short-term teaching goals and improve test results. Based on their interviews, Gelderblom et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref26">15</reflink>]) concluded that although teachers "claim to be aware of the importance of data use and consider themselves to use data to a great extent", their use of data for instructional purposes often goes "awry" (p. 11). To be able to support teachers in the use of data, a greater understanding of the different factors that can promote effective data use must be acquired.</p> <hd id="AN0152008617-4">Factors associated with teacher use of assessment data for instructional purposes</hd> <p>The findings of a number of studies on how data use is influenced by the characteristics of the organization, the data, and the user were synthesized by Schildkamp et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref27">38</reflink>]) (see Table 1). In their review of the literature, the authors found that several organizational characteristics can influence the use of data in schools. These include the presence of a shared vision and a "structured method for analysis and interpretation of data on which to base actions" (Schildkamp et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref28">38</reflink>], p. 244). A number of other studies, also, indicated that teachers are more likely to use data if these have certain features, such as accessibility and usability (e.g., Halverson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref29">16</reflink>]). The characteristics of teachers can also impact data use and engagement. Young, McNamara, Brown, and O'Hara ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref30">44</reflink>]) assert that effective data use requires teachers to have the ability to collect, analyze, and use data strategically. This requires teachers to pose actionable questions, identify what data would answer these questions, understand what the data say and, then, apply it to planning instruction (Means, Chen, Debarger, & Padilla, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref31">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 1. Factors influencing assessment data use</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Organization</td><td>Data</td><td>User</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Vision and norms Leadership Support Collaboration</td><td>Accessibility Timeliness Usability Quality</td><td>Knowledge Skills Dispositions</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note.</emph>Adapted from <emph>Factors promoting and hindering data-based decision making in schools</emph>, by Schildkamp et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref32">38</reflink>]), p. 244.</p> <p>When applying this framework to the use of assessment data by teachers to inform instruction, it is important to recognize that the characteristics exhibited by this type of data may be relatively inflexible. For example, the data derived from norm-referenced, standardized tests can include standard scores, percentile ranks, and confidence intervals. While timely access to these is important for informing instruction, understanding what is meant by these data and having systemic structures in place to use this information are more reliant on user and organizational characteristics. Affording greater attention toward understanding the influence of user and organizational characteristics, rather than data characteristics, is supported by research. The analysis of responses from over 1,000 teachers conducted by Schildkamp et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref33">38</reflink>]) showed that while data characteristics can influence the extent to which they are used, they appear to be less important than user and organizational characteristics. Given that, a closer examination of what possible user- and organization-related factors may be associated with the use of assessment data for instructional purposes is warranted.</p> <hd id="AN0152008617-5">Teacher factors</hd> <p>The use of assessment data in classrooms requires teachers to apply their interpretation of relevant data to their personal teaching activities. Therefore, the use of assessment data may be influenced by certain individual characteristics. For example, interpreting assessment results can be difficult if teachers lack substantive knowledge of the subject matter (Coburn & Turner, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref34">1</reflink>]). This may relate to <emph>content knowledge</emph> on the subject itself, i.e. the teacher's own understanding of the topic, or <emph>pedagogical content knowledge</emph>, i.e. what approaches should be undertaken to make the subject matter accessible to students (Kleickmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref35">21</reflink>]). If teachers do not have a firm knowledge of the subject matter being taught, they will find it difficult to interpret test data related to that content. If teachers do not have pedagogical content knowledge, then they will have difficulty translating the content into representations others can understand.</p> <p>A qualitative study by Timperley ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref36">42</reflink>]) in the US supported this assertion as teachers who lacked sufficient pedagogical content knowledge were unable to make appropriate inferences from test score data to inform their instructional practices. Schildkamp and Poortman ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref37">37</reflink>]) also found that effective data use required pedagogical content knowledge. As demonstrated by Kleickmann et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref38">21</reflink>]), pre- and in-service mathematics teachers' content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge develop over time. As a result, the use of data to inform instructional practices may be a function of a teacher's overall time in the profession. However, little research appears available to support such a hypothesis.</p> <p>Another issue to consider relates to the attitudes and beliefs of the teacher in relation to the value of assessment data. As argued by Datnow and Hubbard ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref39">5</reflink>]), examining teachers' attitudes and beliefs allows for a greater understanding of their willingness to use data for a range of purposes. In their exploration of the psychological factors that influence data use across 131 Dutch primary school teachers, Prenger and Schildkamp ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref40">32</reflink>]) found that the use of assessment data (arising from curriculum-based assessments and/or standardized assessments) for instructional purposes was heavily influenced by teachers' instrumental attitudes. Instrumental attitudes relate to teachers' "beliefs about the likely consequences or other attributes of data use" (Prenger & Schildkamp, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref41">32</reflink>], p. 737). Instrumental attitudes showed a significant and positive relationship with assessment data use, suggesting that teachers with a positive disposition toward the utility and value of certain types of data were more likely to use those data to inform their own instructional practices.</p> <p>Professional development may also determine teacher use of assessment data to inform instructional practices. The development of pedagogical content knowledge in teachers, which may be considered a prerequisite for effective use of assessment data to inform instruction, can be supported through the use of carefully designed continuing professional development courses (e.g., Santagata, Kersting, Givvin, & Stigler, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref42">34</reflink>]). Kerr, Marsh, Ikemoto, Darilek, and Barney ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref43">19</reflink>]) studied the data use of teachers in three large, urban school districts in the US. Instructional practices were positively affected by assessment data use in school districts that offered professional development courses on data analysis to teachers. Datnow and Hubbard ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref44">5</reflink>]) emphasized the importance of teachers having the data literacy skills necessary to use data to adjust their instruction. The authors strongly recommended that attendance of professional development courses should develop these skills among in-service teachers. Other studies have also found that opportunities to engage in formal and informal professional development courses can, indeed, support data use by teachers (e.g., Reeves et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref45">33</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0152008617-6">School factors</hd> <p>While the literature thus far indicates that there is a number of teacher-level factors that may be associated with teachers' use of assessment data for instructional purposes, other school-based factors may also need to be considered. For instance, Schildkamp et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref46">38</reflink>]) survey of 1,073 Dutch secondary school teachers found that data use for instruction is influenced by certain school-based characteristics, such as school leaders "setting time aside" for teachers to use data. Such school-based characteristics are often influenced by national policies or initiatives, especially in centralized education systems. Educational priority policies for schools serving disadvantaged communities are common in many countries (e.g., Zones d'Education Prioritaire (ZEP) in France, Disadvantaged Schools Program in Australia) (Smyth, McCoy, & Kingston, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref47">41</reflink>]). Involvement in these programs may have an impact on data use in schools.