How the Framing of Instructional Coaching as a Lever for Systemic or Individual Reform Influences the Enactment of Coaching

Abstract

Purpose: Instructional coaching is framed as both a means for systemic and individual reform. These competing conceptualizations of coaching as a mechanism for change have not been systematically examined, and therefore, we know little about how the framing of instructional coaching initiatives affects the enactment of coaching. In response to this gap in the literature, we examined one district's efforts to use literacy coaching as a means to facilitate system-wide changes in literacy practice. Our investigation asks: How does the framing of coaching as a lever for systemic and/or individual reform influence the enactment of literacy coaching? Research Methods: Qualitative data were collected from four literacy coaches in one district including time allocation logs, interviews (n = 32), recorded discussions, and written documentation. Additional data related to the coaches' training program included observations of 22 training sessions, interviews with the program leaders (n = 7) and regional district leader (n = 3), and survey data from training participants. Findings:Although the coaches in this study aimed to support systemwide changes in literacy practice, the training they received framed coaching as a means to support individual learning. In turn, the change strategies that the coaches employed mirrored this theory of change and focused on being responsive to individual teachers' particular needs, often at the expense of school and district goals. Thus, the findings from this research suggest that the framing of coach roles may influence enactment in consequential ways and raise questions about how coaching can be framed to support both individual and systemic reform. Implications: The findings from this research have implications for the framing of coach roles, the skills and knowledge needed for coaching, and the kinds of professional learning opportunities available to coaches.

Missed expectations: teacher and coach tensions at the boundary of STEM integration in an elementary classroom

“…Gibbons & Cobb, 2017), mathematics, or science, have been utilized to help teachers break routines deemed most difficult to change (Coburn & Woulfin, 2012). As a result, coaches inevitably provide teachers with necessary feedback concerning practice, something less understood in the literature (Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015). In addition to navigating the complexity of teaching and learning in the classroom, coaches must also strive for teacher development and change, which involves praising teacher performance and building potentially new conceptual understandings while simultaneously identifying areas for improvement (Campbell, 1996;Lofthouse, 2019).…”

“…materials management) than actually coaching, denying them the necessary time needed to develop a fruitful relationship (Campbell & Malkus, 2011;Fullan & Knight, 2011). Further complicating matters, Mangin and Dunsmore (2015) recently reported coaches struggle to directly critique "inadequate teaching practice" despite being distressed when witnessing it occur. Moreover, coaches have reported limited capacity to leverage their own expertise when judging a corresponding teacher's practice (Gibbons, Kazemi, & Lewis, 2017).…”

ILA2017 Standards: Key Notions, Challenges, and Opportunities for Middle and High School Classroom Teachers

“…Professional learning is focused on content determined by careful consideration and assessment of the needs of students, teachers, families, and the larger community of stakeholders (Bean & Ippolito, ; Guskey, ; Risko & Vogt, ; Vogt & Shearer, ). Such professional learning supports both individual and systemic development and growth (Bean & Ippolito, ; Mangin & Dunsmore, ; Matsumura, Bickel, Zook‐Howell, Correnti, & Walsh, ; Walpole & McKenna, ). In other words, teachers as professionals have a responsibility to develop habits that promote lifelong learning.…”

It's All About How you Frame It: A Sensemaking Perspective on the Instructional Coach Role

“…• Instructional coaches can function as intermediaries, tasked with negotiating tensions between division policies and teacher needs (Coburn & Russell, 2008;Coburn & Woulfin, 2012;Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015).…”

“…Coaches are often used as a lever to promote both individual and systematic reform (Mangin & Dunmore, 2015) and, therefore, must balance the competing demands of policy and practice. This can be difficult for coaches who must strike a balance between collaborating with teachers and encouraging teachers to make changes that align with school-and division-level goals (Coburn & Woulfin, 2012;Knight & Nieuwerburg, 2012;Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015;Obara & Sloan, 2009;Otaiba, Hosp, Smartt, & Dole, 2008;Toll, 2006). Competing initiatives within a division can create confusing messages that limit coaches' time to meet with teachers and the expertise they are able to provide (Coburn & Russell, 2008).…”