Given prior research indicating that teachers can learn through their social network interactions with colleagues, it is important to understand more about the choices teachers make about whom to go to for advice. In this study, we investigated the degree to which middle school mathematics teachers change from whom they seek advice when confronting new teaching standards and external accountability pressures (e.g., standardized tests). We found that colleagues’ ability to improve student achievement was significantly related to advice seeking. In particular, teachers were more likely to seek new advice from colleagues who were better at improving student achievement. In contrast, relative differences in other types of expertise were not associated with advice seeking.
Baker-DoyleK. J.YoonI. H. (2010). Making expertise transparent: Using technology to strengthen social networks in teacher professional development. In DalyA. J. (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 115–126). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
2.
BallD. L.CohenD. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners. In Darling-HammondL.SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 3–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3.
BostonM.WolfM. K. (2006). Assessing academic rigor in mathematics instruction: The development of the instructional qualiy assessment toolkit (CSE Technical Report 672). Retrieved from https://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/r672.pdf
4.
BrownJ. S.CollinsA.DuguidP. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. doi:10.3102/0013189X018001032
5.
BrunerJ. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
BrykA. S.SebringP. B.AllensworthE.LuppescoS.EastonJ. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7.
BurtR. (1998). The gender of social capital. Rationality and Society, 10(1), 5–40.
8.
CobbP.JacksonK. J. (2011). Towards an empricially grounded theory of action for improving the quality of mathematics teaching at scale. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13(1), 6–33.
9.
CobbP.SmithT. M. (2008). District development as a means of improving mathematics teaching and learning at scale. In KrainerK.WoodT. (Eds.), Participants in mathematics teacher education: Individuals, teams, communities, and networks (Vol. 3, pp. 231–254). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
10.
CoburnC. E.ChoiL.MataW. (2010). “I would go to her because her mind is math”: Network formation in the context of a district-based mathematics reform. In DalyA. J. (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 33–50). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
11.
CoburnC. E.MataW.ChoiL. (2013). The embeddedness of teachers’ social networks: Evidence from a study of mathematics reform. Sociology of Education, 86(4), 311–342. doi:10.1177/0038040713501147
12.
CohenJ. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. doi:10.1177/001316446002000104
13.
CowanK. T. (2003). The new Title I: The changing landscape of accountability. Washington, DC: Thompson Publishing Group.
14.
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. doi:10.1108/09578231011041062
15.
ElmoreR. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
16.
ElmoreR. F. (2006). Leadership as the practice of improvement. Paper presented at the OECD International Conference on Perspectives on Leadership for Systemic Improvement, London.
17.
ElmoreR. F.PetersonP. L.McCartheyS. J. (1996). Restructuring the classroom: Teaching, learning, and school organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
18.
FraivilligJ. L.MurphyL. A.FusonK. C. (1999). Advancing children’s mathematical thinking in everyday mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(2), 148–170. doi:10.2307/749608
19.
FrankK. A.KimC.BelmanD. (2010). Utility theory, social networks, and teacher decision making. In DalyA. J. (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 223–242). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
FrankK. A.LoY.SunM. (2014). Social network analysis of the influences of educational reforms on teachers’ practices and interactions. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17(3). doi:10.1007/s11618-014-0554-x
21.
FrankK. A.MaroulisS.DuongM.KelceyB. (2013). What would it take to change an inference? Using Rubin’s causal model to interpret the robustness of causal inferences. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 437–460. doi:10.3102/0162373713493129
22.
FrankK. A.MullerC.MuellerA. S. (2013). The embeddedness of adolescent friendship: New friends from emergent network structures. American Journal of Sociology, 119(1), 216–253.
23.
FrankK. A.ZhaoY. (2005). Subgroups as meso-level entities in the social organization of schools. In HedgesL. V.SchneiderB. L. (Eds.), The social organization of schooling (pp. 200–224). London: Russell Sage Foundation.
24.
