Widening Our Lens to Consider Coaching Models and Programs: The Benefits and Challenges of Programmatic Thinking

• In Event: Thursday Roundtable Session 4:20 pm
  In Roundtable Session: A Roundtable Discussion to Examine a Synthesis of Micro- to Macro-Level Coaching Research (Table 5)

Abstract

In looking across the growing body of research on instructional coaching, we find that the vast majority of studies focus on micro-level descriptions of individual or small groups of coaches working with teachers. These descriptions have been essential to understanding what coaching looks like in schools, as instructional coaching has become one of the major approaches in the United States and abroad to provide job-embedded professional learning for PreK-12 educators (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). However, we argue that the field of coaching would be well-served now by turning more attention to the ways in which coaching is developed, enacted, and evaluated as part of systematic professional learning programs. Such a program-oriented research agenda would help school and district leaders to better choose, implement, and assess coaching in ways that move beyond the focus on individual coaches.

To begin, we describe a continuum of coaching that ranges from a few highly-specified models (often connected directly to the implementation and refinement of particular curriculum), to homegrown models that are invented and adapted by individual coaches in conversation with leaders and teachers. Between the highly-specified and homegrown models, we find a large number of theory- and research-based models of coaching that outline particular coaching goals and ways of working, but are often content- and context-neutral. These theory- and research-based models include peer-coaching (Joyce & Showers, 2002; Showers & Joyce, 1996); cognitive coaching (Costa & Garmston, 2002); content-focused coaching (West & Staub, 2003); student-centered coaching (Sweeney, 2010; Sweeney & Harris, 2016); coaching with awareness of the impact cycle for stimulating change (Knight, 2017); and coaching for equity (Aguilar, 2020). Most often, coaches cite these models as guiding their work, and yet they are also least represented in the coaching research literature. If we are to better understand how coaching is operating and could be refined at scale, then understanding more about similarities, differences, and the efficacy of these coaching programs when implemented may be critical.

Therefore, in this working group roundtable session, we review findings from recent coaching meta-analyses (Kraft et al., 2018; Robertson et al., 2020) for guidance as to how we might craft a research agenda moving forward that attends carefully to the structure and tenets of popular coaching models. We argue that it is not only important to note similarities and differences in these models, but also to surface essential research- and practice-focused elements that underpin the models and provide benchmarks for schools to attend to. Understanding that coaching is both content and context dependent, we also make the case that districts and schools may need to adapt models as they forge their own specific coaching program. We then will end with a review of ways in which school leaders, in conversation with coaches, might better evaluate their coaching work at the programmatic level as a means of making necessary changes and assessing coaching efficacy overall.

Authors

• Jacy Ippolito, Salem State University

• Rita M. Bean, University of Pittsburgh