</p> <p>This seems particularly relevant in the context of this study, which examines the case of Irish schools. The Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools (DEIS) program was introduced in primary and post-primary schools in Ireland in the 2006/2007 school year and is "aimed at providing supports to schools with high concentrations of students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds who are at risk of educational failure" (Weir & Kavanagh, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref48">43</reflink>], p. 1). Schools involved in the program are required to have a three-year action plan to address the literacy, numeracy, and retention goals of the current DEIS plan (Department of Education and Skills, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref49">9</reflink>]). These action plans require schools to have a "renewed focus on target and goal setting linking deployment of additional resources to outputs and outcomes" (Department of Education and Skills, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref50">9</reflink>], p. 23). Training to support schools in the creation and implementation of these plans is available from the state-funded Professional Development Service for Teachers (PDST; Department of Education and Skills, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref51">11</reflink>]). All schools involved in the DEIS program are required to monitor the progress they are making on the goals they have set for improving literacy and numeracy using relevant data, which can include standardized test scores. Schools can use these data to justify certain decisions, e.g. the use of certain literacy programs, access to additional teaching etc. Based on these guidelines alone, it is clear that disadvantaged schools involved in the DEIS program in Ireland have a very clear vision regarding the use of assessment data for instructional purposes. However, non-disadvantaged schools appear to have no such guidelines. It is unknown if teachers in schools inside zones of educational priority (e.g., DEIS schools in Ireland, ZEP schools in France) use assessment data differently than those outside such zones as a result of such policies.</p> <hd id="AN0152008617-7">The current study</hd> <p>Given the impact that assessment data use by teachers may have on teacher instruction and, ultimately, student achievement, it is essential that a better understanding of what factors may be associated with this use of assessment data is realized. To add a meaningful contribution to this field of research, the aim of this study was to examine the extent to which primary school teachers in Ireland use standardized test results for instructional purposes as well as the role of a number of factors in the prediction of this reported use. Ireland provides an interesting context where, although the "stakes" attached to standardized testing in primary education remain relatively low in comparison to some other countries, where they can be used for accountability purposes (e.g., US), recent policy changes in the country have given this form of assessment data an increasingly important role in local and national educational contexts.</p> <p>In Ireland, norm-referenced standardized tests of English reading and mathematics are available for grades one to six of primary school and each test is carefully aligned to the national curriculum. For instance, the mathematics tests assess student achievement in each of the five strands of the Irish curriculum: number, algebra, shape and space, measures, and data. Since 2011, all Irish primary schools are required to administer these norm-referenced standardized tests in second, fourth, and sixth grades and to report the aggregated results to their Boards of Management and the Department of Education and Skills (Department of Education and Skills, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref52">7</reflink>]). Schools are provided with specific administration, scoring, reporting, and interpretation guidelines so that the standardized nature of the tests is not compromised. Depending on the time of year they are administered, autumn or spring norms can be used allowing teachers to grade their students on a national scale based on grade- or age-based norms. As of September 2017, standardized test results are used to determine the "educational profile" of schools, which is, in turn, used by the national education system to allocate special educational teaching resources to schools (Department of Education and Skills, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref53">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>O'Leary, Lysaght, Nic Craith, and Scully's ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref54">29</reflink>]) survey, from which data have been used for the purposes of this study, is one of the few attempts to shed some light on some of the Irish primary school teachers' concerns regarding the content and use of the current standardized tests. In their report, O'Leary et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref55">29</reflink>]) described, amongst others, the extent to which teachers feel that they have the knowledge and skills required to be responsible for many aspects of these assessments (i.e., administration, scoring, communication, and use of data to inform teaching) as well as their needs for professional development across a range of topics in standardized assessment. This initial exploration of the data, which involved descriptive analyses only, focused on the detection of potential patterns in teachers' responses. However, more detailed analyses looking, for example, at what may predict some of these responses, were not conducted in the context of O'Leary et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref56">29</reflink>]) study. Therefore, this study sought to examine the extent to which primary school teachers in Ireland use standardized test results for instructional purposes as well as determine if teachers' reported use of such assessment data is related to their attitudes toward assessment data and previous engagement with professional development on assessment data use, taking into consideration relevant teacher and school characteristics.</p> <hd id="AN0152008617-8">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0152008617-9">Design and sample</hd> <p>In this study, a secondary analysis of survey data collected by the Center for Assessment Research, Policy and Practice in Education (CARPE) at Dublin City University (DCU) and the Irish National Teachers' Organization (INTO) in 2017 (O'Leary et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref57">29</reflink>]) was conducted. This cross-sectional survey aimed at gathering information about primary school teachers' use of, experiences with, and attitudes toward standardized tests in reading and mathematics in Ireland. Administration of these tests is compulsory for second- (8-year-olds), fourth- (10-year-olds), and sixth-grade (12-year-olds) students in Irish primary schools. This was a low-risk research project and ethical approval was obtained by O'Leary et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref58">29</reflink>]) from the DCU Research Ethics Committee prior to its administration. The authors of the current study had access to the resulting database as they were involved in different stages of the original study (e.g., item generation, data collection, and analysis).</p> <p>The survey was shared with a random sample of 5,000 Irish primary school teachers, whose contact information was obtained from the INTO database. In total, 1,564 teachers engaged with the three-part survey, achieving an acceptable response rate (31%), with 1,300 completing all three parts. These 1,300 teachers (85% female) constituted the sample of the present study.</p> <p>Table 2 presents information about several key characteristics of the respondents and their schools. More than half of the respondents (53.7%) were mainstream class teachers, while approximately one-third of the respondents had more than 20 years of teaching experience and 13.8% were novice teachers (with up to 5 years of teaching experience). Thirty-five percent of the schools where respondents worked had 201–400 students, while only 5.5% of the schools were attended by less than 50 students. Finally, approximately two-thirds of the schools were located in either urban or suburban areas and were not identified as disadvantaged schools, respectively. In most of the cases, the characteristics of the sample, including the gender composition, reflected the characteristics of the teaching population in Ireland, indicating that the sample involved in the study was nationally representative (additional information can be found in O'Leary et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref59">29</reflink>]) report).