Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Educational Research Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/edurev

Review

The role of social capital for teacher professional learning and

student achievement: A systematic literature review
Ema Kristina Demir
Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, 184 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 8PQ, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This systematic review synthesises research on social capital in relation to teachers and teacher
Social capital professional learning between the years 2004–2019. The study was guided by the Preferred
Teacher professional learning Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and the Weight
Student achievement
of Evidence framework for quality and relevance appraisal. After applying eligibility criteria, 66
Organisational structures
Educational equity
empirical items were included in the final review. The review finds that social capital among
teachers has been associated with five categories of outcomes: 1) teacher professional develop­
ment, 2) the implementation of change, 3) the introduction of new and beginning teachers, 4)
teacher retention and job satisfaction, and 5) improved student achievement. These have, in turn,
been associated with the implicit outcome of promoting educational equity. A synthesis of en­
ablers and barriers to building social capital among teachers identifies the pervasive role of
organisational structures for moderating the relationship between social capital and these out­
comes. Findings indicate that different organisational structures may foster different social capital
dimensions, such as bonding, bridging, and linking. More research is needed on the relationship
between these dimensions and schools’ organisational structure to promote the desired outcomes
of teacher social capital identified in this review.

1. Introduction

Social capital has been referred to as the resources embedded in the relationships that exist among adults and children, which
contribute to a diverse set of instrumental and expressive outcomes, from student achievement to teacher satisfaction (Coleman, 1988;
Smylie, 1997). Recent research has pointed to the benefit of social capital for teacher professional development (Baker-Doyle et al.,
2011; Coburn & Russell, 2008; Fox & Wilson, 2015; Johnson, 2012; Johnson et al., 2011; Minckler, 2014).
The work of a teacher is often lonely. However, teachers do engage in meaningful interactions around teaching in corridors and
staffrooms and during formal and informal meetings. In educational research, there has been growing interest in these interactions and
how they contribute to social capital formation and their relationship with different aspects of school improvement (Johnson et al.,
2011). Social capital has become an important lens through which to study the effectiveness of teams, the strength of ties within
teacher networks, and the levels of trust between teachers and teachers and administrators and principals (Leat et al., 2006). Lately,
there has been increased interest in mapping different aspects of teacher interaction through social network analysis, SNA (Baker-­
Doyle, 2010). Studies using both quantitative and qualitative methods have used SNA to analyse how the shape of a network or a
teacher’s position in the network predict their performance and influence their access to resources (Daly et al., 2014; Penuel et al.,
2009; Woodland & Mazur, 2019a).

E-mail address: ekd37@cam.ac.uk.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100391
Received 28 February 2020; Received in revised form 9 March 2021; Accepted 19 March 2021
Available online 29 March 2021
1747-938X/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

Two decades ago, Dika and Singh (Dika & Singh, 2002) reviewed the applications of social capital in educational research,
focussing entirely on the role of social capital for students (and their families) and its relation to academic performance (Dika & Singh,
2002). Since then, there have been a small number of conceptual articles on social capital for teachers. However, these have either been
narrow in focus, showing how a social capital model for professional development can improve music education (West, 2019) or
technology use and integration (Whipp, Eckman, & van den Kieboom, 2005), while others have pointed to social capital as an
antecedent of teacher values and attitudes (Collinson, 2012) and teacher confidence (Nolan & Molla, 2017). Baker-Doyle showed how
a social network perspective (founded in social capital theory) can be useful for research on teacher recruitment and retention
(Baker-Doyle, 2010). These are all important contributions to the field that help highlight the importance of social capital. But
considering the increased interest in social capital for teachers and the extensive amount of empirical research that has accumulated in
the last 15 years, there is a need for a systematic review of empirical research on social capital in relation to teachers and teacher
professional learning.
This systematic literature review has two interrelated aims. The first is to review recent empirical research on the role of social
capital for teacher professional learning. Secondly, it aims to make a synthesis of enablers and barriers to social capital among teachers.
The underlying motivation for the review is to understand the factors that influence teachers’ chances to build and access social capital
that contributes to professional learning with the ultimate aim of promoting student learning. The study is guided by the following
review questions:

RQ1. With what outcomes have teacher social capital been associated?
RQ2. What are the enablers and barriers to teacher social capital?

Before turning to address the review questions, the following section will attempt to elucidate the theoretical underpinnings of
social capital and explain how it can be understood in relation to teachers.

1.1. Theoretical underpinnings

In the field of education, social capital has often been referred to as part of teacher professional capital, which is a multidimensional
concept comprising of human, social, and decisional capital (Galosy & Gillespie, 2013; Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Naicker et al., 2016;
Osmond-Johnson, 2017; Qvortrup, 2016). While human capital is associated with a teacher’s education, qualifications, and experience,
and decisional capital involves teachers’ ability to make insightful judgements and to improvise; social capital is built through mean­
ingful interactions with peers about instruction based on feelings of closeness and trust (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012; Nolan & Molla,
2017; Rehm & Notten, 2016). Even though professional capital acknowledges the prominent role of social capital for the formation of
both human capital (Burt, 2000; Coleman, 1988) and decisional capital (Nolan & Molla, 2017; Osmond-Johnson, 2017) as they are
built through practice and reflection with colleagues over time, it provides little understanding as to what social capital is to teachers
and how it is built and accessed by teachers.
There are several theoretical conceptions of social capital, with the main proponents being Bourdieu (1986), Coleman (1990) and
Putnam (2000). Bourdieu (1986) defined social capital as ‘the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to
possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition’ (Bourdieu,
1986, p. 9). According to Bourdieu (1986), social capital comprises both the structure of relations and the assets that can be accessed
through them. From Bourdieu’s perspective, teacher social capital can thus be understood as the accumulated and potential wealth of
relationships that teachers build and access through professional interactions with others.
While Bourdieu was concerned with issues of power and how inequal distribution of social capital leads to the reproduction of
privilege, Coleman (1990) provided a more positive conception of social capital that emphasised its role for the greater good of the
group. According to Coleman, social capital allows individuals to achieve otherwise unattainable goals. In other words, social capital
helps teachers accomplish things they cannot do alone. Coleman (1990) placed physical, human, and social capital along a continuum
of tangibility, with social capital being the least tangible and formed in interactions with others. In his view, social capital cannot be
possessed by individuals, and when shared, it cannot be diluted or diminish but instead grows and multiplies. This means that we
cannot talk of the social capital of a teacher, but rather the social capital of teachers, or teacher social capital, as an underlying
construct that is unearthed through the mycelia of interactions that are fruitful for learning and accomplishments.
Putnam (2000) expanded the concept of social capital, arguing that it also fulfils individuals’ belonging needs. In other words,
building social capital among teachers also means creating a sense of identification and belonging to a team or a group. Combined,
these views suggest that there are both instrumental and expressive outcomes of social capital, rendering it a complexity worthy of
further exploration in relation to teaching.
Nahapiet & Ghoshal (1998) distinguished between the structural, cognitive, and relational dimensions of social capital. The
structural dimension refers to the overall pattern of interactions through the presence or absence of ties between actors, in other words,
who is interacting with whom. The relational dimension is about the personal relationships developed through these interactions over
time that build friendship and respect and is thus concerned with how deep or meaningful social relations are. The cognitive dimension
refers to access to resources that provide shared representations, e.g., a common language or terminology of shared understandings
and meanings across members. Among teachers, this may involve developing a shared epistemology, vision, or goal.
To better understand how teachers build and access social capital, many educational researchers have adopted bonding, bridging
and linking as key elements of social capital (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Putnam, 2000), sometimes referred to as internal, external, or
vertical social capital (Pil & Leana 2009). These dimensions help elucidate the concept of social capital and explain how different types

2
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

of interactions contribute to social capital and what purposes they fulfil. The ideas originate in Granovetter’s theory of the ‘strength of
weak ties’ (1977), which posited that it was people’s distant acquaintances (weak ties) rather than close friends (strong ties) that were
vital for job opportunities and career advancement. Granovetter’s study showed that strong connections within networks tended to
give access to redundant information as network members were deeply embedded within the same social context. Weak ties, however,
with people outside the tight-knit network, provided access to novel information and knowledge that was necessary for finding a new
job or climbing the career ladder.
Putnam (2000) developed the concept by identifying within-group connections as ‘bonding social capital’ and across-group con­
nections as ‘bridging social capital’. Bonding occurs when individuals who share similar characteristics, values or terminology form ties
that build a sense of belonging, trust, solidarity. Trusting relationships lead to a willingness to share knowledge and experiences and
build confidence that colleagues will be reliable and competent. In the teacher setting, bonding social capital is built through
within-group interactions between teachers who, e.g., teach the same grade-level, the same subject, or share similar characteristics or
values. Teachers who work closely together in teams or groups bond or form ties that build trust and solidarity, crucial for the members’
willingness to share knowledge and information, ask for support and learn from each other. Less bonding means less altruism and more
turf-watching among members. On the other hand, too much bonding can make groups inward-looking and less receptive to new ideas.
It can also lead to too much reciprocity where ideas and materials are being shared as balanced transactions; for every favour, there is a
favour in return, for every advice sought, there is advice given, which can make the network more closed.
Bridging social capital occurs when individuals reach beyond their immediate groups or networks (Putnam, 2000). Bridging is vital
for the influx of new ideas, novel information, and knowledge generation. Among teachers, this means interacting with teachers
outside the immediate group. This can be with teachers from other groups within the school, for example, teachers of different subjects,
grade-levels, or age groups. It can also involve across-school interactions with teachers from other schools or school districts. Bridging
social ties can thus help teachers access novel information from outside of the immediate group.
Borgatti & Halgin (2011) argue that optimal performance is attained when ties within the group are strong and external ties are
weak. In other words, teachers’ strong internal ties need to be paired with weak external ties with teachers outside the group to remain
dynamic and receptive to change. For example, teachers who build strong social capital with their closest peers, whether they belong to
the same team or group, subject, or grade-level, or teach in adjacent classrooms, should also nurture and maintain relationships with
teachers of different teams, groups or even schools to remain creative, open to new ideas, and responsive to change. Too much
bridging, on the other hand, can lead to distrust from members of the immediate group.
Adler & Kwon (2002) added linking to these dimensions of social capital. Linking occurs when people with different amounts of
power, such as an employer and employee, connect and are important for career mobility and advancement. Like bridging, linking
means reaching beyond the primary group of belonging. The difference is that linking involves bridging hierarchies. Linking can occur
when teachers interact with principals or school administrators and vice versa, or when teacher leaders or experienced teachers
interact with new or beginning teachers. Linking with school leaders or teachers that are hierarchically superior provides pathways for
career advancement and promotions and insights into the conditions and priorities of mentors and managers. At the same time,
interacting with people higher up in the hierarchy also means exposing oneself to the risk of sanctions.
Notwithstanding the rich developments of social capital, some theorists have raised concerns about the explanatory power of some
components of social capital. For example, Burt (2000) argued that the primary source of benefit is not the tie’s weakness or strength,
but the ‘structural hole’ it spans. A structural hole refers to an empty space between contacts in a network. Actors on either side of the
structural hole have access to different flows of information. Exploring structural holes thus means to broker and control the infor­
mation flows between groups of people within a network. In the school setting, structural holes are easily found between departments
and grade-level teams or between teachers and school leaders (Leat et al., 2006). Teacher leaders can play a vital role in brokering
these information flows as they often constitute a link between teachers and school management or teachers in different departments
or teams.
Some theorists have also cautioned against the potentially negative effects of social capital. For example, Portes (1998) identified
that most conceptions of social capital disregard outsiders and make excess claims on group members, put excessive weight on
pressures for conformity and downward levelling norms. In other words, social capital may fail to take into consideration the
mechanisms of group pressure or isolation of specific individuals. Others point to the risk that the concept of social capital may give
primacy to the networks’ structural elements at the cost of the content of network ties and members’ agency (Adler & Kwon 2002). In
other words, social capital may focus more on the mycelia of interactions and less on what goes on within those interactions.
However, social capital remains a powerful conceptual tool to explain and understand the role and structure of relationships among
teachers that are associated with instrumental and expressive outcomes that promote learning. The dimensions bonding, bridging, and
linking are especially constructive for understanding how different interactions contribute to and are balanced in forming social capital
among teachers.
Informed by these conceptions, I define teacher social capital as the wealth of relationships that are embedded in teachers’
meaningful interactions with peers inside and outside of groups, that contribute to trusting relationships which promote learning and a
sense of belonging, shape shared languages and understandings, and give access to new knowledge and information that encourage
creativity and career advancement. In the sections that follow, I will turn to the method used for systematically synthesising research
on the role of social capital for teacher professional learning.

2. Method

This review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement (Moher

3
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

et al., 2009). The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram (Fig. 1) for identifying, selecting,
and critically appraising relevant research and a format for collecting, analysing, and presenting data from the studies included in the
review. The PRISMA approach was chosen to ensure rigour and minimise bias in the review process. The Weight of Evidence (WoE)
framework developed by Gough (2007) was used to evaluate the quality and relevance of included itemsto identify key pieces and
guide the author to research outputs that spoke more directly to the RQs. This process will be explained in further detail below.

2.1. Identifying search terms

Social capital in educational research often focusses on its role for student learning. For the purposes of this review, the search terms
had to capture the role of social capital for teacher learning. The following synonyms were identified using an online thesaurus: teacher
learning, teacher professional learning, teacher development, teacher professional development. Social capital is a well-established
theoretical concept, and as such, no synonyms were added to that search term. Studies on closely related concepts like trust,
advice, and social networks are often founded in social capital theory, which means they are likely to include reference to social
capital, making them eligible for this review.

2.2. Search strategy

Step 1: An initial search was carried out in April 2019, using a Boolean search phrase to combine the search terms and identify
relevant research outputs. The following databases were chosen according to their relevance to the topic: Web of Science (Multidis­
ciplinary Sciences, Education, Educational Research, Education Scientific Disciplines, Educational Psychology), EBSCO Host (British
Education Index, British Education Abstracts, ERIC, PsycINFO, and Teacher Reference Center) and Science Direct (International
Journal of Educational Development, Teaching and Teacher Education, and International Journal of Educational Research). This
search generated 228 items. After removing duplicates, applying eligibility criteria, 48 articles were selected for in-depth review.
Step 2: The final search was carried out in the same databases in September 2020 in order to identify recently published items, and
generate research outputs with a more explicit focus on both teacher learning and social capital. This time, all search terms were limited
to subject terms, meaning they had to appear in the title, abstract, or keywords of identified items. Synonyms to teacher learning were
made interchangeable, so that each of them could appear on its own or in combination with others and social capital. To avoid

Fig. 1. Flow-chart of study selection.

4
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

limitations of using pre-determined search terms and controlled vocabulary (Brunton et al., 2012), the option to include related search
terms was applied within the database searches. Additional hand-searches were carried out by snowballing the reference lists of
included items. Items referred to more than three times in any of the screened items were added to the list. While all 48 items from the
first search were regenerated, the second search generated 66 items in total. The process used to complete this second search and the
results of that search now follow.

2.3. Eligibility criteria

The publication type was limited to peer-reviewed, empirical studies. Conceptual articles and reviews that met the search criteria
were used for snowballing. Short conference papers without a clear description of the research design were excluded. Only pieces that
were related to social capital among teachers working in K12 schools were included. K12 refers to compulsory schooling for children
aged 5–16 (the equivalent of reception to year 11 in the UK, kindergarten to grade 12 in the US). In-service teachers include student
teachers in in-school placements as part of their postgraduate or teacher training programmes. Student teachers undertaking studies at
teaching colleges and universities were excluded. Studies that lacked an explicit focus on the search terms were excluded on the criteria
‘not on topic’. A comprehensive list of excluded items with reasons is found in Appendix 1. The time frame was set to the last 15 years
(2004–2019). The inclusion and exclusion criteria are displayed in Table 1.

2.4. Study Selection

The number of items identified per database was: Web of Science (248), EBSCO Host (90) and Science Direct (38). Five items were
added via hand-searches, which led to a total of 381 items. After removing duplicates (66) and applying inclusion/exclusion criteria
(244 removed), 69 items remained. Three articles were removed on the basis of quality (1) and relevance (2) appraisal, leaving a total
of 66 included items. The selection process is outlined in the flow-chart in Fig. 1.

2.5. Quality and relevance appraisal

All items that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were assessed according to the Weight of Evidence (WoE) framework for the
appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence developed by Gough (2007). This process guided the identification of key pieces in
this review.
For each item, three dimensions of quality and relevance are assessed: Evidence A is a non-review-specific assessment of the
coherence and integrity of the evidence in its own terms; Evidence B evaluates the appropriateness of that form of evidence for
answering the review question; Evidence C is a review-specific judgement about the relevance of the focus of the evidence for
answering the review questions. Each is scored on a scale of 0–3 considering the extent to which the criteria are met: 0 = not at all met,
1 = met to some extent, 2 = mostly met, 3 = fully met. A score of 0 for any of the criteria led to exclusion.
An overall rating of high, mid, or low is then established for each item based on its average score, WoE D. Only two studies in this
review were excluded due to inadequate quality and relevance; one because of lack of topic relevance as it did not involve any social
interaction between teachers in the school setting, and one based on insufficient methodological quality because the sample size was
considered too small.
As shown in Table 2, which gives the rankings of articles for each theme, a large majority of included items scored high (27) or mid
(38) while only two (2) scored low, indicating that the overall quality, methodological rigour, and relevance of included items was
high. A comprehensive list of Weight of Evidence scores A, B, C and D for each item is found in Appendix 2.

3. Results

3.1. Surface Characteristics of Included Items

Per PRISMA guidance, the following surface characteristics were gathered for each included item: location, population, grade-level,
subject area, method, and sample size. Publication year was synthesised into groups of five years, indicating a growing research in­
terest in the topic. Over half of the studies were published in the last five years (2015–2019), while only 9 of the 66 studies were
published before 2010.
As shown in Fig. 2, the studies have been carried out on all continents of the world, in a variety of settings, even though a large
majority of the studies were carried out in North America and Europe. The participants were primarily teachers only, while a few
studies included students, principals, or parents. Grade-levels ranged from primary to secondary school, with most studies carried out
in K12 settings, which covers all compulsory school years (primary and secondary). Notably, 10 per cent of the items studied online
contexts.
Far from all studies targeted teachers of particular subjects, but for those who did, a majority focused on maths and science. The
quantitative studies outweigh the number of qualitative studies, while about half as many employed mixed methods. Sample sizes were
varied, ranging from a handful to about fifty teachers in the qualitative studies and from around sixty to more than five thousand
teachers in the quantitative studies. Even though there is no clear correlation, some outcomes seem to lend themselves to a quantitative
method, which will be explained further in the thematic analysis. Appendix 3 provides a comprehensive list of sample sizes and surface
characteristics of all included items.

5
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

Table 1
Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria

Population Population
K-12 teachers Student teachers
In-service teachers Teacher educators
Pre-service teachers in in-school training Pre-service teachers in university/college education
Context Context
K-12 education Post-secondary education
Primary school Higher education
Elementary school Vocational education
Middle school College education
Secondary school After-school contexts
Item type Item type
Empirical Reviews
Peer reviewed Conceptual articles
Language Conference papers
English No full text available
Time frame Language
2004–2019 Not in English

3.2. Risks of bias

All but two studies scored on average ‘high’ or ‘mid’ for the Weight of Evidence framework, meaning they were both of high quality
and to a large extent relevant for answering the review questions. However, some risks of bias have been identified. First, the North
American dominance is striking. Exactly half of the studies were carried out in the USA, comprising 94 per cent of the North American
studies. This may result from the limitation to research outputs written in English, which might have led to an overrepresentation of
studies from English-speaking countries. It can also be due to the overall dominance of English-speaking countries in terms of research
outputs rather than the linguistic limitation per se. Second, there is a relative focus on maths and science teaching in proportion to
other subjects in the reviewed items. This may be due to government initiatives in many countries over the last decade to improve
student achievement and teacher attrition and retention in those subjects,1 which may have led to increased interest and incentive for
researchers to focus on maths and science specifically.

