Elsevier

Learning and Instruction

Volume 53, February 2018, Pages 34-49
Learning and Instruction

Strengthening networks: A social network intervention among higher education teachers

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.07.005Get rights and content

Highlights

  • An intervention was designed to strengthen teaching networks during a PD program.

  • Ego-network data were collected over two-years from university teachers.

  • The intervention group showed enlarged networks and increased network dynamics.

  • The intervention group developed more diversely composed teaching networks.

  • The intervention group consulted a wider teaching network for information and advice.

Abstract

Teachers' opportunities to learn at the workplace are shaped by the relationships in which they discuss their instructional practice, what we call teaching networks. This study examined the extent to which such teaching networks could be strengthened during a professional development (PD) program. An intervention was designed to evaluate whether the development of teaching networks was affected in terms of network composition and access to teaching content. Longitudinal ego-network data of Belgian university teachers (N = 38, 1670 ties) were collected over a two-year time period. Multilevel analyses showed that the intervention group developed larger networks and increased network dynamics, compared to the control group. The intervention group also developed more diverse networks, and showed increased access to teaching content, suggesting that the intervention changed teachers' networks over time. This study shows the potential of network interventions to support teachers’ professional development, and of network analysis as a tool to analyze professional relations.

Introduction

Traditionally, calls for professional development of teachers have been answered with formal training initiatives (Avalos, 2011, Saroyan and Trigwell, 2015), i.e. structurally organized professional development (PD) programs aimed at enhancing teaching and learning. Yet, across the globe, informal learning is increasingly recognized as an important driver for ongoing professional development (Kyndt, Gijbels, Grosemans, & Donche, 2016) as most learning within the teaching profession takes place through collegial interaction and transcends boundaries of formal programs (Lieberman and Pointer Mace, 2008, Vangrieken et al., 2015). The current body of research on PD programs mainly focuses on the knowledge and skills of individual teachers. Scholars increasingly suggest to complement this research with a focus on teachers' networks, aimed at enhancing teachers’ access to resources through social relationships (A. Fox and Wilson, 2015, Penuel et al., 2012). Recently, emerging research highlights the importance of the personal teaching networks that surround participants during PD programs (Van Waes et al., 2015b, Rienties and Kinchin, 2014). These scholars have suggested that for PD programs to be effective and sustainable, participants have to learn to recognize and access their network. However, most research is limited to descriptive accounts of networks and little is known about if and how teachers can strengthen their networks.

Given this gap, the central aim of this study is to examine the extent to which teaching networks can be strengthened during PD programs. In specific, we focus on academics who teach at the university. For this set of teachers, informal learning is of particular importance as university teachers traditionally begin teaching in higher education with little or no formal training. Being an expert in the content field is assumed to be a sufficient condition to teach others (Denicolo & Becker, 2013). Over the past two decades, improving university teaching standards has been the driver of interest in academic development internationally (Baume, 2006, Devlin and Samarawickrema, 2010). Isolated practice is considered an inadequate way of performing teachers’ work (Bakkenes, De Brabander, & Imants, 1999). Yet, issues of privacy, autonomy, and even isolation in higher education have been quite prominent (Cox, 2004, Ramsden, 1998).

This study draws on research on performance, expertise development and on social network research to explore the role of networks in supporting professional development, and more specifically, the potential of network interventions for university teachers’ professional development.

Studies on workplace learning of professionals are increasingly taking a social perspective on development to understand its relational and interactive nature (Gruber et al., 2008, Tynjälä, 2008). The urge to capitalize on social interaction is reflected by a growing number of concepts that aim to improve this social side of learning, such as communities of practice, professional communities, and networks (Louis and Marks, 1998, McLaughlin and Talbert, 2006, Wenger et al., 2002). In education, the development of teachers is no longer regarded as an individual endeavor, rather, it is placed within the larger network of relationships that surrounds the individual (Moolenaar, 2012). Social network theory provides a valuable lens and the tools to examine professional interactions of teachers (Carolan, 2014). The key assumption of social network theory is that individuals' behavior and performance are significantly affected by the way that they are tied into a larger web of social connections (Burt, 1992, Granovetter, 1973). Interest in teachers’ professional interactions has sparked an important body of research into the meaning and potential of networks. This research has established the significance of teaching networks for student achievement (Pil & Leana, 2009), teacher development (Van Waes et al., 2015a, Van Waes et al., 2016), reform and improvement (Daly & Finnigan, 2011), policy implementation (Coburn & Russell, 2008), and leadership (Pitts & Spillane, 2009).

