RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  1  

Relational Agency: Developing the Social Side of Teacher Leadership in a Teacher

Education Program

Frank Cornelissen1,2, Alan J. Daly1, Yi-Hwa Liou1, Stacey Caillier3, Rob Riordan3,

Kelly Wilson3, Esther Canrinus4 Katie Sciurba5

1University of California San Diego, United States

2University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

3High Tech High School, United States

4University of Oslo, Norway

5National University, United States

SUBMITTED TO TEACHERS AND TEACHING: THEORY AND PRACTICE

Corresponding author: Dr. Frank Cornelissen

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  2  

Introduction

The development of individual teacher quality has been the focus of many educational

reform efforts (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Wayne & Youngs, 2003). Also Teacher Education

(TE) increased its emphasis on teachers’ individual performance against specified observable

standards (Edwards, 2005). This individual focus constrained teachers’ exercise of

professional agency and limited their ability to collaborate with colleagues in jointly

addressing the complex issues that emerge in the dynamic practice of classrooms and

schools (Edwards, 2005). An increasing number of authors begin to call for increasing

teachers’ agency again; fostering teacher leadership (TL) and collaboration in schools and

supporting the development of TL in TE programs (Datnow, 2012; MacBeath, Frost,

Swaffield, & Waterhouse, 2007; Ross, et al., 2011; Smeets & Ponte, 2009).

TL is not a formal role or task, ‘but rather a matter of teacher’s agency and their

choice in initiating and sustaining change’ (Frost & Durrant, 2003, p.3). TL is considered of

a dynamic, relational nature: ‘a fluid and emergent phenomenon…, concerned with the

relationships and the connections among individuals’ (Harris & Muijs, 2005, p.17). Key to

the success of teachers leading change efforts is their social capacity to create meaningful

relationships with their colleagues; to seek them out for advice and collaboration to jointly

improve school practice (Datnow, 2012; Harris & Muijs, 2005; York-Barr & Duke, 2004).

This capacity of teachers can be described as their ‘relational agency’ (Edwards &

MacKenzie, 2005; Edwards, 2005, 2010). Key to such relational agency and the focus of this

study are the social components of being able to seek out colleagues for advice and build

collaborative relationships with them to achieve the desired change in the school. At present

there are few empirical studies into this area (cf. Moolenaar, et al., 2014) and to date we have

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  3  

not encountered any study in TE. This study aims to respond to this gap and explore the

development of teachers’ relational agency in a TE context.

We explored the case of the High Tech High (HTH) schools in San Diego and the

way relational agency development was supported in their TE program. This high

performing Charter Management Organization (CMO) is the first in the U.S. to have a

Graduate School of Education (GSE) fully embedded within their K-12 school

environment. One of their main reasons for creating this innovative structure is to tightly

connect their TE to their efforts of school reform. One way of doing this is through the

GSE’s Master of Education (M.Ed.) program for TL that aims to build teachers’ relational

agency during their development as teacher leaders (Caillier & Riordan, 2009). As such, this

is an appropriate setting to explore teachers’ relational agency. In studying the development

of this social capacity we adopted a social network perspective and used a mixed method

approach to explore the developing of HTH teachers’ collegial networks during their

enrollment in this M.Ed. program. Here after we will refer to this program as the ‘TL

program’.

Theory

Relational Agency

Agency refers to a person’s ‘capacity to perceive personal goals towards which one is

directing action’ (McAlpine & Amundsen, 2009, p. 2). In the literature there is an ongoing

debate till what extent these individual actions are determined by an individual’s own beliefs

or are influenced by the structure in which they reside (Bandura, 1989; Bourdieu, 1977;

Foucalt, 1984; Giddens, 1984: Kilduff & Brass, 2010). Some state that the social structure

determines till a large extent individuals’ beliefs, behaviors and agency, socializing them into

this specific context. Others argue for a relational interdependence between individual

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  4  

agency and the social world in ways that social structure and individual agency are mutually

shaping each other, i.e. social structures are the result of individuals’ agency as well as the

medium that influences their agency (Billet, 2006; Datnow, 2012). This study builds on the

latter perspective.

Authors have suggested that this reflexive relationship between individual agency and

social context calls for an enhanced, relational form of professional agency that focuses on

teachers’ ability for working with others instead of their ability to work autonomously

(Edwards & Mackenzie, 2005; Edwards, 2010). This so-called relational agency is described

as ‘a capacity to align one’s thought and actions with those of others in order to interpret

problems of practice and to respond to those interpretations’ (Edwards, 2005, p.169-170).

Relational agency can play an important role in teachers becoming leaders as it involves their

ability to seek out other people who can help them understand practice and collaborate with

them in ameliorate it (cf. Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). To

understand this inherent social capacity of teachers we adopt a social network perspective.

