A growing empirical base suggests that there is a positive relationship between teacher social interaction and student achievement. However, much of this research is based on standardized summative assessments, which, while important, may have limited applicability to timely instructional decision making. As such, in this work, we examine the relationship between teacher social interaction and interim benchmark formative assessments, which have been argued to play a more useful role in instructional decision making.
Purpose
In this study we used a human and social capital framework to explore the relationship between teacher social interaction and student achievement on an interim benchmark formative assessment. We hypothesized that teacher social capital would be positively related with student achievement as measured by an interim assessment, even after controlling for student and teacher demographics as well as proxies for teacher human capital.
Population
A sample of 63 teachers from five elementary schools in a midsize U.S. district completed a demographic and social network survey, from which we generated our human and social capital measures. For student-level data, we collected current and prior student achievement from 1,196 third to fifth grade students on an English Language Arts Interim Benchmark Assessment.
Research Design
We used survey data to conduct social network analysis and hierarchical linear modeling to explore the multilevel relationship between human and social capital and student achievement.
Results
Results indicated that even when controlling for student demographics and prior achievement, teachers’ human and social capital had a significant effect on student achievement as measured by interim assessments. More specifically our results indicated that more teaching experience in the current school was associated with better student performance on the interim assessment. In addition, the act of reaching out to other teachers to share knowledge regarding reading comprehension was associated with higher student scores on the interim assessment even when controlling for demographics and past academic performance.
Conclusions
This study offers a unique insight into the role of accessing capital resources and student achievement in strengthening schools under increased pressure to improve. Our work adds to the growing empirical base that suggests that teacher social interaction has a relationship with student achievement. To encourage social interaction, creating formal policies and structures for teachers to develop social ties with one another related to content may be a useful strategy in supporting student outcomes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdlerP. S., & KwonS. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.
2.
AndrewsC. A. (2005). Generating knowledge and strengthening practice through teachers' joint work (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA.
3.
AshtonP. T., & WebbR. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.
4.
AtteberryA., & BrykA. S. (2010). Analyzing the role of social networks in school-based professional development initiatives. In DalyA. J. (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
Baker-DoyleK. (2011). The networked teacher. New York: Teachers College Press.
6.
Baker-DoyleK., & YoonS. A. (2010). Urban teacher support networks. In DalyA. J. (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
BakkenesI., De BrabanderC., & ImantsJ. (1999). Teacher isolation and communication network analysis in primary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 166–202.
8.
BallD. L., & CohenD. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In SykesG. & Darling-HammondL. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
BerryB., JohnsonD., & MontgomeryD. (2005). The power of teacher leadership. Educational Leadership, 62(5), 56–60.
10.
BlackP., HarrisonC., LeeC., MarshallB., & WiliamD. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 9–21.
11.
BlackP., & WiliamD. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139–148.
12.
BlancS., ChristmanJ. B., LiuR., MitchellC., TraversE., & BulkleyK. E. (2010) Learning to learn from data: Benchmarks and instructional communities. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), pp. 205–225.
13.
BorgattiS. P. (2002). Netdraw network visualization. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
14.
BorgattiS., EverettM., & FreemanL. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, Cambridge, MA: Analytic Technologies.
15.
BourdieuP. (1986). The forms of social capital. In RichardsonJ. G. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.
16.
BrykA. S., & SchneiderB. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
17.
BrykA., & SchneiderB. (2003). Trust in schools: A core resource for school reform. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 40–45.
18.
BulkleyK. E., ChristmanJ. B., GoertzM. E., & LawrenceN. R. (2010). Building with benchmarks: The role of the district in Philadelphia's benchmark assessment system. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), pp. 186–204.
19.
BurtR. S. (1992). Structural holes: The structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
BurtR. S. (1997). A note on social capital and network content. Social Networks, 19, 355–373.
21.
CarleyK., & KrackhardtD. (1999). Cognitive inconsistencies and non-symmetric friendship. Social Networks, 18(1), 1–27.
