View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Great Expectations: Understanding Perceptions of the Affordances and Constraints of Dashboard Data

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Great Expectations: Understanding Perceptions of the Affordances and Constraints of Dashboard Data
Language: English
Authors: Ian Hardy (ORCID 0000-0002-8124-8766), M. Obaidul Hamid, Vicente Reyes, Louise Phillips
Source: Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. 2025 46(6):729-742.
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: 14
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Educational Administration, Administrators, Man Machine Systems, Databases, Data Interpretation, Computer Uses in Education, Administrator Attitudes, Computer Attitudes, Expectation, Technology Integration
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2025.2453887
ISSN: 0159-6306
1469-3739
Abstract: Drawing upon literature and theorising in relation to the sociology of expectations and critical data studies, we elaborate perceptions of the nature of dashboard data in one state educational jurisdiction in Australia. Our research utilises interviews with senior educational bureaucrats, who engaged with a new dashboard, and the data it generated, during the initial stages of the development and implementation of the dashboard. This included personnel involved in the technical development of the dashboard, through to those who were responsible for engaging with such data to help facilitate enhanced school organisational, teaching and learning practices across the state. The research reveals that at the same time as data provided through the dashboard were understood by educators as more current and potentially beneficial for making sense of students' learning, such data also simultaneously conveyed information that was potentially not as accurate, accessible, or timely as desired. Consequently, such dashboards are complex sites of 'great expectations', in which positive futures about dashboard data are expressed, even as reservations are simultaneously articulated. While such dashboards enhance access of information to educators in a more 'timely' fashion, there is a need for further scrutiny into such platforms and the veracity of the data generated.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1500895
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGCp_P3mwC3yo_7fgWurtYfAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLIvGxeui8Z_qdcujwIBEICBmssnYaAEH1LfZOkr1aBnttMR_Yo6MHZlES8H6hIIGhKT2fhOBOiVv3NxPKIGsmbA0yntuISNRkpWVNkl_GcqRpcBHQX9Gdf5utdZO7rjaMKmM1nHYJFNuyFR3curuYdr_HrX6D9zFIfl1_5zdweH25xlVsaij3Voo87W5nlFEFHieN8HNG3DANDYjNl7QmzgSC37KF-L48TLWmY=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0189933390;54j01dec.25;2025Dec12.04:13;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0189933390-1">Great expectations: understanding perceptions of the affordances and constraints of dashboard data </title> <p>Drawing upon literature and theorising in relation to the sociology of expectations and critical data studies, we elaborate perceptions of the nature of dashboard data in one state educational jurisdiction in Australia. Our research utilises interviews with senior educational bureaucrats, who engaged with a new dashboard, and the data it generated, during the initial stages of the development and implementation of the dashboard. This included personnel involved in the technical development of the dashboard, through to those who were responsible for engaging with such data to help facilitate enhanced school organisational, teaching and learning practices across the state. The research reveals that at the same time as data provided through the dashboard were understood by educators as more current and potentially beneficial for making sense of students' learning, such data also simultaneously conveyed information that was potentially not as accurate, accessible, or timely as desired. Consequently, such dashboards are complex sites of 'great expectations', in which positive futures about dashboard data are expressed, even as reservations are simultaneously articulated. While such dashboards enhance access of information to educators in a more 'timely' fashion, there is a need for further scrutiny into such platforms and the veracity of the data generated.</p> <p>Keywords: Data; Critical data studies; Dashboards; Sociology of expectations; Datafication in schools</p> <hd id="AN0189933390-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Data dashboards are part of broader educational platforms that have exerted much influence in education in recent times. Just as various kinds of platforms are used in schools for assessment and to guide instruction, and by central offices to collect and scrutinise student data (Nichols & Garcia, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref1">14</reflink>], p. 209), the representation of data within such platforms has also attracted much attention. This attention is part of increased dependence upon 'platformisation' of education (Perrotta, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref2">17</reflink>]). However, while such platforms have often been lauded as inherently beneficial, this has not been a wholly acritical exercise. Indeed, even as studies of platforms draw upon more technical aspects, there is a need to consider social, political and economic aspects of such technologies. Such foci draw attention to the politics – the power infused within, and that attend, various digital data platforms. This includes in relation to the autonomy of teachers in schools regarding pedagogical decision-making (Kerssens & van Dijck, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref3">8</reflink>]) as well as how those in more senior positions within educational systems seek to make sense of various kinds of platforms, including both the affordances and constraints of such technologies.</p> <p>In this paper, we ask how more senior administrators within one educational jurisdiction in Australia made sense of a new 'data dashboard' that had been developed to more easily represent information collected within the broader digital platform upon which it was based. Taking a more critical data studies approach to platform studies (Kitchin & Lauriault, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref4">9</reflink>]), and elaborating a sociology of expectations surrounding such dashboards, we seek to better understand the myriad ways in which educators make sense of the data generated through such dashboards. We also reveal how such data may simultaneously stimulate both hopeful and hesitant perceptions about the affordances of data dashboards amongst different actors.