Understanding the Building Blocks of On-the-Job Teacher Education: The Role of Physical Proximity in Work-Related Social Ties Among School Staff Matthew Shirrell The George Washington University James P. Spillane Northwestern University Tracy M. Sweet University of Maryland First: acknowledge Jim Spillane and Tracy Sweet, co-authors Increased understanding of the importance of teachers’ on-the-job learning from their peers, there has been an Increasing interest in workplace interaction in schools. We know quite a bit now about how norms such as trust impact these interactions, as well as the importance of the formal organizational infrastructure of schools, such as roles, routines. Main argument here: the physical infrastructure of schools has been largely left out of these conversations. “Elephant in the schoolhouse.” Needs to be attended to as well, and this is what we take a first step at doing in this paper.

Space Matters “Spatial configurations of social life are just as much a matter of basic importance to social theory as are the dimensions of temporality” (Giddens, 1984, p. 363)

Physical Proximity Predicts Interaction Across countries (Leskovec & Horvitz, 2007) Within neighborhoods (Festinger, Schachter, & Black, 1950; Sudman, 1988) Within buildings (Glaeser & Sacerdote, 2000; Marmaros & Sacerdote, 2006) Within organizations: engineering offices (Allen, 1977; Allen & Fustfeld, 1975) scientific offices (Kabo et al., 2015) architectural firms (Backhouse & Drew, 1992) state legislatures (Caldeira & Patterson, 1987) police academies (Conti & Doreian, 2010)

What We Don’t Know Does physical proximity matter to the formation of work-related social ties in schools? Teachers learn from one another (Coburn, 2001; Jackson & Bruegmann, 2009; Sun, Loeb, & Grissom, 2016; Sun, Penuel, Frank, Gallagher, & Youngs, 2013) Teacher education occurs on the job, in large part through social interaction (Hopkins & Spillane, 2014; Pogodzinski, 2012) Understanding predictors of interactions is crucial to building effective supports for on-the-job learning

Research Questions Are elementary school staff whose workspaces are located closer to one another, or whose paths cross more frequently in their day-to-day work within the school building, more likely to interact with one another about their work? How, if at all, do school staff describe the role of physical proximity in determining their work-related social interactions?

Approach Social network analysis Four years of data (2010-2013) on all 14 elementary schools in one suburban school district Two measures of physical proximity Walking distance “Functional” distance Control for other factors that predict ties, including grade-level assignments

Preview of Findings Physical proximity predicts work-related social interactions among school staff True for colleague, English/language arts, and math networks True for both measures of proximity After controlling for a variety of factors that predict ties, including teaching the same grade Interactions enabled by proximity have a potentially important role in teacher learning

Data

District Context Mean SD Min Max School size 418 92 250 601 White students 0.82 0.08 0.67 0.92 Low-income students 0.25 0.17 0.05 0.59 Proficient on state math test 0.06 0.71 White teachers 0.98 0.02 0.94 1.00 # teachers 31 5 20 39 n=14

Social Networks Surveys of elementary school staff in a Midwestern school district (14 elementary schools) in 2010-2013 “Who are your closest colleagues in your school?” “During this school year, whom have you turned to for advice and/or information about curriculum, teaching, and student learning?” Follow-up questions asked for subject areas (ELA, math) Response rates: 81%, 95%, 94%, and 94% Included all instructional staff (principals, assistant principals, coaches, teachers) Also asked for room number where staff member worked

Example Network

District Networks

Measuring Physical Proximity Architectural floor plans of all 14 schools Locate classrooms/workspaces, along with important shared spaces (copier, entrances/exits, gym, lunch room, etc.) Verified through principal interviews Georeference maps and trace walking routes within each building using ArcGIS This resulted in a “segment map” (Hillier & Iida, 2005; Sailer & McCulloh, 2012) for each school

Segment Map

Two Measures of Proximity Walking distance Length (in feet) of the shortest path between each pair of workspaces Functional zone overlap (Kabo et al., 2014, 2015) First, define the area (“functional zone”) likely to be highly-trafficked by each individual (example: path connecting workspace, restroom, principal’s office) Measure the overlap (in feet) of these zones for each pair

Functional Zones and Their Overlap

Analytic Methods

Network Analyses Networks: Hierarchical Latent Space Model (Sweet, Thomas, & Junker, 2013): Dependent variable: tie between staff members i and j Covariates: Individual (node) level: taught multiple grades, leadership role, years of experience in education (senders and receivers) Pair (dyad) level: taught same grade level Network level: Network size

RESULTS

Associations Between Walking Distance and Ties 2010 2011 2012 2013 Colleague ties -0.439 -0.450 -0.506 -0.435 ELA ties -0.452 -0.541 -0.486 -0.579 Math ties -0.628 -0.617 -0.590 -0.691 Note: Bold estimates can be distinguished from zero with 95% confidence.

Walking Distance and Close Colleague Ties P(colleague tie)= 0.30

Walking Distance and Close Colleague Ties P(colleague tie)= 0.22

Walking Distance and Close Colleague Ties P(colleague tie)= 0.15

Walking Distance and Math Ties

Associations Between Functional Zone Overlap and Ties 2010 2011 2012 2013 Colleague ties 0.229 0.311 0.316 0.298 ELA ties 0.210 0.318 0.257 0.437 Math ties 0.160 0.389 0.272 0.542 Note: Bold estimates can be distinguished from zero with 95% confidence.

Functional Zone Overlap and Close Colleague Ties

Functional Zone Overlap and Math Ties

Does Proximity Predict Ties, or Do Ties Predict Proximity? Principals could move staff members who already have a tie closer together in the school building. Evidence to the contrary: Having a tie in year t-1 does not predict moving closer together in year t Same pattern of results for dyads that include a staff member new to education Same pattern of results when we control for ties in year t-1 However: Changes in proximity do not predict formation of new ties

Takeaways and Implications Physical proximity predicts ties among school staff Relatively small distances matter Implications: Schools should be designed to minimize walking distances and maximize “zone overlap” School leaders should consider the impacts of physical proximity on staff interactions Be more strategic about the physical locations of teachers, coaches, and other staff Place low/high performers near one another Place high performers or coaches more centrally

To Read More Spillane, J. P., Shirrell, M. S., & Sweet, T. M. (2017). The elephant in the schoolhouse: The role of propinquity in school staff interactions about teaching. Sociology of Education, 90(2), 149-171.

THANK YOU mshirrell@gwu.edu www.matthewshirrell.com