Coaching Professional Learning Structures that Facilitate Coaches’ Relational Practices

• In Event: Reimagining Professional Learning Structures: Supporting Teacher Educators to Lead Ambitious and Equitable Mathematics Teacher Learning

Abstract

We examine the structural supports that meta-coaches designed to facilitate coaching–embedded professional learning, Coaching Studio. Coaching Studio involves representing coaching practice, approximating the practice in teachers’ classrooms to enact ambitious and equitable instruction, and unpacking the approximation to link to coaches’ future practice (Grossman et al., 2009). The question driving the study was, how do Coaching Studio structures afford or constrain opportunities for coaches to learn relational coaching practices?

Theoretical Framing
We define relational practices using Edwards-Groves & Grootenboer’s (2021) dimensions of relational trust practice (1) intersubjective trust, mutual understanding, shared language, (2) intellectual trust, adaptive expertise, and (3) pragmatic trust, acknowledging teachers’ lived realities. We were interested in these dimensions because they focus on building a collective understanding of practice, and coaches developing responsive and pragmatic practices.

Methods
Coaching Studio was supported by four meta-coaches (two facilitators and two district coaches), working with a state-wide coaching cadre (24 elementary mathematics coaches). We analyzed nearly 80 hours of qualitative data for Coaching Studio using the Learning to Facilitate Framework (Author, 2025; Author, under review), of selecting, representing, unpacking, approximating, and unpacking, to structurally code Studio activities (Saldana, 2013). Memos summarized all participants’ interactions within and across structural codes, and summaries were coded for the three dimensions of relational trust. We examined summaries for patterns in how structures afforded or constrained coaching learning relational practices (our research question).

Results
Meta-coaches designed ten coaching tasks with a majority of elements of the coaching cycle (West & Staub,2003). Coaches had differential opportunities to learn relational practices. Unpacking representations had the most variation in opportunity, often focused on intellectual and intersubjective trust of knowing the details and building shared understanding of coaching moves. Unpacking approximations were the most robust opportunities for coaches to learn all three relational trust practices. Often this unpacking led to coaches mini-rehearsing discussions that brought pragmatic trust practices to the foreground. Coaches’ opportunities to learn relational practices didn’t exhibit a “ceiling effect.” All coaches, no matter experience level, expressed that there was an opportunity to deepen their understanding of coaching practices and build their expertise (intersubjective and intellectual trust practices).

Discussion and Implications
Coaches’ learning opportunities were shaped by meta-coaches' design decisions to include unpacking elements and how they facilitated these opportunities (Edwards-Groves & Grootenboer, 2021; Roberts et al., 2020). The Learning to Facilitate framework provided a strong analytic lens (Authors 2025, under review) to parse the data and uncover how design decisions unfolded. We found coaches’ mini-rehearsals offered insights on the ways that this form of unpacking approximations can lead to deeper and more authentic practice. We also found that when meta-coaches cut or limited unpacking opportunities it constrained opportunities to learn across other elements of the framework. Images of coaching professional learning are needed to advance the field (Authors, 2023, 2017; Saclarides & Kane, 2012). This research also has limitations; future research should examine how these structures can be applied to other coaching professional learning models, comparing the design decisions with those in this study and identifying opportunities for coach learning.

Authors

• Rebekah Elliott, Oregon State University

• Melinda Knapp, Oregon State University - Cascades