Slides for AERA 2019

1. The Development of
Communication Networks of
Pre-Service Teachers
on a School-Led and University-Led
Programme of Initial Teacher Education in
England
Dr Christopher Downey, University of Southampton
Dr Jasperina Brouwer , University of Groningen
Dr Christian Bokhove , University of Southampton
AERA, 6th April 2019, Toronto, Canada

2. 2
Operating under pressure

3. Context
• Teacher training in UK
• PGCE
– University Led (UL)
– School Direct (SD)
– NQT
• Secondary Maths and Science
– cohort size (~35)
– R&R – “sink or swim”
– longevity of course

4. What we know already
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
(Le Cornu and Ewing, 2008; Gu and Day, 2007)

5. Support networks
• Instrumental
– developing teaching
strategies
• Expressive
– friendship

6. Data collection
Time Network Related factors
Peer
(whole)
External
(ego)
Trust Self-efficacy
1    
2   
3    
4    

7. Trust

8. Self-efficacy by programme

9. 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

10. Research questions
• RQ1: How do the peer communication networks of pre-
service maths and science teachers develop over time?
Network change
• RQ2: To what extent do students communicate with each
other when they are friends and when they need support for
developing teaching strategies?
Networks affecting network change
• RQ3: To what extent do changes in the communication
networks over time depend on type of programme, gender,
self-efficacy and trust?
Factors affecting network change

11. Network development –
aka, the ties, they are a changin’
11
j
i
j
i
j
i
(Snijders et al , 2010)

12. Network Descriptives - science
Time1 Time2 Time3 Time4
UL
n=27
SD
n=13
UL SD UL SD UL SD
Network
density
0.244 0.287 0.157 0.134
Group
densities
0.32 0.09 0.36 0.14 0.20 0.08 0.16 0.07
Reciprocity 0.478 0.353 0.390 0.294
Group
reciprocities
0.49 0.56 0.36 0.39 0.40 0.55 0.30 0.40
E-I index -0.901 -0.828 -0.734 -0.816
Ties created T1T2 138 T2T3 59 T3T4 59
Ties
dissolved
T1T2 129 T2T3 228 T3T4 102
Ties
maintained
T1T2 236 T2T3 146 T3T4 103

13. Network change – science comms T1 & T4
13

14. Network Descriptives - mathematics
Time1 Time2 Time3 Time4
UL
n=25
SD
n=10
UL SD UL SD UL SD
Network
density
0.315 0.237 0.193 0.113
Group
densities
0.41 0.11 0.33 0.05 0.26 0.07 0.15 0.05
Reciprocity 0.465 0.452 0.521 0.590
Group
reciprocities
0.49 0.53 0.48 0.21 0.51 0.72 0.58 0.89
E-I index -0.790 -0.905 -0.852 -0.841
Ties created T1T2 53 T2T3 72 T3T4 15
Ties
dissolved
T1T2 158 T2T3 130 T3T4 122
Ties
maintained
T1T2 263 T2T3 186 T3T4 136

15. Network change – math comms T1 & T4
15

16. Boundary specification
16
Maths T4
(Bokhove and Downey, 2018)

17. Network homophily – by programme

18. RQ1: Network change - triadic closure
18
j
i
i
ordered
triplet
i i i
j j j
k k k
transitive
triplet
transitive
reciprocated
triplet

19. RSiena Results
Mathematics T1-T2 T2-T3 T3-T4
outdegree (density) - - -
Reciprocity + + +
transitive triplets + +
transitive recipr. triplets - -
Friend + +
Strategies + +
SD alter + +

20. RSiena Results
Science T1-T2 T2-T3 T3-T4
outdegree (density) - - -
Reciprocity + + +
transitive triplets + + +
transitive recipr. triplets - - -
Friend + +
Strategies +
SD alter + +

21. 21
RQ1: Network structure - triadic closure
Only Maths - not observed among science trainees.

22. RQ2: Network affecting network change
• Expressive network (friendship) positively associated with
network change at first & second timespans but not the last.
• Mirrored by instrumental network (strategies) only
positively associated at end of course (Sci) and beginning
and end (Ma)
– Friendships stabilised Y3 (March) so that more
instrumental support-seeking become influential
– Encouragement to retain instrumental ties

23. RQ3: Factors affecting network change
• SD (alter) positively associated with network change at first
and second timespans (Ma) and first and last (Sci).
• Self-efficacy (alter) not associated with network change
– Possibly already controlled for in SD, especially early
on during course as SD start with higher self-efficacy
• Gender and trust – no consistent patterns of association
– Controlling for friendship networks – proxy for trust

24. Conclusions
• Importance of mutuality in support networks
– reciprocity
– transitivity and flattening of hierarchy
– self-perceived efficacy (probably) not a factor
• Expressive ties are most important early on, instrumental
later – encouragement to foster a mix of ties and sustain
instrumental ties
• What about transition across to qualified status
and early career
– insights into science and maths teacher R&R?