Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Aera 2019 pre service teacher peer-networks

71 views

Published on

Slides for AERA 2019

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Aera 2019 pre service teacher peer-networks

  1. 1. The Development of Communication Networks of Pre-Service Teachers on a School-Led and University-Led Programme of Initial Teacher Education in England Dr Christopher Downey, University of Southampton Dr Jasperina Brouwer , University of Groningen Dr Christian Bokhove , University of Southampton AERA, 6th April 2019, Toronto, Canada
  2. 2. 2 Operating under pressure
  3. 3. Context • Teacher training in UK • PGCE – University Led (UL) – School Direct (SD) – NQT • Secondary Maths and Science – cohort size (~35) – R&R – “sink or swim” – longevity of course
  4. 4. What we know already Liou, Forbes, Hsiao, Moolenaar & Daly (2013) •Pre-service elementary school teachers - mathematics – Trust and self‐efficacy are positively associated with pre‐service teacher’s outcome performance on a mathematics teaching assessment. – The social network position of a pre‐service teacher is also related to performance. •Importance of support relationships as a buffer/resilience in a pressured environment (Le Cornu and Ewing, 2008; Gu and Day, 2007)
  5. 5. Support networks • Instrumental – developing teaching strategies • Expressive – friendship
  6. 6. Data collection Time Network Related factors Peer (whole) External (ego) Trust Self-efficacy 1     2    3     4    
  7. 7. Trust
  8. 8. Self-efficacy by programme
  9. 9. Response Rates Subject 1 2 3 4 Maths (37) 35 28 29 29 95% 81% 94% 90% Science (40) 38 33 32 31 95% 83% 86% 83% Total 73 61 61 60
  10. 10. Research questions • RQ1: How do the peer communication networks of pre- service maths and science teachers develop over time? Network change • RQ2: To what extent do students communicate with each other when they are friends and when they need support for developing teaching strategies? Networks affecting network change • RQ3: To what extent do changes in the communication networks over time depend on type of programme, gender, self-efficacy and trust? Factors affecting network change
  11. 11. Network development – aka, the ties, they are a changin’ 11 j i j i j i (Snijders et al , 2010)
  12. 12. Network Descriptives - science Time1 Time2 Time3 Time4 UL n=27 SD n=13 UL SD UL SD UL SD Network density 0.244 0.287 0.157 0.134 Group densities 0.32 0.09 0.36 0.14 0.20 0.08 0.16 0.07 Reciprocity 0.478 0.353 0.390 0.294 Group reciprocities 0.49 0.56 0.36 0.39 0.40 0.55 0.30 0.40 E-I index -0.901 -0.828 -0.734 -0.816 Ties created T1T2 138 T2T3 59 T3T4 59 Ties dissolved T1T2 129 T2T3 228 T3T4 102 Ties maintained T1T2 236 T2T3 146 T3T4 103
  13. 13. Network change – science comms T1 & T4 13
  14. 14. Network Descriptives - mathematics Time1 Time2 Time3 Time4 UL n=25 SD n=10 UL SD UL SD UL SD Network density 0.315 0.237 0.193 0.113 Group densities 0.41 0.11 0.33 0.05 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.05 Reciprocity 0.465 0.452 0.521 0.590 Group reciprocities 0.49 0.53 0.48 0.21 0.51 0.72 0.58 0.89 E-I index -0.790 -0.905 -0.852 -0.841 Ties created T1T2 53 T2T3 72 T3T4 15 Ties dissolved T1T2 158 T2T3 130 T3T4 122 Ties maintained T1T2 263 T2T3 186 T3T4 136
  15. 15. Network change – math comms T1 & T4 15
  16. 16. Boundary specification 16 Maths T4 (Bokhove and Downey, 2018)
  17. 17. Network homophily – by programme
  18. 18. RQ1: Network change - triadic closure 18 j i i ordered triplet i i i j j j k k k transitive triplet transitive reciprocated triplet
  19. 19. RSiena Results Mathematics T1-T2 T2-T3 T3-T4 outdegree (density) - - - Reciprocity + + + transitive triplets + + transitive recipr. triplets - - Friend + + Strategies + + SD alter + +
  20. 20. RSiena Results Science T1-T2 T2-T3 T3-T4 outdegree (density) - - - Reciprocity + + + transitive triplets + + + transitive recipr. triplets - - - Friend + + Strategies + SD alter + +
  21. 21. 21 RQ1: Network structure - triadic closure Only Maths - not observed among science trainees.
  22. 22. RQ2: Network affecting network change • Expressive network (friendship) positively associated with network change at first & second timespans but not the last. • Mirrored by instrumental network (strategies) only positively associated at end of course (Sci) and beginning and end (Ma) – Friendships stabilised Y3 (March) so that more instrumental support-seeking become influential – Encouragement to retain instrumental ties
  23. 23. RQ3: Factors affecting network change • SD (alter) positively associated with network change at first and second timespans (Ma) and first and last (Sci). • Self-efficacy (alter) not associated with network change – Possibly already controlled for in SD, especially early on during course as SD start with higher self-efficacy • Gender and trust – no consistent patterns of association – Controlling for friendship networks – proxy for trust
  24. 24. Conclusions • Importance of mutuality in support networks – reciprocity – transitivity and flattening of hierarchy – self-perceived efficacy (probably) not a factor • Expressive ties are most important early on, instrumental later – encouragement to foster a mix of ties and sustain instrumental ties • What about transition across to qualified status and early career – insights into science and maths teacher R&R?

×