</p> <hd id="AN0189933390-3">Data, dashboards and digital infrastructures</hd> <p>New developments in technology have made it possible to present information from within data platforms in visual formats that are construed as enhancing the usefulness as well as usability of such data. This includes various kinds of 'dashboards'. These dashboards can be understood as visual representations of what is deemed the most significant information – data – to be presented in a single-screen format to develop a rapid and clear overview of such information (Few, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref5">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, this more 'static' overview does not adequately encapsulate how dashboards can also be construed as vehicles to not only develop an overall visualisation of particular kinds of data deemed worthwhile but also to enable action to occur (Matheus, Janssen, & Maheshwari, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref6">11</reflink>]). In short, such dashboards alter practice. This occurs through the way their representations of data emphasise specific metrics and enumerative articulations of practice, which encourage greater attention to operational concerns rather than more long-term and strategic foci (Bartlett & Tkacz, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>]). In relation to the operations of government more generally, Bartlett and Tkacz ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>]) refer to how governing via dashboard does not occur seamlessly but instead reflects how dashboards may be in tension with previous practice: 'dashboards are not simply a tool to make the task of everyday government activity easier'; they also 'contain, in their very design, specific tendencies which actively rework and rub against government practice' (p. 5). Indeed, dashboards may not necessarily 'present' the kind of data that is most useful in any given situation; simply put, the data presented may not effectively capture what they endeavour to and in this sense, '[d]ashboards have the potential to mislead as well as inform' (p. 6).</p> <p>Dashboards are part of broader digital infrastructures that have arisen to manage and manipulate the generation and storage of a massive array of data from across organisations. These dashboards have been utilised in a variety of areas. For example, Redden, Dencik, and Warne ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref9">19</reflink>]) have referred to how child welfare services have been increasingly influenced by various kinds of data systems understood as data assemblages that are not neutral but influenced by political and economic circumstances. Stehle and Kitchin ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref10">22</reflink>]) refer to how various data visualisation techniques have been applied to dashboards in urban areas to assist public and civic administrators convey information about city operations. These dashboards are informed by both real-time as well as the more longitudinal collection of data over time, making it possible to display temporal shifts and changes, as well as more real-time effects.</p> <p>In relation to compulsory education, the mass datafication of schooling, and particularly the collation of various kinds of census data, as well as efforts to collect real-time data (rather than previously static/discrete data), have necessitated the development of more sophisticated educational infrastructures. The 'big data' they capture and store through this more census-style approach to data are key shifts in respect of datafication processes over the previous decade (Lewis, Holloway, & Lingard, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref11">10</reflink>]). Gorur and Arnold ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref12">6</reflink>]) argue that data dashboards enable 'governance by dashboard' and that such governance processes reflect broader sociotechnical approaches to engagement with digital infrastructures and the kinds of engagement with data that they enable. However, while there is some literature on the nature of dashboards in educational settings, there is relatively little that explores the nature of dashboards that draw upon large-scale data and potentially more real-time data from within more customised institutional infrastructures at the state level in the Australian schooling context. There is also less attention to how more senior personnel charged with effecting change make sense of the nature and value of data presented through these dashboards, and the expectations that surround these data.</p> <hd id="AN0189933390-4">Conceptual resources: sociology of expectations meets critical data studies</hd> <p>Much of the attention to data dashboards and digital infrastructures project an optimistic portrayal of such technologies. There is a sense in which such technologies are 'expected' to 'deliver' enhanced learning opportunities for students and greater engagement on the part of educators. Consequently, it is useful to draw upon work around the sociology of expectations to better understand the nature of such optimism. In broad terms, the social sciences portray human activities as future-oriented; human action is not only influenced by and oriented by the past and the present but also the future (van Lente, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref13">24</reflink>]). Importantly, such expectations may also be performative, oriented towards establishing new (and potentially problematic) futures.</p> <p>Suckert ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref14">23</reflink>]) provides a useful overview of what she describes as 'the sociology of imagined futures'. Such futures relate to the nature of expectations that attend a host of social relations, particularly those influenced and informed by concerns about inequality, identity, power and change. Competing futures are necessarily subject to power struggles – part of what can be understood as a politics of expectations (Beckert, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref15">2</reflink>]). These are sometimes 'fictional expectations', characterised by particular imaginaries about how the future will look. In conditions of uncertainty, decisions are based on desired orientations towards the future and a certain level of creativity; such creativity can be understood as 'fictional' rather than 'rational' (Beckert, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref16">2</reflink>]). Under such conditions, power is exercised through the capacity to impose particular visions on others; the ability to influence imagined futures enables those who do so to exercise power in the present (Suckert, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref17">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>Importantly, even while a sociology of the future is nascent, and may be considered a 'weak field' (cf. Vauchez, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref18">25</reflink>]), an analysis of future expectations also includes reference to not only expectations and aspirations but also fears and concerns about what such a future might look like. These fears and reservations have been referred to as the 'exhaustion of imagined futures' (Suckert, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref19">23</reflink>]). Such hesitations and reservations are also important to flag as part of any comprehensive effort to better understand such futures. In relation to better understanding the development of data dashboards and digital infrastructures more broadly, given that a sociology of expectations is also associated with developments in science and technology (van Lente, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref20">24</reflink>]), such concerns are perhaps best expressed through a broader body of work described as critical data studies.</p> <p>Research in critical data studies seeks to understand the nature of data generated, how data are utilised, and who is involved in these processes. Critical data studies is also well suited to understand the contestation that often attends dashboard data. Within this tradition, Kitchin and Lauriault ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref21">9</reflink>]) argue that data should not be understood as neutral but instead as reflecting the particular conditions within which they are developed. In the context of the challenges that attend data and data dashboards, and reflecting how the sociology of expectations is not simply positive in orientation (van Lente, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref22">24</reflink>]), expectations around such data may also be more negative.