Shared Experiences and Divergent Conceptions of Instructional Support Among Teachers and Their Coaches

• In Event: Conditions and Effects of Professional Learning Partnerships Focused on Ambitious and Culturally Responsive Instruction

Abstract

Purpose
Coaching is considered to be a critical component of effective teacher PL (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Desimone & Pak, 2017). However, mathematics coaching has received far less attention than coaching in other domains like literacy (Kraft & Blazar, 2017). This study contrasts how middle school mathematics teachers and their coaches describe the nature of their shared work. Results of this analysis can help guide PL programs to improve mathematics teacher experiences with coaching.

Theoretical Framework
We situate mathematics coaching activities as focusing on (a) instructional content (.e., mathematical knowledge for teaching [MKT]), (b) instructional design, and (c) instructional enactment (Ball et al., 2008, Gibbons & Cobb, 2017). We then rely on social capital theory (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Coburn & Russell, 2008) to consider the structural and relational dimensions (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) of coaching.

Data
Our teachers (n = 18) and coaches (n = 10) were recruited from participants (n = 479) across six PLPs. We selected teachers to vary on their reported buy-in to the PL and reported use of CR instruction, given the PLPs’ stated focus on equity. Coaches who indicated that they primarily worked at these teachers’ schools were then recruited for the final sample.

Methods
We used an embedded case study design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Yin, 2018) with nine groupings of teacher and coach participants. We coded interview responses holistically (Saldaña, 2013) to identify categories of coaching activities and attributes of the coaching role such as teacher trust. We then used cross-case synthesis (Yin, 2018) to identify salient features that defined these shared experiences.

Results
Teachers and coaches generally agreed that coaching work centered on instructional design and enactment rather than MKT, but coaches rates these activities more favorably than did teachers. Findings also indicated contrasting views of instructional barriers. Teachers saw barriers arising from a mismatch between student needs and curriculum flexibility, and from institutional concerns (e.g., district testing requirements). In contrast, coaches framed barriers around issues of teacher mindset, such as a reluctance to adopt new teaching practices or a deficit orientation about student ability.

Another notable finding is that participants centered the effectiveness of the coaching role around interpersonal considerations. For example, coaches and teachers indicated that mutual trust and the coach’s willingness to adapt to their teachers’ needs drove the effectiveness of the coaching.

Significance
This analysis helps us identify the types of coaching activities preferred by both teachers and their coaches, key differences in how teachers and coaches view activities, and the underlying attributes that define the teacher-coach relationship. Despite the importance of MKT in mathematics coaching (Ball et al., 2008; Gibbons & Cobb, 2017), teachers and coaches in our sample ground their work around instructional design (e.g., lesson planning) and implementation (e.g., observations and debriefs) with limited focus on the mathematics underlying such instructional choices. The central role of social relations in participants’ descriptions of coaching is in line with Coburn and Russell (2008) and indicates the importance of social capital in enacting activities perceived by teachers to be beneficial to their work.

Authors

• Ethan P. Smith, Washington State University - Tri-Cities
  Presenting Author

• Latrice Marianno, University of Delaware
  Non-Presenting Author

• Kirsten Lee Hill, Kirsten Lee Hill Consulting
  Non-Presenting Author

• Laura M. Desimone, University of Delaware
  Non-Presenting Author