Week Two Reflection

Though much in week two was intriguing, it was the commonality in Dr. Chargoiss and Dr. Briseno that was most captivating. Both men had diverse suggested topics for inquiry. However, early in their statements they were both quick to address the importance of a data driven inquiry research model. Data driven operations and decision making were central themes in both interviews. Further there was cohesion in the area that data be used as predictive rather than prescriptive. That is to say that data be used to predict and address future problems rather than simply as a snapshot of past performance. This is an area that my district is embracing. In keeping with the Harris et al. (2009)analogy, a doctor might encourage a patient to lose unhealthy excess pounds rather than wait for high blood pressure to develop. In like fashion, a district may use data to diagnose problems in their students long before an unhealthy assessment score develops. Along the same line, common arguments were made in favor of using data generated in the decision making process. A decision made in the absence of validating data is likely little more than a personal agenda, regardless of the best of intentions. Further, appropriate data may increase stakeholder buy-in. As a final note, confidentiality was addressed by Dr. Chargois and Dr. Briseno. Care must be taken to ensure the anonymity of students and to ensure the proper disposal of survey material or other data collecting tools after research is completed. Obviously, I understood the importance of confidentiality on standardized test results. Due to my lack of experience in this area, I had given little thought on the appropriate disposal of survey results.

Harris, S., Edmondson, S, Combs, J., (2009). Examinig What We do to Improve Our Schools: Anaylsis to Action. Larchmont, NY.: Eye on Education.