</p> <p>In relation to more negative/problematic expectations and effects, dashboard technologies can be understood as contributing to broader processes of 'dataism' (Smith, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref23">21</reflink>]). Dataism is something of 'a widespread ideological belief – and faith – where the enlightening, emancipatory and optimising properties of digital technologies are accentuated, and where greater supply and accumulation of information is thought to reveal/refine truths relating to the operativity of the natural and social worlds' (Smith, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref24">21</reflink>], p. 3). Such dataism is typically associated with various processes of measurement that seek to capture in summative form aspects of social life. The effects of power are explicitly evident through the sense in which all aspects of life can be made amenable to measurement and that benefits can automatically accrue through the generation of enormous amounts of data that will transform all aspects of life (Mayer-Schönberger & Cukier, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref25">12</reflink>]). There is also a strong sense in which technology can afford necessary growth and development: judgement and personal experience are construed as able to be replaced by various kinds of information processing dependent upon an array of sensors and internet technologies designed to 'capture' such information; the result is 'astonishing quickness and efficiency improvements' (Petri, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref26">18</reflink>], p. 32). Such 'expectations' are encouraged and supported by the opaque nature of the generation of data through such dashboards and the emphasis upon data that they project. Under these circumstances, 'data, not humans, can tell which decisions are best' (Pedersen & Wilkinson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref27">16</reflink>], p. 3).</p> <p>Reflecting both expectations and concerns about the portrayal of data through dashboards, Pedersen and Wilkinson ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref28">16</reflink>]) refer to the 'promise, application and pitfalls' of large-scale data in their efforts to capture the multifarious nature of engagement with data. There is a sense in which the various manifestations of data that are enabled through digital technologies can be manipulated to ensure that a whole range of social institutions can be 'engineered' to foster enhanced customisation and capacity building; this includes how schools can be made to become more 'efficient' and students can achieve higher results with enhanced wellbeing (Pedersen & Wilkinson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref29">16</reflink>], p. 1). This data work also requires the capacity to be able to ensure commensuration – 'the comparison of different entities according to a common metric' (Espeland & Stevens, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>], p. 313).</p> <p>However, in its application, professionals engage in various kinds of 'workarounds', given that important knowledge is excluded from what is captured (Pedersen & Wilkinson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref31">16</reflink>]). Indeed, it is very difficult to elicit service professionals' tacit knowledge and develop it into various prediction technologies. Too much information in the form of professionals' tacit knowledge is not able to be captured within such platforms: 'the tools ignore too much of the circulation of knowledge that the professionals deem important to do their jobs' (Pedersen & Wilkinson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref32">16</reflink>], p. 11). In schooling settings, the data provided through centralised data repositories that are updated by those in schools, and then represented back to them to purportedly enhance educational provision, reveal gaps between what Sandgaard ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref33">20</reflink>]) refers to as the 'world of ideas' associated with big data analytics and the 'world of practice'. The latter necessitates reliance upon 'old technologies' and more limited engagement with just a selection of resources provided through such platforms.</p> <hd id="AN0189933390-5">The dashboard</hd> <p>Reflecting similar processes of attention to myriad forms of data in other developed and developing country contexts (Gorur, Sellar, & Steiner-Khamsi, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref34">7</reflink>]), the data we present here are drawn from a public educational jurisdiction in Australia seeking to enhance education provision during a period of rapid generation and collection of a range of data. In this jurisdiction, generation of and engagement with data were reflected in numerous policies about how educators would/could engage with data, as well as efforts to ensure such engagement was productive and not simply undertaken for the sake of collecting data. Within this context, and commissioned by the state educational authority, senior educators working in the central office of the educational authority were charged with both developing and helping educators in regional and local school sites enhance their educational practices by drawing upon data generated within the system. This entailed developing a dashboard to more effectively present information about students' attendance, participation in schooling and learning, and outcomes across a range of academic criteria in both whole-school and individual student performance. This included data about attendance, disciplinary absences, national standardised literacy and numeracy results, in-school assessment results and end-of-schooling outcomes. The dashboard presented data in various charts, graphs and tables and sought to replace more 'static' summary documents (which provided aggregated information about student attendance and academic performance at the whole-school level at particular intervals during the year). The new dashboard was seen as a more dynamic, and comprehensive data profile which enabled schools to also compare their outcomes with those of other schools in their region and across the state as a whole, to help drive whole-school improvement. It also enabled users to 'drill down' into particular areas of individual student performance and provided a series of 'filters' to integrate across data so as to identify patterns of performance/attendance in relation to gender, Indigeneity, ability, and at different class, year level, whole-school, regional and state-wide scales.</p> <p>System, regional and school leaders were able to access information about particular students or groups of students at state, regional, school or class levels (depending on their level of access). Different users had different levels of access to the dashboard. Senior system personnel were able to use the dashboard to develop insights into system-wide patterns of student attendance, disciplinary outcomes and achievement, including at regional and individual school levels. Principals were able to access detailed data at the school level, as well as data across their region and the state as a whole, but with less access to more sensitive data beyond their individual school. Principals could also provide different levels of access to senior leaders and teachers within their school, depending on what was construed as useful to inform these educators in their day-to-day work. This enabled these school-based personnel to identify patterns at whole-school and classroom levels, to inform teaching and learning decisions and to flag any problematic patterns (e.g. lack of attendance; underperformance in particular subject areas). The data were all drawn from the broader Learning Management System used by the state education authority to collate and aggregate data about student participation, engagement and learning outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0189933390-6">Methods and methodology</hd> <p>In this context, the data informing this paper are drawn from a larger data set which involves ongoing interviews with educators working at the central office, regional offices and schools in one jurisdiction in the Australian context. Reflecting the initial focus of the project on the insights of key system personnel, the data presented here were drawn from interviews with senior educators working (or who previously worked) in the central office of the state jurisdiction in which the broader project was undertaken. This involved a total of 15 participants.