Search for: All records

Using mixed-method social network analysis, we explored the discussions happening between instructors within a teaching-related network and how instructional expertise correlated with the content of those discussions. Instructional expertise, defined by the extent to which effective teaching practices were implemented, was measured for 82 faculty teaching at a Midwestern research university in the USA using the Faculty Inventory of Methods and Practices Associated with Competent Teaching (F-IMPACT). Eight instructors from this population were interviewed after being selected from a stratified random sample having varied disciplines, positions, years of teaching experience, number of network alters, and quartile F-IMPACT score. Network Canvas was used to design, capture, and export network data during the interview process, and a deductive qualitative analysis approach was used for coding and analysis. In general, expert instructors had larger networks that also consisted of expert alters and greater frequency of discussions throughout the semester (both formal and informal) and participated in discussions centered around best practices and education research. Inexpert instructors had smaller teaching networks that consisted of other inexpert instructors, lower frequency of interactions, and had discussions that centered around sharing course-specific, surface-level advice. 

We examined the relationship between faculty teaching networks, which can aid with the implementation of didactic high-impact practices (HIPs) in classroom instruction, and the actual implementation of said practices. Participants consisted of STEM faculty members that teach introductory courses at a USA research university. A total of 210 faculty were invited to complete the Teaching Practices Inventory (TPI), which measures the use of classroom-based HIPs, and were then directed to a follow-up survey to gather teaching network data if they qualified. A total of 90 faculty completed the TPI, with 52 respondents completing the network analysis portion. Ego-level data, as well as network structural position data, were collected through roster format listing all invited faculty. No correlations were found between these network metrics and TPI score. Furthermore, respondents with similar TPI scores showed no preference for interactions within their group. For example, faculty with widely varying TPI scores interacted with each other with no indications of HIPs diffusion. Although the literature suggests strong teaching networks are a necessary condition for broad diffusion of HIPs, these results indicate that such networks are not a sufficient condition. This has implications for the diffusion of HIPs specifically and institutional change generally. Engaging individuals that possess both structural positions and pedagogical knowledge may be needed to help strategically diffuse HIPs in their own networks, with institutional support and guidance most likely also required.