Social Network Perspective

Social network theory provides insight into the social processes involved in improving

education that are stretched across individuals and levels of the educational system (Daly,

2010). Generally speaking, social network theory is concerned with the pattern of social

relationships that exists between people in a social network (Scott, 2000). A social network

perspective extends the primary focus on individuals to understanding the interaction with

the larger social infrastructure in which they reside (Borgatti & Foster, 2003; Cross, Borgatti,

& Parker, 2002; Wellman & Berkowitz, 1988). Social network studies in education (e.g.,

Coburn & Russell, 2008; Cole & Weinbaum, 2010; Daly, 2010; Frank, Zhao, Penuel,

Ellefson, & Porter, 2011; Moolenaar, Daly, & Sleegers, 2011), as in other fields examine the

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  5  

way relationships in networks may facilitate or constrain the flow of ‘relational resources’

(e.g., advice, knowledge, support, collaboration), as well as provide insight into how

individuals gain access to, are influenced by, and leverage these resources (Degenne & Forsé,

1999).

Social networks are studied on several levels. Three common levels are: the personal

networks of the individual network members, the dyad networks of certain pairs of network

members and the whole network which includes all network members (for example, all

teaching staff in a school) (Borgatti & Foster, 2003; Daly, 2010). Since relational agency is

concerned with an individual’s ability to meaningfully interact with others in the larger

network structure, the personal network perspective is considered appropriate for the

underlying study. Earlier studies on personal networks have shown that people deliberately

create and manage these personal networks to achieve their individual purposes (Baker-

Doyle, 2010; Nardi, Whittaker, & Schwartz, 2002). These personal networks are dynamic as

individuals continuously (re)shape their networks, e.g. by ‘friending and unfriending’ (Feld,

Suitor, & Hoegh, 2007; Wellman, 2007). This dynamic leads to changes in their personal

network size, but also in its composition (Lubbers, et al., 2010; Sasovova, Mehra, Borgatti, &

Schippers, 2010). Previous case studies in TE contexts indicate that managing your personal

network in a way that it serves change purposes of yourself and others in the network -as the

concept of relational agency suggests- is not straightforward and without support few

teachers are successful (Cornelissen, Daly, Liou, Beijaard, Bergen, & van Swet, 2014a,b). In

light of our research goal and the literature, the following hypotheses are generated:

Hypothesis 1: Over the course of the TL program the Size of HTH teachers’ personal advice

and collaboration networks will increase more in the group of teachers enrolled in the TL

program than the group of teachers that were not enrolled in the program.

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  6  

Hypothesis 2: Over the course of the TL program the Composition of HTH teachers’ personal

networks advice and collaboration networks will show more changes in the group of

teachers enrolled in the TL program than the group of teachers that were not enrolled in the

program.

Research questions

This study explores till what extent and in what way relational agency was developed during

an in-service TL program at HTH. We focus on examining changes in teachers’ capacity to

seek out colleagues for advice and build collaborative relationships. Firstly, the research

explores changes in the size and composition of M.Ed. students’ personal advice and

collaboration networks over the course of the program. Secondly, it investigates the way

master’s students perceived that the TL program contributed to these changes. This resulted

in three research questions:

1. Till what extent do master’s students start to seek out more school colleagues for

advice and collaboration over the course of the TL program? (Hypothesis 1)

2. In what way does the composition of master students’ advice and collaboration

networks change over the course of the TL program? (Hypothesis 2)

3. How do master’s students perceive the role of the TL program in the changes of

their personal network size and composition?

Method Context

High Tech High

In the past decade the HTH CMO has grown from a single charter school to 12 schools

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  7  

spanning the K-12 grades: five high schools, four middle schools, and three elementary

schools. HTH students are admitted via a blind zip code based lottery, which yields a student

population that roughly mirrors the demographics of the San Diego school-age population.

Teachers work in interdisciplinary teams of two (one from the Humanities Department and

Mathematics and Sciences Department) to develop a program for their group of students

(50-60 students); their teaching schedule accommodates team teaching, daily common

planning time, and ample interaction with colleagues within and across grades, departments,

and schools. In 2007 the CMO opened the first GSE in the United States to offer a two-year

in-service TL program embedded within a K-12 school environment that aims to specifically

link teacher education and school reform (see for an elaborate description Caillier &

Riordan, 2009). The GSE focuses on building a community of learners and explicitly aims to

build teachers’ capacity for critically inquiring, designing and leading change in their school

practices. The TL program is a 30 semester-units master’s degree program that includes both

course-taking and the submission of a capstone action research thesis project. Over the years

cohorts comprise on average of 11.25 students, with an average of 7.3 years of teaching

experience and 63% of the students were employees of HTH.

HTH GSE M.Ed. Teacher Leadership Program

Program Aims. The HTH GSE aims at developing reflective practitioner leaders who

work effectively with colleagues and communities to create and sustain innovative, authentic,

rigorous learning environments for all students. This shared vision is focused on supporting

M.Ed. students in: Inquiry and Reflection; (2) Designing Equitable and Engaging Learning

Environments, and (3) Engaging in Leadership for School Change.

Program Approach. Grounded in a "theory to practice" approach, the TL program

models pedagogies that emphasize equity, engagement and choice. Through coursework,

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  8  

GSE faculty employ a range of teaching strategies - peer critique, pair shares, gallery walks,

role plays, inquiry journals, group discussions, on-line forums and the use of protocols to

workshop each other's work and discuss dilemmas in practice - to support students in

critically analyzing various approaches to teaching and learning, and applying their learning in

the GSE directly to their work in their own settings. Faculty members also strive to provide

students with opportunities to personalize their learning and pursue individual goals

throughout the program (e.g. by creating a personalized learning plan).

