PurposeThe purpose of the study was to provide an example of instructional coaching for inservice teachers within the context of community-engaged scholarship (CEP), involving professional learning communities (PLCs). This study seeks to encourage policymakers to allocate budgets for instructional coaches, as well as resources for schools.Design/methodology/approachAn exploratory case study design was used to examine the factors that contributed to the partnership and how the PLC sessions impacted the inservice teachers' practices. Data sources included interviews, focus groups, written reflections, observations of grade-level teachers' meetings and administrative meetings.FindingsThe study uncovered important factors that impacted the community-engaged partnership (CEP) positively, such as partners having a unified agenda, a common focus on the school's needs and an understanding of the culture of the school. Principals are the gatekeepers in such partnerships.Research limitations/implicationsThis study yielded the description of a model of instructional coaching within a CEP that other universities around the world could replicate. The limitations of this study include the length of the study and the time frame in which the PLC content was planned. The study was conducted over 1 year to limited funding. The instructional coach developed the PLC content during the ongoing academic year and that impacted the teachers' initial perceptions and their commitment to the PLCs.Originality/valueThis study offers a new coaching model for CEPs that focuses on closing the gap between theory and practice by integrating PLCs, content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and face-to-face visual support.

No abstract

This multi-institutional, collaborative self-study explores how teacher educators learn to embed new literacies (NL) in teacher education coursework. Utilizing collaborative self-study methodology, seven faculty engaged in a year-long collaborative study focused on the incorporation of NL in preservice teacher education courses, meeting regularly over the course of the year to share reflections, provide feedback to one another, and continually revise course and assignment designs related to NL. Data sources included recordings of collaborative planning meetings, written reflections, annotated teaching artifacts, notes and transcripts from partner and whole group recorded Zoom sessions and post-meeting reflections. The findings describe diversity in both conceptualizing and teaching NL, parallels between teacher educators’, preservice teachers’ and P-12 teachers’ challenges integrating NL into their teaching, and institutional barriers to collaborative study, curricular revision, and the use of new technologies. The authors discuss these findings in relation to the potential value of multi-institutional study groups and collaborative self-study as a methodology for helping support literacy teacher educators’ ongoing learning.

No abstract

No abstract