The recognition of the importance of networks for professional development, affects our thinking around PD programs. Up until now, teacher interaction during PD programs has mostly been reported as a side-effect while studying PD programs from a mainly individual perspective (Postareff et al., 2007, Stes et al., 2007). Recently, a small body of research emerged using a social network perspective to study the extent to which teachers actually engage in interactions around their teaching practice during and beyond PD programs. Findings showed that within PD programs, teachers' connections with other participants increased over time (Moses et al., 2009, Rienties and Kinchin, 2014). Furthermore, teachers also increasingly engaged in collegial interaction outside the PD program, with colleagues in the department or grade (Van Waes et al., 2015b, Gamoran et al., 2005). These connections are considered valuable since teachers' approaches to teaching can be shaped by the perceptions of the cultures into which they are inserted (Roxå and Mårtensson, 2009, Spillane et al., 2012). However, PD programs do not automatically influence the networks of every teacher involved. In specific, a recent longitudinal study on network development in PD programs showed that while on average, networks changed significantly, this study also discerned different profiles of network change (stable, flexible, expansive, isolated) showing some university teachers that did not change their networks during the program, nor connected with others about their teaching practice (Van Waes et al., 2015b).

Scholars are increasingly suggesting that for PD programs to be effective and sustainable, participants have to learn to recognize and access their personal teaching network (Baker-Doyle and Yoon, 2010, Penuel et al., 2012). Some studies contain suggestions for further research on how to promote or support network development in PD programs, e.g. assisting participants in recognizing the potential of collegial interactions, implementing critical friend systems and peer observations, or involving colleagues from the workplace (Gerken et al., 2016, Thomson, 2015). Yet, to our knowledge, the current body of work provides little empirical insight into the extent to which teaching networks can actually be strengthened.

Recently, network interventions have been developed to support professionals and organizations to intentionally act on their networks (Cross and Thomas, 2009, Parise, 2007). Network interventions are purposeful efforts to use social network data to accelerate behavior change, to improve performance, or diffuse innovations (Valente, 2012). Valente (2012) presents four strategies to use network data for intervention: (i) identifying individuals (e.g., key players or opinion leaders) for diffusion purposes: (ii) segmentation to identify groups of people to change at the same time; (iii) induction to create cascades of information diffusion (e.g., word of mouth, respondent-driven sampling); and (iv) alterations that change the network. These interventions often build on the underlying assumption that individuals, who are aware of their networks and the resources and expertise residing in it, are more likely to reach out to the ‘right’ people at the ‘right’ time when presented with challenges or opportunities (Borgatti & Cross, 2003). Teachers who consciously act to strengthen their network, display what is recently coined as ‘network intentionality’ (Moolenaar et al., 2014), that is, agency in forming, maintaining, activating, and dissolving relations to gain access to resources for the mutual benefit of oneself and others, given their own cognitions of what makes for a ‘good’ network (Nardi, Whittaker, & Schwarz, 2002). Outside education, scholars have provided evidence that professionals who learned the properties of an effective network, achieved greater performance and career advancement (Burt & Ronchi, 2007). As such, increasing university teachers' network awareness and intentionality may be a valuable element in a PD program for these teachers. This study designed an intervention to strengthen university teachers' networks in support of their professional development as teachers.

The literature on performance and expertise development of professionals provides insight into high leverage network features (Cross and Thomas, 2008, Lin et al., 2001). These network features can relate to the composition (the different actors in the network and their attributes) or content of the network (what actually flows through relationships).