3.3. Identifying themes

Through the close reading of all included items, five categories of outcomes related to the social capital of teachers emerged: one
identifying social capital as beneficial to professional development initiatives, a second its positive influence when implementing large
scale change, a third its role for teacher job satisfaction and teacher retention, and a fourth the benefit of social capital when initiating
new teachers. The fifth category point to the positive impact of teacher social capital on student achievement. These themes provide
answer to RQ1-what outcomes social capital of teachers been associated with. The thematic analysis also revealed patterns of re­
lationships between the categories. These relationships are illustrated in Fig. 3. First of all, the categories are interrelated. Professional
development often goes hand in hand with the implementation of change. When change is introduced, it sets off a series of professional
development initiatives that aim to enable desired changes in behaviour to occur. Conversely, professional development initiatives
often entail the implementation of some change. Similarly, teacher retention and job satisfaction are often related to the successful
induction of new teachers and promoting their sustenance in the profession.
In most studies, social capital is conceived or measured as an independent variable, even though there are cases when social capital
serves the function of a mediating variable. In the first four categories, studies point to benefits of social capital on factors that in turn
are related to improved student achievement. In contrast, the fifth category points to a direct relationship between teacher social
capital and enhanced student achievement measured as the dependent variable. In addition, some studies point to the implicit outcome
of social capital among teachers for promoting educational equity. The association of variables is illustrated in Fig. 3.
In the following section, a thematic analysis of the studies representing the five categories will be presented, placing emphasis on
studies with higher WoE scores. The first category, professional development, is the most recurring theme, comprising more than 40
per cent of the items in this review. The following three themes; implementation of change, job satisfaction and retention, and new and
beginning teachers, are about equal in size representing about 15 per cent each of the total amount of studies. These will be presented
in order of their interrelation. The last theme, also compiling about 15 per cent of the studies, is the only category that establishes a
direct link between teacher social capital and improved student achievement. In this category, the implicit outcome of educational
equity is most prominent, even though it appears in other themes as well.

1
STEM Learning and Nrich (England), the Maths- and Science Lift (Sweden), African Maths Initiative, among others.

6
 E.K. Demir
Table 2
Categories of outcomes of teacher social capital in reviewed items.
Professional development WoE Implementation of change [10] WoE Teacher retention and job satisfaction WoE New teachers [8] WoE Student achievement [9] WoE
[28]a D D [11] D D D

Bridwell-Mitchell & Cooc High Brown et al. (2016) High Edinger & Edinger (2018) High Civís et al. (2019) High Daly et al. (2014) High
(2016)
Chapman et al. (2016) High Frank et al. (2004) High Neugeberger (2019) High Cabezas et al. (2017) Mid Leana & Pil (2006) High
Minckler (2014) High Li & Choi (2014) High Schiff et al. (2015) High Christensen et al. Mid Pil & Leana (2009) High
(2013)
Spillane et al. (2012) High Yoon et al. (2017) High Struyve et al. (2016) High Fee (2011) Mid Salloum et al. (2017) High
Spillane et al. (2015) High Penuel et al. (2009) Mid Allen & Sims (2018) Mid Fox & Wilson (2015) Mid Van Maele and Van Houtte High
(2011)
Spillane et al. (2018) High Scanlan et al. (2019) Mid Fagerlind et al. (2013) Mid Lane & Sweeny Mid Anderson (2008) High
(2018)
Van Emmerik et al. (2011) High Leat et al. (2006) Mid Galosy & Gillespie (2013) Mid Tang et al. (2016) Mid Kodzi et al. (2014) High
Woodland & Mazur (2019a) High Li (2010) Mid Qvortrup (2016) Mid Wong (2018) Mid Beard et al. (2010) Mid
Woodland & Mazur (2019b) High Naicker et al. (2016) Mid Roffey (2012) Mid Kempen & Steyn (2017) Mid
Baker-Doyle & Yoon (2011) High Van den Beemt & Diepstraten Mid Glazer (2018) Mid
(2016)
7

Pedder et al. (2005) High Hofman & Dijkstra (2010) Mid

Coburn & Russell (2008) Mid
Dudley (2013) Mid
Farooq et al. (2007) Mid
Fetter et al. (2012) Mid
Nisar & Maroulis (2017) Mid
Rehm & Notten (2016) Mid
Tseng & Kuo (2014) Mid
Visone (2019) Mid
Wilhelm et al. (2016) Mid
Druken (2015) Mid
Johnson et al. (2011) Mid

Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

Modipane & Themane (2014) Mid
Osmond-Johnson (2017) Mid
Osmond-Johnson (2019) Mid
Ranieri et al. (2012) Mid
Booth & Kellogg (2015) Low
Hu et al. (2018) Low
a
The number in brackets represents the number of items in each category.
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391
Fig. 2. Surface characteristics of included items.
8
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

Fig. 3. Illustration of variable association.

3.4. Thematic analysis of outcomes of teacher social capital

In the following section, the categories of identified outcomes of social capital will be outlined and exemplified in more detail. The
analysis has been guided by the WoE framework for identifying and placing emphasis on key pieces. Table 1 lists articles in each
category ranked according to average WoE high, mid, or low.

3.4.1. Social capital and professional development

Findings from 28 studies point to the benefit of social capital for teacher professional development. Several studies conclude that
even though teachers may gather information at one-off professional development workshops, it is through their informal social
networks that the information is interpreted, shared, compiled, contextualised and sustained (Baker-Doyle & Yoon, 2011; high WoE;
Hofman et al., 2010; mid WoE; Modipane & Themane, 2014; mid WoE).
Findings also show that teachers value and benefit from participation in social networks in and out of class, with teachers from
within and outside their schools (Pedder et al., 2005; high WoE). In a study of teacher networks in Philadelphia, USA, Schiff et al.
(2015; high WoE) found a positive correlation between networking time as a proxy for social capital and high performing schools. The
study also showed that even though teachers value and participate in numerous formal and informal networks, both in and out of
school, more than half of the network opportunities are formalised. Two-thirds of them appear within the teacher’s own school.
Findings from several high WoE studies also point to a spill-over effect of teachers’ formalised networking on informal interactions.
Teachers who value and have the opportunity to participate in strong formal networks in school are also more likely to take part in
informal ones outside of school (Schiff et al., 2015; high WoE; Woodland & Mazur, 2019a; high WoE).
Using qualitative SNA, Baker-Doyle and Yoon (2011; high WoE) investigated how teachers’ informal advice networks influenced
social capital access. Establishing a Teacher Characteristic Index for teacher quality based on experience, education level, content
knowledge, degree of specialisation, formal leadership role etc. Their findings show that teachers with higher scores were less likely to
be sought out for advice by other teachers, especially those of lower quality, who preferred reaching out to teachers who they believed
had more mentoring skills. Thus, the findings highlight the risk that ‘expert teachers’ could become isolated in the networks, inhibiting
access and diffusion of social capital. According to the authors, one of the most important tasks for managers is, therefore, to unlock
this expertise and make it available to the network.
Coburn & Russel’s study (2008; mid WoE) provide evidence that such a task is possible to achieve, as their findings indicate that
district policy (mediated by school leaders) can affect the building of social capital among teachers by influencing the structure, access
to expertise and depth of interaction within teachers’ social networks.
In a longitudinal study of teacher teams, Woodland & Mazur (2019b; high WoE) showed how SNA could help administrators to
identify isolates in the network and help establish professional learning communities that increase access to social capital resources
within and across schools and (in this case rural) districts.
Looking at the effects of school leadership on social capital, Minckler (2014; high WoE) found a positive correlation between
‘transformational leadership’ and teacher social capital. Leadership was seen as transformational in the sense that it provided the
structures, both physical (e.g., shared scheduling time) and cultural (e.g., norms of collegiality), that allowed groups of teachers to
work together to create and use social capital.
Instead of looking at how teachers’ social interactions impact their effectiveness, Spillane et al. (2018; high WoE) reversed the
directionality and looked at how teacher performance predicted interactions. Interestingly, high performing teachers were not more

9
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

likely to be sought out for advice, but they sought more advice themselves. In other words, the ones who asked a lot seemed to learn a
lot, which improved their performance.
Wilhelm et al.’s longitudinal study of teachers across 27 schools (2016; mid WoE) found that teachers were more likely to seek new
advice from colleagues who were better at improving student achievement than any other type of expertise. Nisar & Maroulis (2017;
mid WoE) found that teachers strategically identify and seek out peers who possess the most sought-after knowledge at the time, which
means that improvement initiatives can sometimes alter teachers’ social networks.
Some studies in this category point to the benefit of social capital to specific professional development models, and conversely, how
these models contribute to the building of social capital. Chapman et al. (2016; high WoE) studied a collaborative inquiry model for
professional development aimed to close the gap in educational outcomes between children from poorer and wealthier settings in
Scotland. Drawing on data from over 50 schools, the authors showed that collaborative inquiry both enhanced teacher social capital
and led to achievement gains for disadvantaged pupils.
Dudley (2013; mid WoE) point to the benefit of social capital for ‘lesson study’, which has become an increasingly popular model
for teacher professional development and a vehicle for developing and sustaining professional learning communities. Dudley’s case
study analysis found that the building of social capital in collaborative lesson studies enabled teachers to access tacit knowledge about
how their students learn and how their learning could be improved. Social capital has also been found beneficial to lesson study
sustainability (Druken, 2015, p. 37: mid WoE).
Another vehicle for professional development that has increased in popularity over the last years is collegial visits. Visone (2019;
mid WoE) found that collegial visits increased social capital characterised as collective ownership (having a common goal) and helping
teachers view colleagues as resources, which positively impacted instruction. Osmond-Johnson (2017; mid WoE) showed how a peer
leadership model for professional learning can promote teacher capital and how social capital was beneficial to teachers’ transition
into leadership roles (2019; mid WoE).
Finally, a group of studies with WoE ranging from mid to low looked at online communities as an arena for professional devel­
opment and teacher social capital. Findings indicate that networking in online communities help teachers build and access social
capital in terms of resources and support, both in generic communities like Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest (Ranieri et al., 2012; mid
WoE; Rehm & Notten, 2016; mid WoE; Hu et al., 2018; low WoE) and in communities purposefully aimed at teacher knowledge sharing
(WoE; Fetter et al., 2012; mid WoE; Tseng & Kuo, 2014; mid WoE; Booth & Kellogg, 2015; low WoE). Social capital was also the key to
sustaining users in online networks (Farooq et al., 2007; mid WoE).

3.4.2. Social capital and implementation of change

Closely related to professional development is this next category of ten articles that study the relationship between social capital
and change implementation. Comparing the impact of teachers’ human and social capital on instructional change, Yoon et al. (2017;
high WoE) found that social capital was a stronger predictor than human capital, positing that a teacher’s access to social capital
influences how reforms play out in practice. Similarly, Penuel et al. (2009; mid WoE) found that social capital, characterised as the
distribution of resources and access to expertise, was significantly related to the level of instructional change observed in schools.
Some studies in this category looked specifically at implementing ITC policies, following increasing government initiatives of
technology infusion in schools. Using longitudinal network data from six US schools, Frank et al. (2004; high WoE) found that social
capital, characterised as peer pressure and access to expertise, was significantly correlated with IT use. Their findings challenge the
traditional view that change starts by changing teacher perceptions at the individual level, subsequently dispersed to others through
communication. This is echoed by Li & Choi’s study (2014; high WoE) of technology infusion in 130 schools in Hong Kong, which
found that social capital was more influential than conventional technology infusion models. Their findings show that social relations
not only developed teachers’ knowledge and skills but also brought about behavioural changes in the classroom. Social capital both
facilitated change in the pedagogical use of technology and enhanced teachers’ receptivity towards using technology in teaching and
learning. This is further confirmed by Li (2010; mid WoE) and van den Beemt & Diepstraten (2016; mid WoE), who found that
teachers’ conceptions of ITC did not necessarily effect change in teacher practices and student learning, but that the most crucial
impetus for change came from trust, informal access to expertise and peer pressure.
Social capital also emerged as key to the infusion of research/evidence use in schools. In an SNA analysis of teacher interactions in
more than 40 schools in England, Brown et al. (2016; high WoE) found that higher levels of social capital in a school, measured as more
frequent and useful interactions around teaching and higher levels of trust, was associated with higher levels of research/evidence use.
Building on Burt’s theory of structural holes (2000), Leat et al. (2006; mid WoE) showed that by exploring the ‘holes’ in the
organisation, social capital could limit the element of trial and error and frustration when implementing change. According to the
authors, these structural holes are easily found between departments and between teachers and managers, and that trust is the glue
that binds them together. However, their findings also show that too strong lateral trust (tight-knit bonding between peers) combined
with weak vertical trust (linking with management) can lead to resistance to leaders.
Social capital has also been found essential to change and transformation in disadvantaged and emerging economic contexts
(Naicker et al., 2016; mid WoE) and when transitioning into bilingual education due to changing student populations (Scanlan et al.,
2019; mid WoE).

3.4.3. Social capital and teacher retention and job satisfaction

Research suggests that teachers worldwide are exceedingly dissatisfied with their jobs and have significantly higher turnover rates
than other professions (Edinger & Edinger 2018). In this third theme we find studies pointing to social capital’s positive effect on both
job satisfaction and teacher retention.

10
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

Some studies in this category study teacher efficacy, which is commonly defined as teachers’ confidence in their ability to affect
students positively. Edinger & Edinger (2018; high WoE) studied the relationship between social capital, measured as trust and density
of advice networks, teacher efficacy, and support in two rural school districts. They found that a teacher’s position in the network
predicted their job satisfaction and that perceived organisational support strengthened the relationship between teacher efficacy and
job satisfaction. In a longitudinal analysis of survey data, Neugebauer et al. (2019; high WoE) similarly found that social capital,
measured as teacher interactions and access to resources through their relations, contributed to teacher self-efficacy over time.
Similarly, Qvortrup (2016; mid WoE) found that research-informed school development increased teacher professional capital, which
was positively associated with both teacher self-efficacy, teacher wellbeing, and student achievement. The correlations were strong,
indicating that teachers who interact strongly around teaching and students feel more competent and comfortable as teachers. In a
study of two teacher development networks, Hofman et al. (2010; mid WoE) found that teacher networks that are not top-down but
emerge from teachers themselves are more effective for promoting professionalism, job motivation and retention.
Another dimension of job satisfaction is the concept of ‘flow’. Flow is a feeling of enjoyment, motivation and absorption that can
occur when dealing with situations that involve both high challenges and require high utilisation of skills.2 In a study of 3700 Swedish
professionals, of which 350 were teachers, Fagerlind et al. (2013; mid WoE) found that social capital significantly increased the
likelihood of experiencing work-related flow.
Roffey (2012; mid WoE) explored how social capital affects both teachers’ and students’ wellbeing within an ecological framework.
Building on a qualitative study of six Australian schools, the study demonstrates that by promoting teacher wellbeing through
increased social capital (feelings of belonging, respect, value, and trust), schools can enhance their capacity to meet the needs of
diverse populations and reduce the numbers of students needing intensive and expensive support.
Looking at teacher retention, Struyve et al. (2016; high WoE) found that social connectedness as a proxy for social capital positively
influenced early career teachers’ job attitude, which in turn worked counter to intentions to leave the profession. This further es­
tablishes Galosy & Gillespie’s findings (2013; mid WoE) that teacher retention among beginning maths and science teachers could be
improved by developing professional capital, comprised of human, social and decisional capital.
Glazer (2018; mid WoE) looked at teacher retention through so–called ‘invested leavers’, i.e. teachers who have decided to leave
the profession after years of teaching. Social capital, or in this case lack thereof, emerged as key, together with perceived lack of
autonomy and insufficient management support as reasons for giving up teaching.
This category’s last study links teacher retention, turnover rates, and educational equity. Using data from the School Workforce
Census (SWC) of all teachers working in English state schools, Allen & Sims (2018; mid WoE) found clear and consistent evidence of
inequitable allocation of teacher quality between schools. High turnover rates in deprived schools meant less opportunities for teachers
to build social capital over time, which in turn made it harder to attract and sustain teachers. Thus, disadvantaged pupils were more
likely to have unqualified, inexperienced, or out-of-subject teachers.

3.4.4. Social capital and new and beginning teachers

Closely related to teacher retention is the induction and attrition of new and beginning teachers as we know that attrition rates are
especially low among new teachers. Worldwide, more than half of new teachers leave the profession within five years (Steen, 2011).
Looking at social network and performance data from more than 300 pre-service teachers in school-based training programmes in
Spain, Civis et al. (2019; high WoE) found that social capital among teachers affects both the performance of new teachers and their
perceived professional competence.
Another quantitative study in this category studied the impact of social capital on teachers’ first job. Drawing on data from Chile,
Cabezas et al. (2017; mid WoE) found evidence that teachers with higher social capital are less likely to start working in public schools,
which has implications for educational equity. At the same time, the authors found evidence that initial in-school training in public
schools increased the likelihood of teachers with higher social capital starting their first employment in a public school This means that
giving new teachers a chance to train in public schools could help distribute social capital to disadvantaged settings.
Mapping beginning teachers’ networks through qualitative SNA, Fox and Wilson (2015; mid WoE) found that social capital was
vital to successful integration of new teachers. Even though formal support was offered through different introduction programmes, it
was the social capital developed through their networking that helped new teachers cope with the challenges of starting teaching.
Engaging in relationship-building was also determining for developing a teacher identity and for sustaining in the profession. Two
similar studies confirm this, showing that new teachers’ competence to work in schools requires deep contextualised learning char­
acterised by the building of social capital (Tang et al., 2016; mid WoE), which requires a mix of resources and a variety of colleagues to
help them with the diverse challenges of teaching (Lane & Sweeny, 2018; mid WoE). Looking at the other side of the coin, Wong (2018;
mid WoE) found that mentoring not only represents an opportunity for new teachers but also for experienced teachers to build social
capital, commitment, and self-efficacy, and to renew their knowledge by reflecting on their professionalism.
Contrasting the experiences of two new teachers’ positioning in the staffroom, Christensen et al. (2018; mid WoE) studied the effect
of formal and informal spaces, e.g. staffrooms, corridors, etc., on the building of social capital of new teachers. The authors conclude
that even though there might be induction policies entirely laid out in policy documents, implementation is often diverse and that
weak teacher induction is linked to weak teacher retention.
Finally, social capital has been found essential when integrating foreign teachers into new cultural settings. Fee (2011; mid WoE)

2
The concept of flow is further developed in e.g., Flow: The psychology of happiness, Csikszentmihalyi (2013) and Flow theory and research in
Handbook of positive psychology, Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi (2009).

11
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

showed how social capital contributed to the successful integration of teachers from Spain into bilingual education in the USA.