In addition, faculty are committed to creating a "culture of collaboration" where

students are provided with ample opportunities to work and learn together across grade-

levels, disciplines, and diverse schooling structures. The commitment is rooted in the belief

that learning is a social enterprise, and occurs most deeply in communities where people are

surrounded by committed colleagues. To that end, the program is selective and built on a

cohort model, ensuring that all students are known well and are surrounded by peers who

encourage them to think deeply, take risks and take action to create positive change in their

schools.

Program Learning Outcomes. This study aims to understand the way the program

supports relational agency development in becoming a teacher leader. Two learning

outcomes describe this, i.e. program graduates should be able to: (1) Engage colleagues and

students in efforts to create equitable, engaging learning environments, and (2) Support and

facilitate collegial conversations focused on improving teaching and learning.

Program Example. An example of one of the main strategies/tools that the program

uses in reaching these learning outcomes is the use of protocols. Protocols for teacher

interaction are used to support the creation of professional communities of practice focused

on teaching and learning, collaboration, and dialogue. These protocols aim at fostering

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  9  

equitable conversation, ensuring that all voices are heard and all ideas are shared. In the

program protocols are used for enabling productive conversations among M.Ed. students as

well as developing M.Ed. students’ expertise in facilitation of group conversation. A crucial

component of these protocols is the development of four shared norms and values in

collegial conversation, i.e. (1) Share the air: Encourage teachers to step back or step up in the

conversation; (2) Hard on the content, soft on the people: Push others’ thinking, but also

value others’ thoughts; (3) Be kind, specific and helpful: Be specific when giving affirmations

and feedback; (4) Resist the urge to deviate from the protocol. It can be tempting to lose the

focus on the topic at hand by ‘just talking’, especially when you know each other well. To

support teachers’ growth as facilitators, GSE faculty attempts to model the norms and values

during program sessions and collaboratively unpack the ‘moves’ that strong facilitators make.

Data Collection

Network Survey

At the beginning (T1; 4 months after the start) and end (T2; at graduation) of the TL

program an on line questionnaire was conducted which collected demographic and social

network data over the period of 1.5 years. The questionnaires were distributed among all

educators in HTH and resulted in response rates of 83% at T1 and 86% at T2. Demographic

data included gender, ethnicity, position and years of experience in school. Network

questions were designed to gain insight in the respondents’ advice and collaboration

networks. They were provided with a roster of school staff and were asked to assess the

relationships with their colleagues Participants were asked to respond to the following

prompts: ‘Please select, how often do you go to this person for advice on how to strengthen

your practice?’ and ‘Please select, How likely are you to collaborate with this person to

address school issues?’

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  10  

Coursework and Interviews

Students’ coursework and interviews were used to gain insight into M.Ed. students’

perceptions of the development of their relational agency and the role of the TL program in

it. First, three data sources were selected from the TL program that contained students’

personal reflections on connecting to school colleagues over the course of the program, i.e.

students’: (1) Digital Portfolios; (2) Personalized Learning Plans; (3) On line Discussion

Forum. For example, reflections on: an informal meeting that a M.Ed. student had initiated

with fellow chemistry teachers to learn about their goals for school development; a team

meeting that a M.Ed. student had initiated an facilitated to discuss and develop their school’s

identity. Second, after graduation individual interviews were conducted with the six HTH

M.Ed. students from the particular cohort. In all interviews the same semi-structured

interview guideline was used, which focused on further exploration of the collected personal

reflections from the coursework. Examples of questions from this guideline were: ‘How did

you connect to these colleagues? Why did you connect to these colleagues? In what way did

their views influence your own view/understanding of practice? What was the result of this

connection with school colleagues for your school practice? What role did the TL program

play?’

Data Analysis

Comparison Between Groups In and Outside HTH M.Ed. TL Program

Independent Variable: Enrollment in the HTH GSE M.Ed. TL program. The networks at

T1 and T2 were matched to ensure that at both time points the same educators were

included (n=230). Two groups were selected from this matched data set: (1) the group HTH

teachers that were part of one cohort of the TL program during that time period (n=6); (2) a

group of HTH teachers that were not part of this cohort during this period. For this purpose

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  11  

a stratified random sample of HTH teachers outside the cohort was created (n=72) in SPSS

that controlled for gender, ethnicity, position and years in schools (Table 1).

[Insert Table 1 About Here]

Dependent Variables: Personal Network Size and Composition. Six variables measured the

changes in size and composition of teachers’ personal advice and collaboration networks for

the beginning (T1) and end (T2) of the TL program.

UCINET (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002) was used to analyze changes in

personal network size. Network data were dichotomized to focus on the presence or

absence of a relationship. The difference in the number of outgoing relationships between

T1 and T2 was measured, which resulted in two variables: (1) Difference in number of

advice seeking relationships between T1 and T2; (2) Difference in number of collaboration

seeking relationships between T1 and T2.

