Process Indicators

As far as the abovementioned information is concerned, it is appropriate to use process indicators related to describing how school has been/is going on, what factors of school process and context are effecting on "better" pedagogy, how schools respond to policy agenda. In this respect, outcome-based indicator system needs to be balanced with process indicators that can describe "contexts" and explain "causes", because "a snapshot of school practice is not sufficient; assessment of change is needed", as Porter says. Process indicators can describe, explain, and explore the school's needs and practices. The output-based data under the current accountability are not likely to reveal and measure not only the dynamic contexts and qualitative characteristics of school but also the qualitative and formative results of schooling such as higherthinking skills, quality of instruction, and student interest of reading itself.

Process indicators can stimulate data-based leadership because they give live descriptions of "what's going on" and student's real needs, and also identify barriers to use data for instructional improvement, and explain the causes of failures and draw on alternatives for improvement. Data-driven leadership may be a key medium of connection for building capacity among educators. Young argued that principals mediate actual use of data by teachers. Wayman and Stringfield asserted that professional development must equip teachers to be independent users of data in the service of instructional planning.

Process indicators can lead district and school leaders to advocate a supportive and collaborative data use culture in order to encourage their teachers and staffs to access and use data, to reflect on their instructions, and to distribute and share school leadership. According to Lachat and Smith, the school-level data use result in creating "collective leadership" and "data-based team". In this respect, data use acts as the redesign of school structure and leadership. Copland pointed out that distributed leadership based on data use contributes to sharing responsibility and collaborative work condition, drawing on each leader' own expertise and experience for enhancing school effectiveness and upgrading school organizational capacity. Distributed leadership focuses on the leader-plus through the interaction of leader and followers in the situation, the sharing of professional expertise and experience through collective leadership for organizational effectiveness and accountability.

effectiveness and accountability. Process indicators may increase reflective professionalism based on peer reviews, collaborative team activities, and shared information by fitting for educators' identity and professionalism. Schön saw professionals as "reflectors in action," emphasizing contextual and situational reflection in action when they make a decision according to continually updated contextual knowledge. Spillane found that implementers have their own interpretative frames of what they should do and their own preferences of what is the most important for their working. In this respect, process indicators are likely to combine with "databased reflectivity and deliberation" through a productive "test talk" or "communication" with teachers. Process indicators tend to lead to organizational learning through collaborative inquiry and shared expertise and experience among colleagues. This "collaborative inquiry" helps teachers deliver from teachers' individualism caused by a loosely-coupled organization and to flow relevant information into a separate room of teachers.

Process indicators can be really used for measuring and evaluating authentic student progress such as higher-ordered thinking, problem solving, student's happiness and satisfaction, prevention of unhealthy behaviors, and social capital. Process indicators are considerably consistent with micro tasks such as the information of teachers' and students' day-to-day interactions, realities and lives. The Information is to an acquired and processed data set from schools and teachers in order to facilitate data-based decision-making for enhancing authentic pedagogy and reflective professionalism for school improvement and effectiveness.

In spite of these bright sides, there are several limitations needed to be considered in introducing process indicators into classrooms and schools. The first consideration is that process indicators are oriented to formative self-evaluation focusing on identifying and treating educational progress during the student learning or the school operation process; so, it is hard to gauge a school's success or failure and to make teachers and schools districted from their attainment of standards and goals.

Second, it is indispensible for teachers and schools to make use and interpret process indicators regularly and daily and maintain the updated data warehouse frequently. It forces them to do too much additional work apart from their instruction and resource preparations. This may result in the increase and expansion of teachers' roles such as data preparation, interpretation, and reporting; so, teachers may invest their more time on data use and input more than instructional improvement and provision of resources to students.

Third, specific perils which too much focus on data generation and use can cause serious work stress and depression and lead teachers to dampen student interest and deemphasize students' authentic pedagogy and narrowed curriculum dedicating to data preparation and provision instead of substantial amounts of instructional time.

Fourth, process indicators are inefficient and infeasible because they related to a complicated and delicate cases and realities; they are required for teachers' long-term work time and effort; they cannot set up the standard indicator system in order to get the standard data from a distinctive school.

Fifth, process indicators are too subjective and individualistic to secure validity, reliability and objectivity for identifying a school's and a district's summative performance and for integrating the data derived from an individual school in the state or national level.

Sixth, it is necessary for teachers and schools to have the professional expertise and know-how about generating, using, and interpreting of process indicators within a school or across schools. However, most teachers do not understand data use and DDDM.