</p> <p>These officers included: two personnel who worked in the more technical side of the development of the dashboard, an educator seconded to work with these more technical personnel, eight educators responsible for assisting with and monitoring the implementation of curriculum, teaching and learning processes, one former curriculum officer, and three educators working in school performance and reform processes more broadly. In a context of residual concern about the desire to minimise the spread of COVID-19, interviews were conducted online and in-person, depending on participants' preferences. Interviews were approximately one hour in duration (although several participants were keen to continue discussing the issues beyond this time).</p> <p>Analytically, the participants' understandings and expectations of data and datafication were understood in light of theorising of the sociology of expectations, the broader tradition of critical data studies outlined earlier, and literature about the nature of data dashboards and digital infrastructures. This included attention to the nature and extent of dataism (Smith, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref35">21</reflink>]) and the dominance of data logics (Pedersen & Wilkinson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref36">16</reflink>]). Themes reflected both inductive and deductive processes, informed by identifying key themes within the data whilst generating these themes in light of theorising about the sociology of expectations and critical data studies more broadly (cf. Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref37">13</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189933390-7">Findings: the affordances and constraints of dashboard data</hd> <p>The findings revealed two key themes in relation to understandings of data and processes of datafication. These reflected expectations associated with increased generation and analysis of data, as well as reservations about whether and how such data would or could deliver on the promise of enhanced learning for students. Such expectations and reservations coexisted, sitting alongside one another, revealing the mutually constitutive nature of such relations as part of the generation of dashboard data. Such mutuality is made more evident in the discussion section. The findings section elaborates the nature of these expectations and hesitations as a precursor to this further analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0189933390-8">Dashboard data as a site of expectations</hd> <p>At the systemic level, and reflecting data logics more broadly (Pedersen & Wilkinson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref38">16</reflink>]), there was a sense in which the 'Dashboard' was seen as beneficial in relation to the work of schools and that the affordances of the technology could be presented to system and school leaders:</p> <p>I guess a massive benefit that 'Dashboard' had was that by doing that discreet project around those set data sets, we were able to put something tangible in front of senior leadership and schools and really demonstrate the value of this. (Tom[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref39">1</reflink>], Technical Consultant)</p> <p>There was a belief in the enormous potential of 'Dashboard', and the forms of data that it could draw upon and present to users, including increasingly 'standardised reports'; these enabled the possibility of more machine learning and artificial intelligence capacities:</p> <p>What we're talking about is taking those further steps into having a single unified clean trusted repository of data from across the Department, so then you've got that sort of single point at which you can build standard reports, but also start to then consider ML [machine learning] and AI [Artificial Intelligence] and that kind of thing. (Tom, Technical Consultant)</p> <p>Indeed, there were considerable expectations built up around 'Dashboard':</p> <p>I think one of the challenges for us going forward is because we've had such great buy in and those champions there, that the expectations about where we need to take it going forward are quite large and so it does become a risk for us about how we manage that. (Kevin, Lead Technical Consultant)</p> <p>This expectation was evident across the organisation, particularly how the new data dashboard was seen as providing a much more up-to-date repository of information about schools than previous, static documents:</p> <p>I said to Kevin, be careful what you created because it's got an incredible level of expectation .... Which is great. From us, it's about the next step in data analysis. It's not for the stagnant, stationary, eight-page data profile ... point in time. We're moving on from that. (Patricia, Education Development Branch)</p> <p>Reflecting the potential for schools to become 'more efficient' and enhance student well-being and achievement (Pedersen & Wilkinson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref40">16</reflink>]), there was also a perception that access to data in this new way would help enhance schools' ownership of data, leading to improved student outcomes:</p> <p>And the other thing which we probably haven't really touched on yet ... there's that next level down, where schools are working with students. They're able to understand and own their own data as well and understand the things that they need to improve upon to progress their learning. (Polly, Curriculum Education Consultant)</p> <p>And there's some really good models of practice out in state schools around how schools work with their students around that student agency of learning. Around ownership of their data, that goal setting, re-evaluating next steps. (Chrystal, Lead Curriculum Education Consultant)</p> <p>The immediacy that attended the possibility of such data was stimulatory of great expectations and potentially new practices (Bartlett & Tkacz, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref41">1</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0189933390-9">Dashboard data as a comparative technology</hd> <p>Many of these expectations revolved around the capacity of schools to be able to compare themselves with other sites. There was a sense that schools were wanting to be able to compare what they were doing with other schools, their region and the state more generally. This commensuration process – the ability to compare via a common metric (Espeland & Stevens, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref42">3</reflink>]) – was evident amongst those working more closely in areas of curriculum and teaching practice, and enhanced by what was construed as significant buy-in amongst those in schools:</p> <p>But they really want to have a look at that ... how do I compare to other schools in my region? And then how do I compare to what's going on within the state as well? (Chrystal, Lead