Educational data is a broad term used to signify a range of data relevant to schooling including, amongst others, demographic (e.g. socio-economic status), instructional (e.g.  lesson observations) and assessment data (e.g. standardised test scores) (Schildkamp, Karbautzki & Vanhoof, 2014). In the current era of increased accountability, education systems worldwide are requiring the use of such data at all levels to justify decisions and improve practices. In primary schools, evidence suggests that the quality of a teacher’s instructional practices can be improved if they are informed by relevant assessment data (e.g. McNaughton, Lai & Hsiao, 2012). Instructional practices relate to 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’ (Prenger & Schildkamp, 2018, p. 741). Effective instructional practices include purposeful teaching and activities, differentiation, feedback and adequate learning time (Gelderblom, Schildkamp, Pieters & Ehran, 2016). High quality teaching that includes such features can enhance student learning and achievement (e.g. Hattie, 2009). For example, McNaughton et al. (2012) explored the implementation of an intervention based on teacher data use and its effects on student achievement. The intervention focussed on ‘fine-tuning’ teacher instruction using students’ achievement data in reading tests. In seven poor, urban, multicultural schools, the use of assessment data to inform teacher instruction significantly benefitted student outcomes in literacy (between three to four months’ additional progress per year).

As demonstrated by McNaughton et al.’s (2012) work, assessment data can be used to focus teachers’ design of learning activities so that their instructional practices have maximum effect. Unfortunately, the use of data by teachers to inform instructional practices and decisions is complex as teachers can respond to data in different ways. Based on their interviews with Dutch teachers, Gelderblom et al. (2016, p. 11) concluded that although teachers claim to be aware of the value of assessment data, their use of data for instructional purposes often goes ‘awry’ for a number of reasons. Therefore, a greater understanding of the different factors that can influence effective data use for instruction is required. Research has found that certain teacher characteristics, such as engagement with professional development (Reeves, Summers & Grove, 2016), are particularly influential. Other research by Prenger and Schildkamp (2018) revealed that teachers’ positive beliefs and attitudes towards assessment data have a significant positive relation with data use for instructional purposes. It is also possible that other factors, like school disadvantage status (McNaughton et al., 2012) and teaching experience (Kleickman et al., 2013) may also play a role.

Given the positive impact assessment data can have on teacher instruction and, ultimately, student achievement, it is essential that a better understanding of what factors may influence teachers’ use of assessment data for instructional purposes is realised. To add a meaningful contribution to this field of research, the aim of this research study was to examine what factors predict teachers’ use of standardised assessment data for instructional purposes. In particular, it sought to identify if teachers’ use of assessment data for instructional purposes is related to their previous engagement with professional development on and attitudes towards assessment data use, taking into consideration relevant teacher and school characteristics.

This study conducted a secondary analysis of survey data collected by the Centre for Assessment Research, Policy and Practice in Education (CARPE) at Dublin City University (DCU) and the Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO) (O’Leary et al., 2019). This cross-sectional survey aimed to gather information about primary teachers’ use of, experiences with and attitudes towards one particular form of assessment data, standardised tests, in relation to English reading and mathematics in Ireland. These norm-referenced standardised tests are carefully aligned to the national curriculum and they are available for classes one to six of primary school in Ireland; their administration is compulsory for 2nd (8 years old), 4th (10 years old) and 6th class (12 years old) students. In May 2017, 1,567 teachers engaged with the questionnaire (85% females), achieving an acceptable response rate (31%). The survey instrument that was used consisted of a large number of closed- and open-ended questions measuring teachers’ demographics, attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and use of standardised tests. For the purposes of this study, three indices were developed using factor analytic procedures. The Use of standardised test results index was computed based on 13 Likert-scale items, α = .90 (e.g. “How often do you use of standardised test results to identify students’ strengths and needs”. Higher scores in this index indicate more frequent use of standardised test results for instructional purposes by teachers. The Attitudes towards standardised tests index was computed based on 15 items, α = .88 (e.g. “Standardised tests are a good measure of what my pupils learn in reading”). Higher scores in this index indicate a more positive attitude towards the perceived utility of standardised tests. Finally, the Professional development in standardised testing index was computed based on four items asking teachers to report the estimated amount of time they devoted to a range of professional development opportunities in and in-service training on standardised testing during their career, α = .82. Higher scores in this index indicate higher engagement with professional development opportunities in the area of standardised testing. Multiple regression analysis was conducted to investigate the extent to which teachers’ attitudes towards standardised tests and their engagement with professional development on topics related to standardised testing predicted their use of standardised test data for instructional purposes. Teaching experience and school disadvantage status acted as controls. Preliminary analyses ensured that there were no violations of the assumptions for the multiple regression analysis.

The regression analysis revealed that teachers were more likely to use standardised test scores to inform their instructional practices if they had a positive attitude towards standardised tests as a form of assessment data (β =.26, p<.001) and if they had engaged in some form of professional development on the use of standardised testing during their careers (β =.14, p<.001). Teachers’ experience and the socio-economic status of the school were not statistically significant predictors of the use of standardised test results for instruction. This study provides valuable evidence that, apart from Ireland, can be relevant for other European countries with similar standardised assessment procedures. The findings supports previous research in the field which asserts that teacher attitudes represent an important predictor of their data use (e.g. Prenger & Schildkamp, 2018). It also corroborates the findings of research on the positive impact of professional development on teachers’ use of assessment data (e.g. Reeves et al., 2016). These findings are directly relevant for the provision and design of professional development opportunities for teachers. Firstly, it appears that professional development opportunities for teachers on the use of assessment data may be particularly valuable to school systems that wish to follow international trends towards the use of educational data in classrooms. These professional development opportunities should fully demonstrate the importance and usefulness of assessment data for instruction. This should improve teachers’ attitudes towards standardised assessments and make them more likely to use this data to inform their instructional practices. Identifying other relevant factors behind the use of assessment data for instructional use could provide an important contribution to initial and continuing teacher education as it allows relevant initiatives and interventions to be adjusted for maximum success. This should be the focus of future research and will be discussed.

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.07.004 Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge. 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 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, 203–228. doi:10.1080/09243453.2011.652126 O’Leary, M., Lysaght, Z., Nic Craith, D., & Scully, D. (2019). Standardised testing in English reading and Mathematics in the Irish primary schools: A survey of Irish primary teachers. Dublin: Dublin City University. 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 Reeves, T., Summers, K. & Grove, E. (2016). Examining the landscape of teacher learning for data use: The case of Illinois. Cogent Education, 3(1), 1211476. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1211476 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