UTILISING SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS TO IDENTIFY THE STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF TEACHERS’ KNOWLEDGE AND RESOURCESHARING NETWORKS WITHIN SCHOOLS
Palabras clave:
teacher collaboration, social network analysis, educational networks, educational researchResumen
Abstract
This article discusses how social network analysis (SNA) might be used to identify the structural features present in the resource- and knowledge-sharing networks that develop between teachers when they are working within their schools. Network survey data was collected from teachers as part a case study research project undertaken in two high-achieving schools, one primary, and one secondary. Teachers working in schools operate within a number of organisational structures, such as Year Teams and Subject Departments. Through use of SNA techniques, this research aims to compare the extent to which the structure of networks of teacher collaboration around particular aspects of teacher practice may be associated with teachers’ affiliation to such teams. Teachers in each school were asked to nominate colleagues to whom they turned during the previous month for resources and knowledge in their practice of teaching and learning, and their use of student attainment and progress data. Analysis using a range of whole-network metrics revealed that there were key structural differences between networks that developed around learning and teaching compared to those focused on the use of attainment and progress data, with greater collaboration across teams in data use than in teaching and learning practices. There were also key differences observed when comparing the resource-sharing and knowledge-sharing networks, with collaborative resource-sharing for teaching and learning occurring much more within closed groups participating in reciprocated exchange, compared to a more open, though less reciprocated approach to knowledge-sharing collaboration. Finally, the potential use of metrics at the level of individual teachers to identify key actors in each network is considered.
Resumen
El artículo presenta el análisis de redes sociales (ARS) acometido para identificar las características presentes en redes de intercambio de recursos y conocimiento entre docentes. Se ha llevado a cabo una encuesta dirigida a docentes como parte de un estudio de casos asociado a un proyecto de investigación en dos escuelas de alto rendimiento, una de Educación Primaria y otra de Educación Secundaria. Se ha comprobado que los docentes de estas escuelas operan dentro de estructuras organizativas, como son los Equipos Anuales y los Departamentos de Asignaturas. Mediante el uso de técnicas de ARS en esta investigación se ha pretendido comparar hasta qué punto la estructura de las redes de colaboración docente puede vincularse con la afiliación de los docentes a dichos equipos. En cada escuela se solicitó al profesorado que mencionara a aquellos colegas a los que habían acudido durante el último mes con la intención de pedir recursos para sus prácticas de enseñanza y aprendizaje. En el análisis de la información se utilizó un rango de métricas de red completa. Se hallaron diferencias de colaboración entre redes de profesores a la hora de compartir materiales y conocimientos. El análisis arrojó la existencia de grupos cerrados de intercambio recíproco y grupos más abiertos con un enfoque menos recíproco en el mismo tipo de colaboración. Finalmente, puede concluirse que el uso de métricas a nivel de docentes individuales ha permitido identificar a los actores clave en cada red.
Citas
Bennett, N., Newton, W, Wise, C., Woods, P.A. and Economou, A. (2003). The Role and Purpose of Middle Leaders in Schools. London: National College for School Leadership (NCSL).
Bennett, N., Woods, P., Wise, C. and Newton, W (2007). Understandings of middle leadership in secondary schools: a review of empirical research, School Leadership and Management, 27(5), 453-470.
Best, R. (2014). Forty years of Pastoral Care: an appraisal of Michael Marland’s seminal book and its significance for pastoral care in schools, Pastoral Care in Education, 32(3), 173-185.
Bokhove, C and Downey, C. (2018). Mapping changes in support: a longitudinal analysis of networks of pre-service mathematics and science teachers. Oxford Review of Education. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1400427
Borgatti, S.P. (2002). NetDraw: Graph Visualization Software. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.
Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. & Freeman, L.C. (2002). UCINET 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.
Burn, K., Childs, A. & McNicholl, J. (2007). The potential and challenges for student teachers' learning of subject-specific pedagogical knowledge within secondary school subject departments, The Curriculum Journal, 18(4), 429-445.
Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345–423.
Carolan B. V. (2013). Social network analysis and education: Theory, methods, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Childs, A., Burn, K. & McNicholl, J. (2013). What influences the learning cultures of subject departments in secondary schools? A study of four subject departments in England, Teacher Development, 17(1), 35-54.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Daly, A. (Ed.). (2010). Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Daly, A. J., & Chrispeels, J. (2008). A question of trust: Predictive conditions for adaptive and technical leadership in educational contexts, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7(1), 30-63.
Dekker D., Krackhardt D., and Snijders T.A.B.(2007). Sensitivity of MRQAP tests to collinearity and autocorrelation conditions, Pschometrika, 72, 563-581.
Downey, C., Byrne, J. and Souza, A. (2013a). Researching the competence-based curriculum: preface to a case study of four urban secondary schools, Curriculum Journal, 24(3), 321-334.
Downey, C., Byrne, J. and Souza, A. (2013b). Leading and managing the competencebased curriculum: conscripts, volunteers and champions at work within the departmentalised environment of the secondary school, Curriculum Journal, 24(3), 369-388.