Curriculum Education Consultant)</p> <p>This comparative aspect was also reflected in the way such data could be used to identify how to evaluate schools, and/or what might be able to be learnt from schools comparatively. This was evident in relation to various school reviews that schools undertook every four years:</p> <p>I guess we use it in two different ways. One, we use it as the performance indicators against thresholds around the designation at the end of the year prior to entering a school, to decide on what type of review that they have. We use that data in a comparative sense around how is the school performing against schools of a similar [type] ... and against Department thresholds. ... So we use 'Dashboard' prior to arriving at the school: what might be our potential lines of inquiry? What's our wonderings and our questions around what we want to ask more about around how's the school working in this space? What are they doing? What are the processes they've implemented in order to improve certain data sets and what does that look like? (Patricia, Education Development Branch)</p> <p>At the same time, there was advocacy for these data sets for what could be learned from schools in which data were indicating success:</p> <p>When schools have really strong data sets, what can we learn from them to share with others around what are they doing well? What processes, what artefacts, what practices, what culture pieces might a school have in place that's actually seen a really strong trajectory of improvement over a period of time? (Patricia, Education Development Branch)</p> <p>In these ways, the dashboard and associated data were construed as vehicles for potential reform for schools that were seen as underperforming, and as a resource within the Department to effect change more broadly. The potential effects of the dashboard on practice (cf. Bartlett & Tkacz, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref43">1</reflink>]) were clearly in evidence.</p> <hd id="AN0189933390-10">Dashboard data as a site of reservations</hd> <p>However, even at this senior level, it was also unclear how widespread the use of 'Dashboard' was at the time of the interviews (2022), evident in reticence to comment at this preliminary stage:</p> <p>Predominantly people in leadership roles, as I said, I understand that there is certain access and I really can't comment on, on the nuances of that. ... Certainly leaders, certainly principals and school leaders would be able to talk to you about the 'Dashboard'. (Larissa, Lead Curriculum Consultant)</p> <p>There was at least a sense that principals would know about 'Dashboard':</p> <p>That is probably a word you'll hear if you're out speaking to principals now because that will be on their radar. (Phil, School reform consultant)</p> <p>While many participants expressed how the 'Dashboard' had enormous potential, there were also concerns about the slow speed with which it was being implemented, particularly in schools:</p> <p>There's still flaws with 'Dashboard' and we talk about that, and how the data goes into 'Dashboard' and all the approvals it has to go through before it's released. (Bill, Seconded school Consultant)</p> <p>Such responses reflect how orientations towards the future are not simply positive (Suckert, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref44">23</reflink>]). Furthermore, some interviewees talked about how the development of the 'Dashboard' was more serendipitous than might be expected. This included how a key group – principals – who would be using the technology, were represented in its development:</p> <p>I was the only one that was seconded to the project. What I was able to do was – I don't think it happens all the time in central office – I was able to work between the floors and find other 'schoolies'[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref45">2</reflink>] .... So, you'd find other principals in the building. And particularly around the secondaries, there was people ... that I could go to, to get information and consult with them. ... And then we formed a state-wide consultation group. So, we essentially looked for a cross of primaries and secondaries ... and we wanted representation from every region in the state. (Bill, Seconded school Consultant)</p> <p>Reflecting the difficulty of transforming tacit knowledge of professionals 'into bits and bytes to feed digital assessment, recruitment and prediction tools' (Pedersen & Wilkinson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref46">16</reflink>], p. 10), there was also recognition that the data within the platform itself was only as good as the judgments being made by those who were responsible for generating the data – mostly teachers. This was the case even as there was a sense that such judgments were progressively becoming more accurate across the state as a whole:</p> <p>Predominantly my work revolves around that summative assessment space. And looking at summative assessment data ... So that we have validity of those reported results. ... So that we can feel confident that our A to E[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref47">3</reflink>] data is reflecting the same thing across the state. And that's been work that we've been doing for quite a few years now and we feel that that message has been received. And so, when we do use applications such as the 'Dashboard', we are fairly confident now – fingers crossed when she says that – fairly confident now that those A to E results are/mean the same thing across the state. (Larissa, Lead Curriculum Consultant)</p> <p>Interestingly, amongst those engaging with the more technical aspects of the dashboard, this was not seen so much as a current issue/concern but more of a legacy issue:</p> <p>So going back to about 2015, we had been sharing report card data and we had some key metrics that we used in the Department around proportion of students C or above as well as proportion of students B or above. And there was a whole suite of issues which were raised at that time. But I think the more it's [Dashboard] been used, the more it's been understood, the more comfort there's been, and I think we've also seen probably an improvement in terms of the quality of that data too as it sort of goes through a cycle of ARDs[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref48">4</reflink>]: maybe looking at one school's report card data, comparing it to another school, having a conversation and getting a greater level of consistency and moderation. (Kevin, Lead technical consultant)</p> <p>However, even as this aspect of the data was downplayed – an example of how those with power are able to impose particular visions on others (Suckert, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref49">23</reflink>]) – there was also frustration that some data that would be assumed to be uploaded – particularly A to E data – were not able to be made available because of concerns about potential changes to a very small amount of that data. This was seen as frustrating efforts to make the most up-to-date data available to those in schools, and was also construed as frustrating by those developing the software as well:</p> <p>We're very risk averse in the Department to put the data in there raw. ... But we're talking about A to E data; that seems to take a long time to get into 'Dashboard'. And they were saying it could go in there the day after we close the reporting period, but it would be raw data. And [in an education region], they might change a dozen grades based on appeal. ... Across an entire region, that might change twelve grades. That has no impact in the overall regional data and in fact, unless you're a very, very small school, it's going to have no impact on your percentages and data. And you're going to know about it. (Bill, Seconded school Consultant)</p> <p>In this instance, the power of dataism itself was not challenged, but simply the mechanisms that enabled such technologies. Even as it was critiqued, this critique was constituted in light of the affordances/hopes about these data.