For measuring changes in personal network composition a change and stability ratio

was created for each participant’s personal network. The change ratios were calculated in

Excel by dividing the total number of lost and new outgoing relationships between T1 and

T2 by the total number of existing outgoing relationships at T1 and T2. The change ratio

ranges from 0 (None of the existing relationships has changed) to 1 (All existing

relationships have changed). The stability ratio was calculated by dividing the total number

of outgoing relationships that were kept between T1 and T2 by the total number of outgoing

relationships at T1. Stability ratio ranges from 0 (None of the existing relationships were

sustained) to 1 (All existing relationships were sustained). This resulted in four variables: the

(1) Advice network change ratio; (2) Advice network stability ratio; (3) Collaboration

network change ratio; (4) Collaboration network stability ratio.

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  12  

Testing Hypotheses. Since the sample size of the group of HTH teachers enrolled in the

TL program was considered to small (n=6) to assume a normal distribution the non-

parametric Mann Whitney U test was selected for testing the study’s hypotheses by

comparing distributions of both groups in SPSS. First, the effect of Group was tested for the

differences in size of the personal advice and collaboration networks between T1 and T2

(Hypothesis 1). Second, the effect of Group was tested for the stability and change ratios of

the personal advice and collaboration networks between T1 and T2 (Hypothesis 2).

Comparison Within Group of HTH M.Ed. TL Students

Searching for Core and Deviating Patterns. The distribution of individual results within the

M.Ed. students’ group was further examined by comparing their personal advice and

collaboration networks over the course of the program. For each student we calculated their:

(1) Network size: increase or decrease of the number of outgoing relationships between T1

and T2; (2) Network composition: stability and change ratios between T1 and T2.

Similarities in network size change and composition among four or more M.Ed. students

were considered a core pattern. Patterns that differed with respect to network size and/or

composition from this core pattern were considered a deviating pattern.

Understanding Core and Deviating Patterns. The interviews were audio-taped and

transcribed verbatim. The analysis of the interview data further explored the distinguished

core and deviating patterns. The focus of the interview analysis was on getting a broader and

deeper understanding of the way the teachers who were enrolled in the TL program

perceived the role of this program in developing their relational agency.

The two main elements of relational agency that this study focused on were

explored, i.e. seeking out colleagues for advice and for collaboration. The following codes

were used: (1) Colleagues as Resource: seeking out school colleagues for advice on

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  13  

improving practice; (2) Colleagues as Partner: seeking out school colleagues to take

collaborative actions for improving practice. One researcher used the codes to code the

transcripts. The researcher used the software of Atlas Ti for coding. Fragments that referred

to the subject of a code were chosen as unit of analysis. A new fragment started when the

subject changed. This resulted in the selection of 108 fragments. Examples of fragments

pertaining to the codes are presented in the Results section. Table 2 shows in frequencies the

way fragments were divided among codes and participants.

[Insert Table 2 About Here]

First, a comparison of fragments was made for each code among the participants that

exhibited the core pattern of network size and network composition. The comparison

focused on the differences and similarities in participants’ perceptions of seeking out

colleagues for advice and collaboration. Based on these comparisons the most prominent

factors in these elements of relational agency development and the role of the TL program

were described. Second, deviating patterns of participants were investigated in a similar

fashion to better understand in what way they differed from the core pattern.

Results

Cohort HTH M.Ed. TL Students Connects More with School Colleagues

To test the hypotheses the Mann Whitney U was used test to compare distributions between

the group of six HTH teachers that was enrolled in the TL program and the group that

contained a stratified random sample of 72 HTH teachers that were not enrolled in the

program during this period. Table 3 shows the outcomes for the comparisons between both

groups for differences in teachers’ size of their personal advice and collaboration networks

between the beginning (T1) and end of the program (T2) as well as for their stability and

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  14  

change ratios in their personal advice and collaboration networks over the course of the

program.

[Insert Table 3 About Here]

M.Ed. Students’ Began to Seek Out More Colleagues for Advice and Collaboration to Improve School

Practice

Consistent with Hypothesis 1 there was a significant effect of Group found for the positive

differences in network size of advice and collaboration networks over the course of the

program (see Table 3). Over the course of the TL program the HTH teachers from the

cohort started to seek out significantly more colleagues for advice and collaboration for

improving their practice than their HTH colleagues outside the cohort.

M.Ed. Students Kept Collaborating with More of the Same Colleagues for Improving School Practice

Our evidence did not support Hypothesis 2 (see Table 3). In contrast with our expectations

there was a significant positive effect of Group found for the stability ratio of the personal

collaboration network. No significant effects of Group were found for the change ratio of

the collaboration network or the stability and change ratios of the personal advice network.

The TL Program’s Role in Developing Personal Networks

The results of the between group comparisons were further explored by examining the

individual results within the M.Ed. Student (MS) group (see Table 4).

[Insert Table 4 About Here]

From the comparison in Table 4 a core pattern in the development of network size and

composition is noticed among four of the students (MS2, MS3, MS4, MS5). They shared: (1)

Considerable growing advice and collaboration networks, together with (2) Stable advice and

collaboration networks. Outcomes show that two students deviate from this core pattern

for: (1) Network size: MS1 had very strongly growing advice and collaboration networks and

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  15  

MS6 had strongly shrinking advice and collaboration networks; (2) Network composition:

MS1 and MS6 both had lower stability ratios and higher change ratios for their advice and

collaboration networks. Figure 1 illustrates one of the core and the two deviating patterns

for the advice networks.

