This document summarizes a longitudinal study of the support networks of pre-service mathematics and science teachers in the UK. The study collected data from teachers in both provider-led and school-directed training programs over 4 time periods. It found that: 1) Teachers' views on the importance of support remained consistent over time, while their self-efficacy and networks changed, with self-efficacy increasing significantly. 2) Having more positive views on support was associated with greater growth in self-efficacy, while increasing network heterogeneity over time was associated with less growth. 3) Teachers in school-directed programs started with higher self-efficacy but increased less over time, while provider-led teachers'

1. Mapping Changes in Support:
A Longitudinal Analysis of
Networks of Preservice
Mathematics and Science
Teachers
Christopher Downey
Christian Bokhove
Social Side of Teacher Education Symposium
AERA Annual Meeting – Washington, DC 8-12 April 2016

2. Context
• Teacher training in UK
• PGCE
– Provider Led (PL)
– School Direct (SD)
– QTS + academic study
• Secondary Maths and Science
– cohort size (~35)
– Uni context
– longevity of course

3. Networks and pre-service teacher outcomes
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
Liou, Y. , Forbes, C. A., Hsuao, J. , Moolenaar, N. and Daly, A. J. , (2013) "Investing in Potential: Exploring Preservice Teachers’
Social Capital and Outcomes" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the UCEA Annual Convention, Hyatt Regency,
Indianapolis, IN Online <PDF>. 2014-12-10 from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p674423_index.html

4. Approach
• Longitudinal - 4 ‘waves’ of data collection (every 2 months)
– PL and SD differences in programme structure
• Directed network question: “During the last month, to
whom have you turned for support?”
• Both instrumental and affective aspects of support
• Online questionnaire instrument
– shared instruments (San Diego & Barcelona)

5. Research question
RQ1: Are certain network characteristics (such as network
homophily, network intentionality, peer trust and views on
support) significantly associated with the growth in perceived
self-efficacy of these pre-service teachers?
RQ2: How do the support networks of trainee teachers vary
between Provider Led (PL) and School Direct (SD)
programmes?

6. Data collection
• General
– Basic demographic (sex, age)
– Programme of Study (subject, mode = PL or SD)
• Relational factors (IVs)
– Peer trust
– Views on support
– Network intentionality
• Self-perception of development as teachers (DV)
• Peer-network (bounded whole networks for Ma & Sci)
• Wider network (external actors from different categories)

7. Summary of relational scales (IVs)
Support Trust Network intentionality
13 items 6 items 22 items
6 point Likert 9 point Likert type 5 point Likert
Consulting about
problems makes
work more
interesting
I trust my fellow
trainees.
I actively plan out
what I want my
network to look like
Asking for help can
be seen as a sign of
weakness
I find that my fellow
trainees are open to
me.
I am enthusiastic
about my network
of contacts

8. Development scale (DV)
3 subscales
• Classroom Management (5 items)
– How much can you control disruptive behaviour in the
classroom?
• Student Motivation (4 items)
– How much can you help your students value learning?
• Instructional Strategies (3 items)
– How well can you implement alternative teaching
strategies in your classroom?
• 9 point Likert type scales (1= not at all to 9 = always)
9

9. Survey nomination items
10
Peer (internal) and other
(external) supporter nominations

10. Maths (Wave 3 Example 25)

11. Ego network metrics

12. Data collection
Network Related factors
Peer
(whole)
External
(ego)
Trust Network
intent
Support
views
Self-efficacy
1    
2     
3      
4      

13. 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

14. 15
Wave 1 2 3 4
M StD M StD M StD M StD
Age category 2.05 1.57 1.80 1.18 1.90 1.19 1.87 1.19
Gender 0.49 0.50 0.49 0.50 0.54 0.50 0.55 0.50
Subject 0.52 0.50 0.54 0.50 0.52 0.50 0.52 0.50
Program 0.29 0.46 0.21 0.41 0.25 0.43 0.23 0.43
SUPPORT 4.77 0.45 4.68 0.39 4.66 0.45
NETWORK 3.39 0.34 3.46 0.36 3.43 0.33
DEVELOPME
NT
4.87 1.48 5.74 1.05 6.48 0.79 6.84 0.87
TRUST 6.69 1.61 7.13 1.54 7.19 1.85
E 5.42 3.65 6.00 3.74 5.90 3.73 5.40 3.42
I 10.86 7.09 11.28 7.46 7.59 5.36 5.33 4.65
EI-index -0.25 0.46 -0.24 0.41 -0.05 0.44 0.08 0.49
• Views on support (SUPPORT), network intentionality
(NETWORK) and peer trust (TRUST) were quite trait-like
and did not change much.
• Self-perceived self-efficacy (DEVELOPMENT) increased
significantly over the four waves.

15. Observations repeated ANOVA
• TRUST, NETWORK, SUPPORT constant
• DEVELOPMENT increased: F(1.900, 77.925) = 21.032,
p<0.001
• E not significantly different over waves: F(2.351,
119.884)=.908, p=.419
• I and EI were different over waves but not from wave 1 to
wave 2: F(2.521, 128.578)=22.238, p<.001 and F(2.389,
119.467)=17.589, p<.001
16

16. RQ1 - Associations
B SE B β
Step 1
1 (Constant) 2.574 1.361
SUPPORT .750 .252 .392 **
NETWORK .126 .382 .047
TRUST .045 .063 .095
Step 2
2 (Constant) 2.202 1.314
SUPPORT .768 .243 .402 **
NETWORK .198 .364 .074
TRUST .019 .062 .040
NETWORKGAIN -.038 .014 -.347 *
EIGAIN -.030 .222 -.018
17

17. 18

18. 19

19. RQ2 – Programme Differences
• Trainees did not develop significantly less or external ties,
but they did lose internal ties and subsequently an
increased EI-index . These changes, however, did only set in
after wave 2.
• Self-perceived efficacy as represented by DEVELOPMENT
between the two groups SD and PL differed: SD starts out
higher, but PL increases more from wave 1 to 4.

20. Take away points
• Trait nature of SUPPORT, TRUST and NETWORK, but only
views on support is a predictor (positive) of perceived
DEVELOPMENT.
• Network heterogeneity increases for PL but is relatively
constant for SD. This matches programme context but is not
a predictor of DEVELOPMENT.
• NETWORKGAIN is negatively associated with
DEVELOPMENT, driven by the changes in PL support
networks.
• We assume the networks to external actors are homogenous,
but this is not the case (family, friends, mentors, colleagues)
21