</p> <p>However, and reflecting a more openly critical disposition in relation to data more generally, for a former curriculum officer who had since taken up a position as a principal of a large primary school, there was also hesitation and concern in relation to collection and engagement with data, including how it had been used to pillory the work of teachers and schools:</p> <p>Teachers feel and I felt many teachers still do feel, whacked over the head with data by Central Office, by region, by principals, by HOC[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref50">5</reflink>]s, by the media; they feel really whacked over the head. Not as many now as I would have said 5–6 years ago, but some still hang onto that feeling of 'uncomfortableness'. (Michelle, Former Curriculum Officer and current Principal)</p> <p>Such struggles reflect how educators' tacit knowledge are not easily captured or valued within more 'official' data (Pedersen & Wilkinson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref51">16</reflink>]), and not adequately recognised. Such knowledge may be construed as increasingly fragile in a context of increased datafication in which data can be readily weaponised to critique teachers' work.</p> <p>Furthermore, and reflecting concerns about the opacity of data generated, there were also hesitations about how well teachers understood and felt they could engage productively with data more broadly:</p> <p>And I think that uncomfortableness sits there, not just because of the amount of attention that we'd had around data and data use. I think it's there because they feel uncomfortable about their capability to use the data. And they don't necessarily want to admit that they can't use the data, or they're not as well versed in use of data as they know they should be or that they would like to be. (Michelle, Former Curriculum Officer and current Principal)</p> <p>Such comments reflect how data infrastructures, and associated dashboards, exist within a broader context in which power dynamics were clearly at play which positioned teachers as in deficit. Struggles over the opacity of data were reflected in such concerns. This occurred alongside anxiety that such representations can be manipulated (e.g. via media) or utilised within systems in ways that elicit discomfort on the part of teachers and others.</p> <hd id="AN0189933390-11">Discussion and conclusion: dashboard data as a site of great expectations</hd> <p>What these findings reveal is the way in which various kinds of large-scale data have become increasingly influential in schooling settings. However, alongside these hopes and expectations around such data, such data are also sources of concern and reservations. The capacity to draw upon increasingly 'real-time' data, as well as more census rather than sample-style data, have been made possible through developments in data infrastructures; these developments have influenced the kinds of data that are valued (Lewis et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref52">10</reflink>]). The research reveals how there is a tendency to 'normalise' the generation and production of large volumes of data within education systems, and that these data are typically construed as intrinsically beneficial; expectations often seemed to be positively, rather than negatively, oriented (Suckert, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref53">23</reflink>]; van Lente, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref54">24</reflink>]) around such data. Within the Department, more senior administrators seemed predominantly optimistic about the affordances associated with the new dashboard ('Dashboard') and how it could present and re-present information to those in schools. There was a sense in which data were simply 'neutral' and could be 'collected' and 'mined' to assist with more substantive decision-making (Gitelman & Jackson, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref55">5</reflink>]). Such responses reflect how those who advocated dashboard data were able to impose a particular vision on others (Suckert, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref56">23</reflink>]) – in this case other educators and students in schools, and personnel working in the system more broadly. Concerns about 'expectations' that had arisen in relation to the generation and use of large-scale data reflect these normalisation processes, and how more skeptical approaches to data generation and application can be marginalised/overlooked. Uncritical acceptance of the possibilities around artificial intelligence and machine learning by one senior administrator were indicative of such acceptance. Such positive responses reflect particular power dynamics at play and how the politics of expectations (Suckert, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref57">23</reflink>]) were in favour of those developing the platform per se.</p> <p>However, and reflecting how hesitations simultaneously attend such technologies (van Lente, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref58">24</reflink>]), by drawing on research from the broader sociology of expectations, the data dashboard was simultaneously revealed a site of hesitations and reservations. This included in relation to various data collection and analysis (and potential analysis) processes. Such hesitations and reservations reflect that these technologies are indeed 'messy' and political. The way in which access had been restricted to more senior members of schools, rather than being made accessible to all teachers, also reflects broader power politics surrounding new data production and dissemination processes. The 'fictional expectations' (Beckert, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref59">2</reflink>]) projected by such decision-making were that it was necessary to limit who could have access to which data at different levels of the organisation. Furthermore, while dashboard data such as that described offered the promise to 'evaluate performance in almost real time' (Pedersen & Wilkinson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref60">16</reflink>], p. 4), there was also a belief that such affordances were necessarily limited by the particularities of the data collected, and the nature of the restrictions that surrounded their generation and use. The self-conscious way in which one of the senior administrators responsible for helping to ensure consistency of assessment in schools across the system described this process reflects hesitations that surrounded the data upon which the dashboard was reporting, and the opacity that attends collection and presentation of data more generally (Kitchin & Lauriault, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref61">9</reflink>]). That she was 'fairly confident now – fingers crossed when she says that – fairly confident' that the standard for A to E results were understood consistently across the state reflects a nuanced understanding about the quality of the data within the data infrastructure and whether it was adequate. Such data could be opaque and insufficiently understood to be engaged educatively at the school and classroom level. The hesitations around the quality of the data inputted into the system seemed to be less evident amongst a senior administrator responsible for the more technical development of the dashboard; for this administrator, such concerns about data quality were more of an historical legacy issue, rather than something that needed to be addressed contemporaneously. Here we witness competing imagined futures (Suckert, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref62">23</reflink>]) amongst different actors with different degrees of understanding and interpretations of the affordances of the technology at hand.