Making Space for Shared Humanity: The Relational Work of Coaching

• In Event: Understanding the Complexities of Mathematics Coaching: What Multiple Theoretical and Analytical Frameworks Reveal

Abstract

Objective
Revoicing Freire, Darder (2002) wrote that “all aspects of our humanity are activated and integral to the teaching and learning process… [To treat learning] solely in terms of cognition can result in objectifying and debilitating experiences” (p. 98). Grounded in this perspective, we focus on the relational work essential to teacher learning toward justice. We show how centering relational work and attending to learners’ full humanity provides new ways to understand challenges and possibilities in coaching.

Theoretical lens
Building on Philip’s (2019) articulation of the “relational work of teaching” (p. 4), we understand the relational work of coaching to involve the ongoing negotiation of power and identity in coaching relationships. Beyond “making nice,” relational work entails the “valu[ing] or devalu[ing]” of “the contributions, experiences, and knowledges of different [participants],” as they consciously or unconsciously navigate “ideologies that construct difference and social hierarchy” (Philip, 2019, p. 4).

Methods
We are in the midst of analyzing video and audio recordings of interactions between a coach (Mia) and teacher (Heather) during four coaching visits. We are investigating the pair’s relational work, looking closely at how their contributions, knowledges, and the full range of their human experiences were valued or devalued in their interactions, and examining the implications of these dynamics for their opportunities to learn together toward justice.

Emerging Findings
During the first three visits, several patterns are evident in Heather and Mia’s relational work. One is the assertion, then dismissal, of personal and emotional aspects of their experiences. For example, Mia shared stories about her daughter, and Heather often mentioned her feelings about her work (“maxed out,” having a “breakdown”), but these comments were routinely passed over quickly. A second pattern is the polite devaluing of one another’s knowledge, goals, and concerns. For example, Mia repeatedly corrected Heather, not harshly but failing to treat Heather’s contributions as resources for learning. Heather appeared to listen to Mia but ignored her suggestions in practice. These patterns were potentially “objectifying and debilitating,” especially for Heather, because the hierarchical structure of coaching positioned Mia as competent and Heather as less than.

During the fourth visit, the pair recentered their own and each other’s humanity. In response to Heather saying she was “just trying to survive,” Mia reframed her own role as “support[ing] your survival at the happiest level it could be”—a significant shift from her earlier focus on Heather’s instruction. They subsequently shared their “honest” experiences of their work together, and Mia gave Heather control over the terms of their partnership. After this, the pair co-constructed new ways of working together, and Heather expressed hope and enthusiasm for learning with Mia, saying, “I feel like I’ve just been, like, taken a shower. […] I’m super excited.”

Significance
Focusing on relational work illuminates limits of a “best practices” approach to coaching, foregrounding the humanity of teachers and coaches, rejecting hierarchies and notions of “resistant” teachers, and emphasizing the necessity of attending to the negotiation of power in coaching relationships.

Authors

• Evra Marie Baldinger, San Francisco State University
  Presenting Author

• Nicole Louie, University of Wisconsin - Madison
  Presenting Author