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>]</p> <p>Table 2. Respondent and school characteristics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>n (%)</td><td>Variable</td><td>n (%)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>Role</italic></td><td /><td><italic>Teaching experience</italic></td><td /></tr><tr><td>School principal (teaching/administrative)</td><td>160 (12.8)</td><td>0–5 years</td><td>169 (13.8)</td></tr><tr><td>Mainstream class teacher</td><td>672 (53.7)</td><td>6–10 years</td><td>301 (24.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Special class/learning support/resource/English as an Additional Language (EAL) teacher</td><td>419 (33.5)</td><td>11–20 years</td><td>355 (28.8)</td></tr><tr><td>More than 20 years</td><td>404 (32.9)</td></tr><tr><td><italic>School size</italic></td><td /><td><italic>School location</italic></td><td /></tr><tr><td>Fewer than 50 students</td><td>71 (5.5)</td><td>Urban/suburban</td><td>821 (63.6)</td></tr><tr><td>51–100 students</td><td>148 (11.5)</td><td>Rural</td><td>470 (36.4)</td></tr><tr><td>101–200 students</td><td>272 (21.1)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>201–400 students</td><td>453 (35.1)</td><td><italic>School disadvantage status</italic></td><td /></tr><tr><td>401–500 students</td><td>178 (13.8)</td><td>Non-disadvantaged</td><td>533 (63.2)</td></tr><tr><td>More than 500 students</td><td>168 (13.0)</td><td>Disadvantaged</td><td>311 (36.8)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0152008617-10">Measures and variables</hd> <p>The data collection instrument of this study was a survey that consisted of a large number of closed- and open-ended questions about teachers' background information, as well as their attitudes toward and use of standardized tests. For the purposes of this study, teachers' responses regarding (i) the extent to which they use the results of standardized tests for instructional purposes (during a typical school year), (ii) their attitudes toward these tests, and (iii) the amount of time devoted to professional development in standardized testing during their career were used, along with information about teachers' years of experience (<emph>0–5 years, 6–10 years, 11–20 years, more than 20 years</emph>) and school disadvantage status (<emph>non-disadvantaged, disadvantaged</emph>).</p> <p>Three indices referring to the three main variables used in the study (i.e., teachers' reported use of standardized test results for instructional purposes, attitudes toward standardized tests, and professional development in standardized testing) were developed using factor analytic procedures. Specifically, principal axis factoring with oblimin rotation was conducted for each group of related items to identify the number of underlying factors. Initially, some of the items were reverse-coded so that higher scores represented more frequent reported use of standardized test results by teachers, more positive attitudes toward the perceived validity and utility of standardized tests, and higher engagement with professional development opportunities in standardized testing.</p> <p>Then, the factorability of each group of related items was examined. Items within each group were statistically significantly correlated with each other and most correlation coefficients were higher than.20, suggesting reasonable factorability. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure indicated adequate sampling, with values of.92,.93, and.77 for each of the indices, respectively. Also, the Bartlett's test of sphericity reached statistical significance for all three indices, indicating that the correlations were sufficiently large for factor analysis. The vast majority of communalities were above.30, further confirming that each item shared some common variance with other items within each group. Items with loadings lower than.35 were excluded from the final indices. Table A1 in the Appendix presents the item loadings, eigenvalues, percentages of variance explained, and Cronbach's alphas (<emph>α</emph>) for each of the three indices. The final scores for each one of these indices were computed by averaging teachers' responses to the relevant items.</p> <p>The <emph>teachers' reported use of standardized test results for instructional purposes</emph> index was computed based on 13 Likert-scale questions (e.g., <emph>"How often during a typical school year do you use standardised test results in reading and/or maths to identify individual students' strengths and weaknesses?"</emph>) through which teachers indicated the frequency (<emph>never, once, twice, 3 times or more</emph>) with which they use standardized test results for various diagnostic instructional purposes during a typical school year (items are presented in Figure 1). Higher scores in this index represent more frequent use of standardized test results for instructional purposes by teachers. The <emph>teachers' reported use of standardized test results for instructional purposes</emph> index constituted the outcome variable of the analysis in this study.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Teachers' reported use of standardized test results for instructional purposes during a typical school year</p> <p>The <emph>attitudes toward standardized tests</emph> index was computed based on 15 Likert-scale questions regarding the utility of these tests (e.g., <emph>"Standardised tests are a good measure of what my students learn in reading"</emph>), with five response options ranging from <emph>strongly disagree</emph> to <emph>strongly agree</emph> (items are presented in Table 3). Higher scores in this index represent more positive attitudes toward the perceived validity and utility of standardized tests.</p> <p>Table 3. Teacher attitudes toward standardized testing (%)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Agree/strongly agree</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Standardised testing in reading and maths has made my school more accountable</td><td>50.9</td></tr><tr><td>High scores on standardised tests represent high levels of achievement in reading and maths in my school</td><td>48.6</td></tr><tr><td>Standardised tests are not a good measure of what my students learn in maths in my class</td><td>48.1</td></tr><tr><td>Standardised test scores accurately reflect my students' mastery of basic skills in reading and maths</td><td>41.8</td></tr><tr><td>Standardised testing focuses my attention on higher-order thinking and problem-solving skills in reading and maths</td><td>41.4</td></tr><tr><td>Standardised tests are a good measure of what my students learn in reading</td><td>40.6</td></tr><tr><td>The requirement to report STEN (Standard Ten) Scores in reading and maths to the DES (Department of Education and Skills) supports good educational policy-making</td><td>37.0</td></tr><tr><td>Standardised tests help me to clarify which learning goals are the most important in reading and maths</td><td>30.6</td></tr><tr><td>Standardised testing is an appropriate way of encouraging teachers to focus on the impact of their teaching on children's achievement in maths and reading</td><td>30.5</td></tr><tr><td>The quality of teaching and learning in reading and maths has improved in my school because of the use of standardised testing</td><td>23.5</td></tr><tr><td>Standardised testing challenges weaker teachers to do a better job</td><td>21.4</td></tr><tr><td>There is no difference between what I think should be taught and what the reading and maths tests emphasise</td><td>20.9</td></tr><tr><td>Standardised testing in reading and maths has helped me to be a better teacher</td><td>17.5</td></tr><tr><td>Standardised testing improves my students' learning in reading and maths</td><td>14.2</td></tr><tr><td>The standardised test results in my school are a good way of helping prospective parents to understand how good the school is</td><td>13.2</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note.</emph>Statements are presented in descending order of percentages of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with each statement.</p> <p>Finally, the <emph>professional development in standardized testing</emph> index was computed based on four Likert-scale questions asking teachers to report the estimated amount of time (<emph>none, 1–5 hours, 6–10 hours, 11–20 hours, 20 hours+</emph>) they devoted to professional development in standardized testing during their career (e.g., during <emph>Summer courses</emph> or their <emph>Induction</emph>) (items are presented in Table 4). Higher scores in this index represent higher engagement with professional development opportunities in standardized testing.</p> <p>Table 4. Estimated time spent on professional development focused on standardized testing (%)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>none</td><td>1–5 hours</td><td>6–10 hours</td><td>11–20 hours</td><td>20 hours+</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pre-service e.g. B.Ed. courses</td><td>55.9</td><td>28.3</td><td>5.2</td><td>3.2</td><td>7.5</td></tr><tr><td>Induction</td><td>72.1</td><td>20.5</td><td>2.2</td><td>1.4</td><td>3.8</td></tr><tr><td>In-service e.g. summer courses</td><td>71.4</td><td>11.7</td><td>4.2</td><td>3.2</td><td>9.4</td></tr><tr><td>Croke Park Hours</td><td>38.4</td><td>39.5</td><td>9.6</td><td>3.4</td><td>9.1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note.