The importance of peer networks for recently qualified science teachers

Early professional development support

Networks involving Cambridge University Post Graduate Certificate of Education (PGCE) students were set up between 2004 and 2007. The students involved were well known to each other and to the university lecturer team. Gatsby Foundation funding was used to facilitate networks between these newly qualified teachers (NQT) as a way of both keeping in touch and keeping up-to-date. The premise underpinning this was that this might improve teacher retention. The support was structured around three development days a year, hosted at the university, supplemented by a website, facilitation of individual professional development opportunities and informal communication. Both NQTs and mentors were invited to the first development day. Subsequently, NQTs and Recently Qualified Teachers (RQTs) joined together on days with a range of foci but retained opportunities to share experiences and ideas about practice. There were 125 members by the end of the programme.

Our study of early professional networks

A sample of eight NQTs were interviewed near the beginning and end of their first year about their experiences in school; reflecting on the support they were given and their feelings of self-confidence and satisfaction. In their third year, 11 teachers, while attending a ‘Gatsby’ development day, discussed their professional networks; a further three teachers were interviewed in school. A set of 14 relational ‘maps’ were generated by teachers representing their professional networks. From the data collected over the three years, a set of eight network biographies were constructed and the following three questions were addressed.

• How are these teachers drawing on networks for their own professional development?
• How are teachers and their networks being utilised in their current schools?
• What are the issues that teachers talk about that act as affordances or barriers to using their networks a) personally and b) for the benefit of the school?

The importance of peers in professional networks

This paper focuses on one of the key findings of this study: the importance of peers to these teachers. While considering the role of the ‘Gatsby’ development days in these relationships, we outline the key barriers and affordances to setting up and maintaining such supportive relationships and outline the challenges to schools and those supporting teachers in schools that result.

Evidence in the maps

Teachers were asked to represent their professional networks in an unstructured way (Fox et al. 2007). Peers and key lecturers associated with the Gatsby days featured on all the maps collected (for example Figures 1 and 2), except for one of the teachers followed through from her NQT year, who had only attended the first development day (Figure 3).

Figure 1: Network map by Matthias - a third year science teacher

Figure 2: Network map by Zaskia - a third year science teacher

Figure 3: Network map by Rhianna - a third year science teacher

Evidence in the network biographies

The importance of in-school peer relationships. The majority of in-school links were within departments and personal professional relationships with heads of departments and mentors were key to the success of feeling welcomed into, and part of, a department. While NQTs named specific valued relationships within their departments, it was support from peers across school that was cited as bring the most valuable.

The impact of the Gatsby network. Of the eight teachers interviewed, all but one cited the Gatsby-funded development opportunities as valued external links. All cited continuing personal relationships with a handful of these peers, maintaining contact by email, telephone or meeting. ‘Improved motivation as a result of . . . contact with NQTs and RQTs involved in the programme’ was also noted by external evaluators reporting to the Gatsby Foundation (Mitchell et al. 2007). Matthias (Figure 1) had developed his relationship with two peers, such that they were collaboratively producing materials for a publisher, ‘Cogbooks’, and each had visited the other’s school for mutual classroom observations. Zaskia (Figure 2) cites relationships with peers from her PGCE as a result of the ‘Gatsby’ programme, through a local mentoring panel and from her graduate degree course.

Barriers to establishing and maintaining peer networks. Relational and cultural factors were dominant. Relational factors featured others in school being non-receptive to new ideas, existing staff being patronising and relationships being limited to within the department. Cultural factors related to being not valued by existing staff, not being encouraged and feeling isolated.

Rhianna’s case of lack of support from leadership. The teacher who had not become part of the ongoing Gatsby network explained that, after her head of department had accompanied her to the first development day, he concluded that this type of professional development was not worthwhile enough to justify cover being given. She was disappointed, as she had appreciated the chance to take time out and meet others with an open agenda. As a result, she had not kept in touch with any of her peers (see Figure 3). She was the only one of the eight to cite no external-to-school links during her NQT year and explained how this had been the case until her third year. This fact was causing her difficult in imagining the possibility of moving school when she had no knowledge of other ways of working and the fear that others might prove to be worse working environments than her current school. She was very excited by a recent opportunity that arose as result of an incidental link from her role as transition coordinator to become part of a local group of chemistry teachers. This had already brought her further opportunities to plan and deliver INSET as well as ideas to inform her own practice.

Affordances to establishing and maintaining peer networks. Factors concerned with relationships were the most dominant affordances to networking. Many of the relationships valued were with those already known before taking up the post. such as from ITT training through Fast-Track programmes, graduate degrees. External evaluators also commented on success of the ‘Gatsby-funded’ programme as in part related to the ‘effective social dynamics of an established group of teachers who have trained together’ (Mitchell et al. 2007). Particularly cited with respect to in-school links was the value of having trained in the school in which the teacher was finally employed. New links with peers beyond the department were valued either as those met through formal systems such as induction programmes and school structures such as working groups.

‘Because of the nature of being a form tutor, you get to know people within a school - which is positive. And working with the literacy and a healthy eating policy team give you access to a wider range of people. So those networks work quite well’ (Charles, as NQT)

Also cited were informal opportunities, such as making an effort in the staff room or through extra-curricular activities to establish relationships. Teachers talked about wanting to find other staff they could trust, respect and felt had a similar set of beliefs about teaching.

Zaskia was proactive in establishing across-school supportive relationships. ‘I make a point of going over for lunch every day and I’ll sit with whoever - not just someone from science . . . You befriend people from all over the place. And I run the Duke of Edinburgh award, which means I get involved with other people and that’s been really nice’ (Zaskia, as NQT).

Those involved with extra-curricular activities, such as Zaskia (Figure 3) reaped unexpected benefits in support professionally and emotionally but NQTs noted that you needed to feel confident to effect this.

Challenges

1. How can the culture of a school be enacted such that relationships beyond departments and beyond schools are overtly valued?
2. If it is the case that individual teachers need to be proactive in making relationships beyond their immediate colleagues, is this satisfactory?
3. If valued professional peer-peer interactions within schools currently happen largely serendipitously, how can these be facilitated?
4. The external evaluators concluded that building a ‘broader network would call for a more devolved model of programme leadership and greater empowerment of school-based personnel’. How can this be operationalised?

References

Fox, A, McCormick, R, Procter, R & Carmichael, P (2007). ‘The design and use of a mapping tool as a baseline means of identifying an organisation’s active networks’. In International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30(2), 127-147.
Mitchell, N, Hobson, AJ & McIntyre, J (2007). ‘External evaluation of the University of Cambridge Early Professional Development Programme: Final report to the Gatsby Charitable Foundation’ (Gatsby Technical Education Projects), (Nottingham, University of Nottingham).

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Ms Alison Fox and Ms Elaine Wilson are researchers and lecturers in science education in the Faculty of Education, at the University of Cambridge, in England, United Kingdom.

 

Go to top of page     Go to online discussion