22.
CarmichaelP., FoxA., McCormickR., ProcterR., & HonourL. (2006). Teachers' networks in and out of school. Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 217–234.
23.
ChrispeelsJ. H., AndrewsC., & GonzalezM. (2007). System supports for teacher learning and school improvements. In TownsendT. (Ed.), International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement (pp. 579–596). Dodrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Dordrecht.
24.
ChristmanJ., NeildR., BulkleyK., BlancS., LiuR., MitchellC., & TraversE. (2009). Making the most of interim assessment data. Lessons from Philadelphia. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Action.
25.
ClarkeS. (2001). Unlocking formative assessment: Strategies for enhancing pupils' learning in the primary classroom. London: Hodder Murray.
26.
CoburnC. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.
27.
CoburnC. E., ChoiL., & MataW. (2010). “I would go to her because her mind is math”: Network formation in the context of mathematics reform. In DalyA. J. (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 33–50). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.
28.
CoburnC. E., HonigM. I., & SteinM. K. (2009). What's the evidence on district's use of evidence? In BransfordJ., StipekD. J., VyeN. J., GomezL. & LamD. (Eds.), Educational improvement: What makes it happen and why? (pp. 67–86). Cambridge: Harvard Educational Press.
29.
CoburnC. E., PearsonP. D., & WoulfinS. (2010). Reading policy in an era of accountability. In KamilM., PearsonP. D., MojeE., & AfflerbachP. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. IV). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
30.
CoburnC. E., & RussellJ. L. (2008). District policy and teachers' social networks. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235.
31.
Cochran-SmithM., & LytleS. L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
32.
Cochran-SmithM., & LytleS. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press.
33.
CohenD.K., & HillH. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
34.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.
35.
ConstantD., SproullL., & KieslerS. (1996). The kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science, 7, 119–135.
36.
CrossR., BorgattiS. P., & ParkerA. (2001). Beyond answers: Dimensions of the advice network. Social Networks, 23(3), 215–235.
37.
CrossR., & ParkerA. (2004). The hidden power of social networks: Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
38.
CurryM., GearhartM., KafkaJ., & LittleJ. W. (2003). Looking at student work for teacher learning, teacher community and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 32, 185–192.
39.
DalyA. J. (2009). Rigid response in an age of accountability: The potential of leadership and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 168–216.
40.
DalyA. J. (2010). Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
DalyA. J. (2012). Data, dyads, and dynamics: Exploring data use and social networks in educational improvement. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 1–38.
42.
DalyA. J., & FinniganK. (2011). The ebb and flow of social network ties between district leaders under high stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 39–79.
43.
DalyA. J., & FinniganK. (2012). Exploring the space between: Social networks, trust, and urban school district leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 22(3), 493–530.
44.
DalyA. J., MoolenaarN. M., BolivarJ. M., & BurkeP. (2010). Relationships in reform: The role of teachers' social networks. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(3), 359–391.
45.
Darling-HammondL. (1993). Reframing the school reform agenda: Developing capacity for school transformation, Phi Delta Kappan, 74(10), 753–761.
46.
Darling-HammondL. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1047–1085.
47.
DatnowA. (2012). Teacher agency in educational reform: Lessons from social networks research. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 193–201
48.
DatnowA., HubbardL., & MehanH. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. New York: Routledge/Falmer.
49.
DhanarajC., & ParkheA. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 659–669.
50.
DuFourR., & EakerR. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
51.
EarlL., & KatzS. (2007). Leadership in networked learning communities: Defining the terrain. School Leadership and Management, 27(3), 239–258.
52.
EbersM., & GrandoriA. (1999). The forms, costs and development dynamics of inter-organizational networking. In EbersM. (Ed.), The formation of inter-organizational networks (pp. 265–286). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
53.
Evans-StoutK. (1998). Implications for collaborative instructional practice. In PounderD. (Ed.), Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls (pp. 121–134). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
54.
