1. 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.

2. 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)

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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?

6. Approach Social network analysis
Four years of data ( ) 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

7. 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

8. Data

9. 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

10. Social Networks
Surveys of elementary school staff in a Midwestern school district (14 elementary schools) in
“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

11. Example Network

12. District Networks

13. 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

14. Segment Map

15. 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

16. Functional Zones and Their Overlap

17. Analytic Methods

18. 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

19. RESULTS

20. 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.

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

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

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

24. Walking Distance and Math Ties

25. 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.

26. Functional Zone Overlap and Close Colleague Ties

27. Functional Zone Overlap and Math Ties

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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),

31. THANK YOU