3.4.5. Social capital and improved student achievement

Even though all categories of outcomes in this review point to the benefit of social capital for different aspects of school
improvement, only one category point to a direct relationship between teacher social capital and improved student outcome. In this
category, most studies employed a quantitative research method, using student grades or marks on tests as the outcome variable in
correlational analyses. The WoE in this category was strong, with seven of nine studies scoring ‘high’. Several studies in this category
also point to the implicit outcome of social capital on educational equity.
Drawing on data from teachers, principals, parents and students in 88 US schools, Leana and Pil (2006; high WoE) found a positive
correlation between teacher social capital and student achievement as measured by standardised tests. Both internal social capital
(relations between teachers) and external social capital (relations between the principal and external stakeholders) predicted student
achievement in mathematics and reading. The effects were sustained over time for reading achievement, providing support for a causal
relationship between social capital and performance.
In a later study, Pil and Leana (2009; high WoE) analysed the impact of teacher human and social capital respectively on student
achievement. Applying the model to a sample of more than a thousand teachers in over 200 grade-teams, the study ‘found that the
structure and content of relationships among teachers (social capital) significantly predicted school-level student achievement’ (Pil &
Leana, 2009, p. 1102). But, for teachers’ human capital to impact student achievement, it had to be specific to the setting and task
(grade-level experience and ability to teach maths). The implication is that ‘employment practices that promote stability in teacher
assignments in particular schools, along with professional development that is specific to the subject matter, may be better investments
by school districts than is the current focus on general educational attainment’ (Pil & Leana, 2009, p. 1117). Another interesting
finding was that less able teachers benefitted most from strong ties with peers. Fostering social capital among teachers can thereby
reduce the disadvantage of students of low socio-economic status (SES). As teachers who work in schools with lower SES students tend
to be less experienced and the grade-level teams less educated, ‘upgrading the grade-level experience of teachers working in low-SES
schools to be comparable to levels found in high-SES schools would help offset the negative effects of low SES’ (Pil & Leana, 2009, p.
1118).
Daly et al. (2014; high WoE) used SNA to analyse teacher interactions in five schools using benchmark assessments instead of
standardised tests as the outcome variable. They also found that the level of social capital among teachers was an indicator of improved
student achievement. Increased sharing of task-specific knowledge (in this case, reading comprehension) was associated with higher
student achievement. In comparison, an increased number of mutual relationships (ego-reciprocity) reflected a more closed system
with fewer chances to encounter new ideas and practices, which may lead to lower student achievement. Daly et al. (2014) also found
that more teaching experience in the current school was associated with better student performance. Schools in disadvantaged areas
generally have higher staff turnover rates which means that investing in building long-term, meaningful relationships between
teachers can diminish the effects of segregation and disadvantage.
Salloum et al.’s study (2017; high WoE) tested and confirmed social capital as a construct, but also found that social capital was a
positive predictor of student achievement. Differences in social capital levels were significantly related to school membership, and only
half of the social capital was related to social class. This empirically supports Pil & Leana’s (2009; high WoE) assertion that
strengthening access to school-based resources in poor and low-achieving schools can help offset the negative effects of low SES and
promote educational equity.
Van Maele and Van Houtte (2011; high WoE) showed how shared understandings, collective beliefs, and common goals as proxies
of social capital affect student achievement. Developing similar and positive conceptions among teachers about students’ teachability
builds social capital, which in turn benefits student learning. They found that the teacher workplace’s structural, compositional, and
cultural characteristics affect trust in colleagues and argue that less homogenous cultures of teacher teams can explain the lower levels
of collegial trust in socioeconomically disadvantaged schools. Van Maele & Van Houtte’s results are confirmed by Beard et al. (2010;
mid WoE), who found that ‘collective academic optimism’ among teachers, i.e. teachers’ joint optimism towards the teachability of
their students as grounded in social capital theory, was associated with enhanced academic performance.
Another benefit of social capital to educational equity that emerged in this category was its role in developing contexts. In examples
from Kenya (Kodzi et al., 2014; high WoE), Latin America (Anderson, 2008; high WoE) and South Africa (Kempen & Steyn 2017; mid
WoE) studies found that relationships among teachers, students, parents, and principals led to gains in teachers’ professional capacity,
learner outcomes, and whole school improvement.

3.5. Synthesis of enablers and barriers to social capital

In the following section, RQ2 will be addressed by synthesising the enablers and barriers to social capital found in the reviewed
items. More than 90 per cent of the articles in this review identify one or more factors that contribute to the development of social
capital among teachers, while around 70 per cent suggest factors that may hinder it. The enablers and barriers were thematically coded
into 12 categories. Eight of these categories appeared both as enablers and in reversed form as barriers, e.g., ‘teacher agency’ as an
enabler also appeared as a ‘lack of teacher agency’ among the barriers. The remaining categories appeared only as enablers (2) or
barriers (2). The categories were grouped according to the level on which they occur, conceptualised as individual level, group level,
and organisational level factors as illustrated in Table 3 and Table 4 below. Consideration was made to the WoE framework by fore-
fronting and emphasising key pieces. Some consideration was also made to the number of items referring to a particular enabler or
barrier. Frequency is arguably a blunt measure of the importance of enablers/barriers since different research designs may yield

12
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

different factors. However, given the large number of studies included in this review (66), the number of occurrences can still give us
an indication of their relevance.

3.5.1. Enablers of social capital

This review has identified ten categories of enablers of social capital among teachers, occurring at the individual, group, and
organisational level, as illustrated in Table 3. These will be explained and exemplified in the sections that follow.

3.5.1.1. Individual-level enablers. Teacher characteristics (2): Only two studies in this review identify individual-level characteristics
as enabling teacher social capital, and this category only appears as an enabler. Spillane et al. (2012; high WoE) showed how a
teacher’s gender, age, and status is associated with the formation of ties between teachers, while Bridwell-Mitchell & Cooc (2016; high
WoE) showed their significance for maintaining ties over time. However, both studies indicate that these individual-level factors are
trumped by factors at the group and organisational level (see below).
Teacher agency (11): Studies in this category identify individual teacher agency as an important enabler of social capital. The main
argument here is that while structural conditions are important, teachers are not only subjected to the structures in which they operate
but are also driven by their own thoughts and convictions that will influence social capital. Highlighting the agency of teachers, some
studies show that teachers are strategic in their networking choices (e.g. Nisar & Maroulis, 2017; Spillane et al., 2018; Wilhelm et al.,
2016; all high WoE), while others underline the importance of teachers becoming aware of their networking possibilities (e.g. Fox &
Wilson, 2015; Wong, 2018; both mid WoE). When teachers serve as actors rather than remaining primary agents, they are also crucial
to transformation in developing contexts (Naicker et al., 2016; mid WoE).
Principal agency (9). Findings in this category posit that just like teachers, principals make strategic choices about who to interact
with and how to use their time (Leana & Pil 2006; high WoE). This, together with principals’ transformational leadership, is crucial to
change (Minckler 2014; Woodland & Mazur 2019a; Woodland & Mazur 2019b; all high WoE). Principal agency can also enable social
capital building among teachers by encouraging different types of collaborative practices like lesson study (Dudley 2013; mid WoE)
and collegial visits (Visone 2019; mid WoE) and by supporting mentors and mentees for the successful integration of new teachers
(Tang et al., 2016; mid WoE).

3.5.1.2. Group level enablers. Team/group/network characteristics (4): Bridwell-Mitchell & Cooc (2016; high WoE) found that

Table 3
Enablers of social capital among teachers.
Enablers Studies

Individual level factors

Teacher characteristics (2)
Teacher agency (11)
Principal agency (8)
Group level factors
Team/group/network
characteristics (4)
Peer pressure (3)
Organisation level factors
Team/group/network structures
(30)
Access to expertise (28)
School climate (21)
Organisational support (23)
Stability in employment practices
(5)
WoE high: Bridwell-Mitchell & Cooc 2016; Spillane et al., 2012;
WoE high: Spillane et al., 2012; Spillane et al. 2015; Spillane et al. 2018; WoE mid: Fox & Wilson 2015; Glazer 2018;
Naicker et al., 2016.; Pedder & James 2005; Rehm & Notten 2016; Tseng & Kuo 2014; Wilhelm et al., 2016; Wong 2018.
WoE high: Minckler 2014; Woodland & Mazur 2019a; Woodland & Mazur 2019b; WoE mid: Druken 2015, p. 37; Dudley
2013; Osmond-Johnson 2017; Tang et al., 2016; Visone 2019.
WoE high: Bridwell-Mitchell & Cooc 2016; Li & Choi 2014; van Emmerik et al., 2011; van Maele & Van Houtte 2011.
WoE high: Li & Choi 2014; WoE mid: Li 2010; Tseng & Kuo 2014.
WoE high: Anderson 2008; Baker-Doyle & Yoon 2011; Chapman et al., 2016; Edinger & Edinger 2018; Frank et al., 2004;
Leana & Pil 2006; Minckler 2014; Pil & Leana 2009; Schiff et al., 2015; Spillane et al., 2012; Spillane et al. 2015; Spillane
et al. 2018; Struyve et al., 2016; Woodland & Mazur 2019a; Woodland & Mazur 2019b; WoE mid: Christensen et al., 2018;
Coburn & Russell 2008; Dudley 2013; Fetter et al., 2012; Galosy & Gillespie 2013; Hofman & Dijkstra. 2010; Johnson et al.,
2011; Kempen & Steyn 2017; Nisar & Maroulis 2017; Osmond-Johnson 2017; Penuel et al., 2009; Qvortrup 2016; Scanlan
et al., 2019; van den Beemt & Diepstraten 2016; Visone 2019.
WoE high: Anderson 2008; Baker-Doyle & Yoon 2011; Brown et al., 2016; Frank et al., 2004; Leana & Pil 2006; Li & Choi
2014; Neugebauer et al., 2019; Pil & Leana 2009; Schiff et al., 2015; Spillane et al., 2012; Spillane et al. 2015; Spillane et al.
2018; Struyve et al., 2016; Yoon et al., 2017; WoE mid: Coburn & Russell 2008; Dudley 2013; Fox & Wilson 2015; Galosy &
Gillespie 2013; Hofman & Dijkstra. 2010; Johnson et al., 2011; Lane & Sweeny 2018; Leat et al., 2006; Osmond-Johnson
2017; Osmond-Johnson 2019; Penuel et al., 2009; Ranieri et al., 2012; Scanlan et al., 2019; van den Beemt & Diepstraten
2016.
WoE high: Anderson 2008; Bridwell-Mitchell & Cooc 2016; Brown et al., 2016; Civís et al., 2019; Edinger & Edinger 2018;
Frank et al., 2004; Kodzi et al., 2014; Li & Choi 2014; Minckler 2014; Schiff et al., 2015; van Maele & Van Houtte 2011;
Yoon et al., 2017; WoE mid: Allen & Sims 2018; Beard et al., 2010; Coburn & Russell 2008; Druken 2015, p. 37; Fagerlind
et al., 2013; Kempen & Steyn 2017; Leat et al., 2006; Qvortrup 2016; Roffey 2012; Visone 2019;
WoE high: Edinger & Edinger 2018; Leana & Pil 2006; Minckler 2014; Pil & Leana 2009; Spillane et al., 2012; Spillane et al.
2015; Spillane et al. 2018; WoE mid: Cabezas et al., 2017; Christensen et al., 2018; Druken 2015, p. 37; Dudley 2013; Fox &
Wilson 2015; Glazer 2018; Johnson et al., 2011; Kempen & Steyn 2017; Leat et al., 2006; Osmond-Johnson 2017;
Osmond-Johnson 2019; Tang et al., 2016; van den Beemt & Diepstraten 2016; Visone 2019; Wong 2018. WoE low: Hu
et al., 2018
WoE high: Daly et al., 2014; Leana & Pil 2006; Pil & Leana 2009; Struyve et al., 2016; WoE mid: Allen & Sims 2018.

13
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

Table 4
Barriers to social capital among teachers.
Barriers Studies

Individual level factors

Lack of teacher agency (10)
Lack of principal agency (5)
Group level factors
Network closure (4)
Organisation level factors
Poor team/group/network
structures (26)
Lack of access to expertise (17)
Poor school climate (14)
Lack of organisational support (9)
High turn-over rates (6)
Government policy (2)
WoE high: Pedder et al., 2005; WoE mid: Dudley 2013; Fox & Wilson 2015; Glazer 2018; Naicker et al., 2016; Rehm &
Notten 2016; Tang et al., 2016; Tseng & Kuo 2014; Wong 2018.
WoE high: Minckler 2014; Woodland & Mazur 2019a; WoE mid: Dudley 2013; Naicker et al., 2016; Tang et al., 2016.
WoE high: Daly et al., 2014; Schiff et al., 2015; WoE mid: Leat et al., 2006; Nisar & Maroulis 2017.
WoE high: Anderson 2008; Baker-Doyle & Yoon 2011; Edinger & Edinger 2018; Leana & Pil 2006; Minckler 2014; Pedder
et al., 2005; Pil & Leana 2009; Schiff et al., 2015; van Emmerik et al., 2011; van Maele & Van Houtte 2011; Woodland &
Mazur 2019a; Yoon et al., 2017; WoE mid: Christensen et al., 2018; Dudley 2013; Fetter et al., 2012; Fox & Wilson 2015;
Galosy & Gillespie 2013; Hofman & Dijkstra. 2010; Johnson et al., 2011; Kempen & Steyn 2017; Li 2010; Modipane &
Themane 2014; Osmond-Johnson 2017; Qvortrup 2016; Ranieri et al., 2012; van den Beemt & Diepstraten 2016.
WoE high: Anderson 2008; Baker-Doyle & Yoon 2011; Leana & Pil 2006; Li & Choi 2014; Neugebauer et al., 2019; Pil &
Leana 2009; Schiff et al., 2015; Yoon et al., 2017; WoE mid: Druken 2015, p. 37; Dudley 2013; Galosy & Gillespie 2013;
Hofman & Dijkstra. 2010; Johnson et al., 2011; Leat et al., 2006; Osmond-Johnson 2017; Ranieri et al., 2012; van den
Beemt & Diepstraten 2016.
WoE high: Anderson 2008; Edinger & Edinger 2018; Kodzi et al., 2014; Minckler 2014; Schiff et al., 2015; van Maele & Van
Houtte 2011; WoE mid: Allen & Sims 2018; Beard et al., 2010; Dudley 2013; Fagerlind et al., 2013; Leat et al., 2006;
Modipane & Themane 2014; Qvortrup 2016; Roffey 2012;
WoE high: Minckler 2014; WoE mid: Christensen et al., 2018; Dudley 2013; Fox & Wilson 2015; Glazer 2018; Leat et al.,
2006; Modipane & Themane 2014; Tang et al., 2016; van den Beemt & Diepstraten 2016.
WoE high: Daly et al., 2014; Leana & Pil 2006; Pil & Leana 2009; Schiff et al., 2015; WoE mid: Allen & Sims 2018; Modipane
& Themane 2014.
WoE high: Frank et al., 2004; Penuel et al., 2009.

teacher communities were more important than individual teacher traits and formal organisation for the formation of ties between
teachers that foster social capital. Specifically, teachers in larger communities and communities with stronger cohesion (more over­
lapping ties or bonding) were more likely to continue to interact over time, while teachers who often span community boundaries
(bridging) were less likely to persist in their interactions. The authors suggest opportunities for teachers to mix it up in terms of their
usual interaction patterns to encourage community cohesion that foster social capital. Quite contrary to mixing it up, van Emmerik
et al. (2011; high WoE) found that developing ‘deep-level similarity’ as a form of social capital increased learning behaviours among
team members. The implication is that school leaders should develop similar and positive conceptions among their teachers about
students’ teachability to promote social capital and student learning (van Maele & van Houtte 2011; high WoE).
Peer pressure (2): Two studies have shown that performance expectations from peers can have a positive impact on the building of
social capital, as it serves as an important igniter and driver for diffusion of innovation and ITC (Li, 2010; mid WoE; Li & Choi, 2014;
high WoE). This category appeared only as an enabler.

3.5.1.3. Organisation level enablers. Team/group/network structures (30). Almost half of this review’s items identify providing the
structural conditions for teachers to interact in groups and networks as a vital enabler of social capital. Looking at the antecedents of
social capital, Spillane et al. (2015; high WoE) found that organisational structures, i.e. formal group or team assignment, had a larger
effect in shaping the conditions for the promotion of social capital than individual characteristics. In another study, Spillane et al.
(2012; high WoE) looked at tie formation antecedents as the initial step towards building social capital. Findings showed that even
though individual factors such as race and gender contributed to tieformation (as mentioned above), formal organisational structures
such as grade-level assignment, holding a formal leadership position, and single-grade teaching (rather than teaching multiple grades)
had significantly larger effects on tie formation.
Moreover, since there is contingency between formal and informal networks (Woodland & Mazur, 2019a,b; high WoE) and formal
networking has a spill-over effect on informal networking (Schiff et al., 2015; high WoE), school leaders and policy makers can in­
fluence informal teacher networks through shaping the structure of their formal ones (Woodland & Mazur, 2019a). Through policy and
leadership, school leaders can influence the structure, access to expertise, and depth of interaction (Coburn & Russell; mid WoE, 2008;
Minckler, 2014; high WoE).
This reasoning is echoed by Wilhelm et al. (2016; mid WoE), who argue that even though teacher networks are emergent phe­
nomena, they can still be influenced. Their findings suggest that with all else equal, two math teachers of the same grade-level are more
likely to interact around mathematics instruction than teachers of different grade-levels. This is related to both the content of inter­
action being shared and the physical proximity to peers. In primary schools, teachers of the same grade are typically located adjacent to
one another. Physical proximity to peers may increase the probability of forming a tie, as will participation in the same organisational
routines, such as grade-level meetings (Spillane 2012; high WoE). Translated to the secondary school setting, an increased probability
of forming ties would occur among teachers of the same subject, who typically participate in the same departmental meetings and
teach in clusters of classrooms close to each other.
Minckler (2014; high WoE) put forward the role of organisational structures for providing teachers with the time, place, and re­
sources to form relationships. Through, e.g., shared scheduling time and collegiality norms, school leadership can provide opportu­
nities for groups of teachers to work together to create and use bonding social capital. Likewise, Scanlan et al. (2019; mid WoE) argue

14
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

that providing the organisational structures that support relational networks and communities of practice will increase all forms of
professional capital, of which social capital is one.
Dudley’s (2013; mid WoE) findings highlight the need to provide school routines that can accommodate lesson studies and other
collaborative forms of teacher learning that contribute to the building of social capital, such as timetabling efforts and staff cover
systems and budget. Similarly, investment in social capital through collaborative learning sessions where knowledge and experience
are shared is suggested for promoting successful technology infusion in schools (Li, 2010; mid WoE; Li & Choi, 2014; high WoE).
When it comes to forming external ties, serving similar student populations is associated with increased sharing of instructional
advice and information between schools. High-performing schools tend to ‘keep to themselves’ and were less likely to seek external
advice or information than lower-performing schools (Spillane et al., 2015; high WoE). This has implications for educational equity as
it reproduces disadvantage and unequal distribution of social capital across schools.
Access to expertise (28): Several studies point to the benefit of access to expertise that is task-specific or close to classroom practice.
Teacher interactions that involved sharing of task-specific knowledge were associated with higher student achievement (Daly et al.,
2014; Leana & Pil 2006; Pil & Leana 2009; all high WoE), and interaction around specific teaching episodes was more beneficial for
promoting teacher self-efficacy over time than more general ones (Neugebauer et al., 2019; high WoE).
Studies also point to the benefit of ‘unlocking expertise’ (Baker-Doyle & Yoon, 2011; high WoE) through content-rich interaction
(Galosy & Gillespie, 2013; mid WoE Schiff et al., 2015; high WoE), exploiting subgroups and network meetings with a strong content
focus (Hofman et al., 2010; mid WoE), and distribution of resources and expertise (Penuel et al., 2009; mid WoE). Since teachers are
less likely to seek advice from ‘expert teachers’, school leadership should make sure that teachers become aware of these ‘silent’ experts
and that their knowledge is explicitly shared (Baker-Doyle & Yoon, 2011; high WoE).
The same patterns are evident when looking at enabling factors for the building of social capital online. In a comparative study of
two different types of online networks it was found that dedicated private forums had a lower threshold for engagement which led to
more people asking questions, whereas in traditional open forums, fewer people asked questions, but more people answered (Fetter
et al., 2012; mid WoE). In other words, the private forum’s safety generated bonding and trust, which made teachers more prone to ask
questions, whereas in the open forum, new knowledge was accessed through bridging. This was further established by the finding that
thematic, or task-specific, interaction in online communities built more bonding social capital, while interactions around more general
teaching issues developed bridging social capital (Ranieri et al., 2012; mid WoE).
School climate (21). About a third of the studies in this review put forward school climate as an essential enabling factor for social
capital. School leaders are encouraged to build an atmosphere of trust and respect between teachers (Anderson, 2008; high WoE;
Dudley, 2013; mid WoE) and promote teacher wellbeing (Qvortrup, 2016; mid WoE) to improve teacher retention (Fagerlind et al.,
2013; Qvortrup, 2016; Roffey, 2012; all mid WoE) and student wellbeing (Roffey, 2012; mid WoE). The argument is that teacher and
student wellbeing are two sides of the same coin, which means that schools should support teachers’ wellbeing to promote wellbeing
for students (Roffey, 2012; mid WoE). A supportive learning climate is also vital for enabling new teachers to access and build social
capital, which will affect both performance and professional competence (Civis et al., 2019; high WoE)
A trusting school climate that allows teachers to try out novel ideas is also beneficial for the implementation, and pedagogical use,
of new technology (Li and Choi 2014; high WoE), and ‘social capital cannot be infused nor can it be enacted from external authorities;
rather, it can only be nurtured over time from within the school organization.’ (Li and Choi 2014, p. 14). A school climate of learning
and trust is also needed to promote the relations needed to provide teachers with access to the research/evidence-based social capital
that resides within a school (Brown et al., 2016; high WoE).
Organisational support (23). More than a third of the articles identify the role of organisational support for enabling social capital.
This can be either through fostering the socio-emotional side of support through linking or vertical social capital between teachers and
school leaders (Pil & Leana, 2009; high WoE; Druken 2015, p. 37; mid WoE) or by providing organisational support structures through
providing guidance and support for mentoring programmes (Christensen et al., 2018; mid WoE; Tang et al., 2016; mid WoE)
collaborative practices for professional development (Chapman et al., 2016; high WoE; Dudley 2013; mid WoE; Visone et al., 2019;
mid WoE) and peer leadership (Dudley 2013; Coburn & Russel 2008; Osmond-Johnson 2017; all mid WoE). Holding a formal lead­
ership position, particularly a subject-specific leadership position makes a teacher more likely to be sought out for instructional advice
(Spillane et al., 2015; high WoE). In addition, the overall interaction between teachers working in schools with formally assigned
leaders is both more frequent and more profound (Coburn & Russel; 2008; mid WoE). Organisational support is also essential for
exploring the structural holes in the organisation that promote bridging social capital (Baker-Doyle & Yoon, 2011; high WoE) and
teacher wellbeing and teacher retention (Edinger & Edinger, 2018; high WoE; Glazer, 2018; mid WoE).
Stability in employment practices (5). Findings in this category show that since social capital is built through interaction over time,
one way to enable social capital is to promote stability in employment practices, allowing for teachers to build social progressively
(Daly et al., 2014; Leana & Pil, 2006; Pil & Leana, 2009; all high WoE). There is also evidence that this is especially important in schools
in deprived areas where turnover rates are higher and teachers’ collective experience is lower (Allen & Sims, 2018; mid WoE; Pil &
Leana, 2009; high WoE).
Teachers’ use of decisional capital, i.e. the ability to make sound judgements even when there are no rules or guidance, becomes
especially problematic in the light of high turnover rates, as it can only be developed through years of experience (Galosy & Gillespie,
2013; mid WoE). Rather than changing membership frequently, managers should attempt to facilitate deep-level similarity by allowing
teams to develop a shared history by increasing contact among members (van Emmerik et al., 2011; high WoE).