Feiman-NemserS. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013–1055.
55.
FinniganK., & DalyA. J. (2012). Mind the gap: Learning, trust, and relationships in an underperforming urban district. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 41–71.
56.
FishmanB. J., MarxR. W., BestS., & TalR. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658.
57.
FrankK. A., ZhaoY., PenuelW. R., EllefsonN., & PorterS. (2011). Focus, fiddle, and friends: Experiences that transform knowledge for the implementation of innovations. Sociology of Education, 84(2), 137–156.
58.
FreemanL. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.
59.
FuchsL. S., & FuchsD. (1986). Effects of formative evaluation on student achievement: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Child, 53, 199–208.
60.
FullanM. G. (1992). Successful school improvement: The implementation perspective and beyond. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
61.
GallimoreR., ErmelingB., SaundersW., & GoldenbergC. (2009). Moving the learning of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry teams. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 537–553
62.
GallucciC. (2008). Districtwide instructional reform: Using sociocultural theory to link professional learning to organizational support. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 541–581.
63.
GhoshalS., KorineH., & SzulanskiG. (1994). Interunit communication in multinational corporations. Management Science, 40, 96–110.
64.
GoddardY. L., GoddardR. D., & Tschannen-MoranM. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877–896.
65.
GoddardY. L., & HeronT. E. (2001). The consultation process. In HeronT. E. & HarrisK. C., The educational consultant: Helping professionals, parents, and mainstreamed students (4th ed., pp. 3–37). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
66.
GoertzM. E., OlahL. N., & RigganM. (2009) From testing to teaching: The use of interim assessments in classroom instruction. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
67.
GranovetterM. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
68.
GranovetterM. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In MarsdenP. V. & LinN. (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 105–130). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
69.
GrossmanP. L., & RichertA. E. (1988). Unacknowledged knowledge growth: A re-examination of the effects of teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 53–62.
70.
GrossmanP., WineburgS., & WoolworthS. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103, 942–1012.
71.
HakkarainenK., PalonenT., PaavolaS., & LehtinenE. (2004). Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
72.
HalpernD. (2005). Social capital. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
73.
HalversonR. R. (2003). Systems of practice: How leaders use artifacts to create professional community in schools. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11(37), 1–35.
74.
HannanM. T., & FreemanJ. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49, 149–164.
75.
HannemanR. A., & RiddleM. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside. Retrieved from http://faculty.ucr.edu/∼hanneman/
76.
HansenM. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.
77.
HansenM. T. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13, 232–248.
HargreavesA., & FullanM. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. New York: Teachers College Press.
80.
HarrisD. N., & SassT. R. (2008). Teacher training, teacher quality, and student achievement (Working Paper 3). Washington, DCNational Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Educational Research (CALDER).
81.
HatchT. (2009). Managing to change: How schools can survive (and sometimes thrive) in turbulent times. New York: Teachers College Press.
82.
HausmanC. S., & GoldringE. B. (2001). Sustaining teacher commitment: The role of professional communities. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 30–51.
HenigJ. R., & StoneC. N. (2008). Rethinking school reform: The distractions of dogma and the potential for a new politics of progressive pragmatism. American Journal of Education, 114, 191–218.
85.
HonigM. I. (2008). District central offices as learning organizations: How sociocultural and organizational learn theories elaborate district central office administrators' participation in teaching and learning improvement efforts. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 627–664.
86.
HonigM. I., & IkemotoG. (2008). Adaptive assistance for learning improvement efforts: The case of the Institute for Learning. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 328–363.
87.
HopkinsD., & ReynoldsD. (2001). The past, present and future of school improvement: Towards the third age. British Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 459–475.
88.
HornI. S., & LittleJ. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers' workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217.
89.
HubbardL., MehanH., & SteinM. (2006). Reform as learning. New York: Routledge.
90.
