Spreading Teaching Innovations in Social Networks: the Bridging Role of Mentors

Abstract

Although Evidence-Based Instructional Practices (EBIP) generally improve students' performance in STEM, traditional lecturing remains the most common instructional practice in postsecondary settings. This study examines an institutional change program that organized STEM faculty into communities of practice (CoPs) to facilitate the adoption and spread of EBIP in postsecondary classrooms. In this program, CoPs were mentored by faculty members who have a track record as advocates for high-quality teaching. In order for practices to spread, knowledge about those practices needs an avenue to spread. We hypothesized that CoP mentors provide these avenues by creating bridging ties between the disparate CoPs, thus spanning structural holes. To test the hypothesis, a sociometric survey was administered to document 100 faculty members' social interactions concerning teaching. A Monte Carlo permutation test revealed that the mentors significantly increased the density, connectedness, and centralization of the institutional change program's teaching social network more than any other random selection of faculty members. We also found that CoP mentors were the most likely individuals to connect otherwise unconnected CoP participants. These findings suggest that the CoP mentors played an important role in providing the bridges that can facilitate the spread of knowledge about teaching innovations across the network.

A model of peer effects on instructor innovation adoption

“…For the model presented here, we focus mainly on the impact of peer interactions, so we include the role of peer interaction both in communicating climate to each other as well as in shaping climate. We further acknowledge that the climate includes norms around social interaction which impact the types of peer interaction that take place (Chasteen et al 2015;Ma et al 2018;Owens et al 2018;Smolla and Akçay 2019). However, discussion of additional aspects of climate which may be directly perceived by instructors and influence their behavior (such as access to instructional resources, promotion and tenure policies and procedures, formal recognition of excellent teaching, and opportunities for professional development) is beyond the scope of this model.…”

Investigating how faculty social networks and peer influence relate to knowledge and use of evidence-based teaching practices

“…However, variation in centrality means targeting opinion leaders may be a useful strategy. These opinion leaders might be explicitly supported to function similarly to the CoP mentors studied by Ma et al (2018) and Mestre et al (2019). Finally, there is evidence of peer influence on knowledge and use of EBIPs, supporting the motivating premise that faculty social networks matter to change initiatives.…”

“…The K-12 literature recognizes social networks as an important component in educational change (Daly, 2010;Henderson et al, 2019), but STEM education researchers have only recently applied social network analyses at the postsecondary level (e.g., Andrews, Conaway, Zhao, & Dolan, 2016;Knaub, Henderson, & Quardokus Fisher, 2018;Ma, Herman, Tomkin, Mestre, & West, 2018;Mestre, Herman, Tomkin, & West, 2019;Quardokus & Henderson, 2015). These studies describe social networks within and across STEM departments and identify leaders of instructional change, often referred to as change agents.…”

“…Additional studies of two STEM education reform efforts focused on the social networks that emerge from deliberate communities of practice (CoP). Ma et al (2018) and Mestre et al (2019) showed that mentors who served as leaders of CoPs played a key bridging role in connecting faculty in conversation and collaboration around teaching. Further, the CoPs that more effectively supported the adoption of EBIPs included all CoP members in conversation but that a few core participants drove the adoption of new teaching approaches (Ma et al, 2018).…”

“…These descriptive studies broadly demonstrate how SNA can inform the design and implementation of change initiatives. Ma et al (2018) suggest that programs successfully supporting EBIP adoption must promote both bridging ties and strong ties in the network. How EBIP adoption spreads in the absence of such a specially structured program remains unclear.…”