Network composition can be explored by measuring the size (e.g., number of relationships that are new, lost or kept) and diversity of networks (e.g., in experience and expertise). Earlier research outside education has suggested that these personal network features are related to professional performance. For instance, high performers engaged in professional interactions with a relatively large number of people (Van Waes et al., 2015a, Parker et al., 2016). This does not mean that networks have to be large per se (Roxå & Mårtensson, 2009). In this regard, two tracks can be discerned in network research: the cohesion approach (the bigger the better) and the structural equivalence approach (not all ties are equal). In this paper we consider both tracks, since research shows that high professionals did not only/necessarily develop large networks, but also engaged in behaviors that led to diverse networks (Kilduff and Krackhardt, 1994, Mehra et al., 2001). Moreover, large networks have shown to increase the chance of comprising diverse people (Baer, Evans, Oldham, & Boasso, 2015). Specifically, the networks of high performers have a greater tendency to minimize insularity (Cross, Singer, Colella, Thomas, & Silverstone, 2010). Diversity in the composition of professionals’ networks has been found to impact individual innovation (McFadyen & Cannella, 2004). Networks that span boundaries improve performance in knowledge-intensive work, because they are tapping into diverse expertise when framing problems or acquiring information (Burt, 1992, Cross and Thomas, 2008). Crafting a network of diverse actors requires intentionality and opportunity, as research suggests that individuals have a tendency to seek similar others with whom to engage (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). Studies in education identified access to teaching expertise as a key element in the development of networks (Coburn et al., 2010, Spillane et al., 2003). These findings in organizational and educational research were recently confirmed for the context of higher education. The networks of high performing university teachers typically consisted of people with diverse teaching experience and expertise, and were larger in size compared to their lower performing colleagues (Van Waes et al., 2015a).

Studies on network content, or what actually flows through networks (Bellotti, 2014) show that certain interactions or ties might provide access to more relevant resources than others. Network content characterized by deep interaction or high interdependence between teachers is associated with higher performance and adoption of innovation (Van Waes et al., 2016, Coburn and Russell, 2008). Cross and Sproull (2004) discerned different informational benefits for professionals when consulting others: solutions (answers to specific questions), meta-knowledge (general guidance or referrals), problem reformulation (considering various dimensions), and validation (bolstering self-confidence and thinking). These informational benefits can result in ‘actionable knowledge’ (Cross & Sproull, 2004) which can help find answers, show different perspectives, construct meaning, or offer a soundboard when dealing with professional matters. The frequency with which these different types of content are discussed matters. University teachers who frequently discussed their teaching practice displayed higher performance (Van Waes et al., 2015a).

Section snippets

Hypotheses

This study aims to examine the extent to which teaching networks can be strengthened during a PD program. Specifically, we are interested in whether an intervention during a PD program strengthens the development of (1) the composition and (2) the content of teaching networks. Firstly, we expect that the intervention affects the size and diversity of the networks, in that the intervention group will develop larger networks (hypothesis 1a) and more diverse networks, i.e. in terms of the teaching

Context

This study was conducted in a mid-sized, multidisciplinary, public and research-intensive university in Belgium serving 15,000 students and employing 2855 faculty members, of whom 830 combine a teaching and research appointment. Novice university teachers (i.e., appointed as lecturers or assistant lecturers during the last seven years) can participate in a 18-month PD program to enhance their instructional thinking and practice.

PD program

The central aim of the PD program is to gear participants’ teaching

Network size (H1a)

The fixed part of the model shows that both groups increased in network size after the start of the PD program (Table 1 in the Appendix). Yet, despite existing differences between both groups in network size before the start of the PD program (P1), the intervention group showed a steeper increase in average network size at the start of the PD program (from P1 to P2), adding on average 6.78 people to their networks, compared to the control group who added 2.38 new ties (χ2(1) = 4.53, p < 0.05) (

Discussion

This study examined the extent to which personal network features relevant to professional development can be strengthened during a PD program in higher education. Thus far, studies have examined teachers' interactions during PD programs in a mainly descriptive and cross-sectional way. This work provides empirical evidence on an intervention conducted to strengthen teachers’ network development. Moreover, a novelty of this study was that it provided a longitudinal account (over a two-year time

Delimiters

Our work is also bounded by a few delimiters. In this study, we have taken a quantitative approach to assess the strengthening of networks. However, it would be valuable to examine not only the increase in (diversity of) ties and its content, but also to gain more insight in qualitative nature of these ties. For instance, future work may explore whether network-oriented PD programs may also contribute to more in-depth, targeted discussions around teaching. In addition, future work should

Conclusion

This work further demonstrates the value of networks for teachers’ professional development. In higher education, the reduction of isolated practice to improve teaching quality is high on the policy and research agenda. This study shows that the development of university teaching networks can be strengthened through intervention, not only affecting the network composition in size and diversity but also influencing the content of what is exchanged around the teaching practice. Moreover, as

References (76)

  • P. Tynjälä

    Perspectives into learning at the workplace

    Educational Research Review

    (2008)
  • S. Van Waes et al.