FrankK. A.ZhaoY.BormanK. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: The case of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education, 77, 148–171. doi:10.1177/003804070407700203
25.
GamoranA.SecadaW. G.MarrettC. B. (2000). The organizational context of teaching and learning: Changing theoretical perspectives. In HallinanM. T. (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 37–59). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers.
26.
GlidewellJ.TuckerS.TodtM.CoxS. (1983). Professional support systems: The teaching profession. In NadlerA.FisherJ.DePauloB. (Eds.), New directions in helping, Volume 3: Applied perspective on help-seeking and -receiving (pp. 182–212). New York, NY: Academic Press.
27.
GoldsmithL. T.DoerrH. M.LewisC. C. (2014). Mathematics teachers’ learning: A conceptual framework and synthesis of research. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17, 5–36. doi:10.1007/s10857-013-9245-4
28.
HargreavesA.DaweR. (1990). Paths of professional development: Contrived collegiality, collaborative culture, and the case of peer coaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(3), 227–241. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(90)90015-W
29.
HartmannD. P.BarriosB. A.WoodD. D. (2004). Principles of behavioral observation. In HersenM. (Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment (Vol. 3, pp. 108–137). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
30.
HermanJ. L. (2004). The effects of testing on instruction. In FuhrmanS. H.ElmoreR. F. (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 141–166). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
31.
HillH. C. (2007). Mathematical knowledge of middle school teachers: Implications for the No Child Left Behind Policy Initiative. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(2), 95–114. doi:10.3102/0162373707301711
32.
HillH. C.BallD. L.BlunkM. L.GoffneyI. M.RowanB. (2007). Validating the ecological assumption: The relationship of measure scores to classroom teaching and student learning. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 5(2), 107–118. doi:10.1080/15366360701487138
33.
HillH. C.BlunkM. L.CharalambosC. Y.LewisJ. M.PhelpsG.SleepL.BallD. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 430–511. doi:10.1080/07370000802177235
34.
HillH. C.SchillingS. G.BallD. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11–30. doi:10.1086/428763
35.
HollandP. W.LeinhardtS. (1981). An exponential family of probability distributions for directed graphs. Journal of American Statistical Association, 77(373), 33–50. doi:10.1080/01621459.1981.10477598
36.
KruseS.LouisK. S. (1995). Developing professional communities in new and restructuring urban districts. In LouisK. S.KruseS. (Eds.), Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools (pp. 187–207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
37.
LambdinD.PrestonR. (1995). Caricatures in innovation: Teacher adaptation to an investigation-oriented middle school mathematics curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 46(2), 130–140. doi:10.1177/0022487195046002007
38.
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310
LortieD. C. (1975). Schoolteacher. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
41.
LouisK. S.MarksH. M.KruseS. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757–798.
42.
MatsumuraL. C.SlaterS. C.JunkerB.PetersonM.BostonM.SteeleM.ResnickL. B. (2006). Measuring reading comprehension and mathematics instruction in urban middle schools: A pilot study of the instructional quality assessment. Retrieved from https://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R681.pdf
43.
McLaughlinM. W.TalbertJ. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
44.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. doi:10.2307/2678628
45.
MoolenaarN. M. (2012). A social network perspective on teacher collaboration in schools: Theory, methodology, and applications. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 7–39. doi:10.1086/667715
46.
MoolenaarN. M.DalyA. J.SleegersP.KarstenS. (2014). Social forces in school teams : How demographic composition affects social relationships. In ZandvlietD.den BrokP.MainhardT.van TartwijkJ. (Eds.), Interpersonal relationships in education: From theory to practice (pp. 159–182). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
47.
MunterC. (2014). Developing visions of high-quality mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(5), 585–636.
48.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards. Reston, VA: Author.
49.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
50.
National Governors Association for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.
51.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
52.
O’DayJ. A. (2004). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. In FuhrmanS. H.ElmoreR. F. (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 15–43). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
53.
