How Cooperating Teacher Professional Development Manifests in Coaching Conversations

• In Event: How Cooperating Teachers Matter: Investigating Their Modeling and Coaching Functions

Abstract

Professional development (PD) for cooperating teachers (CTs) can improve the quality of coaching that pre-service student teachers (PSTs) receive and, in turn, their instruction (McQueen, 2018) but PD on coaching practice is relatively uncommon (Authors, under review). The Tennessee Department of Education designed the Mentors Matter Training (MMT, see Paper 2) randomized control trial to support mentors in providing actionable feedback rooted in observation data and modeling questioning practices. This paper examines whether/how PD goals manifest in the coaching conversations of participating CTs.

Many have documented the coaching practices used by CTs that are considered to be effective (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Glenn, 2006; Guyton & McIntyre, 1990; Schwille, 2008; Yendell-Hoppey, 2007). One such practice, actionable feedback, involves evaluating PST performance, allowing the PST to critically analyze their own teaching, and identifying directions for future development (Christensen, 1988; Tang & Chow, 2007). Coaching conversations are more likely to produce actionable feedback when targeting specific competencies, often through a joint process wherein PSTs choose the focus which CTs then narrow to a specific practice (McQueen, 2018; Hill & Grossman, 2013).

When selecting specific foci for coaching conversations, CTs can prioritize different aspects of teaching in feedback to PSTs. Kagan (1992) argued for prioritizing classroom management, while Grossman (1992) advocated for a focus on academic content, instructional pedagogy, and modeling practice; engaging students with quality content/pedagogy, she argued, minimizes the need to manage classrooms. Regardless of what may be the most productive focus, classroom management concerns have historically dominated student teaching, including mentoring conversations (Zeichner & Gore, 1990).

This paper asks whether (and how) the coaching practices used by CTs who attended the MMT were consistent with its goals. Drawing on transcriptions of coaching conversations led by CTs who attended the trainings, we sought to understand (1) how CTs utilized the training during coaching conversations and, (2) more specifically, how CTs provided actionable feedback and modeled practice, two key strategies according to the literature.

We transcribed and coded 34 coaching conversations using a priori and open coding. Beginning with seven transcripts, three coders iteratively developed, applied, and reconciled a codebook and decision rules for application. We based a priori codes on the MMT goals by reviewing training materials/resources. Coders also developed emergent codes beyond the context of training goals. A primary and secondary coder applied final codes to each transcript with acceptable levels of agreement (kappa = 0.83).

Preliminary results suggest a substantial degree of take-up of the MMT initiative. Reflecting MMT materials, conversations began with naming successes, followed by identifying areas of improvement, and concluded with recommendations for future practice. CTs regularly offered actionable feedback consistent with literature on effective coaching and the training which draws upon this literature. We are analyzing emergent patterns in how coaches provide actionable feedback, presently a gap in the literature. Finally, the conversations reveal a strong focus on instructional practices – particularly questioning – over classroom management, which was somewhat surprising given prevalence of management concerns typically but somewhat expected given the instructional focus of MMT.

Authors

• Brian Alexander Smith, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor

• Matthew Ronfeldt, University of Michigan

• Kailyn Stahl, University of Michigan

• Angelina Little, University of Michigan