</p> <p>At times, these reservations seemed to be made in relation to limitations over the affordances that were construed as possible through the new data dashboard. Processes of dataism (Smith, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref63">21</reflink>]) seemed to dominate, whereby even as some of these educators expressed hesitations, these were hesitations grounded in a belief that the data dashboard would and could be a source of significant advance in educational provision if more 'technical' glitches and 'validity' issues (teachers' judgements) associated with summative assessments could be overcome. In this sense, such responses reflect 'the enlightening, emancipatory and optimising properties of digital technologies' and how such data possess within them important 'truths relating to the operativity of the natural and social worlds' (Smith, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref64">21</reflink>], p. 3). While there were overt concerns expressed about datafication processes more broadly by a former curriculum officer who was working as a principal at the time of the interview – reflecting the potential exhaustion of imagined futures (Suckert, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref65">23</reflink>]) around data and associated dashboard – there seemed to be a broader sense that all that remained to be done was to further refine the various technologies to enable greater access and greater refinement of data collected. The expectations that surrounded dashboard data exerted influence, configuring knowledge in school settings in 'optimistic' ways, even as hesitations were mutually produced and expressed. However, whether and how these technologies and associated data deliver on their promise is unknown – a site of 'great expectations' – expectations which could ultimately be cruelled.</p> <p>We acknowledge the data reported upon here are limited by the role of the participants indicated. In keeping with calls from other scholars to focus more heavily on how those in schools understand and respond to increased attendance to data and datafication processes (cf. Pangrazio, Selwyn, & Cumbo, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref66">15</reflink>]), there is a clear need to ascertain whether and how teachers and those working at school sites are influenced by data dashboards such as that developed and supported by these system personnel in this particular jurisdiction. This is an area in which we are currently undertaking further investigation as part of the larger project of which this paper is a part. By trying to investigate the plurality of perspectives about data and their re-presentation through technologies such as data dashboards, we are better able to understand the conditions of production of data and the circumstances that have led to the acceptance of such technologies, even as hesitations remain about generation of, and engagement with, dashboard data. This includes the 'fictional expectations' that attend much of this work, as well as the exhaustion that simultaneously and co-constitutively attend the expectations that circulate around dashboards, and the data they seek to present.</p> <hd id="AN0189933390-12">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0189933390-13"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref7" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> All names are pseudonyms to ensure anonymity of participants. Ethics approval project no.: 2020/HE002993 [institution anonymised for review]</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref15" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> The state education department central office in which these personnel were located was staffed by a range of personnel from a variety of backgrounds – public servants (with both education and non-education backgrounds), technicians, as well as former principals and teachers ('schoolies') who had worked in schools.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref30" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> This refers to the five Levels of Achievement that range from A to E.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref5" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Assistant Regional Directors (ARDs) – senior administrators to whom principals were responsible. ARDs often had 'data conversations' with their principals, involving interrogating a range of attainment, behaviour and attendance data collected in schools.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref50" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Heads of Curriculum.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0189933390-14"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Bartlett, J., & Tkacz, N. (2017). Governance by dashboard: A policy paper. London : Demos.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beckert, J. (2016). Imagined futures: Fictional expectations and capitalist dynamics. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Espeland, W., & Stevens, M. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 313 – 343.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Few, S. (2006). Information dashboard design. Cambridge, MA : O'Reilly.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gitelman, L., & Jackson, V. (2013). Introduction. In L. Gitelman (Ed.), Raw data is an oxymoron (pp. 1 – 14). Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref12" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Gorur, R., & Arnold, B. (2021). Governing by dashboard: reconfiguring education governance in the Global South. In C. Wyatt-Smith, B. Lingard, & E. Heck (Eds.), Digital disruption in teaching testing: Assessments, big data, and the transformation of schooling (pp. 166 – 181). New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref34" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Gorur, R., Sellar, S., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2019). World Yearbook of Education 2019: Comparative methodology in the era of Big Data and global networks. Oxford : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref3" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Kerssens, N., & van Dijck, J. (2022). Governed by Edtech? Valuing pedagogical autonomy in a platform society. Harvard Educational Review, 92 (2), 284 – 303.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref4" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Kitchin, R., & Lauriault, T. (2018). Toward critical data studies. In J. Thatcher, A. Shears, & J. Eckert (Eds.), Thinking big data in Geography: New regimes, new research (pp. 3 – 20). Lincoln, NE : University of Nebraska Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis, S., Holloway, J., & Lingard, B. (2022). Emergent developments in the datafication and digitalization of education. In F. Rizvi, B. Lingard, & R. Rinne (Eds.), Reimagining globalization and education (pp. 62 – 78). Oxford : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matheus, R., Janssen, M., & Maheshwari, D. (2020). Data science empowering the public: Data-driven dashboards for transparent and accountable decision-making in smart cities. Government Information Quarterly, 37, 1 – 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2014). