1. Digital Pedagogies and Teacher Networks: How Teachers’ Professional Learning and Interpersonal Relationships Shape Classroom Digital Practices Elizabeth C. Homan Doctoral Committee: Professor Anne Ruggles Gere, Co-Chair Professor Elizabeth Birr Moje, Co-Chair Professor Kenneth A. Frank Professor Sidonie Smith Professor Pamela A. Moss

2. Theory and Literature

3. Networks, Communities, and Digital Pedagogy Communities of Practice, Professional Learning Networks, and Professional Learning Communities offer possibilities for teachers’ social learning (Cochran- Smith & Lytle, 2009; DuFour et. al., 2010; Lave & Wenger, 1991). Teachers’ networked connections have the potential to shape their uses of digital technologies in the classroom (Frank et. al., 2011; Zhao & Frank, 2003). Web 2.0 technologies and literacy practices are shifting alongside one another, challenging teachers to reimagine how they integrate digital technologies into their professional practice (Lankshear & Knoebel, 2011; Hicks, 2013; Mishra & Koehler, 2006)

4. Research Questions How do teachers’ social networks shape their digital literacy learning and, by extension, their pedagogical beliefs and practices? As teachers develop digital practices, what factors play a role in the development or change of teachers’ existing pedagogies?

5. Borealis High School and Digital Tech I think we can continue to improve our use of technology across the board. […] We have pockets, pockets that are really excelling and collaborating, and that sort of thing, but they’re still pockets, it goes back to that time and professional development. - Principal Jameson

6. Defining Digital Pedagogies

7. I’ve seen our class discussions improve so much as we’ve been doing the forums too, and I’ve seen the forum discussions improve. This year, when I added the exit strategy piece, versus last year when I didn’t do that. I mean, and this is just my issue with myself, is it makes me feel very inadequate when I, so I have to try not to compare myself to them. Because I am intimidated by the technology. It makes me feel bad about myself, about how awesome they are. [facilitated digital pedagogies]

8. Mary When I met with him, I took the Facebook page that he created and marked all the logical… [laughter] I was the argument teacher and I was like, “This is a logical fallacy. I think we’ve talked about this. This is what this means. Here is where this argument is not supported by evidence,” and so we talked about that. In many ways, some of the people that I work with outside of school, I have honed the craft of teaching with more than people [at Borealis]. There are some people here that I have worked on that with. But in many ways, in terms of my thinking as a teacher, and in terms of what I do in the classroom, they know me more in that way than some of my colleagues here. [integrated digital pedagogies]

9. Complementary Methods Iterative Analysis of Mixed Data Using Complimentary Methods

10. Learning from Borealis Teachers PLCs/PD Focused on: Individual Tools Alignment Evaluation Achievement

11. Learning from Borealis Teachers Interpersonal Networks Focused on: Pedagogy Reflection Diversification Innovation

12. Implications & Future Directions Professional Development Design and Implementation: Understand and build upon teachers’ existing learning networks Build teachers’ digital literacy across technologies, not within single tools Teacher Education: Integrate technology, pedagogy, and content (TPACK) Engage future teachers in the digital literacy tasks of their content areas (NWP) Research on Digital Integration: Examine how teachers’ social contexts (formal PD, interpersonal, and digital networks) shape their pedagogical learning Design digital integration PD based on sound research of and work within the context of schools

13. References 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(2), 137–156. doi:10.1177/0038040711401812 Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of Knowledge and Practice: Teacher Learning in Communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305. doi:10.2307/1167272 DuFour, R. (2010). Learning by doing: a handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Hicks, T., Turner, K. H., & Stratton, J. (2013). Reimagining a writer’s process through digital storytelling. LEARNing Landscapes, 6(2), 167–183. Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press, USA. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies. Berkshire, England ; New York: Open University Press. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x Project, N. W., DeVoss, D. N., Eidman-Aadahl, E., & Hicks, T. (2010). Because Digital Writing Matters: Improving Student Writing in Online and Multimedia Environments (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass. Zhao, Y., & Frank, K. A. (2003). Factors Affecting Technology Uses in Schools: An Ecological Perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 807–840.

14. Professional Learning Communities at Borealis

15. Logistic Coefficient (SE) Actor Attributes Web Technology Use (Ave)-.01 (.06) Gender-.54 (.10)*** Same-PLC Memberships Special Education1.21 (.28)*** English2.26 (.32)*** Social Studies3.36 (.52)*** Science3.50 (.43)*** Mathematics3.80 (.65)*** Nominator-level Attributes Study Participant Y/N3.91 (.50)*** Nominator-level Variance1.45 (.29)*** Nominee-level Attributes Nominee-level Variance.60 (.12)*** n (teachers) = 80 n (pairs) = 6,320 * p<.05**p<.01***p<.001 All departmental and PLC affiliations were significant predictors of close colleague ties. However, in PLCs where alignment and standardization was more common, same-PLC membership was a stronger predictor of close colleague ties, and in departments where diversification or cross- disciplinary collaboration was more common, same-PLC membership was a weaker predictor of close colleague ties Less alignment, more cross- disciplinary connection More alignment, less cross- disciplinary connection