Practice-Based Coaching for Document-Based History: Exploring the Role of Specifications of Practice

• In Event: 67.067 - MTCC Roundtable Session 31
  In Roundtable Session: 67.067-12 - Investigating How Instructional Coaching Supports Teacher Learning and Development Across Disciplines Using Core Practices

Abstract

Objectives: This study takes as its launching point three claims that have emerged from the literature: teachers need support to enact ambitious instruction in history (De la Paz et al, 2016; Monte-Sano et al, 2017); practice-based professional development offers a promising approach to develop ambitious instruction (McDonald, Kazemi, & Kavanagh, 2013; Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald, 2009); ongoing, content-specific coaching is an important component of effective professional development (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Putnam & Borko, 2000). In this design-based study, we examine how a cohort of first-year instructional coaches used practice-based coaching tools to coach early career teachers in document-based history instruction.

Theoretical Framework: Coaches worked with researchers to identify, specify, and design instructional tools around three core practices in document-based history: Establishing Background Knowledge, Supporting Historical Reading, and Facilitating Whole-Class Discussion. Using a sociocultural Vygotskian perspective that views learning as mediated by symbolic and physical artifacts, we explore the affordances and constraints of these tools as coaches used them to help teachers plan for and enact document-based history instruction (Vygotsky, 1978). To what extent did these specifications of practice allow coaches to name, define, and illustrate elements of effective instruction? To what extent did the tools fall short and require coaches to draw upon other resources to achieve their goals?

Methods and Data Sources: Data from this study come from Year 1 of a design-based study in which we are developing a coaching model to support document-based history instruction. Each coach (n=10) was paired with 1-2 early career teachers (n=17). We collected the following data for each of the 3 coaching cycles conducted over the course of the year: videotape of coaches’ session with researchers, interview and survey from coaches, audiotapes of and accompanying artifacts from coaches’ planning sessions and debriefs with teachers, videotapes of teachers’ instruction along with any comments made by teachers and coaches on an online platform, and end-of-year surveys from teachers. Data were open-coded following a grounded theory approach and focusing on coaches’ use of the tools.

Results: We found that the specifications of practice served as productive points of reference for coaches and teachers. In particular, we found that coaches grounded their targeted--and often constructive--feedback on instructional matters such as pacing, transitions, and when and how to elicit student voice by referencing the discrete, observable instructional components articulated within each specification of practice. At the same time, we found that coaches were less likely to refer to the specifications when discussing the lessons’ learning goals or what students might find conceptually challenging. In nearly all those instances, coaches drew upon the lesson materials or to their own experiences teaching the content. We discuss how the specifications might be altered to highlight learning goals and student understanding.

Significance of the study or work: Researchers have only begun identifying the activities and resources used by instructional coaches (Gibbons & Cobb, 2016; Gibbons & Cobb, 2017). This study sheds light on the affordances of specifications of practice for grounding meaningful feedback given by novice coaches.

Authors

• Abby Reisman, University of Pennsylvania

• Lisette Nnenna Enumah, The University of Pennsylvania

• Lightning Jay, University of Pennsylvania