</emph>The "mandatory planning and development hours" in Irish schools are more commonly referred to as "Croke Park Hours". The inclusion of these non-tuition hours in teachers' contracts was first implemented in 2011 as part of the "Croke Park Agreement" that introduced a suite of productivity measures within the public sector (Department of Education and Skills, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref61">6</reflink>]). In primary schools, the Croke Park Agreement hours are currently set at 36 hours a year. These additional working hours allow certain essential activities such as staff meetings, parent-teacher meetings, school planning, and Continuous Professional Development to take place without reducing tuition time (Department of Education and Skills, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref62">8</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0152008617-11">Analysis</hd> <p>This study sought to explore the factors that contribute to the prediction of the frequency with which Irish primary school teachers use standardized test results for instructional purposes. Firstly, factor analytic procedures were employed for the construction of three indices representing teachers' use of standardized test results for instructional purposes, their attitudes toward standardized tests, and their professional development in standardized testing. Then, descriptive analysis was conducted to provide a comprehensive picture of the demographic and other characteristics of the sample. Bivariate analysis provided information about the relationships between each of the predictor variables and the outcome variable and informed the decision making around the inclusion of variables in further analysis. Finally, a multiple linear regression model was applied to the data to examine the relationship of each predictor variable with the outcome variable after accounting for the other variables. A <emph>p</emph>-value of <.05 was the threshold for statistical significance used in this study, unless specific <emph>p</emph>-values are reported.</p> <hd id="AN0152008617-12">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0152008617-13">Descriptive statistics</hd> <p>Figure 1 presents teachers' responses with regards to the purposes for which they use standardized test results and the frequency with which they use those for each purpose during a typical school year. Teachers reported that they tend to more frequently use standardized test results to identify students' strengths and weaknesses, inform other teachers about students' performance/progress, and discuss with parents about students' performance/progress. On the other hand, large proportions of teachers reported that using standardized test results to discuss with students about their performance/progress, provide written feedback (on top of test scores) to parents, and select teaching materials are uncommon practices that are likely to either never occur or occur just once during a typical school year. Overall, Irish primary school teachers tended to not use the results of standardized tests to a great extent, as considerable proportions of them reported that they would either never or just once use such results for several of the provided purposes in a typical school year.</p> <p>Teacher responses about their attitudes toward standardized testing are presented in Table 3. Approximately half of the teachers either agreed or strongly agreed that standardized testing in reading and mathematics made their school more accountable, that high scores on standardized tests represented high levels of achievement in reading and mathematics in their school, and that standardized tests are not a good measure of what their students learn in mathematics in their class. On the other hand, less than 20% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that standardized testing in reading and mathematics helped them to be a better teacher, that standardized testing improved their students' learning in reading and mathematics, and that the standardized test results in their school are a good way of helping prospective parents to understand how good the school is. Overall, teachers seemed to not have very positive attitudes toward the standardized tests used in Ireland, but also toward standardized testing in general.</p> <p>Table 4 shows teacher responses with regards to the time spent on different professional development opportunities focused on standardized testing up to the point of the completion of the survey. As can be seen from the table, the vast majority of teachers would devote either none or up to five hours to each professional development opportunity, while small proportions of teachers reported having devoted a considerable number of hours (i.e., more than 20 hours) to each professional development opportunity.</p> <p>Table 5 presents the means (<emph>M</emph>), standard deviations (<emph>SD</emph>), minimum (<emph>min</emph>), and maximum (<emph>max</emph>) scores of the outcome variable (i.e., <emph>teachers' reported use of standardized test results for instructional purposes</emph>) and the continuous predictor variables included in the analysis. Based on the means of all three indices, it could be argued that, on average, Irish teachers tend to not use standardized test results for instructional purposes very frequently during a typical school year, their attitudes toward these tests tend to be neither negative nor positive, and they do not invest in their professional development in the area of standardized testing to a great extent.</p> <p>Table 5. Means, standard deviations, minimum, and maximum scores of the outcome variable and the continuous predictor variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Index</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>min</italic></td><td><italic>max</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Use of standardized test results for instructional purposes</td><td>2.18</td><td>0.62</td><td>1.00</td><td>4.00</td></tr><tr><td>Attitudes toward standardized tests</td><td>2.73</td><td>0.65</td><td>1.00</td><td>4.80</td></tr><tr><td>Professional development in standardized testing</td><td>1.70</td><td>0.90</td><td>1.00</td><td>5.00</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0152008617-14">Bivariate analysis</hd> <p>Table 6 presents the correlation coefficients for the continuous and ordinal variables examined in this study. Teachers' attitudes toward standardized tests were positively correlated to their reported use of the results of these tests for instructional purposes with a correlation of <emph>r</emph> =.30, which, although considered moderate according to J. Cohen's ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref63">2</reflink>]) guidelines that have often been considered meaningless in the absence of a frame of reference (Funder & Ozer, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref64">14</reflink>]), is considerable in the context of educational research. Also, the more time teachers reported spending on professional development in standardized testing, the more frequently they reported using standardized test results for instructional purposes. The effect size of this correlation was small (<emph>r</emph> =.18), but still considerable in the context of educational research. Results of a Spearman's Rho correlation indicated that there was a statistically significant positive association between teachers' years of experience and the frequency with which they use standardized test results for instructional purposes, <emph>r<subs>s</subs></emph>=.10. Additionally, relatively weak but statistically significant correlations were found between teachers' attitudes toward assessment data and their professional development in standardized testing (<emph>r</emph> =.12) as well as teachers' years of experience and their professional development in standardized testing (<emph>r<subs>s</subs></emph> =.15). Teachers' years of experience were not significantly associated with their attitudes toward standardized tests.</p> <p>Table 6. Correlation coefficients for the continuous and ordinal predictor variables and the outcome variable</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Use of standardized test results for instructional purposes</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>2. Attitudes toward standardized tests</td><td>.30**</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>3. Professional development in standardized testing</td><td>.18**</td><td>.12**</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>4. Years of experience</td><td>.10*</td><td>−.05</td><td>.15**</td><td>-</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note.</emph>For correlations with the <emph>years of experience</emph> variable, Spearman's Rho correlation coefficients are reported, as that was treated as an ordinal variable. For the rest of the variables, Pearson correlation coefficients are reported. * <emph>p</emph> <.01, **<emph>p</emph> <.001.</p> <p>Given the potential link of school disadvantage status with assessment data use in schools, as described earlier in this paper, this relationship was examined through an Independent-Samples t-test. The results indicated that teachers in disadvantaged (<emph>M</emph> = 2.22, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.62) and non-disadvantaged schools (<emph>M</emph> = 2.17, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.60) did not significantly differ in the frequency with which they use standardized test results for instructional purposes during a typical school year, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib773" id="ref65">773</reflink>) = −1.050, <emph>p</emph> =.294.