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Boston : Mariner Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles, M., Huberman, A., & Saldana, J. (2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Los Angeles, CA : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nichols, T., & Garcia, A. (2022). Platform studies in education. Harvard Educational Review, 92 (2), 209 – 230.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pangrazio, L., Selwyn, N., & Cumbo, B. (2022). A patchwork of platforms: Mapping data infrastructures in schools. Learning, Media and Technology, 48 (2), 65 – 80.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pedersen, J., & Wilkinson, A. (2019). The promise, application and pitfalls of big data. In J. Pedersen & A. Wilkinson (Eds.), Big data: Promise application and pitfalls (pp. 1 – 21). Cheltenham : Edward Elgar.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perrotta, C. (2020). Programming the platform university: Learning analytics and predictive infrastructures in higher education. Research in Education, 109 (1), 53 – 71.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petri, D. (2020). Big data, datism and measurement. IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine, May, 32 – 34.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Redden, J., Dencik, L., & Warne, H. (2020). Datafied child welfare services: unpacking politics, economics and power. Policy Studies, 41 (5), 507 – 526.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandgaard, A. (2019). Big data and data governance: From the 'world of ideas' to the 'world of practice'. In J. Pedersen & A. Wilkinson (Eds.), Big Data: Promise application and pitfalls (pp. 264 – 286). Cheltenham : Edward Elgar.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, G. J. D. (2018). Data doxa: The affective consequences of data practices. Big Data & Society, 5 (1), 1 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stehle, S., & Kitchin, R. (2020). Real-time and archival data visualisation techniques in city dashboards. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 34 (2), 344 – 366.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suckert, L. (2022). Back to the future: Sociological perspectives on expectations, aspirations and imagined futures. European Journal of Sociology, 63 (3), 393 – 428.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Lente, H. (2012). Navigating foresight in a sea of expectations: Lessons from the sociology of expectations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24 (8), 769 – 782.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vauchez, A. (2008). The force of a weak field: Law and lawyers in the government of the European Union (for a renewed research agenda). International Political Sociology, 2 (2), 128 – 144.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ian Hardy; M. Obaidul Hamid; Vicente Reyes and Louise Phillips</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref66"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1500895
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Great Expectations: Understanding Perceptions of the Affordances and Constraints of Dashboard Data
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ian+Hardy%22">Ian Hardy</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8124-8766">0000-0002-8124-8766</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22M%2E+Obaidul+Hamid%22">M. Obaidul Hamid</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vicente+Reyes%22">Vicente Reyes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Louise+Phillips%22">Louise Phillips</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Discourse%3A+Studies+in+the+Cultural+Politics+of+Education%22"><i>Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 46(6):729-742.
– 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: 14
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Administration%22">Educational Administration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Administrators%22">Administrators</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Man+Machine+Systems%22">Man Machine Systems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Databases%22">Databases</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Data+Interpretation%22">Data Interpretation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Uses+in+Education%22">Computer Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Administrator+Attitudes%22">Administrator Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Attitudes%22">Computer Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Expectation%22">Expectation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Integration%22">Technology Integration</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/01596306.2025.2453887
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0159-6306<br />1469-3739
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Drawing upon literature and theorising in relation to the sociology of expectations and critical data studies, we elaborate perceptions of the nature of dashboard data in one state educational jurisdiction in Australia. Our research utilises interviews with senior educational bureaucrats, who engaged with a new dashboard, and the data it generated, during the initial stages of the development and implementation of the dashboard. This included personnel involved in the technical development of the dashboard, through to those who were responsible for engaging with such data to help facilitate enhanced school organisational, teaching and learning practices across the state. The research reveals that at the same time as data provided through the dashboard were understood by educators as more current and potentially beneficial for making sense of students' learning, such data also simultaneously conveyed information that was potentially not as accurate, accessible, or timely as desired. Consequently, such dashboards are complex sites of 'great expectations', in which positive futures about dashboard data are expressed, even as reservations are simultaneously articulated. While such dashboards enhance access of information to educators in a more 'timely' fashion, there is a need for further scrutiny into such platforms and the veracity of the data generated.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1500895
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1500895
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/01596306.2025.2453887
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 14
        StartPage: 729
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Administration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Administrators
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Man Machine Systems
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Databases
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Data Interpretation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Administrator Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Expectation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Integration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Great Expectations: Understanding Perceptions of the Affordances and Constraints of Dashboard Data
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ian Hardy
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: M. Obaidul Hamid
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Vicente Reyes
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Louise Phillips
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0159-6306
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-3739
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 46
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1