3.5.2. Barriers to social capital

This review has identified nine categories of barriers to teacher social capital, again occurring at the individual, group, or

15
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

organisational level, as illustrated in Table 4. While most of the barriers are reversions of the enablers or a lack of a specific enabler,
two barriers stand out, namely network closure and government policy. These will be explained and exemplified in the sections below.

3.5.2.1. Group level barriers. Network closure (4). In line with the theory of the strength of weak ties (Borgatti & Halgin, 2011;
Granovetter, 1977), structural holes (Burt, 2000), and isolation of experts (Portes, 1998), one barrier to the effective building of social
capital that is put forward in this review is the risk of network closure. If there are too many mutual relationships in a network, this may
indicate that the system is closed and less open to new ideas. In other words, too much bonding may indicate a lack of bridging, i.e.
failing to reach out beyond the immediate network borders for inspiration and influx of innovation, which may signal lower student
achievement (Daly et al., 2014; high WoE). A similar argument put forward by Schiff et al. (2015; high WoE) who refer to this as the
risk of isolation of experts, while Leat et al. (2006; mid WoE) argue that too strong lateral trust (bonding) between teachers, combined
with weak vertical trust (linking) between teachers and school management can result in resistance to leaders.

3.5.2.2. Organisation level barriers. Government policy (2). Another barrier identified by two studies in this review is that government
policies sometimes may hinder social capital cultivation. For example, an increased dependency on high stakes testing may inhibit
teachers from exposing themselves to the risks of innovation (Frank et al., 2004; high WoE; Penuel et al., 2009; mid WoE), and multiple
innovation and reform initiatives implemented at the same time may ‘drain the stores of social capital’ (Frank et al., 2004, p. 163; high
WoE).
The synthesis of enablers and barriers has shown that organisation level factors are more commonly identified as enabling or
hindering social capital in the items in this review than individual or group level factors. This is illustrated in Fig. 4 below, which shows
the number of times enablers on the different levels are referred to in the included items.

4. Discussion

This literature review set out to systematically synthesise empirical studies carried out between 2004 and 2019 on social capital for
professional learning. Through the search process detailed above, 66 studies were identified for providing answer to the review
questions. In this section, the results of the review will be summarised and discussed, and avenues for further research will be sug­
gested. But first, a note on limitations. All endeavours to review research literature are inevitably partial and limited by search terms
and sources. Moreover, interpretations of research are always influenced by the perspectives of the authors and readers. When syn­
thesising literature, it is impossible to do full justice to each item or body of work. However, this review has employed a systematic
approach that aims to reduce the risks of bias and ensure rigour and relevance of included items.
This review’s findings establish the important role of teacher social capital for promoting five categories of outcomes: teacher
professional development, implementation of change, teacher retention and job satisfaction, the successful introduction of new and
beginning teachers, and improved student achievement. Findings also point to the implicit outcome of teacher social capital for
reducing the disadvantage of students of low SES and promoting educational equity. A synthesis of enablers and barriers has identified
factors operating on the individual, group, and organisation level that influence teachers’ ability to build and access social capital. Not
only are the organisational level factors more commonly identified as enabling or hindering teacher social capital, but more

Fig. 4. Synthesis of enablers and barriers.

16
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

importantly, they are pervasive. The individual and group level factors are heavily influenced or even trumped, by organisation level
factors, both in terms of shaping the conditions for social capital (e.g. Spillane et al., 2015; high WoE) and in terms of networking
behaviours (e.g. Schiff et al., 2015; high WoE; Woodland & Mazur, 2019a,b high WoE). In addition, many of the organisation level
factors, like access to expertise and organisational support, are contingent on the school’s formal organisational structure. How the
school is organised will affect teachers’ ability to build and access social capital, both in terms of who they are likely to form and
maintain ties with (Spillane 2012; high WoE; Bridwell-Mitchell & Cooc 2016; high WoE), what kind of expertise they can access and
share and to what extent they are exposed to colleagues with different types of expertise (Baker-Doyle et al., 2011; Penuel et al., 2009;
mid WoE; (Galosy & Gillespie, 2013; Schiff et al., 2015). Organisational structures will also influence teachers’ chances to build social
capital over time in terms of employment practices (Allen & Sims 2018; mid WoE; Daly et al., 2014; high WoE; Pil & Leana 2009; high
WoE), and the availability of formal support structures through, e.g., mentoring programmes and formalised peer leadership roles
(Tang et al., 2016; mid WoE; Coburn & Russell 2008; mid WoE)
Further, studies in this review have highlighted the benefit of task-specific interaction (Daly et al., 2014; Galosy & Gillespie, 2013;
Leana & Pil, 2006; Neugebauer et al., 2019; Pil & Leana, 2009) and similarity of team members (van Emmerik et al., 2011; Van Maele
& Van Houtte, 2011) for the effective building of social capital. A smaller number of articles have put forward a potential risk with
promoting sameness and task-specific interaction (bonding social capital) as an increased number of reciprocal relationships may
indicate lower student achievement (Daly et al., 2014; Schiff et al., 2015).
The review reveals that generic interactions build more bridging social capital and thematic interactions more bonding social
capital (Neugebauer et al., 2019; Ranieri et al., 2012). This suggests that different organisational structures like grade-level teams,
cross-grade-level teams, subject departments and mixed-subject teams will be more or less effective for promoting different social
capital dimensions such as bonding and bridging.
In other words, organisational structures will moderate the relationship between teacher social capital and the outcomes that it has
been associated with. This leads to a new illustration of variable association, as shown in Fig. 5.
As suggested in Fig. 5, organisational structures moderate the relationship between social capital and student achievement in that it
affects the effective building of and access to social capital among teachers, which in turn promotes the outcomes related to social
capital, which directly or indirectly will promote student achievement and educational equity.
Given the critical role of organisational structures for promoting social capital and its associated outcomes, it is worth noting that
few items in this review pay attention to the organisational structures of the schools studied. Even less is said about the potential
impact of these structures on the building of social capital amongst teachers within them. It seems taken for granted that schools are
organised in a certain, almost universal, way. There are mentions of departments and grade-level teams in the studies, but few engage
in any further discussion of what these departments or grade-level teams look like in terms of, e.g., composition and size. Even less is
said about how the organisation of these teams/groups/departments influence the building of social capital among their members.
Intrigued by the little reference made to the organisational structure of the schools studied in this review, a brief synthesis was
carried out. Out of the 66 items in this review, less than a fifth (13 of 66) make reference to the organisational structure of the schools
studied. And among the studies that do, a majority do so by highlight an organisational structure that somehow deviates from the norm
or is seen as an alternative structure, e.g. where teachers of different subjects worked together instead of in same-subject departments

Fig. 5. New illustration of variable association.

17
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

in secondary schools (Nisar & Maroulis, 2017; van Emmerik et al., 2011). As shown earlier in Fig. 2 (Surface Characteristics of Included
Items), few studies in this review targeted teachers of particular subjects, which means that the content of interaction between the
teachers is seldom specified, more than as interactions around teaching or teaching advice. Given the identified benefit of fostering
task-specific, close-to-classroom, content-rich interactions among teachers, this lack of insight into these interactions’ specific content
represents a gap in existing research on teacher social capital and its potential effect on student achievement.

4.1. Implications for future research

First, this review calls for empirical research that can contribute to our understanding of teacher social capital in relation to the
organisational structure of the schools in which they operate. Future research could investigate the effects of different organisational
structures such as grade-level teams, cross-grade-level teams, subject departments, and mixed-subject teams on social capital building
among teachers. This would also answer Spillane et al.’s (2012) call for research investigating teachers’ tie-formation in schools that
have primarily grade-level specific routines with teachers in schools where organisational routines cut across grades. In secondary
school settings, such research could involve teachers in traditional subject departments and teachers working in student-centred,
mixed-subject teams. It would also be valuable to extend existing research to include teachers of specific subjects other than maths
and science.
Studying the impact of different organisational structures could also add to the theory of the strength of weak ties (Borgatti &
Halgin, 2011; Granovetter, 1977) by exploring the effects of teacher interactions within and outside these settings. Even though
close-knit, more homogenous communities foster greater degrees of emotional support, some suggest that weakly-linked, heteroge­
neous networks tend to be more innovative (Baker-Doyle, 2010).
Addressing the issue of organisational structures might also shed light on the definition of networks. Many scholars in this review
suggest participation in networks as beneficial to teacher social capital. However, many of the ‘networks’ referred to seem to be
inhabited by members of departments or grade-level teams. While such constellations are seldom voluntary, networks do not have
‘natural boundaries’ (Borgatti & Halgin, 2011, p. 1170). Looking at the impact of formally assigned groups and teams allows for an
analysis of barriers and hierarchies that social network theory often lacks consideration for.
More studies are also needed to establish the indirect links between different social capital outcomes on student achievement. Here
triangulation of data could be useful, triangulating for example, social capital, teacher retention, and student achievement, or
including the experiences or voices of students when studying the relationship between social capital and, e.g., professional devel­
opment. How are the learning gains for teachers translated into learning gains for students?
Second, several studies in this review have pointed to the implicit outcome of teacher social capital on educational equity. For
example, a recent review revealed the importance of contextual resources for leadership for professional learning in order to promote
more equitable learning outcomes (Poekert et al., 2020). Future research could explore how social capital can help build, utilise, and
share such contextual resources in pursuit of educational equity.
Third, this review has methodological implications. Research methods across the studies in this review were diverse. However,
given the many dimensions of social capital: the structural, cognitive, relational and expressive dimensions, and the elements of
bonding, bridging, and linking, there is no standard for analysing or measuring social capital among teachers. This review has shown
that the applications of social capital and the proxies by which it has been measured are diverse. Some studies use SNA to map the
social networks of teachers (Coburn & Russel, 2008), the density of advice networks (Daly et al., 2014) or teachers’ position within the
networks (Baker-Doyle & Yoon, 2010; Edinger & Edinger, 2018). Others measure the number, frequency, and depth of interactions
between teachers (Pil & Leana, 2009) or use levels of trust or peer pressure among teachers as proxies for social capital. Some study
advice-seeking patterns (Nisar & Maroulis, 2017; Wilhelm et al., 2016), access to resources and expertise (Ranieri et al., 2012; Rehm &
Notten, 2016; Hu et al., 2018; Fetter et al., 2012) or networking time (Schiff et al., 2015). Yet others look at the shared understandings,
common goals, or collective beliefs (van Maele & van Houtte, 2011) or collegiality norms (Minckler, 2014) as indicators of social
capital. Another important avenue for further research is thus to develop context-sensitive theoretical frameworks for understanding
teacher social capital and more elaborate measures.
Finally, even though the findings from this review show that in-school, formalised interaction is still the bread and butter of teacher
networks (Schiff et al., 2015; Woodland & Mazur, 2019a), the current pandemic has pushed the boundaries of teaching. Possibly it has
even pushed the boundaries of what we perceive as in-school teaching. Online communities will play an increasingly important role in
teachers’ professional development. As teaching moves more and more online, research studies could investigate or try to understand
what this means for teachers’ ability to build and access social capital in the future. For example, future research could look at how
bonding, bridging, and linking social capital are being promoted in the online environment of teacher interactions.

4.2. Implications for practice

First, this review’s findings establish the role of social capital among teachers for several desired outcomes, not least its direct and
indirect effect on improved student achievement and its role in reducing disadvantage and promoting educational equity. In addition,
the review sheds light on important organisational issues at the school level, such as the deliberate use of formally assigned teams and
groups for promoting informal teacher interactions that build social capital. This becomes especially interesting in light of reform
initiatives in the 1990s and early 2000s that strived to increase teachers’ overall interactions by reorganising from subject departments
to mixed-subject teams (Elmore et al., 1997; Long, 1996). Reformers hoped that these changes would create professional learning
communities that would support ongoing teacher learning. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case (Johnson et al., 2011).

18
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

Instead, teachers in reorganised schools often continue to interact predominantly with teachers of their own subjects (Scharmann,
2007; Siskin, 1995). The persistence of subject department interactions reveals a more complex picture of how teachers interact.
Instead of analysing the total amount of interactions in a school, researchers and practitioners should take a closer look at who is
interacting with whom (Johnson et al., 2011).

Funding

This work was supported by the Center for Educational Leadership and Excellence, Stockholm School of Economics.

Declaration of competing interest

None.

Acknowledgements

First, I wish to thank this journal’s anonymous reviewers, whose suggestions helped improve this paper. I am also thankful to Elaine
Wilson, Panayiotis Antoniou, Peter Dudley, and Sonia Ilie, and for their comments on earlier drafts. I also wish to thank the Leadership
for Learning participants, the Cambridge Network Symposium 2019, for their helpful insights. I am also grateful for discussions with
Sue Swaffield, Phil Poekert, and Sage Wright on the methodology used in this paper. Thanks also to Jan Vermunt, who encouraged me
to write a systematic review in the first place.

Appendix 1. Excluded Items with Reasons

Total number of excluded items (249)

Not on population (125) Not on population Not in context (53) Not on topic (43) Not empirical (23)
(continued)

Alfrey et al., 2020
Allan & Catts (2014)
Allan (2011)
Ameri & Ghahari (2018)
Andrzejewski et al. (2016)
Beddoe (2019)
Belfi et al. (2015)
Black et al. (2010)
Black et al. (2018)
Bonal & Tarabini (2016)
Bonde et al. (2018)
Brader et al. (2014)
Broadbent & Cacciattolo
(2013)
Brouwer et al. (2020)
Brown et al. (2011)
Brown (2005)
Campbell et al. (2018)
Cardoso et al., 2011
Carter-Thuillier et al. (2018)
Caughy et al. (2012)
Chambers & Sandford (2019)
Compton-Lilly & Delbridge
(2019)
Cun (2020)
Czop Assaf & O’Donnel
Lussier (2020)
Dahl (2014)
Daly (2018)
Daniels (2017)
Lamb et al. (2016) Abbot et al. (2018) Blignaut, Els, & Howie Adolfsson & Håkansson
(2010) (2019)
Layte (2017) Ajakaiye & Kimenyi (2011) Bojczyk et al. (2019) Azorin & Muijs (2017)
Lin & Tsai (2020) Ankiah-Gangadeen & Samuel Brogan (2013) Baker-Doyle (2010)
(2014)
Liou et al. (2017) Babich et al. (2008) Burgess (2016) Blackmore (2010)
Liu & Tannacito (2013) Barnes & Nolan (2019) Claussen & Osborne Collinson (2012)
(2013)
Loh & Tam (2016) Benbow & Lee (2019) Collinson (2012) Conway et al. (2013)
López Solé et al., 2018 Bhattacharyya & Shariff El Kadri & Roth (2015) Coupal (2004)
(2014)
Lunneblad & Johansson Boit et al., 2020 Faneca et al. (2016) Hall (2019)
(2012)
Lynch et al. (2018) Brooks & Everett (2008) Fuchs et al. (2017) Hargreaves & Fullan, 2020
McManus & Suizzo (2020) Cawley & Spiess, 2008 Garrett & MacGill, 2019 Johnson (2012)
Morel & Coburn (2019) Coelho Junior et al., 2020 Ghajarieh & Cheng Kaser & Halbert (2014)
(2011)
Moskal (2016) Edgington (2016) Goggins et al. (2011) Lambert & Biddulph (2015)
Murray et al. (2020) Edwards (2019) Hamoudi & Birdsall Liou & Canrinus (2020)
(2004)
Nordstrom (2019) Ellis et al. (2014) Harber & Mncube (2011) Lloyd & Davis (2018)
Olitsky et al. (2010) Ferrinho et al. (2011) Imran et al. (2018) Marin (2013)
Park et al. (2016) Geagea et al. (2019) Jackson & Povey (2015) Nolan and Molla (2017)
Passarelli (2008) Glickman & Scally (2008) Jager (2011) Rincon-Gallardo & Fullan
(2016)
Pearrow et al. (2016) Hillyard & Bagley (2013) Janthaluck & Ounjit, Rotherham et al. (2008)
2012
Pedder & McIntyre (2006) Ince (2019) Karlberg-Granlund Schreurs & Laat (2014)
(2019)
Pels & de Ruyter (2012) Jahanian (2013) Kempf (2014) Shirley (2016)
Peterson & Heywood (2007) Kangas et al. (2015) Kozleski & Proffitt (2020) Staudt et al. (2013)
Pillay (2015) Kouritzin et al. (2009) Lee & Cheung (2017) West (2019)
Pulkkinen et al. (2011) Kubota (2011) Llantos & Estuar (2018) Whipp et al. (2005)
Quarmby et al. (2019) Lanford & Maruco (2018) Maistry (2010) White (2015)
Rafalow (2018) Liu (2018) Maistry (2014) Zajda (2014)
Rawatlal & Petersen (2012) Lypka (2018) Marklund (2020)
Rizk & Hillier (2020) MacKenzie et al. (2010) No full text available (1)
(continued on next page)

19
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

(continued )
Total number of excluded items (249)

Not on population (125) Not on population Not in context (53) Not on topic (43) Not empirical (23)
(continued)