</p> <p>The results of the bivariate analysis informed the decision making for the inclusion of predictor variables in the multiple linear regression model presented below. Given that the outcome variable was not statistically significantly associated with the school disadvantage status, this variable was not included in the regression model. The fact that the school disadvantage status variable had a considerably high percentage of missing data indicated that its exclusion from the multivariate analysis assured a larger number of cases to be included in the model.</p> <hd id="AN0152008617-15">Multiple regression analysis</hd> <p>A multiple linear regression model was applied to the data in order to examine the role of teachers' attitudes toward standardized tests, their professional development in standardized testing, and their teaching experience in the prediction of the frequency with which they reported using standardized test results for instructional purposes during a typical school year. Table 7 presents the results of this model; the table provides the proportion of variance in the outcome variable explained by the model (<emph>R<sups>2</sups></emph>), the unstandardized coefficients (<emph>Β</emph>) of the predictor variables accompanied by their standard errors (<emph>SE</emph>) and the standardized coefficients (<emph>β</emph>).</p> <p>Table 7. Multiple linear regression model for the prediction of teachers' reported use of standardized test results for instructional purposes</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td><italic>R<sup>2</sup></italic></td><td /><td>.11**</td></tr><tr><td>Variable (reference category)</td><td /><td><italic>B</italic></td><td><italic>SE</italic></td><td><italic>β</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Teaching experience (0–5 years)</td><td>6–10 years</td><td>−.08</td><td>.06</td><td>−.06</td></tr><tr><td>11–20 years</td><td>−.01</td><td>.06</td><td>−.01</td></tr><tr><td>more than 20 years</td><td>.04</td><td>.06</td><td>.03</td></tr><tr><td>Attitudes toward standardized tests</td><td /><td>.24**</td><td>.03</td><td>.26</td></tr><tr><td>Professional development in standardized testing</td><td /><td>.10**</td><td>.02</td><td>.14</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 **p <.001.</p> <p>Teachers' attitudes toward standardized tests and their professional development in standardized testing were statistically significant predictors of the frequency with which teachers reported using standardized test results for instructional purposes during a typical school year. Specifically, and with other variables held constant, the more positive the teachers' attitudes toward standardized tests and the more hours teachers had spent on professional development in standardized testing, the higher the frequency of using standardized test results for instructional purposes. However, after accounting for the other two predictors, teaching experience did not yield a statistically significant relationship with the outcome variable.</p> <p>Based on the standardized coefficients (<emph>β</emph>) of the two statistically significant predictor variables, teachers' attitudes toward standardized tests was a stronger predictor of their use of the results of such tests compared to the time they invested in professional development in this area.</p> <p>In practical terms, based on the unstandardized coefficients (<emph>Β</emph>) of the model presented in Table 7, and with other predictors held constant, the model predicted that</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> for every extra unit in the <emph>attitudes toward standardized tests</emph> index, the frequency of standardized test results use as reported by teachers would be expected to increase by 0.24 points (approximately two-fifths of a standard deviation) and</item> <p></p> <item> for every extra unit in the <emph>professional development in standardized testing</emph> index, the frequency of standardized test results use as reported by teachers would be expected to increase by 0.10 points (approximately one-sixth of a standard deviation).</item> </ulist> <p>Overall, the predictor variables that were included in the model accounted for 11% of the variance in the teachers' reported use of standardized test results for instructional purposes. According to J. Cohen's ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref66">2</reflink>]) guidelines regarding the magnitude of the variance explained in multiple regression models, the effect size of the variance explained in this model is considered small to medium.</p> <hd id="AN0152008617-16">Discussion and conclusions</hd> <p>Drawing on a sample of 1,300 primary school teachers in Ireland, this study set out to explore the extent to which primary school teachers use standardized test results for instructional purposes. The role of certain teacher and school characteristics in the prediction of teacher use of assessment data to inform instructional practices in a classroom was also examined.</p> <p>Overall, the findings suggested that primary school teachers in Ireland tended to more frequently use standardized test results in ways that would allow them to identify students' strengths, weaknesses, knowledge, and skills prior to instruction (i.e., diagnostic purposes) rather than in ways that would directly inform their instruction on a more regular basis (e.g., selecting appropriate teaching materials). Informing other teachers about students' performance and/or progress was among the most popular reported uses of this form of data. However, and despite the growing emphasis on student voice in education (e.g., Flynn, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref67">13</reflink>]), the use of such data to provide feedback to students about their performance and/or progress was not a common practice, with almost two-thirds of Irish primary school teachers reporting that they would never use standardized test results to serve this purpose. In general, the self-reports of the primary school teachers involved in this study indicated that they tended to not frequently use standardized test results in order to inform their instruction; more than two-thirds of the sample, on average, reported that they would either never or only once use standardized test results to inform their instruction in a wide range of ways during a typical school year.</p> <p>The investigation of the relationships between each of the predictors and the outcome variable in a bivariate context showed that teachers did not significantly differ in their use of such results for instructional purposes based on the disadvantage status of their school. Hence, despite the clear vision regarding the use of assessment data for instructional purposes across schools involved in the DEIS program in Ireland (Department of Education and Skills, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref68">9</reflink>]), this study indicated that teachers in disadvantaged (i.e., DEIS) and non-disadvantaged (i.e., non-DEIS) schools tend to approach the use of assessment data for instructional purposes in a similar manner. This implies that there is a clear disconnect between Irish educational policy and teacher practice, as far as the use of assessment data is concerned, which is somewhat concerning given the value of using assessment data in disadvantaged settings (e.g., McNaughton et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref69">25</reflink>]).</p> <p>Additionally, primary school teachers in Ireland did not seem to have particularly positive attitudes toward standardized tests. Specifically, only small proportions of teachers reported that they think that standardized tests focus on what should be taught at school, help them in their job, and can contribute toward improved teaching and learning. Despite the relatively long history of standardized assessments in Ireland since their introduction in the 1970s, it appears that Irish teachers have not yet been persuaded about the value of these assessments. O'Leary et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref70">29</reflink>]) work may offer some explanation for this as many of the teachers involved in this research demonstrated some skepticism on whether or not the standardized tests in use accurately reflect students' knowledge and skills. As Schildkamp et al. ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref71">38</reflink>]) argue, such factors pertaining to the quality of assessment data can considerably hinder teachers' use of these data to inform their decision making. Indeed, the current study suggests that the assessment data arising from the standardized tests available to Irish teachers do not appear to support their design of instructional activities. This might also be the case, however, because teachers may have not been appropriately informed or trained about the effective use of these assessments.</p> <p>As Popp, Tuzinski, and Fetzer ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref72">31</reflink>]) argue, test publishers should make sure that these tests are relevant and valuable for those who (i) make the final decision to use the test, (ii) administer the test, and (iii) take the test. To achieve that, teachers, as well as other stakeholders, should be continuously presented with validity evidence of the tests they use. Furthermore, test developers should continuously educate teachers on how standardized tests are developed and how their results should be interpreted and, subsequently, used. As standardized tests are now compulsory in Irish primary schools (Department of Education and Skills, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref73">7</reflink>]), it is sensible to suggest that teachers' professional development in this area should take a more formal and systematic form.