PenuelW. R.FrankK. A.SunM.KimC. M.SingletonC. (2013). The organization as a filter of institutional diffusion. Teachers College Record, 115(1), 1–33.
54.
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. doi:10.1177/1094670509353180
55.
PenuelW. R.RielM.KrauseA. E.FrankK. A. (2009). Analyzing teachers’ professional interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 124–163.
56.
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. doi:10.1086/667756
57.
RigbyJ. G.LarsonC.ChenI.-C. (2014). Shifting teacher views of mathematics instruction and student struggle: A mixed-methods analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
58.
RobinsG. L.PattisonP.KalishY.LusherD. (2007). An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Social Networks, 29(2), 173–191. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2006.08.002
59.
RobinsG. L.SnijdersT. A. B.WangP.HandcockM.PattisonP. (2006). Recent developments in exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Social Networks, 29, 192–215. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2006.08.003
60.
SandelowskiM.VoilsC. I.KnaflG. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 208–222. doi:10.1177/1558689809334210
61.
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: SUNY Press.
62.
SnijdersT. A. B.LomiA.TorloV. J. (2013). A model for the multiplex dynamics of two-mode and one-mode networks, with an application to employment preference, friendship, and advice. Social Networks, 35(2), 265–276. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2012.05.005
63.
SnijdersT. A. B.PattisonP.RobinsG. L.HandcockM. (2006). New specifications for exponential random graph models. Sociological Methodology, 36(1), 99–153. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9531.2006.00176.x
64.
SpillaneJ. P.HallettT.DiamondJ. B. (2003). Forms of capital and the construction of leadership: Instructional leadership in urban elementary schools. Sociology of Education, 76(1), 1–17. doi:10.2307/3090258
65.
SpillaneJ. P.HopkinsM.SweetT. (2015). Intra- and interschool interactions about instruction: Exploring the conditions for social capital development. American Journal of Education, 122(1), 71–110. doi:10.1086/683292
66.
SpillaneJ. P.KimC. M.FrankK. A. (2012). Instructional advice and information providing and receiving behavior in elementary schools: Exploring tie formation as a building block in social capital development. American Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1112–1145. doi:10.3102/0002831212459339
67.
SpillaneJ. P.ReiserB. J.GomezL. M. (2006). Policy implementation and cognition. In HonigM. I. (Ed.), New directions in educational policy implementation (pp. 47–64). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
68.
SrivastavaS. B.BanajiM. R. (2011). Culture, cognition, and collaborative networks in organizations. American Sociological Review, 76(2), 207–233. doi:10.1177/0003122411399390
69.
SteinM. K.EngleR. A.SmithM. S.HughesE. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340. doi:10.1080/10986060802229675
70.
SteinM. K.GroverB. W.HenningsenM. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488. doi:10.3102/00028312033002455
71.
SteinM. K.LaneS. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50–80. doi:10.1080/1380361960020103
72.
SteinerP. M.CookT. D.ShadishW. R.ClarkM. H. (2010). The importance of covariate selection in controlling for selection bias in observational studies. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 250–267.
73.
SunM.FrankK. A.PenuelW. R.KimC. M. (2013). How external institutions penetrate schools through formal and informal leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(4), 610–644. doi:10.1177/0013161X12468148
74.
SunM.WilhelmA. G.LarsonC.FrankK. A. (2014). Exploring colleagues’ professional influence on mathematics teachers’ learning. Teachers College Record, 116(6).
75.
SupovitzJ. (2009). Can high stakes testing leverage educational improvment? Prospects from the last decade of testing and accountability reform. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2–3), 211–227. doi:10.1007/s10833-009-9105-2
76.
ThompsonC. L.ZeuliJ. S. (1999). The frame and the tapestry: Standards-based reform and professional development. In Darling-HammondL.SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 341–375). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
77.
WegnerD. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of group mind. In MullenB.GoethalsG. R. (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