[Insert Figure 1 About Here]

Exploring the Role of the TL Program

The core and deviating patterns of M.Ed. students’ personal networks and the role of the TL

program were further explored.

Network Size: Growing Advice and Collaboration Networks

MS2-5 considered that the TL program had played a role in seeking out additional colleagues

for advice and collaboration in three majors ways, through the: (1) Program support

structure; (2) Program assignments, and (3) GSE faculty.

1. Program Support Structure. The GSE provided their cohort with a learning

environment in the program in which they could learn from what other students in the

cohort were doing and were encouraged to seek advice and collaboration for improving each

other’s practices. Examples were the program’s (1) ‘spotlight’ sessions in which individual

students were invited to share their work and learnt to receive/collect advice from others in

the cohort; (2) support structure in which each student served as a critical friend to another

student in the cohort and were reading/discussing each other’s work on how to improve

their practices. MS2 appreciated this close support and collaboration in the program:

You're all looking academic literature and you're all focusing on different, you know, something in your teaching. And I love that, the structure that it provided on a weekly basis, getting together with your critical friend or other people in the cohort, and they really started to know what it was, what your actually research was. That was fabulous!

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  16  

2. Program Assignments. Students referred to assignments and tools from the TL

program that supported them in seeking out more colleagues for advice and collaboration.

For example: (1) being asked to seek out a school colleague that you would normally not go

to for advice or collaboration; (2) learning to use protocols that provide a structure for

discussing opinions and collecting advice from a broader, diverse group of colleagues. MS5

explained how these assignments helped her to become more resilient in trying to connect to

her colleagues:

It [program assignments] definitely helped me to reach out to colleagues that I kind of naturally distance myself from just because I felt like we were a little different…if it was a little bit more difficult to approach somebody or I felt I shared an idea, but then the person kind of shut down or don't want to hear the rest of it I would get discouraged and not necessarily push forward.

But the program helped me just again become a little bit more confident and know that maybe this wasn't the right time. Now I've noticed that even if I feel like somebody isn't necessarily receptive to my idea right away that I give it a break and then maybe I'll bring it up in a different way a few days or a few weeks later. So it's made me a little bit more resilient, and just pushing forward and not making that one attempt the last attempt.

3. Graduate School Faculty. Students indicated that GSE faculty was constantly on the

look out to set up connections with colleagues for their students. MS3 explains that this was

a way in which he got connected to more people that might be a good resource for advice or

collaboration for him:

I’m not sure how that happens…There's something about being in that program where they [Graduate School faculty] share your work more often or they recommend like: "Hey, you should talk to so and so about this."… you're put on people’s radar in a way that you wouldn’t be if you were just doing amazing things in your classroom and like no one knew about it, yeah. So I think maybe that’s how that happens.

MS1 (faster growing networks) and MS6 (shrinking networks) contributed their deviation

from this pattern to other factors. MS1 attributed most of her strong growth in her advice

and collaboration networks to the fact that her enrollment in the TL program co-occurred

with two other important developments in her teaching practice: (1) Just before she entered

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  17  

the program she started collaborating with school colleagues on a grant and this

collaboration grew during the time that she was in the program. MS1 further explained that

this collaboration was one of the main reasons that she entered the M.Ed. program so she

could collect advice and support from colleagues for her grant project:

I started the grant the year before; that was sort of the beginning. It happened just before the program. Over the duration of the program, because of doing collaborative work, it broadened significantly…I wrote the grant in collaboration with two other teachers the year before. So I wasn't even in the grad program when I'd already collaborated to write the grant, to do the work…so it's stuff that I just streamlined. I'm like, okay, this is what I'm already doing. This is the project that I'm building for this other thing, so if I'm enrolling in a Master's program at the same time then I'm going to build a Master's program around this project. I was already doing the collaboration so I already reached out to the community. We'd already formed the alliance.

(2) When she entered the TL program she started her third year of teaching in school and

she noticed that she began to feel more comfortable in seeking out her colleagues:

We were entering my third and fourth year teaching so it was something that you just become more accustomed to and more confident with and willing to create those partnerships with other more established teachers.

MS6 explained that during the program her seeking out of people for advice and

collaboration mainly narrowed down to the group of her fellow master’s students in the

program.

I think of my cohort at that time were my colleagues…I think it was more the energy within our cohort, so the group of graduate students I was working with. We were all pushing one another a lot…we had a forum to express like what was going well and what wasn't going well. And we just have this cool group of people that was willing to push each other to try new things…So, I mean my greatest source of reaching out to colleagues was definitely like the people [M.Ed. students] I was working with.

Network Composition: Stable Advice and Collaboration Networks

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  18  

MS2-5 considered that the TL program had not played a role in sustaining their existing

relationships for advice and collaboration with colleagues. They perceived that the stability

was inherent to their collaborative school context.