</p> <p>While this study did not explore teachers' use of all possible forms of assessment data (e.g., classroom assessment data), it can be used to at least justify the development of programs that would support teachers' use of data from standardized tests. Based on the results of this study, teachers who were better informed about standardized tests (i.e., those who appreciated the positive impact that these assessments may have on teaching and learning and spent more time on professional development) tended to be more likely to use standardized test results to inform their decision making. This finding corroborated previous literature in the area (see Datnow & Hubbard, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref74">5</reflink>]; Kerr et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref75">19</reflink>]; Prenger & Schildkamp, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref76">32</reflink>]; Reeves et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref77">33</reflink>]) and it indicated that teachers' lack of understanding of standardized tests may be responsible for the less frequent use of the results of these tests. While it is often assumed that teachers' knowledge of key aspects of their profession, such as the use of standardized tests for instructional purposes, increases the longer they spend in the profession (e.g., Kleickmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref78">21</reflink>]), this was not the case in this study. Teachers' years of experience was not a statistically significant predictor of their use of standardized test results for instructional purposes. This was true after accounting for the variability in the outcome variable due to teachers' attitudes toward standardized tests and the time they devoted to professional development in standardized testing. In combination with the positive relationship between the time teachers devoted to professional development on standardized testing and their use of data coming from such assessments, this finding further highlights the importance of formally educating teachers about the value of standardized assessment data, as it seems that experience alone cannot contribute toward a more frequent use of this form of data.</p> <p>Finally, it should be acknowledged that standardized assessments are but one form of assessment data available to primary school teachers. Yet, within the Irish context, it is not difficult to list some of the critical limitations inherent in the standardized nature of these assessments. These limitations may account for some teachers' reluctance to use their results. For example, teachers themselves are responsible not only for the administration but also for the scoring of these tests. Also, according to O'Leary et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref79">29</reflink>]), one out of four teachers reported being aware of questionable test administration practices in their schools. The fact that teachers are aware of (and may, indeed, contribute to) these issues, might be another significant reason that makes them question the robustness of standardized tests and, hence, not use their results. It is vital that such robustness issues are taken care of to improve, first of all, the quality of the standardized assessment results and, subsequently, teachers' attitudes toward these tests in order to ensure the use of this assessment data for instructional purposes.</p> <hd id="AN0152008617-17">Limitations and future research</hd> <p>A number of limitations should be considered in the interpretation of the above findings. First of all, even though the proportion of the explained variance in the outcome variable in the model was statistically significant, there was still a considerable proportion of unexplained variance in the outcome variable, suggesting that additional variables, not measured in this instance, or model specifications may be able to explain the remaining variance. Given, though, that this study was based on already collected data, and despite the many advantages of the large-scale database employed, authors were limited, to a certain extent, in terms of the information available. Secondly, the data employed in this study were cross-sectional and non-experimental in nature; hence, causal inferences about the relationships between the variables in question could not be established (L. Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref80">3</reflink>]). Also, information about teachers' use of standardized test results for instructional purposes, their attitudes, and the time devoted to professional development was based on self-reports and, thus, was prone to self-report response bias, which may, in turn, have reduced the validity of the measures (R. J. Cohen & Swerdlik, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref81">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>Future studies collecting observational data on the use of assessment results by primary school teachers and the ways these are used to inform instruction could provide further insights into the topic. Also, on the basis of the findings of this study, experimental studies in which professional development focused on teacher attitudes toward standardized tests and their data is used as the "intervention" could compare teachers' attitudes toward standardized tests and their data and the subsequent use of these data to inform teaching on behalf of teachers prior to and following the intervention in order to determine whether such endeavors can be effective.</p> <hd id="AN0152008617-18">Appendix A</hd> <p>Table A1. Item loadings, eigenvalues, percentage of variance explained, and Cronbach's alphas for the teachers' reported use of standardized test results for instructional purposes, attitudes toward standardized tests, and professional development in standardized testing indices</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Index</td><td>Items</td><td>Item loadings</td><td>Eigenvalues</td><td>% of variance</td><td><italic>α</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Teachers' reported use of standardized test results for instructional purposes</td><td>Use of standardised test results during a typical school year to...</td><td /><td>5.922</td><td>34.922</td><td>.897</td></tr><tr><td /><td>identify individual student strengths and weaknesses</td><td>.641</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>group students within your class</td><td>.644</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>evaluate student progress</td><td>.776</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>evaluate teaching effectiveness</td><td>.738</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>select teaching materials</td><td>.669</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>adjust planning</td><td>.739</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>inform other teachers about student performance/progress</td><td>.748</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>discuss with students about their performance/progress</td><td>.583</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>discuss with parents about student performance/progress</td><td>.667</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>provide written feedback (not just scores) to parents</td><td>.450</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>inform (in whole/in part) grades/ratings for reading and maths on students' report cards</td><td>.422</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>critically review students' standardised test scores in reading and maths from the previous school year</td><td>.591</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>inform the preparation of Individual Education Plans</td><td>.612</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Attitudes towards standardized tests</td><td /><td /><td>5.757</td><td>38.381</td><td>.880</td></tr><tr><td /><td>There is no difference between what I think should be taught and what the reading and maths tests emphasise</td><td>.363</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Standardised testing in reading and maths has made my school more accountable</td><td>.530</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>The standardised test results in my school are a good way of helping prospective parents to understand how good the school is</td><td>.433</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>The requirement to report STEN Scores in reading and maths to the DES supports good educational policy-making</td><td>.492</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Standardised tests are a good measure of what my students learn in reading</td><td>.626</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>The quality of teaching and learning in reading and maths has improved in my school because of the use of standardised testing</td><td>.692</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Standardised tests help me to clarify which learning goals are the