Mazur & Woodland

Durand (2011) Roberts-Mahoney et al.
(2016)
Emam & Alkharusi (2018) Rose et al. (2013)
Erjavec (2013) Saaranen et al. (2006)
Everington (2015) Schuchart (2013)
Fairbanks & Ariail (2006) Seiler & Elmesky (2007)
Fakoyede & Otulaja (2020) Serpell & Jere-Folotiya
(2008)
Ferguson (2018) Shen et al. (2014)
Francescato et al. (2007) Širca et al. (2018)
Francis et al. (2017) Skilton et al. (2016)
Gamoran et al. (2012) Snow et al. (2015)
Gao (2012) Subotnik et al. (2011)
Garcia-Aracil et al. (2016) Symeou (2008)
Goldenberg (2014) Tannehill (2016)
Graham et al. (2019) Teo et al. (2018)
Hadidi & Al Khateeb (2013) Thomas & Watters (2015)
Hall (2010) Tobin (2005)
Hardie (2018) Tolbert & Eichelberger
(2016)
Hardy (2016) Trainor (2008)
Hawkins (2005) Uddin (2017)
Hayes (2010) van der Merwe (2011)
Heilig (2011) Varelas et al. (2011)
Henry (2016) Wang & Mansouri (2017)
Hunter (2015) Whitaker & Hoover-Dempsey
(2013)
Ines Meo (2011) Wilkinson et al. (2013)
Ishimaru (2013) Wilkinson et al. (2020)
Ishimaru (2014) Wilson & Stemp (2008)
Jober (2017) Wrench et al. (2013)
Jonasson (2011) Yaacob et al. (2015)
Jones & Enriquez (2009) Yakavets (2014)
Jorgensen et al. (2014) Yan et al. (2020)
Jurow et al. (2019) Ye et al. (2020)
Keller (2019) Yin & Mu (2020)
Kelley & Lee (2018) Yin et al. (2019)
Koranteng et al. (2019) Zeichner & Hollar (2016)
Krauss et al. (2020) Zheng et al. (2017)
Kutnick & Kington (2005)
Maggi et al. (2011)
Mebane et al. (2008)
Naidoo (2009)
Nolan and Molla (2017)
Nolan & Molla (2018a)
Nolan & Molla (2018b)
Palsdottir (2017)
Pedro et al. (2020)
Qiang et al. (2017)
Rheinlander et al. (2015)
Rhodes & Schechter (2014)
Rienties & Hosein (2015)
Rienties & Kinchin (2014)
Rienties et al. (2015)
Saqr et al., 2018a
Saqr et al. (2018b)
Shoji et al. (2014)
Somporn et al. (2018)
Tamakloe (2018)
Tran & Soejatminah (2016)
van Waes et al., 2016
Wall et al. (2017)
Wiggins (2018)
Zapata & Hargreaves (2018)
Zhang & Fang (2019)
Zhu et al. (2010)
(2017)
Mellin et al. (2017) Lee et al. (2014)
Modiba & Stewart (2014) Not in English (1)
Montecinos et al. (2014) Gállego-Diéguez et al. (2016)
Nyatuka (2017) Inadequate relevance (2)
Novelli & Sayed (2016) Reichenberg & Andreassen
(2018)
Parhar & Sensoy (2011) Stranger-Johannessen (2017)
Pokludova (2008) Inadequate quality (1)
Spellman (2015) Karagiorgi & Lymbouridou
(2009)
Twyford et al. (2017)
Uhlmann (2011)
Wang et al. (2018)
Wenner et al. (2019)
Williams & Pill (2020)
Williams et al. (2020)
Wisdom et al. (2019)
Woolworth (2008)

Appendix 2. Weight of Evidence Scores of Included Items

Author/s Title Journal WoE WoE WoE WoE D

A B C

Bridwell-Mitchell & The Ties That Bind: How Social Capital Is Forged and Educational Researcher, 45(1), 3 3 3 3
Cooc (2016). Forfeited in Teacher Communities. 7–17. (high)
Brown et al. (2016). Improving trust, improving schools Findings from a Journal of Professional Capital and 3 3 3 3
social network analysis of 43 primary schools in England. Community, 1(1), 69–91. (high)
Chapman et al. (2016). Professional capital and collaborative inquiry networks Journal of Professional Capital and 3 3 3 3
for educational equity and improvement? Community, 1(3), 178–197. (high)
Civís et al. (2019). Collaborative and innovative climates in pre-service International Journal of 3 3 3 3
teacher programs: The role of social capital. Educational Research, 98, (high)
224–236.
Daly et al. (2014). Accessing Capital Resources: Investigating the Effects of Teachers College Record, 116(7). 3 3 3 3
Teacher Human and Social Capital on Student (high)
Achievement.
Edinger & Edinger Improving Teacher Job Satisfaction: The Roles of Social The Journal of Psychology, 152(8), 3 3 3 3
(2018). Capital, Teacher Efficacy, and Support. 573–593. (high)
Frank et al. (2004). 3 3 3
(continued on next page)

20
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

(continued )
Author/s Title Journal WoE WoE WoE WoE D
A B C

Social Capital and the Diffusion of Innovations Within Sociology of Education, 77(2), 3
Organizations: The Case of Computer Technology in 148–171. (high)
Schools.
Leana & Pil (2006). Social Capital and Organizational Performance: Evidence Organization Science, 17(3), 3 3 3 3
from Urban Public Schools. 353–366. (high)
Li & Choi (2014). Does social capital matter? A quantitative approach to Journal of Computer Assisted 3 3 3 3
examining technology infusion in schools. Learning, 30(1), 1–16. (high)
Minckler (2014). School leadership that builds teacher social capital. Educational Management 3 3 3 3
Administration & Leadership, 42 (high)
(5), 657–679.
Neugebauer et al. Social Sources of Teacher Self-Efficacy: The Potency of Teachers College Record, 121(4). 3 3 3 3
(2019). Teacher Interactions and Proximity to Instruction. (high)
Pil & Leana (2009). Applying Organizational Research to Public School Academy of Management Journal, 3 3 3 3
Reform: The Effects of Teacher Human and Social Capital 52(6), 1101–1124. (high)
on Student Performance.
Salloum et al. (2017). Social Capital in Schools: A Conceptual and Empirical Teachers College Record, 119(7). 3 3 3 3
Analysis of the Equity of Its Distribution and Relation to (high)
Academic Achievement.
Schiff et al. (2015). Teacher Networks in Philadelphia: Landscape, Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban 3 3 3 3
Engagement, and Value. Education, 12(1). (high)
Spillane et al. (2015). Intra- and Interschool Interactions about Instruction: American Journal of Education, 3 3 3 3
Exploring the Conditions for Social Capital Development. 122(1), 71–110. (high)
Spillane et al. (2012). Instructional Advice and Information Providing and American Educational Research 3 3 3 3
Receiving Behavior in Elementary Schools: Exploring Tie Journal, 49(6), 1112–1145. (high)
Formation as a Building Block in Social Capital
Development.
Spillane et al. (2018). Constructing “Experts” Among Peers: Educational Educational Evaluation and Policy 3 3 3 3
Infrastructure, Test Data, and Teachers’ Interactions Analysis, 40(4), 586–612. (high)
About Teaching.
Struyve et al. (2016). More than a mentor: The role of social connectedness in Journal of Professional Capital and 3 3 3 3
early career and experienced teachers’ intention to leave. Community, 1(3), 198–218. (high)
van Emmerik et al. Social capital, team efficacy and team potency: The Career Development International, 3 3 3 3
(2011). mediating role of team learning behaviors. 16(1), 82–99. (high)
Van Maele & Van Collegial Trust and the Organizational Context of the American Journal of Education, 3 3 3 3
Houtte (2011). Teacher Workplace: The Role of a Homogeneous 117(4), 437–464. (high)
Teachability Culture.
Woodland & Mazur Of Teams and Ties: Examining the Relationship Between Educational Administration 3 3 3 3
(2019a). Formal and Informal Instructional Support Networks. Quarterly, 55(1), 42–72. (high)
Woodland & Mazur Examining capacity for “cross-pollination” in a rural Educational Management 3 3 3 3
(2019b). school district: A social network analysis case study. Administration & Leadership, 47 (high)
(5), 815–836.
Yoon et al. (2017). The Effects of Teachers’ Social and Human Capital on Teachers College Record, 119(4). 3 3 3 3
Urban Science Reform Initiatives: Considerations for (high)
Professional Development.
Anderson (2008). Social capital and student learning: Empirical results Economics of Education Review, 27 2 3 3 2.67
from Latin American primary schools. (4), 439–449. (high)
Baker-Doyle & Yoon In search of practitioner-based social capital: a social Professional Development in 3 2 3 2.67
(2011). network analysis tool for understanding and facilitating Education, 37(1), 75–93. (high)
teacher collaboration in a US-based STEM professional
development program.
Kodzi et al. (2014). Social relations as predictors of achievement in math in International Journal of 3 3 2 2.67
Kenyan primary schools. Educational Development, 39, (high)
275–282.
Pedder & James How teachers value and practise professional learning. Research Papers in Education, 20 3 2 3 2.67
(2005). (3), 209–243. (high)
Allen & Sims (2018). Do pupils from low-income families get low-quality Oxford Review of Education, 44(4), 3 2 2 2.33
teachers? Indirect evidence from English schools. 441–458. (mid)
Beard et al. (2010). Academic optimism of individual teachers: Confirming a Teaching and Teacher Education, 3 2 2 2.33
new construct. 26(5), 1136–1144. (mid)
Cabezas et al. (2017). First job and the unequal distribution of primary school Teaching and Teacher Education, 3 2 2 2.33
teachers: Evidence for the case of Chile. 64, 66–78. (mid)
Coburn & Russell District Policy and Teachers’ Social Networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy 3 2 2 2.33
(2008). Analysis, 30(3), 203–235. (mid)
Dudley (2013). Teacher learning in Lesson Study: What interaction-level Teaching & Teacher Education, 34, 3 2 2 2.33
discourse analysis revealed about how teachers utilised 107–121. (mid)
imagination, tacit knowledge of teaching and fresh
evidence of pupils learning, to develop practice
knowledge and so enhance their pupils’ learning.
Fagerlind et al. (2013). 3 2 2
(continued on next page)

21
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

(continued )
Author/s Title Journal WoE WoE WoE WoE D
A B C

Experience of work-related flow: Does high decision Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83 2.33
latitude enhance benefits gained from job resources? (2), 161–170. (mid)
Farooq et al. (2007). Sustaining a community computing infrastructure for Computer Supported Cooperative 3 2 2 2.33
online teacher professional development: A case study of Work (CSCW), 16(4–5), 397–429. (mid)
designing tapped in.
Fetter et al. (2012). Using peer–support to connect learning network International Journal of Learning 3 2 2 2.33
participants to each other: an interdisciplinary approach. Technology, 7(4), 378–399. (mid)
Galosy & Gillespie Community, Inquiry, Leadership: Exploring Early Career Clearing House: A Journal of 3 2 2 2.33
(2013). Opportunities That Support STEM Teacher Growth and Educational Strategies, Issues and (mid)
Sustainability. Ideas, 86(6), 207–215.
Nisar & Maroulis Foundations of Relating: Theory and Evidence on the Public Administration Review, 77 3 2 2 2.33
(2017). Formation of Street-Level Bureaucrats’ Workplace (6), 829–839. (mid)
Networks.
Penuel et al. (2009). Analyzing Teachers’ Professional Interactions in a School Teachers College Record, 111(1), 2 3 2 2.33
as Social Capital: A Social Network Approach. 124–263. (mid)
Qvortrup (2016). Capacity building: data- and research-informed European Journal of Teacher 3 2 2 2.33
development of schools and teaching practices in Education, 39(5), 564–576. (mid)
Denmark and Norway.
Rehm & Notten Twitter as an informal learning space for teachers!? The Teaching and Teacher Education, 3 2 2 2.33
(2016). role of social capital in Twitter conversations among 60, 215–223. (mid)
teachers.
Roffey (2012). Pupil wellbeing—Teacher wellbeing: Two sides of the Educational and Child Psychology, 3 2 2 2.33
same coin? 29(4), 8–17. (mid)
Scanlan et al. (2019). Affordances and constraints of communities of practice Journal of Professional Capital and 2 3 2 2.33
to promote bilingual schooling. Community, 4(2), 82–106. (mid)
Tseng & Kuo (2014). A study of social participation and knowledge sharing in Computers & Education, 72, 3 2 2 2.33
the teachers’ online professional community of practice. 37–47. (mid)
Visone (2019). What teachers never have time to do: Peer observation as Professional Development in 3 2 2 2.33
professional learning. Education, 1–15. (mid)
Wilhelm et al. (2016). Selecting Expertise in Context: Middle School American Educational Research 3 2 2 2.33
Mathematics Teachers’ Selection of New Sources of Journal, 53(3), 456–491. (mid)
Instructional Advice.
Christensen et al. Entering the field: beginning teachers’ positioning Sport, Education and Society, 23 2 2 2 2 (mid)
(2018). experiences of the staffroom. (1), 40–52.
Druken (2015). Social Capitol, Social Networks, and Lesson Study: North American Chapter of the 2 2 2 2 (mid)
Sustaining Mathematics Lesson Study Practices International Group for the
Psychology of Mathematics (p. 37).
Fee (2011). Latino Immigrant and Guest Bilingual Teachers: Urban Education, 46(3), 390–407. 2 2 2 2 (mid)
Overcoming Personal, Professional, and Academic
Culture Shock.
Fox & Wilson (2015). Networking and the development of professionals: Teaching & Teacher Education, 47, 2 2 2 2 (mid)
Beginning teachers building social capital. 93–107.
Glazer (2018). Learning from those who no longer teach: Viewing Teaching and Teacher Education, 2 2 2 2 (mid)
teacher attrition through a resistance lens. 74, 62–71.
Hofman et al. (2010). Effective teacher professionalization in networks? Teaching & Teacher Education, 26 2 2 2 2 (mid)
(4), 1031–1040.
Johnson et al. (2011). Teacher Professional Learning as the Growth of Social Current Issues in Education, 14(3). 2 2 2 2 (mid)
Capital.
Kempen & Steyn An Investigation of Teachers’ Collaborative Learning in a Journal of Asian and African 2 2 2 2 (mid)
(2017). Continuous Professional Development Programme in Studies, 52(2), 157–171.
South African Special Schools.
Lane & Sweeny Colleagues, Challenges, and Help Provision: How Early The Elementary School Journal, 2 2 2 2 (mid)
(2018). Career Teachers Construct Their Social Networks to Help 119(1), 73–98.
Them with the Endemic Challenges of Teaching.
Leat et al. (2006). The road taken: professional pathways in innovative Teachers & Teaching, 12(6), 2 2 2 2 (mid)
curriculum development. 657–674.
Li (2010). Social capital, empowerment and educational change: A Journal of Computer Assisted 2 2 2 2 (mid)
scenario of permeation of one-to-one technology in Learning, 26(4), 284–295.
school.
Modipane & Themane Teachers’ social capital as a resource for curriculum South African Journal of 2 2 2 2 (mid)
(2014). development: lessons learnt in the implementation of a Education, 34(4), 1034.
Child-Friendly Schools programme.
Naicker et al. (2016). Schools performing against the odds: Enablements and South African Journal of 2 2 2 2 (mid)
constraints to school leadership practice. Education, 36(4).
Osmond-Johnson Leading Professional Learning to Develop Professional International Journal of Teacher 2 2 2 2 (mid)
(2017). Capital: The Saskatchewan Professional Development Leadership, 8(1), 26–42.
Unit’s Facilitator Community.
Osmond-Johnson Becoming a teacher leader: Building social capital Journal of Professional Capital and 2 2 2 2 (mid)
(2019). through gradual release. Community, 4(1), 66–80.
(continued on next page)

22
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

(continued )
Author/s Title Journal WoE WoE WoE WoE D
A B C

Ranieri et al. (2012). Why (and how) do teachers engage in social networks? British Journal of Educational 2 2 2 2 (mid)
An exploratory study of professional use of Facebook and Technology, 43(5), 754–769.
its implications for lifelong learning.
Tang et al. (2016). The Preparation of Pre-Service Student Teachers’ Journal of Education for Teaching: 2 2 2 2 (mid)
Competence to Work in Schools. International Research and
Pedagogy, 42(2), 149–162.
van den Beemt & Teacher perspectives on ICT: A learning ecology Computers & Education, 92–93, 2 2 2 2 (mid)
Diepstraten approach. 161–170.
(2016).
Wong (2018). Why social capital is important for mentoring capacity Teachers & Teaching, 24(6), 2 2 2 2 (mid)
building of mentors: a case study in Hong Kong. 706–718.
Booth & Kellogg Value creation in online communities for educators. British Journal of Educational 2 1 1 1.33
(2015). Technology, 46(4), 684–698. (low)
Hu et al. (2018). What do teachers share within Socialized Knowledge Journal of Professional Capital and 2 1 1 1.33
Communities: A case of Pinterest. Community, 3(2), 97–122. (low)

Appendix 3. Sample Sizes and Surface Characteristics of Included Items

Location Population Context Subject area Method Sample Size

Australia Teachers K-12 All Qualitative 20–30

Australia Teachers Secondary P.E. Qualitative 2
school
Belgium Teachers Secondary All Quantitative 2104
school
Belgium Teachers Secondary All Quantitative 736
school
Canada Teachers K-12 All Mixed methods 22
Canada Teachers and others K-12 All Qualitative 13
Chile Teachers Primary school All Mixed methods 340
Denmark and Teachers, students and K-12 All Quantitative ca 10000
Norway principals
England Teachers Secondary Various Qualitative 8
school
England Teachers and principals Primary school English Qualitative 5
England Teachers Secondary Science Qualitative (SNA) 3
school
England Teachers K-12 All Quantitative 1397
England Teachers K-12 All Quantitative ca 500000
England Teachers Primary school All Quantitative 828
Europe Teachers Online All Quantitative (SNA) 691
community
Germany Teachers Online All Quantitative (SNA) 4196
community
Hong Kong Teachers K-12 All Qualitative 12
Hong Kong Teachers K-12 All Qualitative 31
Hong Kong Teachers Primary school All Qualitative 8
Hong Kong Teachers K-12 All Quantitative 1076
Italy Teachers Online All Quantitative 1107
community
Kenya Teachers, students and Primary school Mathematics Quantitative 70
principals
Latin America Teachers, students and Primary school All Quantitative 100
parents
Netherlands Teachers K-12 All Qualitative 36
Netherlands Teachers Secondary All Qualitative 55
school
Netherlands Teachers Secondary All Quantitative 221
school
Scotland Teachers K-12 All Mixed methods (Longitudinal, 254
SNA)
South Africa Teachers K-12 All Qualitative 20
South Africa Teachers and principals K-12 Fire safety Qualitative All staff in 6 special needs
schools.
South Africa Teachers, students and K-12 All Qualitative 2
principals
(continued on next page)

23
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

(continued )
Location Population Context Subject area Method Sample Size

Spain Teachers K-12 All Quantitative 321

Sweden Teachers and others Secondary All Quantitative 352
school
Taiwan Teachers Online All Mixed methods 321
community
USA Teachers K-12 All Mixed methods 183
USA Teachers K-12 Mathematics Mixed methods 80
USA Teachers Primary school All Mixed methods ca 700
USA Teachers Secondary Science Mixed methods 207
school
USA Teachers Secondary Science Mixed methods 21
school
USA Teachers, principals and K-12 All Mixed methods 63
others
USA Teachers Online All Mixed methods (longitudinal) ca 8000
community
USA Teachers Primary school All Mixed methods ca 200
(Longitudinal)
USA Teachers Primary school All Mixed methods (SNA) 67
USA Teachers K-12 All Qualitative 25
USA Teachers K-12 Spanish Qualitative 31
USA Teachers K-12 All Qualitative 8
USA Teachers Online All Qualitative 25
community
USA Teachers Online Mathematics Qualitative 29
community
USA Teachers, principals and Primary school All Qualitative 13
others
USA Teachers Primary school All Qualitative (SNA) 18
USA Teachers Secondary Science Qualitative (SNA) 16
school
USA Teachers, principals and Primary school Mathematics Qualitative (SNA) 56
others
USA Teachers K-12 All Quantitative 465
USA Teachers K-12 All Quantitative ca 1200
USA Teachers Primary school Mathematics Quantitative 1013
USA Teachers Primary school All Quantitative 122
USA Teachers Primary school Mathematics and Quantitative 2167
reading
USA Teachers Primary school All Quantitative 260
USA Teachers Primary school All Quantitative 63
USA Teachers and students K-12 All Quantitative ca 1500
USA Teachers K-12 All Quantitative (Longitudinal 240
SNA)
USA Teachers K-12 All Quantitative (Longitudinal 130
SNA)
USA Teachers Primary school Mathematics Quantitative (Longitudinal) 345
USA Teachers Secondary Mathematics Quantitative (Longitudinal) 109
school
USA Teachers K-12 All Quantitative (SNA) 1100
USA Teachers K-12 All Quantitative (SNA) 101
USA Teachers Primary school All Quantitative (SNA) 215

