Penuel, W. R., & Riel, M. (2007). The ‘New’ Science of Networks and the Challenge of School Change. The Phi Delta Kappan, 88(8), 611-615.

Penuel and Riel utilize social network analysis to take a hard look at school leadership and teacher communities of practice.  They also discuss the way information moves about and within a school network.  The potential for this analysis to provide helpful insight into teaching, learning and assessment is great.  The study of social ties and the resources they gain as well as the ability of the Web 2.0 collaborative tools to generate a continuous flow of information forces us to look at social networks differently than we have in recent years.  The authors propose that it is with greater understanding of the inner workings of social networks that we can “better understand how to support and promote school change.”

Science of networks: Answer two important questions:

1. When does teacher collaboration lead to school change?

2. What are the forces that increase or restrict flow of information and expertise among members of a teaching community?

• Used social network analysis and a longitudinal design to identify patterns of collaboration and sharing of expertise among teachers that lead to self-reported changes in practice.
• 23 California schools
• Currently engaged in reform efforts (school wide)
• Hoped to see if schools that wanted to increase collaboration were successful in implementing it across the whole faculty to achieve whole-school change.

Findings:

1. Assumption is that it was important to connect everyone with everyone across the network, not so.  It wasn’t about how many people, but the expertise level of the people you did talk to.  Most teachers interact based on physical proximity.  ie. hallways, teacher’s lounge, location of classroom, lunch time, etc.  The nature of the ties between people is what really mattered in helping implement the school’s reform.  In short, “it mattered a great deal WHO was in a teacher’s network, not just how large or small that network was.”

2.  Having a diverse network that includes both close friends and acquaintances is helpful.  Strength in weak ties. Teachers tend to form subgroups; tend to share with their closest colleagues, however when those teachers shared with other teachers outside their subgroups, there tended to me an increase in resources, or more “social capital” to help implement change.

3. Don’t try to make everyone an expert all at once, however, do make the experts visible.  NCLB would like us to think about teacher quality in terms of the individual, however, even the best teachers can not maintain the level of knowledge and there fore become ineffective with the support of continuous learning they gain from a network of individuals.  Collective expertise.  Schools that allow teachers to talk about their practice, share successes and strategies, discuss instructional resources with are more successful in reform efforts.  Also important to recognize success and achievement in a positive manner that encourages teacher to look to their peers for support and resources.

4.  A mixed approach to allow teachers to share information and learn from each other is most effective.  Establishing a clear “chaine of command” or “letting a hundred flowers bloom” are effective ways to help teachers collaborate.  Top-down or bottom-up, leadership has to clearly evolve and be recognized and come from within the network.  Engaging in cross curricular discourse and allowing people to share expertise across the discussion groups is helpful.

5. Time. Free up your experts within the network to allow them to collaborate with others.  The “bridges” or “nodes” in the network are key factors in increasing the flow of social capital within the network. Network analysis can help identify those places within the network.  Potential “hidden resources”.

“Identify the true experts and enabling them to help others may be especially critical when dollars for formal professional development are scarce, as they are in many schools.  Professional development can be and effective means of preparing teachers to implement an innovation.  Yet the kind of practice-linked and sustained professional development that is necessary is expensive and not always available, even for reforms deemed important by the state or district.  Therefore, the informal network and the informal leaders within it may be the most important resources for facilitating implementation of a reform.” p. 4

Trust. Critical Factor

Trust has a strong impact of the flow of information within a network.  Teachers need to have an open mind and be willing to try new things if school reform is to be successful.  Trust is built up between two people within a network when they keep their promises, provide help and receive help freely, and successfully work together through problems.

We must continue to develop ways to analyze the qualitative aspects of social networks.  There are important aspects of social networks that are emerging and changing due to the increased use of technology to enhance communities of practice.  In understanding how teachers interact within these communities of practice we may be able to maximize the bridges and nodes within these networks to increase social capital school wide.

William R Penuel, & Margaret Riel. (2007). The ‘New’ Science of Networks and The Challenge of School Change. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(8), 611. 

Sociologists often analyze social networks using mathematical models.  As an aspect of positive leadership within schools, social network analysis is a good way to get a feel for what is happening in a organization.  School activities, student stories, sharing best practices and tips for innovative uses of technology can all be observed through understanding the social networks that exist. Some key findings from this study include:

1. It’s not just how many people you talk to, but whom you talk to.  Proximity also plays a key role in your interactions within the school.  Time is a critical factor.

2. The attitudes and experience of those in your network greatly impact your attitudes toward teaching and learning.

3.  Taking advantage of the expertise outside of the subgroups of your social network can provide greater access to resources, thus increasing the “social capital” and allowing for greater opportunity to make changes within one’s own practice.

4.  “The goal of trying to make everyone an expert all at once does not strengthen the network; making effective expertise visible to all does work.” Traditional models of professional development and attempts to make all teachers “highly qualified” have stifled teachers abilities to engage in continuous learning.

5.  Short hand comments like “I do project-based learning” or “I engage in digital practices” aren’t specific enough to provide insight into the actual teaching practices that a teacher enacts in the classroom.  Other teachers may nod in agreement and believe they they too engage in similar practices, yet in fact the two practices may be quite different.  Making practices public and allowing time for collaborative reflection of teaching performance allows teachers to make tacit knowledge more explicit; “exploring teaching philosophies and strategies beyond the shorthand comments.”

6.  Allow teachers the opportunity to engage in a matrix type model of collaborative work where educators across disciplines interact and share view points, expanding their perspectives.

7.  Within all social networks experts emerge.  School leaders need to recognize the importance of these leaders and allow time for them to interact effectively within the network. “Identifying the true experts and enabling them to help others may be especially critical when dollars for formal professional development that is necessary is expensive and not always available…the informal network and informal leaders within it may be the most important resources for facilitating implementation of a reform.”

8.  Trust is a “core resource” for school reform.  Trust is constructed when those in the network establish relationships that allow information to move freely, help as often as possible and “muddle through difficult problems to reach a joint solution.”

What is the threshold for trust?  Unknown for sure.  Interesting to look at. What is it about the combination of people within the network that allows trust to grow?

This article particularly, (and in combination with my interview with Yong Zhao) started my thinking in the direction of social capital and the ability of social networks to increase or decrease the flow within organizations.  This ideas has helped me to bridge some of the gaps in my own thinking as to what personal learning networks can do for school reform (not broad based, systematic school reform, but simple, small, building based school reform).  Each teacher is viewed as a portal for information/experience sharing.  From an organizational viewpoint, what does this do to/for the network?  Does this flow of social capital differ in a rural or urban setting?  Do schools that have active participants in online social networks have an increase of social capital within their building?  I think the overlap of the local social network, maybe your building based community of practice with a similar community of practice that exists partially on the web can be a very energizing place, bringing in new ideas and affording teachers with a stage to display their own best practices, getting constructive criticism and often well deserved praise.