The Language and Practices of Instructional Coaching

• In Event: Sheraton Roundtable Session 4
  In Roundtable Session: Instructional Coaching as Theory-Driven Professional Development

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the language of instructional coaches as they work in schools and to describe and understand how the instructional coaches’ practices and identities are informed by various Discourses. The sociocultural and poststructuralist theories that undergird this study highlight that the instructional coaches’ and teachers’ contexts, histories, and cultures are embedded in their practices and coaching/teaching events (Barton & Hamilton, 2000; Gee, 2012; Heath, 1982). Further, the theoretical frame helps to recognize that the instructional coaching is a process that is not made of one single non-contradictory language and practice and it is not one single identity that is created through the practices. Rather, it is necessary that instructional coaches are able to see and understand in terms of multiple identities, multiple positionings, and multiple forms of discourse that are available to them. Moreover, they learn from the forms of power (and powerlessness) that are embedded and made possible by the discursive practices through which they position themselves and are positioned (Davies, 2003).

The study used qualitative, case study methodology to investigate three instructional coaches’ practices and to describe and understand how the coaches’ practices and identities were informed by various Discourses (Dyson & Genishi, 2005). As such, it was designed to be cooperative and unobtrusive in seeking to investigate how, why, and with what consequences instructional coaches negotiate their identities and their practices. The primary method of data collection included participant observation of events and practices (Barton & Hamilton, 2000; Heath, 1982), supplemented by interviews, artifact collection and informal conversations with colleagues. These events were documented in fieldnotes, and events were video-taped for Discourse Analysis, and artifacts relevant to observed events were photocopied.

These three case studies support and further the notion that coaching is situated (Rainville, 2007; Rainville & Jones, 2008; Jones & Rainville, 2014). Coaching looked different in each school and in each classroom. Each of the three participants came to their position as an instructional coach from different backgrounds and experiences and was informed by different Discourses. These experiences influenced the way they negotiated their identities, practices, and positioning.

Instructional Coaching has tremendous potential and possibility to further democratic and critical education as well as educational equity for both teachers and the children and families with whom we work. Subsequently, as teacher educators, instructional coaches need to recognize the Discourses that permeate their speech and actions. This recognition can lead to active choices within their coaching practice that ultimately provides limits and possibilities for the teachers with whom they work as well as the children in the teacher’s classroom.

Preparation and ongoing support for coaches must include work specifically around issues of power and positioning and learning to “read’ situations and the Discourses informing their work to help them decide how to position themselves. This may include explicit readings, discussions, and analyses of situations around the concepts of power and positioning.

Author

• Kristin Nicole Rainville, Sacred Heart University