References

Abbot, M. L., Lee, K. K., & Rossiter, M. J. (2018). Evaluating the effectiveness and functionality of professional learning communities in adult ESL programs. TESL
Canada Journal, 35(2), 1–25.
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amr.2002.5922314
Adolfsson, C.-H., & Håkansson, J. (2019). Evaluating teacher and school development by learning capital: A conceptual contribution to a fundamental problem.
Improving Schools, 22(2), 130–143.
Ajakaiye, O., & Kimenyi, M. S. (2011). Higher education and economic development in Africa: Introduction and overview. Journal of African Economies, 20(3),
III3–III13. https://doi.org/10.1093/jae/ejr027
Alfrey, L., Burke, G., O’Connor, J., & Hall, C. (n.d.). Learning about health through ‘intergenerational arts-led pedagogies’ in health and physical education: Exploring
pedagogical possibilities. SPORT EDUCATION AND SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1814715.
Allan, J. (2011). Civilizing teacher education? Learning with diversity. Teacher Education & Practice, 24(3), 351–353.
Allan, J., & Catts, R. (2014). Schools, social capital and space. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(2), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2013.863829

24
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

Allen, R., & Sims, S. (2018). Do pupils from low-income families get low-quality teachers? Indirect evidence from English schools. Oxford Review of Education, 44(4),
441–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1421152
Ameri, S., & Ghahari, S. (2018). Developing a motivational framework in translation training programs: A mixed methods study following self-determination and
social capital theories. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 12(2), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750399X.2018.1465678
Anderson, J. B. (2008). Social capital and student learning: Empirical results from Latin American primary schools. Economics of Education Review, 27(4), 439–449.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.05.002
Andrzejewski, C. E., Davis, H. A., Bruening, P. S., & Poirier, R. R. (2016). Can a self-regulated strategy intervention close the achievement gap? Exploring a classroom-
based intervention in 9th grade earth science. Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.013
Ankiah-Gangadeen, A., & Samuel, M. A. (2014). Biography, policy and language teaching practices in a multilingual context: Early childhood classrooms in Mauritius.
South African Journal of Chemical Engineering, 4(2), 57–72 (eric).
Azorin, C. M., & Muijs, D. (2017). Networks and collaboration in Spanish education policy. Educational Research, 59(3), 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00131881.2017.1341817
Babich, L. P., Bicknell, W. J., Culpepper, L., & Jack, B. W. (2008). Social responsibility, international development, and institutional commitment: Lessons from the
boston university experience. Academic Medicine, 83(2), 143–147. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181609456
Baker-Doyle, K. J. (2010). Beyond the labor market paradigm: A social network perspective on teacher recruitment and retention. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
18(26). eric https://ezp.lib.cam.ac.uk/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ913479&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Baker-Doyle, K. J., & Yoon, S. A. (2011). In search of practitioner-based social capital: A social network analysis tool for understanding and facilitating teacher
collaboration in a US-based STEM professional development program. Professional Development in Education, 37(1), 75–93.
Barnes, C., & Nolan, S. (2019). Professionals, friends, and confidants: After-school staff as social support to low-income parents. Children and Youth Services Review, 98,
238–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.01.004
Beard, K. S., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2010). Academic optimism of individual teachers: Confirming a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(5),
1136–1144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.02.003
Beddoe, L. (2019). Managing identity in a host setting: School social workers’ strategies for better interprofessional work in New Zealand schools. Qualitative Social
Work, 18(4), 566–582. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325017747961
van den Beemt, A., & Diepstraten, I. (2016). Teacher perspectives on ICT: A learning ecology approach. Computers & Education, 92(93), 161–170. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.017. psyh.
Belfi, B., Gielen, S., Fraine, B. D., Verschueren, K., & Meredith, C. (2015). School-based social capital: The missing link between schools’ socioeconomic composition
and collective teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 45, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.09.001
Benbow, R. J., & Lee, C. (2019). Teaching-focused social networks among college faculty: Exploring conditions for the development of social capital. Higher Education,
78(1), 67–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0331-5
Bhattacharyya, E., & Shariff, A. B. M. S.@. (2014). Learning style and its impact in higher education and human capital needs. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
123, 485–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1448
Black, S., Balatti, J., & Falk, I. (2010). Reconnecting young people with learning: A social capital approach in VET. International Journal of Training Research, 8(2),
103–115.
Blackmore, J. (2010). Policy, practice and purpose in the field of education: A critical review. Critical Studies in Education, 51(1, SI), 101–111. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17508480903450257
Black, S., Wright, J., & Cruickshank, K. (2018). The struggle for legitimacy: Language provision in two “residual’ comprehensive high schools in Australia. Critical
Studies in Education, 59(3), 348–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2016.1197139
Blignaut, S., Els, C., & Howie, S. (2010). Contextualizing South Africa’s participation in the SITES 2006 module. South African Journal of Education, 30(4), 555–570.
Boit, R., Conlin, D., Barnes, A. C., & Hestenes, L. (n.d.). Supporting refugee preschooler’s early learning: Combined capitals and strengths of refugee families, an
agency, and a community preschool program. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/15562948.2020.1795775.
Bojczyk, K. E., Haverback, H. R., Pae, H. K., Hairston, M., & Haring, C. D. (2019). Parenting practices focusing on literacy: A study of cultural capital of kindergarten
and first-grade students from low-income families. Early Child Development and Care, 189(3), 500–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2017.1328416
Bonal, X., & Tarabini, A. (2016). Being poor at school: Exploring conditions of educability in the favela. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(2), 212–229.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2014.924394
Bonde, A. H., Stjernqvist, N. W., Sabinsky, M. S., & Maindal, H. T. (2018). Process evaluation of implementation fidelity in a Danish health-promoting school
intervention. BMC Public Health, 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6289-5
Booth, S. E., & Kellogg, S. B. (2015). Value creation in online communities for educators. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 684–698.
Borgatti, S. P., & Halgin, D. S. (2011). On network theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1168–1181. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0641
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu-forms-capital.htm.
Brader, A., Luke, A., Klenowski, V., Connolly, S., & Behzadpour, A. (2014). Designing online assessment tools for disengaged youth. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 18(7), 698–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2013.817617
Bridwell-Mitchell, E. N., & Cooc, N. (2016). The ties that bind: How social capital is forged and forfeited in teacher communities. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 7–17.
eric.
Broadbent, R., & Cacciattolo, M. (2013). The role of school community partnerships in building successful transition pathways for young people: One school’s
approach. Australian Educational Researcher, 40(1), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-012-0081-9
Brogan, P. (2013). Education in global Chicago and the remaking of contemporary capitalism. Canadian geographer-geographe canadien, 57(3, SI), 303–310. https://
doi.org/10.1111/cag.12024
Brooks, R., & Everett, G. (2008). New European learners? An analysis of the ‘trendsetter’ thesis. Journal of Youth Studies, 11(4), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13676260801946456
Brouwer, J., Downey, C., & Bokhove, C. (2020). The development of communication networks of pre-service teachers on a school-led and university-led programme of
initial teacher education in England. International Journal of Educational Research, 100, 101542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101542
Brown, D. (2005). An economy of gendered practices? Learning to teach physical education from the perspective of pierre bourdieu’s embodied sociology. Sport,
Education and Society, 10(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/135733205298785
Brown, C., Daly, A., & Liou, Y.-H. (2016). Improving trust, improving schools Findings from a social network analysis of 43 primary schools in England. Journal of
Professional Capital and Community, 1(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-09-2015-0004
Brown, S., Ortiz-Nunez, A., & Taylor, K. (2011). What will I be when I grow up? An analysis of childhood expectations and career outcomes. Economics of Education
Review, 30(3), 493–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.12.003
Brunton, G., Stansfield, C., Thomas, J., Gough, D., & Oliver, S. (2012). Finding relevant studies. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & T. James (Eds.), An introduction to systematic
reviews (2nd ed., pp. 93–122). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Burgess, C. (2016). Conceptualising a pedagogical cultural identity through the narrative construction of early career Aboriginal teachers’ professional identities.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.04.007
Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(00)22009-1
Cabezas, V., Paredes, R., Bogolasky, F., Rivero, R., & Zarhi, M. (2017). First job and the unequal distribution of primary school teachers: Evidence for the case of Chile.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.017
Campbell, D., Gray, S., Kelly, J., & MacIsaac, S. (2018). Inclusive and exclusive masculinities in physical education: A scottish case study. Sport, Education and Society,
23(3), 216–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2016.1167680
Cardoso Gomesa, M. de F., Mortimer, E. F., & Kelly, G. J. (2011). Contrasting stories of inclusion/exclusion in the chemistry classroom. International Journal of Science
Education, 33(6), 747–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.506665

25
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

Carter-Thuillier, B., Lopez-Pastor, V., & Gallardo-Fuentes, F. (2018). Teaching for understanding and school sport: A study in an intercultural context and situation of
social risk. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 41(3), 491–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2018.1480306
Caughy, M. O., Franzini, L., Windle, M., Dittus, P., Cuccaro, P., Elliott, M. N., & Schuster, M. A. (2012). Social competence in late elementary school: Relationships to
parenting and neighborhood context. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(12), 1613–1627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9779-2
Cawley, J., & Spiess, C. K. (2008). Obesity and skill attainment in early childhood. Economics and Human Biology, 6(3), 388–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ehb.2008.06.003
Chambers, F., & Sandford, R. (2019). Learning to be human in a digital world: A model of values fluency education for physical education. Sport, Education and Society,
24(9), 925–938. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2018.1515071
Chapman, C., Chestnutt, H., Friel, N., Hall, S., & Lowden, K. (2016). Professional capital and collaborative inquiry networks for educational equity and improvement?
JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL CAPITAL AND COMMUNITY, 1(3), 178–197. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-03-2016-0007
Christensen, E., Rossi, T., Hunter, L., & Tinning, R. (2018). Entering the field: Beginning teachers’ positioning experiences of the staffroom. Sport, Education and
Society, 23(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2016.1142434
Civis, M., Diaz-Gibson, J., Lopez, S., & Moolenaar, N. (2019). Collaborative and innovative climates in pre-service teacher programs: The role of social capital.
International Journal of Educational Research, 98, 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.08.019
Claussen, S., & Osborne, J. (2013). Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital and its implications for the science curriculum. Science & Education, 97(1), 58–79. https://doi.
org/10.1002/sce.21040
Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235. https://doi.org/
10.3102/0162373708321829
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Rational organization. Rationality and Society, 2(1), 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463190002001005
Collinson, V. (2012). Sources of teachers’ values and attitudes. Teacher Development, 16(3), 321–344 (eric).
Compton-Lilly, C., & Delbridge, A. (2019). What can parents tell Us about poverty and literacy learning? Listening to parents over time. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 62(5), 531–539. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.923
Conway, P., Leavy, A., Smyth, E., & O’Brien, M. (2013). Editorial. Irish Educational Studies, 32(3), 273–274.
Coupal, L. V. (2004). Constructivist learning theory and human capital theory: Shifting political and educational frameworks for teachers’ ICT professional
development. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(5), 587–596. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00415.x. psyh.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2013). Flow: The psychology of happiness. Random House.
Cun, A. (2020). Concerns and expectations: Burmese refugee parents’ perspectives on their children’s learning in American schools. Early Childhood Education Journal,
48(3), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-00983-z
Czop Assaf, L., & O’Donnell Lussier, K. (2020). Dream Camp: Drawing on community cultural wealth capital to make sense of career dreams. Language Culture and
Curriculum, 33(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2019.1569020
Dahl, K. K. B. (2014). ‘Paradoxical health education’: Learning about health in Kenyan teacher training colleges. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International
Education, 44(4), 634–654.
Daly, N. (2018). The linguistic landscape of English-Spanish dual language picturebooks. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(6), 556–566.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1410163
Daly, A. J., Daly, A. J., Moolenaar, N., Der-Martirosian, C., & Liou, Y.-H. (2014). Accessing capital resources: Investigating the effects of teacher human and social
capital on student achievement. Teachers College Record, 116(7). https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/accessing-capital-resources-investigating-the-
effects-of-teacher-.
Daniels, D. (2017). Initiating a different story about immigrant Somali parents’ support of their primary school children’s education. South African Journal of Chemical
Engineering, 7(1). https://ezp.lib.cam.ac.uk/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1186956&site=ehost-
live&scope=site.
Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31–60. https://doi.
org/10.3102/00346543072001031
Druken, B. K. (2015). Social capitol, social networks, and lesson study: Sustaining mathematics lesson study practices (p. 37). North American Chapter of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. eric https://ezp.lib.cam.ac.uk/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED584339&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Dudley, P. (2013). Teacher learning in Lesson Study: What interaction-level discourse analysis revealed about how teachers utilised imagination, tacit knowledge of
teaching and fresh evidence of pupils learning, to develop practice knowledge and so enhance their pupils’ learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 107–121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.04.006
Durand, T. M. (2011). Latino parental involvement in kindergarten: Findings from the early childhood longitudinal study. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 33
(4), 469–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986311423077
Edgington, U. (2016). Performativity and the power of shame: Lesson observations, emotional labour and professional habitus. Sociological Research Online, 21(1),
1–15. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3802
Edinger, S. K., & Edinger, M. J. (2018). Improving teacher job satisfaction: The roles of social capital, teacher efficacy, and support. Journal of Psychology, 152(8),
573–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2018.1489364
Edwards, D. B. (2019). Shifting the perspective on community-based management of education: From systems theory to social capital and community empowerment.
International Journal of Educational Development, 64, 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2018.11.004
El Kadri, M. S., & Roth, W.-M. (2015). Co-Teaching/Co-Generative dialogues in a teaching education program as room for agency and new forms of participation: ‘I
found jesus in [writing] the paper’. Teacher Development, 19(1), 40–58.
Ellis, V., McNicholl, J., Blake, A., & McNally, J. (2014). Academic work and proletarianisation: A study of higher education-based teacher educators. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 40, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.01.008
Elmore, R. F. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future (U.S.). (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff
development and instructional improvement in community school district #2. New York City: National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future: Consortium for
Policy in Education.
Emam, M. M., & Alkharusi, H. (2018). School leaders’ and teachers’ perceptions of learning disabilities: Implications for support in inclusive schools in the sultanate of
Oman. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 65(5), 475–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2017.1416593
van Emmerik, H., Jawahar, I. M., Schreurs, B., & de Cuyper, N. (2011). Social capital, team efficacy and team potency the mediating role of team learning behaviors.
Career Development International, 16(1), 82–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431111107829
Erjavec, K. (2013). Informal learning through Facebook among slovenian pupils. Comunicar, 41, 117–126. https://doi.org/10.3916/C41-2013-11
Everington, J. (2015). Bridging separate communities: The aspirations and experiences of minority ethnic religious education teachers in England. JOURNAL OF
BELIEFS & VALUES-STUDIES IN RELIGION & EDUCATION, 36(2), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2015.1046232
Fagerlind, A.-C., Gustavsson, M., Johansson, G., & Ekberg, K. (2013). Experience of work-related flow: Does high decision latitude enhance benefits gained from job
resources? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(2), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.03.010
Fairbanks, C., & Ariail, M. (2006). The role of social and cultural resources in literacy and schooling: Three contrasting cases. Research in the Teaching of English, 40(3),
310–354.
Fakoyede, S. J., & Otulaja, F. S. (2020). Beads and beadwork as cultural artifacts used in mediating learners’ agentic constructs in science classrooms: A case for place-
based learning. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15(1), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09911-4
Faneca, R. M., Araujo e Sa, M. H., & Melo-Pfeifer, S. (2016). Is there a place for heritage languages in the promotion of an intercultural and multilingual education in
the Portuguese schools? Language and Intercultural Communication, 16(1, SI), 44–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2015.1113751

26
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

Farooq, U., Schank, P., Harris, A., Fusco, J., & Schlager, M. (2007). Sustaining a community computing infrastructure for online teacher professional development: A
case study of designing tapped in. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 16(4–5), 397–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-007-9049-0. psyh.
Fee, J. F. (2011). Latino immigrant and guest bilingual teachers: Overcoming personal, professional, and academic culture shock. Urban Education, 46(3), 390–407.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085910377447
Ferguson, S. (2018). Ask not what your mentor can do for you…: The role of reciprocal exchange in maintaining student-teacher mentorships. Sociological Forum, 33
(1), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12406
Ferrinho, P., Sidat, M., Fresta, M. J., Rodrigues, A., Fronteira, I., da Silva, F., Mercer, H., Cabral, J., & Dussault, G. (2011). The training and professional expectations
of medical students in Angola, Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique. Human Resources for Health, 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4491-9-9
Fetter, S., Berlanga, A. J., Sloep, P. B., Vegt, W. V. D., Rajagopal, K., Brouns, F. M. R., Sibren Fetter, A. J. B., Peter Sloep, Van Der Vegt, W., Rajagopal, K., & Brouns, F.
(2012). Using peer–support to connect learning network participants to each other: An interdisciplinary approach. International Journal of Learning Technology, 7
(4), 378–399 (bri).
Fox, A. R. C., & Wilson, E. G. (2015). Networking and the development of professionals: Beginning teachers building social capital. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47,
93–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.12.004
Francescato, D., Mebane, M., Porcelli, R., Attanasio, C., & Pulino, M. (2007). Developing professional skills and social capital through computer supported
collaborative learning in university contexts. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(2), 140–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.09.002
Francis, B., Mau, A., & Archer, L. (2017). The construction of British Chinese educational success: Exploring the shifting discourses in educational debate, andtheir
effects. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(14, SI), 2331–2345. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1315852
Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., & Borman, K. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: The case of computer technology in schools. Sociology
of Education, 77(2), 148–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070407700203
Fuchs, C., Snyder, B., Tung, B., & Han, Y. J. (2017). The multiple roles of the task design mediator in telecollaboration. ReCALL, 29(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0958344017000088
Gállego-Diéguez, J., Traín, P. A., Azagra, C. B. B., Franco, M. B., Gracia, E. F., Sarrate, J. R. I., Nadal, P. M., Parrilla, M. P., & Urrutia, B. V. (2016). Las redes de
experiencias de salud comunitaria como sistema de información en promoción de la salud: La trayectoria en aragón. Gaceta Sanitaria, 30, 55–62. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.gaceta.2016.05.016
Galosy, J. A., & Gillespie, N. M. (2013). Community, inquiry, leadership: Exploring early career opportunities that support STEM teacher growth and sustainability.
The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 86(6), 207–215 (eric).
Gamoran, A., Turley, R. N. L., Turner, A., & Fish, R. (2012). Differences between Hispanic and non-Hispanic families in social capital and child development: First-year
findings from an experimental study. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 30(1), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2011.08.001
Gao, X. (2012). Parental strategies in supporting Chinese children’s learning of English vocabulary. Research Papers in Education, 27(5), 581–595. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02671522.2011.602102
Garcia-Aracil, A., Neira, I., & Albert, C. (2016). Social and cultural capital predictors of adolescents’ financial literacy: Family and school influences. Revista de
Educación, 374, 91–115. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2016-374-327
Garrett, R., & MacGill, B. (n.d.). Fostering inclusion in school through creative and body-based learning. International Journal of Inclusive Education. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13603116.2019.1606349.
Geagea, A., Vernon, L., & MacCallum, J. (2019). Creative arts outreach initiatives in schools: Effects on university expectations and discussions about university with
important socialisers. Higher Education Research and Development, 38(2), 250–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1529025
Ghajarieh, A. B. B., & Cheng, K. K. Y. (2011). Rethinking the concept of masculinity and femininity: Focusing on Iran’s female students. Asian Journal of Social Science,
39(3), 365–371. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853111X577613
Glazer, J. (2018). Learning from those who no longer teach: Viewing teacher attrition through a resistance lens. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74, 62–71. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.04.011
Glickman, N. J., & Scally, C. P. (2008). Can community and education organizing improve inner-city SCHOOLS ? Journal of Urban Affairs, 30(5). https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-9906.2008.00418.x
Goggins, S. P., Laffey, J., & Gallagher, M. (2011). Completely online group formation and development: Small groups as socio-technical systems. Information
Technology & People, 24(2), 104–133. https://doi.org/10.1108/09593841111137322
Goldenberg, B. M. (2014). White teachers in urban classrooms: Embracing non-white students’ cultural capital for better teaching and learning. Urban Education, 49
(1), 111–144.
Gough, D. (2007). Weight of evidence: A framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Research Papers in Education, 22(2), 213–228. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02671520701296189
Graham, A., MacDougall, L., Robson, D., & Mtika, P. (2019). Exploring practicum: Student teachers’ social capital relations in schools with high numbers of pupils
living in poverty. Oxford Review of Education, 45(1), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2018.1502079
Granovetter, M. S. (1977). The strength of weak ties. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Social networks (pp. 347–367). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
442450-0.50025-0.
Hadidi, M. S., & Al Khateeb, J. M. (2013). Loneliness among students with blindness and sighted students in Jordan: A brief report. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 60(2), 167–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2012.723949
Hall, L. A. (2010). The negative consequences of becoming a good reader: Identity theory as a lens for understanding struggling readers, teachers, and reading
instruction. Teachers College Record, 112(7), 1792–1829.
Hall, N. C. (2019). An overview of research on emotions in asian learners and educators: Implications and future directions. Asia-pacific education researcher, 28(4, SI),
363–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00468-y
Hamoudi, A., & Birdsall, N. (2004). AIDS and the accumulation and utilisation of human capital in Africa. Journal of African Economies, 13(1), 96–136.
Harber, C., & Mncube, V. (2011). Is schooling good for the development of society?: The case of South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 31(2), 233–245.
Hardie, J. H. (2018). Rethinking school-based ties: Social class and the role of institutional agents in adolescents’ college plans. Teachers College Record, 120(7).
Hardy, I. (2016). “Capitalising’ on community? Understanding and critiquing instrumentalist approaches to indigenous schooling. Oxford Review of Education, 42(6),
661–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2016.1203302
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (n.d.). Professional capital after the pandemic: Revisiting and revising classic understandings of teachers’ work. journal of professional
capital and community. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-06-2020-0039.
Hawkins, M. R. (2005). Becoming a student: Identity work and academic literacies in early schooling. Tesol Quarterly, 39(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588452
Hayes, D. (2010). “Education is all about opportunities, isn’t it?”: A biographical perspective on learning and teaching English in Sri Lanka. Harvard Educational
Review, 80(4), 517–540. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.80.4.w732427072788342
Heilig, J. V. (2011). Understanding the interaction between high-stakes graduation tests and English learners. Teachers College Record, 113(12), 2633–2669.
Henry, A. (2016). Enablements and constraints: Inventorying affordances associated with lingua franca English. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 19(5), 488–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1014465
Hillyard, S., & Bagley, C. (2013). “The fieldworker not in the head’s office’: An empirical exploration of the role of an English rural primary school within its village.
Social & Cultural Geography, 14(4), 410–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2013.779743
Hofman, R. H., & Dijkstra, B. J. (2010). Effective teacher professionalization in networks? Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1031–1040 (bri).
Hunter, M. (2015). Schooling choice in South Africa: The limits of qualifications and the politics of race, class and symbolic power. International Journal of Educational
Development, 43, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.04.004
Hu, S., Torphy, K. T., Opperman, A., Jansen, K., & Lo, Y.-J. (2018). What do teachers share within socialized knowledge communities: A case of pinterest. JOURNAL
OF PROFESSIONAL CAPITAL AND COMMUNITY, 3(2), 97–122. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-11-2017-0025

