whether teacher reported receiving advice or information from teacher Then is modeled as a i j. function of the tendency for teacher to provide advice or information () and the tendency for to j i receive advice or information (). The model at level 1, for the pair of teachers and is: i j, Level 1 (pair-dyadic-level): To identify dyadic-level characteristics, dummy variables were included, indicating whether teachers had a tie in 2005, were the same race or the same gender, and whether they taught the same grade. In addition, the difference between two staff members’ levels of professional development in either mathematics or language arts in 2007 was included. We also included reciprocity to control for the extent to which teacher provided advice or information to j teacher i. The level 1 model is: + (prior relationship) ij δ1 + (same race) + (same gender) ij ij δ2 δ3 + (same taught) + (difference in professional development) ij ij δ4 δ5 + (reciprocity: advice ). ji δ6 Generally, the positive effect of individual-level or dyadic-level characteristics indicates that the characteristic increases the probability of a tie (; ; ; ; ). Specifically, the larger the value of the more we would infer that the current ties in advice and information sharing are affected δ1, by previous ties. The larger the value of and the more we would infer that the patterns of δ2 δ3, advice or information sharing are affected by the dyadic-level characteristics as defined by same race or same gender. The term quantifies how the formal organization as represented by grade δ4
whether teacher i reported receiving advice or information from teacher j. Then is modeled as a function of the tendency for teacher j to provide advice or information () and the tendency for i to receive advice or information (). The model at level 1, for the pair of teachers i and j, is: Level 1 (pair-dyadic-level): To identify dyadic-level characteristics, dummy variables were included, indicating whether teachers had a tie in 2005, were the same race or the same gender, and whether they taught the same grade. In addition, the difference between two staff members’ levels of professional development in either mathematics or language arts in 2007 was included. We also included reciprocity to control for the extent to which teacher j provided advice or information to teacher i. The level 1 model is: + δ1 (prior relationship) ij + δ2 (same race) ij + δ3 (same gender) ij + δ4 (same taught) ij + δ5 (difference in professional development) ij + δ6 (reciprocity: advice ji ). Generally, the positive effect of individual-level or dyadic-level characteristics indicates that the characteristic increases the probability of a tie (; ; ; ; ). Specifically, the larger the value of δ1, the more we would infer that the current ties in advice and information sharing are affected by previous ties. The larger the value of δ2 and δ3, the more we would infer that the patterns of advice or information sharing are affected by the dyadic-level characteristics as defined by same race or same gender. The term δ4 quantifies how the formal organization as represented by grade
Instructional%20Advice%20and%20Information%20Providing%20and%20Receiving%20Behavior%20in%20Elementary%20Schools.docx