    Uncovering changes in university teachers' professional networks during instructional development

    Studies in Educational Evaluation

    (2015)
  • S. Van Waes et al.

    The networked instructor: The quality of networks in different stages of professional development

    Teaching and Teacher Education

    (2016)
  • K. Vangrieken et al.

    Teacher collaboration: A systematic review

    Educational Research Review

    (2015)
  • M. Baer et al.

    The social network side of individual innovation

    Organizational Psychology Review

    (2015)
  • K.J. Baker-Doyle

    The networked teacher: How new teachers build social networks for professional support

    (2011)
  • K.J. Baker-Doyle et al.

    Making expertise transparent: Using technology to strengthen social networks in teacher professional development

  • I. Bakkenes et al.

    Teacher isolation and communication network analysis in primary schools

    Educational Administration Quarterly

    (1999)
  • D. Baume

    Towards the end of the last non-professions?

    International Journal for Academic Development

    (2006)
  • E. Bellotti

    Qualitative networks: Mixed methods in sociological research

    (2014)
  • B.D. Blume et al.

    Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review

    Journal of Management

    (2010)
  • S.P. Borgatti et al.

    A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks

    Management Science

    (2003)
  • S.P. Borgatti et al.

    Analyzing social networks

    (2013)
  • J.S. Brown et al.

    Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation

    Organization Science

    (1991)
  • R.S. Burt

    Structural holes: The social structure of competition

    (1992)
  • B.V. Carolan

    Social network analysis and educational research: Theory, methods, and applications

    (2014)
  • C. Coburn et al.

    I would go to her because her mind is math. Network formation in the context of a district-based mathematics reform

  • C. Coburn et al.

    District policy and teachers' social networks

    Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis

    (2008)
  • M.D. Cox

    Introduction to faculty learning communities

    New Directions for Teaching and Learning

    (2004)
  • N. Crossley et al.

    Social network analysis for ego-nets

    (2015)
  • R. Cross et al.

    The organizational network fieldbook: Best practices, techniques, and exercises to drive organizational innovation and performance

    (2010)
  • R. Cross et al.

    More than an answer: Information relationships for actionable knowledge

    Organization Science

    (2004)
  • R. Cross et al.

    Driving results through social networks: How top organizations leverage networks for performance and growth

    (2009)
  • A.J. Daly et al.

    The ebb and flow of social network ties between district leaders under high-stakes accountability

    American Educational Research Journal

    (2011)
  • A. Datnow

    Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Revisiting Hargreaves in the age of accountability

    Journal of Educational Change

    (2011)
  • P. Denicolo et al.

    Teaching in higher education

    (2013)
  • M. Devlin et al.

    The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher education context

    Higher Education Research & Development

    (2010)
  • J. Fox

    Applied regression analysis, linear models, and related methods

    (1997)
  • Cited by (59)

    • Multilevel network interventions: Goals, actions, and outcomes

      2023, Social Networks
      Citation Excerpt :

      The intervention involved the creation of centralized authorities with the aim of diminishing system fragmentation and thereby the improvement of treatment outcomes (Calloway et al., 1993; Morrisey et al., 1994; Morrisey et al., 1997). Typically, the goal of network interventions in educational contexts is to generate desirable outcomes for students (e.g. Boda et al., 2020; Sacerdote, 2001) or teachers and school staff (van Waes, 2017; Van Waes et al., 2018). Identification mainly involves the identification of opinion leaders (Valente and Pumpuang, 2007).

    • (Second career) teachers' work socialization as a networked process: New empirical and methodological insights

      2022, Teaching and Teacher Education
      Citation Excerpt :

      Recently, Daly et al. (2020) concluded that when teachers share knowledge within their professional school networks, they learn. In a recent paper, Van Waes, De Maeyer, Moolenaar, Van Petegem, and Van den Bossche (2018) highlighted the importance of networks for teachers’ professional development. Shirrell (2021) also showed that professional interactions have a negative relationship with teacher turnover.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text