27
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

Imran, N., Rahman, A., Chaudhry, N., & Asif, A. (2018). On the frontline: Exploring the perceptions of lahore’s inner-city school teachers regarding children problems.
Iranian Journal of Public Health, 47(10), 1537–1545.
Ince, M. L. (2019). Supporting learning of practitioners and early career scholars in physical education and sports pedagogy. Sport, Education and Society, 24(6, SI),
584–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2019.1598966
Ines Meo, A. (2011). Zafar, so good: Middle-class students, school habitus and secondary schooling in the city of Buenos Aires (Argentina). British Journal of Sociology
of Education, 32(3), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2011.559338
Ishimaru, A. (2013). From heroes to organizers: Principals and education organizing in urban school reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(1), 3–51. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0013161X12448250
Ishimaru, A. M. (2014). When new relationships meet old narratives: The journey towards improving parent-school relations in a district-community organizing
collaboration. Teachers College Record, 116(2).
Jackson, C., & Povey, H. (2015). ‘Doing what comes naturally’ in mathematics education? The role of social class in pre-service teachers’ responses to innovative
mathematics pedagogies. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 17(2), 199–212.
Jager, J. (2011). Convergence and nonconvergence in the quality of adolescent relationships and its association with adolescent adjustment and young-adult
relationship quality. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(6), 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025411422992
Jahanian, R. (2013). A study on determining social capital development indicators in society: University students’ point of view. Croatian journal of education-hrvatski
casopis za odgoj i obrazovanje, 15(1), 43–60.
Janthaluck, M., & Ounjit (Laila), W. (2012). Folklore, restoration of social capital and community culture. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65, 218–224.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.114
Jober, A. (2017). Revising laboratory work: Sociological perspectives on the science classroom. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(3), 615–635. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11422-016-9765-1
Johnson, W. (2012). Never Underestimate the value of connections: Social capital’s strength lies in expertise, reciprocity, and relevance. Journal of Staff Development,
33(1), 38–41.
Johnson, W., Lustick, D., & Kim, M. (2011). Teacher professional learning as the growth of social capital. Current Issues in Education, 14(3). eric https://ezp.lib.cam.ac.
uk/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ945437&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Jonasson, C. (2011). The dynamics of absence behaviour: Interrelations between absence from class and absence in class. Educational Research, 53(1), 17–32. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2011.552233
Jones, S., & Enriquez, G. (2009). Engaging the intellectual and the moral in critical literacy education: The four-year journeys of two teachers from teacher education
to classroom practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(2), 145–168. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.2.3
Jorgensen, R., Gates, P., & Roper, V. (2014). Structural exclusion through school mathematics: Using Bourdieu to understand mathematics as a social practice.
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 87(2, SI), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9468-4
Junior, F. A. C., Hedler, H., Faiad, C., & Marques-Quinteiro, P. (2020). Determinants of political behavior and the role of technology in the classroom: An empirical
investigation in Brazil. Technology in Society, 62, 101279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101279
Jurow, S., Horn, I. S., & Philip, T. M. (2019). Re-mediating knowledge infrastructures: A site for innovation in teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching:
International Research and Pedagogy, 45(1), 82–96.
Kangas, J., Ojala, M., & Venninen, T. (2015). Children’s self-regulation in the context of participatory pedagogy in early childhood education. Early Education &
Development, 26(5–6, SI), 847–870. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2015.1039434
Karagiorgi, Y., & Lymbouridou, C. (2009). The story of an online teacher community in Cyprus. Professional Development in Education, 35(1), 119–138.
Karlberg-Granlund, G. (2019). Exploring the challenge of working in a small school and community: Uncovering hidden tensions. Journal of Rural Studies, 72,
293–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.10.017
Kaser, L., & Halbert, J. (2014). Creating and sustaining inquiry spaces for teacher learning and system transformation. European Journal of Education, 49(2), 206–217.
Keller, D. B. (2019). Requisite community engagement for teacher education: A different take on service learning. Athens Journal of Education, 6(2), 93–110.
Kelley, M. S., & Lee, M. J. (2018). When natural mentors matter: Unraveling the relationship with delinquency. Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 319–328.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.06.002
Kempen, M. E., & Steyn, G. M. (2017). An investigation of teachers’ collaborative learning in a continuous professional development programme in South African
special schools. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 52(2), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021909615570950
Kempf, A. (2014). Cuban teacher perspectives on race and racism: The pedagogy of home-school relations. Teachers College Record, 116(6).
Kodzi, I. A., Oketch, M., Ngware, M. W., Mutisya, M., & Nderu, E. N. (2014). Social relations as predictors of achievement in math in Kenyan primary schools.
International Journal of Educational Development, 39, 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.02.007
Koranteng, F. N., Wiafe, I., & Kuada, E. (2019). An empirical study of the relationship between social networking sites and students’ engagement in higher education.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(5), 1131–1159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118787528
Kouritzin, S. G., Piquemal, N. A., & Renaud, R. D. (2009). An international comparison of socially constructed language learning motivation and beliefs. Foreign
Language Annals, 42(2), 287–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01022.x
Kozleski, E. B., & Proffitt, W. A. (2020). A journey towards equity and diversity in the educator Workforce. Teacher Education and Special Education, 43(1, SI), 63–84.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406419882671
Krauss, S. E., Zeldin, S., Abdullah, H., Ortega, A., Ali, Z., Ismail, I. A., & Ariffin, Z. (2020). Malaysian youth associations as places for empowerment and engagement.
Children and Youth Services Review, 112, 104939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104939
Kubota, R. (2011). Learning a foreign language as leisure and consumption: Enjoyment, desire, and the business of eikaiwa. International Journal of Bilingual Education
and Bilingualism, 14(4, SI), 473–488. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.573069
Kutnick, P., & Kington, A. (2005). Children’s friendships and learning in school: Cognitive enhancement through social interaction? British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 75(4), 521–538. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X24591
Lambert, D., & Biddulph, M. (2015). The dialogic space offered by curriculum-making in the process of learning to teach, and the creation of a progressive knowledge-
led curriculum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 210–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.934197
Lamb, P., Firbank, D., & Aldous, D. (2016). Capturing the world of physical education through the eyes of children with autism spectrum disorders. Sport, Education
and Society, 21(5), 698–722. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2014.941794
Lane, J. L., & Sweeny, S. P. (2018). Colleagues, challenges, and help provision: How early career teachers construct their social networks to help them with the
endemic challenges of teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 119(1), 73–98. https://doi.org/10.1086/698605
Lanford, M., & Maruco, T. (2018). When job training is not enough: The cultivation of social capital in career academies. American Educational Research Journal, 55(3),
617–648. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217746107
Layte, R. (2017). Why do working-class kids do worse in school? An empirical test of two theories of educational disadvantage. European Sociological Review, 33(4),
489–503. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcx054
Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. (2006). Social capital and organizational performance: Evidence from urban public schools. Organization Science, 17(3), 353–366. https://doi.
org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0191
Leat, D., Lofthouse, R., & Taverner, S. (2006). The road taken: Professional pathways in innovative curriculum development. Teachers & Teaching, 12(6), 657–674,
20h.
Lee, A., & Cheung, R. M. (2017). School as setting to create a healthy teaching and learning environment Using the health promoting school model to foster school-
health partnership. Journal of professional capital and community, 2(4, SI), 244–263. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-05-2017-0013
Lee, J. C.-K., Yu, Z., & Su, G. (2014). Social capital and school development: Perspectives from southwest China. Education and Society, 32(2), 25–42.
Li, S. C. (2010). Social capital, empowerment and educational change: A scenario of permeation of one-to-one technology in school. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 26(4), 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00350.x. psyh.

28
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

Li, S. C., & Choi, T. H. (2014). Does social capital matter? A quantitative approach to examining technology infusion in schools. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
30(1), 1–16 (bri).
Lin, C.-P., & Tsai, M.-K. (2020). Strengthening long-term job performance: The moderating roles of sense of responsibility and leader’s support. Australian Journal of
Management, 45(1), 134–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896219842629
Liou, Y.-H., & Canrinus, E. T. (2020). A capital framework for professional learning and practice. International Journal of Educational Research, 100, 101527. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101527
Liou, Y.-H., Daly, A. J., Canrinus, E. T., Forbes, C. A., Moolenaar, N. M., Cornelissen, F., Van Lare, M., & Hsiao, J. (2017). Mapping the social side of pre-service
teachers: Connecting closeness, trust, and efficacy with performance. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 23(6), 635–657.
Liu, J. (2018). Constructing resource sharing collaboration for quality public education in urban China: Case study of school alliance in Beijing. International Journal of
Educational Development, 59, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.09.004
Liu, P.-H. E., & Tannacito, D. J. (2013). Resistance by L2 writers: The role of racial and language ideology in imagined community and identity investment. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 22(4), 355–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.05.001
Llantos, O. E., & Estuar, M. R. J. E. (2018). my.Eskwela: Designing an enterprise learning management system to increase social network and reduce cognitive load.
Procedia Computer Science, 138, 595–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.10.080
Lloyd, M., & Davis, J. P. (2018). Beyond performativity: A pragmatic model of teacher professional learning. Professional Development in Education, 44(1), 92–106.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2017.1398181
Loh, E. K. Y., & Tam, L. C. W. (2016). Struggling to thrive: The impact of Chinese language assessments on social mobility of Hong Kong ethnic minority youth. Asia-
pacific education researcher, 25(5–6, SI), 763–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-016-0315-0
Long, M. J. (1996). Systemic reform: A new mantra for professional development. The mathematics teacher. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 89(7),
584–587.
López Solé, S., Civís Zaragoza, M., & Díaz-Gibson, J. (2018). Improving interaction in teacher training programmes: The rise of the social dimension in pre-service
teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, 24(6), 644–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2018.1459541
Lunneblad, J., & Johansson, T. (2012). Learning from each other? Multicultural pedagogy, parental education and governance. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 15(5),
705–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2011.624508
Lynch, S. J., Burton, E. P., Behrend, T., House, A., Ford, M., Spillane, N., Matray, S., Han, E., & Means, B. (2018). Understanding inclusive STEM high schools as
opportunity structures for underrepresented students: Critical components. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(5), 712–748. https://doi.org/10.1002/
tea.21437
Lypka, A. E. (2018). Infusing participatory digital service-learning to deepen community-engaged professional excellence: Triumphs and challenges. Reading matrix.
An International Online Journal, 18(2), 77–93.
MacKenzie, J., Bell, S., Bohan, J., Brown, A., Burke, J., Cogdell, B., Jamieson, S., McAdam, J., McKerlie, R., Morrow, L., Paschke, B., Rea, P., & Tierney, A. (2010).
From anxiety to empowerment: A learning community of university teachers. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(3), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13562511003740825
Maggi, S., Roberts, W., MacLennan, D., & D’Angiulli, A. (2011). Community resilience, quality childcare, and preschoolers’ mental health: A three-city comparison.
Social Science & Medicine, 73(7), 1080–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.052
Maistry, S. (2010). Using cultural capital as a resource for negotiating participation in a teacher community of practice: A case study. Perspectives in Education, 28(3),
46–54.
Maistry, S. M. (2014). Teaching about economic and social inequality. The Anthropologist, 17(2), 341–350.
Marin, S. (2013). The educational systems and teacher training in the knowledge-based society. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1039–1044. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.326
Marklund, E. (2020). Who was going to become a teacher? The socio-economic background of primary school teachers in northern Sweden 1870-1950. HISTORY OF
EDUCATION. https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760X.2020.1760946
Mazur, R., & Woodland, R. H. (2017). Evaluation of a cross-cultural training program for Pakistani educators: Lessons learned and implications for program planning.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 62, 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.02.011
McManus, M. E., & Suizzo, M.-A. (2020). What do mothers experiencing poverty need to support their young children? Parent, school, and policy perspectives. Child
and Adolescent Social Work Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-020-00673-5
Mebane, M., Porcelli, R., Lannone, A., Attanasio, C., & Francescato, D. (2008). Evaluation of the efficacy of affective education online training in promoting academic
and professional learning and social capital. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction, 24(1), 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447310701771498
Mellin, E. A., Ball, A., Iachini, A., Togno, N., & Rodriguez, A. M. (2017). Teachers’ experiences collaborating in expanded school mental health: Implications for
practice, policy and research. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 10(1), 85–98.
van der Merwe, H. (2011). Migration patterns in rural schools in South Africa: Moving away from poor quality education. Education as Change, 15(1), 107–120.
https://doi.org/10.1080/16823206.2011.576652
Minckler, C. H. (2014). School leadership that builds teacher social capital. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42(5), 657–679 (bri).
Modiba, M., & Stewart, S. (2014). Understanding classroom practice: Ethnographic reflection as a methodological tool for professional development. Ethnography and
Education, 9(2), 140–152.
Modipane, M., & Themane, M. (2014). Teachers’ social capital as a resource for curriculum development: Lessons learnt in the implementation of a Child-Friendly
Schools programme. South African Journal of Education, 34(4), 1034.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, T. P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement.
PLoS Medicine, 6(7), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Montecinos, C., Madrid, R., Fernandez, M. B., & Ahumada, L. (2014). A goal orientation analysis of teachers’ motivations to participate in the school self-assessment
processes of a quality assurance system in Chile. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26(3), 241–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-014-
9190-5
Morel, R. P., & Coburn, C. (2019). Access, activation, and influence: How brokers mediate social capital among professional development providers. American
Educational Research Journal, 56(2), 247–288.
Moskal, M. (2016). Language and cultural capital in school experience of Polish children in Scotland. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 19(1), 141–160. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13613324.2014.911167
Murray, B., Domina, T., Petts, A., Renzulli, L., & Boylan, R. (2020). “We’re in this together”: Bridging and bonding social capital in elementary school PTOs. American
Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220908848
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. https://doi.
org/10.2307/259373
Naicker, I., Grant, C.(C.), & Pillay, S.(S.) (2016). Schools performing against the odds: Enablements and constraints to school leadership practice. South African Journal
of Education, 36(4). https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v36n4a1321
Naidoo, L. (2009). Developing social inclusion through after-school homework tutoring: A study of african refugee students in greater western sydney. British Journal
of Sociology of Education, 30(3), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690902812547
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Flow theory and research. In Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 195–206).
Neugebauer, S. R., Hopkins, M., & Spillane, J. P. (2019). Social sources of teacher self-efficacy: The potency of teacher interactions and proximity to instruction.
Teachers College Record, 121(4).
Nisar, M. A., & Maroulis, S. (2017). Foundations of relating: Theory and evidence on the formation of street-level bureaucrats’ workplace networks. Public
Administration Review, 77(6), 829–839. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12719

