to engage productively but critically with difference and conflict among faculty members with respect to views about teaching (; ; ). A third important organizational condition for professional community is cohesion among the faculty. Interactions among cohesive faculty, in which there is a high level of relational trust and where there are strong, positive collegial ties that link teachers across the school, can communicate the knowledge and norms necessary to support teachers to change practices (; ). These organizational conditions both enable and are cultivated through particular social practices that support teacher learning in their schools (). Of central importance are routines and protocols that scaffold deep conversations among teachers about their practices (; ; ). First, protocols for looking at student work together or examining practice can provide a safe context for opening up and representing one’s practice to others and thus facilitate teachers’ willingness to experiment with new practices (; ). Second, the analysis of common artifacts, anchored to lessons or samples of student work, can also help teachers come to appreciate multiple approaches to teaching content and the plausibility of drawing different inferences about what students know and can do (). Conversations anchored in practice can help teachers problematize their own practice and appreciate the need for re-examining their own knowledge and the frames of reference they bring to teaching (; ). Using Social Network Analysis to Model Teacher Learning from Professional Development and Collegial Interaction Few researchers have sought to develop theoretical accounts of or test models that focus on how teacher learning from organized professional development and collegial interaction relate to one another. Addressing this gap is important, because both forms of teacher learning have limitations. In practice, external professional development rarely proves sufficient for making
Mean % White 58.56% (28.69%) Mean ratio 13.84 (5.69) Mean full time equivalent (FTE) teachers 37.75 (21.69) Mean number of English language arts teachers (ELAs) 13.55 (7.63) Note: Standard deviations appear in parentheses. Table 2. Teacher Characteristics in Year 3, the 2009-10 School Year Partnership (Treatment) Experience
Mean teaching 15.63 (SD=9.24) Mean years teaching in the current school 11.16 (SD=7.62) Mean teaching the same assignment in the current school 8.91 (SD=6.89) Highest Academic Degree Percent with Bachelor’s 40.57% (n=200) Percent with Master’s 54.77% (n=270) Percent with Education Specialist’s 2.84% (n=14) Percent with Doctorate 0 (n=0) Percent with Professional credential post Bachelor’s degree 1.82% (n=9) Note: In parentheses, SD=standard deviation, n=number of teachers. Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of Focal Measures by Low, Intermediate and High Frequency Groups Variable Whole Sample (n=431) Low (n=147) (n=153) High (n=131) Writing processes instruction in year 3 1.684 (1.343) 0.692 (0.911) 1.685 (1.072) 2.829 (1.123) Prior writing processes instruction in year 1 1.646 0.194 1.569 3.411
(1.374) (0.232) (0.572) (0.522) Direct participation in professional development in year 3 10.271 (20.695) 4.168 (7.538) 9.540 (21.611) 18.167 (26.658) Network measure of the exposure to colleagues' estimated expertise gained from year-2 professional development 1.152 (1.548) 0.632 (1.230) 1.162 (1.460) 1.739 (1.759) Being an ELA teacher in year 3 0.298 (0.458) 0.032 (0.177) 0.244 (0.431) 0.677 (0.470) Being a female 0.681 (0.466) 0.630 (0.484) 0.625 (0.486) 0.807 (0.396) of working at the current school up to year 3 11.156 (7.631) 11.333 (7.642) 10.983 (7.499) 11.155 (7.817) Being a coach or teacher consultant in year 3 0.074 (0.262) 0.046 (0.211) 0.085 (0.280) 0.093 (0.292) Having a master's degree or higher in year 3 0.585 (0.493) 0.584 (0.494) 0.528 (0.501) 0.653 (0.478) Perceived pressure on improving student performance on writing assessment in year 3 5.986 (1.462) 5.945 (1.471) 6.064 (1.427) 5.939 (1.499) Notes: Standard deviations are included in parentheses.
Table 4. Correlation Coefficients Writing processes instruction in year 3 Direct participation in professional development in year 3 Network measure of the exposure to colleagues’ estimated expertise gained from year-2 professional development Prior writing processes instruction in year 1 Being an ELA teacher in year 3 Being a female Years of working at the current school up to year 3 Being a coach or teacher consultant in year 3 Having a master’s degree or higher in year 3 Perceived pressure on improving student performance on state writing assessment in year 3 Writing processes instruction in year 3 1.000 Direct participation in professional development in year 3 1.000 Network measure of the exposure to colleagues’ estimated expertise gained from year-2 professional development 1.000 Prior writing processes instruction in year 1 0.322*** 1.000 Being an ELA teacher in year 3 0.313*** 1.000 Being a female 0.089 0.053 0.209*** 1.000 Years of working at the current school up to year 3 -0.007 -0.046 0.035 0.043 -0.068 0.04 1.000
Being a coach or teacher consultant in year 3 0.101* 0.095* -0.016 0.086 0.127** -0.07 0.095* 1.000 Having a master’s degree or higher in year 3 0.02 0.108* 0.084 0.048 0.086 -0.041 0.122* 0.055 1.000 Perceived pressure on improving student performance on state writing assessment in year 3 0.034 0.002 0.052 -0.047 0.012 0.039 0.008 -0.11* 1.000 Note: N=431 *p≤0.05 **p≤0.01 ***p≤0.001