Collaborative School Context. M.Ed. students explained that they were used to seeking

out colleagues for advice and collaboration and therefore a considerable number of those

relationships were already established before the program. Their school structures provided

them with a rich mix of informal (e.g. continuously interacting with their team teacher and

grade level colleagues during daily teaching practice) and formal (e.g. content meetings with

department colleagues) opportunities for collaboration and exchanging advice. MS4 reported

about the way these different opportunities occurred:

I went to different groups of people for different reasons. The most obvious one, which is kind of a traditional kind of view, are the science teachers. I was Physics… so among … ninth grade science teachers, but also between the ninth grade and other grades. It was somewhat about getting ideas for projects, but also kind of sharing resources in a way like you know somebody that knows something about this or someplace we should go.   And so that's the most obvious and that happens on a regular basis and on daily basis quick conversations, on a weekly basis the longer the conversations …There were content meetings that happen two times a month, but also there were just informal conversations out the hallways and maybe during prep time, those kinds of things. And after hours we would hang out a little bit sometimes.

MS1 and MS6 networks were less stable and more subject to change. MS1 reported

that the fact that she sought out less of her same colleagues and started seeking out new

colleagues was not caused by the program, but by changes in her job. She explained that she

switched teaching partners and at the same time her collaborative work on the grant began

to lead to new collaborative relationships:

In the last half of that [TL] program, I switched partners and started working with them. I had -- because I had jumped on when Jessie first set out, "Hey, does anybody want to collaborate on the grant?" I'm like, "I do." And that was sort of our first beginning to work together. And so that kind of branched out.

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  19  

The reason that MS6 was seeking out less of the same colleagues appeared related to the

aforementioned observation that she began to focus her interactions on the ‘new’ group of

colleagues that she encountered in the program.

Conclusion and discussion

In this study we explored the way the development of teachers’ relational agency –as being

an essential social component of becoming a teacher leader– can be supported in a TE

context. We investigated the way teachers were supported in seeking out colleagues for

advice and collaboration to improve school practice. We studied changes in the personal

network size and composition of HTH teachers that were enrolled in a TL program. Overall,

we found that the TL program contributed to the growth of teachers’ advice and

collaboration personal networks, but did not have a major influence on the composition of

their personal networks. Also we noticed that not all M.Ed. students responded to the

program in the same way or extent.

Developing Relational Agency: Supporting Change in Personal Network Size and Composition

Earlier study revealed that educators who intentionally seek collegial relationships experience

the climate in their school to be more innovative (Moolenaar et al., 2014). This finding

indicates that when aiming to cultivate ‘innovative’ climates in schools, it will be critical to

find ways to support ‘seeking’ behaviors where educators are reaching out to colleagues for

new ideas, advice and collaboration for improving their practice. Results from this study

indicate that the HTH M.Ed. TL program succeeded in supporting such seeking behavior

with most of their students, which suggests that in this way TE programs can play an

important role in fostering innovative climates in students’ schools.

Network composition results from the core patterns showed that M.Ed. students

had very stable networks in which they remained going to the same group of colleagues for

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  20  

advice and collaboration. Findings suggest that the HTH’s collaborative school context was

the main stabilizer of their network composition, and not the TL program. In developing

their relational agency it seemed only logical that HTH teachers sustained and accessed the

advice and collaboration relationships that were already established with colleagues. We

expect that if TE programs support relational agency of M.Ed. students working in less

collaborative school environments that teachers’ personal networks’ composition will show

more change. However this still leaves us with the question why M.Ed. students’

collaboration networks were more stable than those of their HTH colleagues. An

explanation could be that the TL program attracted a certain type of teacher in HTH; one

that already exhibited TL behavior and had already been diligently connecting to colleagues

for improving practice.

Outcomes from the deviating network patterns shed light on factors that may play a

role in change of personal network composition. MS1 and MS6 network showed high

change and low stability ratios. At graduation MS1’s network looked very different from the

beginning of the M.Ed. program; she changed a large portion of her connections with

colleagues and created many new collegial relationships. On the one hand this seemed to by

caused by the fact that the time in the program happened to coincide with the fact she

entered her third and fourth year of teaching in which she began to feel more comfortable in

seeking out school colleagues. On the other hand MS1 attributed the change to a new

collaborative grant project in school that she had already initiated with school colleagues

before she entered the M.Ed. program. In itself this joint action points to her already existing

relational agency, but even her decision for joining the TL program could be considered a

reflection of her relational agency as she explained that one of her main reasons for entering

the program was that she saw this as an opportunity to receive advice and support from

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  21  

colleagues for strengthening this collaborative project. MS6’ network shrunk as she began to

focus on connecting to her fellow students in the TL program. However, this decrease in

size does not necessarily indicate that she was not developing her relational agency. It could

have been the case that she sought out only those colleagues that would support her in her

personal goals for understanding and improving school practice. In this way the pruning of

her network could have been an intentional act, exhibiting her relational agency, i.e. changing

the composition of her network to create a more effective network that better aligns with

her goals for improving practice.

In sum, we consider that the TL program showed a fruitful avenue of supporting the

development of teachers’ relational agency, but based on our analysis and the literature we

believe that this support may benefit from additional approaches. For example, learning

teachers how to distinguish those school colleagues that will support them in their change

goals, how to invite them to join them in collaborative action (Baker-Doyle, 2011), align the

goals among collaborators (Edwards, 2010) and (jointly) design strategies and tactics to

accomplish the desired change (Hoyle, 1982; Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002).