most important in reading and maths</td><td>.589</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Standardised testing focuses my attention on higher-order thinking and problem-solving skills in reading and maths</td><td>.580</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Standardised test scores accurately reflect my students' mastery of basic skills in reading and maths</td><td>.635</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Standardised testing in reading and maths has helped me to be a better teacher</td><td>.729</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>High scores on standardised tests represent high levels of achievement in reading and maths in my school</td><td>.571</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Standardised tests are not a good measure of what my students learn in maths in my class</td><td>.471</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Standardised testing improves my students' learning in reading and maths</td><td>.670</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Standardised testing is an appropriate way of encouraging teachers to focus on the impact of their teaching on children's achievement in maths and reading</td><td>.721</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Standardised testing challenges weaker teachers to do a better job</td><td>.587</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Professional development in standardized testing</td><td>Estimated time spent on professional development focused on standardized testing during...</td><td /><td>2.584</td><td>64.608</td><td>.810</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Pre-service e.g. B.Ed. courses</td><td>.680</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Induction</td><td>.778</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>In-service e.g. summer courses</td><td>.725</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Croke Park Hours</td><td>.724</td><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ref id="AN0152008617-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref34" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Coburn, C. E., & Turner, E. O. (2011). Research on data use: A framework and analysis. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 9 (4), 173 – 206. doi: 10.1080/15366367.2011.626729</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref63" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref80" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London, UK: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref81" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2018). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref39" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Datnow, A., & Hubbard, L. (2016). Teacher capacity for and beliefs about data-driven decision making: A literature review of international research. Journal of Educational Change, 17 (1), 7 – 28. doi: 10.1007/s10833-015-9264-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref61" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Department of Education and Skills. (2011a). Circular 0008/2011: Implementation of Croke Park agreement. https://<ulink href="http://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/cl0008%5f2011.pdf">www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/cl0008%5f2011.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref52" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Department of Education and Skills. (2011b). Literacy and numeracy for learning and life: The national strategy to improve literacy and numeracy among children and young people 2011–2020. Dublin, Ireland: Department of Education and Skills. https://<ulink href="http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/lit%5fnum%5fstrategy%5ffull.pdf">www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/lit%5fnum%5fstrategy%5ffull.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref62" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Department of Education and Skills. (2016). Circular 0042/2016: Public service stability agreement 2013–2018 (Lansdowne Road agreement) - Review of usage of Croke Park Hours – Amendment to Circular 0008/2011. https://<ulink href="http://www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/cl0042%5f2016.pdf">www.education.ie/en/Circulars-and-Forms/Active-Circulars/cl0042%5f2016.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref49" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Department of Education and Skills. (2017a). DEIS plan 2017: Delivering equality of opportunity in schools. Dublin, Ireland: Department of Education and Skills. https://<ulink href="http://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/DEIS-Plan-2017.pdf">www.education.ie/en/Publications/Policy-Reports/DEIS-Plan-2017.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department of Education and Skills. (2017b). Guidelines for primary schools: Supporting pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools. Dublin, Ireland: Department of Education and Skills. https://<ulink href="http://www.education.ie/en/The-Education-System/Special-Education/Guidelines-for-Primary-Schools-Supporting-Pupils-with-Special-Educational-Needs-in-Mainstream-Schools.pdf">www.education.ie/en/The-Education-System/Special-Education/Guidelines-for-Primary-Schools-Supporting-Pupils-with-Special-Educational-Needs-in-Mainstream-Schools.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department of Education and Skills. (2020). Professional Development Service for Teachers. https://<ulink href="http://www.pdst.ie/">www.pdst.ie/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farrell, C. C., & Marsh, J. A. (2016). Contributing conditions: A qualitative comparative analysis of teachers' instructional responses to data. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 398 – 412. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flynn, P. (2017). The learner voice research study: Research report - Embedding student voices in education discourse: Curricular co-construction and development. Dublin, Ireland: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. https://<ulink href="http://www.ncca.ie/media/3442/16539-ncca-the-learner-voice-research-study-v2.pdf">www.ncca.ie/media/3442/16539-ncca-the-learner-voice-research-study-v2.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2, 156 – 168. doi: 10.1177/2515245919847202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gelderblom, G., Schildkamp, K., Pieters, J., & Ehren, M. (2016). Data-based decision making for instructional improvement in primary education. International Journal of Educational Research, 80, 1 – 14. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2016.07.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halverson, R. (2010). School formative feedback systems. Peabody Journal of Education, 85 (2), 130 – 146. doi: 10.1080/01619561003685270</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, UK: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jennings, J. L., & Bearak, J. M. (2014). "Teaching to the test" in the NCLB era: How test predictability affects our understanding of student performance. Educational Researcher, 43 (8), 381 – 389. doi: 10.3102/0013189X14554449</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kerr, K. A., Marsh, J. A., Ikemoto, G. S., Darilek, H., & Barney, H. (2006). Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112 (4), 496 – 520. doi: 10.1086/505057</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kippers, W. B., Wolterinck, C. H. D., Schildkamp, K., Poortman, C. L., & Visscher, A. J. (2018). Teachers' views on the use of assessment for learning and data-based decision making in classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 199 – 213. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2018.06.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kleickmann, T., Richter, D., Kunter, M., Elsner, J., Besser, M., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J. (2013). Teachers' content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge: The role of structural differences in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 64 (1), 90 – 106. doi: 10.1177/0022487112460398</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Konstantopoulos, S., Miller, S. R., Van Der Ploeg, A., & Li, W. (2016). Effects of interim assessments on student achievement: Evidence from a large-scale experiment. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9 (sup1), 188 – 208. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2015.1116031</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education: Evidence from recent RAND research. RAND Corporation. https://<ulink href="http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional%5fpapers/OP170.html">www.rand.org/pubs/occasional%5fpapers/OP170.html</ulink> doi: 10.7249/OP170</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mausethagen, S., Prøitz, T., & Skedsmo, G. (2018). Teachers' use of knowledge sources in "result meetings": Thin data and thick data use. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 24 (1), 37 – 49. doi: 10.1080/13540602.2017.1379986</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNaughton, S., Lai, M. K., & Hsiao, S. (2012). Testing the effectiveness of an intervention model based on data use: A replication series across clusters of schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23 (2), 203 – 228. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2011.652126</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Means, B., Chen, E., Debarger, A., & Padilla, C. (2011). Teachers' ability to use data to inform instruction: Challenges and supports. U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED516494.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mosher, F., & Heritage, M. (2017). A hitchhiker's guide to thinking about literacy, learning progressions, and instruction. CPRE Research Reports. <ulink href="http://repository.upenn.edu/cpre%5fresearchreports/97">http://repository.upenn.edu/cpre%5fresearchreports/97</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murchan, D., & Shiel, G. (2017). Understanding and applying assessment in education. London, UK: SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Leary, M., Lysaght, Z., Nic Craith, D., & Scully, D. (2019). Standardised testing in English reading and mathematics in the Irish primary school: A survey of Irish primary teachers. Dublin, Ireland: Dublin City University, Centre for Assessment Research Policy and Practice in Education and Irish National Teachers' Organisation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oláh, L. N., Lawrence, N. R., & Riggan, M. (2010). Learning to learn from benchmark assessment data: How teachers analyze results. Peabody Journal of Education, 85 (2), 226 – 245. doi: 10.1080/01619561003688688</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Popp, E. C., Tuzinski, K., & Fetzer, M. (2016). Actor or avatar? Considerations in selecting appropriate formats for assessment content. In F. Drasgow (Ed.), Technology and Testing: Improving Educational and Psychological Measurement (pp. 79 – 103). New York, NY: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315871493</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prenger, R., & Schildkamp, K. (2018). Data-based decision making for teacher and student learning: A psychological perspective on the role of the teacher. Educational Psychology, 38 (6), 734 – 752. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2018.1426834</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reeves, T. D., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J., Gardner, G. E., Schussler, E. E., & Wischusen, W. E. (2016). A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research. CBE - Life Sciences Education, 15 (2). doi: 10.1187/cbe.15-10-0225</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Santagata, R., Kersting, N., Givvin, K. B., & Stigler, J. W. (2010). Problem implementation as a lever for change: An experimental study of the effects of a professional development program on students' mathematics learning. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4 (1), 1 – 24. doi: 10.1080/19345747.2010.498562</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schildkamp, K., & Lai, M. K. (2013). Conclusions and a data use framework. In K. Schildkamp, M. K. Lai, & L. M. Earl (Eds.), Data-based Decision Making in Education: Challenges and Opportunities (pp. 177 – 191). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-4816-3_10</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schildkamp, K., Karbautzki, L., & Vanhoof, J. (2014). Exploring data use practices around Europe: Identifying enablers and barriers. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 42, 15 – 24. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schildkamp, K., & Poortman, C. (2015). Factors influencing the functioning of data teams. Teachers College Record, 117, 4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schildkamp, K., Poortman, C., Luyten, H., & Ebbeler, J. (2017). Factors promoting and hindering data-based decision making in schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28 (2), 242 – 258. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2016.1256901</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77 (4), 454 – 499. doi: 10.3102/0034654307310317</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shiel, G., Kellaghan, T., & Moran, G. (2010). Standardised testing in lower secondary education. Research Report No. 12. Dublin, Ireland: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smyth, E., McCoy, S., & Kingston, G. (2015). Learning from the evaluation of DEIS. Research Series Number 39. Dublin, Ireland: Economic and Social Research Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Timperley, H. (2009). Evidence-informed conversations making a difference to student achievement. In L. M. Earl, & H. Timperley (Eds.), Professional learning conversations: Challenges in using evidence for improvement (pp. 69 – 79). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6917-8_6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weir, S., & Kavanagh, L. (2018). The evaluation of DEIS at post-primary level: Closing the achievement gaps. Dublin, Ireland: Educational Research Centre.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Young, C., McNamara, G., Brown, M., & O'Hara, J. (2018). Adopting and adapting: School leaders in the age of data-informed decision making. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 30 (2), 133 – 158. doi: 10.1007/s11092-018-9278-4</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0152008617-20"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> Any deviations from the statistics reported in the report published by O'Leary et al. ([29]) are due to using data from the 1,300 teachers who completed all three parts of the questionnaire, rather than data from the whole sample.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Vasiliki Pitsia; Anastasios Karakolidis and Paula Lehane</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib773" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref72"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1309526
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Investigating the Use of Assessment Data by Primary School Teachers: Insights from a Large-Scale Survey in Ireland
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pitsia%2C+Vasiliki%22">Pitsia, Vasiliki</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8172-0397">0000-0002-8172-0397</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Karakolidis%2C+Anastasios%22">Karakolidis, Anastasios</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7460-7759">0000-0002-7460-7759</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lehane%2C+Paula%22">Lehane, Paula</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0856-3505">0000-0003-0856-3505</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Assessment%22"><i>Educational Assessment</i></searchLink>. 2021 26(3):145-162.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Data+Use%22">Data Use</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Evaluation%22">Student Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Standardized+Tests%22">Standardized Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Experience%22">Teaching Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Regression+%28Statistics%29%22">Regression (Statistics)</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ireland%22">Ireland</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10627197.2021.1917358
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1062-7197
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Evidence suggests that the quality of teachers' instructional practices can be improved when these are informed by relevant assessment data. Drawing on a sample of 1,300 primary school teachers in Ireland, this study examined the extent to which teachers use standardized test results for instructional purposes as well as the role of several factors in predicting this use. Specifically, the study analyzed data from a cross-sectional survey that gathered information about teachers' use of, experiences with, and attitudes toward assessment data from standardized tests. After taking other teacher and school characteristics into consideration, the analysis revealed that teachers with more positive attitudes toward standardized tests and those who were often engaged in some form of professional development on standardized testing tended to use assessment data to inform their teaching more frequently. Based on the findings, policy and practice implications are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1309526
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1309526
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10627197.2021.1917358
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 145
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Data Use
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Standardized Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Regression (Statistics)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ireland
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Investigating the Use of Assessment Data by Primary School Teachers: Insights from a Large-Scale Survey in Ireland
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pitsia, Vasiliki
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Karakolidis, Anastasios
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lehane, Paula
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1062-7197
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 26
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Assessment
              Type: main
ResultId 1