InkpenA. C., & TsangE. W. K. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146–165.
91.
JacksonD., & TemperleyJ. (2007). From professional learning community to networked learning community. In StollL. & Seashore LouisK. (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas. Buckingham, UK: McGraw-Hill International.
92.
JamesC. R., DunningG., ConnollyM., & ElliotT. (2007). Collaborative practice: A model of successful working in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(5), 541–555.
KatzenbachJ. R., & SmithD. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Boston: Harvard Business School.
95.
KenisP., & KnokeD. (2002). How organizational field networks shape interorganizational tie-formation rates. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 275–293.
96.
KennedyM. (2002). Knowledge and teaching. Teachers and teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 355–370.
97.
KilburnM. R., & KarolyL. A. (2008). The economics of early childhood policy: What the dismal science has to say about investing in children. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP227.html
98.
KilduffM., & TsaiW. (2003). Social networks and organizations. London: Sage Publications.
KogutB., & ZanderU. (1996). What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning, Organization Science, 7(5), 502–518.
101.
KrackhardtD. (1992). The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. In NohriaN. & EcclesR. (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp. 216–239). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
102.
KrackhardtD. (1999). The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations. In BacharachS. B., AndrewsS. B., & KnokeD. (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 183–210). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
103.
KrackhardtD. (2001, August). Network conditions of organizational change. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
104.
KriegJ. M. (2011). Which students are left behind? The racial impacts of the No Child Left Behind Act. Economics of Education Review, 30(4), 654–664.
105.
LaveJ., & WengerE. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
106.
LawlerE. E. (1992). The ultimate advantage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
107.
LazegaE., & PattisonP. E. (2001). A social mechanism as a form of corporate social capital: Status auctions among peers. In LinN., CookK. S., & BurtR. S. (Eds.), Social capital. Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter.
108.
LazegaE., & Van DuijnM. (1997). Position in formal structure, personal characteristics and choices of advisors in a law firm: A logistic regression model for dyadic network data. Social Networks, 19, 375–397.
109.
LeanaC., & Van BurenH. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538–556.
110.
LiebermanA., & MillerL. (Eds.). (2008). Teachers in professional communities. Improving teaching and learning. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
111.
LinN. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action (1st ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
112.
LinN. (2009). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action.New York: Cambridge University Press.
113.
LiouY. H. (2010). Relational trust and knowledge sharing: An investigation of principal trust and school social networks (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin.
114.
LiouY. H., & DalyA. J. (in press). Closer to learning: Social networks, trust, and professional communities. Journal of School Leadership.
115.
LittleJ. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers' professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 503–536.
116.
LittleJ. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational change. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129–151.
117.
LittleJ. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913–945.
118.
LomosC., HofmanR. H., & BoskerR. J. (2011). Professional communities and student achievement: A meta-analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, iFirst, 1–28.
119.
LouisK. S., & MarksH. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers' work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106(4), 532–575.
120.
MadhavanR., KokaB. R., & PrescottJ. E. (1998). Networks in transition: How industry events (re)shape interfirm relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 439–459.
121.
McGrathC., & KrackhardtD. (2003). Network conditions for organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(3), 324–336.
122.
McLaughlinM. W., & TalbertJ. W. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning. Palo Alto, CA: Context Center on Secondary School Teaching.
123.
McLaughlinM. W., & TalbertJ. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.
124.
MeichtryY. J. (1990, October). Teacher collaboration: The effects of interdisciplinary teaming on teacher interactions and classroom practices. Paper presented at the 12th annual meeting of Mid-western Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
125.
MilanowskiA. T., HenemanH. G.III, & KimballS. M. (2011). Teaching assessment for teacher human capital management: Learning from the current state of the art. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, School of Education, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
126.
MintropH., & TrujilloT. (2007). The practical relevance of accountability systems for school improvement: A descriptive analysis of California schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(4), 319–352.
127.
