Creating a Sustainable Professional Network of K-16 Science Faculty
To answer these questions, social network analysis was used to study the growth and character of this network. First, four areas of program activity were identified around which professional collaborations have occurred:
Sharing or developing new teaching strategies or materials that emphasize inquiry-based teaching and learning;
Mentoring relationships, either to mentor or be mentored, in inquiry-based teaching and learning;
Delivering activities that expose graduate or undergraduate students to science teaching as a career option; and
Planning, coordinating, or managing VIP K-16 grant activities.
In each of these areas, the aim was to examine both the overall levels of collaboration made possible by grant activities, and the position of leadership within the networks.
To answer the study questions on the overall level of collaboration (i.e., the size of the network) and the role of key connectors, surveys of program participants were used; they were given in Spring 2006 (the large number of participants made individual or group interviews unfeasible). Each selected participant was given a list of all other participants and asked to indicate with whom they were working collaboratively in each of the four program areas listed above, both before the VIP grant commenced and when the survey was administered. The survey item for the first program area, for example, was written as follows:
Which of the VIP participants did you work with in sharing or developing new teaching strategies or materials that emphasize inquiry-based teaching and learning? Consider substantive or ongoing collaboration, including collaborative activities during workshops or formal professional development. Place an X in the first column if you worked with the person before the VIP program and an X in the second column if you worked with the person during the program.
The 134 names listed on the survey were those of all participants in any of the VIP program areas in which meaningful collaborations or relationships were possible, as determined by project directors. Contact information was not available for 10 of these 134 participants, and 25 did not respond to the survey request, leaving 99 respondents. Although the absence of these 35 non-respondents might mean the network is larger than was measured, it could not be smaller.
The survey data were used to describe (both numerically and graphically) the networks that existed for each of the program areas both before the VIP grant began and in Spring 2006. The social networking software Ucinet was used to analyze the data and produce before-and-after networking diagrams and egonets for each program area.
This survey methodology is limited in what it could tell about the nature of the collaborations that existed and the perceptions of the participants about their involvement (the third study question). Therefore, a second stage of the study was designed, consisting of single interviews with 14 selected participants representing a range of roles in the project and places in the network. The purpose of the interviews was to examine the types of collaborations that existed for certain types of participants and identify their perceptions of the sustainability and value of those professional relationships.
A third stage is planned that will entail a repeat of the survey, to see how the network has changed as the project matured and as some participants left and new ones joined.
