ABSTRACT
This paper is in response to the manuscript titled "Ethical oversight of student data in learning analytics: A typology derived from a cross-continental, cross-institutional perspective" (Willis et al. in Educ Technol Res Dev 66(4):1029-1049, 2016). The response is from a K-12 educational environment perspective. Willis, Slade, and Prinsloo's typology of different ethical approaches to learning analytics adds value to the special issue topic of shifting to digital as it provides different ways to view learning analytics as well as the type of approval(s) possibly needed for each view. K-12 educational institutions can utilize the manuscript as a starting place for review of their ethical oversights when analyzing student data as more schools are shifting to digital. A limitation of Willis, Slade, and Prinsloo's manuscript in supporting the shift to digital is that the manuscript was published before the overwhelming shift to digital was mandated as a result of Covid-19. Future work related to the manuscript and with a focus on the K-12 educational environment could include K-12 education agencies deriving a K-12 specific typology from a review of ethical oversight protocols or analyzing the effects of the shift to digital in K-12 on the original typology. During the 2020 pandemic, K-12 schools in the United States moved to digital learning quickly and in large numbers. This move has resulted in a wealth of digital learning analytics available to be used in improving student learning outcomes. However, local education agencies must first make sure they have a clear framework for oversight of how digital learning analytics will be used. K-12 students are at risk of harm if local education agencies do not stop and carefully reflect on the potential risks to students resulting from decisions made as a result of using digital learning analytics.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research was to study the etiology of teacher knowledge about and factors that influence implementation of evidence-based reading and writing interventions at the upper elementary grade levels. Five data sources are used in this study: first, we used teacher surveys about their pre-service preparation on reading comprehension and literacy practices gathered during a recent cluster randomized control trial on a reading comprehension intervention conducted with 280 fourth and fifth-grade teachers and their classroom students. We also conducted focus group interviews with 43% of the teachers and observed 90% of the teachers once during the implementation years. For writing, we used data collected from 32 teachers during a 3-year design project for a teacher-led computer-supported writing intervention. We also collected data from groups of school administrators using structured interviews during both studies. Finally, we conducted an artifact review of school curricula and posted professional development (PD) plans. Our results show that in both reading comprehension and writing, all teachers reported not receiving sound evidence-based pre-service preparation and they were not currently employing any evidence-based approaches. Most teachers reported using the basal reading series with very little variation from the lesson scope and sequence. Teachers and administrators frequently reported that skills were being taught in isolation (e.g., skill of the week is summarizing) and that writing was neglected. The interviews showed very interesting patterns of curricula decision-making by school administrators and these findings were further confirmed through the artifact reviews. Based on these results, we recommend that any review of teacher practices focus also on administrator decision-making and school level factors that are driving what happens in the classrooms. The review showed that the teachers themselves do not feel empowered to learn and deliver evidence-based literacy practices and feel constrained by the system.