Limitations, further study and implications

This was an explorative study into an understudied topic and therefore has limitations. We

acknowledge that the HTH context is relatively unique and that the size of the group of

M.Ed. students was limited. Generalizability of results will therefore require follow-up

studies. In further exploring the development of relational agency and the way it can be

supported in a TE context we recommend to gain deeper insight in how the intentions and

actions of teachers are related to the particular changes in their personal network size and

composition and in what way these changes contribute to the intended changes in practice

and behavior of teachers. We believe that in such study the theory of ‘micropolitics’ that

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  22  

refers to the “strategies and tactics used by individuals and groups in an organization to

further their interests” (Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002, p.107) can further our understanding

of the relation agency development. Another avenue for additional study is to investigate till

what extent the changes in personal networks and the development of relational agency are

sustained in school practice after M.Ed. students’ graduation. Furthermore we believe that

the stability and change ratios that we developed support understanding of change in the

dynamics of personal network composition. As a result of our study these measures have

been included by the designers of UCINET (Borgatti et al., 2002) in the output of the

network software and we recommend researchers to use them in their analysis of personal

network development over time.

The study has implications for practice in TE programs. Results suggest that TE

programs that aim to contribute to teacher leadership and school improvement can support

teachers’ relational agency development. As illustrated in this study this type of support will

require changes in the curriculum and additional competencies of TE educators to

strengthen this social side of teacher leadership with their students.

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  23  

Literature

Baker-Doyle, K. J. (2010). Beyond the labor market paradigm: A social network perspective

on teacher recruitment and retention. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18, 1-17.

Baker-Doyle, K. J. (2011). The networked teacher: How new teachers build social networks for

professional support. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-

1184.

Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues

in the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education,

39, 175-189.

Billet, S. (2006). Relational interdependence between social and individual agency in work

and working life. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(1), 53-69.

Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A

review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991-1013.

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social

Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Caillier, S. L., & Riordan, R. C. (2009). Teacher education for the schools we need. Journal of

Teacher Education, 60, 489-496.

Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers' social networks.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 203-235.

Cole, R. P., & Weinbaum, E. H. (2010). Changing time: Attitudes, reform, and social

networks in high schools. In A. Daly (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change.

(pp. 77-95). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  24  

Cornelissen, F., Daly, A. J., Liou, Y., Swet, J. van, Beijaard, D., & Bergen, T.C.M. (2014).

More than a master: Developing, sharing and using knowledge in school-university

research networks. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(1), 35-57.

Cornelissen, F., Daly, A. J., Liou, Y., Swet, J. van, Beijaard, D., & Bergen, T.C.M. (2014).

Leveraging the relationship: Knowledge processes in school-university research

networks of master’s programs. Research Papers in Education.

Doi:10.1080/02671522.2014.919522

Cross, R., Borgatti, S.P., & Parker, A. (2001). Beyond Answers: Dimensions of the Advice

Network. Social Networks 23(3), 215-235.

Daly, A. (2010). Social network theory and educational change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education

Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy

evidence. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of

Washington.

Datnow, A. (2012). Teacher agency in educational reform: Lessons from social networks

research. American Journal of Eduation, 119, 193-201.

Degenne, A., & Forsé, M. (1999). Introducing Social Networks. London: Sage.

Edwards, A., & Mackenzie, L. (2005). Steps towards participation: the social support of

learning trajectories. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 24, 287-302.

Edwards, A. (2005). Relational agency: learning to be a resourceful practitioner. International

Journal of Educational Research, 43, 168-182.

Edwards, A. (2010) Being an Expert Professional Practitioner: the relational turn in expertise.

Dordrecht: Springer.

Feld, S., Suitor, J. J., & Hoegh, J. G. (2007). Describing changes in personal networks over

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  25  

time. Field Methods, 19, 218-236.

Foucault, M. (1984). What is enlightenment? In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 32-

50). London: Penguin.

Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., Penuel, W. R., Ellefson, N., & Porter, S. (2011). Focus, fiddle, and

friends: Experiences that transform knowledge for the implementation of innovations.

Sociology of Education, 84, 137-156.

Frost, D. & Durrant, J. (2003). Teacher-led development work: guidance and support. London: David

Fulton Publishers.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge:

Polity Press.

Harris, A. & Muijs, D. (2005). Improving schools through teacher leadership. Maidenhead: Open

University Press.

Hoyle, E. (1982). Micropolitics of educational organisations. Educational Management

Administration & Leadership, 10, 87-98.

Kelchtermans, G., & Ballet, K. (2002). The micropolitics of teacher induction. A narrative-

biographical study on teacher socialization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 105-120.

Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. 2010. Organizational social network research: Core ideas and key

debates. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 317-357.

Lubbers, M. J., Molina, J. L., Lerner, J., Brandes, U., Ávila, J., McCarty, C., (2010).

Longitudinal analysis of personal networks. The case of Argentinean migrants in Spain.

Social Networks, 32, 91-104.

MacBeath, J., Frost, D., Swaffield, S., & Waterhouse, J. (2007). Leadership for Learning: Making

the Connections. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.

McAlpine, L., & Amundsen, C. (2009). Academic communities and developing identity: The

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  26  

doctoral student journey. In P. B. Richards (Ed.), Global issues in higher education (pp. 57-

83). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (2011). Ties with potential: Social network

structure and innovative climate in Dutch schools. Teachers College Record, 113, 1983-

2017.

Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., Cornelissen, F., Liou, Y., Caillier, S., Riordan, R., Wilson, K.,

Cohen, A. (2014). Linked to innovation: Shaping an innovative climate through

network intentionality and educators' social network position. Journal of Educational

Change, 15, 99-123.

Nardi, B., Whittaker, S., & Schwarz, H. (2002). NetWORKers and their activity in

intentional networks. The Journal of Computer-supported Cooperative Work, 11, 205-242.  

Ross, D. D., Adams, A., Bondy, E., Dana, N, Dodman, S., Swain, C. (2011). Preparing

teacher leaders: Perceptions of the impact of a cohort-based, job embedded, blended

teacher leadership program. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 1213-1222.

Sasovova, Z., Mehra, A., Borgatti, S. P., & Schippers, M. C. (2010). Network churn: The

effects of self-monitoring personality on brokerage dynamics. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 55, 639-670.

Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Univ. Press.

Smeets, K., & Ponte, P. (2009). Action research and teacher leadership. Professional

Development in Education, 35, 175-193.

Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A

review. Review of Educational Research, 73, 89–122.

Wellman, B. (2007). The network is personal: Introduction to a special issue of social

networks. Social Networks, 29, 349-356.

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  27  

Wellman, B., & Berkowitz, S. D. (1988). Social Structures: A Network Analysis. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.

York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings

from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74, 255-316.

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  28  

FIGURES

Figure 1. Core and Deviating Patterns M.Ed. Students’ Personal Advice Network Size and Composition

Core Pattern - MS3 Begin TL program End TL program

Deviating Pattern MS1

Begin TL program End TL program

Deviating Pattern MS6

Begin TL program End TL program

Note: Personal Networks=Outgoing Advice Relationships; Black node=M.Ed. Student; Blue node= School Colleague with whom Relationship existed at Begin of TL Program; Red node= School Colleague with whom new Relationship was established during the TL Program

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  29  

TABLES Table 1: Sample Characteristics

In M.Ed. TL Outside M.Ed. TL Gender Male 3 (50 %) 36 (50 %) Female 3 (50 %) 36 (50 %) Ethnicity Caucasian/White 6 (100 %) 72 (100 %) Position Teacher 6 (100 %) 72 (100 %) Years of experience 0 - 2 years 2 (33.3 %) 24 (33.3 %) at the school 2 > years 4 (67.7 %) 48 (67.7 %) Note. M.Ed. TL= Master’s of Education Teacher Leadership program at High Tech High; Sample HTH teachers in M.Ed. TL cohort, n=6; Sample HTH teachers outside M.Ed. TL, n=72 Table 2: Division of Coded Fragments

Codes MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 MS5 MS6 Colleagues as

Resource 8 7 9 9 4 9

Colleagues as Partner 9 5 11 6 13 8

Note. MS = Student HTH M.Ed. TL Cohort

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  30  

Table 3: Outcomes Mann-Whitney U Test HTH teachers in

M.Ed.TL Cohort (n=6)

HTH teachers not in M.Ed.TL Cohort

(n=72)

Mann-Whitney U Independent Samples Test

Mean rank Median Mean

rank Median U Sign. 1-tailed

Advice Network Size Difference 57.50 7.50 38.00 -1.00 108.0 .021* Change Ratio 35.75 .46 39.81 .47 193.5 .340 Stability Ratio 51.17 .95 38.53 .53 146.0 .094 Collaboration Network Size Difference 55.17 3.00 38.19 -1.00 122.0 .039* Change Ratio 32.33 .25 40.10 .40 173.0 .215 Stability Ratio 54.42 .87 38.26 .59 126.5 .047* Notes: T1=Begin M.Ed. TL program; T2=End M.Ed. TL program; Nework Size Difference=Total number of outgoing relationships in teachers’ personal networks at T2 minus their outgoing relationships at T1; Change Ratio=Total of new and lost ties at T2 divided by total number of ties at T1 and T2; Stability Ratio=Total of kept ties at T2 divided by total number of ties at T1. * p < .05

RELATIONAL  AGENCY  

  31  

Table 4: Master’s Students’ Personal Advice and Collaboration Networks

Notes: MS=Master’s Student; Network Size=Total number of outgoing relationships in teachers’ personal networks; T1=Begin of M.Ed. TL program; T2=End of M.Ed. TL program; Change Ratio= Total of new and lost ties at T2 divided by total number of ties at T1 and T2; Stability Ratio= Total of kept ties at T2 divided by total number of ties at T1.

Personal Advice Networks

MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 MS5 MS6

Size T1 4 9 4 18 10 18 T2 21 16 12 25 21 5 T1-T2 +17 +7 +8 +7 +11 -13

Stability Ratio T1-T2 0.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.28 Change Ratio T1-T2 0.92 0.28 0.50 0.16 0.42 0.57

Personal Collaboration Networks

MS1 MS2 MS3 MS4 MS5 MS6

Size T1 7 8 8 14 17 16 T2 19 14 11 17 20 7 T1-T2 +12 +6 +3 +3 +3 -9

Stability Ratio T1-T2 0.71 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.88 0.38 Change Ratio T1-T2 0.62 0.27 0.16 0.23 0.19 0.48