29
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

Nolan, A., & Molla, T. (2017). Teacher confidence and professional capital. Teaching and Teacher Education, 62, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.11.004.
psyh.
Nolan, A., & Molla, T. (2018a). Teacher professional learning in Early Childhood education: Insights from a mentoring program. Early Years, 38(3), 258–270. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2016.1259212
Nolan, A., & Molla, T. (2018b). Teacher professional learning as a social practice: An Australian case. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 27(4), 352–374.
Nordstrom, J. (2019). Students’ reasons for community language schooling: Links to a heritage or capital for the future? International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1688248
Novelli, M., & Sayed, Y. (2016). Teachers as agents OF sustainable peace, social cohesion and development: THEORY, practice & evidence. Education As Change, 20(3),
15–37. https://doi.org/10.17159/1947-9417/2016/1486
Nyatuka, B. O. (2017). A survey of school-family-community partnerships in Kenya. Journal of professional capital and community, 2(4, SI), 229–243. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JPCC-04-2017-0010
Olitsky, S., Flohr, L. L., Gardner, J., & Billups, M. (2010). Coherence, contradiction, and the development of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 47(10), 1209–1228. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20389
Osmond-Johnson, P. (2017). Leading professional learning to develop professional capital: The saskatchewan professional development Unit’s facilitator community.
International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 8(1), 26–42 (eric).
Osmond-Johnson, P. (2019). Becoming a teacher leader: Building social capital through gradual release. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 4(1), 66–80.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-05-2018-0016
Palsdottir, K. (2017). Integrated learning in schools: An Icelandic case study. Journal of professional capital and community, 2(4, SI), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JPCC-04-2017-0008
Parhar, N., & Sensoy, O. (2011). Culturally relevant pedagogy redux: Canadian teachers’ conceptions of their work and its challenges. Canadian Journal of Education,
34(2), 189–218.
Park, G., Rinke, C., & Mawhinney, L. (2016). Exploring the interplay of cultural capital, ‘habitus,’ and field in the life histories of two west african teacher candidates.
Teacher Development, 20(5), 648–666.
Passarelli, B. (2008). Students’ collective knowledge construction in the virtual learning environment “ToLigado—your school interactive newspaper”. Information
research-an international electronic journal, 13(1).
Pearrow, M. M., Zoino-Jeannetti, J., & Minami, T. (2016). Social capital: Similarities and differences between future educators and urban youth leaders. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 26(3, SI), 266–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2015.1050104
Pedder, D., James, M., MacBeath, J., David Pedder, M. J., & J, M. (2005). How teachers value and practise professional learning. Research Papers in Education, 20(3),
209–243 (bri).
Pedder, D., & McIntyre, D. (2006). Pupil consultation: The importance of social capital. Educational Review, 58(2), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00131910600584009
Pedro, E. de M., Leitao, J., & Alves, H. (2020). Stakeholders’ perceptions of sustainable development of higher education institutions: An intellectual capital approach.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 21(5), 911–942. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-01-2020-0030
Pels, T., & de Ruyter, D. J. (2012). The influence of education and socialization on radicalization: An exploration of theoretical presumptions and empirical research.
Child and Youth Care Forum, 41(3), 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-011-9155-5
Penuel, W., Riel, M., Krause, A., & Frank, K. (2009). Analyzing teachers’ professional interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. Teachers
College Record, 111(1), 124–263.
Peterson, S. S., & Heywood, D. (2007). Contributions of families’ linguistic, social, and cultural capital to minority-language children’s literacy: Parents’, teachers’,
and principals” perspectives. Canadian modern language review-revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 63(4), 517–538. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.4.517
Pillay, A. (2015). Transformative and critical education praxis IN a teacher education lecture room. Education as Change, 19(3), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/
16823206.2015.1085619
Pil, F. K., & Leana, C. (2009). Applying organizational research to public school reform: The effects of teacher human and social capital on student performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 52(6), 1101–1124. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.47084647
Poekert, P. E., Swaffield, S., Demir, E. K., & Wright, S. A. (2020). Leadership for professional learning towards educational equity: A systematic literature review.
Professional Development in Education, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1787209
Pokludova, A. (2008). Forming intelligentsia in Moravia and Silesia in the second half of the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century. Historical social research-
historische sozialforschung, 33(2), 82–95.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
soc.24.1.1
Pulkkinen, L., Lyyra, A.-L., & Kokko, K. (2011). Is social capital a mediator between self-control and psychological and social functioning across 34 years? International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(6), 475–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025411422993
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community/Robert D. Putnam. In Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American
community. Simon & Schuster.
Qiang, L., Xin, K., Yu, G., Yi, S., Liping, S., & Feixue, Y. (2017). Influence mechanism of external social capital of university teachers on evolution of generative digital
learning resources of educational technology of university teachers -empirical analysis of differential evolution algorithm and structural equation model of
bootstrap self-extraction technique. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 5327–5341. https://doi.org/10.12973/
eurasia.2017.00985a
Quarmby, T., Sandford, R., & Elliot, E. (2019). ‘I actually used to like PE, but not now’: Understanding care-experienced young people’s (dis)engagement with physical
education. Sport, Education and Society, 24(7), 714–726. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2018.1456418
Qvortrup, L. (2016). Capacity building: Data- and research-informed development of schools and teaching practices in Denmark and Norway. European Journal of
Teacher Education, 39(5), 564–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1253675
Rafalow, M. H. (2018). Disciplining play: Digital youth culture as capital at school. American Journal of Sociology, 123(5), 1416–1452. https://doi.org/10.1086/
695766
Ranieri, M., Manca, S., Fini, A., Maria Ranieri, S. M., & A, F. (2012). Why (and how) do teachers engage in social networks? An exploratory study of professional use of
Facebook and its implications for lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 754–769 (bri).
Rawatlal, K. V., & Petersen, I. (2012). Factors impeding school connectedness: A case study. South African Journal of Psychology, 42(3), 346–357. https://doi.org/
10.1177/008124631204200306
Rehm, M., & Notten, A. (2016). Twitter as an informal learning space for teachers!? The role of social capital in twitter conversations among teachers. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 60, 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.015. psyh.
Reichenberg, M., & Andreassen, R. (2018). Comparing Swedish and Norwegian teachers’ professional development: How human capital and social capital factor into
teachers’ reading habits. Reading Psychology, 39(5), 442–467.
Rheinlander, T., Samuelsen, H., Dalsgaard, A., & Konradsen, F. (2015). Teaching minority children hygiene: Investigating hygiene education in kindergartens and
homes of ethnic minority children in northern Vietnam. Ethnicity and Health, 20(3), 258–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2014.921887
Rhodes, A. M., & Schechter, R. (2014). Fostering resilience among youth in inner city community arts centers: The case of the artists collective. Education and Urban
Society, 46(7), 826–848. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124512469816
Rienties, B., & Hosein, A. (2015). Unpacking (in)formal learning in an academic development programme: A mixed-method social network perspective. International
Journal for Academic Development, 20(2), 163–177.
Rienties, B., Johan, N., & Jindal-Snape, D. (2015). A dynamic analysis of social capital-building of international and UK students. British Journal of Sociology of
Education, 36(8), 1212–1235. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2014.886941

30
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

Rienties, B., & Kinchin, I. (2014). Understanding (in)formal learning in an academic development programme: A social network perspective. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 39, 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.01.004
Rincon-Gallardo, S., & Fullan, M. (2016). Essential features of effective networks in education. JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL CAPITAL AND COMMUNITY, 1(1), 5–22.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-09-2015-0007
Rizk, J., & Hillier, C. (2020). “Everything’s technology now”: The role of technology in home- and school-based summer learning activities in Canada. Journal of
Children and Media. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2020.1778498
Roberts-Mahoney, H., Means, A. J., & Garrison, M. J. (2016). Netflixing human capital development: Personalized learning technology and the corporatization of K-12
education. Journal of Education Policy, 31(4), 405–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1132774
Roffey, S. (2012). Pupil wellbeing—teacher wellbeing: Two sides of the same coin? Educational and Child Psychology, 29(4), 8–17 (psyh).
Rose, R. A., Woolley, M. E., & Bowen, G. L. (2013). Social capital as a portfolio of resources across multiple microsystems: Implications for middle-school students.
Family Relations, 62(4), 545–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12028
Rotherham, A. J., Mikuta, J., & Freeland, J. (2008). Letter to the next president. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(3), 242–251.
Saaranen, T., Tossavainen, K., Turunen, H., & Vertio, H. (2006). Occupational wellbeing in a school community—staff’s and occupational health nurses’ evaluations.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(6), 740–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.03.009
Salloum, S., Goddard, R., & Larsen, R. (2017). Social capital in schools: A conceptual and empirical analysis of the equity of its distribution and relation to academic
achievement. Teachers College Record, 119(7).
Saqr, M., Fors, U., & Nouri, J. (2018a). Using social network analysis to understand online Problem-Based Learning and predict performance. PloS One, 13(9). https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203590
Saqr, M., Fors, U., & Tedre, M. (2018b). How the study of online collaborative learning can guide teachers and predict students’ performance in a medical course. BMC
Medical Education, 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1126-1
Scanlan, M., Kim, M., & Ludlow, L. (2019). Affordances and constraints of communities of practice to promote bilingual schooling. Journal of Professional Capital and
Community, 4(2), 82–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-01-2018-0003
Scharmann, L. C. (2007). A dynamic professional development school partnership in science education. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(4), 235–242. https://
doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.4.235-242
Schiff, D., Herzog, L., Farley-Ripple, E., & Iannuccilli, L. T. (2015). Teacher networks in Philadelphia: Landscape, engagement, and value. Penn GSE Perspectives on
Urban Education, 12(1). eric https://ezp.lib.cam.ac.uk/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1056676&site=ehost-
live&scope=site.
Schreurs, B., & Laat, M. de (2014). The network awareness tool: A web 2.0 tool to visualize informal networked learning in organizations. Computers in Human
Behavior, 37, 385–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.034
Schuchart, C. (2013). School social capital and secondary education plans. Educational Studies, 39(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2012.667870
Seiler, G., & Elmesky, R. (2007). The role of communal practices in the generation of capital and emotional energy among urban African American students in science
classrooms. Teachers College Record, 109(2), 391–419.
Serpell, R., & Jere-Folotiya, J. (2008). Developmental assessment, cultural context, gender, and schooling in Zambia. International Journal of Psychology, 43(2), 88–96.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590701859184
Shen, X., Yang, Y.-L., Wang, Y., Liu, L., Wang, S., & Wang, L. (2014). The association between occupational stress and depressive symptoms and the mediating role of
psychological capital among Chinese university teachers: A cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-014-0329-1
Shirley, D. (2016). Three forms of professional capital: Systemic, social movement, and activist. Journal of professional capital and community, 1(4), 302–320. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-08-2016-0020
Shoji, M. N., Haskins, A. R., Rangel, D. E., & Sorensen, K. N. (2014). The emergence of social capital in low-income Latino elementary schools. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 29(4), 600–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.07.003
Širca, N. T., Dermol, V., Trunk, A. N., & Trunk, A. (2018). Responsible management and challenges of inclusion in multicultural school environment in Slovenia.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 238, 670–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2018.04.049
Siskin, L. S. (1995). The subjects in question: Departmental organization and the high school. The Series on School Reform. Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Skilton, M. K., Poole, N., Metcalfe, C. W., Martin, T. P. C., & Smith, M. C. F. (2016). The impact of ear disease and hearing impairment on the lives of Nepali patients in
pokhara: A qualitative study. INTERNATIONAL HEALTH, 8(2), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihv052
Smylie, M. A. (1997). From bureaucratic control to building human capital: The importance of teacher learning in education reform. Arts Education Policy Review, 99
(2), 35–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632919709600769
Snow, J. L., Martin, S. D., & Dismuke, S. (2015). ‘We do more than discuss good ideas’: A close look at the development of professional capital in an elementary
education liaison group. Teacher Education Quarterly, 42(2), 43–63.
Somporn, P., Ash, J., & Walters, L. (2018). Stakeholder views of rural community-based medical education: A narrative review of the international literature. Medical
Education, 52(8), 791–802. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13580
Spellman, K. V. (2015). Educating for resilience in the North: Building a toolbox for teachers. Ecology and Society, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07243-200146
Spillane, J. P., Hopkins, M., & Sweet, T. M. (2015). Intra- and interschool interactions about instruction: Exploring the conditions for social capital development.
American Journal of Education, 122(1), 71–110. https://doi.org/10.1086/683292
Spillane, J. P., Kim, C. M., & Frank, K. A. (2012). Instructional advice and information providing and receiving behavior in elementary schools: Exploring Tie
Formation as a building block in social capital development. American Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1112–1145. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0002831212459339
Spillane, J. P., Shirrell, M., & Adhikari, S. (2018). Constructing “experts” among peers: Educational infrastructure, test data, and teachers’ interactions about teaching.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(4), 586–612. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718785764
Staudt, D., St Clair, N., & Martinez, E. E. (2013). Using Facebook to support novice teachers. The New Educator, 9(2), 152–163.
Steen, T. J. (2011). The role of social capital in the teacher labor market of small and rural districts. In Dissertation abstracts international section A: Humanities and social
sciences (Vol. 72, Issue 3–A, p. 804).
Stranger-Johannessen, E. (2017). The African Storybook, teachers’ resources, and pedagogical practices. International Journal of Educational Development, 52, 26–36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2016.10.003
Struyve, C., Daly, A., Vandecandelaere, M., Meredith, C., Hannes, K., & De Fraine, B. (2016). More than a mentor: The role of social connectedness in early career and
experienced teachers’ intention to leave. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 1(3), 198–218. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-01-2016-0002
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological
science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
Symeou, L. (2008). From school-family links to social capital urban and rural distinctions in teacher and parent networks in Cyprus. Urban Education, 43(6), 696–722.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907311825
Tamakloe, D. (2018). A case study of preschool teachers’ pedagogical behaviors and attitudes toward children with disabilities. International Journal of Whole
Schooling, 14(2), 83–103.
Tang, S. Y. F., Cheng, M. M. H., & Wong, A. K. Y. (2016). The preparation of pre-service student teachers’ competence to work in schools. Journal of Education for
Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 42(2), 149–162 (eric).
Tannehill, D. (2016). My journey to become a teacher educator. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 21(1, SI). https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2014.898745
Teo, T. W., Goh, J. W. P., Aye, K. M., & Yeo, L. W. (2018). Rethinking teaching and learning of science inference competencies of lower track students in Singapore: A
rasch investigation. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38(3), 279–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2018.1476320
Thomas, B., & Watters, J. J. (2015). Perspectives on Australian, Indian and Malaysian approaches to STEM education. International Journal of Educational Development,
45, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.08.002

31
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

Tobin, K. (2005). Building enacted science curricula on the capital of learners. Science & Education, 89(4), 577–594. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20064
Tolbert, S., & Eichelberger, S. (2016). Surviving teacher education: A community cultural capital framework of persistence. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 19(5),
1025–1042. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2014.969222
Trainor, A. A. (2008). Using cultural and social capital to improve postsecondary outcomes and expand transition models for youth with disabilities. The Journal of
Special Education, 42(3), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466907313346
Tran, L. T., & Soejatminah, S. (2016). “Get foot in the door’: International students’ perceptions of work integrated learning. British Journal of Educational Studies, 64
(3), 337–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2015.1128526
Tseng, F.-C., & Kuo, F.-Y. (2014). A study of social participation and knowledge sharing in the teachers’ online professional community of practice. Computers &
Education, 72, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.005. psyh.
Twyford, K., Le Fevre, D., & Timperley, H. (2017). The influence of risk and uncertainty on teachers’ responses to professional learning and development. Journal of
professional capital and community, 2(2), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-10-2016-0028
Uddin, M. E. (2017). Ecological framework for primary school attainment in ethnic minority children in Bangladesh. Child indicators research, 10(3), 693–713. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12187-016-9401-3
Uhlmann, A. J. (2011). Policy implications of Arabic instruction in Israeli jewish schools. Human Organization, 70(1), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.70.1.
x2110055557qv074
Van Maele, D., & Van Houtte, M. (2011). Collegial trust and the organizational context of the teacher workplace: The role of a homogeneous teachability culture.
American Journal of Education, 117(4), 437–464. https://doi.org/10.1086/660754
Van Waes, S., Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., Heldens, H. H. P. F., Donche, V., Van Petegem, P., & Van den Bossche, P. (2016). The networked instructor: The quality of
networks in different stages of professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.022
Varelas, M., Kane, J. M., & Wylie, C. D. (2011). Young african American children’s representations of self, science, and school: Making sense of difference. Science &
Education, 95(5), 824–851. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20447
Visone, J. D. (2019). What teachers never have time to do: Peer observation as professional learning (Vols. 1–15). Professional Development in Education. https://doi.org/
10.1080/19415257.2019.1694054
Wall, T., Tran, L. T., & Soejatminah, S. (2017). Inequalities and agencies in workplace learning experiences: International student perspectives. VOCATIONS AND
LEARNING, 10(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-016-9167-2
Wang, H., & Mansouri, B. (2017). Revisiting code-switching practice in TESOL: A critical perspective. ASIA-PACIFIC EDUCATION RESEARCHER, 26(6), 407–415.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-017-0359-9
Wang, Z., Utemov, V. V., Krivonozhkina, E. G., Liu, G., & Galushkin, A. A. (2018). Pedagogical readiness of mathematics teachers to implement innovative forms of
educational activities. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(1), 543–552. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80613
Wenner, J. A., Tucker, K. M. B., Calvert, H. G., Johnson, T. G., & Turner, L. (2019). Social capital: A key ingredient in the development of physical activity leadership.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 38(3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0057
West, J. J. (2019). Social capital and music teacher professional development: Principle, policy, and practice. Arts Education Policy Review, 120(1), 33–44 (eax).
Whipp, J. L., Eckman, E. W., & van den Kieboom, L. (2005). Using sociocultural theory to guide teacher Use and integration of instructional technology in two
professional development schools. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 22(1), 37–43 (eric).
Whitaker, M., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. (2013). School influences ON parents’ role beliefs. The Elementary School Journal, 114(1), 73–99. https://doi.org/10.1086/
671061
White, S. (2015). Extending the knowledge base for (rural) teacher educators. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education, 25(3), 50–61.
Wiggins, T. G. (2018). Critical friendship: Helping youth Lift as they climb together. Afterschool Matters, 27, 1–9.
Wilhelm, A. G., Chen, I.-C., Smith, T. M., & Frank, K. A. (2016). Selecting expertise in context: Middle school mathematics teachers’ selection of new sources of
instructional advice. American Educational Research Journal, 53(3), 456–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216637351
Wilkinson, K., Andries, V., Howarth, D., Bonsall, J., Sabeti, S., & McGeown, S. (2020). Reading during adolescence: Why adolescents choose (or do not choose) books.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.1065
Wilkinson, S., Littlefair, D., & Barlow-Meade, L. (2013). What is recognised as ability in physical education? A systematic appraisal of how ability and ability
differences are socially constructed within mainstream secondary school physical education. European Physical Education Review, 19(2), 147–164. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1356336X13486049
Williams, J., & Pill, S. (2020). Using a game sense approach to teach buroinjin as an aboriginal game to address social justice in physics education. Journal of Teaching
in Physical Education, 39(2), 176–185. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0154
Williams, J., Pill, S., & Hewitt, M. (2020). ‘I think everyone is on board with changing how we do things, but we are yet to find a best fit model’: A figurational study of assessing
games and sport in physical education. SPORT EDUCATION AND SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1716212
Wilson, K., & Stemp, K. (2008). Science education in a ‘classroom without walls’: Connecting young people via place. Teaching Science, 56(1), 6–10.
Wisdom, S., Leavitt, L., & Bice, C. (2019). Handbook of research on social inequality and education. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-9108-5
Wong, J. L. N. (2018). Why social capital is important for mentoring capacity building of mentors: A case study in Hong Kong. Teachers & Teaching, 24(6), 706–718
(bri).
Woodland, R. H., & Mazur, R. (2019a). Of teams and ties: Examining the relationship between formal and informal instructional support networks. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 55(1), 42–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18785868
Woodland, R. H., & Mazur, R. (2019b). Examining capacity for “cross-pollination” in a rural school district: A social network analysis case study. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 47(5), 815–836. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217751077
Woolworth, S. (2008). Charting a different course: The infusion of social policy and community studies in teacher education. AILACTE Journal, 5, 29–44.
Wrench, A., Hammond, C., McCallum, F., & Price, D. (2013). Inspire to aspire: Raising aspirational outcomes through a student well-being curricular focus.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(9), 932–947. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.718804
Yaacob, N. A., Osman, M. M., & Bachok, S. (2015). An assessment of factors influencing parents’ decision making when choosing a private school for their children: A
case study of selangor, Malaysia: For sustainable human capital. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 28, 406–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2015.07.050
Yakavets, N. (2014). Reforming society through education for gifted children: The case of Kazakhstan. Research Papers in Education, 29(5), 513–533. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02671522.2013.825311
Yan, L., Jiacheng, L., Devlieghere, J., & Vandenbroeck, M. (2020). What parents and teachers say about their relationships in ECEC: A study in rural China. European
Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(3), 332–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1755489
Ye, Z., Wen, M., Wang, W., & Lin, D. (2020). Subjective family socio-economic status, school social capital, and positive youth development among young adolescents
in China: A multiple mediation model. International Journal of Psychology, 55(2), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12583
Yin, Y. M., Dooley, K., & Mu, G. M. (2019). Why do graduates from prestigious universities choose to teach in disadvantaged schools? Lessons from an alternative
teacher preparation program in China. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 378–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.10.011
Yin, M. Y., & Mu, G. M. (2020). Recognising localised pedagogical capital: A reflexive revisit of an alternative teacher preparation programme in China. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 52(12, SI), 1290–1301. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1738921
Yoon, S. A., Yom, J. K., Yang, Z., & Liu, L. (2017). The effects of teachers’ social and human capital on urban science reform initiatives: Considerations for professional
development. Teachers College Record, 119(4). eric https://ezp.lib.cam.ac.uk/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1119448&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Zajda, J. (2014). Notes and comments. Education and Society, 32(2), 3–4.
Zapata, G. P., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2018). The effects of musical activities on the self-esteem of displaced children in Colombia. Psychology of Music, 46(4), 540–550.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735617716756

32
E.K. Demir Educational Research Review 33 (2021) 100391

Zeichner, K., & Hollar, J. (2016). Developing professional capital in teaching through initial teacher education Comparing strategies in Alberta Canada and the US.
Journal of professional capital and community, 1(2), 110–123. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-01-2016-0001
Zhang, Y., & Fang, F. (2019). Comprehensive application ability of college students’ knowledge structure and skills under the immersion bilingual teaching mode.
Revista de Cercetare şi Intervenţie Socială, 66, 22–40. https://doi.org/10.33788/rcis.66.2
Zheng, W., Xu, M., Chen, X., & Dong, Y. (2017). Who is shaping entrepreneurial experience? A multiple case study of Chinese entrepreneurial learning. Management
Decision, 55(7), 1394–1409. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-06-2016-0370
Zhu, C., Valcke, M., & Schellens, T. (2010). A cross-cultural study of teacher perspectives on teacher roles and adoption of online collaborative learning in higher
education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619761003631849

33