Centering Equity and Justice in Virtual Coaching Cycles

• In Event: Equity-Focused Coaching Supports in Virtual Environments

Abstract

In a virtual setting, it might be the tendency for coaching to become more technical, based on restraints of time and the context of video conferencing. Five university teams studied how virtual coaching within a POP (Pre-Conference/Observation/Post-Conference) Cycle, using protocol and reflection prompts, could foster Teacher Candidate’s (TCs) reflections within the observation cycle.

One of the university teams focused on the framework of Campoy’s (2005) transmissional vs. constructivist approaches to becoming a reflective teacher. Constructivist approaches focus on student knowledge and experiences, whereas transmissional approaches focus on script or directives. Drawing strongly on cognitive coaching models, focused on shifting patterns of thought and action (e.g., Costa & Garmston, 2016; Authors, 2017), the practicing University Field Supervisors (UFSs) were able to provide support for the TCs during virtual interaction while setting goals and reinforcing their pre-professional practices through engaged dialogue.

The first of two cycles of inquiry demonstrated transmissional approaches to becoming a reflective teacher based on Campoy’s (2005) definition. A prompt was used during this cycle that asked the TC to rate their lesson, and articulate what was positive and strong. They also reflected on what students would be doing differently in an improved lesson, and how they would know the change made the lesson stronger.

We analyzed the dialogue between the UFS and the TC, and found disparities between pairs in terms of how they used transmissional vs. constructivist dialogue related to the prompt. We aimed for them to more consistently gain experience in being objectively reflective, and to self-monitor their teaching actions, which includes how they teach a lesson, engage the students, check for understanding, and maintain the lesson objectives to further provide academic success for students. Therefore, we revised the prompt to focus more on student engagement and outcomes. A rework of this question provided greater opportunity for TCs to be more constructive, building knowledge through the reflection process. However, we continued to notice a focus on subjectivity, or how the TCs felt about the lesson, as opposed to objectivity, or the impact on student engagement and equity. It was evident that reflecting on actions does not often happen in a way that allows the TCs to question how and why they take the actions they take. We continue to revise prompts towards this aim and will report on additional iterations in our paper.

This paper also includes additional findings from across university teams whose research addressed the POP cycle. We identified three implications for hybrid coaching in 21-22. First, whether the POP cycle is completed synchronously or asynchronously, it is valuable for coaches to guide TCs in identifying a strength from their lesson to model asset-based teaching and learning. Second, revising questions used in the pre-conference of the cycle can help coaches and TCs focus on students’ social and emotional well-being, especially in the midst of a global pandemic. Finally, restructuring POP cycles to make them more iterative and cyclical allows coaches and TCs to continuously center equity-based practices across multiple observations.

Authors

• Patsy Y Sosa-Sanchez, University of North Texas

• Melissa Mosley Wetzel, University of Texas at Austin

• Sam Brower

• Alycia Maurer, Our Lady of the Lake University

• Lucinda M. Juarez, Our Lady of the Lake University- San Antonio

• Claire Collins, University of Texas at Austin

• Lauren E Wright, University of Texas at Austin

• Ann Marie Wernick, Southern Methodist University

• Murphy Young, Southern Methodist University