Downey, C. and Kelly, A. (2012). Professional attitudes to the use of data in England. In, Schildkamp, K, Lai, M.K. and Earl, L.M. (eds.) Data-based decision making in education: challenges and opportunities. London, SAGE.
Freeman, L.C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215-239.
Glover, D., Miller, D., Gambling, M. Gough, G and Johnson, M. (1999). As others see us: senior management and subject staff perceptions of the work effectiveness of subject leaders in secondary schools, School Leadership and Management, 19(3), 331-344.
Harris, A. (2001). Department improvement and school improvement: A missing link?, British Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 477-486.
Harris, A., Jamieson, I. and Russ, J. (1995). A study of effective departments in secondary schools, School Organisation, 15(3), 283-299.
Hoy, W. K. & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2003). The conceptualization and measurement of faculty trust in schools: The omnibus T-Scale”, in W.K. Hoy & C.G. Miskel (Eds.) Studies in leading and organizing schools (Greenwich, Information Age Publishing).
James, C. and Aubrey-Hopkins, J. (2003). The leadership authority of educational middle managers: the case of subject leaders in secondary schools in Wales, International Studies in Educational Administration, 31(1), 50-64.
Kelly, A. & Downey, C. (2011). Professional attitudes to the use of pupil performance data in English secondary schools, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(4), 415-437.
Ko, J., Hallinger, P. & Walker, A. (2015). Exploring whole school versus subject department improvement in Hong Kong secondary schools, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(2), 215-239.
Krackhardt, D. (1988). Predicting with networks: Nonparametric multiple regression analysis of dyadic data, Social Networks, 10(4), 359‐381.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lomos, C., Hofman, R.H. & Bosker, R.J. (2011). The relationship between departments as professional communities and student achievement in secondary schools, Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 722-731.
Maton, K. (2014). Knowledge and knowers: Towards a realist sociology of education. London: Routledge.
McGregor, J. (2004). Spatiality and the Place of the Material in Schools, Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 12(3), 347-372.
McNicholl, J., Childs. A., & Burn, K. (2013). School Subject Departments as Sites for Science Teachers Learning Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Teacher Development, 17(2), 155-175.
Metcalfe, C. & Russell, S. (1997). The role of subject leaders in monitoring the work of teachers in secondary schools: the quest for consistency? Presented at the Annual Conference of the British Education Research Association, York, 11-14 September, cited in Bennett, N., Woods, P., Wise, C. and Newton, W (2007) Understandings of middle leadership in secondary schools: a review of empirical research, School Leadership and Management, 27(5), 453-470.
Puttick, S. (2017). ‘You’ll see that everywhere’: institutional isomorphism in secondary school subject departments, School Leadership & Management, 37(1-2), 61-79.
Puttick, S. (2018). Student teachers’ positionalities as knowers in school subject departments, British Educational Research Journal, 44(1), 25-42.
Reynolds, D. (2010). Failure Free Education. London: Routledge.
Sammons, P., Thomas, S & Mortimore, P. (1997). Forging links: effective schools and effective departments. London: Paul Chapman.
Siskin, L.S. (1994). Realms of Knowledge: Academic Departments in Secondary Schools. London: Routledge.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace. M & Thomas, S. (2006) Professional Learning Communities: a review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 221-258.
Strand, S. (2016). Do some schools narrow the gap? Differential school effectiveness revisited, Review of Education, 4(2), 107-144.
Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
En el momento en que una obra es aceptada para su publicación, se entiende que el autor cede a la Revista PROFESORADO (en adelante RECP) en exclusiva los derechos de reproducción, distribución y venta de su manuscrito para su explotación en todos los países del mundo en formato de revista de papel, así como en cualquier otro soporte magnético, óptico y digital.Los autores cederán también a RECP los derechos de comunicación pública para su difusión y explotación a través de Intranets, Internet y cualesquiera portales y dispositivos inalámbricos que decida el editor, mediante la puesta a disposición de los usuarios para consulta online de su contenido y su extracto, para su impresión en papel y/o para su descarga y archivo, todo ello en los términos y condiciones que consten en la web donde se halle alojada la obra. A su vez, la RECP autoriza a los autores de los trabajos publicados en la revista a que ofrezcan en sus webs personales o en cualquier repositorio de acceso abierto una copia de esos trabajos una vez publicados. Junto con esa copia ha de incluirse una mención específica de la RECP, citando el año y el número de la revista en que fue publicado el artículo o nota de investigación y añadiendo, además, el enlace a la web de la RECP.
La RECP también recomienda y permite a sus autores que licencien su obra bajo la licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 3.0 España (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 ES), que implica que el artículo y la nota de investigación pueda copiarse, distribuirse y comunicarse públicamente bajo la condición de que en los créditos se reconozca explícitamente al autor y la obra bajo la forma establecida por éste, sin derecho a su explotación comercial y la elaboración de obras derivadas.