MitchellC., & SackneyL. (2007). Extending the learning community: A broader perspective embedded in policy. In StollL. & LouisK. S. (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, detail and difficulties (pp. 30–44). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
128.
MoolenaarN. M. (2010). Ties with potential: Nature, antecedents, and consequences of social networks in school teams (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
129.
MoolenaarN. M. (2012). A social network perspective on teacher collaboration in schools: Theory, methodology, and applications. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 7–39.
130.
MoolenaarN. M., DalyA. J., & SleegersP. J. C. (2010). Occupying the principal position: Examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network position, and schools' innovative climate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 623–670.
131.
MoolenaarN. M., DalyA. J., & SleegersP. J. C. (2011). Ties with potential: Social network structure and innovative climate in Dutch schools. Teachers College Record, 113(9), 1983–2017.
132.
MoolenaarN. M., DalyA. J., SleegersP. J. C., & KarstenS. (in press). The social forces of elementary school teams: How demographic composition shapes social networks. In WubbelsT., van TartwijkJ., den BrokP., LevyJ., & ZandvlietD. (Eds.), Interpersonal relationships in education: From theory to practice (Advances in learning environments series). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SENSE Publishers.
133.
MoolenaarN. M., SleegersP. J. C., & DalyA. J. (2011). Teaming up: Linking collaboration networks, collective efficacy, and student achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(2), 251–262. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.001
134.
MoolenaarN. M., SleegersP. J. C., KarstenS., & DalyA. J. (2012). The social fabric of elementary schools: A network typology of social interaction among teachers. Educational Studies, 38(4), 355–371. doi:10.1080/03055698.2011.643101
NahapietJ., & GhoshalS. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
137.
NewmannF., & WehlageG. (1995). Successful school restructuring.Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
138.
PariseL. M., & SpillaneJ. (2010). Teacher learning and instructional change: How formal and on-the-job learning opportunities predict change in elementary school teachers' practice. The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 347.
139.
PenuelW. R., BatesL., GallagherL. P., PasnikS., LlorenteC., … & VanderBorghtM. (2012). Supplementing literacy instruction with a media-rich intervention: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(1), 115–127.
140.
PenuelW. R., FishmanB. J., YamaguchiR., & GallagherL. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.
141.
PenuelW. R., RielM., JoshiA., PearlmanL., KimC. M., & FrankK. A. (2010). The alignment of the informal and formal organizational supports for reform: Implications for improving teaching in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 57–95.
142.
PenuelW. R., RielM. R., KrauseA., & FrankK. A. (2009). Analyzing teachers' professional interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 124–163.
143.
PenuelW. R., SunM., FrankK. A., & GallagherH. A. (2012). Using social network analysis to study how collegial interactions can augment teacher learning from external professional development. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 103–136.
144.
PerieM., MarionS., & GongB. (2009). Moving toward a comprehensive assessment system: A framework for considering interim assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28, 5–13.
145.
PilF. K., & LeanaC. (2009). Applying organizational research to public school reform: The effects of teacher human and social capital on student performance. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 1101–1124.
146.
PounderD. G. (1998). Teacher teams: Redesigning teachers' work for collaboration. In PounderD. G. (Ed.), Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls (pp. 65–88). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
147.
RaiderH., & KrackhardtD. (2001). Intraorganizational networks. In BaumJ. A. C. (Ed.), Companion to organizations (pp. 58–74). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
148.
RaudenbaushS. W., BrykA. S., CheongY. F., & CongdonR. T. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
149.
ReagansR. E., & McEvilyB. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240–267.
150.
ReagansR. E., & ZuckermanE. W. (2001). Networks, diversity and performance: The social capital of R&D teams. Organization Science, 12, 502–518.
RogersE. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
153.
SadlerD. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 77–84.
154.
SandersW. L., & HornS. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee Value Added Assessment System (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247–256.
155.
SandersW. L., & RiversJ. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement (Research Progress Report). Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
156.
