The Transformation of Schools’ Social Networks during a Data-Based Decision Making Reform

Abstract

Context Collaboration within school teams is considered to be important to build the capacity school teams need to work in a data-based way. In a school characterized by a strong collaborative culture, teachers may have more access to the knowledge and skills for analyzing data, teachers have more opportunity to discuss the performance goals to be set, and they also can share effective teaching strategies to achieve those goals. Although many studies on data-based decision making (DBDM) foreground the importance of teacher collaboration, our knowledge of what such collaboration looks like and how such collaboration may change during a DBDM reform remains limited. Objective The current study uses a social network perspective to explore how collaboration in 32 elementary schools in the Netherlands takes shape in the interactions among teachers as they engage in a DBDM reform project. Research Design Schools’ social networks were examined at the start of the intervention and after having participated 1 year in the DBDM reform. Social networks regarding three DBDM topics are examined: (1) discussing student achievement; (2) discussing achievement goals; (3) and discussing instructional strategies. The density, reciprocity, and centralization of these networks were calculated, and multivariate multiple regression analysis was used to analyze changes over time. Conclusion Findings suggest that teachers’ DBDM related networks transform during the intervention, especially regarding the discussion of student achievement data: although the number of relationships remains stable, more reciprocal relationships are formed, and this network becomes less centralized around one or a few influential staff members.

For squad-members only! Why some teachers are more popular to interact with than others in data use

“…Recently, the emerging evidence base on data use has taken to investigating teacher interactions (e.g., Hubers, Poortman, Schildkamp, Pieters, & Handelzalts, 2016;Keuning, Van Geel, Visscher, Fox, & Moolenaar, 2016). Data use interactions have been explored in various educational contexts by using and combining diverse research approaches.…”

“…Throughout, however, similar conclusions that give cause for pessimism regarding teachers' interactive behaviour and learning in data use have been drawn. Firstly, research has shown that the occurrence of data use interactions is fairly limited (Farley-Ripple & Buttram, 2015, Hubers et al, 2016Keuning et al, 2016). Given teachers' individual struggles in data use, being involved in limited interactions implies that teachers' support in data use is under pressure.…”

A systematic review and meta-analysis of data use professional development interventions

“…A facilitator was also involved in organising meetings with school leaders and school boards to discuss their roles in the data use processes, the school progress, the goals to achieve, and the required types of support from school management (Faber et al. , 2018; Keuning et al. , 2016; Slavin et al.…”

“…The characteristics of data teams, such as team size and composition, were also critical during the data use PDIs. It was found that the larger the data team, the smaller the proportion of actual relationships (Keuning et al. , 2016).…”

“…For instance, a facilitator engaged in facilitating planning to create learning circles within schools and strategies to sustain data use practices (Lai et al, 2009a, b). A facilitator was also involved in organising meetings with school leaders and school boards to discuss their roles in the data use processes, the school progress, the goals to achieve, and the required types of support from school management (Faber et al, 2018;Keuning et al, 2016;Slavin et al, 2013;van Geel et al, 2016). In addition, a facilitator even worked as a mediator in the establishment of professional learning communities (McNaughton et al, 2012).…”