TRI Coaching: Virtual Support for Teacher Implementation and Instructional Decision-Making

• In Event: A Multifaceted Lens: Perspectives and Impacts of an Effective Elementary Teacher Literacy Professional Development Program

Abstract

Widely embraced as a potential solution to the problem of bridging the gap between research and practice, coaching has become an integral element of many professional development programs for elementary school teachers in the United States (Van Ostrand et al., 2020). Despite the growing body of literature about coaching, little is known about the specific types of coaching behaviors utilized by virtual coaches to support teachers in both implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) and making instructional decisions.

This qualitative study draws on the experiences of eight coach-teacher dyads who were part of a four-year TRI RCT. Teachers provided TRI one-on-one with an English-learning student not yet reading on grade level. TRI coaches supported teachers virtually, joining a TRI lesson once a week to provide in-the-moment support and feedback designed to improve both the implementation of the intervention and support instructional decision-making to ensure that activities are matched to the individual student’s needs, including, as in this study, the development of their English language skills.

Rooted in Schön’s (1987) conceptualization of coaching as part of a reflective practicum and self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2012), we analyzed 72 transcripts (9 per coach-teacher dyad) to answer our research questions:
(1) How do coaches work with teachers to implement evidence-based reading activities and strategies?
(2) How do coaches work with teachers to support instructional decision-making?

The following common coaching behaviors described by Schön (1987) were identified in each transcript: modeling, asking questions, suggesting next steps, providing feedback, and telling. Each of these coaching behaviors was analyzed to determine if the coach supported implementation or instructional decision-making. Coaching behaviors were further analyzed to determine if coaches supported key constructs of relatedness, autonomy, and competence (Deci & Ryan, 2012). Figure 1 shows how TRI coaches fostered teachers in these key constructs while simultaneously supporting implementation and/or instructional decision-making. We found that the most common coaching behaviors occurred both when coaching for implementation and when coaching for instructional decision-making. Additionally, the amount of each type of coaching varied over time. An initial emphasis on coaching for implementation transitioned to a greater focus on coaching for instructional decision-making as teachers built a feeling of competence with TRI implementation. Coaches consistently centered the teacher as having expertise about the students with whom they taught, providing the teacher with autonomy to make final instructional decisions to benefit students’ reading growth.

Developing a better understanding of coaching actions used by virtual coaches is important as more school districts use virtual coaching to connect with teachers and inform classroom practice. This study will share how coaching interactions analyzed in the context of TRI can be extrapolated to other EBPs. Coaches’ virtual support of teacher implementation and instructional decision-making across multiple content areas and contexts can be conducted systematically and in ways that empower teachers to enhance their teaching prowess.

Authors

• Heather Aiken, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  Presenting Author

• Cheryl Varghese, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston

• Mary Bratsch-Hines, University of Florida

• Steve Amendum, University of Delaware