Preparing Health Science and Public Services Teachers for a World in Networking: Increasing Teacher Collegiality and Professionalism Practices Gustavo Loera, Ed.D. Mental Health America of Los Angeles Health Science and Medical Technology and Public Services Workgroup Meeting December 3, 2009 Sacramento, CA

Research Team Jonathan Nakamoto, Ph.D. WestEd Robert Rueda, Ph.D. University of Southern California Cindy Beck California Department of Education Carla Cherry Kern Resource Center Patricia Twyman Professional Development Consultant

Statement of the Problem and Purpose Previous studies suggest: –Too many schools promote a culture that: Makes teachers feel alienated. Leads to a lack a sense of purpose and responsibility. Does not support professional learning communities. The purpose of the study was: –To better understand why some teachers work in isolation, while others collaborate in networks of teachers.

Significance of the Study Vavasseur and McGregor’s (2008) study on the importance of teachers using technology to: –Communicate with colleagues. –Enhance curriculum. –Increase their sense of efficacy. What is lacking in the current literature? –Focus on networking practices of teachers in the health and public service areas.

Teacher Networking Framework Shared Values Collaborativ e Activity Inclusive Practice Reflective Dialogue Impact Student Learning Louis, Marks, and Kruse, 1996; Marks and Louis, 1997 Teacher Network

Factors Affecting Teachers’ Networking Capacity Teachers’ knowledge and skills. –Teaches’ prior experience. –Teachers’ use of technology. Teachers’ motivation to engage in networking practices. –Teachers’ individual efficacy beliefs. –Teachers’ collective efficacy. School culture & context. –Academic organizational factors.

Research Questions 1.How knowledgeable are health science teachers about health science curriculum? 2.What current networking approaches do health science teachers use to access support and resources? 3.What do health science teachers do to stay current with teaching and learning resources? 4.What is the association between health science teachers’ characteristics and their reported levels of collegiality? 5.What is the association between program and school factors and health science teachers’ reported levels of collegiality?

Research Methodology Survey respondents –317 teachers, coordinators, and administrators: 65.7% female 34.3% male 70.2% European American 16.2% Latino 3.2% Asian/Pacific Islander 1.9% African American 40.1% bachelor’s degree 45.3% master’s degree 3.3% Ed.D. or Ph.D

Research Methodology (continue) Survey administration –Used a mixed-mode approach (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009). Web-based and paper-and-pencil –Data was collected between May and July. Survey items and subscales –Collegial teaching and learning (α =.95). –Collective efficacy (α =.81).

Findings and Implications Question 1: How knowledgeable are health science teachers about health science curriculum? In general, a small group was very knowledgeable and a bulk of educators were not knowledgeable.

Findings and Implications (continue) Teachers % n Non-Teachers % n Not knowledgeable6.0%1312.0%12 Somewhat knowledgeable 48.4% % 52 Knowledgeable33.0%7127.0%27 Very Knowledgeable12.6%279.0%9 Total100.0% %100 Teachers’ and non-teachers’ knowledge of health science curriculum.

Findings and Implications (continue) CTE Teachers % n Science Teachers % n Non-CTE & Non- science Teachers % n Not knowledgeable 2.9%21.9%111.1%10 Somewhat knowledgeable 27.9%1944.4% % 60 Knowledgeable 47.1% % %16 Very Knowledgeable 22.1%1511.1%64.4%4 Total 100.0% % %90 Teachers’ knowledge of health science curriculum disaggregated by subject area.

Findings and Implications (continue) Question 2: What current networking approaches do health science teachers use to access support and resources? Nearly 75% of the teachers indicated that they had access to a teacher network that provided support and resources.

Findings and Implications (continue) % n Face-to-face teacher network 89.3% type teacher network57.2%91 Web-based teacher network 24.5% 39 Other5.0%8 Types of networks in which teachers belonged.

Findings and Implications (continue) Preferred ways to network with other teachers. % n Professional website where teachers can access information 68.2% 148 Regional meetings/conferences 67.3% 146 Regional professional development workshops 64.1% 139 Membership in professional teacher associations26.7%58 Online social networking (e.g., Tweeter, Facebook) 24.0%52 Webcasting and video podcasting19.4%42 Other4.1%9

Findings and Implications (continue) Question 3: What do health science teachers do to stay current with teaching and learning resources? Overall, the majority of educators (74.1%) indicated that they engage in activities to stay up-to-date on the resources in health sciences.

Findings and Implications (continue) Methods used to stay up-to-date on teaching and learning resources in health sciences. Teachers % n Non-Teachers % n Internet resources 88.2% % 54 Interactions with teachers in my school 82.9% % 48 Prof. conferences64.7% %41 Prof. development workshops64.1% %39 Interactions with teachers from another school 53.5%9156.9%37 Research journals40.0%6841.5%27 Interactions with community-based organizations 39.4%6764.6%42 CDE website 36.5% % 41 Prof. association websites30.0%5123.1%15 Other6.5%116.2%4

Findings and Implications (continue) Information that the educators would like to see on a website. % n Academic resources that are current and relevant to my students 81.1% 257 Curriculum alignment activities 73.2% 232 Occupation-specific information50.2%159 Evidence-based literature or research47.0%149 Opportunities to be a member of a community of teachers and share best practices with other educators 44.2%140 Opportunities for teachers and students to publish work. 27.1%86 Other3.5%11

Findings and Implications (continue) Question 4: What is the association between health science teachers’ characteristics and their reported levels of collegiality? Overall, the results showed that teacher characteristics were not significantly associated with the reported levels of collegiality.

Findings and Implications (continue) Question 5: What is the association between program and school factors and health science teachers’ reported levels of collegiality?

Findings and Implications (continue) Path model with program and school factors predicting collegiality. Number of Teachers in Program Number of Students in Program Number of Students at School Site Time Working with Teachers Collegiality Collegial Support Subscale 1 Collegial Support Subscale 2 Collective Efficacy

Summary Provide teachers with curriculum alignment training sessions (i.e., industry immersions). Overall, the study indicates high levels of networking within individual schools. Continue investing in a website design that encourages teacher collaboration. –

Future Directions Obtain student-level data from participants of the health science and public services programs and their non-program peers. More needs to be done in the area of interdisciplinary/curriculum alignment. Ongoing evaluation of programs.

Research Limitations Some programs were small in size in comparison to traditional high schools. –Too few teachers to adequately promote collegiality practices. Comparison group Self-report data

Contact Inforamtion Gustavo Loera, Ed.D. Director Educational Research & Development Mental Health America of Los Angeles