SchildkampK., & KuiperW. (2010). Data-informed curriculum reform: Which data, what purposes, and promoting and hindering factors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 482–496.
157.
SchultzT. W. (1961). Investment in human capital. American Economic Review, 51(1), 1–17.
158.
ScottJ. (2000), Social network analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
159.
ShulmanL. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 75(2), 4–14.
160.
SiglerD., & Ucelli KashyapM. (2008). Human capital management: A new approach for districts. Voices in Urban Education, 20(Summer), 5–12.
161.
SimmelG. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel (WolffK., trans.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
162.
SmylieM. A., & EvansA. E. (2006). Social capital and the problem of implementation. In HonigM. I. (Ed.), New directions in education policy: Confronting complexity (pp. 187–208). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
163.
SleegersP. J. C., Den BrokP., VerbiestE., MoolenaarN. M., & DalyA.J. (in press). Towards conceptual carity: A multidimensional multilevel model of professional learning communities in Dutch elementary schools. Elementary School Journal.
164.
SongS., NerurS., & TengJ. (2007). An exploratary study on the roles of network structure and knowledge processing orientaion in work unit knowledge management. ACM SIGMIS Data-Base, 38, 8–26.
165.
SpillaneJ. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers' efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers' zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2).
166.
SpillaneJ. P. (2006), Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
167.
SpillaneJ., ReiserB., & GomezL. (2006). Policy implementation and cognition: The role of human, social, & distributed cognition in framing policy implementation. In HonigM. (Ed.), New directions in educational policy implementation: Confronting complexity. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
168.
SpillaneJ. P., & ZuberiA. (2009). Designing and piloting a leadership daily practice log: Using logs to study the practice of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly; 45, 375–423.
169.
StollL., BolamR., McMahonA., WallaceM., & ThomasS. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258.
170.
StollL., & LouisK. (2007). Professional learning communities.Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
171.
StrahanD. (2003). Promoting a collaborative professional culture in three elementary schools that have beaten the odds. The Elementary School Journal, 104(2), 127–146.
172.
StroberM. H. (1990). Human capital theory: Implications for HR managers. Industrial Relations, 29, 214–240.
173.
StuartT. E. (1998). Producer network positions and propensities to collaborate: An investigation of strategic alliance formations in a high-technology industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 668–698.
174.
SunM., FrankK. A., PenuelW. R., & KimC. M. (2013). How external institutions penetrate schools through formal and informal leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0013161X12468148
175.
SupovitzJ. A. (2002). Developing communities of instructional practice. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1591–1626.
176.
SzulanskiG. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43.
177.
TamirP. (1991). Professional and personal knowledge of teachers and teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(3), 263–268.
178.
TaylorB. M., PressleyM., & PearsonD. (2000). Effective teachers and schools: Trends across recent studies (ERIC Report No. ED450353). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
179.
TenkasiR., & ChesmoreM. (2003). Social networks and planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(3), 281–300.
180.
TsaiW. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.
181.
TsaiW. (2002). Social structure of coopetition within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intra-organizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13, 179–190.
182.
TsaiW., & GhoshalS. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.
183.
UzziB. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 674–698.
184.
UzziB. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67.
185.
VescioV., RossD., & AdamsA. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24(1), 80–91.
186.
WalkerG., KogutB., & ShahW. (1997). Social capital, structural holes, and the formation of an industry network. Organizational Science, 8, 109–125.
187.
WassermanS., & FaustK. (1998). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press
188.
WeiR. C., Darling-HammondL., AndreeA., RichardsonN., & OphanosS. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
189.
WelchM., BrownellK., & SheridanS. M. (1999). What's the score and game plan on teaming in schools?Remedial and Special Education, 20, 36–49.
190.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
191.
WoodD. (2007). Teachers' learning communities: Catalyst for change or a new infrastructure for the status quo. Teachers College Record, 109(3), 699–739.
